Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1976

## ################>### #############

### ########### ####### ####b###c###d###e###f###g###h###i###j###k###l###m###n###


o###p###q###r###s###t###u###v###w###x###y###z###{###|
######!###### ### ###

## d### # ############### #####bjbj ##################


###"### ## ## ############################### ########## ########## ##########
######## ##### ####### ### ####### ####### ####### ####### ############### ####
####### ####### ####### ###
### ###l### ####### ##h###$%######$%######$%######$%######$%######&'######&'######
&'###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ## ### ##>### ##(#######
############ #######&'######################&'######&'######&'######&'###### ######
######## ####### #######$%##############$%## ###) ###### ###### ###### ######&'#
# *## #######$%###### #######$%###### ############## #############################
#########################&'###### ############## ############## #################
############################################################# ######$%###### ##
##+$ , ######### ######## ## ### ############## ## *######
-### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### #######################################
####################################### ############## ####### ##.###&'######&'###
### ######&'######&'######################################&'######&'######&'######
###### ###################################### ###################################
###&'######&'######&'###### ######&'######&'######&'######&'############## ####
#### ############ #### #### #### #### #### #### ####
#### #### #### #### #### #### #### ######&'######&'######&'####
##&'######&'######&'##############################################################&
'######&'######&'###### ###
## ###/#########d##################################################################
###################################################################################
###################################################################################
###################################################################################
###################################################################################
#########################0niversity of the 1ordiller$s1233),) 24 3567$guio 1ity
8298: 5;< <5=5,):5tty> :teph$nie 9$chel +> 1$stro? +rofessor1$se <igests@rd Ae$r
:peci$l :ection:80<);8 ;5=) <B,):8)< 15:):C> +5:105? D5A7)) <> CEFG> <5=+5,?
D2;)335 HECI@> 5++5,? 5;;B)3A; CJEG""> 5,+5<? 5=53B5 GKE@GK> :5;8015A? 5;;57)3 @@E
"CI> )35<? =591B53 "GEK-J> ,5;2? D)L5; M35B9) KCEKHF> 0975;2E753=)2? =509A;) 4) I-E
IFH> 3509);5? 50,0:80 95A 5;8N2;A IHEJJC-> :5;82:? 9A5; JFEFICC> L53<)O? 30B,B FJE
HKCG> 585;51B2? OB;;B5 459B15 =5A HIEC-"C@> 351=55? 49)1NB) C-KECC@C"> 85=5;,?
:6B83) =5) 5> CC"ECGGCK> 0975;2O2? 35B9< <B2;)3 ;> CG@EC@CCI> <)35 92:5? D2N; 92=)
C@GEC@HCJ> 7591)32;? 49)<)9B1M C"-EC"HCF> =5;,5;B+? 6B;;B) CK-ECKFCH> 8570O2? =5)
57),5B3 CKHECIJG-> 15:B3? 3)2 5;,)32 CIFECJIGC> 92<9B,0)OE59292;,? 3535B;) CJJECFK
GG> +073B12? 32L)3B 5;;) CFIECH-? C? CE@G@> 7592;5? :N)9B)3A; "ECGG"> NB95;,?
3)2=59B) C@EGCGK> 7535,28? D)::B) GGE@-GI> 75:0;,B8? 5;82;B2 @CE@HGJ> +B5,5?
9B1N59< "-E"FGF> 5+B<1N29? )=)9:2; "HEKJGH> +51B2? =5;0)3 KFEIJ@-> 75A85;? 92,)3B2
IFEJI8573) 24 12;8);8:B> (05:BE<)3B18C> ;5,0B58 L:> ;391? GIH :195 KI".CHHJ%G> +;7
L:> 15? )8 53> F@ :195 G@J@> :B35 L:> +)95385? CC- +NB3 KJ"> 537);:2; );8)9+9B:):
129+> L:> 15? GCJ :195 CI.CHH@%K> )315;2 5;< )315;2 L:> NB33 5;< NB33? JJ :195 HFI>
LB9585 L: 21N25? FC :195 "JGJ> 5;<5=2 L:> 15 CHC :195 CHKF> <035A L:> 15? 5+9B3 @C?
CHHKH> 6A3B) L:> 9595;,? G-H :195 @GJC-> +N2);BP 12;:89018B2;? B;1> L: B51? C"F
:195 @K@.CHFJ%CC>(0B:575 L:> :85 B;):E=)353) L);))9 5;< +3A622<? B;1>? KF :195 JJC
CG>,581N53B5; L:> <)3B=? G-@ :195 CGI? C@J .CHHC%C@> 80+5: L:> 15? CH@ :195 KHJ?
I-G .CHHC%C">,B31N9B:8 L:> 10<<A? GH +NB3> K"G .CHCK%CK>,)30O L:> 15? G :195 F-G
.CHIC%CI> +;7 L:> 15? F@ :195 G@J.CHJF%CJ>;58 3 B99B,58B2; 5<=B;B:8958B2; L:> B51?
GC" :195 @K.CHHG%CF> +NB3B+ :> A0 L:> N2;29573) 15? GCJ :195 @GF.CHH@%CH>,B31N9B:8
L:> 10<<A? G" +NB3 "JC .CHC@%G-> B323B32 123< :829): 12> L:> =0;B1B+53 120;:)3? G"
+NB3 "JCGC><) 5A535 L:> 7599)882? @@ +NB3 K@FGG> :5;9545)3 N2=)26;)9: 5::21B58B2;?
B;1> L:> 1B8A 24 =5;B35? "I :195 "-G@> 85A329 L:> =5;B35 )3)189B1 12=+5;A? CI +NB3
FG">53,5995 L:> :5;<)D5:> GJ +NB3> GF"GK> 85A5,? :9> L:> 5315;8595? HF :195 JG@GI>
L)95,595 L:> 15? CK" :195 KI"GJ>5;<5=2 L:> B51? CHC :195 CHKGF> +NB3> 75;M 24
12==)91) L:> 15? GIH :195 IHKGH> 95M): L:> 5835;8B1 ,034 5;< +51B4B1 12>? J +NB3
@KH@-> 7599)<2 5;< ,591B5 L:> 53=59B2? J@ +NB3 I-J@C><B5;5 5;< <B5;5 L:> 7585;,5:
895;:+29858B2; 12>? H@ +NB3 @HC@G> 159+B2 L:> <592D5? CF- :195 C@@> 459 )5:8 75;M
5;< 890:8 12> L:> 15? G"- :195 @"F@"> 3B,N8 95B3 895;:B8 508N29B8A )8 :3> L:>
=59D29B) ;58BLB<5<? )8 53>? 4)79059A I? G--@@K>5B9 495;1) L:> 15995:12:2? :)+8)=7)9
GF? CHII@I> 35A0,5; L:> B5+? CIJ :195 @I@@J> L53);O0)35 L:> 15? GK@ :195 @-@@F> :8>
495;1B: NB,N :1N223 L:> 15? CH" :195 @"C? @KIE@KJ.CHHC%@H> L53);O0)35 L:> 15? GK@
:195 @-@"->2;, L:> =)892+23B85; 658)9 <B:89B18? C-" +NB3 @HF"C> 1BLB3 5)92;508B1:
5<=> L:> 15? Q )9;):8 )> :B=M)? ;2L> F? CHHF"G> 459 )5:8)9; :NB++B;, 12=+5;A L:>
15? GHJ :195 @-"@> +)2+3) L:> 95=B9)O? "F +NB3 G-""">5<O0595 L:> 15? @-C :195 IKJ
"K>=1M)) L:> B51? GCC :195 KCJ"I>=5;B35 )3)189B1 12>? L:> 9)=2(0B332? HH +NB3
CCJ.CHKI%"J> 703B35; L:> 12==B::B2 2; 50<B8? GFK :195 ""K.CHHF%"F>5:80<B332 L:>
=5;B35 )3)189B1 12>? KK +NB3 "GJ"H>;58 3 B99B,58B2; 5<=B;B:8958B2; L:> B51? GC"
:195 @K.CHHG%K->0;B8): :858): L:> 13)=);8)? G" +NB3 CJFKC> L53);O0)35 L:> 15? GK@
:195 @-@? CHHIKG> +3<8 12=+5;A? B;1> L:> 15? ,>9> KJ-JH? :)+8> GH? CHFHK@>
+NB3B++B;) ;58B2;53 95B365A L:> B51? GCJ :195 "-H.CHH@%K"> 85A329 L:> =5;B35
)3)189B1 95B392< 5;< 3B,N8 12>? CI +NB3 FKK> D5912 =59M)8B;, 129+> L:> N2;> 15?
,>9> CGHJHG? <)1> GC? CHHHKI>D03B5; <)3 92:59B2 L:> =5;B35 )3)189B1 12>? KJ +NB3
"JF.CH@G%KJ> 4)<)9B12 A359<) L:> )<,59<2 5(0B;2? CI@ :195 IHJ.CHFF%KF> 459 )5:8)9;
:NB++B;, 12> L:> 15? GHJ :195 @-.CHHF%KH> 103B2; B1) 5;< )3)189B1 12> L:> +NB3>
=2829: 129+>? HKK +NB3 CGH.CH@-% I-> )>=> 69B,N8 L:> =5;B35 )3)189B1 9>9> Q 3B,N8
12>? ,>9> JJI-.CHC"%IC> +9)1B23B85 L> 1293B:: L:> 8N) =5;B35 95B3925< 12>? GJ :195
IJ".CHIH%IG> LB1829B;2 10:B Q +B359 +279) L:> +NB3> ;58 3 95B365A:? ,>9> 3EGHFFH?
=5A @C? CHJHI@>=59B;<0(0) B92; =B;): 5,);8:? B;1> L:> 8N) 629M=); : 12=+);:58B2;
12==B::B2;? HH +NB3 "F- .CHKI%I"> 1B+9B5;2 L:> 15? GI@ :195 JC.CHHI%IK> 4>4 190O
5;< 12=>?B;1 L5> 15? CI" :195 J@@.CHFF%II>N2;29B5 <)3,5<2 L<5> <) ,95,29B2 L:> ,2
1N2;, 7B;,? C-G +NB3 KKI.CHKJ%IJ> :5;B859A :8)5= 350;<9A? B;1> L:> 15? @-- :195
G-.CHHF%IF> L<5> <) ,9),29B2 L:> ,2 1NB;, 7B;,? C-G +NB3 KKI.CHKJ%IH>;),92:
;5LB,58B2 12>? B;1> L:> 15? ,>9> CC-@HF? ;2L> J? CHHJJ-> 7);,0)8 )3)189B1 122+>?
B;1> L:> 15? ,>9> CGJ@GI? <)1 G@? CHHHJC>=5E52 :0,59 1);8953 12> B;1> L:> 15? ,>9>
F@"HC? 50,> GJ? CHH-JG> 92,)3B2 95=2: L:> 15? ,>9> CG"@K"? <)1> GH? CHHHJ@><>=>
12;:0;DB? B;1> L:> 15? ,>9> C@JFJ@? 5+3 G-? G--CJ"> 758B(0B; L:> 15? GKF :195 @@"
.CHHI%JK> 1)70 :NB+A59< 5;< );,B;))9B;, 629M: L:> 6B33B5= 3B;):? ,>9> C@GI-J? =5A
K? CHHHJI>,28):12 B;L):8=);8 129+> L:> 1N5882? GC- :195 CF.CHHG%JJ><95> 57<03B5
92<9B,0)O L:> 15? ,>9> CGCHI"? D0;) CJ? CHHJJF>6B;<L533)A :NB++B;, 12> L:> 15?,>9>
CCHI-G? 218 I? G---JH> ):+B9B80 L:> +NB3> +26)9 5;< <)L> 12>? ,>9> 3E@G"-E9? :)+8
G-? CH"HF-> 95<B2 12==0;B158B2;: 24 8N) +NB3B++B;): B;1> L:> 15? ,>9> 3E""J"F? 50,>
GH? CHFIFC> 10:82<B2 L:> 15? GK@ :195 "F@FG> 157B,52 L:> 0;BL> 24 8N) )5:8? 1>5>
,>9> @@KK"E9? 50, GG"? CHJ@F@><5;,65 895:+29858B2; 12>? B;1> L: 15? G-G :195 KJKF">
3B,N8 95B3 895;:B8 508N29B8A L:> ;58BLB<5<? ,>9> C"KF-"? 4)7 I? G--@FK>NB<53,2
);8)9+9B:): L:> 7535;<5;? HC +NB3 "FF.CHKG%FI>5;<5=2 L:> B51? CHC :195 CHK .CHH-%
FJ> 92==5; );8)9+9B:):? B;1> L:> 15? ,>9> CGK-CF? 5+3 I? G---FF>D03B85 L<5> <)
:)L)92 L:> 4)3)1B5;2? CKJ :195 ""I .CHFF%FH> +NB3> 75;M 24 12==)91) L:> 15? GIH
:195 IHK.CHHJ%H->=)892+23B85; 75;M Q 890:8 12> L:> 15? G@J :195 JIC.CHH"%HC>
+B3B+B;5: 75;M 24 12==)91) L:> 15? GIH :195 IHK.CHHJ%HG> 8575153)95 B;:095;1) 12>
L:> ;298N 492;8 :NB++B;, :)9LB1): B;1>? GJG :195 KJG.CHHJ%H@> 753B65, 895;:B8? B;1>
L: 15? GKI :195 J"I.CHHI%H"> 4579) D9 L:> 15? GKH :195 "GI .CHHI%HK> 9)A): L:>
:B:8)9: 24 =)91A N2:+B853? @"C :195 JI-.G---%HI><9> ;B;)L)81N 10O L:> 15? GFG :195
CFF.CHHJ%HJ> 92,)3B2 95=2: L:> 15? ,>9> CG"@K"? <)1 GH? CHHHHF>,591B5E90)<5 vs>
+5:15:B2? GJF :195 JIHHH> <2=B;,5 92(0) vs> =5,85;,,23 1> ,0;B,0;<2? FH :195
CJF.CHJH%C--> 95A;)95 vs> NB1)85 ? ,>9> ;o> CG--GJ? 5pril GC? CHHHC-C> +3<8 vs> 15?
,>9> ;o> 3EKJ-JH? :eptember GH? CHFHC-G> MB= vs> +NB3B++B;) 5)9B53 85PB 12>? KF
+hil> F@FC-@> +NB3> 12==)91B53 B;8 3 75;M vs> 15? ,>9> ;o> CGC"C@? D$n GH? G--CC-">
;+1 vs> 12098 24 5++)53:? GGG :195 "CKC-K> :208N)5:8)9; 1233),)? B;1> vs> 15? ,>9>
CGI@FH? Duly C-? CHHFC-I> B3212: ;298) )3)189B1 12=+5;A vs> 15? CJH :195 K.CHFH%
C-J> +3)5:5;8LB33) <)L 8 129+2958B2; vs> 15? GK@ :195 C-.CHHI%C-F> A27B<2 vs> 12098
24 5++)53:? GFC :195 C.CHHJ%C-H> M95=)9? D9> vs> 12098 24 5++)53:? CJF :195
KCF.CHFH%CC-> 95A;)95 vs> NB1)85? @-I :195 C-G.CHHH%CCC> +NB3> 9577B8 70: 3B;):?
B;1> vs> B51? ,>9> ;os> IIC-GE-"? 5ug @-? CHH-CCG> 4B32=);2 0975;2? vs> N2;> B51
5;< +)2+3)? ,>9> ;o> JGHI"? D$nu$ry J? CHFFCC@>,35; +)2+3)R: 30=7)9 5;< N59<659)
vs> B51? ,>9> J-"H@? =$y CF? CHFHCC"> 92,)3B2 );,5<5 vs> N2;> 15? ,>9> ;o> C"-IHF>
Dune G-? G--@CCK> +5;895;12 ;298N )P+9)::? B;1> L:> =59B159 75):5? ,>9> ;2:> JH-K-E
KC> ;2L)=7)9 C"? CHFHCCI> 371 5B9 159,2? B;1>? L:> N2;> 15> G"C :195 ICH.CHHK%CCJ>
:50<B 5957B5; 5B93B;): vs> 12098 24 5++)53:? GHJ :195 "IH.CHHF%CCF>,327) =51M5A
1573) 5;< 95<B2 129+ vs> 8N) N2;> 15? CJI :195 JJF.CHFH%CCH> 3329);8) vs> 8N)
:5;<B,5;75A5;? G-G :195 @-H.CHHC%CG-> 598092L53);O0)35 vs> 8N) N2;> 15? ,>9> ;o>
F@CGG .CHH-%? CH- :195 CCGC> 5=2;2A vs> ,08B)99)O? ,>9> ;o> C"-"G-> 4ebru$ry CK?
G--CCGG>D2:0) 593),0B vs> N2;> 15? ,>9> ;o> CGI"@J ? =$rch I? G--GCG@> +)892+NB3
129+ vs> 15? ,>9> ;o> CGGJHI? <ecember C-? G--CCG"> LB9,B;B5 => 5;<95<) vs> 12098
24 5++)53:? ,>9> CGJH@G? G--CCGK>0;B> 24 8N) )5:8 vs> D5<)9?,>9> ;o> C@G@""? 4eb
CJ? G---CGI>,5:N)= :N22M58 75M:N vs> N2;> 15? ,>9> ;o> HJ@@I 4eb CH? CHH@CGJ>
=59B3A; 3> 7)9;59<2 vs>;391? =$rch CK? CHHICGF><9B32;vs> 12098 24 5++)53:? GJ- :195
GCC.CHHJ%CGH> +2;1) vs> 3),5:+B? G-F :195 @JJ.CHHG%C@-> A5:2 5 vs> 92<);1B2 )8>
53?,>9> ;o> CKI@@H? 2ctober I? G--"C@C> +589B1B2 vs> 3)LB:8)? ,>9> ;o> 3EKCF@G
5pril GI? CHFHC@G> =59B5 429< L: 12098 24 5++)53:? ,>9> ;2> KCCJCEJG.CHH-%C@@>
)93B;<5 B30:B2 L: )93B;<5 7B<;)9? ,>9> ;o> C@HJFH.G---%C@"> 735: 2+3) L:> 907);
8299):? ,>9> ;2> CGJIFK? D03A G@? CHHFC@K> 5A)9 +92<018B2;: +8A> L:> 15+032;,? ,>9>
;o> FG-@F-? 5+3 GH? CHFFC@I> 92<9B,2 12;1)+1B2; L: 15? ,>9> CG-J-I? D5; @C? G---
C@J> =L9: L:> B:35=B1 <5 65N 120;1B3? @HI :195 GC-.G--@%C@F> B;8 3 :1N223 533B5;1)
24 )<015829: L:> (0B:0=7B;, 5;< B;8)9;58B2;53 :1N223? ,>9> CGFF"I.G---%C@H> 7B72:2
L:> D0<,) 2:=0;<2 => LB335;0)L5? G--CC"-> +NB3> 5)230: 5082E=28BL) 0;B8)< 129+> L:>
;391? ,>9> CG"ICJ? G---C"C> 2795 L: 15? ,>9> ;2> CG-FKG? 21827)9 GF? CHHHC"G>
:)995;2 L: ;B91? ,>9> ;2> CCJ-"-? D5;059A GJ? G---C"@> 57)915 L: =5D> ,);> 457B5;
L)9? ,>9> ;2> 3EHIFII? 5+9B3 CK? CHFFC""> 532;O2 L: 15? G"C :195 KC? CHHKC"K> :5O2;
L: 15? GKK :195 IHG? CHHIC"I> 729D53 L: 15? ,>9> ;2> CGI"II? D5;059A C"? CHHH
C"J>211);5 L: B15=B;5? CFC :195 @GF.CHH-%C"F> +)2+3) L: <)L595:? GGF :195 "FG.CHH@%
C"H> +)2+3) L: 75A285:? G@I :195 G@H.CHH"%CK->
LB33),5: vs> 12098 24 5++)53:? GCJ :195 C"F.CHHJ%CKC> 5L)3B;2 15:0+5;5; vs> =59B2
335L29) 3592A5?,>9> C"K@H.CHHG%CKG> 9545)3 9)A): 8901MB;, 129+> vs> +)2+3)?,>9>
CGH-GH.G---%CK@> 907); =5;B5,2 vs> 12098 24 5++)53:? ,>9> C-"@HG.CHHI%CK"> 85=59,2
vs> 12098 24 5++)53:? G-H :195 KCF.CHHG%CKK> 3B7B L: B51? GC" :195 CI.CHHG%CKI> :8>
495;1B: NB,N :1N223 L:> 15? CH" :195 @"C.CHHC%CKJ> :23B=5; L:>> 805O2;? G-H :195
"J.CHHG%CKF>D2:) :> 5=5<295 vs> 12098 24 5++)53:? ,>9> 3E"JJ"K.CHFF%CKH> +NB3>
:1N223 24 70:B;):: 5<=B;B:8958B2; L:> 15? G-K :195 JGHCI-> :8> =59A : 515<)=A vs>
6B33B5= 159+B85;2:? 4eb> I? G--G? ,>9> ;o> C"@@I@>CIC> LB1829A 3B;)9? B;1> vs>N)B9:
24 5;<9): =53)1<5;?<ecember GJ? G--G? ,> 9> ;o> CK"GJFCIG> =598B; vs> 12098 24
5++)53:? G-K :195 KHC.CHHG%CI@> 1598B1B5;2 v>;0L53? :eptember GF? G---? ,>9> ;o>
C@F-K"> CI"> 4,0 B;:095;1) 129+2958B2; L:>15? GFJ :195 JCH.CHHF%CIK> +B3B+B;5:
:N)33 +)8923)0= 129+> vs> 15? GGC :195 @FH .CHH@%CII>;+1 vs> 12098 24 5++)53:? GH"
:195 G-H.CHHF%CIJ> 4B35=)9 1N9B:8B5; B;:8B808) vs> B51? GCG :195 I@J.CHHG%CIF>
=)892 =5;B35 895;:B8 129+ vs> 15? ,>9> C"C-FH.G--G%CIH> :5;B859A :8)5= 350;<9A?
B;1> vs> 15? @-- :195 G-.CHHF%CJ-> )9;):82 +3)A82 vs> =59B5 <> 32=72A? ,>9> ;o>
C"FJ@J> Dune CI? G--"CJC> )9;):82 :AMB vs> :53L5<29 7),5:5?,>9> ;o> C"HC"H> 2ctober
G@? G--@CJG> 4B,0951B2; L<5> <) =5,35;5? vs> 12;:2351B2;? ,>9> ;o> I-K-I? 5ugust I?
CHHGCJ@> 12;95<2 5,0B359? :9> vs> 12==)91B53 :5LB;,: 75;M? ,>9> ;o> CGFJ-K> Dune
GH? G--CCJ"> )(0B8573) 3)5:B;, 129+> L:> 301B85 :0A2;? ,>9> C"@@I-? G--GCJK> C:8
=535A5; 3)5:B;, 5;< 4B;5;1) 129+ vs> 15? G-H :195 II-.CHHG%CJI>;2:895<5=0:
LB335;0)L5 L:> <2=B;,2? ,9 ;2> C""GJ"> :)+8 G-? G--"CJJ> 57)359<2 3B= L: 15? ,>9>
CGKFCJ.G--G%CJF> 159+B2 L: <292D5? CF- :195 C.CHFH%CJH> 495;12 L: B51? CJF :195
@@C.CHF%CF-> A2;5N5 L: 15? GKK :195 @HJ.CHHI%CFC>,0B35812 L: 1B8A 24 <5,0+5;? ,>9>
ICKCI.CHFH%CFG> +09B85 =B95;<5 L):8B3 L: B51? ,>9> J""@C.CHFH%CF@> 8N) N2=)26;)9:
5::21B58B2; 24 )3 <)+2:B82? 7599B2 1295O2; <) D):0:? :5; D05; 9BO53 L:> 322<? "J
:195 CJ"CF"> 459953): L: 1B8A =5A29 24 75,0B2? "" :195 G@HCFK> :5;,535;, L: B51?
CHFHCFI> 1215E1235 72883)9: +NB3B++B;):? B;1>? vs> 15? GGJ :195 GH@.CHH@%CFJ>
LB9,B3B2 => <)3 92:59B2 L:> 15? ,>9> ;2> CCF@GK?D5;> GH? CHHJCFF> +NB3B+ :> A0L:>
15? ,>9> ;2> FIIF@ D5;059A GC? CHH@CFH> :2 +B;, 70; vs> 15? ,>9> ;o> CG-KK"
:eptember GC? CHHHCH->,591B5 vs> 1292;5? @GC :195 GCF.CHHH%BB> <5=5,):C> +)2+3) vs>
7533):8)92:? GFK :195 "@F.CHHF%C> 759B805 vs> 12098 24 5++)53: ? GIJ :195 @@C.CHHJ%
G> N)B9: 24 :B=)2; 72935<2 vs> 12098 24 5++)53:? @I@ :195 JK@@> 10:82<B2 vs> 12098
24 5++)53:? GKG :195 "F@.CHHI%"> +NB3B++B;) 951B;, 1307? vs> 72;B451B2? C-H :195
G@@K> 50A2;, NB5; vs> 12098 24 85P 5++)53:? KH :195 CC-I> 459235; vs> :23=51
=59M)8B;, 129+2958B2;? CHHCJ> :575 L:> 12098 24 5++)53:? CFH :195 K-.CHH-%F>
:+20:): 19B:8B;2 $nd 79B,B<5 10:82<B2 vs> 15? GK@ :195 "F@H> 15:892vs> 5192 85PB157
12>? B;1>? FG :195 @IHC-> +;21 :NB++B;, 5;< 895;:+298 129+> vs>N2;> 15? GHJ :195
"-G.CHHF%CC> B;8),958)< +51M5,B;, 129+ vs> 12098 24 5++)53:? @@@ :195 CJ-.G---%CG>
MB)9034 vs> 12098 24 5++)53:? GIH :195 "@@S =$rch C@? CHHJC@><)L)32+=);8 75;M 24
8N) +NB3B++B;):? vs>15? .G"H :195 @@C%.CHHK%C"> 3048N5;O5 ,)9=5; 5B93B;): L:> 12098
24 5++)53:? G"@ :195 I--.CHHK%CK> 759O5,5? vs> 12098 24 5++)53:? .GKF :195C-K%
.CHHJ%CI> +)2+3) vs>,08B)99)O ? .GKF:195J-% .CHHI%CJ>,581N53B5; L <)3B=? G-@ :195
CGI4)3B1B5;2S 2ctober GC? CHHCCF> 955,5: vs 895A5 .GG :195 F@H%.CHIF%CH> 40);8): L:
12098 24 5++)53: .@G@ +NB3 K-F%.CHHI%G-> :0==5 B;:095;1) 129+2958B2; vs> 15 .@C-
+hil> @IJ%.CHHI%GC> 853B:5A :B35A L 5::21B51B2;.G"J :195 @IC%.CHHI%GG><5A6538 vs>
35 129+2951B2; <) 32: +5<9): 5,0:8B;2: 9)123)82:? IH +hil KFJG@> 1NB;, vs> 12098 24
5++)53:? .CFC :195 "KK? D$nu$ry CC? CHH-%G"> 30O2; 12;19)8) +92<018:? B;1>? vs>
12098 24 5++)53:? .C@K :195 "KK%GK> M5B90O vs> +51B2? C-F +NB3> C-HJGI> 92,)3B2 )>
95=2: vs> 15? T,>9> ;o> CG"@K"> <ecember GH? CHHH*>GJ> :+:> 9);582 :> 2;, L:> 15?
T,>9> ;2> CCJC-@> D5;059A GC? CHHH*GF>=5;O5;59): vs> =29)85? .@F +hil FG@%
GH>,9),29B2 +):85 2 L> :+20:): +5O?,>9> ;2> C@HFJK E<)1)=7)9 "? G---@-> =2;O2;? vs>
B;8)9=)<B58) 5++)3358) 12098 .CIH :195 JI TCHFH*%@C> +)2+3) L: :0B82:? GG- :195
"G-.CHH@%@G> +)2+3) L: 129<)92? GI@ :195 CGG.CHHI%@@> +)2+3) L: 59B;,0)? GF@ :195
GHC.CHHJ%@"> +)2+3) L: ,53L)O? @KK :195 GKI.G--C%@K> +3)A82 L: 32=72A? ,>9> ;2>
C"FJ@J? D0;) CI? G--"@I> +)2+3) L: =58592? ,>9> ;2> C@-@JF.G--C%@J> +)2+3) L:
;0335;? @-K :195 IJH.CHHH%@F> +)2+3) L: 3B:8)9B2? ,9> ;2> CGG-HH? D03A K? G---@H>
+)2+3) L: :5;1N)O? @C@ :195 IH".CHHH%"-> +)2+3) vs> )49); =B;<5;52? ,>9> CG@-HK?
D03A I? G---"C> +)2+3) vs> L)9<)? @-G :195 IH-.CHHH%"G> +)2+3) vs> +edro +errer$s?
,>9> C@HIGG? D03A @C? G---"@> +)2+3) vs> 0,5;5+? ,>9> C@-I-K? D0;) CH? G--C"">
:=B8N 7)33 <2<6)33 :NB++B;, 5,);1A 129+> vs> 729D5 ? ,>9> C"@--F.G--G%"K> +)2+3)
vs> )3,)9 ,0O=5;? ,>9> C@GJK-.G--C%"I> +)2+3) vs> =5A29 5;82;B2 3> :5;1N)O? ,>9>
CGC-@H.G--C%"J> +):85 2 vs> :pouses :0=5A5;,? ,>9> C@HFJK.G---%"F> 12;:23B<58)<
<5B9A +92<018: 12 vs> 12098 24 ? GC- :195 FC-.CHHG%"H>53,5995 L:> :5;<)D5:? GJ
+NB3> GF"K->(0B95;8) L:> B51? ,>9> J@FFI.CHFH%KC>5,0:8B; L:> 15? D0;) I? CHH-KG>
7B159=) L:> 15? D0;) I? CHH-K@> +)2+3) L:> 7)9,5;8)? GFI :195 IGH.CHHF%K"> 19B:=B;5
,59=);8:? B;1>? L:> 15? ,>9> CGFJG.CHHH%KK> 7508B:85 L:> =5;,53<5; 90953 75;M?
B;1>? G@- :195 CI.CHH"%KI> O);B8N B;:095;1) 129+2958B2;> L:> 15? CFK :195 @HF.CHH-%
KJ> 12=+5 B5 =59B8B=5 L:> 533B)< 49)) 629M)9: 0;B2;? JJ :195 G"KF><)3 92:59B2 L:
12098 24 5++)53:? GIJ :195 KF.CHHJ%KH> +)2+3) L: 70,5A2;,? ,>9>;2> CGIKCF.CHHF%I->
:8> +)8)9 =)=29B53 +59M? B;1> L: 13)245:? HG :195 @FHIC> )P+)98 895L)3 5;< 8209:?
B;1> L: 12098 24 5++)53:? ,>9>; ;2> C@--@-IG> D =59M)8B;, 129+2958B2; L: :B5 D9>?
GKF :195 KF-.CHHF%I@> B;<0:89B53 B;:095;1) 12> L: +5732 72;<5<? ,>9>;2>
C@IJGG.G---%I"> 89B+3) )B,N8 B;8),958)< :)9LB1): B;1> L:> ;391? GHH :195 I-F.CHHF%
IK>;):1B82 1> NB359B2 L: ;391? GKG :195 KKK.CHHI%II>5912;5 L:> 12098 24 5++)53:?
,>9> ;2> C@"JF".G--G%IJ>,9),29B2 403) L:> 12098 24 5++)53:? GFI :195 IHF.CHHF%IF>
:0=53+2;,? vs>12098 24 5++)53:? GIF :195 JI".CHHJ%IH> +92<01)9: 75;M 24 8N) +NB3: L
15 .:+: 1N05%? ,>9> CCCKF".G--C%J-> +92<01)9: 75;M 24 8N) +NB3: L 15 .:+: 1N05%?
,>9> CCCKF"? HI +NB3 @GCJC>57:E17; L 15? ,>9> CGFIH-.CHHH%JG>;+1 v> +NB3B++
7928N)9: 21)5;B1? @IH :195 IGH.G--C%J@>,)953<)O L> 12098 24 5++)53:? G@- :195 @G-
.CHH"%J"> +)2+3) vs> 19B:82753? GKG :195 K-J.CHHI%JK> +)2+3) L:> =589B=2;B2? GCK
:195 IC@.CHHG%JI> :59=B);82 L:> )=+32A)): 12=+);:58B2; 12==B::B2;? CIC :915 @CG B>
(05:BE<)3B18C> ;5,0B58 vs> ;3914518:/ 1l$rk 4ield 8$xi? Bnc> held $
concession$ire s contr$ct with the 5rmy 5ir 4orce )xch$nge :ervices for the
oper$tion of t$xi services within 1l$rk 5ir 7$se> :ergio ;$gui$t w$s the president
of 148B while 5ntolin ;$gui$t w$s its vice president> 3ike ;$gui$t )nterprises?
Bnc> which w$s $ tr$ding firm? it w$s $lso $ f$milyEowned corpor$tion>9espondents
were employed by the 148B $s t$xic$b drivers> 8hey were required to p$y $ d$ily
bound$ry fee of 0:UGI>K- .for those on duty from C5=ECG;% or 0:UGJ .for those on
duty from CG; to CG =;%> Bncident$l expenses were m$int$ined by the drivers
.including g$soline expenses%> <rivers worked @E" times $ week depending on the
$v$il$bility of vehicles $nd e$rned no less th$n 0:UCK>-- $ d$y> Bn excess of th$t
$mount? they h$d to m$ke c$sh deposits to the comp$ny which they could withdr$w
every fifteen d$ys>554): w$s dissolved bec$use of the ph$seEout of the milit$ry
b$ses in 1l$rk $nd the services of the respondents were offici$lly termin$ted on
;ovember GI? CHHC> 554): 8$xi <rivers 5ssoci$tion? the drivers union? $nd 148B held
negoti$tions $s reg$rds sep$r$tion benefits> 8hey $rrived $t $n $greement th$t the
sep$r$ted drivers would be given +K-- for ever ye$r $s sever$nce p$y> =ost of the
drivers $ccepted this but some refused to do so> 8hose who did not $ccept the
initi$l sever$nce p$y dis$ffili$ted themselves with drivers union $nd through the
;$tion$l 2rg$niz$tion of 6orkingmen? they filed $ compl$int $g$inst :ergio ;$gui$t
under the n$me $nd style ;$gui$t )nterprises? 554): $nd 554): union>8he l$bor
$rbiter ordered the petitioner to p$y the drivers +C?G-- for every ye$r of service
for hum$nit$ri$n consider$tion? setting $side the e$rlier $greement between the
148B $nd the drivers union> Bt $lso rejected the ide$ th$t the 148B w$s forced to
close it business due to gre$t fin$nci$l losses $nd lose opportunity since $t the
time of its closure it w$s profit$bly e$rning> 8he l$bor $rbiter however did not
$w$rd sep$r$tion p$y bec$use to impose $ monet$ry oblig$tion to $n employer whose
profit$ble business w$s $bruptly shot .sic% shot down by force m$jeure would be
unf$ir $nd unjust> 8he ;391 modified the decision of the l$bor $rbiter $fter
respondents $ppe$led by gr$nting sep$r$tion p$y to the priv$te respondents> Bt s$id
th$t h$lf of the monthly s$l$ry should be 0:UCG- which should be p$id in +hilippine
pesos> ;$gui$t )nterprieses should be joined with :ergio $nd 5ntolin ;$gui$t $s
jointly $nd sever$lly li$ble>B::0)/ 6hether or not there w$s corpor$te tort
committed by the corpor$tion $nd their respective officersV<)1B:B2; 24 8N) :0+9)=)
12098/ ;o> 2ur jurisprudence is w$nting $s to the definite scope of Wcorpor$te
tort>W )ssenti$lly? WtortW consists in the viol$tion of $ right given or the
omission of $ duty imposed by l$w> :imply st$ted? tort is $ bre$ch of $ leg$l duty>
5rticle GF@ of the 3$bor 1ode m$nd$tes the employer to gr$nt sep$r$tion p$y to
employees in c$se of closure or cess$tion of oper$tions of est$blishment or
undert$king not due to serious business losses or fin$nci$l reverses? which is the
condition obt$ining $t b$r> 148B f$iled
to comply with this l$wEimposed duty or oblig$tion> 1onsequently? its stockholder
who w$s $ctively eng$ged in the m$n$gement or oper$tion of the business should be
held person$lly li$ble>G> +;7 vs> 154518:/ =rs> 8$pnio h$d $n export sug$r quot$ of
C?--- piculs for the $gricultur$l ye$r CHKIECHKJ which she did not need> :he $greed
to $llow =r> D$cobo 1> 8u$zon to use s$id quot$ for the consider$tion of +G?K-->-->
8his $greement w$s c$lled $ contr$ct of le$se of sug$r $llotment> 5t the time of
the $greement? =rs> 8$pnio w$s indebted to the +hilippine ;$tion$l 7$nk $t :$n
4ern$ndo? +$mp$ng$> Ner indebtedness w$s known $s $ crop lo$n $nd w$s secured by $
mortg$ge on her st$nding crop including her sug$r quot$ $lloc$tion for the
$gricultur$l ye$r corresponding to s$id st$nding crop> 8his $rr$ngement w$s
necess$ry in order th$t when =rs> 8$pnio h$rvests? the +>;>7>? h$ving $ lien on the
crop? m$y effectively enforce collection $g$inst her> Ner sug$r c$nnot be exported
without sug$r quot$ $llotment :ometimes? however? $ pl$nter h$rvest less sug$r th$n
her quot$? so her excess quot$ is utilized by $nother who p$ys her for its use>
8his is the $rr$ngement entered into between =rs> 8$pnio $nd =r> 8u$zon reg$rding
the formerRs excess quot$ for CHKIECHKJ>:ince the quot$ w$s mortg$ged to the
+>;>7>? the contr$ct of le$se h$d to be $pproved by s$id 7$nk? 8he s$me w$s
submitted to the br$nch m$n$ger $t :$n 4ern$ndo? +$mp$ng$> 8he l$tter required the
p$rties to r$ise the consider$tion of +G>F- per picul or $ tot$l of +G?F-->--
informing them th$t Wthe minimum le$se rent$l $ccept$ble to the 7$nk? is +G>F- per
picul>W Bn $ letter $ddressed to the br$nch m$n$ger on 5ugust C-? CHKI? =r> 8u$zon
informed the m$n$ger th$t he w$s $gree$ble to r$ising the consider$tion to +G>F-
per picul> Ne further informed the m$n$ger th$t he w$s re$dy to p$y s$id $mount $s
the funds were in his folder which w$s kept in the b$nk> 6hen the br$nch m$n$ger of
the +hilippine ;$tion$l 7$nk $t :$n 4ern$ndo recommended the $pprov$l of the
contr$ct of le$se $t the price of +G>F- per picul%? whose recommend$tion w$s
concurred in by the LiceEpresident of s$id 7$nk? D> L> 7uen$ventur$? the bo$rd of
directors required th$t the $mount be r$ised to C@>-- per picul> 8his $ct of the
bo$rd of directors w$s communic$ted to 8u$zon? who in turn $sked for $
reconsider$tion thereof> 2n ;ovember CH? CHKI? the br$nch m$n$ger submitted
8u$zonRs request for reconsider$tion to the bo$rd of directors with $nother
recommend$tion for the $pprov$l of the le$se $t +G>F- per picul? but the bo$rd
returned the recommend$tion un$cted upon? considering th$t the current price
prev$iling $t the time w$s +@>-- per picul>8he p$rties were notified of the refus$l
on the p$rt of the bo$rd of directors of the 7$nk to gr$nt the motion for
reconsider$tion> 8he m$tter stood $s it w$s until 4ebru$ry GG? CHKJ? when 8u$zon
wrote $ letter .)xh> C-E7$nk informing the 7$nk th$t he w$s no longer interested to
continue the de$l? referring to the le$se ofsug$r quot$ $llotment in f$vor of
defend$nt 9it$ ,ueco 8$pnio> 8he result is th$t the l$tter lost the sum of
+G?F-->-- which she should h$ve received from 8u$zon $nd which she could h$ve p$id
the 7$nk to c$ncel off her indebtedness? 8he court below held? $nd in this holding
we concur th$t f$ilure of the negoti$tion for the le$se of the sug$r quot$
$lloc$tion of 9it$ ,ueco 8$pnio to 8u$zon w$s due to the f$ult of the directors of
the +hilippine ;$tion$l 7$nk? 8he refus$l on the p$rt of the b$nk to $pprove the
le$se $t the r$te of +G>F- per picul which? $s st$ted $bove? would h$ve en$bled
9it$ ,ueco 8$pnio to re$lize the $mount of +G?F-->-- which w$s more th$n sufficient
to p$y off her indebtedness to the 7$nk? $nd its insistence on the rent$l price of
+@>-- per picul thus unnecess$rily incre$sing the v$lue by only $ difference of
+G-->--> inevit$bly brought $bout the rescission of the le$se contr$ct to the
d$m$ge $nd prejudice of 9it$ ,ueco 8$pnio in the $fores$id sum of +G?F-->--> 8his
decision of the of the tri$l court w$s $ffirmed by the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls>B::0)/
6hether or not petitioner is li$ble for the d$m$ge c$used due to the dis$pprov$l of
the le$se by the 7o$rd of <irectors of petitioner> <)1B:B2; 24 8N) :0+9)=) 12098/
A):> 6hile petitioner h$d the ultim$te $uthority of $pproving or dis$pproving the
proposed le$se since the quot$ w$s mortg$ged to the 7$nk? the l$tter cert$inly
c$nnot esc$pe its responsibility of observing? for the protection of the interest
of priv$te respondents? th$t degree of c$re? prec$ution $nd vigil$nce which the
circumst$nces justly dem$nd in $pproving or dis$pproving the le$se of s$id sug$r
quot$> 8he l$w m$kes it imper$tive th$t every person Wmust in the exercise of his
rights $nd in the perform$nce of his duties? $ct with justice? give everyone his
due? $nd observe honesty $nd good f$ith? " 8his petitioner f$iled to do> 1ert$inly?
it knew th$t the $gricultur$l ye$r w$s $bout to expire? th$t by its dis$pprov$l of
the le$se priv$te respondents would be un$ble to utilize the sug$r quot$ in
question> Bn f$iling to observe the re$son$ble degree of c$re $nd vigil$nce which
the surrounding circumst$nces re$son$bly impose? petitioner is consequently li$ble
for the d$m$ges c$used on priv$te respondents> 0nder 5rticle GC of the ;ew 1ivil
1ode? W$ny person who wilfully c$uses loss or injury to $nother in $ m$nner th$t is
contr$ry to mor$ls? good customs or public policy sh$ll compens$te the l$tter for
the d$m$ge>W 8he $foreEcited provisions on hum$n rel$tions were intended to exp$nd
the concept of torts in this jurisdiction by gr$nting $dequ$te leg$l remedy for the
untold number of mor$l wrongs which is impossible for hum$n foresight to
specific$lly provide in the st$tutes> 5 corpor$tion is civilly li$ble in the s$me
m$nner $s n$tur$l persons for torts? bec$use Wgener$lly spe$king? the rules
governing the li$bility of $ princip$l or m$ster for $ tort committed by $n $gent
or serv$nt $re the s$me whether the princip$l or m$ster be $ n$tur$l person or $
corpor$tion? $nd whether the serv$nt or $gent be $ n$tur$l or $rtifici$l person>
5ll of the $uthorities $gree th$t $ princip$l or m$ster is li$ble for every tort
which he expressly directs or $uthorizes? $nd this is just $s true of $ corpor$tion
$s of $ n$tur$l person? 5 corpor$tion is li$ble? therefore? whenever $ tortious $ct
is committed by $n officer or $gent under express direction or $uthority from the
stockholders or members $cting $s $ body? or? gener$lly? from the directors $s the
governing body>W @> :B3L5 vs> +)953854518:/ 5t the outbre$k of the w$r in CH"C? the
defend$nt )sther +er$lt$ she resided with her sister? =rs> +edro +i$? in =$co?
8$gum? =$bini <$v$o> :$turnino :ilv$? then $n 5meric$n citizen $nd $n officer of
the 0nited :t$tes 5rmy $nd m$rried to one +rescill$ Bs$bel of 5ustr$li$? h$d been
ordered to sent to the +hilippines during the enemy occup$tion to help unite the
guerill$s in their fight for freedom> Ne w$s the comm$nding officer of the C@-th
9egiment gener$l he$dqu$rters $t =$gugpo? 8$gum? <$v$o>:ometime during the ye$r
CH""? 4lorence? $ younger sister of the defend$nt? w$s $ccused of h$ving
coll$bor$ted with the enemy? $nd for this she w$s $rrested? $nd $ccomp$nied by
)sther? brought to 5nibong$n $nd l$ter to the gener$l he$dqu$rters $t =$gugpo for
investig$tion th$t :ilv$ first met )sther 4lorence w$s exonor$ted of the ch$rges
m$de $g$inst her $nd w$s ordered rele$sed? but with the $dvice th$t she should not
return to =$co for the time being> Needing such $dvice? 4lorence $nd her sister?
$ppellee herein? went to live with the spouses =r> $nd =rs> 1$milo <octolero $t
8ip$s? =$gugpo? <$v$o>:ilv$ st$rted to frequent the house of the <octoleros? $nd
soon professed love for )sther> N$ving been m$de to believe th$t he w$s single? she
$ccepted his m$rri$ge propos$lS $nd the two were m$rried on D$nu$ry C"? CH"K by one
4$ther 1ote on the occ$sion of $ house blessing> ;o documents of m$rri$ge were
prep$red nor executed? $llegedly bec$use there were no $v$il$ble printed forms for
the purpose> Nence? the lovers lived together $s husb$nd $nd wife> 4rom the
Wm$rri$geW? $ child? n$med :$turnino :ilv$? Dr>? w$s born>2n =$y F? CH"K? :ilv$
sust$ined serious wounds in the b$ttle of Bsing? for which re$son? he w$s
tr$nsferred to 3eyte? $nd l$ter to the 0nited :t$tes? he divorced +recill$ Bs$bel
$nd l$ter? on =$y H? CH"F? contr$cted m$rri$ge with pl$intiff )lenit$ 3edesm$
:ilv$>0pon his return to the +hilippines? $ppellee )sther +er$lt$ dem$nded support
for their child? $nd? his refus$l? instituted $ suit for support in the 1ourt of
4irst Bnst$nce of =$nil$> 8hereupon? the present $ction w$s filed $g$inst )sther?
$nd $nother suit $g$inst her w$s instituted in 1ot$b$to>8he 8ri$l 1ourt $w$rded
d$m$ges in f$vor of the defend$nt thus the pl$intiffsE$ppell$nt $ppe$l on both
questions of f$ct $nd l$w from the decision of the 1ourt of 4irst Bnst$nce of <$v$o
to the :upreme 1ourt? the $mount involved being more th$n +G--?--->--> B::0)/
6hether or not d$m$ges $w$rded to $ppellee $re $ n$tur$l $nd direct consequence of
:ilv$Rs deceitful m$neuvers in m$king love to $ppellee? $nd inducing her to yield
to his $dv$nces $nd live with him $s his wife><)1B:B2; 24 8N) :0+9)=) 12098/ A):>
Bt is to be noted th$t while the l$tterRs li$bility w$s extr$Econtr$ctu$l in
origin? still? under the 1ivil 1ode in CFFH? the d$m$ges resulting from $ tort $re
me$sured in the s$me m$nner $s those due from $ contr$ctu$l debtor in b$d f$ith?
since he must $nswer for such d$m$ges? whether he h$d forseen them or not? just $s
he must indemnify not only for d$mnum emergens but $lso for l$crum cess$ns? $s
required by 5rticle CC-I> 5rticle C--G of the CFFH 1ivil 1ode of :p$in formul$ted
no st$nd$rd for
me$suring qu$siEdelictu$l d$m$ges? the $rticle merely prescribing th$t the guilty
p$rty Wsh$ll be li$ble for the d$m$ges so doneW> 8his indefiniteness led modern
civil l$w writers to hold th$t the st$nd$rds set is $rticles CC-I $nd CC-J? pl$ced
in the gener$l rules on oblig$tions? Wrigen por igu$l p$r$ l$s contr$ctu$les y l$s
extr$s contr$ctu$les? l$s pre est$blecid$s y l$s que borten exElege de $ctos
ilicitosW> .9oces? ;otes to 4isher%W 3os <$ os 1iviles y su 9ep$r$cion?W.CHGJ%> Bt
is well to note in this connection? th$t :ilv$Rs $ct in hiding from $ppellee th$t
he could not leg$lly m$rry her? bec$use? he $llegedly h$ve $n 5ustr$li$n wife? w$s
not mere negligence? but $ctu$l fr$ud .dolo% pr$cticed upon the $ppellee>
1onsequently? he should st$nd li$ble for $ny $nd $ll d$m$ges $rising therefrom?
which include the expense of m$int$ining the offspring $nd the expenses of
litig$tion to protect the childRs rightRs $nd the loss of the motherRs own
e$rnings> 8his is $ li$bility th$t flows even from 5rticles CH-G $nd CC-J .p$r> G%
of CFFH .5rts> GCJI $nd GG-G of the ;ew 1ode%>5rt> CH-G> 5ny person who by $n $ct
or omission c$uses d$m$ge to $nother by his f$ult or negligence sh$ll be li$ble for
the d$m$ge $s done>5rt> CC-J> Bn c$se of fr$ud .dolo% the debtor sh$ll be li$ble
for $ll losses $nd d$m$ges which cle$rly $rise from the f$ilure to fulfill the
oblig$tion>"> 537);:2; vs> 154518:/ Bn :eptember? 2ctober? $nd ;ovember CHF-?
petitioner 5lbenson )nterprises 1orpor$tion .5lbenson for short% delivered to
,u$r$nteed Bndustries? Bnc> .,u$r$nteed for short% the mild steel pl$tes which the
l$tter ordered> 5s p$rt p$yment thereof? 5lbenson w$s given +$cific 7$nking
1orpor$tion 1heck ;o> C@I@IC in the $mount of +G?KJK>-- $nd dr$wn $g$inst the
$ccount of )>3> 6oodworks>6hen presented for p$yment? the check w$s dishonored for
the re$son W5ccount 1losed>W 8here$fter? petitioner 5lbenson? through counsel?
tr$ced the origin of the dishonored check> 4rom the records of the :ecurities $nd
)xch$nge 1ommission .:)1%? 5lbenson discovered th$t the president of ,u$r$nteed?
the recipient of the unp$id mild steel pl$tes? w$s one W)ugenio :> 7$lt$o>W 0pon
further inquiry? 5lbenson w$s informed by the =inistry of 8r$de $nd Bndustry th$t
)>3> 6oodworks? $ single proprietorship business? w$s registered in the n$me of one
W)ugenio 7$lt$oW> Bn $ddition? upon verific$tion with the dr$wee b$nk? +$cific
7$nking 1orpor$tion? 5lbenson w$s $dvised th$t the sign$ture $ppe$ring on the
subject check belonged to one W)ugenio 7$lt$o>W5fter obt$ining the foregoing
inform$tion? 5lbenson? through counsel? m$de $n extr$judici$l dem$nd upon priv$te
respondent )ugenio :> 7$lt$o? president of ,u$r$nteed? to repl$ce $ndXor m$ke good
the dishonored check>9espondent 7$lt$o? through counsel? denied th$t he issued the
check? or th$t the sign$ture $ppe$ring thereon is his> Ne further $lleged th$t
,u$r$nteed w$s $ defunct entity $nd hence? could not h$ve tr$ns$cted business with
5lbenson>2n 4ebru$ry C"? CHF@? 5lbenson filed with the 2ffice of the +rovinci$l
4isc$l of 9iz$l $ compl$int $g$inst )ugenio :> 7$lt$o for viol$tion of 7$t$s
+$mb$ns$ 7il$ng GG> :ubmitted to support s$id ch$rges w$s $n $ffid$vit of
petitioner 7enj$min =endion$? $n employee of 5lbenson>2n :eptember K? CHF@?
5ssist$nt 4isc$l 9ic$rdo :um$w$y filed $n inform$tion $g$inst )ugenio :> 7$lt$o for
Liol$tion of 7$t$s +$mb$ns$ 7il$ng GG> Bn filing s$id inform$tion? 4isc$l :um$w$y
cl$imed th$t he h$d given )ugenio :> 7$lt$o opportunity to submit controverting
evidence? but the l$tter f$iled to do so $nd therefore? w$s deemed to h$ve w$ived
his right>9espondent 7$lt$o? cl$iming ignor$nce of the compl$int $g$inst him?
immedi$tely filed with the +rovinci$l 4isc$l of 9iz$l $ motion for reinvestig$tion?
$lleging th$t it w$s not true th$t he h$d been given $n opportunity to be he$rd in
the prelimin$ry investig$tion conducted by 4isc$l :um$w$y? $nd th$t he never h$d
$ny de$lings with 5lbenson or 7enj$min =endion$? consequently? the check for which
he h$s been $ccused of h$ving issued without funds w$s not issued by him $nd the
sign$ture in s$id check w$s not his>2n D$nu$ry @-? CHF"? +rovinci$l 4isc$l =$uro =>
1$stro of 9iz$l reversed the finding of 4isc$l :um$w$y $nd exoner$ted respondent
7$lt$o> Ne $lso instructed the 8ri$l 4isc$l to move for dismiss$l of the
inform$tion filed $g$inst )ugenio :> 7$lt$o> 4isc$l 1$stro found th$t the sign$ture
in +71 1heck ;o> C@I@IC is not the sign$ture of )ugenio :> 7$lt$o> 7ec$use of the
$lleged unjust filing of $ crimin$l c$se $g$inst him for $llegedly issuing $ check
which bounced in viol$tion of 7$t$s +$mb$ns$ 7il$ng GG? respondent 7$lt$o filed
before the 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt of (uezon 1ity $ compl$int for d$m$ges $g$inst
herein petitioners 5lbenson )nterprises? Desse A$p? its owner? $nd 7enj$min
=endion$? its employee>9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt petitioner to p$y priv$te respondent?
$mong others? the sum of +C--?--->-- $s mor$l d$m$ges $nd $ttorneyRs fees in the
$mount of +C--?--->--> <iss$tisfied to the decision? they $ppe$led the c$se before
the court of 5ppe$ls but the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls $ffirmed the s$id decision of the
8ri$l 1ourt with modific$tion> B::0)/ 6hether or not bec$use of the m$licious
prosecution of crimin$l c$se filed by the petitioners $g$inst the priv$te
respondent? petitioner c$n be held li$ble for d$m$ges to priv$te respondents b$sed
on 5rticle CH? G- $nd GC><)1B:B2; 24 8N) :0+9)=) 12098/ ;2> 8he crimin$l compl$int
filed $g$inst priv$te respondent $fter the l$tter refused to m$ke good the $mount
of the bouncing check despite dem$nd w$s $ sincere $ttempt on the p$rt of
petitioners to find the best possible me$ns by which they could collect the sum of
money due them> 5 person who h$s not been p$id $n oblig$tion owed to him will
n$tur$lly seek w$ys to compel the debtor to p$y him> Bt w$s norm$l for petitioners
to find me$ns to m$ke the issuer of the check p$y the $mount thereof> Bn the
$bsence of $ wrongful $ct or omission or of fr$ud or b$d f$ith? mor$l d$m$ges
c$nnot be $w$rded $nd th$t the $dverse result of $n $ction does not per se m$ke the
$ction wrongful $nd subject the $ctor to the p$yment of d$m$ges? for the l$w could
not h$ve me$nt to impose $ pen$lty on the right to litig$te .9ubio vs> 1ourt of
5ppe$ls? C"C :195 "FF TCHFI*%>5rticle CH? known to cont$in wh$t is commonly
referred to $s the principle of $buse of rights? sets cert$in st$nd$rds which m$y
be observed not only in the exercise of oneRs rights but $lso in the perform$nce of
oneRs duties> 8hese st$nd$rds $re the following/ to $ct with justiceS to give
everyone his dueS $nd to observe honesty $nd good f$ith> 8he l$w? therefore?
recognizes the primordi$l limit$tion on $ll rights/ th$t in their exercise? the
norms of hum$n conduct set forth in 5rticle CH must be observed> 5 right? though by
itself leg$l bec$use recognized or gr$nted by l$w $s such? m$y nevertheless become
the source of some illeg$lity> 6hen $ right is exercised in $ m$nner which does not
conform with the norms enshrined in 5rticle CH $nd results in d$m$ge to $nother? $
leg$l wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible>
5lthough the requirements of e$ch provision is different? these three .@% $rticles
$re $ll rel$ted to e$ch other> 5s the eminent 1ivilist :en$tor 5rturo 8olentino
puts it/ W6ith this $rticle .5rticle GC%? combined with $rticles CH $nd G-? the
scope of our l$w on civil wrongs h$s been very gre$tly bro$denedS it h$s become
much more supple $nd $d$pt$ble th$n the 5ngloE5meric$n l$w on torts> Bt is now
difficult to conceive of $ny m$levolent exercise of $ right which could not be
checked by the $pplic$tion of these $rticlesW .8olentino? C 1ivil 1ode of the
+hilippines JG%>8here is however? no h$rd $nd f$st rule which c$n be $pplied to
determine whether or not the principle of $buse of rights m$y be invoked> 8he
question of whether or not the principle of $buse of rights h$s been viol$ted?
resulting in d$m$ges under 5rticles G- $nd GC or other $pplic$ble provision of l$w?
depends on the circumst$nces of e$ch c$se> .,lobe =$ck$y 1$ble $nd 9$dio
1orpor$tion vs> 1ourt of 5ppe$ls? CJI :195 JJF TCHFH*%>8he elements of $n $buse of
right under 5rticle CH $re the following/ .C% 8here is $ leg$l right or dutyS .G%
which is exercised in b$d f$ithS .@% for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
$nother> 5rticle G- spe$ks of the gener$l s$nction for $ll other provisions of l$w
which do not especi$lly provide for their own s$nction> 8hus? $nyone who? whether
willfully or negligently? in the exercise of his leg$l right or duty? c$uses d$m$ge
to $nother? sh$ll indemnify his victim for injuries suffered thereby> 5rticle GC
de$ls with $cts contr$ bonus mores? $nd h$s the following elements/ C% 8here is $n
$ct which is leg$lS G% but which is contr$ry to mor$ls? good custom? public order?
or public policyS @% $nd it is done with intent to injure>1ert$inly? petitioners
could not be s$id to h$ve viol$ted the $forest$ted principle of $buse of right>
6h$t prompted petitioners to file the c$se for viol$tion of 7$t$s +$mb$ns$ 7il$ng
GG $g$inst priv$te respondent w$s their f$ilure to collect the $mount of +G?KJK>--
due on $ bounced check which they honestly believed w$s issued to them by priv$te
respondent> K> )315;2 vs> NB334518:/ 9egin$ld Nill w$s $ m$rried minor living $nd
getting subsistence from his f$ther? coEdefend$nt =$rvin> Ne killed 5g$pito )lc$no?
son of petitioners? for which he w$s crimin$lly prosecuted> Nowever? he w$s
$cquitted on the ground th$t his $ct w$s not crimin$l bec$use of Wl$ck of intent to
kill? coupled with mist$ke>W:ubsequently? petitioners filed $ civil $ction for
recovery of d$m$ges $g$inst defend$nts? which the l$tter countered by $ motion to
dismiss> Nowever the tri$l
court dismissed the s$me> Nence this $ppe$l>B::0):/C% 6hether or not the $ction
for recovery of d$m$ges $g$inst 9egin$ld $nd =$rvin Nill is b$rred by res judic$t$>
G% 6hether or not there is vic$rious li$bility on the p$rt 9egin$ld s f$ther?
=$rvin><)1B:B2; 24 8N) :0+9)=) 12098/ ;2>8he $cquitt$l of 9egin$ld Nill in the
crimin$l c$se h$s not extinguished his li$bility for qu$siEdelict? hence th$t
$cquitt$l is not $ b$r to the inst$nt $ction $g$inst him>8here is need for $
reiter$tion $nd further cl$rific$tion of the du$l ch$r$cter? crimin$l $nd civil? of
f$ult or negligence $s $ source of oblig$tion? which w$s firmly est$blished in this
jurisdiction in 7$rredo vs> ,$rci$ .J@ +hil> I-J%>Bn this jurisdiction? the
sep$r$te individu$lity of $ cu$siEdelito or culp$ $quili$n$? under the 1ivil 1ode
h$s been fully $nd cle$rly recognized? even with reg$rd to $ negligent $ct for
which the wrongdoer could h$ve been prosecuted $nd convicted in $ crimin$l c$se $nd
for which? $fter such $ conviction? he could h$ve been sued for civil li$bility
$rising from his crime> .p> ICJ? J@ +hil>%;ot$bly? 5rticle GCJJ of the ;ew 1ivil
1ode provides th$t/ 9esponsibility for f$ult or negligence under the preceding
$rticle is entirely sep$r$te $nd distinct from the civil li$bility $rising from
negligence under the +en$l 1ode> 7ut the pl$intiff c$nnot recover d$m$ges twice for
the s$me $ct or omission of the defend$nt> 1onsequently? $ sep$r$te civil $ction
lies $g$inst the offender in $ crimin$l $ct? whether or not he is crimin$lly
prosecuted $nd found guilty or $cquitted? provided th$t the offended p$rty is not
$llowed? if he is $ctu$lly ch$rged $lso crimin$lly? to recover d$m$ges on both
scores? $nd would be entitled in such eventu$lity only to the bigger $w$rd of the
two? $ssuming the $w$rds m$de in the two c$ses v$ry> Bn other words? the extinction
of civil li$bility referred to in +$r> .e% of :ection @? 9ule CCC? refers
exclusively to civil li$bility founded on 5rticle C-- of the 9evised +en$l 1ode?
where$s the civil li$bility for the s$me $ct considered $s $ qu$siEdelict only $nd
not $s $ crime is not extinguished even by $ decl$r$tion in the crimin$l c$se th$t
the crimin$l $ct ch$rged h$s not h$ppened or h$s not been committed by the $ccused>
=$rvin Nill vic$riously li$ble> Nowever? since 9egin$ld h$s come of $ge? $s $
m$tter of equity? the former s li$bility is now merely subsidi$ry> 0nder 5rt> GCF-?
the f$ther $nd in c$se of his de$th or inc$p$city? the mother? $re responsible for
the d$m$ges c$used by the minor children who live in their comp$ny> Bn the c$se $t
b$r? 9egin$ld? $lthough m$rried? w$s living with his f$ther $nd getting subsistence
from him $t the time of the killing> 8he joint $nd solid$ry li$bility of p$rents
with their offending children is in view of the p$rent$l oblig$tion to supervise
minor children in order to prevent d$m$ge to third persons> 2n the other h$nd? the
cle$r implic$tion of 5rt> @HH? in providing th$t $ minor em$ncip$ted by m$rri$ge
m$y not sue or be sued without the $ssist$nce of the p$rents is th$t such
em$ncip$tion does not c$rry with it freedom to enter into tr$ns$ctions or do not
$ny $ct th$t c$n give rise to judici$l litig$tion>I> LB9585 vs> 21N254518:/ 5rsenio
Lir$t$ died $s $ result of h$ving been bumped while w$lking $long 8$ft 5venue by $
p$ssenger jeepney driven by =$ximo 7orill$ $nd registered in the n$me of Lictori$
2cho$>5n $ction for homicide through reckless imprudence w$s instituted $g$inst
=$ximo7orill$ in the 14B of 9iz$l>5tty> 4r$ncisco? the priv$te prosecutor? m$de $
reserv$tion to file sep$r$tely the civil $ction for d$m$ges $g$inst the driver for
his crimin$l li$bility? which he l$ter on withdrew $nd presented evidence on the
d$m$ges>8he Neirs of 5rsenio Lir$t$ $g$in reserved their right to institute $
sep$r$te civil $ction>8hey commenced $n $ction for d$m$ges b$sed on qu$siEdelict
$g$inst the driver =$ximo 7orill$ $nd the registered owner of the vehicle? Lictori$
2cho$>+riv$te respondents filed $ motion to dismiss on the ground th$t there is
$nother $ction pending for the s$me c$use>8he 14B $cquitted 7orill$ on the ground
th$t he c$used the injury by $ccident> 8he motion to dismiss w$s gr$nted>B::0)/
6hether or not the Neirs of 5rsenio Lir$t$ c$n prosecute $n $ction for d$m$ges
b$sed on qu$siEdelict $g$inst =$ximo 7orill$ $nd Lictori$ 2cho$? driver $nd owner?
respectively on the p$ssenger jeepney th$t bumped 5rsenio Lir$t$V<)1B:B2; 24 8N)
:0+9)=) 12098/ A):> Bn negligence c$ses? the $ggrieved p$rties m$y choose between
$n $ction under the 9evised +en$l 1ode or of qu$siEdelict under 5rticle GCJI of the
1ivil 1ode> 6h$t is prohibited by 5rticle GCJJ of the 1ivil 1ode is to recover
twice for the s$me negligent $ct>Bn this c$se? the petitioners $re not seeking to
recover twice for the s$me negligent $ct> 7efore the 1rimin$l 1$se w$s decided?
they m$nifested in the s$id c$se th$t they were filing $ sep$r$te civil $ction for
d$m$ges $g$inst the owner $nd driver of the p$ssenger jeepney b$sed on qu$siE
delict>5cquitt$l from $n $ccus$tion of crimin$l negligence? whether on re$son$ble
doubt or not? sh$ll not be $ b$r to $ subsequent civil $ction? not for civil
li$bility $rising from crimin$l negligence? but for d$m$ges due to $ qu$siEdelict
or culp$ $quili$n$ >8he source of d$m$ges sought to be enforced in the 1ivil 1$se
is qu$siEdelict? not $n $ct or omission punish$ble by l$w> 0nder 5rt> CCKJ of the
1ivil 1ode? qu$siEdelict $nd $n $ct or omission punish$ble by l$w $re two different
sources of oblig$tion>=oreover? for petitioners to prev$il in the 1ivil 1$se? they
h$ve only to est$blish their c$use of $ction by preponder$nce of evidence>J> 5;<5=2
vs> B514518:/ +etitioner spouses )mm$nuel $nd ;$tivid$d 5nd$mo $re the owners of $
p$rcel of l$nd situ$ted in 7ig$ .7iluso% :il$ng? 1$vite which is $dj$cent to th$t
of priv$te respondent? =ission$ries of 2ur 3$dy of 3$ :$lette? Bnc>? $ religious
corpor$tion>6ithin the l$nd of respondent corpor$tion? w$terp$ths $nd contriv$nces?
including $n $rtifici$l l$ke? were constructed? which $llegedly inund$ted $nd
eroded petitionersR l$nd? c$used $ young m$n to drown? d$m$ged petitionersR crops
$nd pl$nts? w$shed $w$y costly fences? end$ngered the lives of petitioners $nd
their l$borers during r$iny $nd stormy se$sons? $nd exposed pl$nts $nd other
improvements to destruction>Bn Duly CHFG? petitioners instituted $ crimin$l $ction
$g$inst )fren =usngi? 2rl$ndo :$pu$y $nd 9utillo =$llillin? officers $nd directors
of respondent corpor$tion? for destruction by me$ns of inund$tion under 5rticle @G"
of the 9evised +en$l 1ode>2n 4ebru$ry GG? CHF@? petitioners filed $ civil c$se for
d$m$ges with pr$yer for the issu$nce of $ writ of prelimin$ry injunction $g$inst
respondent corpor$tion> Ne$rings were conducted including ocul$r inspections on the
l$nd>2n 5pril GI? CHF"? the tri$l court issued $n order suspending further he$rings
in the civil c$se until $fter judgment in the rel$ted 1rimin$l 1$se> 5nd l$ter on
dismissed the 1ivil 1$se for l$ck of jurisdiction? $s the crimin$l c$se which w$s
instituted $he$d of the civil c$se w$s still unresolved>8he decision w$s b$sed on
:ection @ .$%? 9ule BBB of the 9ules of 1ourt which provides th$t Wcrimin$l $nd
civil $ctions $rising from the s$me offense m$y be instituted sep$r$tely? but $fter
the crimin$l $ction h$s been commenced the civil $ction c$nnot be instituted until
fin$l judgment h$s been rendered in the crimin$l $ction>W+etitioners $ppe$led from
th$t order to the Bntermedi$te 5ppell$te 1ourt>2n 4ebru$ry CJ? CHFI? respondent
5ppell$te 1ourt $ffirmed the order of the tri$l court> 5 motion for reconsider$tion
filed by petitioners w$s denied by the5ppell$te 1ourt>B::0)/ 6hether or not $
corpor$tion? which h$s built through its $gents? w$terp$ths? w$ter conductors $nd
contriv$nces within its l$nd? thereby c$using inund$tion $nd d$m$ge to $n $dj$cent
l$nd? c$n be held civilly li$ble for d$m$ges under 5rticles GCJI $nd GCJJ of the
1ivil 1ode on qu$siEdelicts such th$t the resulting civil c$se c$n proceed
independently of the crimin$l c$se<)1B:B2; 24 8N) :0+9)=) 12098/ Aes> 5 c$reful
ex$min$tion of the compl$int shows th$t the civil $ction is one under 5rticles GCJI
$nd GCJJ of the 1ivil 1ode on qu$sidelicts> 5ll the elements of $ qu$sidelict $re
present? to wit/ .$% d$m$ges suffered by the pl$intiff? .b% f$ult or negligence of
the defend$nt? or some other person for whose $cts he must respondS $nd .c% the
connection of c$use $nd effect between the f$ult or negligence of the defend$nt $nd
the d$m$ges incurred by the pl$intiff>8he w$terp$ths $nd contriv$nces built by
respondent corpor$tion $re $lleged to h$ve inund$ted the l$nd of petitioners> 8here
is therefore? $n $ssertion of $ c$us$l connection between the $ct of building these
w$terp$ths $nd the d$m$ge sust$ined by petitioners>:uch $ction if proven
constitutes f$ult or negligence which m$y be the b$sis for the recovery of d$m$ges>
Bn the c$se of :$mson vs> <ionisio? the 1ourt $pplied 5rticle CH-G? now 5rticle
GCJI of the 1ivil 1ode $nd held th$t W$ny person who without due $uthority
constructs $ b$nk or dike? stopping the flow or communic$tion between $ creek or $
l$ke $nd $ river? thereby c$using loss $nd d$m$ges to $ third p$rty who? like the
rest of the residents? is entitled to the use $nd enjoyment of the stre$m or l$ke?
sh$ll be li$ble to the p$yment of $n indemnity for loss $nd d$m$ges to the injured
p$rty>6hile the property involved in the cited c$se belonged to the public dom$in
$nd the property subject of the inst$nt c$se is priv$tely owned? the f$ct rem$ins
th$t petitionersR compl$int sufficiently $lleges th$t petitioners h$ve sust$ined
$nd will continue to sust$in d$m$ge due to the w$terp$ths $nd contriv$nces built by
respondent corpor$tion>
Bndeed? the recit$ls of the compl$int? the $lleged presence of d$m$ge to the
petitioners? the $ct or omission of respondent corpor$tion supposedly constituting
f$ult or negligence? $nd the c$us$l connection between the $ct $nd the d$m$ge? with
no preEexisting contr$ctu$l oblig$tion between the p$rties m$ke $ cle$r c$se of $
qu$si delict or culp$ $quili$n$>Bt must be stressed th$t the use of oneRs property
is not without limit$tions> 5rticle "@C of the 1ivil 1ode provides th$t Wthe owner
of $ thing c$nnot m$ke use thereof in such $ m$nner $s to injure the rights of $
third person>W :B1 08)9) 802 08 53B);0= ;2; 35)<5:> =oreover? $djoining l$ndowners
h$ve mutu$l $nd reciproc$l duties which require th$t e$ch must use his own l$nd in
$ re$son$ble m$nner so $s not to infringe upon the rights $nd interests of others>
5lthough we recognize the right of $n owner to build structures on his l$nd? such
structures must be so constructed $nd m$int$ined using $ll re$son$ble c$re so th$t
they c$nnot be d$ngerous to $djoining l$ndowners $nd c$n withst$nd the usu$l $nd
expected forces of n$ture> Bf the structures c$use injury or d$m$ge to $n $djoining
l$ndowner or $ third person? the l$tter c$n cl$im indemnific$tion for the injury or
d$m$ge suffered>5rticle GCJI Cof the 1ivil 1ode imposes $ civil li$bility on $
person for d$m$ge c$used by his $ct or omission constituting f$ult or negligence>
5rticle GCJI? whenever it refers to Wf$ult or negligenceW? covers not only $cts
Wnot punish$ble by l$wW but $lso $cts crimin$l in ch$r$cter? whether intention$l
$nd volunt$ry or negligent> 1onsequently? $ sep$r$te civil $ction lies $g$inst the
offender in $ crimin$l $ct? whether or not he is crimin$lly prosecuted $nd found
guilty or $cquitted? provided th$t the offended p$rty is not $llowed? .if the
tortfe$sor is $ctu$lly ch$rged $lso crimin$lly%? to recover d$m$ges on both scores?
$nd would be entitled in such eventu$lity only to the bigger $w$rd of the two?
$ssuming the $w$rds m$de in the two c$ses v$ry>8he distinctness of qu$siEdelict$ is
shown in 5rticle GCJJG of the 1ivil 1ode> 5ccording to the 9eport of the 1ode
1ommission Wthe foregoing provision though $t first sight st$rtling? is not so
novel or extr$ordin$ry when we consider the ex$ct n$ture of crimin$l $nd civil
negligence> 8he former is $ viol$tion of the crimin$l l$w? while the l$tter is $
distinct $nd independent negligence? which is $ Wculp$ $quili$n$W or qu$siEdelict?
of $ncient origin? h$ving $lw$ys h$d its own found$tion $nd individu$lity? sep$r$te
from crimin$l negligence>F> <035A vs> 154518:/ 2n <ecember J? CHFF? $n $lterc$tion
between 7enigno 8orzuel$ $nd 5tty> ;$poleon <ul$y occurred $t the W7ig 7$ng :$
5l$b$ng?W 5l$b$ng Lill$ge? =untinlup$ $s $ result of which 7enigno 8orzuel$? the
security gu$rd on duty $t the s$id c$rniv$l? shot $nd killed 5tty> ;$poleon
<ul$y>Nerein petitioner =$ri$ 7enit$ 5> <ul$y? widow of the dece$sed ;$poleon
<ul$y? in her own beh$lf $nd in beh$lf of her minor children? filed $n $ction for
d$m$ges $g$inst 7enigno 8orzuel$ $nd herein priv$te respondents :$fegu$rd
Bnvestig$tion $nd :ecurity 1o>? Bnc>? .W:54),059<W% $ndXor :upergu$rd :ecurity
1orp> .W:0+)9,059<W%? $lleged employers of defend$nt 8orzuel$> +riv$te respondent
:0+)9,059< filed $ =otion to <ismiss on the ground th$t the compl$int does not
st$te $ v$lid c$use of $ction> :0+)9,059< cl$imed th$t 8orzuel$Rs $ct of shooting
<ul$y w$s beyond the scope of his duties? $nd th$t since the $lleged $ct of
shooting w$s committed with deliber$te intent .dolo%? the civil li$bility therefor
is governed by 5rticle C-- of the 9evised +en$l 1ode? which st$tes/5rt> C--> 1ivil
li$bility of $ person guilty of $ felony> )very person crimin$lly li$ble for $
felony is $lso civilly li$ble>9espondent :0+)9,059< further $lleged th$t $
compl$int for d$m$ges b$sed on negligence under 5rticle GCJI of the ;ew 1ivil 1ode?
such $s the one filed by petitioners? c$nnot lie? since the civil li$bility under
5rticle GCJI $pplies only to qu$sioffenses under 5rticle @IK of the 9evised +en$l
1ode> Bn $ddition? the priv$te respondent $rgued th$t petitionersR filing of the
compl$int is prem$ture considering th$t the conviction of 8orzuel$ in $ crimin$l
c$se is $ condition sine qu$ non for the employerRs subsidi$ry li$bility>9espondent
:54),059< $lso filed $ motion pr$ying th$t it be excluded $s defend$nt on the
ground th$t defend$nt 8orzuel$ is not one of its employees +etitioners opposed both
motions? st$ting th$t their c$use of $ction $g$inst the priv$te respondents is
b$sed on their li$bility under 5rticle GCF- of the ;ew 1ivil 1ode? which provides/
5rt> GCF-> 8he oblig$tion imposed by 5rticle GCJI is dem$nd$ble not only for oneRs
own $cts or omissions? but $lso for those of persons for whom one is responsible>
)mployers sh$ll be li$ble for the d$m$ges c$used by their employees $nd household
helpers $cting within the scope of their $ssigned t$sks? even though the former $re
not eng$ged in $ny business or $n industry>9espondent Dudge 9egino issued $n order
gr$nting :0+)9,059<R: motion to dismiss $nd :54),059<R: motion for exclusion $s
defend$nt> +etitioner $ppe$led the s$me to the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls but 1ourt 5ppe$ls
)ight <ivision $ffirmed the decision of the 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt>B::0)/ 6hether or
not the civil $ction contempl$ted in 5rticle GCJJ is not $pplic$ble to $cts
committed with deliber$te intent? but only $pplies to qu$siEoffenses under 5rticle
@IK of the 9evised +en$l 1ode><)1B:B2; 24 8N) :0+9)=) 12098/;2> 1ontr$ry to the
theory of priv$te respondents? there is no justific$tion for limiting the scope of
5rticle GCJI of the 1ivil 1ode to $cts or omissions resulting from negligence>
6ellEentrenched is the doctrine th$t $rticle GCJI covers not only $cts committed
with negligence? but $lso $cts which $re volunt$ry $nd intention$l> 5s f$r b$ck $s
the definitive c$se of )lc$no v> Nill .JJ :195 HF TCHJJ*%? this 1ourt $lre$dy held
th$t/> > > 5rticle GCJI? where it refers to Wf$ult or negligence?W covers not only
$cts Wnot punish$ble by l$wW but $lso $cts crimin$l in ch$r$cterS whether
intention$l $nd volunt$ry or negligent> 1onsequently? $ sep$r$te civil $ction
$g$inst the offender in $ crimin$l $ct? whether or not he is crimin$lly prosecuted
$nd found guilty or $cquitted? provided th$t the offended p$rty is not $llowed? if
he is $ctu$lly ch$rged $lso crimin$lly? to recover d$m$ges on both scores? $nd
would be entitled in such eventu$lity only to the bigger $w$rd of the two? $ssuming
the $w$rds m$de in the two c$ses v$ry> Bn other words? the extinction of civil
li$bility referred to in +$r> .e% of :ection @? 9ule CCC? refers exclusively to
civil li$bility founded on 5rticle C-- of the 9evised +en$l 1ode? where$s the civil
li$bility for the s$me $ct considered $s qu$siEdelict only $nd not $s $ crime is
not extinguished even by $ decl$r$tion in the crimin$l c$se th$t the crimin$l $ct
ch$rged h$s not h$ppened or h$s not been committed by the $ccused> 7riefly st$ted?
6e here hold? in reiter$tion of ,$rci$? th$t culp$ $quili$n$ includes volunt$ry $nd
negligent $cts which m$y be punish$ble by l$w> .)mph$sis supplied%8he s$me doctrine
w$s echoed in the c$se of 5nd$mo v> Bntermedi$te 5ppell$te 1ourt .CHC :195 CHK
TCHH-*%? wherein the 1ourt held/5rticle GCJI? whenever it refers to Wf$ult or
negligence?W covers not only $cts crimin$l in ch$r$cter? whether intention$l $nd
volunt$ry or negligent> 1onsequently? $ civil $ction lies $g$inst the offender in $
crimin$l $ct? whether or not he is prosecuted or found guilty or $cquitted?
provided th$t the offended p$rty is not $llowed? .if the tortfe$sor is $ctu$lly
$lso ch$rged crimin$lly%? to recover d$m$ges on both scores? $nd would be entitled
in such eventu$lity only to the bigger $w$rd of the two? $ssuming the $w$rds m$de
in the two c$ses v$ry> Tciting Lir$t$ v> 2cho$? FC :195 "JG* .)mph$sis supplied%
+riv$te respondents submit th$t the word Wintention$lW in the 5nd$mo c$se is
in$ccur$te obiter? $nd should be re$d $s Wvolunt$ryW since intent c$nnot be coupled
with negligence $s defined by 5rticle @IK of the 9evised +en$l 1ode> Bn the $bsence
of more subst$nti$l re$sons? this 1ourt will not disturb the $bove doctrine on the
cover$ge of 5rticle GCJI>+riv$te respondents $lso contend th$t their li$bility is
subsidi$ry under the 9evised +en$l 1odeS $nd th$t they $re not li$ble for
8orzuel$Rs $ct which is beyond the scope of his duties $s $ security gu$rd> Bt
h$ving been est$blished th$t the inst$nt $ction is not exdelicto? petitioners m$y
proceed directly $g$inst 8orzuel$ $nd the priv$te respondents> 0nder 5rticle GCF-
of the ;ew 1ivil 1ode $s $forequoted? when $n injury is c$used by the negligence of
the employee? there inst$ntly $rises $ presumption of l$w th$t there w$s negligence
on the p$rt of the m$ster or employer either in the selection of the serv$nt or
employee? or in supervision over him $fter selection or both .3$yug$n v>
Bntermedi$te 5ppell$te 1ourt? CIJ :195 @I@ TCHFF*%> 8he li$bility of the employer
under 5rticle GCF- is direct $nd immedi$teS it is not conditioned upon prior
recourse $g$inst the negligent employee $nd $ prior showing of the insolvency of
such employee .M$p$l$r$n 7us 3ines v> 1oron$do? CJI :195 JHG TCHFH*%> 8herefore? it
is incumbent upon the priv$te respondents to prove th$t they exercised the
diligence of $ good f$ther of $ f$mily in the selection $nd supervision of their
employee> :ince 5rticle GCJI covers not only $cts of negligence but $lso $cts which
$re intention$l $nd volunt$ry? it w$s therefore erroneous on the p$rt of the tri$l
court to dismiss petitionerRs compl$int simply bec$use it f$iled to m$ke
$lleg$tions of $ttend$nt negligence $ttribut$ble to priv$te respondents>1$ses CEF
+5:105? D5A7)) <>H> 6A3B) L> 9595;,4518:/ +etitioners 6ylie
$nd 6illi$ms were the $ssist$nt $dministr$tive officer $nd comm$nding officer?
respectively? of the 0: ;$v$l b$se in :ubic> 9espondent 5uror$ 9$r$ng w$s $n
employee in the 2ffice of the +rovost =$rsh$l $ssigned $s the merch$ndise control
gu$rd> 6ylie? $s one of his duties? supervised the public$tion of the +l$n of the
<$y $ d$ily public$tion th$t fe$tured $mong others? $n $ction line inquiry > 2n
4eb> @? CHJF? $n inquiry w$s published s$ying th$t confisc$ted goods were being
consumed or used for person$l benefit by the merch$ndise control inspector $nd th$t
$ cert$in 5uring w$s? in herself? $ disgr$ce to the office> 9$r$ng? being the
only person n$med 5uring in the s$id office? went to press $n $ction for d$m$ges
$g$inst 6ylie $nd 6illi$ms $nd the 0: ;$v$l 7$se> .8h$t 9$r$ng w$s indeed the
5uring mentioned in the inquiry w$s proven by the $pology letter issued by 6ylie
for the in$dvertent public$tion>%:he $lleged th$t the $rticle constituted f$lse?
injurious? $nd m$licious def$m$tion $nd libel tending to impe$ch her honesty?
virtue $nd reput$tion exposing her to public h$tred? contempt $nd ridicule>
<efend$nts $lleged th$t .C%defend$nts $cted in perform$nce of their offici$l
functions $s officers of the 0: ;$vy $nd $re thus immune from suit .G% 0: ;$v$l
7$se is immune from suit being $n instrument$lity of the 0: ,overnment $nd .@% the
981 h$s no jurisdiction over the subject m$tter $nd the p$rties involved> 3ower
court ruling/ defend$nts p$y d$m$ges bec$use $cts were not offici$l $cts of the 0:
government? but person$l $nd tortious $cts .which $re not included in the rule th$t
$ sovereign country c$n t be sued without its consent%> :uit $g$inst 0: ;$v$l 7$se
w$s dismissed> <efend$nts $ppe$led the decision to the 15 but the s$me w$s denied>
B::0)/ 6hether or not 0: officers who commit $ crime or tortious $ct while
disch$rging offici$l functions $re still covered by the principle of st$te immunity
from suit>:1 903B;,/ ;o> 2ur l$ws $nd? we presume? those of the 0nited :t$tes do
not $llow the commission of crimes in the n$me of offici$l duty> 8he gener$l rule
is th$t public offici$ls c$n be held person$lly $ccount$ble for $cts cl$imed to
h$ve been performed in connection with offici$l duties where they h$ve $cted ultr$
vires or where there is showing of b$d f$ith> Bmmunity from suit c$nnot
institution$lize irresponsibility $nd nonE$ccount$bility nor gr$nt $ privileged
st$tus not cl$imed by $ny other offici$l of the 9epublic> 0nder 5rt> GCJI of the
civil code? whoever by $ct or omission? c$uses d$m$ge to $nother? there being f$ult
or negligence is obliged to p$y for the d$m$ge done> :uch f$ult or negligence? if
there is no preEexisting contr$ctu$l rel$tion between the p$rties? is c$lled $
qu$siEdelict $nd is governed by the provisions of this 1h$pter> Bndeed the
imput$tion of theft cont$ined in the +2< d$ted 4ebru$ry @? CHJF is def$m$tion
$g$inst the ch$r$cter $nd reput$tion of the priv$te respondent> +etitioner 6ylie
himself $dmitted th$t the 2ffice of the +rovost =$rsh$l explicitly recommended the
deletion of the n$me 5uring if the $rticle were published> 8he petitioners?
however? were negligent bec$use under their direction they issued the public$tion
without deleting the n$me W5uring>W :uch $ct or omission is ultr$ vires $nd c$nnot
be p$rt of offici$l duty> Bt w$s $ tortious $ct which ridiculed the priv$te
respondent> 8he petitioners? $lone? in their person$l c$p$cities $re li$ble for the
d$m$ges they c$used the priv$te respondentC-> +N2);BP 12;:89018B2; B;1 L B514518:/
C/@- $m? CK ;ovember CHJK E 3eon$rdo <ionisio? driving his Lolksw$gen c$r? w$s on
his w$y home to =$k$ti from $ cockt$ilsE$ndEdinner meeting with his boss where h$d
t$ken W$ shot or twoW of liquor> Ne w$s crossing the intersection of ,ener$l 3$cun$
$nd ,ener$l :$ntos :treets $t 7$ngk$l? =$k$ti? not f$r from his home? when his c$r
he$dlights .in his $lleg$tion% suddenly f$iled> Ne switched his he$dlights on
WbrightW $nd thereupon $ 4ord dump truck looming some GCXGmeters $w$y from his c$r>
8he dump truck? owned $nd registered by +hoenix 1onstruction Bnc> w$s p$rked $skew
.p$rtly blocking the w$y of oncoming tr$ffic% on the right h$nd side of ,ener$l
3$cun$ :treet f$cing the oncoming tr$ffic> 8here were neither lights nor $ny soE
c$lled We$rly w$rningW reflector devices set $nywhere ne$r the dump truck> 8he dump
truck h$d e$rlier th$t evening been driven home by 1$rbonel? its regul$r driver>
<ionisio cl$imed th$t he tried to $void $ collision by swerving his c$r to the left
but it w$s too l$te $nd his c$r sm$shed into the dump truck> 5s $ result of the
collision? <ionisio suffered some physic$l injuries including some perm$nent f$ci$l
sc$rs? $ Wnervous bre$kdownW $nd loss of two gold bridge dentures>E <ionisio
commenced $n $ction for d$m$ges cl$iming th$t the leg$l $nd proxim$te c$use of his
injuries w$s the negligent m$nner in which 1$rbonel h$d p$rked the dump truck>
+hoenix $nd 1$rbonel countered th$t the proxim$te c$use of <ionisioRs injuries w$s
his own recklessness in driving f$st $t the time of the $ccident? while under the
influence of liquor? without his he$dlights on $nd without $ curfew p$ss> +hoenix
$lso sought to est$blish th$t it h$d exercised due c$re in the selection $nd
supervision of the dump truck driver>14B 903B;, / ruled in f$vor of <ionisioB51
9uling / $ffirmed 81 but modified $mounts>B::0)/ 6hether or not l$st cle$r ch$nce
doctrine should be $pplied therefore exculp$ting +hoenix from p$ying $ny d$m$ges>:1
903B;,/ ;2E 6e hold th$t priv$te respondent <ionisioRs negligence w$s Wonly
contributory?W th$t the Wimmedi$te $nd proxim$te c$useW of the injury rem$ined the
truck driverRs Wl$ck of due c$reW $nd th$t consequently respondent <ionisio m$y
recover d$m$ges though such d$m$ges $re subject to mitig$tion by the courts
.5rticleGCJH? 1ivil 1ode of the +hilippines%>+hoenix $nd 1$rbonel $lso $sk us to
$pply wh$t they refer to $s the Wl$st cle$r ch$nceW doctrine> 8he theory here of
petitioners is th$t while the petitioner truck driver w$s negligent? priv$te
respondent <ionisio h$d the Wl$st cle$r ch$nceW of $voiding the $ccident $nd hence
his injuries $nd th$t <ionisio h$ving f$iled to t$ke th$t Wl$st cle$r ch$nceW must
be$r his own injuries $lone> 8he l$st cle$r ch$nce doctrine of the common l$w w$s
imported into our jurisdiction by +ic$rt vs> :mith but it is $ m$tter for deb$te
whether? or to wh$t extent? it h$s found its w$y into the 1ivil 1ode of the
+hilippines> 8he historic$l function of th$t doctrine in the common l$w w$s to
mitig$te the h$rshness of $nother common l$w doctrine or ruleEth$t of contributory
negligence> 8he common l$w rule of contributory negligence prevented $ny recovery
$t $ll by $ pl$intiff who w$s $lso negligent? even if the pl$intiffRs negligence
w$s rel$tively minor $s comp$red with the wrongful $ct or omission of the
defend$nt> 8he common l$w notion of l$st cle$r ch$nce permitted courts to gr$nt
recovery to $ pl$intiff who h$d $lso been negligent provided th$t the defend$nt h$d
the l$st cle$r ch$nce to $void the c$su$lty $nd f$iled to do so> 5ccordingly? it is
difficult to see wh$t role? if $ny? the common l$w l$st cle$r ch$nce doctrine h$s
to pl$y in $ jurisdiction where the common l$w concept of contributory negligence
$s $n $bsolute b$r to recovery by the pl$intiff? h$s itself been rejected? $s it
h$s been in 5GCJH 11E Bs there perh$ps $ gener$l concept of Wl$st cle$r ch$nceW
th$t m$y be extr$cted from its common l$w m$trix $nd utilized $s $ gener$l rule in
negligence c$ses in $ civil l$w jurisdiction like oursV 6e do not believe so> 0nder
5rt> GCJH? the t$sk of $ court? in technic$l terms? is to determine whose
negligenceEthe pl$intiffRs or the defend$ntRsEw$s the leg$l or proxim$te c$use of
the injury> 8h$t t$sk is not simply or even prim$rily $n exercise in chronology or
physics? $s the petitioners seem to imply by the use of terms like Wl$stW or
WinterveningW or Wimmedi$te>W 8he rel$tive loc$tion in the continuum of time of the
pl$intiffRs $nd the defend$ntRs negligent $cts or omissions? is only one of the
relev$nt f$ctors th$t m$y be t$ken into $ccount> 2f more fund$ment$l import$nce is
the n$ture of the negligent $ct or omission of e$ch p$rty $nd the ch$r$cter $nd
gr$vity of the risks cre$ted by such $ctor omission for the rest of the community>
8he petitioners urge th$t the truck driver .$nd therefore his employer% should be
$bsolved from responsibility for his own prior negligence bec$use the unfortun$te
pl$intiff f$iled to $ct with th$t incre$sed diligence which h$d become necess$ry to
$void the peril precisely cre$ted by the truck driverRs own wrongful $ct or
omission? 8o $ccept this proposition is to come too close to wiping out the
fund$ment$l principle of l$w th$t $ m$n must respond for the foresee$ble
consequences of his own negligent $ct or omission> 2ur l$w on qu$siEdelicts seeks
to reduce the risks $nd burdens of living in society $nd to $lloc$te them $mong the
members of society> 8o $ccept the petitionersR proposition must tend to we$ken the
very bonds of society>15 decision is modified by reducing the $ggreg$te $mount of
compens$tory d$m$ges? loss of expected income $nd mor$l d$m$ges <ionisio is
entitled to by G-Y of such $mount>CC> (0B:575 L:> :85> B;):E=)353) L);))9 5;<
+3A622<? B;14518:/ +etitioner Dovito (uis$b$ w$s in the employ of the defend$nt
1orpor$tion for CF ye$rs but w$s tempor$rily relieved $s intern$l $uditor due to
his refus$l to purch$se logs for the comp$ny s pl$nt $s instructed by the comp$ny s
Lice +resident? 9obert Nyde which he cl$ims to be inconsistent with his position $s
$n intern$l $uditor> +etitioner then filed $ compl$int with the 14B of <$v$o for
mor$l d$m$ges? )xempl$ry d$m$ges? termin$tion p$y? $nd $ttorney s fees $g$inst the
respondent
corpor$tion> 9espondent filed their $nswer $nd moved to dismiss the compl$int on
the ground of l$ck of jurisdiction of the 14B $sserting th$t the proper forum is
the ;391 since it involves employerE employee rel$tionship>14B / gr$nted the motion
to dismiss on the ground th$t the compl$int b$sic$lly involves $n employer
employee rel$tionship>B::0)/ 6hether $ compl$int for mor$l d$m$ges? exempl$ry
d$m$ges? termin$tion p$y $nd $ttorney s fees? $rising from $n employer s
constructive dismiss$l of $n employee? is exclusively cogniz$ble by the regul$r
courts of justice or by the ;$tion$l 3$bor 9el$tions 1ommission>:1 903B;,/ Bt is
cogniz$ble by the regul$r courts of justice> 5lthough the $cts compl$ined seemingly
$ppe$r to constitute m$tters involving employeeEemployer rel$tions $s (uis$b$ s
dismiss$l w$s the sever$nce of $ preEexisting employeremployee rel$tion? his
compl$int is grounded not on his dismiss$l per se? $s in f$ct he does not $sk for
reinst$tement or b$ckw$ges? but on the m$nner of his dismiss$l $nd the consequent
effects of such dismiss$l> 8he right of the respondents to dismiss (uis$b$ should
not be confused with the m$nner in which the right w$s exercised $nd the effects
flowing therefrom> Bf the dismiss$l w$s done $ntiEsoci$lly or oppressively? $s the
compl$int $lleges? then the respondents viol$ted $rticle CJ-C of the 1ivil 1ode
which prohibits $cts of oppression either c$pit$l or l$bor $g$inst the other? in
5rticle GC? which m$kes the person li$ble for d$m$ges if he wilfully c$uses loss or
injury to $nother in $ m$nner th$t is contr$ry to mor$ls? good custom or public
policy? the s$nction for which? by w$y of mor$l d$m$ges is provided in 5rticle GGCH
no> C->51129<B;,3A? the order of the lower court is set $side $nd this c$se is
hereby ordedre rem$nded to the court $ quo for further proceedings in $ccord$nce
with the l$w> 1osts $g$inst the priv$te respondents>CG> ,581N53B5; L> <)3B=4518:/
2n Duly CC? CHJ@? petitioner 9eyn$ld$ ,$tch$li$n bo$rded $s p$ying p$ssenger $
minibus owned by respondents> 6hile the bus w$s running $long the highw$y? $
sn$pping sound w$s he$rd? $nd $fter $ short while? the bus bumped $ cement flower
pot? turned turtle $nd fell into $ ditch> 8he p$ssengers were confined in the
hospit$l? $nd their bills were p$id by respondent s spouse on Duly C"> 7efore =rs>
<elim left? she h$d the injured p$ssengers sign $n $lre$dy prep$red $ffid$vit
w$iving their cl$ims $g$inst respondents> +etitioner w$s $mong those who signed>
;otwithst$nding the s$id document? petitioner filed $ cl$im to recover $ctu$l $nd
mor$l d$m$ges for loss of employment opportunities? ment$l suffering $nd
inferiority complex c$used by the sc$r on her forehe$d> 9espondents r$ised in
defense force m$jeure $nd the w$iver signed by petitioner> 8he tri$l court upheld
the v$lidity of the w$iver $nd dismissed the compl$int> 8he $ppell$te court ruled
th$t the w$iver w$s inv$lid? but $lso th$t the petitioner is not entitled to
d$m$ges>B::0)/ .C% 6hether the respondent w$s negligent>.G% 6hether the petitioner
is entitled to $ctu$l $nd mor$l d$m$ges>:1 903B;,/.C% Bn c$se of de$th or injuries
to p$ssengers? $ st$tutory presumption $rises th$t the common c$rrier w$s $t f$ult
or h$d $cted negligently Wunless it proves th$t it Th$d* observed extr$ordin$ry
diligence $s prescribed in 5rticles CJ@@ $nd CJKK>W 8o overcome this presumption?
the common c$rrier must show to the court th$t it h$d exercised extr$ordin$ry
diligence to present the injuries> 8he st$nd$rd of extr$ordin$ry diligence imposed
upon common c$rriers is consider$bly more dem$nding th$n the st$nd$rd of ordin$ry
diligence> 5 common c$rrier is bound to c$rry its p$ssengers s$fely W$s f$r $s
hum$n c$re $nd foresight c$n provide? using the utmost diligence of $ very c$utious
person? with due reg$rd to $ll the circumst$ncesW>8he records before the 1ourt $re
bereft of $ny evidence showing th$t respondent h$d exercised the extr$ordin$ry
diligence required by l$w> 8he obvious continued f$ilure of respondent to look
$fter the ro$dworthiness $nd s$fety of the bus? coupled with the driverRs refus$l
or neglect to stop the miniEbus $fter he h$d he$rd once $g$in the Wsn$pping soundW
$nd the cry of $l$rm from one of the p$ssengers? constituted w$nton disreg$rd of
the physic$l s$fety of the p$ssengers? $nd hence gross negligence on the p$rt of
respondent $nd his driver>.G% 5t the time of the $ccident? she w$s no longer
employed in $ public school> Ner employment $s $ substitute te$cher w$s occ$sion$l
$nd episodic? contingent upon the $v$il$bility of v$c$ncies for substitute
te$chers> :he could not be s$id to h$ve in f$ct lost $ny employment $fter $nd by
re$son of the $ccident> :he m$y not be $w$rded d$m$ges on the b$sis of specul$tion
or conjecture>+etitionerRs cl$im for the cost of pl$stic surgery for remov$l of the
sc$r on her forehe$d? is $nother m$tter> 5 person is entitled to the physic$l
integrity of his or her bodyS if th$t integrity is viol$ted or diminished? $ctu$l
injury is suffered for which $ctu$l or compens$tory d$m$ges $re due $nd $ssess$ble>
+etitioner ,$tch$li$n is entitled to be pl$ced $s ne$rly $s possible in the
condition th$t she w$s before the mish$p> 5 sc$r? especi$lly one on the f$ce of the
wom$n? resulting from the infliction of injury upon her? is $ viol$tion of bodily
integrity? giving rise to $ legitim$te cl$im for restor$tion to her conditio $nte>
=or$l d$m$ges m$y be $w$rded where gross negligence on the p$rt of the common
c$rrier is shown> 1onsidering the extent of p$in $nd $nxiety which petitioner must
h$ve suffered $s $ result of her physic$l injuries including the perm$nent sc$r on
her forehe$d? we believe th$t the $mount of +@-?--->-- would be $ re$son$ble $w$rd>
+etitionerRs cl$im for +C?--->-- $s $ttorneyRs fees is in f$ct even more modest>C@>
80+5: L:> 15C"> ,B31N9B:8 L> 10<<A4518:/ 1uddy w$s the owner of the film Oigom$r>
2n 5pril G"? Ne rented it to 1> :> ,ilchrist for $ week for +CGK> 5 few d$ys to the
d$te of delivery? 1uddy sent the money b$ck to ,ilchrist> 1uddy then rented the
film to )spejo $nd his p$rtner O$ld$rri$g$ for +@K- for the week knowing th$t it
w$s rented to someone else $nd th$t 1uddy $ccepted it bec$use he w$s p$ying $bout
three times $s much $s he h$d contr$cted with ,ilchrist but they didnRt know the
identity of the other p$rty> ,ilchrist filed for injunction $g$inst these p$rties>
8he tri$l court $nd 15 gr$nted th$t there is $ contr$ct between ,ilchrist $nd
1uddy>B::0)/ 6hether or not )spejo $nd his p$rtner O$ld$rri$g$ should be li$ble for
d$m$ges though they do not know the identity of ,ilchrist>:1 903B;,/ A):> Dudgment
is $ffirmed? th$t 1uddy w$s li$ble in $n $ction for d$m$ges for the bre$ch of th$t
contr$ct? $nd there c$n be no doubt> 8he mere right to compete could not justify
the $ppell$nts in intention$lly inducing 1uddy to t$ke $w$y the $ppelleeRs
contr$ctu$l rights> )veryone h$s $ right to enjoy the fruits $nd $dv$nt$ges of his
own enterprise? industry? skill $nd credit> Ne h$s no right to be free from
m$licious $nd w$nton interference? disturb$nce or $nnoy$nce> Bf disturb$nce or loss
come $s $ result of competition? or the exercise of like rights by others? it is
d$mnum $bsque injuri$.loss without injury%? unless some superior right by contr$ct
or otherwise is interfered with> 1uddy contr$ct on the p$rt of the $ppell$nts w$s $
desire to m$ke $ profit by exhibiting the film in their the$ter> 8here w$s no
m$lice beyond this desireS but this f$ct does not relieve them of the leg$l
li$bility for interfering with th$t contr$ct $nd c$using its bre$ch> 3i$bility of
the $ppell$nts $rises from unl$wful $cts $nd not from contr$ctu$l oblig$tions? $s
they were under no such oblig$tions to induce 1uddy to viol$te his contr$ct with
,ilchrist> :o th$t if the $ction of ,ilchrist h$d been one for d$m$ges? it would be
governed by ch$pter G? title CI? book " of the 1ivil 1ode> 5rticle CH-G of th$t
code provides th$t $ person who? by $ct or omission? c$uses d$m$ges to $nother when
there is f$ult or negligence? sh$ll be obliged to rep$ir the d$m$ge do done> 8here
is nothing in this $rticle which requires $s $ condition precedent to the li$bility
of $ tortEfe$sor th$t he must know the identity of $ person to whom he c$uses
d$m$ges> 5n injunction is $ Wspeci$l remedyW which w$s there issued by the
$uthority $nd under the se$l of $ court of equity? $nd limited? $s in order c$ses
where equit$ble relief is sought? to c$ses where there is no Wpl$in? $dequ$te? $nd
complete remedy $t l$w?W which Wwill not be gr$nted while the rights between the
p$rties $re undetermined? except in extr$ordin$ry c$ses where m$teri$l $nd
irrep$r$ble injury will be done?W which c$nnot be compens$ted in d$m$ges? $nd where
there will be no $dequ$te remedy? $nd which will not? $s $ rule? be gr$nted? to
t$ke property out of the possession of one p$rty $nd put it into th$t of $nother
whose title h$s not been est$blished by l$w > Brrep$r$ble injury does not me$nt
such injury $s is beyond the possibility of rep$ir? or beyond possible compens$tion
in d$m$ges? nor necess$rily gre$t injury or gre$t d$m$ge? but th$t species of
injury? whether gre$t or sm$ll? th$t ought not to be submitted to on the one h$nd
or inflicted on the otherS $nd? bec$use it is so l$rge on the one h$nd? or so sm$ll
on the other? is of such const$nt $nd frequent recurrence th$t no f$ir or
re$son$ble redress c$n be h$d therefor in $ court of l$w> ,ilchrist w$s f$cing the
immedi$te prospect of diminished profits by re$son of the f$ct th$t the $ppell$nts
h$d induced 1uddy to rent to them the film ,ilchrist h$d counted upon $s his
fe$ture film> Bt is quite $pp$rent th$t to estim$te with $ny decree of $ccur$cy the
d$m$ges which ,ilchrist would likely suffer from such $n event would
be quite difficult if not impossible> :o f$r $s the prelimin$ry injunction issued
$g$inst the $ppell$nts is concerned? which prohibited them from exhibiting the
Oigom$r during the week which ,ilchrist desired to exhibit it? we $re of the
opinion th$t the circumst$nces justified the issu$nce of th$t injunction in the
discretion of the court> 8he remedy by injunction c$nnot be used to restr$in $
legitim$te competition? though such competition would involve the viol$tion of $
contr$ct>CK> ,)30O L> 154518:/ ;it$ Lill$nuev$ c$me to know the defend$nt .5ntonio
,eluz% for the first time in CH"FEEthru her $unt> Bn CHK-? she bec$me pregn$nt by
her present husb$nd before they were leg$lly m$rried> 8o conce$l her pregn$ncy from
her p$rent? she h$d herself $borted by defend$nt> 5fter the m$rri$ge with the
pl$intiff? she $g$in bec$me pregn$nt> 5s she w$s employed in the 12=)3)1 $nd her
pregn$ncy proved to be inconvenient? she h$d herself $borted $g$in by defend$nt in
2ct CHK@> 3ess th$n G ye$rs l$ter? she $g$in bec$me pregn$nt> 2n 4ebru$ry GC? CHKK?
she $g$in rep$ired to the defend$ntRs clinic> ;it$ w$s $g$in $borted of $ GEmonth
old foetus? in consider$tion of the sum of +K-> Bt is the third $nd l$st $bortion
th$t constitutes pl$intiff s b$sis in filing this $ction $nd $w$rd of d$m$ges> 8he
15 $nd the tri$l court predic$ted the $w$rd of d$m$ges upon the provisions of the
initi$l p$r> of 5rt> GG-I of the ;11>B::0)/ 6hether or not there c$n be recovery
for d$m$ges resulting to the de$th or $bortion of $n unborn child>:1 903B;,/ 8his
$w$rd? we believe? to be error for the s$id $rt>? in fixing $n $w$rd for the de$th
of $ person? does not cover the c$se of $n unborn foetus th$t is not endowed wX
person$lity>+$rents of unborn foetus c$nnot sue for d$m$ges on its beh$lf> 5
husb$nd of $ wom$n who volunt$rily procured her $bortion could not recover d$m$ges
from the physici$n who c$used the s$me>.C% :ince $n $ction for pecuni$ry d$m$ges on
$ccount of person$l injury or de$th pert$ins prim$rily to the injured? no such
right of $ction could deriv$tively $ccrue to the p$rents or heirs of $n unborn
child> Bn f$ct? even if $ c$use of $ction did $ccrue on beh$lf of the unborn child?
the s$me w$s extinguished by its preEn$t$l de$th? since no tr$nsmission to $nyone
c$n t$ke pl$ce from one th$t l$cked juridic$l person$lity .or juridic$l c$p$city?
$s distinguished from c$p$city to $ct%> Bt is no $nswer to invoke the provision$l
person$lity of $ conceived child .conceptus pro n$to h$betur% under 5rticle "- of
the 1ivil 1ode? bec$use th$t s$me $rticle expressly limits such provision$l
person$lity by imposing the condition th$t the child should be subsequently born
$live/ Wprovided it be born l$ter with the condition specified in the following
$rticle>W Bn the present c$se? there is no dispute th$t the child w$s de$d when
sep$r$ted from its motherRs womb>.G% 8his is not to s$y th$t the p$rents $re not
entitled to collect $ny d$m$ges $t $ll> 7ut such d$m$ges must be those inflicted
directly upon them? $s distinguished from the injury or viol$tion of the rights of
the dece$sed? his right to life $nd physic$l integrity> 7ec$use the p$rents c$nnot
expect either help? support or services from $n unborn child? they would norm$lly
be limited to mor$l d$m$ges for the illeg$l $rrest of the norm$l development of the
spes hominis th$t w$s the foetus? i>e>? on $ccount of distress $nd $nguish
$ttend$nt to its loss? $nd the dis$ppointment of their p$rent$l expect$tions .5rt>
GGCJ? 11%? $s well $s to exempl$ry d$m$ges? if the circumst$nces should w$rr$nt
them .5rt> GG@-? 11%> 7ut in this c$se? there is no b$sis for $n $w$rd of mor$l
d$m$ges? evidently bec$use the husb$ndRs indifference to the previous $bortions
cle$rly indic$tes th$t he w$s unconcerned with the frustr$tion of his p$rent$l
hopes $nd $ffection>5rt> "C> 4or civil purposes? the foetus is considered born if
it is $live $t the time it is completely delivered from the motherRs womb> Nowever?
if the foetus h$d $n intr$uterine life of less th$n seven months? it is not deemed
born if it dies within twentyfour hours $fter its complete delivery from the
m$tern$l womb>CI> +;7 vs> 15 4518:/ +l$intiff? +hil$mgen $s surety? issued $ bond
in f$vor of 8$pnio? to secure the l$tter s oblig$tion to +;7 of the sum of +G@JC>JH
plus CGY interest> +hil$mgen p$id the s$id $mount to +;7 $nd seek indemnity from
8$pnio> 8$pnio refused to p$y $lleging th$t he w$s not li$ble to the b$nk bec$use
due to the negligence of the l$tter the contr$ct of le$se with 8u$zon w$s rescind
which $mounts to +G? F-->8$pnio mortg$ge his st$nding crops $nd sug$r quot$ to +;7>
8$pnio $greed to le$se the sug$r quot$? in excess of his need to 8u$zon which w$s
$pproved by the br$nch $nd vice president of the +;7 in the $mount of +G>F- per
picul> Nowever? the b$nk s bo$rd of directors dis$pproved the le$se? st$ting th$t
the $mount should be +@>-- per picul? its m$rket v$lue> 8u$zon $sk for
reconsider$tion to the bo$rd which w$s not $cted by the bo$rd? so the le$se w$s not
consumm$ted resulting to the loss of +G?F--? which could h$ve been e$rned by
8$pnio> 8he 8ri$l court $nd 15 ruled th$t the b$nk w$s li$ble to 8$pnio> 8hus? this
petition>B::0)/ 6hether or not +;7 is li$ble to 8$pnio>:1 903B;,/ Aes? +;7 is
li$ble to 8$pnio> +;7 $rgue th$t it h$s $ right both under its own 1h$rter $nd
under the 1orpor$tion 3$w? to $pprove or dis$pprove the s$id le$se of sug$r quot$
$nd in the exercise of th$t $uthority> 8he :1 s$id th$t time is of the essence in
the $pprov$l of the le$se of sug$r quot$ $llotments? since the s$me must be
utilized during the milling se$son> 8here w$s no proof th$t there w$s $ny other
person $t th$t time willing to le$se the sug$r quot$ $llotment of priv$te
respondents for $ price higher th$n +G>F- per picul> 5lso? 1onsidering th$t $ll the
$ccounts of 9it$ ,ueco 8$pnio with the 7$nk were secured by ch$ttel mortg$ge on
st$nding crops? $ssignment of le$sehold rights $nd interests on her properties? $nd
surety bonds $nd th$t she h$d $pp$rently Wthe me$ns to p$y her oblig$tion to the
7$nk? there w$s ;2 9)5:2;573) 75:B: for the 7o$rd of <irectors of petitioner to
h$ve rejected the le$se $greement> 6hile petitioner h$d the ultim$te $uthority of
$pproving or dis$pproving the proposed le$se since the quot$ w$s mortg$ged to the
7$nk? the l$tter cert$inly c$nnot esc$pe its responsibility of observing? for the
protection of the interest of priv$te respondents>8he l$w m$kes it imper$tive th$t
every person Wmust in the exercise of his rights $nd in the perform$nce of his
duties? $ct with justice? give everyone his due? $nd $nd good f$ith> 1ert$inly? it
knew th$t the $gricultur$l ye$r w$s $bout to expire? th$t by its dis$pprov$l of the
le$se priv$te respondents would be un$ble to utilize the sug$r quot$ in question>
0nder 5rticle GC of the ;ew 1ivil 1ode? W$ny person who wilfully c$uses loss or
injury to $nother in $ m$nner th$t is contr$ry to mor$ls? good customs or public
policy sh$ll compens$te the l$tter for the d$m$ge>W 8his gr$nts $dequ$te leg$l
remedy for the untold number of mor$l wrongs which is impossible for hum$n
foresight to specific$lly provide in the st$tutes>1$ses HECI<5=+5,? D2;)335 3>CJ>
;58B2;53 B99B,58B2; 5<=B;B:8958B2; L:> B514518:/ +riv$te respondents 5ndres
Lentur$? 5ntonio 4$j$rdo? =$rcelo 4$j$rdo ?5lfonso Lentur$ $nd 4lorentino Lentur$
$re le$sehold ten$nts of $ p$rcel of the l$nd consisting of $bout five .K% hect$re
of 9icel$nd situ$ted $t sitio <$g$tEd$g$t$n?:82>9os$?;uev$ )cij$?:ometime in
CHIJ?petitioner ;B5 constr$cted$n irrig$tion c$n$l on the property of Bs$bel $nd
Lirgini$ 8ecson which p$ssed through the priv$te respondent s l$ndholding $s s$id
irrig$tion c$n$l tr$verses the 1incoEcinco creek which $but s$id l$ndholding>8he
irrig$tion c$n$l h$s two .G%outlets which provide priv$te respondent s l$ndholding
with w$ter coming from s$id c$n$l $nd $t the s$me time serve to dr$in the excess
w$ter of s$id l$ndholdings>2n 4ebru$ry C@? CHJK? priv$te respondents filed $
compl$int per the $b$tement of nuis$nce with d$m$ges $g$inst pititioners ;B5 $nd or
the $dministr$tor of the ;B5 $lleging th$t the two outlet were with g$tes to
regul$te the flow of w$ter from the c$n$l to their l$ndholdings which resulted to
the inund$tion of s$id l$ndholdings c$using the power to sust$in d$m$ges consisting
in the destruction of the pl$nted p$l$y crops $nd $lso prevented them from pl$nting
on their l$ndholdings>9uling of the 8ri$l 1ourt/ 8he court finds the compl$int
meritorious> Nowever?since there were typhoons $nd pl$nt pests th$t reduced the
h$rvests of the pl$intiffs $nd th$t there were benefits th$t $ccrued to the
pl$intiffs by re$son of s$id irrig$tion c$n$l? the civil li$bility of the defend$nt
should n$tur$lly be reduced>6herefore?judgment is hereby entered/C%2rdering the
defend$nt to p$y the pl$intiffs the sum of @K?--->-- representing
d$m$gesSG%2rdering defend$nt to p$y K?--->-- for $ttorney s fees $nd the cost of
the suit>;ot s$tisfied with s$id decision?petitioners elev$ted the m$tter to the
$ppell$te court which rendered $ decision on 4eb>GJ?CHFI $ffirming in toto the
decision of the tri$l court>9uling of the Bntermedi$te 5ppell$te 1ourt/ Bt h$s been
est$blished th$t the pl$intiffs l$ndholdings were $ctu$lly inund$ted> 8he
testimonies by $ll the pl$intiffs with respect to the $mount of the loss they
suffered were not impugned by $ny contr$dictory evidence of the defend$nt >8o our
mind?the testimonies $re sufficient proof to m$ke the gr$nt of d$m$ges v$lid $nd
proper>7esides? the $mount $w$rded by the lower court is just $nd re$son$ble
considering the circumst$nces of the c$se>B::0)/ 8he petitioners contended th$t the
respondent $ppell$te court erred in $ffirming the decision of the tri$l court
bec$use ;B5 is
immune from suit for qu$siEdelict or tort? $nd $ssuming ;B5 could be sued? it is
not li$ble for tort since it did not not $ct through $ speci$l $gent $s required
under p$r$gr$ph I?5rticle GCF- of the civil code of the +hilippines>903B;, 24 8N)
:0+9)=) 12098/ +etitioners $re in error> 5s correctly ruled by the court below the
;B5 is not immune from suit? by virtue of the express provision of +><> KKG>5
re$ding of section G?subEp$r$gr$ph.j% of +><> ;2>KKG $mending 9>5 ;2>@I-C shows the
gr$nting to ;B5 the power to exercise $ll the powers of $ corpor$tion under the
1orpor$tion 3$w? insof$r $s they $re not inconsistent with the provisions of this
$ct> +$r$gr$ph " of s$id l$w $lso provide th$t petitioner ;B5 m$y sue $nd be sued
in court for $ll kinds of $n? $ctions ?whether contr$ctu$l or qu$siEcontr$ctu$l? in
the recovery of compens$tion $nd d$m$ges $s in the inst$nt c$se considering th$t
priv$te respondent s $ction is b$sed on d$m$ges c$used by the negligence of
petitioners> 8his court h$d previously held th$t the ;B5 is $ government $gency
with $ juridic$l person$lity sep$r$te $nd distinct from the government> Bt is not
mere $gency of the government but $ corpor$te body performing propriet$ry function
$s it h$s its own $ssets $nd li$bilities $s well $s its own corpor$te powers to be
exercised by $ 7o$rd of <irectors>+$r$gr$ph I?5rticle GCF- st$tes th$t/ 8he st$te
is responsible in like m$nner when it $cts through $ speci$l $gentS but not when
the d$m$ge h$s been c$used by the offici$l to whom the t$sk done properly pert$ins?
in which c$se wh$t is provided in 5rticle GCJI sh$ll be $pplic$ble>5rticle
GCJI/ 6hoever by $cts or omission c$uses d$m$ge to $nother? there being f$ult or
negligence?is obliged to p$y for the d$m$ge done> :uch f$ult or negligence? if here
is no preEexisting contr$ctu$l rel$tion between the p$rties? is c$lled $ qu$siE
delict $nd is governed by the provisions of this ch$pter>6herefore? this petition
for review on certior$ri is hereby denied for l$ck of merit>CF> A0 L:>12098 24
5++)53:4518:/ +etitioner? the exclusive distributor of the Nouse of =$yf$ir w$ll
covering products in the +hilippines? cried foul when his former de$ler of the s$me
goods? herein priv$te respondent? purch$sed the merch$ndise from the house of
=$yf$ir in )ngl$nd through 4;4 8r$ding in 6est ,erm$ny $nd sold s$id merch$ndise in
the +hilippines> 7oth the court of origin $nd the $ppell$te court rejected
petitioner s thesis th$t priv$te respondent w$s eng$ged in $ sinister form of
unf$ir competition within the context of 5rticle GF of the ;ew 1ivil 1ode> Nence?
the petition $t b$r> Bn the suit for injunction which petitioner filed before the
981 of the ;$tion$l 1$pit$l Dudici$l 9egion .=$nil$%? petitioner pressed the ide$
th$t he w$s pr$ctic$lly byEp$ssed $nd th$t priv$te respondent $cted in correct with
the 4;4 8r$ding in misle$ding =$yf$ir into believing th$t the goods ordered by the
tr$ding firm were intended for shipment to ;igeri$ $lthough they were $ctu$lly
shipped to $nd sold in the +hilippines> +riv$te respondent professed ignor$nce of
the exclusive contr$ct in f$vor of the petitioner> )ven then? priv$te respondent
responded by $sserting th$t petitioners underst$nding with =$yf$ir is binding only
between the p$rties thereto>+etitioner impressed before the lower court th$t he is
seeking to enjoin the s$le $nd distribution by priv$te respondent of the s$me goods
in the m$rket>9uling of the 8ri$l 1ourt/ 8here is no privity of contr$ct between
the pl$intiff $nd the defend$ntS th$t the controversy in this c$se $rose from $
bre$ch of contr$ct by the 4;4 8r$ding of ,erm$ny? for h$ving shipped goods it h$s
purch$sed from the house of =$yf$ir to the +hilippinesS Bt $ppe$rs to the court
th$t to restr$in the defend$nt from selling the goods it h$s ordered from the 4;4
8r$ding of ,erm$ny ? would be without leg$l justific$tion>6herefore? the motion for
the issu$nce of prelimin$ry injunction for restr$in the defend$nt from selling the
goods it h$s ordered from the 4;4 tr$ding of ,erm$ny is hereby <enied>8he
indifference of the tri$l court tow$rds petitioners supplic$tion occ$sioned the
filing of $ petition for review on certior$ri with the 15>9uling of the 15/ the 15
concurred with the tri$l court st$ting th$t petitioner w$s not $ble to demonstr$te
the unequivoc$l right which he sought to protect $nd th$t priv$te respondent is $
complete str$nger visE$Evis the coven$nt between petitioner $nd =$yf$ir>B::0)/ <id
the respondent $ppell$te court correctly $gree with the lower court in dis$llowing
the visit solicited by herein petitionerV903B;, 24 8N) :0+9)=) 12098/ Lerily?
injunction is the $ppropri$te remedy to prevent $ wrongful interference with
contr$cts where the leg$l remedy is insufficient $nd the resulting injury is
irrep$r$ble .,ilchrist L:> 1uddy? GH +hil>K"G%S "E5 +$dill$? 1ivil 1ode 5nnot$ted?
CHFF )dS p>H-%> 8he li$bility of priv$te respondent? if $ny? does not em$n$te from
the four corners of the contr$ct for undoubtedly? 0nisi$ merch$ndising 1o>?Bnc> is
not $ p$rty thereto but its $ccount$bility is > $n independent $ct gener$tive of
civil li$bilityV6herefore? the petition is hereby ,r$nted the decision of the 15
$re hereby reversed $nd set $side> 3et this c$se be rem$nded to the court of origin
for issu$nce of $ prelimin$ry injunction>CH> ,B31N9B:8 L:> 10<<A4518:/ 1>:
,ilchrist? the pl$intiff? proprietor of the )$gle 8he$ter of Bloilo? contr$cted
with )>5> 1uddy? one of the defend$nts? of m$nil$? for $ film entitled Oigom$r or
)elskin? @d series to be exhibite in his the$ter in Bloilo during the week
beginning m$y GI?CHC@> 3$ter? the defend$nts )spejo $nd O$ld$rri$g$?who were $lso
oper$ting $ the$ter in Bloilo ?representing +$the 4reres? $lso obt$ined from 1uddy
$ contr$ct for the exhibition of the film $fores$id in their the$ter in Bloilo
during the s$me week>8he pl$intiff commenced this $ction $g$inst 1uddy $nd the
defend$nts )spejo $nd O$ld$rri$g$ for the specific perform$nce of the contr$ct with
1uddy>8he compl$int pr$ys the court? by $ m$nd$tory injunction? order 1uddy to
deliver ? on the G"th of m$y?CHC@? is $ccord$nce with the $fores$id contr$ctS the
s$id film to the pl$intiff ,ilchrist? in $ccord$nce with the terms of the
$greement? so th$t pl$intiff c$n exhibit the s$me during the l$st week beginning
m$y GI?CHC@? in the )$gle the$ter? in BloiloS th$t the court issue $ prelimin$ry
injunctions $g$inst the defend$nt )spejo $nd O$ld$ri$g$ prohibiting them from
receiving? exhibiting? or using s$id film in Bloilo during the l$st week of m$y?
CHC@? or $t $ny other time prior to the delivery to the pl$intiffS th$t? on the
tri$l s$id injunction be m$id perpetu$l $nd th$t 1uddy be ordered $nd comm$nded to
specific$lly perform his contr$ct with the pl$intiff>9uling of the 8ri$l 1ourt/ 8he
court entered $n order which provided th$t 1uddy should not send s$id film Oigom$r
to the defend$nts )spejo $nd O$ld$rri$g$ $nd th$t he should send its to the
pl$intiff? ,ilchrist><efend$nt )spejo $nd O$ld$rri$g$ h$ving received due notice of
the issu$nce of the m$nd$tory injunction $nd restr$ining order? $ppe$red before the
court $nd move th$t the court v$c$te such order prohibiting them from receiving $nd
exhibiting the film>9uling of the 15/ 8he court sust$ined their objection $nd
declined to dismiss the $ction $s to them? the court denied the defend$nts the
relief $sked for $nd dismissed their cl$im for d$m$ges>8hey thereupon took $n
$ppe$l from th$t order>B::0)/ <oes the f$ct th$t the $ppell$nt did not know $t the
time the identity of the origin$l lessee of the film milit$te $g$inst ,ilchrist
right to $ prelimin$ry injunction? $lthough he $ppell$nts incurred civil li$bility
for such interferenceV903B;, 24 8N) :0+9)=) 12098/ Bn the ex$min$tion of the
$djudic$ted c$ses? where in injunctions h$ve been issued to restr$in wrongful
interference with contr$cts bystr$ngers to such contr$cts? we h$ve been un$ble to
find $ny c$se where this prices question w$s involved ? $s in $ll of those c$ses
which we h$ve ex$mined? the identity of both of contr$cting p$rties w$s known to
the tortEfe$sors> 6e might s$y? however? th$t this f$ct does not seem to h$ve been
$ controlling fe$ture in those c$ses>8here is nothing in section CI" of the code of
civil procedure which indic$tes? even remotely? th$t before on injunction m$y issue
restr$ining the wrongful interference with contr$cts by str$ngers ?the str$ngers
must know the identity of both p$rties>Bn the c$se $t b$r? the only motive for the
interference with the ,ilchrist 1uddy contr$ct on the p$rt of the $ppell$nts w$s
$ desire to m$ke $ profit by exhibiting the film in their the$ter> 8here w$s no
m$lice beyond this desire S but this f$ct does not relieve them of the leg$l
li$bility for interfering with the contr$ct $nd c$using its bre$ch>Bt is therefore?
cle$r under $bove $uthorities? th$t they were li$ble to ,ilchrist for the d$m$ges
c$used by their $cts? unless they $re relieved from such li$bility by re$son of the
f$ct th$t they did not know $t the time the identity of the origin$l lessee of the
film>G-> B32B32 123< :8295,) 12> L:> =0;B1B+53 120;1B34518:/ 8he pl$intiff? upon
$uthority gr$nted by the defend$nt? constructed $n ice $nd cold stor$ge pl$nt in
the city of Bloilo> :ometime $fter the pl$nt h$d been completed $nd w$s in
oper$tion? ne$rby residents m$de compl$ints to the defend$nt th$t the smoke from
the pl$nt w$s very injurious to their he$lth $nd comfort>8hereupon the defend$nt
$ppointed $ committee to investig$te $nd report upon the m$tters cont$ined in s$id
compl$ints> 8he committee reported th$t the compl$ints were well founded>8he
defend$nt council then p$ssed $ resolution which re$ds in p$rt $s follows> th$t
$fter the $pprov$l by the honor$ble provinci$l
bo$rd of this resolution ? $ period of one month will be gr$nted to the s$id
entity ? the Bloilo Bce $nd 1old stor$ge comp$ny ? in which to proceed with the
elev$tion of s$id smokest$cks? $nd if not done the municip$l president will execute
the order requiring the closing or suspension of oper$tion of s$id est$blishment>
0pon notice $nd $fter he$ving? $ prelimin$ry injunction w$s issued> :ubsequently
thereto the dependent $nswered the $lleg$tions in the compl$int $nd pr$ys th$t it
be $bsolved from the compl$int $nd the pl$intiff be decl$red to h$ve no right to
the remedy $sked? $nd th$t the prelimin$ry injunction issued B this c$se be set
$side? with the cost $g$inst the pl$intiff>8he pl$intiff demurred to this $nswered?
$nd this $nswer? $nd this demurred w$s sust$ined>9uling of the tri$l court/ the
defend$nt will $mend his $nswer within K d$ys or the injunction will be perm$nently
gr$nted $s pr$yed for? with costs to the defend$nt>8o this order the defend$nt
excepted $nd not desiring to $mend its $nswer? $ppe$led to this court>B::0)/ Bs the
municip$l council h$s the power to decl$re the pl$nt of the petitioner $ nuis$nce
$nd $b$tes>N)3</ 8he municip$l council is under section @H.j% of the municip$l
code? specific$lly empowered to decl$re $nd $b$te nuis$nces > 5 nuis$nce is
$ccording to 7l$ckstone? $nything th$t worketh hurt? inconvenience ? or d$m$ge
they $rise from pursuing p$rticul$r tr$des or industries in populous neighborhoodsS
from $cts of public indecency ?keeping disorderly houses $nd houses of ill f$me?
g$mbling houses>;uis$nces h$ve been divided into G cl$sses/ nuis$nce per se $nd
nuis$nce per $ccidens> ;uis$nce per se belong those which $re unquestion$bly $nd
under $ll circumst$nces? ;uis$nces? such $s g$mbling houses of ill f$me? etc> 8he
number of nuis$nces $re such bec$use of p$rticul$r f$cts $nd circumst$nces
surrounding the otherwise h$rmless c$use of the nuis$nce>Bn the present c$se it is
cert$in th$t the ice f$ctory of the pl$intiff is not $ nuis$nce per se> Bt is $
legitim$te industry? benefici$l to the people $nd conducive to their he$lth $nd
comfort> Bf it be in f$ct $ nuis$nce due to the m$nner of its oper$tion? th$t
question c$nnot determined by $ mere resolution of the bo$rd>Bt is s$id th$t
pl$intiff c$nnot be compelled to build its smoke stock higher if s$id stock is in
f$ct $ nuis$nce for the re$son th$t the stock w$s built under $uthority gr$nted by
the defend$nt $nd in $ccord$nce with the prescribe requirements>4or the foregoing
re$son the order sust$ining the pl$intiff demurrer to the defend$nt $nswer is
reversed> 8he record will be returned to the court when it c$me with instructions
to proceed with the tri$l of the c$use in $ccord$nce with this openion> ;o costs
will be $llowed in this inst$nce> :o ordered order reversed>GC> <) 5A535 L:>
7599)8824518:/ 8his is $ suit for $ perm$nent injunction $g$inst the erection $nd
oper$tion of $ combined brewery $nd ice pl$nt on 1$lle ,ener$l :ol$no in the city
of =$nil$? on the ground th$t it will be $ nuis$nce> 4rom $ judgment denying the
relief pr$yed for? the pl$intiffs h$ve $ppe$led> 8he twentyEtwo pl$intiffs $re
either residents or property owners on 1$lle ,ener$l :ol$no> 8welve of them $re
$ctu$l residents of the street $nd of these twelve? six $re lessees of the property
owned by other pl$intiffs>,ener$l :ol$no h$s long been $ f$shion$ble residence
street $nd the dwellings loc$ted upon it $re l$rge $nd expensive> 5t the present
d$y? however? some of these residences $re being used for other purposes> 8here $re
now upon this street $ co$l y$rd? $ w$rehouse? $nd $ cig$rette f$ctory? $ll very
ne$r the proposed loc$tion of the defend$nt s brewery? $nd there $re $lso $ public
school $nd $ club on the street>B::0)/ Bs 1$lle ,ener$l :ol$no is $ strictly
residenti$l street? $nd th$t the proposed pl$nt to be oper$ted will cre$te such
nuis$nceVN)3</ 0nder these f$cts we do not think th$t it c$n be s$id with entire
correctness th$t the street in question is $ strictly residenti$l street> 8h$t it
is not purely $ residence street is cle$r? $nd th$t there $re numerous businesses
ne$r it in ne$rly every direction is $lso cle$r> 8here is no doubt th$t the
$ppropri$teness of the loc$lity selected by the defend$nts $s the site of their
proposed pl$nt must h$ve consider$ble be$ring upon the question whether the pl$nt
will cre$te $ nuis$nce> Bt $ppe$rs th$t the loc$lity in question is gr$du$lly being
tr$nsformed from $ f$shion$ble residence district into $n industri$l center>6e
think th$t the preponder$ting weight of evidence is to the effect th$t the new
brewery will be oper$ted with $ minimum of offense to ne$rby residents? $nd th$t in
view of the semiEindustri$l ch$r$cter of the loc$lity? wh$t noise? etc>? is
produced? c$nnot be held to be unre$son$ble> Bt is possible th$t pl$intiffs? or
some of them? might prove d$m$ges by re$son of property depreci$tion> 7ut $t $ll
the events? this is not $ proper c$se for the issu$nce of the extr$Eordin$ry remedy
of injunction> 8he judgment $ppe$led from is $ffirmed? with costs $g$inst the
$ppell$nts> :2 29<)9)<>GG> :5; 9545)3 N2=) 26;)9: 5::21B58B2; B;1> L:> 1B8A 24
=5;B35 4518:/ 1ivil c$se no>IKHHG $nd civil c$se no> IICJH? the first prohibition
with prelimin$ry injunction $nd the second for prohibition $nd m$nd$mus with
prelimin$ry injunction were filed in the 1ourt of first inst$nce of =$nil$ by the
:$n 9$f$el Nomeowners 5ssoci$tion? Bnc> $nd others> 8he respondents were the 1ity
of =$nil$ $nd the members of the city offici$ls> 8he petitioners sought to restr$in
the respondents from conducting $ public bidding for the construction $nd
est$blishment of $n inciner$torEtherm$l pl$nt $s $ system of g$rb$ge $nd refuse
dispos$l in the 1ity of =$nil$ on the ground th$t $n inciner$tor is $ nuis$nce per
se> 8he records shows th$t since CHKK the 1ity of =$nil$ h$d been conducting
studies on the problem of g$rb$ge $nd refuse dispos$l> Bn CHIC $ pilot composting
pl$nt w$s in oper$tion $t the ;orth N$rbor> 2n ;ovember CK?CHIK city ordin$nce no>
KGJ" w$s en$cted? 5uthorizing the est$blishment ? equipping $nd construction of $
g$rb$ge $nd refuse dispos$l pl$nt $nd $ppropri$ting the sum of CK?--->-- for th$t
purpose> 8he two c$ses were he$rd jointly? $nd from the decision of the court $ quo
dismissing them the petitioners brought $n inst$nt $ppe$l> Bn their brief the
petitioners cite numerous errors in the decision of the lower court> 8he m$in
points? however $re th$t the $dvertised bidding for $n inciner$tor w$s in excess of
the respondents $uthority bec$use $n inciner$tor is $ nuis$nce per se $nd bec$use
its est$blishment would viol$te ordin$nce no> KGJ"? the 1ity ch$rter of =$nil$? the
revised $dministr$tive code? $n the loc$l $utonomy>B::0)/ 6hether or not the
$rgument of the petitioners th$t composting is better th$n inciner$tion $s $ method
of g$rb$ge $nd refuse dispos$l $nd th$t inciner$tion will prove to be $ nuis$nce is
meritoriousVN)3</ Bt is? to our mind? entirely pointless to go into $n $c$demic
discussion of the rel$tive merits of the composting $nd the inciner$tion methods of
g$rb$rge $nd refuse dispos$l for purposes of deciding whether or not $t this st$ge
prohibition should issue to stop the bidding c$lled for by the respondents> 8he
inst$nt petitions for th$t purpose $re prem$ture> 1ert$inly this court c$nnot $nd
should not substitute its judgment this e$rly for th$t of the respondents? $nd on $
purely theoretic$l b$sis rule th$t the bids submitted should not be opened? or if
opened should not be $ccepted? bec$use not one of the pl$nts therein offered to be
est$blished would serve the purpose envis$ged $nd bec$use? if so est$blished? it
would so pollute the environment $s to constitute $ nuis$nce> Bf $nd when such $
result becomes $ re$lity? or $t le$st $n imminent thre$t? th$t will be the time the
petitioners m$y come to court >8h$t they $re not successful now will not preclude
them from doing so? bec$use $ continuing nuis$nce c$lls for $ continuing remedy>
6herefore? we find the present $ppe$l to be without merit? $nd hereby $ffirm the
judgment of the court $ quo? with costs $g$inst the petitionersE$ppell$nts>
Dudgment $ffirmed>G@> 85A329 L:> =5;B35 )3)189B1 95B3925< 5;< 3B,N8 12> 4518:/ 5n
$ction to recover d$m$ges for the loss of $n eye $nd other injuries? instituted by
<$vid 8$ylor? $ minor? by his f$ther? his ne$rest rel$tive> 8he defend$nt is $
foreign corpor$tion eng$ged in the oper$tion of $ street r$ilw$y $nd $n electric
light system in the city of =$nil$>8he pl$intiff? <$vid 8$ylor? w$s $t the time
when he received the injuries compl$ined of?CK ye$rs of $ge> 2n the @-th of
:eptember ? CH-K <$vid together with his comp$nion =$nuel 1l$p$rols went to the
comp$ny s premises $nd found some twenty or thirty br$ss fulmin$ting c$ps sc$ttered
on the ground> 8hey tried to bre$k the c$p with $ stone $nd h$mmer but f$iled? so
they opened one of the c$ps with $ knife $nd finding th$t it w$s filed with $
yellowish subst$nce they lighted it with $ m$tch $nd explosion followed c$using
them more or less injuries $nd to the remov$l of the right eye of <$vid> :o this
$ction $rises $nd the tri$l court ruled in f$vor of the pl$intiff>903B;, 24 8N)
326)9 12098/ 8he cl$im of the pl$intiff shows th$t evidence in the record
sufficiently est$blishes the contr$ry? $nd justifies the court in dr$wing the
re$son$ble inference th$t the c$ps found on its premises were its property>8hus?
$pplying the provisions of the 5rticles C-FH of the 1ivil 1ode re$d together with
$rticles CH-G?CH-@? $nd CH-F of th$t 1ode? the comp$ny is li$ble for the d$m$ge
which w$s occurred>;ot s$tisfied with the decision of lower court? counsel for
defend$nt $nd $ppell$nt rests his $ppe$l strictly upon his contention th$t the
f$cts
proven $t the tri$l do not est$blish the li$bility of the comp$ny under the
provisions of these $rticles>B::0)/ 6hether or not <$vid is entitled to d$m$ges
N)3</ Bn the c$se $t b$r? we $re s$tisfied th$t the pl$intiff in this c$se h$d
sufficient c$p$city $nd underst$nding to be sensible of the d$nger to which he
exposed himself when he put the m$tch to the contents of the c$pS th$t he w$s sui
juris in the sense th$t his $ge $nd his experience qu$lified him to underst$nd $nd
$ppreci$te the necessity for the exercise of th$t degree of c$ution which would
h$ve $voided the injury resulted from his own deliber$te $ctS $nd th$t the injury
incurred by him must be held to h$ve been the direct $nd immedi$te result of his
own willful $nd reckless $ct? so th$t while itm$y be true th$t these injuries would
not h$ve been incurred but for the negligent $ct of the defend$nt in le$ving the
c$ps exposed on its premises? nevertheless pl$intiff s own $ct w$s the proxim$te
$nd princip$l c$use of the $ccident which inflicted the injury >6e think it is
quite cle$r th$t the immedi$te c$use of the explosion ?the $ccident which resulted
in pl$intiff s injury ?w$s his own $ct in putting $ m$tch to the contents of the
c$p? $nd th$t h$ving contributed to the princip$l occurrence? $s one of its
determining f$ctors? he c$n not recover >8wenty d$ys $fter the d$te of this
decision let judgment be entered reversing the judgment of the court below? without
costs to either p$rty in this inst$nce? $nd C- d$ys there$fter let the record be
returned to the court wherein it origin$ted? where judgment will be entered in
f$vor of the defend$nt for the costs in first inst$nce $nd the compl$int dismissed
without d$y> :2 29<)9)<> Dudgment reversed>G"> 53,5995 L:> :5;<)D5:4518: /
+l$intiff received person$l injuries $s $ result of defend$nt s negligent $ct $nd
w$s inc$p$cit$ted for two months> +l$intiff w$s $ commission $gent? h$d $bout
twenty regul$r customers? who purch$sed his w$res in sm$ll qu$ntities?
necessit$ting regul$r $nd frequent deliveries> 7eing un$ble to $ttend to their
w$nts during the two months he w$s inc$p$cit$ted? his regul$r customers turned
their tr$de to other competing $gents> 2n recovering? he h$d lost $ll but four
regul$r customers? whose purch$ses netted him $bout seven pesos per month> Bt took
him four ye$rs to build up his p$tron$ge to its proportions $t the time of the
$ccident> 5t th$t time this tr$de netted him $bout fifty pesos per month>903B;, 24
8N) 326)9 12098/ 0nder this st$te of f$cts? the lower court? while recognizing the
justness of the cl$im? refused to $llow him $nything for injury to his business due
to his enforced $bsence therefrom? st$ting th$t the civil li$bility is $lmost
$lw$ys limited to indemnity for d$m$ge to the p$rty $ggrieved for the time during
which he w$s inc$p$cit$ted for work>B::0)/ 6hether this d$m$ge to his business c$n
be so ne$rly $scert$ined $s to justify $ court in $w$rding $ny $mount wh$teverN)3</
6hen it is shown th$t $ pl$intiff s business is $ going concern with $ f$irly
ste$dy $ver$ge profit on the investment? it m$y be $ssumed th$t h$d the
interruption to the business through defend$nts wrongful $ct not occurred? it would
h$ve continued producing this $ver$ge income so long $s is usu$l with things of
th$t n$ture> 6hen in $ddition to the previous $ver$ge income of the business it is
further shown wh$t the reduced receipts of the business $re immedi$tely $fter the
c$use of the interruption h$s been removed ? there c$n be no m$nner of doubt th$t $
loss of profits h$s resulted from the wrongful $ct of the defend$nt>Bn the present
c$se ?we not only h$ve the v$lue of pl$intiff s business to him just prior to the
$ccident? but we $lso h$ve its v$lue to him $fter the $ccident> 5t the tri$l? he
testified th$t his wife h$d e$rned $bout CK pesos during the G months th$t he w$s
dis$bled> 8h$t this $lmost tot$l destruction of his business w$s directly
ch$rge$ble to defend$nt s wrongful $ct there c$n be no m$nner of doubtS $nd the
mere f$ct th$t the loss c$n not be $scert$ined with $bsolute $ccur$cy? is no re$son
for denying pl$intiff s cl$im $ltogether $s it would be $ repro$ch to the l$w if he
could not recover d$m$ges $t $ll>6herefore ?the judgment of the lower court is set
$side? $nd the pl$intiff is $w$rded the following d$m$ges/ ten pesos for medic$l
expensesS one hundred pesos for the two months of his enforce $bsence from his
business S $nd two hundred $nd fifty pesos for the d$m$ge done to his business in
the w$y of loss of profits ?or $ tot$l of three hundred $nd sixty pesos >;o cost
will be $llowed in this inst$nce> Dudgment set $side? d$m$ges $llowed> 1$ses CJEG"
5++5,? 5;;B)3A; <>GK> 85A5, L:> 5315;85954518:/ +edro 8$y$g? :r> on his w$y home
w$s riding $ bicycle $long =c$rthur Nighw$y $t 7o> :$n 9$f$el? 8$rl$c when he w$s
bumped $nd hit by $ +hilippine 9$bbit 7us be$ring $ body number CC-J $nd $ pl$te
number A3I-"+07 J" which w$s being driven by 9omeo Lill$> 5s $ result? +edro 8$y$g?
:r> suffered injuries which c$used his inst$nt de$th> 8he heirs of +edro 8$y$g then
filed $ c$se $g$inst the bus comp$ny $nd the driver in $ 1ivil 1$se ;o> KCC">
+hilippine 9$bbit filed $ motion to suspend the civil c$se on the ground th$t the
crimin$l c$se $g$inst the driver is still pending> 6hen the driver w$s $cquitted on
the crimin$l c$se? the bus comp$ny filed $ motion to dismiss the civil c$se which
w$s gr$nted by the Non> Dudge 5lc$nt$r$> 8his now led to the petition for
certior$ri by the pl$intiff>B::0)/ 6hether or not the Non> Dudge 5lc$nt$r$ $cted
without or in excess of his jurisdiction in dismissing the civil c$se>N)3</ Aes>
5rt> @C> 6hen the civil $ction is b$sed on $n oblig$tion not $rising from the $ct
or commission compl$ined of $s $ felony> such civil $ction m$y proceed
independently of the crimin$l proceedings $nd reg$rdless of the result of the
l$tter>5ll the essenti$l $verments for $ qu$si delictu$l $ction $re present?
n$mely/ .C% $n $ct or omission constituting f$ult or negligence on the p$rt of
priv$te respondentS .G% d$m$ge c$used by the s$id $ct or commissionS .@% direct
c$us$l rel$tion between the d$m$ge $nd the $ct or commissionS $nd ."% no preE
existing contr$ctu$l rel$tion between the p$rties>8he petitionersR c$use of $ction
being b$sed on $ qu$si delictthe $cquitt$l of the driver? priv$te respondent 9omeo
Lill$? of the crime ch$rged in 1rimin$l 1$se ;o> F@I is not $ b$r to the
prosecution of 1ivil 1$se ;o> KCC" for d$m$ges b$sed on qu$siEdelict>Bn the light
of the foregoing? 6e hold th$t respondent Dudge $cted with gr$ve $buse of
discretion $mounting to l$ck of jurisdiction in dismissing 1ivil 1$se ;o> KCC">GI>
L)9,595 vs> 15? 5=5<)2 5O5912;4518:/=$rtin 7elmonte w$s driving $ truck belonging
to Licente Lerg$r$ when it r$mmed he$dEon to the storeEresidence of 5m$deo
5z$rcon c$using d$m$ge $mounting to +hpK@?-G">GG> Lerg$r$ $lleged th$t wh$t
h$ppened w$s $n $ct of ,od being th$t the c$rgo truck h$d mech$nic$l problem in $
w$y th$t the steering wheel refused to respond c$using the driver to lost control>
8he tri$l court decided in f$vor of 5m$deo 5z$rcon which w$s $ffirmed in too by the
15 ordering Lerg$r$ $nd the insur$nce comp$ny to p$y jointly $nd sever$lly 5m$deo
5z$rcon> 8hus the $ppe$l to the :upreme 1ourt>B::0)/ 6hether or not the tri$l court
is correct in holding the owner Lerg$r$ li$ble for f$ult $nd negligence>N)3</ Aes>
Bt w$s est$blished by competent evidence th$t the requisites of $ qu$siEdelict $re
present in the c$se $t b$r> 8hese requisites $re/ .C% d$m$ges to the pl$intiffS .G%
negligence? by $ct or omission? of which defend$nt? or some person for whose $cts
he must respond? w$s guiltyS $nd .@% the connection of c$use $nd effect between
such negligence $nd the d$m$ges>1ontr$ry to the cl$im of the petitioner? $ mish$p
c$used by defective br$kes c$n not be considered $s fortuitous in ch$r$cter>
1ert$inly? the defects were cur$ble $nd the $ccident prevent$ble>4urthermore? the
petitioner f$iled to $dduce $ny evidence to overcome the disput$ble presumption of
negligence on his p$rt in the selection $nd supervision of his driver>GJ> 5;<5=2
vs> B514518:/ :pouses )mm$nuel $nd ;$tivid$d 5nd$mo owned $ l$nd $dj$cent to the
property of the =ission$ries of 2ur 3$dy of 3$ :$lette? Bnc> 8he mission$ries
constructed in the property w$terp$ths? contriv$nces $nd $rtifici$l l$ke which
inund$ted $nd eroded the property of the 5nd$mos c$suing the de$th of $ m$n $nd
d$m$ged the crops therein $nd end$ngered the life of the workers of the 5nd$mos>8he
5nd$mos then filed $ crimin$l c$se $g$inst the mission$ries then l$ter on filed $
civil c$se pr$ying for prelimin$ry injunction> 8he lower court? deciding on the
opposition of the mission$ries? suspended the further he$ring on the civil c$se $nd
then fin$lly b$sing on :ec> @? 9ule CC of 9ules of 1ourt dismissed the s$me for
l$ck of jurisdiction since the crimin$l c$se w$s still unresolved> 8he $ppell$te
court $ffirmed the decision $nd denied the motion for reconsider$tion> 8hus this
$ppe$l>B::0)/ 6hether or not the dismiss$l of the civil c$se b$sed on :ec> @? 9ule
CC of the 9ules of 1ourt w$s proper>N)3</ Bt is not proper> :ection @ .$%? 9ule BBB
of the 9ules of 1ourt which provides th$t Wcrimin$l $nd civil $ctions $rising from
the s$me offense m$y be instituted sep$r$tely? but $fter the crimin$l $ction h$s
been commenced the civil $ction c$nnot be instituted until fin$l judgment h$s been
rendered in the crimin$l $ction>W5 c$reful ex$min$tion of the $forequoted compl$int
shows th$t the civil $ction is one under 5rticles GCJI $nd GCJJ of the 1ivil 1ode
on qu$siEdelicts> 5ll the elements of $ qu$siEdelict $re present? to wit/ .$%
d$m$ges suffered by the pl$intiff? .b% f$ult or negligence of the defend$nt? or
some other
person for whose $cts he must respondS $nd .c% the connection of c$use $nd effect
between the f$ult or negligence of the defend$nt $nd the d$m$ges incurred by the
pl$intiff>Bn the c$se of :$mson vs> <ionisio? the 1ourt $pplied 5rticle CH-G? now
5rticle GCJI of the 1ivil 1ode $nd held th$t W$ny person who without due $uthority
constructs $ b$nk or dike? stopping the flow or communic$tion between $ creek or $
l$ke $nd $ river? thereby c$using loss $nd d$m$ges to $ third p$rty who? like the
rest of the residents? is entitled to the use $nd enjoyment of the stre$m or l$ke?
sh$ll be li$ble to the p$yment of $n indemnity for loss $nd d$m$ges to the injured
p$rty>6N)9)429)? the $ss$iled decision d$ted 4ebru$ry CJ? CHFI of the then
Bntermedi$te 5ppell$te 1ourt $ffirming the order of dismiss$l of the 9egion$l 8ri$l
1ourt of 1$vite? 7r$nch CF .8$g$yt$y 1ity% d$ted 5ugust CJ? CHF" is hereby 9)L)9:)<
$nd :)8 5:B<)>GF> +NB3B++B;) 75;M 24 12==)91) L:> 154518:/ 9ommels s =$rketing
1orpor$tion . 9=1 % m$int$ined G sep$r$te $ccounts with the +hilippine 7$nk of
1ommerce in +$sig 7r$nch> 4or one . C % ye$rs? the 9=1 h$s been entrusting funds in
the $mount of +hp@-"?HJH>J" to Brene A$but? the comp$ny secret$ry? for the purpose
of depositing the s$id funds in the comp$ny s $ccount under +71> 0nknown to the
knowledge of the comp$ny? Brene A$but h$s been depositing the funds in the $ccount
of his husb$nd 1ot$s> 6hen depositing? A$but will fillEup the deposit slip with its
duplic$te where the origin$l copy cont$ins the n$me $ccount number of her husb$nd
while the duplic$te cont$ins the comp$ny s $ccount number but the n$me w$s left
bl$nk but still the teller v$lid$ted the deposit slip> 8he 9=1 then filed $n $ction
to recover the money> 8he tri$l court found +71 negligent ordering it together with
the teller? =$b$y$d? to p$y jointly $nd sever$lly the following/ @-"?HJH>JG
representing the lost deposit plus interestS C"Y thereof $s exempl$ry d$m$gesS $nd
GKY of the tot$l $mount due $s $ttorney s fees> 8he $ppell$te court $ffirmed the
decision of the 981> 8hus the present c$se $t the :upreme 1ourt>B::0)/ 6hether or
not +71 is li$ble for the lost deposits due to the negligent $ct of it s teller
=$b$y$d>N)3</ 5rt> GCJI> 6hoever by $ct or omission c$uses d$m$ge to $nother? there
being f$ult or negligence? is obliged to p$y for the d$m$ge done> :uch f$ult or
negligence? if there is no preEexisting contr$ctu$l rel$tion between the p$rties?
is c$lled $ qu$sidelict $nd is governed by the provisions of this 1h$pter>Bn the
c$se $t bench? there is no dispute $s to the d$m$ge suffered by the priv$te
respondent .pl$intiff in the tri$l court% 9=1 in the $mount of +@-"?HJH>J"> Bt is
in $scribing f$ult or negligence which c$used the d$m$ge where the p$rties point to
e$ch other $s the culprit>Bt w$s this negligence of =s> 5zucen$ =$b$y$d? coupled by
the negligence of the petitioner b$nk in the selection $nd supervision of its b$nk
teller? which w$s the proxim$te c$use of the loss suffered by the priv$te
respondent? $nd not the l$tterRs $ct of entrusting c$sh to $ dishonest employee? $s
insisted by the petitioners>4urthermore? under the doctrine of Wl$st cle$r ch$nceW
.$lso referred to? $t times $s Wsupervening negligenceW or $s Wdiscovered perilW%?
petitioner b$nk w$s indeed the culp$ble p$rty> 8his doctrine? in essence? st$tes
th$t where both p$rties $re negligent? but the negligent $ct of one is $ppreci$bly
l$ter in time th$n th$t of the other? or when it is impossible to determine whose
f$ult or negligence should be $ttributed to the incident? the one who h$d the l$st
cle$r opportunity to $void the impending h$rm $nd f$iled to do so is ch$rge$ble
with the consequences thereof>8he foregoing notwithst$nding? it c$nnot be denied
th$t? indeed? priv$te respondent w$s likewise negligent in not checking its monthly
st$tements of $ccount> N$d it done so? the comp$ny would h$ve been $lerted to the
series of fr$uds being committed $g$inst 9=1 by its secret$ry> 8he d$m$ge would
definitely not h$ve b$llooned to such $n $mount if only 9=1? p$rticul$rly 9omeo
3ip$n$? h$d exercised even $ little vigil$nce in their fin$nci$l $ff$irs> 8his
omission by 9=1 $mounts to contributory negligence which sh$ll mitig$te the d$m$ges
th$t m$y be $w$rded to the priv$te respondent G@ under 5rticle GCJH of the ;ew
1ivil 1ode? to wit/> > > 6hen the pl$intiffRs own negligence w$s the immedi$te $nd
proxim$te c$use of his injury? he c$nnot recover d$m$ges> 7ut if his negligence w$s
only contributory? the immedi$te $nd proxim$te c$use of the injury being the
defend$ntRs l$ck of due c$re? the pl$intiff m$y recover d$m$ges? but the courts
sh$ll mitig$te the d$m$ges to be $w$rded>Bn view of this? we believe th$t the
dem$nds of subst$nti$l justice $re s$tisfied by $lloc$ting the d$m$ge on $ I-E"-
r$tio> 8hus? "-Y of the d$m$ge $w$rded by the respondent $ppell$te court? except
the $w$rd of +GK?--->-- $ttorneyRs fees? sh$ll be borne by priv$te respondent 9=1S
only the b$l$nce of I-Y needs to be p$id by the petitioners> 8he $w$rd of
$ttorneyRs fees sh$ll be borne exclusively by the petitioners>6N)9)429)? the
decision of the respondent 1ourt of 5ppe$ls is modified by reducing the $mount of
$ctu$l d$m$ges priv$te respondent is entitled to by "-Y> +etitioners m$y recover
from =s> 5zucen$ =$b$y$d the $mount they would p$y the priv$te respondent> +riv$te
respondent sh$ll h$ve recourse $g$inst =s> Brene A$but> Bn $ll other respects? the
$ppell$te courtRs decision is 544B9=)<>GH> 95M): vs> 5835;8B1 ,034 $nd +51B4B1 12>
4518:/ =>N> 9$kes who w$s under the employment of 5tl$ntic ,ulf $nd +$cific 1omp$ny
w$s $t work tr$nsporting iron r$ils from the b$rge from the h$rbor to the comp$ny s
y$rd in =$nil$> <uring the process? the tr$ck s$gged? the tie broke? the c$r
c$rrying the s$id iron r$ils either c$nted thus the r$ils slid off hitting the leg
of 9$kes c$using it to be $mput$ted> 9$kes then filed $n $ction $g$inst 5tl$ntic
for their negligence> 8he tri$l court decided in f$vor of 9$kes ordering the
5tl$ntic to p$y 9$kes the $mount of +hpK?--->--> 8he 5tl$ntic then filed $ petition
$lleging therein th$t the remedy for injuries through negligence lies only in $
crimin$l $ction $nd the negligenceof 9$kes w$s the c$use of his injury for h$ving
noticed the depression in the tr$ck he still continued his work $nd th$t he w$lked
$t the side of the c$r inste$d of $long the bo$rds> 8he $ppell$te court $ffirmed
the s$id decision>B::0)/ 6hether or not the $ction of 9$kes is considered negligent
thus contributed to his injury exempting the 5tl$ntic from $ny li$bility>N)3</
5lthough the defend$nt s negligence m$y h$ve been the prim$ry c$use of the injury
compl$ined of? yet $n $ction for such injury c$nnot be m$int$ined if the proxim$te
$nd immedi$te c$use of the injury c$n be tr$ced to the w$nt of ordin$ry c$re $nd
c$ution in the person injuredS subject to this qu$lific$tion? which h$s grown up in
recent ye$rs .h$ving been first enunci$ted in <$vies vs> =$nn? C- => Q 6>? K"I%
th$t the contributory negligence of the p$rty injured will not defe$t the $ction if
it be shown th$t the defend$nt might? by the exercise of re$son$ble c$re $nd
prudence? h$ve $voided the consequences of the injured p$rty s negligence>
<ifficulty seems to be $pprehended in deciding which $cts of the injured p$rty
sh$ll be considered immedi$te c$uses of the $ccident> 8he test is simple>
<istinction must be between the $ccident $nd the injury? between the event itself?
without which there could h$ve been no $ccident? $nd those $cts of the victim not
entering into it? independent of it? but contributing under review w$s the
displ$cement of the crosspiece or the f$ilure to repl$ce it> 8his produced the
event giving occ$sion for d$m$ges th$t is? the shrinking of the tr$ck $nd the
sliding of the iron r$ils> 8o this event? the $ct of the pl$intiff in w$lking by
the side of the c$r did not contribute? $lthough it w$s $n element of the d$m$ge
which c$me to himself> N$d the crosspiece been out of pl$ce wholly or p$rtly
thorough his $ct of omission of duty? the l$st would h$ve been one of the
determining c$uses of the event or $ccident? for which he would h$ve been
responsible> 6here he contributes to the princip$l occurrence? $s one of its
determining f$ctors? he c$nnot recover> 6here? in conjunction with the occurrence?
he contributes only to his own injury? he m$y recover the $mount th$t the defend$nt
responsible for the event should p$y for such injury? less $ sum deemed $ suit$ble
equiv$lent for his own imprudence>5ccepting? though with some hesit$tion? the
judgment of the tri$l court? fixing the d$m$ge incurred by the pl$intiff $t K?---
pesos? the equiv$lent of G?K-- doll$rs? 0nited :t$tes money? we deduct therefrom
G?K-- pesos? the $mount f$irly $ttribut$ble to his negligence? $nd direct judgment
to be entered in f$vor of the pl$intiff for the resulting sum of G?K-- pesos? with
cost of both inst$nces? $nd ten d$ys here$fter let the c$se be rem$nded to the
court below for proper $ction> :o ordered>@-> 7599)<2 $nd ,591B5 vs> 53=59B24518:/
5 t$xi c$b owned by 4$usto 7$rredo $nd w$s being driven by +edro 4ont$nill$
collided he$dEon to $ c$rretel$ being guided by +edro <im$pilis> 8he c$rretel$ w$s
overturned inflicting injuries to the p$ssenger 4$usto ,$rci$ who l$ter on died
bec$use of the injury sust$ined in the collision> 5 crimin$l $ction w$s filed
$g$inst 4ont$nill$ in which he w$s convicted to $n indetermin$te sentence which w$s
$ffirmed by the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls> 8he p$rents of 4$ustino then filed $ sep$r$te
civil $ction $g$inst 7$rredo $nd 4ont$nill$ where the tri$l court ruled in f$vor of
the p$rents of 4$ustino> 8he $ppell$te $ffirmed the decision st$ting therein th$t
there is no proof th$t 7$rredo exercised the diligence f $
good f$ther of $ f$mily to prevent the d$m$ge> 8hus this $ppe$l to the :upreme
1ourt where 7$rredo $lleged th$t his li$bility is only subsidi$ry $nd $s there h$s
been no civil $ction $g$inst 4ont$nill$? the crimin$lly li$ble person? 7$rredo
c$nnot be held responsible>B::0)/ 6hether or not 7$rredo is li$ble being the owner
of the t$xic$b $nd m$king him responsible to the $cts of his driver>N)3</ 598>
CH-G> 5ny person who by $n $ct or omission c$uses d$m$ge to $nother by his f$ult or
negligence sh$ll be li$ble for the d$m$ge so done> 598> CH-@> 8he oblig$tion
imposed by the next preceding $rticle is enforcible? not only for person$l $cts $nd
omissions? but $lso for those of persons for whom $nother is responsible>8he leg$l
provisions? $uthors? $nd c$ses $lre$dy invoked should ordin$rily be sufficient to
dispose of this c$se> 7ut in$smuch $s we $re $nnouncing doctrines th$t h$ve been
little understood in the p$st? it might not be in$ppropri$te to indic$te their
found$tions>4irstly? the 9evised +en$l 1ode in $rticle @IK punishes not only
reckless but $lso simple negligence> Bf we were to hold th$t $rticles CH-G to CHC-
of the 1ivil 1ode refer only to f$ult or negligence not punished by l$w? $ccording
to the liter$l import of $rticle C-H@ of the 1ivil 1ode? the leg$l institution of
culp$ $quili$n$ would h$ve very little scope $nd $pplic$tion in $ctu$l life> <e$th
or injury to persons $nd d$m$ge to property through $ny degree of negligence even
the slightest would h$ve to be indemnified only through the principle of civil
li$bility $rising from $ crime>:econdly? to find the $ccused guilty in $ crimin$l
c$se? proof of guilt beyond re$son$ble doubt is required? while in $ civil c$se?
preponder$nce of evidence is sufficient to m$ke the defend$nt p$y in d$m$ges> 8here
$re numerous c$ses of crimin$l negligence which c$n not be shown beyond re$son$ble
doubt? but c$n be proved by $ preponder$nce of evidence> Bn such c$ses? the
defend$nt c$n $nd should be m$de responsible in $ civil $ction under $rticles CH-G
to CHC- of the 1ivil 1ode> 2therwise? there would be m$ny inst$nces of unvindic$ted
civil wrongs> 0bi jus ibi remedium>8hirdly? to hold th$t there is only one w$y to
m$ke defend$nt s li$bility effective? $nd th$t is? to sue the driver $nd exh$ust
his .the l$tter s% property first? would be t$nt$mount to compelling the pl$intiff
to follow $ devious $nd cumbersome method of obt$ining relief> 8rue? there is such
$ remedy under our l$ws? but there is $lso $ more expeditious w$y? which is b$sed
on the prim$ry $nd direct responsibility of the defend$nt under $rticle CH-@ of the
1ivil 1ode>5t this juncture? it should be s$id th$t the prim$ry $nd direct
responsibility of employers $nd their presumed negligence $re principles c$lcul$ted
to protect society> 6orkmen $nd employees should be c$refully chosen $nd supervised
in order to $void injury to the public> Bt is the m$sters or employers who
princip$lly re$p the profits resulting from the services of these serv$nts $nd
employees> Bt is but right th$t they should gu$r$ntee the l$tter s c$reful conduct
for the personnel $nd p$trimoni$l s$fety of others>Bn the present c$se? we $re
$sked to help perpetu$te this usu$l course> 7ut we believe it is high time we
pointed out to the h$rm done by such pr$ctice $nd to restore the principle of
responsibility for f$ult or negligence under $rticles CH-G et seq> of the 1ivil
1ode to its full rigor> Bt is high time we c$used the stre$m of qu$siEdelict or
culp$ $quili$n$ to flow on its own n$tur$l ch$nnel? so th$t its w$ters m$y no
longer be diverted into th$t of $ crime under the +en$l 1ode> 8his will? it is
believed? m$ke for the better s$fegu$rding of priv$te rights bec$use it reE
est$blishes $n $ncient $nd $ddition$l remedy? $nd for the further re$son th$t $n
independent civil $ction? not depending on the issues? limit$tions $nd results of $
crimin$l prosecution? $nd entirely directed by the p$rty wronged or his counsel? is
more likely to secure $dequ$te $nd effic$cious redress>Bn view of the foregoing?
the judgment of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls should be $nd is hereby $ffirmed? with costs
$g$inst the defend$ntE petitioner>@C> <B5;5 $nd <B5;5 vs> 7585;,5: 895;:+29858B2;
12>4518:/ 4lorencio <i$n$ $nd some other p$ssengers died while riding in 8ruck ;o>
C" owned 7$t$ng$s 8r$nsport$tion 1o> $nd being driven by Livencio 7ristol when it
r$mmed into $ ditch $t 7$y 3$gun$> 7ristol w$s then ch$rged with multiple homicide
through reckless imprudence $nd w$s convicted thus ordering him $nd 7$t$ng$s
8r$nsport$tion 1o> to indemnify the heirs of the dece$sed> 8he heirs then filed $
civil c$se to recover from the 7$t$ng$s 8r$nsport$tion for the negligent $ct of
their driver> 5 writ of execution w$s issued but 7ristol w$s un$ble to comply with
his oblig$tion $nd the 7$t$ng$s 8r$nsport$tion f$iled $lso to comply under its
subsidi$ry li$bility>8he lower court dismissed the civil c$se $cting on the motion
to dismiss of the 7$t$ng$s 8r$nspor$tion b$sing it on 9ule F? :ec> C .d% of 9ule of
1ourt $lleging th$t the crimin$l $ction for the s$me c$us of $ction w$s still
pending> 8he court of $ppe$ls did not t$ke on the c$se on the ground th$t is poses
merely $ question of l$w>B::0)/ 6hether or not the dismiss$l of the civil $ction by
the lower court under 9ule F of the 9ules of 1ourt is correct>N)3</ ;o it s not
correct> 8he requirements for the $pplic$tion of 9ule F? :ec> C .d% $re/C>%
Bdentity of p$rties or $t le$st such $s representing the s$me interest in both
$ctions>G>% Bdentity of rights $sserted $nd relief pr$yed for the relief being
founded onthe s$me f$cts>@>% 8he identity on the two preceding p$rticul$rs should
be such th$t $ny judgment which m$y be rendered on the other $ction will be
reg$rdless of which p$rty if successful? $mount to res judic$t$ in the $ction under
consider$tion>1onsidering the distinguishing ch$r$cteristics of the two c$ses?
which involve two different remedies? it c$n h$rdly be s$id th$t there is identity
of reliefs in both $ctions $s to m$ke the present c$se f$ll under the oper$tion of
9ule F? section C.d% of the 9ules of 1ourt> Bn other words? it is $ mist$ke to s$y
th$t the present $ction should be dismissed bec$use of the pendency of $nother
$ction between the s$me p$rties involving the s$me c$use> )vidently? both c$ses
involve different c$uses of $ction> Bn f$ct? when the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls dismissed
the $ction b$sed on culp$ $quili$n$ .civil c$se ;o> F-G@%? this distinction w$s
stressed> Bt w$s there s$id th$t the negligent $ct committed by defend$ntRs
employee is not $ qu$si crime? for such negligence is punish$ble by l$w> 6h$t
pl$intiffs should h$ve done w$s to institute $n $ction under $rticle C-@ of the
9evised +en$l 1ode .15E,>9> ;o> @I@GE9%> 5nd this is wh$t pl$intiffs h$ve done> 8o
deprive them now of this remedy? $fter the conviction of defend$ntRs employee?
would be to deprive them $ltogether of the indemnity to which they $re entitled by
l$w $nd by $ court decision? which injustice it is our duty to prevent>6herefore?
the order $ppe$led from is reversed $nd the c$se is hereby rem$nded to the lower
court for further proceedings> ;o pronouncement $s to costs>@G> 159+B2 vs> <292D5
4518:/ )dwin 9$mires? while driving $ p$ssenger 4uso Ditney which w$s owned $nd
oper$ted by )du$rdo 8oribio? bumped <ionision 1$rpio while crossing the street
which c$used him $ fr$ctured left cl$vicle $nd other injuries> 5n $ction for
reckless imprudence resulting to serious physic$l injuries w$s filed $g$inst
9$mires where he ple$ded guilty to the lower offense> Ne w$s then sentenced to
suffer B month imprisonment $nd to indemnify 1$rpio in the $mount of +hp"K>--
representing the c$n of tom$toes? +hpG-->-- which he p$id in the hospit$l? $nd
+hpC?K-->-- $s $ttorney s fees>8he civil $spect w$s $ppe$led where the $ppell$te
court modified gr$nting the victim to recover mor$l d$m$ges in the $mount of
+hpK?--->-- $t the s$me time $ffirming the other civil li$bilities>5 writ of
execution w$s then served but the driver w$s insolvent thus 1$rpio moved for the
imposition of the subsidi$ry li$bility of the ownerEoper$tor but the tri$l judge
denied $lleging th$t the $ppell$te court m$de no mention of the subsidi$ry
li$bility of the owner $nd th$t 1$rpio f$iled to r$ise the m$tter in his
$ppe$l>B::0)/ 6hether or not the deni$l for the writ of execution $g$inst the owner
in perform$nce of his subsidi$ry li$bility w$s proper>N)3</ 8he present c$se is
neither $n $ction for culp$Econtr$ctu$l nor for culp$$quili$n$> 8his is b$sic$lly
$n $ction to enforce the civil li$bility $rising from crime under 5rt> C-- of the
9evised +en$l 1ode> Bn no c$se c$n this be reg$rded $s $ civil $ction for the
prim$ry li$bility of the employer under 5rt> GCF- of the ;ew 1ivil 1ode? i>e>?
$ction for culp$E$quili$n$>8he $rgument th$t the ownerEoper$tor c$nnot be held
subsidi$rily li$ble bec$use the m$tter of subsidi$ry li$bility w$s not r$ised on
$ppe$l $nd in like m$nner? the $ppell$te courtRs decision m$de no mention of such
subsidi$ry li$bility is of no moment> 5s $lre$dy discussed? the filing of $
sep$r$te compl$int $g$inst the oper$tor for recovery ofsubsidi$ry li$bility is not
necess$ry since his li$bility is cle$r from the decision $g$inst the $ccused> :uch
being the c$se? it is not indispens$ble for the question of subsidi$ry li$bility to
be p$ssed upon by the $ppell$te court> :uch subsidi$ry li$bility is $lre$dy implied
from the $ppell$te courtRs decision>8he position t$ken by the respondent $ppell$te
court th$t to gr$nt the motion for subsidi$ry writ of execution would in effect be
to $mend its decision which h$s $lre$dy become fin$l $nd executory c$nnot be
sust$ined> 1ompelling the ownerEoper$tor to p$y on the b$sis of his subsidi$ry
li$bility does not constitute
$n $mendment of the judgment bec$use in $n $ction under 5rt> C-@ of the 9evised
+en$l 1ode? once $ll the requisites $s e$rlier discussed $re met? the employer
becomes ipso f$cto subsidi$rily li$ble? without need of $ sep$r$te $ction> :uch
being the c$se? the subsidi$ry li$bility c$n be enforced in the s$me c$se where the
$w$rd w$s given? $nd this does not constitute $n $ct of $mending the decision> Bt
becomes incumbent upon the court to gr$nt $ motion for subsidi$ry writ of execution
.but only $fter the employer h$s been he$rd%? upon conviction of the employee $nd
$fter execution is returned uns$tisfied due to the employeeRs insolvency>6N)9)429)?
the order of respondent court dis$llowing the motion for subsidi$ry writ of
execution is hereby :)8 5:B<)> 8he 1ourt $ quo is directed to he$r $nd decide in
the s$me proceeding the subsidi$ry li$bility of the $lleged ownerEoper$tor of the
p$ssenger jitney> 1osts $g$inst priv$te respondent>1$ses GKE@G5,+5<? 5=53B5 7>@@>
459 )5:8 75;M 5;< 890:8 12=+5;A vs> 15? et $l>4518:/ 3uis 3un$ h$s $ 459)5:8159<
issued by 4$r )$st 7$nk $nd 8rust 1omp$ny> with $ supplement$l c$rd issued to
1l$rit$ :> 3un$>1l$rit$ lost her credit c$rd $nd informed 4$r )$st> :he submitted
$n $ffid$vit of loss> Bn c$ses of this n$ture? the b$nk would record the lost c$rd?
$long with the princip$l c$rd? $s $ WNot 1$rdW or W1$ncelled 1$rdW in its m$ster
file>6hen 3uis h$d lunch for $ close friend $t $ rest$ur$nt in $ hotel? the c$rd
w$s not honored then 3uis w$s forced to p$y in c$sh so he felt emb$rr$ssed>3uis
3un$ dem$nded from 4$r )$st the p$yment of d$m$ges> 8he viceEpresident of the b$nk?
expressed the b$nkRs $pologies to 3uis in $ letter> 5 letter w$s $lso sent to the
rest$ur$nt to $ssure th$t 3uis w$s Wvery v$lued clientsW of 4$r )$st> 8he hotel
wrote b$ck to s$y th$t the credibility of 3uis h$d never been Win question>W :till
evidently feeling $ggrieved 3uis filed $ compl$int for d$m$ges>981 found 4$r )$st
li$ble $nd ordered to p$y 3un$> 8he 15 $ffirmed the decision of the tri$l court>
B::0)/ 6hether or not this is $n $ction for qu$siEdelict>N)3</ ;o> 8he 1ourt h$s
not in the process overlooked $nother rule th$t $ qu$siEdelict c$n be the c$use for
bre$ching $ contr$ct th$t might thereby permit the $pplic$tion of $pplic$ble
principles on tort even where there is $ preEexisting contr$ct between the
pl$intiff $nd the defend$nt .+hil> 5irlines vs> 1ourt of 5ppe$ls? C-I :195 C"@S
:ingson vs> 7$nk of +hil> Bsl$nds? G@ :195 CCCJS $nd 5ir 4r$nce vs> 1$rr$scoso? CF
:195 CKK%> 8his doctrine? unfortun$tely? c$nnot improve 3un$Rs c$se for it c$n
$ptly govern only where the $ct or omission compl$ined of would constitute $n
$ction$ble tort independently of the contr$ct> 8he test .whether $ qu$siEdelict c$n
be deemed to underlie the bre$ch of $ contr$ct% c$n be st$ted thusly/ 6here?
without $ preEexisting contr$ct between two p$rties? $n $ct or omission c$n
nonetheless $mount to $n $ction$ble tort by itself? the f$ct th$t the p$rties $re
contr$ctu$lly bound is no b$r to the $pplic$tion of qu$siEdelict provisions to the
c$se> Nere? 3un$Rs d$m$ge cl$im is predic$ted solely on their contr$ctu$l
rel$tionshipS without such $greement? the $ct or omission compl$ined of c$nnot by
itself be held to st$nd $s $ sep$r$te c$use of $ction or $s $n independent
$ction$ble tort>6N)9)429)? the $ppe$led decision is =2<B4B)< by deleting the $w$rd
of mor$l $nd exempl$ry d$m$ges to 3un$S in its ste$d? 4$r )$st is ordered to p$y $n
$mount of +K?--->-- by w$y of nomin$l d$m$ges> @"> 3B,N8 95B3 895;:B8 508N29B8A Q
92<2342 92=5;vs>;5LB<5<4518:/ 5bout h$lf $n hour p$st Jpm? ;ic$nor ;$vid$d? then
drunk? entered the )<:5 398 st$tion> 6hile ;$vid$d w$s st$nding on the pl$tform
ne$r the 398 tr$cks? Dunelito )sc$rtin? the security gu$rd? employed by +rudent
:ecurity 5gency? $ppro$ched ;$vid$d> 5 misunderst$nding ensued th$t led to $ fist
fight> ;o evidence w$s $dduced to indic$te how the fight st$rted or who? between
the two? delivered the first blow or how ;$vid$d l$ter fell on the 398 tr$cks> 6hen
;$vid$d fell? $n 398 tr$in? oper$ted by 9odolfo 9om$n? w$s coming in th$t struck
him $nd killed him inst$nt$neously>8he widow of ;ic$nor? =$rjorie ;$vid$d? filed $
compl$int for d$m$ges $g$inst Dunelito )sc$rtin? 9odolfo 9om$n? the 3985? the =etro
8r$nsit 2rg$niz$tion? Bnc>? $nd +rudent for the de$th of her husb$nd> +rudent
denied li$bility $nd $verred th$t it h$d exercised due diligence in the selection
$nd supervision of its security gu$rds>8ri$l 1ourt found in f$vor of ;$tivid$d $nd
$g$inst +rudent :ecurity $nd Dunelito )sc$rtin ordering the jointly $nd sever$lly
p$yment of $ctu$l d$m$ges ? compens$tory d$m$ges? indemnity for the de$th of
;ic$nor? mor$l d$m$ges? $ttorneys fees? $nd costs of suit> 7ut the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls
exoner$ted +rudent from $ny li$bility for the de$th of ;ic$nor $nd? inste$d? held
the 3985 $nd 9om$n jointly $nd sever$lly li$ble>B::0)/ 6hether or not +rudent
:ecurity is li$ble for negligence of its employee )sc$rtin>N)3</ ;o> Bf $t $ll?
th$t li$bility could only be for tort under the provisions of 5rticle GCJI $nd
rel$ted provisions? in conjunction with 5rticle GCF-? of the 1ivil 1ode> 8he
premise? however? for the employer s li$bility is negligence or f$ult on the p$rt
of the employee> 2nce such f$ult is est$blished? the employer c$n then be m$de
li$ble on the b$sis of the presumption juris t$ntumth$t the employer f$iled to
exercise diligentissimi p$tris f$miliesin the selection $nd supervision of its
employees> 8he li$bility is prim$ry $nd c$n only be neg$ted by showing due
diligence in the selection $nd supervision of the employee? $ f$ctu$l m$tter th$t
h$s not been shown> 5bsent such $ showing? one might $sk further? how then must the
li$bility of the common c$rrier? on the one h$nd? $nd $n independent contr$ctor? on
the other h$nd? be describedV Bt would be solid$ry> 5 contr$ctu$l oblig$tion c$n be
bre$ched by tort $nd when the s$me $ct or omission c$uses the injury? one resulting
in culp$ contr$ctu$l $nd the other in culp$ $quili$n$? 5rticle GCH" of the 1ivil
1ode c$n well $pply> Bn fine? $ li$bility for tort m$y $rise even under $ contr$ct?
where tort is th$t which bre$ches the contr$ct> :t$ted differently? when $n $ct
which constitutes $ bre$ch of contr$ct would h$ve itself constituted the source of
$ qu$siEdelictu$l li$bility h$d no contr$ct existed between the p$rties? the
contr$ct c$n be s$id to h$ve been bre$ched by tort? thereby $llowing the rules on
tort to $pply>8here is nothing to link +rudent to the de$th of ;ic$nor? for the
re$son th$t the negligence of its employee? )sc$rtin? h$s not been duly proven>
6N)9)429)? the $ss$iled decision of the $ppell$te court is 544B9=)< with
=2<B4B158B2; $s to $w$rd of d$m$ges $nd 9odolfo 9om$n is $bsolved from li$bility>
@K> 5B9 495;1) vs> 15995:12:2 et $l>4518:/ 9$f$el 1$rr$scoso? $ civil engineer? w$s
$ member of $ group of "F 4ilipino pilgrims th$t left =$nil$ for 3ourdes>5ir
4r$nce? through its $uthorized $gent? +hilippine 5ir 3ines? Bnc>? issued to $
Wfirst cl$ssW round trip $irpl$ne ticket for 1$rr$scoso from =$nil$ to 9ome> 4rom
=$nil$ to 7$ngkok? he tr$velled in Wfirst cl$ssW? but $t 7$ngkok? the =$n$ger of
the $irline forced him to v$c$te the Wfirst cl$ssW se$t bec$use? in the words of
the witness )rnesto ,> 1uento? there w$s $ Wwhite m$nW? who? the =$n$ger $lleged?
h$d $ Wbetter rightW to the se$t> 6hen $sked to v$c$te his Wfirst cl$ssW se$t he
refused? $nd told the =$n$ger th$t his se$t would be t$ken over his de$d bodyS $
commotion ensued? $nd? $ccording to s$id 1uento? Wm$ny of the 4ilipino p$ssengers
got nervous in the tourist cl$ssS when they found out th$t =r> 1$rr$scoso w$s
h$ving $ hot discussion with the m$n$ger? they c$me $ll $cross to =r> 1$rr$scoso
$nd p$cified =r> 1$rr$scoso to give his se$t to the white m$nW $nd he reluct$ntly
g$ve his Wfirst cl$ssW se$t in the pl$ne>8he 14B ordered 5ir 4r$nce to p$y
1$rr$scoso mor$l d$m$ges? exempl$ry d$m$ges? $nd the difference in f$re between
first cl$ss $nd tourist cl$ss for the trip 7$ngkokE9ome> 8he 15 $ffirmed the
decision>B::0)/ 62; mor$l d$m$ges could be recovered from 5ir4r$nce? gr$nted th$t
their employee w$s $ccused of the tortuous $ct>N)3</ Aes> 8he responsibility of $n
employer for the tortious $ct of its employees need not be ess$yed> Bt is well
settled in l$w>4or the willful m$levolent $ct of petitionerRs m$n$ger? petitioner?
his employer? must $nswer> 5rticle GC of the 1ivil 1ode s$ys/598> GC> 5ny person
who willfully c$uses loss or injury to $nother in $ m$nner th$t is contr$ry to
mor$ls? good customs or public policy sh$ll compens$te the l$tter for the d$m$ge>Bn
p$r$llel circumst$nces? we $pplied the foregoing leg$l preceptS $nd? we held th$t
upon the provisions of 5rticle GGCH .C-%? 1ivil 1ode? mor$l d$m$ges $re
recover$ble>6herefore? the judgment of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls does notsuffer from
reversible error> 6e $ccordingly vote to $ffirm the s$me>@I> 35A0,5;vs>
B;8)9=)<B58) 5++)3358) 12098? et> 5l>4518:/ 6hile +edro 3$yug$n $nd comp$nion were
rep$iring the tire of their c$rgo truck which w$s p$rked $long the right side of
the ;$tion$l Nighw$y? ,odofredo Bsidro truck driven recklessly by <$niel :err$no
bumped them> 5s $ result? 3$yug$n w$s injured $nd hospit$lized $nd spent +C-?
--->-- $nd will incur more expenses for recuper$ting> Ne would be deprived of
lifetime income of +J-? --->-- $nd h$s p$id his l$wyer +C-? --->--> 8ri$l 1ourt/
Bsidro w$s found li$ble>Bntermedi$te 5ppell$te 1ourt/ Bt reversed the decision of
the tri$l court $nd dismissed the compl$int? the thirdEp$rty compl$int? $nd the
counterE cl$ims of both $ppell$nts>B::0)/ 6hether or not Bsidro w$s li$ble by the
negligence of :err$no>N)3</ Aes> Bt is cle$r th$t the driver did not know his
responsibilities bec$use he
$pp$rently did not check his vehicle before he took it on the ro$d> Bf he did he
could h$ve discovered e$rlier th$t the br$ke fluid pipe on the right w$s cut? $nd
could h$ve rep$ired it $nd thus the $ccident could h$ve been $voided> =oreover? to
our mind? the f$ct th$t the Bsidro used to instruct his driver to be c$reful in his
driving? th$t the driver w$s licensed? $nd the f$ct th$t he h$d no record of $ny
$ccident? $s found by the court? $re not sufficient to destroy the finding of
negligence of the 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt given the f$cts est$blished $t the tri$l>
Bsidro or his mech$nic? who must be competent? should h$ve conducted $ thorough
inspection of his vehicle before $llowing his driver to drive it> Bn the light of
the circumst$nces obt$ining in the c$se? we hold th$t Bsidro f$iled to prove th$t
the diligence of $ good f$ther of $ f$mily in the supervision of his employees
which would exculp$te him from solid$ry li$bility with his driver to3$yug$n> 7ut
even if we concede th$t the diligence of $ good f$ther of $ f$mily w$s observed by
Bsidro in the supervision of his driver? there is not $n iot$ of evidence on record
of the observ$nce by Bsidro of the s$me qu$ntum of diligence in the supervision of
his mech$nic? if $ny? who would be directly in ch$rge in m$int$ining the ro$d
worthiness of his .BsidroRs% truck> 7ut th$t is not $ll> 8here is p$ucity of proof
th$t Bsidro exercised the diligence of $ good f$ther of $ f$mily in the selection
of his driver? <$niel :err$no? $s well $s in the selection of his mech$nic? if $ny?
in order to insure the s$fe oper$tion of his truck $nd thus prevent d$m$ge to
others> 5ccordingly? the responsibility of Bsidro $s employer tre$ted in 5rticle
GCF-? p$r$gr$ph K? of the 1ivil 1ode h$s not ce$sed>6herefore? decision of the
tri$l court is hereby 9)B;:858)< in toto>@J> L53);O0)35 vs> 1>5>? et $l>4518:/ 5t
$round G/-- in the morning? =$> 3ourdes L$lenzuel$ w$s driving from her rest$ur$nt
to her home> :he w$s tr$velling with $ comp$nion? 1ecili$ 9$mon> :he noticed
something wrong with her tiresS she stopped $t $ lighted pl$ce where there were
people? to verify whether she h$d $ fl$t tire $nd to solicit help if needed> N$ving
been verified? she p$rked $long the sidew$lk? $bout C feet $w$y? put on her
emergency lights? $lighted from the c$r? $nd went to the re$r to open the trunk>
:he w$s st$nding $t the left side of the re$r of her c$r pointing to the tools to $
m$n who will help her fix the tire when she w$s suddenly bumped by $ c$r driven by
9ich$rd 3i $nd registered in the n$me of defend$nt 5lex$nder 1ommerci$l? Bnc>
L$lenzuel$ w$s thrown $g$inst the windshield of the c$r 3i $nd then fell to the
ground> :he w$s pulled out from under defend$nts c$r> +l$intiffs left leg w$s
severed up to the middle of her thigh? with only some skin $nd sucle connected to
the rest of the body> 3ower court sust$ined the pl$intiff s submissions $nd found
defend$nt 9ich$rd 3i guilty of gross negligence $nd li$ble for d$m$ges under
5rticle GCJI of the 1ivil 1ode> 1ourt of 5ppe$ls found 3i grossly negligent th$t
there w$s $mple b$sis from the evidence of record for the tri$l courts finding th$t
the L$lenzuel$ s c$r w$s properly p$rked $t the right? beside the sidew$lk when it
w$s bumped by 3i s c$r>B::0)/ 6hether or not L$lenzuel$ w$s guilty of contributory
negligence>N)3</ ;o> 1ontributory negligence is conduct on the p$rt of the injured
p$rty? contributing $s $ leg$l c$use to the h$rm he h$s suffered? which f$lls below
the st$nd$rd to which he is required to conform for his own protection>6hile the
emergency rule $pplies to those c$ses in which reflective thought or the
opportunity to $dequ$tely weigh $ thre$tening situ$tion is $bsent? the conduct
which is required of $n individu$l in such c$ses is dict$ted not exclusively by the
suddenness of the event which $bsolutely neg$tes thoughtful c$re? but by the overE
$ll n$ture of the circumst$nces> 5 wom$n driving $ vehicle suddenly crippled by $
fl$t tire on $ r$iny night will not be f$ulted for stopping $t $ point which is
both convenient for her to do so $nd which is not $ h$z$rd to other motorists> :he
is not expected to run the entire boulev$rd in se$rch for $ p$rking zone or turn on
$ d$rk :treet or $lley where she would likely find no one to help her> Bt would be
h$z$rdous for her not to stop $nd $ssess the emergency .simply bec$use the entire
length of 5uror$ 7oulev$rd is $ noEp$rking zone% bec$use the hobbling vehicle would
be both $ thre$t to her s$fety $nd to other motorists> Bn the inst$nt c$se?
L$lenzuel$? upon re$ching th$t portion of 5uror$ 7oulev$rd close to 5> 3$ke :t>?
noticed th$t she h$d $ fl$t tire> 8o $void putting herself $nd other motorists in
d$nger? she did wh$t w$s best under the situ$tion> 5s n$rr$ted by respondent court/
:he stopped $t $ lighted pl$ce where there were people? to verify whether she h$d $
fl$t tire $nd to solicit help if needed> N$ving been told by the people present
th$t her re$r right tire w$s fl$t $nd th$t she c$nnot re$ch her home she p$rked
$long the sidew$lk? $bout C feet $w$y? behind $ 8oyot$ 1oron$ 1$r>W Bn f$ct?
respondent court noted? +fc> 4elix 9$mos? the investig$tor on the scene of the
$ccident confirmed th$t L$lenzuel$s c$r w$s p$rked very close to the sidew$lk> 8he
sketch which he prep$red $fter the incident showed L$lenzuel$s c$r p$rtly
str$ddling the sidew$lk? cle$r $nd $t $ convenient dist$nce from motorists p$ssing
the right l$ne of 5uror$ 7oulev$rd> 8his f$ct w$s itself corrobor$ted by the
testimony of witness 9odriguez>0nder the circumst$nces described? L$lenzuel$ did
exercise the st$nd$rd re$son$bly dict$ted by the emergency $nd could not be
considered to h$ve contributed to the unfortun$te circumst$nces which eventu$lly
led to the $mput$tion of one of her lower extremities> 8he emergency which led her
to p$rk her c$r on $ sidew$lk in 5uror$ 7oulev$rd w$s not of her own m$king? $nd it
w$s evident th$t she h$d t$ken $ll re$son$ble prec$utions>2bviously in the c$se $t
bench? the only negligence $scrib$ble w$s the negligence of 3i on the night of the
$ccident> ;egligence? $s it is commonly understood is conduct which cre$tes $n
undue risk of h$rm to others>W Bt is the f$ilure to observe th$t degree of c$re?
prec$ution? $nd vigil$nce which the circumst$nces justly dem$nd? whereby such other
person suffers injury> 6e stressed? in 1orliss vs> =$nil$ 9$ilro$d 1omp$ny?th$t
negligence is the w$nt of c$re required by the circumst$nces>8he circumst$nces
est$blished by the evidence $dduced in the court below pl$inly demonstr$te th$t 3i
w$s grossly negligent in driving his =itsubishi 3$ncer> Bt be$rs emph$sis th$t he
w$s driving $t $ f$st speed $t $bout G/-- 5>=> $fter $ he$vy downpour h$d settled
into $ drizzle rendering the street slippery> 8here is $mple testimoni$l evidence
on record to show th$t he w$s under the influence of liquor> 0nder these
conditions? his ch$nces of effectively de$ling with ch$nging conditions on the ro$d
were signific$ntly lessened> 5s +rosser $nd Me$ton emph$size/0nder present d$y
tr$ffic conditions? $ny driver of $n $utomobile must be prep$red for the sudden
$ppe$r$nce of obst$cles $nd persons on the highw$y? $nd of other vehicles $t
intersections? such $s one who sees $ child on the curb m$y be required to
$nticip$te its sudden d$sh into the street? $nd his f$ilure to $ct properly when
they $ppe$r m$y be found to $mount to negligence>3is obvious unprep$redness to cope
with the situ$tion confronting him on the night of the $ccident w$s cle$rly of his
own m$king>6herefore? the decision of the 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt is reinst$ted>@F>
:8> 495;1B: NB,N :1N223 vs> 1>5>4518:/ 4erdin$nd 1$stillo? then $ freshm$n high
school student? w$nted to join $ school picnic of $nother cl$ss> 4erdin$ndRs
p$rents? <r> 9omulo $nd 3ili$ 1$stillo? bec$use of short notice? did not $llow
their son to join but merely $llowed him to bring food to the te$chers for the
picnic? with the directive th$t he should go b$ck home $fter doing so> Nowever?
bec$use of persu$sion of the te$chers? 4erdin$nd went on with them to the be$ch>
<uring the picnic? one of the fem$le te$chers w$s $pp$rently drowning> :ome of the
students? including 4erdin$nd? c$me to her rescue? but in the process? it w$s
4erdin$nd himself who drowned> Ne died>8ri$l court found the te$chers f$iled to
exercise the diligence required of them by l$w under the circumst$nces to gu$rd
$g$instthe h$rm they h$d foreseen but dismissed the compl$int $g$inst the school>
1ourt of 5ppe$ls found the te$chers $nd the school li$ble>B::0)/ .5% 6hether or not
there w$s negligence $ttribut$ble to the defend$nts>.7% 6hether or not 5rt> GCF-?
in rel$tion to 5rt> GCJI of the ;ew 1ivil 1ode is $pplic$ble to the c$se $t b$r>
N)3</ .5% ;o> no negligence could be $ttribut$ble to the petitionersEte$chers to
w$rr$nt the $w$rd of d$m$ges to the respondentsEspouses>+etitioners 1onnie 5rquio
the cl$ss $dviser of BE1? the section where 4erdin$nd belonged? did her best $nd
exercised diligence of $ good f$ther of $ f$mily to prevent $ny untow$rd incident
or d$m$ges to $ll the students who joined the picnic>Bn f$ct? 1onnie invited coE
petitioners 8irso de 1h$vez $nd 3uisito Lin$s who $re both +>)> instructors $nd
scout m$sters who h$ve knowledge in 4irst 5id $pplic$tion $nd swimming> =oreover?
even respondentsR witness? :egundo Lin$s? testified th$t Wthe defend$nts
.petitioners herein% h$d life s$vers especi$lly brought by the defend$nts in c$se
of emergency>W .p> FK? 9ollo% 8he records $lso show th$t both petitioners 1h$vez
$nd Lin$s did $ll wh$t is hum$nly possible to s$ve the child>.7% ;o> 9espondent
1ourt of 5ppe$ls committed $n error in $pplying 5rticle GCF- of the 1ivil 1ode in
rendering petitioner school li$ble for the de$th of respondentRs son>5rticle GCF-?
p$r> " st$tes th$t/8he oblig$tion imposed by $rticle GCJI is dem$nd$ble not only
for oneRs own $cts or omissions? but $lso for those of personsfor whom one is
responsible>)mployers sh$ll be li$ble for the d$m$ges c$used by their employees $nd
household helpers $cting within the scope of their $ssigned t$sks? even though the
former $re not eng$ged in $ny business or industry>0nder this p$r$gr$ph? it is
cle$r th$t before $n employer m$y be held li$ble for the negligence of his
employee? the $ct or omission which c$used d$m$ge or prejudice must h$ve occurred
while $n employee w$s in the perform$nce of his $ssigned t$sks>Bn the c$se $t b$r?
the te$chersXpetitioners were not in the $ctu$l perform$nce of their $ssigned
t$sks> 8he incident h$ppened not within the school premises? not on $ school d$y
$nd most import$ntly while the te$chers $nd students were holding $ purely priv$te
$ff$ir? $ picnic> Bt is cle$r from the beginning th$t the incident h$ppened while
some members of the BE1 cl$ss of :t> 4r$ncis Nigh :chool were h$ving $ picnic $t
8$l$$n 7e$ch> 8his picnic h$d no permit from the school he$d or its princip$l?
7enj$min Bllumin bec$use this picnic is not $ school s$nctioned $ctivity neither is
it considered $s $n extr$curricul$r $ctivity>6herefore? petitioners $re not guilty
of $ny f$ult or negligence? hence? no mor$l d$m$ges c$n be $ssessed $g$inst them>
@H> L53);O0)35vs> 1>5>? et $l>? GK@ :195 @-@? s$me.@J%"-> 2;,? et $l> vs>
=)892+23B85; 658)9 <B:89B184518:/ <omin$dor2ng .C" ye$rs old% $nd his two brothers
went to the swimming pool oper$ted by =etropolit$n6$ter<istrict .=6<%> 5fter p$ying
the entr$nce fee? the three proceeded to the sm$ll pool>3$ter? <omin$dor told his
brothers th$t he ll just be going to the locker room to drink $ bottle of 1oke> ;o
one s$w him returned> 3$ter? one b$ther noticed someone $t the bottom of the big
pool $nd $nother notified the lifegu$rd in $ttend$nt .5b$ o%? who immedi$tely dove
into the w$ter> 8he body w$s l$ter identified $s <omin$dor s> Ne w$s $ttempted to
be revived multiple times but of no $v$il>3ower court found th$t the $ction of
pl$intiffs is unten$ble $nd dismissed the compl$int> B::0)/ 6hether or not the
de$th of minor <omin$dor 2ng c$n be $ttributed to the negligence of =etropolit$n
$ndXor its employees>N)3</ ;o> 8he existence of f$ult or negligence on the p$rt of
the employees is belied by the written st$tements of two witnesses> ;owhere in s$id
st$tements do they st$te th$t the lifegu$rd w$s ch$tting with the security gu$rd $t
the g$te of the swimming pool or w$s re$ding $ comic m$g$zine when the $l$rm w$s
given for which re$son he f$iled to immedi$tely respond to the $l$rm> 2n the
contr$ry? wh$t 9uben 2ng p$rticul$rly emph$sized therein w$s th$t $fter the
lifegu$rd he$rd the shouts for help?the l$tter immedi$tely dived into the poolto
retrieve the person under w$ter who turned out to be his brother>8here is
sufficient evidence to show th$t =etropolit$n h$s t$ken $ll necess$ry prec$utions
to $void d$nger to the lives of its p$trons or prevent $ccident which m$y c$use
their de$th> 8hus? it h$s been shown th$t the swimming pools $re provided with $
ring buoy? toy roof? towing line? oxygen resuscit$tor $nd $ first $id medicine kit>
8he bottom of the pools is p$inted with bl$ck colors so $s to insure cle$r
visibility> 8here is on displ$y in $ conspicuous pl$ce within the $re$ cert$in
rules $nd regul$tions governing the use of the pools> =etropolit$n employs six
lifegu$rds who $re $ll tr$ined $s they h$d t$ken $ course for th$t purpose $nd were
issued certific$tes of proficiency> 8hese lifegu$rds work on schedule prep$red by
their chief $nd $rr$nged in such $ w$y $s to h$ve two gu$rds $t $ time on duty to
look $fter the s$fety of the b$thers> 8here is $ m$le nurse $nd $ s$nit$ry
inspector with $ clinic provided with oxygen resuscit$tor> 5nd there $re security
gu$rds who $re $v$il$ble $lw$ys in c$se of emergency>8he record $lso shows th$t
$fter retrieving the body from the pool? lifegu$rd 5b$ o immedi$tely g$ve him
m$nu$l $rtifici$l respir$tion> :oon there$fter? the nurse $nd s$nit$ry inspector
c$me with $n oxygen resuscit$tor> 6hen they found th$t the pulse of the boy w$s
$bnorm$l? the inspector immedi$tely injected him with c$mphor$ted oil> 6hen the
m$nu$l $rtifici$l respir$tion proved ineffective they $pplied the oxygen
resuscit$tor until its contents were exh$usted> 5nd while $ll these efforts were
being m$de? they sent for <r> 5yuy$o but $lre$dy de$d> 5ll of the foregoing shows
$ll hum$nly possible under the circumst$nces to restore life to minor 2ng w$s done
$nd for th$t re$son it is unf$ir to hold it li$ble for his de$th>6e do not see how
the doctrine of l$st cle$r ch$nce m$y $pply> 5s the doctrine usu$lly is st$ted? $
person who h$s the l$st cle$r ch$nce or opportunity of $voiding $n $ccident?
notwithst$nding the negligent $cts of his opponent or the negligence of $ third
person which is imputed to his opponent? is considered in l$w solely responsible
for the consequences of the $ccident>:ince it is not known how minor 2ng c$me into
the big swimming pool $nd it being $pp$rent th$t he went there without $ny
comp$nion in viol$tion of one of the regul$tions of =etropolit$n $s reg$rds the use
of the pools? $nd it $ppe$ring th$t lifegu$rd 5b$nio responded to the c$ll for help
$s soon $s his $ttention w$s c$lled to it $nd immedi$tely $fter retrieving the body
$ll efforts $t the dispos$l of =etropolit$n h$d been put into pl$y in order to
bring him b$ck to life? it is cle$r th$t there is no room for the $pplic$tion of
the doctrine now invoked by $ppell$nts to impute li$bility to =etropolit$n>
6herefore? decision of the lower court is $ffirmed>"C> 1BLB3 5)92;508B1:
5<=B;B:8958B2;vs> 12098 24 5++)53:? et $l>4518:/ )rnest :imke is $ n$tur$lized
4ilipino citizen $nd the Nonor$ry 1onsul ,ener$l of Bsr$el in the +hilippines>2ne
$fternoon? he? with sever$l other persons? went to the =$nil$ Bntern$tion$l 5irport
to meet his future sonEinEl$w> Ne $nd his group proceeded to the viewing deck or
terr$ce of the $irport> 6hile w$lking on the terr$ce? :imke slipped over $n
elev$tion $bout four ."% inches high $t the f$r end of the terr$ce> Ne fell on his
b$ck $nd broke his thigh bone> 8he next d$y? he w$s oper$ted> 14B rendered in
:imke s f$vor prompting petitioner to $ppe$l to the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls> 8he l$tter
$ffirmed the tri$l courtRs decision>B::0)/ 6hether or not there w$s negligent on
the p$rt of 1ivil 5eron$utics>N)3</ Aes> 8he inclin$tion itself is $n $rchitectur$l
$nom$ly for it is neither $ r$mp bec$use $ r$mp is $n inclined surf$ce in such $
w$y th$t it will prevent people or pedestri$ns from sliding> 7ut if? it is $ step
then it will not serve its purpose? for pedestri$n purposes>8he leg$l found$tion of
155Rs li$bility for qu$siEdelict c$n be found in 5rticle GCJI of the 1ivil 1ode> 5s
the 155 knew of the existence of the d$ngerous elev$tion which it cl$ims though?
w$s m$de precisely in $ccord$nce with the pl$ns $nd specific$tions of the building
for proper dr$in$ge of the open terr$ce? its f$ilure to h$ve it rep$ired or $ltered
in order to elimin$te the existing h$z$rd constitutes such negligence $s to w$rr$nt
$ finding of li$bility b$sed on qu$siEdelict upon 155>1ontributory negligence under
5rticle GCJH of the 1ivil 1ode contempl$tes $ negligent $ct or omission on the p$rt
of the pl$intiff? which $lthough not the proxim$te c$use of his injury? contributed
to his own d$m$ge? the proxim$te c$use of the pl$intiffs own injury being the
defend$ntRs l$ck of due c$re> Bn the inst$nt c$se? no contributory negligence c$n
be imputed to the priv$te respondent? considering the following test formul$ted in
the e$rly c$se of +ic$rt v> :mith? @J +hil> F-H .CHCF%/8he test by which to
determine the existence of negligence in $ p$rticul$r c$se m$y be st$ted $s
follows/ <id the defend$nt in doing the $lleged negligent $ct use th$t re$son$ble
c$re $nd c$ution which $n ordin$rily prudent m$n would h$ve used in the s$me
situ$tionV Bf not? then he is guilty of negligence> 8he l$w here in effect $dopts
the st$nd$rd supposed to be supplied by the im$gin$ry conduct of the discreet
p$terf$mili$s of the 9om$n l$w> 8he existence of the negligence in $ given c$se is
not determined by reference to the person$l judgment of the $ctor in the situ$tion
before him> 8he l$w considers wh$t would be reckless? bl$meworthy? or negligent in
the m$n of ordin$ry intelligence $nd prudence $nd determines li$bility by th$t>8he
question $s to wh$t would constitute the conduct of $ prudent m$n in $ given
situ$tion must of course be $lw$ys determined in the light of hum$n experience $nd
in view of the f$cts involved in the p$rticul$r c$se> 5bstr$ct specul$tions c$nnot
be here of much v$lue but this much c$n be profit$bly s$id/ 9e$son$ble menEgovern
their conduct by the circumst$nces which $re before them or known to them> 8hey $re
not? $nd $re not supposed to be omniscient of the future>Nence they c$n be expected
to t$ke c$re only when there is something before them to suggest or w$rn of d$nger>
1ould $ prudent m$n? in the c$se under consider$tion? foresee h$rm $s $ result of
the course $ctu$lly pursuedR Bf so? it w$s the duty of the $ctor to t$ke
prec$utions to gu$rd $g$inst th$t h$rm> 9e$son$ble foresight of h$rm? followed by
the ignoring of the suggestion born of this prevision? is $lw$ys necess$ry before
negligence c$n be held to exist>:imke could not h$ve re$son$bly foreseen the h$rm
th$t would bef$ll him? considering the $ttend$nt f$ctu$l circumst$nces> )ven if he
h$d been looking where he w$s going? the step in question could not e$sily be
noticed bec$use of its construction> 5s the tri$l court found/Bn connection with
the incident testified to? $ sketch? shows $ section of the floorings oil which
pl$intiff h$d tripped? 8his sketch reve$ls two p$vements $djoining e$ch other? one
being elev$ted by four $nd oneEfourth inches th$n the other> 4rom the $rchitectur$l
st$ndpoint the higher? p$vement is $ step> Nowever? unlike $ step commonly seen
$round? the edge of the elev$ted p$vement sl$nted outw$rd $s one w$lks to one
interior of the terr$ce> 8he length of the inclin$tion between the edges of the two
p$vements is three inches> 2bviously? pl$intiff h$d stepped on the inclin$tion
bec$use h$d his foot l$nded on the lower p$vement he would not h$ve lost his
b$l$nce> 8he s$me sketch shows th$t both p$vements including the inclined portion
$re tiled in red cement? the lines of the tilings $re continuous> Bt would
therefore be difficult for $ pedestri$n to see the inclin$tion especi$lly where
there $re plenty of persons in the terr$ce $s w$s the situ$tion when pl$intiff fell
down> 8here w$s no w$rning sign to direct oneRs $ttention to the ch$nge in the
elev$tion of the floorings>6herefore? decision of lower court is $ffirmed>1$ses @@E
"C:5;8015A? 5;;57)3 9>"G> 459 )5:8)9; :NB++B;, 12=+5;A vs> 154518:/ 2n Dune G-?
CHF-? the =XL +5L32<59? flying under the fl$gship of the 0::9? owned $nd oper$ted
by the 4$r )$stern :hipping 1omp$ny .4):1%? $rrived $t the +ort of =$nil$ from
L$ncouver? 7ritish 1olumbi$ $t $bout J/-- oRclock in the morning> 8he vessel w$s7
$ssigned 7erth " of the =$nil$ Bntern$tion$l +ort? $s its berthing sp$ce> 1$pt$in
9oberto 5bell$n$ w$s t$sked by the +hilippine +ort 5uthority to supervise the
berthing of the vessel> 5ppell$nt :enen ,$vino w$s $ssigned by the 5ppell$nt =$nil$
+ilotsR 5ssoci$tion.=+5% to conduct docking m$neuvers for the s$fe berthing of the
vessel to 7erth ;o> ">E ,$vino bo$rded the vessel $t the qu$r$ntine $nchor$ge $nd
st$tioned himself in the bridge? with the m$ster of the vessel? Lictor M$v$nkov?
beside him> 5fter $ briefing of ,$vino by M$v$nkov of the p$rticul$rs of the vessel
$nd its c$rgo? the vessel lifted $nchor from the qu$r$ntine $nchor$ge $nd proceeded
to the =$nil$ Bntern$tion$l +ort> 8he se$ w$s c$lm $nd the wind w$s ide$l for
docking m$neuvers>E6hen the vessel re$ched the l$ndm$rk .the bigchurch by the 8ondo
;orth N$rbor% oneh$lf mile fromthe pier? ,$vino ordered the engine stopped> 6hen
the vessel w$s $lre$dy $bout G?--- feet from the pier?,$vino ordered the $nchor
dropped> M$v$nkov rel$yed the orders to the crew of the vessel on the bow> 8he left
$nchor? with G sh$ckles? were dropped> Nowever? the $nchor did not t$ke hold $s
expected> 8he speed ofthe vessel did not sl$cken> 5 commotion ensued between the
crew members> 5 brief conference ensued between M$v$nkov $nd the crew members> 6hen
,$vino inquired wh$t w$s $ll the commotion $bout? M$v$nkov $ssured ,$vino th$t
there w$s nothing to it>E 5fter ,$vino noticed th$t the $nchor did not t$ke hold
?he ordered the engines h$lf$stern> 5bell$n$? who w$s then on the pier $ pron
noticed th$t the vessel w$s $ppro$ching the pier f$st> M$v$nkov likewise noticed
th$t the $nchor did not t$ke hold> ,$vino there$fter g$ve the WfullE$sternW code>
7efore the right $nchor $nd $ddition$l sh$ckles could be dropped? the bow of the
vessel r$mmed into the $pron of the pier c$using consider$ble d$m$ge to the pier>
8he vessel sust$ined d$m$ge too> M$v$nkov filed his se$ protest> ,$vino submitted
his report to the 1hief +ilot who referred the report to the +hilippine +orts
5uthority> 5bell$n$ likewise submitted his report of the incident>E 8he
reh$bilit$tion of the d$m$ged pier cost the +hilippine +orts 5uthority the $mount
of +C?CGI?C@G>GK>9033B;, 7A 8N) 89B53 12098/ 8he tri$l court ordered the defend$nts
therein jointly $nd sever$lly to p$y the ++5 the $mount of +C?-K@?@-->--
representing $ctu$l d$m$ges $nd the costs of suit>9033B;, 7A 8N) 15/9espondent
$ppell$te court $ffirmed the findings of the court $ quo except th$t if found no
employerEemployee rel$tionship existing between herein priv$te respondents =$nil$
+ilotsR 5ssoci$tion .=+5% $nd 1$pt> ,$vino> 8his being so? it ruled inste$d th$t
the li$bility of =+5 is $nchored? not on 5rticle GCF- of the 1ivil 1ode? but on the
provisions of 1ustoms 5dministr$tive 2rder ;o> CKEIK? $nd $ccordingly modified s$id
decision of the tri$l court by holding =+5? $long with its coEdefend$nts therein?
still solid$rily li$ble to ++5 but entitled =+5 to reimbursement from 1$pt> ,$vino
for such $mount of the $djudged pecuni$ry li$bility in excess of the $mount
equiv$lent to seventyEfive percent .JKY% of its prescribed reserve fund> B::0)/ 62;
both the pilot $nd the m$ster were negligent9033B;, 7A 8N) :1/ A):>E 8he :1 st$rted
by s$ying th$t in $ collision between $ st$tion$ry object $nd $ moving object?
there is $ presumption of f$ult $g$inst the moving object .b$sedon common sense $nd
logic%> Bt then went on to determine who between the pilot $nd the m$ster w$s
negligent>+B328E 5 pilot? in m$ritime l$w? is $ person duly qu$lified? $nd
licensed? to conduct $ vessel into or out of ports? or in cert$in w$ters> Ne is $n
expert who s supposed to know the se$bed? etc> th$t $ m$ster of $ ship m$y not know
bec$use the pilot is f$mili$r with the port> Ne is ch$rged to perform his duties
with extr$ordin$ry c$re bec$use the s$fety of people $nd property on the vessel $nd
on the dock $re $t st$ke>E 1$pt> ,$vino w$s found to be negligent> 8he court found
th$t his re$ction time ." minutes% to the $nchor not holding ground $nd the vessel
still going too f$st w$s too slow> 5s $n expert he should ve been re$cting quickly
to $ny such h$ppenings>=5:8)9E Bn compulsory pilot$ge? the pilot moment$rily
becomes the m$ster of the vessel> 8he m$ster? however m$y intervene or counterm$nd
the pilot if he deems there is d$nger to the vessel bec$use of the incompetence of
the pilot or if the pilot is drunk>E 7$sed on 1$pt> M$v$nkov s testimony? he never
sensed the $ny d$nger even when the $nchor didn t hold $nd they were $ppro$ching
the dock too f$st> Ne blindly trusted the pilot> 8his is negligence on his p$rt>Ne
w$s right beside the pilot during the docking? so he could see $nd he$r everything
th$t the pilot w$s seeing $nd he$ring>E 8he m$ster s negligence tr$nsl$tes to
unse$worthiness of the vessel? $nd in turn me$ns negligence on the p$rt of 4):1>
12;1099);8 82984)5:29:E 5s $ gener$l rule? th$t negligence in order to render $
person li$ble need not be the sole c$use of $n injury> Bt is sufficient th$t his
negligence? concurring with one or more efficient c$uses other th$n pl$intiffRs? is
the proxim$te c$use of the injury> 5ccordingly? where sever$l c$uses combine to
produce injuries? person is not relieved from li$bility bec$use he is responsible
for only one of them? it being sufficient th$t the negligence of the person ch$rged
with injury is $n efficient c$use without which the injury would not h$ve resulted
to $s gre$t $n extent? $nd th$t such c$use is not $ttribut$ble to the person
injured> Bt is no defense to one of the concurrent tortfe$sors th$t the injury
would not h$ve resulted from his negligence $lone? without the negligence or
wrongful $cts of the other concurrent tortfe$sor> 6here sever$l c$uses producing $n
injury $re concurrent $nd e$ch is $n efficient c$use without which the injury would
not h$ve h$ppened? the injury m$y be $ttributed to $ll or $ny of the c$uses $nd
recovery m$y be h$d $g$inst $ny or $ll of the responsible persons $lthough under
the circumst$nces of the c$se? it m$y $ppe$r th$t one of them w$s more culp$ble?
$nd th$t the duty owed by them to the injured person w$s not the s$me> ;o $ctorRs
negligence ce$ses to be $ proxim$te c$use merely bec$use it does not exceed the
negligence of other $ctors> )$ch wrong doer is responsible for the entire result
$nd is li$ble $s though his $cts were the sole c$use of the injury>E 8here is no
contribution between joint tortfe$sors whose li$bility is solid$ry since both of
them $re li$ble for the tot$l d$m$ge> 6here the concurrent or successive negligent
$cts or omissions of two or more persons? $lthough $cting independently? $re in
combin$tion the direct $nd proxim$te c$use of $ single injury to $ third person? it
is impossible to determine in wh$t proportion e$ch contributed to the injury $nd
either of them is responsible for the whole injury> 6here their concurring
negligence resulted in injury or d$m$ge to $ third p$rty? they become joint
tortfe$sors $nd $re solid$rily li$ble for the resulting d$m$ge under 5rticle GCH"
of the 1ivil 1ode>6N)9)429)? in view of $ll of the foregoing? the consolid$ted
petitions for review $re <);B)< $nd the $ss$iled decision of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls
is 544B9=)< in toto>1ounsel for 4):1? the l$w firm of <el 9os$rio $nd <el 9os$rio?
specific$lly its $ssoci$te? 5tty> Nerbert 5> 8ri$? is 9)+9B=5;<)< $nd 659;)< th$t $
repetition of the s$me or simil$r $cts of heedless disreg$rd of its undert$kings
under the 9ules sh$ll be de$lt with more severely>8he origin$l members of the leg$l
te$m of the 2ffice of the :olicitor ,ener$l $ssigned to this c$se? n$mely?
5ssist$nt :olicitor ,ener$l 9om$n ,> <el 9os$rio $nd :olicitor 3uis 4> :imon? $re
5<=2;B:N)< $nd 659;)< th$t $ repetition of the s$me or simil$r $cts of unduly
del$ying proceedings due to del$yed filing of required ple$dings sh$ll $lso be
de$lt with more stringently>8he :olicitor ,enr$l is <B9)18)< to look into the
circumst$nces of this c$se $nd to $dopt provident me$sures to $void $ repetition of
this incident $nd which would ensure prompt compli$nce with orders of this 1ourt
reg$rding the timely filing of requisite ple$dings? in the interest of just? speedy
$nd orderly $dministr$tion of justice>3et copies of this decision be spre$d upon
the person$l records of the l$wyers n$med herein in the 2ffice of the 7$r
1onfid$nt>:2 29<)9)<>"@> +)2+3) vs> +)<92 95=B9)O4518:/ 2n the
night of 4ebru$ry CF? CHG@? 7$rtolome (ui$oit invited +edro 9$mirez? the $ccused?
Lictori$no 9$ng$? the dece$sed? $nd 5gustin =enor to hunt in the mount 7$litok of
the municip$lity of ;uev$ )r$? +rovince of Blocos ;orte> 8he three proceeded to
hunt? le$ving 7$rtolome (ui$oit in $ hut $pproxim$tely C kilometer from the pl$ce
where the $ct compl$ined of took pl$ce> 0pon the hunters h$ving $rrived $t $ pl$ce
in mount 7$litok? +edro 9$mirez? who w$s c$rrying the shotgun of 7$rtolome (ui$oit
with $ l$ntern? h$ppened to hunt $ deer? $nd then he told his comp$nions to st$y
there $nd w$tch over the prey while he entered the forest to get it> 8hus
Lictori$no 9$ng$ $nd 5gusto =enor were w$iting when suddenly the report of the
shotgun w$s he$rd hitting Lictori$no 9$ng$ in the eye $nd the right temple? who
there$fter died on th$t night $s $ result of the wounds>ch$n9033B;, 7A 8N) 89B53
12098/ 9$mirez w$s sentenced by the 1ourt of 4irst Bnst$nce of Blocos ;orte? for
the crime of homicide? to the pen$lty of fourteen ye$rs? eight months $nd one d$y
of reclusion tempor$l? to indemnify the mother of the dece$sed in the sum of +K--
$nd to p$y the costs>B::0) B; 8N) :1/ 6hether or not there existed no motive
wh$tever for resentment on the p$rt of the defend$nt $g$inst the offended p$rty $nd
h$d exercised $ll the necess$ry diligence to $void every undesir$ble $ccident>
9033B;, 7A 8N) :1/ 8he defense $lleges th$t the tri$l court must h$ve solved the
re$son$ble doubt in f$vor of the defend$nt> 5fter considering c$refully the
evidence $nd $ll the circumst$nces of the c$se? we $re of the opinion $nd so hold
th$t the defend$nt is guilty of the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence?
$nd must be punished under p$r$gr$ph C of $rticle KIF of the +en$l 1ode> 6herefore
the pen$lty of one ye$r $nd one d$y of prision correccion$l? with the $ccessories
prescribed by the l$w? must be imposed upon him? $nd with modific$tion? the
judgment $ppe$led from is $ffirmed in $ll other respects? with the costs $g$inst
the $ppell$nt> :o ordered>""> 5<O0595 vs> 12098 24 5++)53:4518: 24 8N) 15:)/ 2n CJ
<ecember CHH-? $t h$lf p$st C/-- oRclock in the morning? Perxes 5dzu$r$ y <otim$s?
then $ l$w student? $nd his friends 9ene ,onz$lo $nd 9ich$rd Dose were cruising in
$ "Edoor 1olt ,$l$nt sed$n $long the stretch of (uezon 5venue coming from the
direction of )<:5 tow$rds <elt$ 1ircle $t $pproxim$tely "- kilometers per hour>0pon
re$ching the intersection of "th 6est :treet their c$r collided with $ 8oyot$
1oron$ sed$n owned $nd driven by ,regorio =$rtinez> =$rtinez h$d just $ttended $
3oved 4lock meeting with his d$ughter :$hlee $nd w$s coming from the e$stern
portion of (uezon 5venue ne$r <elt$ 1ircle> Ne w$s then executing $ 0Eturn $t the
speed of K kph $t the northEwest portion of (uezon 5venue going to =$nil$ when the
$ccident occurred>:$hlee =$rtinez sust$ined physic$l injuries which required
confinement $nd medic$l $ttend$nce $t the ;$tion$l 2rthop$edic Nospit$l for five
.K% d$ys>7oth petitioner $nd =$rtinez cl$imed th$t their l$nes h$d green tr$ffic
lights $lthough the investig$ting policem$n =$rcelo :$bido decl$red th$t the
tr$ffic light w$s blinking red $nd or$nge when he $rrived $t the scene of the
$ccident $n hour l$ter>2n CG Duly CHHC petitioner w$s ch$rged before the 9egion$l
8ri$l 1ourt of (uezon 1itywith reckless imprudence resulting in d$m$ge to property
with less serious physic$l injuries under 5rt> @IK of the 9evised +en$l 1ode> 2n CC
<ecember CHHC? before the present$tion of evidence? priv$te compl$in$nt =$rtinez
m$nifested his intention to institute $ sep$r$te civil $ction for d$m$ges $g$inst
petitioner>903B;, 7A 8N) 89B53 12098/ 8he 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt of (uezon 1ity?
convicted Perxes 5dzu$r$ $fter tri$l $nd sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of
two .G% months $ndfifteen .CK% d$ys of $rresto m$yor $nd to p$y $ fine of
+K-?--->--? with subsidi$ry imprisonment in c$se of insolvency>903B;, 7A 8N) 12098
24 5++)53:/ 8he 1ourt of 5ppe$ls $ffirmed the decision of the tri$l court but
deleted the fine of +K-?--->-->B::0) 2; 8N) :1/ 6h$t degree of c$re $nd vigil$nce
then did the circumst$nces require $t h$lf p$st C/-- oRclock in the morning $long
$n $lmost deserted $venue>903B;, 7A 8N) :1/ Bn the inst$nt c$se? nothing on record
shows th$t the f$cts were not properly ev$lu$ted by the court $ quo> 5s such? we
find no re$son to disturb their findings> Bt be$rs to stress th$t the $ppreci$tion
of petitionerRs postEcollision beh$vior serves only $s $ me$ns to emph$size the
finding of negligence which is re$dily est$blished by the $dmission of petitioner
$nd his friend 9en$to th$t they s$w the c$r of =$rtinez m$king $ 0Eturn but could
not $void the collision by the mere $pplic$tion of the br$kes> ;egligence is the
w$nt of c$re required by the circumst$nces> Bt is $ rel$tive or comp$r$tive? not $n
$bsolute? term $nd its $pplic$tion depends upon the situ$tion of the p$rties $nd
the degree of c$re $nd vigil$nce which the circumst$nces re$son$bly require>6h$t
degree of c$re $nd vigil$nce then did the circumst$nces requireV 5t h$lf p$st C/--
oRclock in the morning $long $n $lmost deserted $venue? ordin$ry c$re $nd vigil$nce
would suffice> 8his m$y consist of keeping $ w$tchful eye on the ro$d $he$d $nd
observing the tr$ffic rules on speed? right of w$y $nd tr$ffic light> 8he cl$im of
petitioner th$t =$rtinez m$de $ swift 0Eturn which c$used the collision is not
credible since $ 0turn is done $t $ much slower speed to $void skidding $nd
overturning? comp$red to running str$ight $he$d> ;onetheless? no evidence w$s
presented showing skid m$rks c$used by the c$r driven by =$rtinez if only to
demonstr$te th$t he w$s driving $t $ f$st clip in negoti$ting the 0Eturn> 2n the
other h$nd? the speed $t which petitioner drove his c$r $ppe$rs to be the prime
c$use for his in$bility to stop his c$r $nd $void the collision> Nis $ssertion th$t
he drove $t the speed of "- kph> is belied by =$rtinez who testified th$t when he
looked $t the opposite l$ne for $ny oncoming c$rs? he s$w noneS then $ few seconds
l$ter? he w$s hit by 5dzu$r$Rs c$r> 8he extent of the d$m$ge on the c$r of =$rtinez
$nd the position of the c$rs $fter the imp$ct further confirm the finding th$t
petitioner went beyond the speed limit required by l$w $nd by the circumst$nces>Bt
is $ rule th$t $ motorist crossing $ thruEstop street h$s the right of w$y over the
one m$king $ 0Eturn> 7ut if the person m$king $ 0Eturn h$s $lre$dy negoti$ted h$lf
of the turn $nd is $lmost on the other side so th$t he is $lre$dy visible to the
person on the thruEstreet? the l$tter must give w$y to the former> +etitioner w$s
on the thruEstreet $nd h$d $lre$dy seen the =$rtinez c$r>Ne should h$ve stopped to
$llow =$rtinez to complete the 0Eturn h$ving? $s it were? the l$st cle$r ch$nce to
$void the $ccident which he ignored> Bn f$ct? he never stopped> 9$ther? he cl$imed
th$t on the $ssumption th$t he w$s negligent? the other p$rty w$s $lso guilty of
contributory negligence since his c$r h$d no lights on> 8he negligence of =$rtinez
however h$s not been s$tisf$ctorily shown>+etitioner insists th$t the tr$ffic light
f$cing him $t the intersection w$s green which only indic$ted th$t he h$d the right
of w$y> 7ut the findings of the court $ quo on the m$tter counterv$il this st$nce?
hence? we see no re$son to disturb them>8o we$ken the evidence of the prosecution?
petitioner $ss$ils the testimony of =$rtinez $s being replete with inconsistencies>
8he records however reve$l th$t these inconsistencies refer only to minor points
which indic$te ver$city r$ther th$n prev$ric$tion by the witness> 8hey tend to
bolster the prob$tive v$lue of the testimony in question $s they er$se $ny
suspicion of being rehe$rsed>4in$lly? petitioner cl$ims th$t the medic$l
certific$te presented by the prosecution w$s uncorrobor$ted by $ctu$l testimony of
the physici$n who $ccomplished the s$me $nd $s such h$s no prob$tive v$lue insof$r
$s the physic$l injuries suffered by :$hlee $re concerned> 9egretfully? we c$nnot
$gree> 8he f$ct of the injury resulting from the collision m$y be proved in other
w$ys such $s the testimony of the injured person> Bn the c$se $t b$r? :$hlee
=$rtinez testified th$t her injuries $s described in the medic$l certific$te were
c$used by the vehicul$r $ccident of CJ <ecember CHH-> 8his decl$r$tion w$s
corrobor$ted by ,regorio> 8his? no less? is convincing proof>6N)9)429)? the
petition is <);B)<> 8he decision of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls of GG ;ovember CHHK
finding petitioner P)9P): 5<O0595 A <28B=5: guilty beyond re$son$ble doubt of the
crime ch$rged $nd sentencing him to suffer $n imprisonment of two .G% months $nd
fifteen .CK% d$ys of $rresto m$yor medium is 544B9=)<> 1osts $g$inst petitioner> :2
29<)9)<>"K> =1M)) vs> B514518:/ 8o $void hitting G boys who suddenly d$rted from
the right side of the ro$d $nd into the l$ne of the c$r? Dose Moh blew the horn of
his c$r? swerved to the left $nd entered the l$ne of the truck> Ne $ttempted to
return to his l$ne but before he could do so? he $lre$dy collided with the c$rgo
truck>E8ruck $nd 4ord collided in +ulong +ulo 7ridge $long =$c5rthur Nighw$y> @
people in the 4ord escort died including the driver? Dose Moh>9033B;, 7A 8N) 89B53
12098/ 8he tri$l court dismissed petitionersR compl$ints in 1ivil 1$se ;o> ""JJ $nd
1ivil 1$se ;o> ""JF of the then 1ourt of 4irst Bnst$nce .now 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt%
of +$mp$ng$ entitled W1$rmen <$yrit Moh? 3etici$ Moh? Duliet$ Moh 8uquero? 5r$celi
Moh =cMee $nd )liz$beth Moh 8url$ vs> D$ime 8$y$g $nd 9os$lind$ =$n$lo?W $nd
W,eorge =cMee $nd 5r$celi Moh =cMee vs> D$ime 8$y$g $nd 9os$lind$ =$n$lo?W
respectively? $nd gr$nted the priv$te respondentsR countercl$im for mor$l d$m$ges?
$ttorneyRs fees $nd litig$tion expenses>9033B;, 7A 8N) B51/ 2n GH
;ovember CHF@? respondent 1ourt? by then known $s the Bntermedi$te 5ppell$te
1ourt? promulg$ted its consolid$ted decision in 5>1>E,>9> 1L ;os> IH-"- $nd
IH-"C?the dispositive portion of which re$ds/6N)9)429)? the decision $ppe$led from
it hereby reversed $nd set $side $nd $nother one is rendered? ordering defend$ntsE
$ppellees to p$y pl$intiffsE$ppell$nts>B::0)/ 62; the owners of the c$rgo truck
.8$y$g $nd =$n$lo%$re li$ble for the resulting d$m$ges9033B;, 7A 8N) :1/ A):? 8he
1ourt rules th$t it w$s the truck driverRs negligence in f$iling to exert ordin$ry
c$re to $void the collision which w$s? in l$w? the proxim$te c$use of the
collision> 5s employers of the truck driver? =$n$lo $nd 8$y$g $re? under 5rticle
GCF- of the 1ivil 1ode? directly $nd prim$rily li$ble for the resulting d$m$ges>
8he presumption th$t they $re negligent flows from the negligence of their
employee> 8h$t presumption? however? is only juris t$ntum? not juris et de jure>
8heir only possible defense is th$t they exercised $ll the diligence of $ good
f$ther of $ f$mily to prevent the d$m$ge> 5rticle GCF- re$ds $s follows/8he
oblig$tion imposed by 5rticle GCJI is dem$nd$ble not only for oneRs own $cts or
omissions? but $lso forthose of persons for whom one is responsible> )mployers
sh$ll be li$ble for the d$m$ges c$used by their employees $nd household helpers
$cting within the scope of their $ssigned t$sks? even though the former $re not
eng$ged in $ny business or industry> 8he responsibility tre$ted of in this $rticle
sh$ll ce$se when the persons herein mentioned prove th$t they observed $ll the
diligence of $ good f$ther of $ f$mily to prevent d$m$ge> 8he diligence of $ good
f$ther referred to me$ns the diligence in the selection $nd supervision of
employees> 8he $nswers of the priv$te respondents in 1ivil 1$ses ;os> ""JJ $nd ""JF
did not interpose this defense> ;either did they $ttempt to prove it>8he diligence
of $ good f$ther referred to me$ns the diligence in the selection $nd supervision
of employees> I- 8he $nswers of the priv$te respondents in 1ivil 1$ses ;os> ""JJ
$nd ""JF did not interpose this defense> ;either did they $ttempt to prove it>8he
respondent 1ourt w$s then correct in its <ecision of GH ;ovember CHF@ in reversing
the decision of the tri$l court which dismissed 1ivil 1$ses ;os> ""JJ $nd ""JF> Bts
$ss$iled 9esolution of @ 5pril CHF" finds no sufficient leg$l $nd f$ctu$l moorings>
Bn the light of recent decisions of this 1ourt? IC the indemnity for de$th must?
however? be incre$sed from +CG?--->-- to +K-?--->-->6N)9)429)? the inst$nt petition
is ,95;8)<> 8he $ss$iled 9esolution of the respondent 1ourt of @ 5pril CHF" is :)8
5:B<) while its <ecision of GH ;ovember CHF@ in 1>5>E,>9> 1L ;os> IH-"-E"C is
9)B;:858)<? subject to the modific$tion th$t the indemnity for de$th is incre$sed
from +CG?--->-- to +K-?--->-- e$ch for the de$th of Dose Moh $nd Mim Moh =cMee>
1osts $g$inst priv$te respondents> :2 29<)9)<>"I> =5;B35 )3)189B1 12=+5; vs>
9)=2(0B3324518:/ 2n 5ugust GG? CHK-? )fren =$gno went to the @Estory house of
5ntonio +e $loz$? his stepbrother? loc$ted on 9odriguez 3$nuz$ :treet? =$nil$? to
rep$ir $ medi$ $gu$ s$id to be in $ le$king condition> 8he medi$ $gu$ w$s just
below the window of the third story> :t$nding on s$id medi$ $gu$ ? =$gno received
from his son thru th$t window $ @ P I g$lv$nized iron sheet to cover the le$king
portion? turned $round $nd in doing so the lower end of the iron sheet c$me into
cont$ct with the electric wire of the =$nil$ )lectric 1omp$ny .l$ter referred to $s
the 1omp$ny% strung p$r$llel to the edge of the medi$ $gu$ $nd G CXG feet from
it? c$using his de$th by electrocution>9033B;, 7A 8N) 89B53 12098/ 5fter he$ring?
the tri$l court rendered judgment in f$vor to the respondents +C-?--- $s
compens$tory d$m$gesS+JF" $s $ctu$l d$m$ges?ry+G?--- $s mor$l $nd exempl$ry
d$m$gesS $nd +@?--- $s $ttorney s fees? with costs>9033B;, 7A 8N) 12098 24 5++)53:/
2n $ppe$l to the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls? the l$tter $ffirmed the judgment with slight
modific$tion by reducing the $ttorney s fees from +@?--- to +C?--- with costs>
B::0)/ 62; =$nil$ )lectric is guilty of negligence>9033B;, 7A 8N) :1/ ;2E Bt w$s
the victim who w$s guilty of negligence the li$bility of electric comp$nies for
d$m$ges or person$l injury is governed by the rules of negligence? nevertheless
such comp$nies $re not insurers of the s$fety of the public>9e$soningE 8he de$th of
=$gno w$s prim$rily c$used by his own negligence? $nd in some me$sure by the too
close proximity of the medi$ $gu$ to the electric wire ofthe comp$ny by re$son of
the viol$tion of the origin$l permit given by the city $nd the subsequent $pprov$l
of s$id illeg$l construction ofthe medi$ $gu$> N$d the house owner followed the
terms of the permit given him by the city for the construction of his medi$ $gu$ ?
the dist$nce from the wires to the edge of s$id medi$ $gu$ would h$ve been @ft
$nd CC @XFinches>E 8he comp$ny c$nnot be expected to be $lw$ys on the lookout for
$ny illeg$l construction which reduces the dist$nce between its wires $nd s$id
construction? $nd to ch$nge the inst$ll$tion of its wires so $s to preserve s$id
dist$nce>E 8he viol$tion of the permit for the construction w$s not the direct
c$use of the $ccident> Bt merely contributed to it> 8he re$l c$use of the $ccident
or de$th w$s the reckless or negligent $ct of =$gno himself> Bt is to be presumed
th$t due to his $ge $nd experience he w$s qu$lified to do so> Ne h$d tr$ining $nd
experience for the job> Ne could not h$ve been entirely $ str$nger to electric
wires $nd the d$nger lurking in them>E 8o hold the defend$nt li$ble in d$m$ges for
the de$th of =$gno? such supposed negligence of the comp$ny must h$ve been the
proxim$te $nd princip$l c$use ofthe $ccident6e re$lize th$t the stringing of wires
of such high volt$ge .@?I-- volts%? un insul$ted $nd so close to houses is $
const$nt source of d$nger? even de$th? especi$lly to persons who h$ving occ$sion to
be ne$r s$id wires? do not $dopt the necess$ry prec$utions> 7ut m$ybe? the 1ity of
=$nil$ $uthorities $nd the electric comp$ny could get together $nd devise me$ns of
minimizing this d$nger to the public> Dust $s the est$blishment of pedestri$n l$nes
in city thoroughf$res m$y gre$tly minimize d$nger to pedestri$ns bec$use drivers of
motor vehicles m$y expect d$nger $nd slow down or even stop $nd t$ke other
necess$ry prec$ution upon $ppro$ching s$id l$nes? so? $ simil$r w$y m$y possibly be
found> :ince these high volt$ge wires c$nnot be properly insul$ted $nd $t
re$son$ble cost? they might perh$ps be strung only up to the outskirts of the city
where there $re few houses $nd few pedestri$ns $nd there stepEdown to $ volt$ge
where the wires c$rrying the s$me to the city could be properly insul$ted for the
better protection of the public>Bn view of $ll the foregoing? the $ppe$led decision
of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls is hereby reversed $nd the compl$int filed $g$inst the
1omp$ny is hereby dismissed> ;o costs>"J> 703B35; L:> 12==B::B2; 24 50<B8"F>
5:80<B332vs> =5;B35 )3)189B1 12=+5;A4518:/ 8he district of Bntr$muros? =$nil$? is
surrounded by $ w$ll with openings $t interv$ls for ingress or egress> 2ne of these
openings tow$rd =$nil$ 7$y is known $s the :$nt$ 3uci$ ,$te> 5bove the g$te $nd
between the w$ll $nd $ street is $ consider$ble sp$ce sodded with gr$ss with the
portion directly over the g$te p$ved with stone> 8his h$s become $ public pl$ce
where persons come to stroll? to rest? $nd enjoy themselves> ;e$r this pl$ce is $n
electric light pole with the corresponding wires> 8he pole w$s loc$ted close enough
to the public pl$ce $bove described th$t $ person by re$ching his $rm out of the
full length would be $ble to hold of one of the wires> 5t $bout I o clock in the
evening of 5ugust C"? CHG@? $ group of boys c$me to this pl$ce> 2ne of these boys
for some unknown re$son? pl$cing one foot on $ projection re$ched out $nd gr$sped $
ch$rged electric wire> <e$th resulted $lmost inst$ntly> 8his $ction w$s instituted
by themother of the dece$sed boy to recover d$m$ges from the electric comp$ny>
9033B;, 7A 8N) 89B53 12098/ 8he tri$l court judgment w$s rendered in f$vor of the
pl$intiff $nd $g$inst the defend$nt for the sum of +CK?---? $nd costs>B::0)/ 62;
the $ction should be dismissed due to thecontributory negligence of the pl$intiffs
903B;, 7A 8N) :1/ ;2E 8he de$th of the child w$s the result of f$ult $nd negligence
in permitting hot w$ter to flow through the public streets? there to end$nger the
lives of p$ssersEby who were unfortun$tely enough to f$ll into itE 8he mother $nd
her child h$d $ perfect right to be on the princip$l street of 8$clob$n? 3eyte? on
the evening when the religious procession w$s held>E 8here w$s nothing $bnorm$l in
$llowing the child to run $long $ few p$ces in $dv$nce of the mother> ;o one could
foresee the coincidence of $n $utomobile $ppe$ring $nd of $ frightened child
running $nd f$lling into $ ditch filled with hot w$ter>8he contributory negligence
of the child $nd her mother? if $ny? does not oper$te $s $ b$r to recovery? but in
its strictest sense could only result in reduction of the d$m$ges> 6e? therefore?
conclude th$t the pl$intiff is entitled to d$m$ges> 7ut the evidence indic$tive of
the true me$sure of those d$m$ges is s$dly deficient> 5ll th$t we know cert$inly is
th$t the dece$sed w$s less th$n G- ye$rs of $ge? $ student? $nd working in the
5teneo de =$nil$? but $t wh$t w$ges we $re not told> 6e $re $lso shown th$t
$pproxim$tely +G-- w$s needed to defr$y the tr$vel $nd funer$l expenses> 5s would
h$ppen in the c$se of $ jury who h$ve before them one of the p$rents? her position
to life? $nd the $ge $nd sex of the child? v$rying opinions? h$ve been disclosed in
the court reg$rding the estim$te of the d$m$ges
with reference to the next of kin> L$rious sums h$ve been suggested? beginning $s
low $s +C?--- $nd extending $s high $s +K?---> 5 m$jority of the court fin$lly
$rrived $t the sum of +C?K-- $s $ppropri$te d$m$ges in this c$se> 8he b$sis of this
$w$rd would be the +C?--- which h$ve been $llowed in other c$ses for the de$th of
young children without there h$ving been tendered $ny speci$l proof of the $mount
of d$m$ges suffered? in connection with which should be t$ken into $ccount the more
m$ture $ge of the boy in the c$se $t b$r? together with the p$rticul$r expenses
c$used by his de$th> .=$nz$n$res vs =oret$ TCHCF*? @F +hil>? FGCS 7ern$l $nd
)nverso vs> Nouse $nd 8$clob$n )lectric Q Bce +l$nt TCH@-*? K" +hil>? @GJS 1uison
vs>;orton Q N$rrison 1o> TCH@-*? p> CF? $nte>%Bn the light of the foregoing? the
v$rious errors $ssigned by the $ppell$nt will in the m$in be overruled? but $s
$bove indic$ted? the judgment will be modified by $llowing the pl$intiff to recover
from the defend$nt the sum of +C?K--? $nd the costs of both inst$nces>"H> ;58B2;53
B99B,58B2; 5<=B;B:8958B2; L:> B514518:/ +riv$te respondents 5ndres Lentur$? 5ntonio
4$j$rdo? =$rcelo 4$j$rdo? 5lfonso Lentur$ $nd 4lorentino Lentur$ $re le$sehold
ten$nts situ$ted in ;ue$v$ )cij$> Bn CHIJ? petitioner ;B5 constructed $n irrig$tion
c$n$l on the property of Bs$bel $nd Lirgini$ 8ecson which p$ssed through the
priv$te respondent s l$ndholdings $s s$id c$n$l tr$verses the 1inco 1inco creek
which $buts the l$ndholding>2n 4ebu$ry C@?CHJK? priv$te respondents filed $
compl$int for the $b$tement of the nuis$nce with d$m$ges $g$inst petitioners ;B5 in
which the s$id c$n$l resulted to the inund$tion of s$id l$ndholdings c$using
d$m$ges in the destruction of the pl$nted p$l$y crops $nd $lso prevented them from
pl$nting on their l$ndholdings?9033B;, 7A 8N) 89B53 12098/ 8he tri$l court finds
the compl$int meritorious ordering the defend$nts to p$y for the d$m$ges $nd the
cost of suit>9033B;, 7A 8N) 5++)3358) 12098/ 5ffirming in toto the decision of the
tri$l court>B::0)/ 6X; the petitioners $re li$ble for the d$m$ges c$used by their
negligent $ct>903B;, 7A 8N) :1/ 6ith reg$rds to petitioner s contention th$t the
respondent $ppell$te court erred in $w$rding d$m$ges to prive respondents? we find
the court s decision in $ccord$nce with the evidence $nd the l$w> 5s correctly held
by the $ppelle$te court/ Bt h$s been est$blished th$t the pl$tiff s l$ndholdings
were $ctu$lly inund$ted> 8he testimonies by $ll the pl$intiffs with respect to the
$mount of the loss they suffered were not impugned by $ny contr$dictory evidences
of the defend$nt> 8o our mind? these testimonies $re sufficient proof to m$ke the
gr$nt of d$m$ges v$lid $nd proper> 7esides? the $mount $w$rded by the lower court
is but just $nd re$son$ble considering the circumst$nces of the c$se> 6N)9)429)?
this petition for review on certior$ri is hereby <);B)< for l$ck of merit>:2
29<)9)<>K-> 0;B8)< :858): vs> 13)=);8)4518:/ 8h$t on the CJth d$y of Dune? CHCG? in
the city of =$nil$? )nrique 1lemente? $t the time being $nd $cting $s motorm$n of $
street c$r ;o> CCC upon the line +$s$y1erv$ntes of the =$nil$ )lectric 9$ilro$d $nd
3ight 1omp$ny? $ corpor$tion duly org$nized $nd doing business in the city of
=$nil$? +hilippine Bsl$nds? $nd then $nd there directing $nd oper$ting s$id street
c$r? $s the motorm$n thereof? upon $nd $long <$kot$ :treet in s$id city? $nd then
$nd there being under the oblig$tion $s such motorm$n of s$id street c$r to conduct
$nd direct the s$me with due c$re $nd c$ution? in order to $void $ny $ccident which
might occur to the vehicles $nd pedestri$ns who were p$ssing upon $nd over s$id
<$kot$ :treet? with reckless imprudence $nd with inexcus$ble negligence $nd in
viol$tion of the ordin$nce pert$ining to the m$tter? conducted $nd directed s$id
street c$r? without p$ying $ny $ttention to the pedestri$ns who were crossing s$id
street of his l$ck of c$re $nd reckless negligence he directed $nd conducted street
c$r ;o> CCC $g$inst $nd over the body $nd he$d of Du$n ,$rci$? $ child @ ye$rs of
$ge? who w$s then $nd there p$ssing $cross the s$id <$kot$ :treet? dr$gging the
body of s$id child over s$id streetEc$r tr$ck for $ consider$ble dist$nce?
fr$cturing $nd destroying its skull $nd c$using inst$nt de$th>903B;, 7A 8N)
89B5312098/ )nrique 1lemente? not guilty $s ch$rged in the compl$int of homicide
through reckless negligence or r$ther through fe$rful negligence? but find him
guilty of $ viol$tion of the regul$tions through imprudence $nd negligence? which
resulted in the de$th of the child $s $lleged in the compl$int? $nd sentence him to
five months of $rresto m$yor? $nd to p$y the costs of the $ction>903B;, 7A 8N) :1/
6e $re $w$re th$t the crime of homicide through $n $ct of simple negligence which
viol$tes $n ordin$nce of regul$tion is not necess$rily included in the crime of
homicide through reckless negligence> 8he l$tter crime might possibly be committed
without the viol$tion of $n ordin$nce or regul$tion> Bn th$t event it would not
include the crime of homicide through $n $ct of simple negligence which viol$tes $n
ordin$nce or regul$tion> 8he courts h$ve not yet gone so f$r $s to hold th$t? where
there is $n $cquitt$l of the gre$ter crime $nd $ conviction of $ lesser crime not
included in the gre$ter $nd not ch$rged in the inform$tion? $n $ppe$l from $
conviction of the lesser crime opens the w$y to $ conviction of the gre$ter crime
in the $ppell$te court if the evidence is there found sufficientS nor h$s there
been such holding in $ c$se where two crimes? neither one included in the other?
were ch$rged in the s$me inform$tion? $nd $n $cquitt$l w$s h$d $s to the higher $nd
$ conviction $s to the lower> Bn the c$se $t b$r? however? we h$ve both the higher
$nd the lower degrees of the s$me crime ch$rged in the inform$tion> 6e h$ve? $lso?
$ c$se in which the commission of the homicide w$s $ccomp$nied by $ viol$tion of
the ordin$nce? $nd in which? therefore?the crime of homicide through $n $ct of
negligence which viol$tes $n ordin$nce w$s included in the crime of homicide by $n
$ct of reckless negligence> 8his is $ c$se where? $s $ m$tter of f$ct? the one w$s
included in the other> 0nder the $uthorities? therefore? $n $ppe$l from $
conviction of the lower gr$de opens the whole c$se for reconsider$tion by this
court upon $ll the evidence? $nd requires us in the perform$nce of our duty to
pronounce such $ judgment in the premises $s in conscience we ought> 8he judgment
of the court below is reversed? $nd the $ccused is hereby convicted of the crime of
homicide committed through reckless negligence? $nd is hereby sentenced to one ye$r
$nd one d$y of prision correccion$l with the $ccessories provided by l$w? with
costs>1$ses "GEK-)35<? =591B53 5>KC> L53);O0)35 vs 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/ =$>
3ourdes L$lenzuel$ w$s driving when she re$lized she h$d $ fl$t tire> :he p$rked
$long the sidew$lk of 5uror$ 7lvd>? $lighted from the c$r? put on her emergency
lights $nd went to the re$r to open the trunk> :he w$s st$nding $t the left side of
the re$r of her c$r pointing to the tools to $ m$n who will help her fix the tire
when she w$s suddenly bumped by $ c$r driven by defend$nt 9ich$rd 3i $nd registered
in the n$me of defend$nt 5lex$nder 1ommerci$l? Bnc> 7ec$use of the imp$ct pl$intiff
w$s thrown $g$inst the windshield ofthe c$r ofthe defend$nt? which w$s destroyed?
$nd then fell to the ground> :he w$s pulled out from under defend$ntRs c$r>
+l$intiffRs left leg w$ssevered up to the middle of her thigh> :he w$s confined in
the hospit$l for twenty .G-% d$ys $nd w$s eventu$lly fitted with $n $rtifici$l leg>
:he filed $ cl$im for d$m$ges $g$inst defend$nt> 3i s $libi w$s th$t he w$s driving
$t KKkph when he w$s suddenly confronted with $ speeding c$r coming from the
opposite direction> Ne instinctively swerved to the right to $void colliding with
the oncoming vehicle? $nd bumped pl$intiffRs c$r? which he did notsee bec$use it
w$s midnight blue in color? with no p$rking lights or e$rly w$rning device? $nd the
$re$ w$s poorly lighted><efend$nts countercl$imed for d$m$ge? $lleging th$t
pl$intiff w$s the one who w$s reckless or negligent> 8he 981 found 3i guilty of
gross negligenceS 5lex$nder $nd 3i solid$rily li$ble> 3$ter? the 15 $ffirmed but
$bsolved 5lex$nder>B::0):/C> 62; 3i w$s grossly negligent in driving the comp$ny
issued c$r>G> 62;L$lenzuel$ w$s guilty of contributory negligenceN)3</ 2bviously in
the c$se $t bench? the only negligence $scrib$ble w$s the negligence of 3i on the
night of the $ccident> ;egligence? $s it is commonly understood is conduct which
cre$tes $n undue risk of h$rm to others> Bt is the f$ilure to observe th$t degree
of c$re? prec$ution? $nd vigil$nce which the circumst$nces justly dem$nd? whereby
such other person suffers injury> 6e stressed? in 1orliss vs> =$nil$ 9$ilro$d
1omp$ny? th$t negligence is the w$nt of c$re required by the circumst$nces>8he
circumst$nces est$blished by the evidence $dduced in the court below pl$inly
demonstr$te th$t 3i w$s grossly negligent in driving his =itsubishi 3$ncer> Bt
be$rs emph$sis th$t he w$s driving $t $ f$st speed $t $bout G/-- 5>=> $fter $ he$vy
downpour h$d settled into $ drizzle rendering the street slippery> 8here is $mple
testimoni$l evidence on record to show th$t he w$s under the influence of liquor>
0nder these conditions? his ch$nces of effectively de$ling with ch$nging conditions
on the ro$d were signific$ntly lessened>6e $gree with the respondent court th$t
L$lenzuel$ w$s not guilty of contributory negligence>1ourts h$ve tr$dition$lly been
compelled to recognize th$t $n $ctor who is confronted with $n emergency is not to
be held up to the st$nd$rd of conduct norm$lly $pplied to $n individu$l who is in
no such situ$tion>
8he l$w t$kes stock of impulses of hum$nity when pl$ced in thre$tening or
d$ngerous situ$tions $nd does not require the s$me st$nd$rd of thoughtful $nd
reflective c$re from persons confronted by unusu$l $nd oftentimes thre$tening
conditions> 0nder the emergency rule $dopted by this 1ourt in ,$n vs 1ourt of
5ppe$ls? $n individu$l who suddenly finds himself in $ situ$tion of d$nger $nd is
required to $ct without much time to consider the best me$ns th$t m$y be $dopted to
$void the impending d$nger? is not guilty of negligence if he f$ils to undert$ke
wh$t subsequently $nd upon reflection m$y $ppe$r to be $ better solution? unless
the emergency w$s brought by his own negligence>0nder the circumst$nces described?
L$lenzuel$ did exercise the st$nd$rd re$son$bly dict$ted by the emergency $nd could
not be considered to h$ve contributed to the unfortun$te circumst$nces which
eventu$lly led to the $mput$tion of one of her lower extremities> 8he emergency
which led her to p$rk her c$r on $ sidew$lk in 5uror$ 7oulev$rd w$s not of her own
m$king? $nd it w$s evident th$t she h$d t$ken $ll re$son$ble prec$utions>KG> +NB3>
32;, <B:85;1) 8)3)+N2;) 12> vs 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/2n Duly @-? CHIF? the jeep of
)steb$n spouses r$n over $mound of e$rth $nd fell into $n open trench? $nexc$v$tion
$llegedly undert$ken by +3<8 fortheinst$ll$tion of its underground conduitsystem>
8hecompl$int $lleged th$t respondent 5ntonio )steb$n f$iled to notice the open
trench which w$sleft uncovered bec$use of the creeping d$rkness $nd the l$ck of $ny
w$rning light orsigns>,lori$ )steb$n $llegedly sust$ined injuries on her $rms? legs
$nd f$ce? le$ving $ perm$nent sc$r on her cheek? while the respondent husb$nd
suffered cut lips> Bn $ddition? the windshield of the jeep w$s sh$ttered> +3<8? in
its $nswer? denies li$bility on the contention th$t the injuries sust$ined by
respondent spouses were the result of their own negligence $nd th$t the entity
which should be held responsible? if $t $ll? is 3>9> 7$rte $nd 1omp$ny? $n
independent contr$ctorwhich undertook the s$id construction work> 8he 9 81 ruled in
f$vor of )steb$n spouses where$s the 15 reversing the decision of the lower court
$nd dismissing the compl$int of respondent spouses> Bt held th$t respondent )steb$n
spouses were negligent $nd consequently $bsolved petitioner +3<8 from the cl$im for
d$m$ges>B::0)/ 62; +3<8 is li$ble to respondent )steb$n spouses>N)3</ 8he $bove
findings cle$rly show th$t the negligence of respondent 5ntonio )steb$n w$s not
only contributory to his injuries $nd those of his wife but goes to the very c$use
of the occurrence of the $ccident? $s one of its determining f$ctors? $nd thereby
precludes their right to recover d$m$ges> @- 8he perils of the ro$d were known to?
hence $ppreci$ted $nd $ssumed by? priv$te respondents> 7y exercising re$son$ble
c$re $nd prudence? respondent 5ntonio )steb$n could h$ve $voided the injurious
consequences of his $ct? even $ssuming $rguendo th$t there w$s some $lleged
negligence on the p$rt of petitioner> 5s opined in some qu$rters? the omission to
perform $ duty? such $s the pl$cing of w$rning signs on the site of the exc$v$tion?
constitutes the proxim$te c$use only when the doing of the s$id omitted $ct would
h$ve prevented the injury> 4urthermore? respondent 5ntonio )steb$n h$d the l$st
cle$r ch$nce or opportunity to $void the $ccident? notwithst$nding the negligence
he imputes to petitioner +3<8> 5s $ resident of 3$cson :treet? he p$ssed on th$t
street $lmost every d$y $nd h$d knowledge ofthe presence $nd loc$tion of the
exc$v$tions there> Bt w$s his negligence th$t exposed him $nd his wife to d$ngerS
hence he is solely responsible for the consequences of his imprudence>K@> +NB3>
;58B2;53 95B365A: vs> B;8)9=B<B58) 5++)358) 120984518:/ 8he c$se $rose from $
collision of $ p$ssenger express tr$in of defend$nt +hilippine ;$tion$l 9$ilw$ys?
.+;9% coming from :$n 4ern$ndo? 3$ 0nion $nd bound for =$nil$ $nd $ p$ssenger bus
of 7$liw$g 8r$nsit? Bnc> which w$s on its w$y to N$gonoy? 7ul$c$n? from =$nil$? but
upon re$ching the r$ilro$d crossing $t 7$rrio 7$lung$o? 1$lumpit? 7ul$c$n $t $bout
C/@- in the $fternoon of 5ugust C-? CHJ"? got st$lled $nd w$s hit by defend$ntRs
express tr$in c$using d$m$ges to pl$intiffRs bus $nd its p$ssengers? eighteen .CF%
of whom died $nd fiftyEthree .K@% others suffered physic$l injuries> +l$intiff
$lleging th$t the proxim$te c$use of the collision w$s the negligence $nd
imprudence of defend$nt +;9? $nd its locomotive engineer? Nonorio 1irb$do? in
oper$ting its p$ssenger tr$in in $ busy intersection without $ny b$rs? sem$phores?
sign$l lights? fl$gm$n or switchm$n to w$rn the public of $ppro$ching tr$in th$t
would p$ss through the crossing? filed the inst$nt $ction for <$m$ges $g$inst
defend$nts> 8he defend$nts? in their 5nswer tr$versed the m$teri$l $lleg$tion of
the 1ompl$int $nd $s $ffirm$tive defense $lleged th$t the collision w$s c$used by
the negligence? imprudence $nd l$ck of foresight of pl$intiffRs bus driver? 9omeo
Nughes> 8he tri$l court held by imputing negligence on the p$rt of the tr$in
engineer $nd his employer> 15 $ffirmed>B::0):/C> 62;? both drivers $re negligentS
th$t likewise which of s$id comp$nies w$s negligent $t s$id r$ilro$d intersection>
G> 62;? 78B h$s exercised the diligence of $ good f$ther of the f$mily in the
selection $nd supervision of its employees>N)3</ 1ontributory negligence m$y not be
$scribed to the bus driverS it w$s evident th$t he h$d t$ken the necess$ry
prec$utions before p$ssing over the r$ilw$y tr$ckS if the bus w$s hit? it w$s for
re$sons beyond the control of the bus driver bec$use he h$d no pl$ce to go>8he
f$ilure of the +hilippine ;$tion$l 9$ilw$ys to put $ cross b$r? or sign$l light?
fl$gm$n or switchm$n? or sem$phores is evidence of negligence $nd disreg$rd of the
s$fety of the public? even if there is no l$w or ordin$nce requiring it? bec$use
public s$fety dem$nds th$t s$id devices or equipments be inst$lled? in the light of
$fores$id jurisprudence> Bn the opinion of this 1ourt the P sign or the presence of
W:82+? 322M? 3B:8);W w$rnings would not be sufficient protection of the motoring
public $s well $s the pedestri$ns? in the s$id intersection> 3ikewise? it w$s
est$blished th$t the we$ther condition w$s ch$r$cterized with intermittent r$in
which should h$ve prompted the tr$in engineer to exercise extr$ prec$ution> 5lso?
the tr$in re$ched 1$lumpit? 7ul$c$n $he$d of scheduled $rriv$l there$t? indic$ting
th$t the tr$in w$s tr$velling more th$n the norm$l speed of @- kilometers per hour>
Bf the tr$in were re$lly running $t @- kilometers per hour when it w$s $ppro$ching
the intersection? it would prob$bly not h$ve tr$velled CH- meters more from the
pl$ce of the $ccident .p$ge C-? 7rief for +etitioners%> 5ll of these f$ctors? t$ken
collectively? engendered the concrete $nd yes? correct conclusion th$t the tr$in
engineer w$s negligent who? moreover? despite the l$st opportunity within his h$nds
visE$Evis the we$ther condition including the presence of people ne$r the
intersection? could h$ve obvi$ted the impending collision h$d he sl$ckened his
speed $nd $pplied the br$kes .+ic$rt vs> :mith? @J +hil> F-H TCHCF*%> 1oncerning
the exercise of diligence norm$lly expected of $n employer in the selection $nd
supervision of its employees? respondent court expressed the view th$t +;9 w$s
remiss on this score since it $llowed Nonorio 1$b$rdo? who finished only prim$ry
educ$tion $nd bec$me $n engineer only through sheer experience? to oper$te the
locomotive? not to mention the f$ct th$t such ple$ in $void$nce w$s not $sserted in
the $nswer $nd w$s thus bel$tedly r$ised on $ppe$l>K"> 85A329 vs =5;B35 )3)189B1
95B3925< 5;< 3B,N8 124518:/ 8he defend$nt is $ foreign corpor$tion eng$ged in the
oper$tion of $ streetr$ilw$y $nd $n electric light system in the city of =$nil$>
8he pl$intiff? <$vid 8$ylor? w$s $tthe time when he received the injuries
compl$ined of? CK ye$rs of $ge> 2n :eptember @-? CH-K? pl$intiff? with $ boy n$med
=$nuel 1l$p$rols? CG? crossed the footbridge to the Bsl$ del +rovisor? to visit one
=urphy? $n employee ofthe defend$nt? who promised to m$ke them $ cylinder for
$mini$ture engine>0pon inquiry th$t =r>=urphy w$s notin his qu$rters? the boys?
impelled $pp$rently by youthful curiosity? spent some time in w$ndering $bout the
comp$nyRs premises> Nere they found some G- or @- br$ss fulmin$ting c$ps sc$ttered
on the ground> 8hey opened one of the c$ps with $ knife? $nd finding th$t it w$s
filled with $ yellowish subst$nce they got m$tches? $nd <$vid held the c$p while
=$nuel $pplied $ lighted m$tch to the contents> 5n explosion followed? c$using more
or less serious injuries to $ll three> <$vid w$s struck in the f$ce by sever$l
p$rticles of the met$l c$psule? one of which injured his right eye to such $n
extent $s to necessit$te its remov$l by the surgeons> ;o me$sures seems to h$ve
been $dopted by the defend$nt comp$ny to prohibit or prevent visitors from entering
$nd w$lking $bout its premises un$ttended? when they felt disposed so to do> 8he
tri$l courtRs decision? $w$rding d$m$ges to the pl$intiff? upon the provisions of
$rticle C-FH of the 1ivil 1ode re$d together with $rticles CH-G? CH-@? $nd CH-F of
th$t code>B::0)/ 62; the defend$nt s negligence is the proxim$te c$use of
pl$intiffRs injuries>N)3</ 6e $re of opinion th$t under $ll the circumst$nces
ofthis c$se the negligence of the defend$nt in le$ving the c$ps exposed on its
premises w$s not the proxim$te c$use of the injury received by the pl$intiff? which
therefore w$s not? properly spe$king? $ttribut$ble to the negligence of the
defend$nt ? $nd? on the other h$nd? we $re s$tisfied th$t pl$intiff s $ction in
cutting open the deton$ting c$p $nd putting $ m$tch to its contents w$s the
proxim$te
c$use of the explosion $nd of the result$nt injuries inflicted upon the pl$intiff?
$nd th$t the defend$nt? therefore? is not civilly responsible for the injuries thus
incurred> 6e $re s$tisfied th$t the pl$intiff in this c$se h$d sufficient c$p$city
$nd underst$nding to be sensible of the d$nger to which he exposed himself when he
put the m$tch to the contents of the c$pS th$t he w$s sui juris in the sense th$t
his $ge $nd his experience qu$lified him to underst$nd $nd $ppreci$te the necessity
for the exercise of th$t degree of c$ution which would h$ve $voided the injury
which resulted from his own deliber$te $ctS $nd th$t the injury incurred by him
must be held to h$ve been the direct $nd immedi$te result of his own willful $nd
reckless $ct? so th$t while it m$y be true th$t these injuries would not h$ve been
incurred but for the negligence $ct of the defend$nt in le$ving the c$ps exposed on
its premises? nevertheless pl$intiffRs own $ct w$s the proxim$te $nd princip$l
c$use of the $ccident which inflicted the injury>KK> D5912 =59M)8B;, 129+2958B2; vs
N2;> 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/ +etitioner D$rco =$rketing 1orpor$tion is the owner of
:yvel s <ep$rtment :tore? =$k$ti 1ity> 2n =$y H? CHF@? 1riseld$ $nd Ohieneth were
$t the Gnd floor of :yvel s <ept> :tore> 1riseld$moment$rily let go of her
d$ughter s h$nd to sign her credit c$rd slip $t the p$yment $nd verific$tion
counter> :he suddenly felt $ gust of wind $nd he$rd $ loud thud> :he looked behind
her $nd s$w her d$ughter on the floor? pinned by the gift wr$pping counter>
Ohieneth w$s crying $nd scre$ming for help> 1riseld$ w$s $ble to $sk people to help
her $nd bring her d$ughter to the hospit$l> :he w$s oper$ted on immedi$tely $t the
hospit$l> :he died C" d$ys l$ter? on the hospit$l bed> :he w$s I ye$rs old> 8he
c$use of her de$th w$s $ttributed to the injuries she sust$ined> 8he 5guil$r s
dem$nded from the petitioner sthe reimbursement of hospit$l $ndmedic$l bills? $nd
w$ke $nd funer$lexpenses> +etitioners refused to p$y> :o the 5guil$r s filed $
compl$int for d$m$ges> 8he tri$l court dismissed the compl$int $nd countercl$im
$fter finding th$t the preponder$nce of evidence f$vored petitioner> 8he 1ourt of
5ppe$ls? however? decided in f$vor of priv$te respondents $nd reversed the $ppe$led
judgment> Bt found th$t petitioners were negligent in m$int$ining $ structur$lly
d$ngerous counter>B::0)/.C% whether the de$th of ONB);)8N w$s $ccident$l or
$ttribut$ble to negligenceS .G% Bn c$se of $ finding of negligence? whether the
s$me w$s $ttribut$ble to priv$te respondents for m$int$ining $ defective counter or
to 19B:)3<5 $nd ONB);)8N for f$iling to exercise due $nd re$son$ble c$re while
inside the store premises>N)3</ 5ccident $nd negligence $re intrinsic$lly
contr$dictoryS one c$nnot exist with the other> 5ccident occurs when the person
concerned is exercising ordin$ry c$re? which is not c$used by f$ult of $ny person
$nd which could not h$ve been prevented by $ny me$ns suggested by common prudence>
8he test in determining the existence of negligence is enunci$ted in the l$ndm$rk
c$se of +ic$rt v> :mith? thus/ <id the defend$nt in doing the $lleged negligent $ct
use th$t re$son$ble c$re $nd c$ution which $n ordin$rily prudent person would h$ve
used in the s$me situ$tionV Bf not? then he is guilty of negligence> 6e rule th$t
the tr$gedy which befell ONB);)8N w$s no $ccident $nd th$t ONB);)8N s de$th could
only be $ttributed to negligence>6ithout doubt? petitioner +$nelo $nd $nother store
supervisor were person$lly informed of the d$nger posed by the unst$ble counter>
Aet? neither initi$ted $ny concrete $ction to remedy the situ$tion nor ensure the
s$fety of the store s employees $nd p$trons $s $ re$son$ble $nd ordin$ry prudent
m$n would h$ve done> 8hus? $s confronted by the situ$tion petitioners miser$bly
f$iled to disch$rge the due diligence required of $ good f$ther of $ f$mily> 5nent
the negligence imputed to ONB);)8N? we $pply the conclusive presumption th$t f$vors
children below nine .H% ye$rs old in th$t they $re inc$p$ble of contributory
negligence>)ven if we $ttribute contributory negligence to ONB);)8N $nd $ssume th$t
she climbed over the counter? no injury should h$ve occurred if we $ccept
petitioners theory th$t the counter w$s st$ble $nd sturdy> 4or if th$t w$s the
truth? $ fr$il sixEye$r old could not h$ve c$used the counter to coll$pse> 19B:)3<5
too? should be $bsolved from $ny contributory negligence> 5t this precise moment?
it w$s re$son$ble $nd usu$l for 19B:)3<5 to let go of her child> 4urther? $t the
time ONB);)8N w$s pinned down by the counter? she w$s just $ foot $w$y from her
motherS $nd the giftEwr$pping counter w$s just four meters $w$y from 19B:)3<5> 8he
time $nd dist$nce were both signific$nt> ONB);)8N w$s ne$r her mother $nd did not
loiter $s petitioners would w$nt to impress upon us> :he even $dmitted to the
doctor who tre$ted her $t the hospit$l th$t she did not do $nythingS the counter
just fell on her>KI> D03B5; <)3 92:59B2 vs =5;B35 )3)189B1 12>4518:/ 8his $ction
w$s instituted by Duli$n del 9os$rio for the purpose of recovering d$m$ges from
=er$lco for the de$th of his son? 5lberto? resulting from $ shock from $ wire used
by the defend$nt for the tr$nsmission of electricity> 5ug "? CH@-? shortly $fter G
o clock in the $fternoon trouble developed in $n overhe$d wire conducting
electricity for lightning purposes in the 1ity of =$nil$> 8he wire soon p$rted $nd
one of the ch$rged ends fell to the ground in shrubbery close to the w$y> 8he
lightning comp$ny received $ telephonic report of this incident $t G>GK p>m> $nd
promised to send $n inspector> 5t " p>m>? the neighboring school turned out $nd $s
the children went home one of the boys? of the $ge H ye$rs? touched the wire with
his h$nd $nd received $ shock which resulted in his de$th> 8he 14B renders decision
in f$vor of =$nil$ )lectric> 1o>B::0)/ 62; =$nil$ )lectric 1o> is li$ble>N)3</ 6e
$re of the opinion th$t the presumption of negligence on the p$rt of the comp$ny
from the bre$k$ge of this wire h$s been overcome? $nd the defend$nt is in our
opinion responsible for the $ccident> 4urthermore? when notice received $t the
=$l$bon st$tion $t G>GKpm? somebody should h$ve been disp$tched to the scene of the
trouble $t once? or other me$sures t$ken to gu$rd the point of d$ngerS but more
th$n $n hour $nd $ h$lf p$ssed before $nyone representing the comp$ny $ppe$red on
thescene? $nd in the me$ntime this child h$d been cl$imed $s $ victim> 8he
circumst$nces th$t the boy who w$s killed touched the wire $fter one of his
comp$nions h$d w$rned him not to do so? did not relieve the comp$ny of
responsibility? owing to his imm$ture ye$rs $nd n$tur$l curiosity of $ child to do
something out of ordin$ry> KJ> 4)<)9B12 A359<) vs )<,59<2 5(0B;24518:/ :ori$no w$s
the school princip$l $nd 5quino w$s $ te$cher> 8he school w$s littered with
concrete blocks> 8e$cher 7$nez st$rted burying them> 5quino g$thered CF m$le pupils
to help>Ne ordered them to dig but work w$sn t finished> 8he following d$y? 5quino
c$lled " of the CF pupils to continue> 5quino continued digging while the pupils
rem$ined inside the pit throwing out the loose soil> 5quino left the children to
level the loose soil $nd borrowed $ key from 7$nez> 5quino told the kids not to
touch the stone> @ of the " kids jumped into the pit> 8he rem$ining 5b$g$ jumped on
the concrete block c$using it to slide down> 8he G kids were $ble to esc$pe but
student Al$rde sust$ined injuries> 8hree d$ys l$ter? he died> +$rents filed suit
$g$inst 5quino $nd :ori$no> 3ower court dismissed the c$se $nd 15 $ffirmed $nd s$id
child Al$rde w$s negligent>B::0)/ 62;5quino $nd :ori$no c$n be held li$ble for
d$m$ges>N)3</ 5s reg$rds the princip$l? we hold th$t he c$nnot be m$de responsible
for the de$th of the child Al$rde? he being the he$d of $n $c$demic school $nd not
$ school of $rts $nd tr$des> 8his is in line with our ruling in 5m$dor$ vs> 1ourt
of 5ppe$ls? wherein this 1ourt thoroughly discussed the doctrine th$t under 5rticle
GCF- of the 1ivil 1ode? it is only the te$cher $nd not the he$d of $n $c$demic
school who should be $nswer$ble for torts committed by their students> 8his 1ourt
went on to s$y th$t in $ school of $rts $nd tr$des? it is only the he$d of the
school who c$n be held li$ble>4rom $ review of the record of this c$se? it is very
cle$r th$t priv$te respondent 5quino $cted with f$ult $nd gross negligence when he/
.C% f$iled to $v$il himself of services of $dult m$nu$l l$bourers $nd inste$d
utilized his pupils $ged ten to eleven to m$ke $n exc$v$tion ne$r the oneEton
concrete stone which he knew to be $ very h$z$rdous t$skS .G% required the children
to rem$in inside the pit even $fter they h$d finished digging? knowing th$t the
huge block w$s lying ne$rby $nd could be e$sily pushed or kicked $side by $ny pupil
who by ch$nce m$y go to the perilous $re$S .@% ordered them to level the soil
$round the exc$v$tion when it w$s so $pp$rent th$t the huge stone w$s $t the brink
of f$llingS ."% went to $ pl$ce where he would not be $ble to check on the
childrenRs s$fetyS $nd .K% left the children close to the exc$v$tion? $n obviously
$ttr$ctive nuis$nce> 8he negligent $ct of priv$te respondent 5quino in le$ving his
pupils in such $ d$ngerous site h$s $ direct c$us$l connection to the de$th of the
child Al$rde> 3eft by them? it w$s but n$tur$l for the children to pl$y $round>
8ired from the strenuous digging? they just h$d to $muse themselves with wh$tever
they found> <riven by their pl$yful $nd $dventurous instincts $nd not knowing the
risk they were f$cing three of them jumped into the hole while the other one jumped
on the stone> :ince the stone w$s so he$vy $nd the soil w$s loose from the digging?
it w$s $lso $ n$tur$l consequence th$t the stone would
f$ll into the hole beside it? c$using injury on the unfortun$te child c$ught by
its he$vy weight> )verything th$t occurred w$s the n$tur$l $nd prob$ble effect of
the negligent $cts of priv$te respondent 5quino> ;eedless to s$y? the child Al$rde
would not h$ve died were it not for the uns$fe situ$tion cre$ted by priv$te
respondent 5quino which exposed the lives of $ll the pupils concerned to re$l
d$nger> KF> 459 )5:8)9; :NB++B;, vs 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/ =XL +5L32<59 w$s owned
$nd oper$ted by the 4$r )$stern :hipping 1o>> Bt $rrived $t the port of =$nil$ from
1olumbi$> 1$pt> 5bell$n$ w$s t$sked by +hilippine +ort 5uthority to supervise the
berthing> :enen ,$vino w$s $ssigned by =$nil$ +ilot s 5ssoci$tion to conduct
docking m$neuvers for the s$fe berthing of the vessel to 7erth "> ,$vino bo$rded
the vessel with Lictor M$v$nkov? the m$ster vessel> 8he vessel then $nchor $nd
proceeded to the =$nil$ Bntern$tion$l +ort> 8he vessel re$ched the l$ndm$rk $nd
,$vino ordered the engine stopped> 6hen the vessel w$s $bout G?--- ft> from the
pier? ,$vino ordered the $nchor dropped $nd the two sh$ckles were dropped> Nowever?
the $nchor did not t$ke hold $s expected $nd the speed of the vessel did not
sl$cken c$using $ commotion to ensue> 5fter ,$vino noticed th$t the $nchor did not
t$ke hold? he ordered the engines h$lfE $stern> 5bell$n$? who w$s then $t pier
$pron noticed the vessel w$s $ppro$ching f$st> ,$vino there$fter g$ve fullE $stern
but before the right $nchor $nd sh$ckles could be dropped? the vessel r$mmed into
the $pron of the pier c$using d$m$ge to the peir> 8he vessel sust$ined d$m$ge too>
8he ++5 filed before the tri$l court for $ sum of money $g$inst 4$r )$stern? ,$vino
$nd =+5> 8he tri$l court renders decision in f$vor of ++5> 8he 15 $ffirmed the
findings of the court with modific$tions>B::0)/ 62;? 4):1? ,$vino? $nd =+5 $re
solid$rily li$ble>N)3</ 8hose who undert$ke $ny work c$lling for speci$l skills $re
required not only to exercise re$son$ble c$re in wh$t they do but $lso possess $
st$nd$rd minimum of speci$l knowledge $nd $bilityE every m$n who offers his
services to $nother? $nd is employed? $ssumes to exercise in the employment such
skills he possesses? with $ re$son$ble degree of diligence>6here sever$l c$uses
producing $n injury $re concurrent $nd e$ch is $n efficient c$use without which the
injury would not h$ve h$ppened? the injury m$y be $ttributed to $ll or $ny of the
c$uses $nd recovery m$y be h$d $g$inst $ny or $ll of the responsible persons
$lthough under circumst$nces of the c$se? it m$y $ppe$r th$t one of them w$s
culp$ble? $nd th$t the duty owed by them to the injured person w$s not the s$me> ;o
$ctor s negligence ce$ses to be $ proxim$te c$use merely bec$use it does not exceed
the negligence of other $ctors> )$ch wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result
$nd is li$ble $s though his $cts were the sole c$use of the injury> 8here is no
contribution between the tortfe$sors whose li$bility is solid$ry since both of them
$re li$ble for the tot$l d$m$ge> 5s $ gener$l rule? the owners or those in
possession $nd control of $ vessel $re li$ble for $ll n$tur$l $nd proxim$te d$m$ges
c$used to persons or property by re$son of her negligentm$n$gement or n$vig$tion>
KH> 103B2; B1)? 4B:N 5;< )3)189B1 12> vs +NB3> =2829: 129+2958B2;4518:/ 8he
pl$intiff $nd defend$nt $re domestic corpor$tionsS N><> 1r$nston w$s the
represent$tive of the pl$intiff> +l$intiff w$s the registered owner of the motor
schooner ,wendoline? which w$s used in the fishing tr$de in the +hilippine Bsl$nds>
Bn D$nu$ry? CHGK? 1r$nston decided? if pr$ctic$ble? to h$ve the engine on the
,wendoline ch$nged from $ g$soline consumer to $ crude oil burner> Ne therefore
m$de known his desire to =c3eod Q 1o>? thru =c Mell$r? $nd w$s told th$t he might
m$ke inquiries of the +hilippine =otors 1orpor$tions> 1r$nston h$d $ conference
with +=1 thru (uest? its m$n$ger? who $greed to do the job? with the underst$nding
th$t p$yment should be m$de upon completion of the work> 5s $ result of the
$fores$id interview? work of effecting the ch$nge in the engine w$s begun $nd
conducted under the supervision of (uest> (uest then inst$lled $ new c$rburetor>
8he result of this experiment w$s s$tisf$ctory>Bn the course of the prelimin$ry
work upon the c$rburetor $nd its connections? it w$s observed th$t the c$rburetor
w$s floodingS this w$s c$lled to (uestRs $ttention> 5fter prelimin$ry experiments
$nd $djustments h$d been m$de? the bo$t w$s t$ken out into the b$y for $ tri$l run>
8he first p$rt of the course w$s covered without $ny untow$rd development> 5s the
bo$t w$s coming in from this run? the engine stopped? $nd connection $g$in h$d to
be m$de with the g$soline line to get $ new st$rt> 5fter this h$d been done? the
mech$nic? switched to the tube connecting with the new mixture> 5 moment l$ter $
b$ck fire occurred in the cylinder ch$mber> 8his c$used $ fl$me to shoot b$ck into
the c$rburetor? $nd inst$ntly the c$rburetor $nd $dj$cent p$rts were covered with $
m$ss of fl$mes? which the members of the crew were un$ble to subdue> 8hey were
therefore compelled? $s the fire spre$d? to t$ke to $ bo$t? $nd their esc$pe w$s
s$fely $ffected? but the ,wendoline w$s reduced to $ mere hulk> 8he s$lv$ge from?
the wreck? when sold? brought only the sum of +CK-> 8he v$lue of the bo$t? before
the $ccident occurred? $s the court found? w$s +C-? ---B::0)/ 62; defend$nt is
li$ble for the loss of the bo$t>N)3</ 8he tri$l judge seems to h$ve proceeded on
the ide$ th$t? in$smuch $s (uest h$d control of the ,wendoline during the
experiment$l run? the defend$nt corpor$tion w$s in the position of $ b$ilee $nd
th$t? $s $ consequence? the burden of proof w$s on the defend$nt to exculp$te
itself from responsibility by proving th$t the $ccident w$s not due to the f$ult of
(uest> 6e $re un$ble to $ccede to this point of view> 1ert$inly? (uest w$s not in
ch$rge of the n$vig$tion of the bo$t on this tri$l run> Nis employment contempl$ted
the inst$ll$tion of new p$rts in the engine only? $nd it seems r$ther str$ined to
hold th$t the defend$nt corpor$tion h$d thereby become b$ilee of the bo$t> 5s $
rule workmen who m$ke rep$irs on $ ship in its ownerRs y$rd? or $ mech$nic who
rep$irs $ co$ch without t$king it to his shop? $re not b$ilees? $nd their rights
$nd li$bilities $re determined by the gener$l rules of l$w? under their contr$ct>
8he true b$ilee $cquires possession $nd wh$t is usu$lly spoken of $s speci$l
property in the ch$ttel b$iled> 5s $ consequence of such possession $nd speci$l
property? the b$ilee is given $ lien for his compens$tion> 8hese ide$s seem to be
incomp$tible with the situ$tion now under consider$tion> 7ut though defend$nt
c$nnot be held li$ble in the supposition th$t the burden of proof h$d not been
sust$ined by it in disproving the negligence of its m$n$ger? we $re nevertheless of
the opinion th$t the proof shows by $ cle$r preponder$nce th$t the $ccident to the
,wendoline $nd the d$m$ges resulting there from $re ch$rge$ble to the negligence or
l$ck of skill of (uest> 1$ses KCEKH,5;2? D)L5; M35B9) 3>I-> )> => 69B,N8 vs =5;B35
)3)189B1 9>9> Q 3B,N8 12>4518:/ 8his is $n $ction brought to recover d$m$ges for
injuries sust$ined in $n $ccident which occurred in 1$looc$n on the night of 5ugust
F? CH-H> 8he defend$nt is $ corpor$tion eng$ged in oper$ting $n electric street
r$ilw$y in the city of =$nil$ $nd its suburbs? including the municip$lity of
1$looc$n> 8he pl$intiffRs residence in 1$looc$n fronts on the street $long which
defend$ntRs tr$cks run? so th$t to enter his premises from the street pl$intiff is
obliged to cross defend$ntRs tr$cks> 2n the night mentioned pl$intiff drove home in
$ c$les$ $nd in crossing the tr$cks to enter his premises the horse stumbled?
le$ped forw$rd? $nd fell? c$using the vehicle with the r$ils? resulting in $ sudden
stop? threw pl$intiff from the vehicle $nd c$used the injuries compl$ined of> Bt is
$dmitted th$t the defend$nt w$s negligent in m$int$ining its tr$cks $s described?
but it is contended th$t the pl$intiff w$s $lso negligent in th$t he w$s
intoxic$ted to such $n extent $t the time of the $ccident th$t he w$s un$ble to
t$ke c$re of himself properly $nd th$t such intoxic$tion w$s the prim$ry c$use of
the $ccident>8ri$l 1ourt/ both p$rties were negligent? but th$t the pl$intiffRs
negligence w$s not $s gre$t $s defend$ntRs $nd under the $uthority of the c$se of
9$kes vs> 5> ,> Q +> 1o> .J +hil> 9ep>? @KH% $pportioned the d$m$ges $nd $w$rded
pl$intiff $ judgment of +C?--->B::0)/ 6hether or not the pl$intiff w$s negligent>
:1/ ;o> 5s is cle$r from re$ding the opinion? no f$cts $re st$ted therein which
w$rr$nt the conclusion th$t the pl$intiff w$s negligent> 8he conclusion th$t if he
h$d been sober he would not h$ve been injured is not w$rr$nted by the f$cts $s
found> Bt is impossible to s$y th$t $ sober m$n would not h$ve f$llen from the
vehicle under the conditions described> 5 horse crossing the r$ilro$d tr$cks with
not only the r$ils but $ portion of the ties themselves $boveground? stumbling by
re$son of the unsure footing $nd f$lling? the vehicle cr$shing $g$inst the r$ils
with such force $s to bre$k $ wheel? this might be sufficient to throw $ person
from the vehicle no m$tter wh$t his conditionS $nd to conclude th$t? under such
circumst$nces? $ sober m$n would not h$ve f$llen while $ drunken m$n did? is to
dr$w $ conclusion which enters the re$lm of specul$tion $nd guesswork>Bt h$ving
been found th$t the pl$intiff w$s not negligent? it is unnecess$ry to discuss the
question presented by the $ppell$nt comp$ny with reference to the $pplic$bility of
the c$se of 9$kes vs> 5> ,> Q +> 1o>? $boveS $nd we do not find f$cts in the
opinion of the court below which justify $ l$rger verdict th$n the one found>IC>
+9)1B23B85
L> 1293B:: vs 8N) =5;B35 95B3925< 12>4518:/ 2n the evening of 4eb GC? CHKJ? $t the
r$ilro$d crossing in 7$lib$go? 5ngeles? +$mp$ng$? in front of the 1l$rk 5ir 4orce
7$se? the jeep th$t 9$lph 6> 1orliss w$s driving collided collided with $
locomotive of defend$ntE$ppellee =$nil$ 9$ilro$d 1omp$ny> 7efore the locomotive?
which h$d been previously inspected $nd found to be in good condition $ppro$ched?
the crossing? th$t is? $bout @-- meters $w$y? the defend$nt blew the siren $nd
repe$ted it in compli$nce with the regul$tions until he s$w the jeep suddenly spurt
$nd th$t $lthough the locomotive w$s running between G- $nd GK kilometers $n hour
$nd $lthough he h$d $pplied the br$kes? the jeep w$s c$ught in the middle of the
tr$cks> 8ri$l court/ <ismissed the compl$int for recovery of d$m$ges filed by
pl$intiffE$ppell$nt? +reciolit$ L> 1orliss> 8he lower court? $fter summ$rizing the
evidence? concluded th$t the dece$sed Win his e$gerness to be$t? so to spe$k? the
oncoming locomotive? took the risk $nd $ttempted to re$ch the other side? but
unfortun$tely he bec$me the victim of his own misc$lcul$tion>WB::0)/ 6ether or not
the decision of the lower court is correct>:1/ Aes> =r> Dustice 1$rdozo s$id th$t
be$r witness to the need for c$ution in fr$ming st$nd$rds of beh$vior th$t $mount
to rules of l$w>>>> )xtr$ordin$ry situ$tions m$y not wisely or f$irly be subjected
to tests or regul$tions th$t $re fitting for the commonpl$ce or norm$l>W6h$t
Dustice 1$rdozo $nnounced would merely emph$size wh$t w$s set forth e$rlier th$t
e$ch $nd every? c$se on questions of negligence is to be decided in $ccord$nce with
the peculi$r circumst$nces th$t present themselves> 8here c$n be no h$rd $nd f$st
rule> 8here must be th$t observ$nce of th$t degree of c$re? prec$ution? $nd
vigil$nce which the situ$tion dem$nds> 8hus defend$ntE$ppellee $cted> Bt is
undeni$ble then th$t no negligence c$n rightfully be imputed to it>6h$t commends
itself for $ccept$nce is this conclusion $rrived $t by the lower court/ W+redic$ted
on the testimonies of the pl$intiffRs witnesses? on the knowledge of the dece$sed
$nd his f$mili$rity with the setup of the checkpoint? the existence of the tr$cksS
$nd on the further f$ct th$t the locomotive h$d blown its siren or whistle? which
w$s he$rd by s$id witnesses? it is cle$r th$t 1orliss Dr> w$s so sufficiently
w$rned in $dv$nce of the oncoming tr$in th$t it w$s incumbent upon him to $void $
possible $ccident $nd this consisted simply in stopping his vehicle before the
crossing $nd $llowing the tr$in to move on> 5 prudent m$n under simil$r
circumst$nces would h$ve $cted in this m$nner> 8his? unfortun$tely? 1orliss? Dr>
f$iled to do>W6N)9)429)? the decision of the lower court of ;ovember GH? CHIG
dismissing the compl$int? is $ffirmed> 6ithout pronouncement $s to costs>IG>
LB1829B;2 10:B $nd +B359 +279) vs +NB3B++B;) ;58B2;53 95B365A:4518:/ 2n the night
of 2ctober K? CHI@? pl$intiffsE$ppellees $ttended $ birthd$y p$rty inside the
0nited Nousing :ubdivision in +$r$n$que? 9iz$l> 5fter the p$rty which broke up $t
$bout CC oRclock th$t evening? the pl$intiffsE$ppellees proceeded home in their
L$uxh$ll c$r with Lictorino 1usi $t the wheel> 0pon re$ching the r$ilro$d tr$cks?
finding th$t the level crossing b$r w$s r$ised $nd seeing th$t there w$s no
fl$shing red light? $nd he$ring no whistle from $ny coming tr$in? 1usi merely
sl$ckened his speed $nd proceeded to cross the tr$cks> 5t the s$me time? $ tr$in
bound for 3ucen$ tr$versed the crossing? resulting in $ collision between the two>
8he imp$ct threw the pl$intiffs$ppellees out of their c$r which w$s sm$shed> 2ne
7enj$min 4r$nco? who c$me from the s$me p$rty $nd w$s driving $ vehicle right
behind them? rushed to their $id $nd brought them> to :$n Du$n de <ios Nospit$l for
emergency tre$tment> Lictorino 1usi cl$imed th$t prior to the $ccident he w$s $
successful businessm$n the :peci$l 5ssist$nt to the <olor 3opez )nterprises? the
m$n$ging p$rtner of 1usi $nd 9iver$ +$rtnership? the m$n$ger of his ricemill? $nd
with subst$nti$l investments in other business enterprises> 5s $ result of his
injuries? he w$s un$ble to properly $ttend to his v$rious business undert$kings> 2n
the other h$nd? his wife? +il$r? w$s $ skilled music $nd pi$no te$cher> 5fter the
$ccident? she lost the dexterity of her fingers forcing her to quit her profession>
:he $lso bore ugly sc$rs on sever$l p$rts of her body? $nd she suffered $nxiety of
$ possible misc$rri$ge being then five .K% months pregn$nt $t the time of the
$ccident>1ourt of 4irst Bnst$nce/ 2rdered defend$ntE$ppell$nt to indemnify the
pl$intiffs$ppellees in the tot$l $mount of 8wo Nundred 8hirtyE;ine 8hous$nd $nd :ix
Nundred 4ortyE)ight +esos? $nd :eventyE8wo 1ent$vos .+G@H?I"F>JG% for injuries
received in $ collision c$used by the gross negligence of defend$ntE$ppell$nt? plus
8en 8hous$nd +esos .+C-?--->--% $s $ttorneyRs fees $nd expenses of litig$tion>
B::0)/ 6ether or not gross negligence of Lictorino 1usi w$s the proxim$te c$use of
the collision>:1/ ;o>5fter $ thorough perus$l of the f$cts $ttend$nt to the c$se?
this 1ourt is in fun $ccord with the lower court> +l$intiffE$ppellee Lictorino 1usi
h$d exercised $ll the necess$ry prec$utions required of him $s to $void injury to
Ehimself $nd to others> 6e find no need for him to h$ve m$de $ full stopS relying
on his f$culties of sight $nd he$ring? Lictorino 1usi h$d no re$son to $nticip$te
the impending d$nger> 8he record shows th$t the spouses 1usi previously knew of the
existence of the r$ilro$d crossing? h$ving stopped $t the gu$rdhouse to $sk for
directions before proceeding to the p$rty> 5t the crossing? they found the level
b$r r$ised? no w$rning lights fl$shing nor w$rning bells ringing? nor whistle from
$n oncoming tr$in> 8hey s$fely tr$versed the crossing> 2n their return home? the
situ$tion $t the crossing did not in the le$st ch$nge? except for the $bsence of
the gu$rd or fl$gm$n> Nence? on the s$me impression th$t the crossing w$s s$fe for
p$ss$ge $s before? pl$intiffE$ppellee Lictorino 1usi merely sl$ckened his speed $nd
proceeded to cross the tr$cks? driving $t the proper r$te of speed for going over
r$ilro$d crossings> N$d defend$ntE$ppell$nt been successful in est$blishing th$t
its locomotive driver blew his whistle to w$rn motorists of his $ppro$ch to
compens$te for the $bsence of the w$rning sign$ls? $nd th$t Lictorino 1usi? inste$d
of stopping or sl$ckening his speed? proceeded with reckless speed $nd reg$rdless
of possible or thre$tened d$nger? then 6e would h$ve been put in doubt $s to the
degree of prudence exercised by him $nd would h$ve? in $ll prob$bility? decl$red
him negligent> 7ut $s the contr$ry w$s est$blished? we rem$in convinced th$t
Lictorino 1usi h$d not? through his own negligence? contributed to the $ccident so
$s to deny him d$m$ges from the defend$ntE$ppell$nt>8he only question th$t now
rem$ins to be resolved is the re$son$bleness of the $mount $w$rded $s d$m$ges to
the pl$intiffsE $ppellees>8he following $ctu$l expenses $nd losses $re fully
subst$nti$ted/.$% Nospit$l bills of =rs> 1usi from 2ctober? CHI@ to =$y? CHI" in
the $mount of 8hirteen 8hous$nd 4ive Nundred 4ifty +esos $nd 4ive 1ent$vos
.+C@?KK->-K%S.b% 5nother hospit$l bill of =rs> 1usi in CHIK in the $mount of 8hree
8hous$nd $nd 2ne +esos $nd ;inety 1ent$vos .+@?--C>H-%S.c% <octorRs fees for two
surgic$l oper$tions performed on =rs> 1usi by one <r> =$nuel 9iver$ in the $mount
of 2ne 8hous$nd $nd 4ive Nundred +esos .+l?K-->--%S.d% 3oss of LictorinoRs wrist
w$tch v$lued $t 8wo Nundred $nd 4ifty +esos .+GK->--%S.e% 3oss of +il$rRs h$lf of
her p$ir of dem$nd e$rrings.lE c$rr$ts% v$lued $t 8wo 8hous$nd :even Nundred $nd
4ifty +esos .+G?JK-?--%S.f% 9ep$ir of the d$m$ged L$uxh$ll c$r in the $mount of 8wo
8hous$nd )ight Nundred $nd ;inety 4our +esos $nd :eventyE :even 1ent$vos
.+G?FH">JJ%>8he tot$l $w$rd of $ctu$l d$m$ges in the $mount of 8wenty 8hree
8hous$nd ;ine Nundred 4ortyE:ix +esos $nd :eventyE8wo 1ent$vos .+G@?H"I>JG% is?
therefore? correct>8he lower court $w$rded 8wentyE2ne 8hous$nd :ix Nundred +esos
.+GC?I-->--% to =rs> 1usi for loss of income for the three ye$rs th$t she w$s under
const$nt medic$l tre$tment? $nd 4ourteen 8hous$nd +esos .+C"?--->--% for imp$irment
of her e$rning c$p$cityS $nd 4orty 8hous$nd +esos .+ "-?--->--% to =r> 1usi for
loss of income for the eight months th$t he w$s dis$bled $nd imp$irment of his
e$rning c$p$city> 6e find the $w$rd re$son$ble> 8he records show th$t =rs> 1usi?
previously $ skilled pi$no te$cher $ver$ging $ monthly income of :ix Nundred +esos
.+I-->--%? c$nnot now te$ch nor pl$y the pi$no since the $ccident which resulted in
the loss of the dexterity of her fingersS likewise? =r> 1usi c$nnot now vigorously
$ttend to his businesses which previously netted him $ monthly $ver$ge income of
4ive 8hous$nd +esos .+K?--->--%>5s reg$rds the $w$rd of 8wenty 8hous$nd +esos
.+G-?--->--% for profits which Lictorino 1usi f$iled to re$lize from $ cert$in re$l
est$te tr$ns$ction with the <olor 3opez )nterprises? we $ffirm the s$me $s the
defend$ntE$ppell$nt h$s f$iled to present $n iot$ of evidence to overcome
pl$intiffsE$ppelleesR evidence credited by the lower court $s to the cert$inty of
the m$teri$liz$tion of the st$ted tr$ns$ction>8he $w$rd of :eventy 8hous$nd +esos
.+J-?--->--% to =rs> 1usi $nd 4ifty 8hous$nd +esos .+K-?--->--% to Lictorino 1usi
$s mor$l d$m$ges is not excessive> Bn their own respective fields of ende$vor? both
were successful> ;ow they h$ve to be$r throughout their whole lifetime the
humili$tion wrought by their physic$l deformities which no doubt $ffected? $nd will
continue to do so? their soci$l lives? their fin$nci$l undert$kings? $nd even their
ment$l $ttitudes>3ikewise? the $mount of 8en 8hous$nd +esos .+C-?--->--% given
$s $ttorneyRs fees $nd expenses of litig$tion is not unre$son$ble> 8he tot$l
$mount of d$m$ges $w$rded by the tri$l court should be$r leg$l interest $t IY from
the rendition of the j judgment? which w$s on =$rch GI? CHIF>6N)9)429)? the
judgment of the lower court is hereby 544B9=)< with the modific$tion th$t the tot$l
$mount of d$m$ges sh$ll be$r leg$l interest $t six per cent .IY% from the rendition
of the decision d$ted =$rch GI? CHIFI@> =59B;<0(0) B92; =B;): 5,);8:? B;1>? vs 8N)
629M=); : 12=+);:58B2; 12==B::B2;4518:/ on 5ugust G@? CHKC? $t I/ch$nry-- $>m> in
7o> :um$ngg$? =ogpog? =$rinduque? the dece$sed =$m$dor together with other l$borers
of the9espondentEcorpor$tion? .=$rinduque Bron =ines 5gents Bnc>% bo$rded $ truck
belonging to the l$tter? which w$s then driven by one +rocopio =$cun$t? $lso
employed by the corpor$tion? $nd on its w$y to their pl$ce of work $t the mine c$mp
$t 8$l$ntun$n? while trying to overt$ke $nother truck on the comp$ny ro$d? it
turned over $nd hit $ coconut tree? resulting in the de$th of s$id =$m$dor $nd
injury to the others> +rocopio =$cun$t w$s prosecuted? convicted $nd sentenced to
indemnify the heirs of the dece$sed> .1rimin$l 1$se ;o> C"HC%> Ne h$s p$id nothing
however? to the l$tter>8N) 629M=); : 12=+);:58B2; 12==B::B2;/ 1onfirming the
referee s $w$rd of compens$tion to the heirs of +edro =$m$dor for his $ccident$l
de$th>B::0)/ wether or not viol$ting the employer s prohibition $g$inst l$borers
riding the h$ul$ge trucks would constitute negligence>:1/ 8here is no doubt th$t
mere riding on h$ul$ge truck or ste$ling $ ride thereon is not negligence?
ordin$rily> Bt couldn t be? bec$use tr$nsport$tion by truck is not d$ngerous per
se> Bt is $rgued th$t there w$s notorious negligence in this p$rticul$r inst$nce
bec$use there w$s the employer s prohibition> <oes viol$tion of this order
constitute negligenceV =$ny courts hold th$t viol$tion of $ st$tute or ordin$nce
constitutes negligence per se> 2thers consider the circumst$nces>Nowever there is
pr$ctic$l un$nimity in the proposition th$t viol$tion of $ rule promulg$ted by $
1ommission or bo$rd is not negligence per seS ch$n roblesvirtu$l$wlibr$rybut it m$y
be evidence of negligence> .1>D>:>? Lol> IK? p> "GJ>%8his order of the employer
.prohibition r$ther% couldn t be of $ gre$ter oblig$tion th$n the rule of $
1ommission or bo$rd> 5nd the referee correctly considered this viol$tion $s
possible evidence of negligenceS ch$n roblesvirtu$l$wlibr$rybut it decl$red th$t
under the circumst$nce? the l$borer could not be decl$red to h$ve $cted with
negligence> 1orrectly? it is believed? since the prohibition h$d nothing to do with
person$l s$fety of the riders>:uch finding is virtu$lly $ finding of f$ct which we
m$y not overrule in this certior$ri proceeding>;evertheless? even gr$nting there
w$s negligence? it surely w$s not notorious negligence? which we h$ve interpreted
to me$n the s$me thing $s gross negligence @ implying conscious indifference
to consequences pursuing $ course of conduct which would n$tur$lly $nd prob$bly
result in injury utter disreg$rd of consequences> .@F 5m> Dur>? IHC% ,etting or
$ccepting $ free ride on the comp$ny s h$ul$ge truck couldn t be gross negligence?
bec$use $s the referee found? no d$nger or risk w$s $pp$rent> 8here being no other
m$teri$l point r$ised in the petition for review? the $w$rd of compens$tion is
hereby $ffirmed? with costs $g$inst +etitioner>I"> 1B+9B5;2 $ndXor )>:> 1B+9B5;2
);8)9+9B:): vs> 154518:/ Bn the $fternoon of =$y C? CHHC? fire broke out $t the
3$mb$t rest$ur$nt? which petitioner $lso owned? $djoining his =obilkote
rustproofing shop> 8he fire destroyed both the shop $nd the rest$ur$nt? including
priv$te respondent s Mi$ +ride> 8he c$r h$d been kept inside the building?
$llegedly to protect it from theft> +etitioner cl$imed th$t despite efforts to s$ve
the vehicle? there w$s simply not enough time to get it out of the building? unlike
three other c$rs which h$d been s$ved bec$use they were p$rked ne$r the entr$nce of
the g$r$ge>2n =$y F CHHC? priv$te respondent sent $ letter to petitioner? dem$nding
reimbursement for the v$lue of the Mi$ +ride> Bn reply? petitioner denied li$bility
on the ground th$t the fire w$s $ fortuitous event> 8his prompted priv$te
respondent to bring this suit for the v$lue of its vehicle $nd for d$m$ges $g$inst
petitioner> +riv$te respondent $lleged th$t its vehicle w$s lost due to the
negligence $nd imprudence of the petitioner? citing petitioner s f$ilure to
register his business with the <ep$rtment of 8r$de $nd Bndustry under +><> ;o> CKJG
$nd to insure it $s required in the rules implementing the <ecree>Bn his 5nswer?
petitioner invoked 5rt> CCJ" of the 1ivil 1ode $nd denied li$bility for the loss
which he $lleged w$s due to $ fortuitous event>Ne l$ter testified th$t he employed
$n electrici$n who regul$rly inspected the lighting in his rest$ur$nt $nd
rustproofing shop> Bn $ddition? he cl$imed he h$d inst$lled fireEfighting devices
$nd th$t the fire w$s $n $ccident entirely independent of his will $nd devoid of
$ny negligence on his p$rt> Ne further $verred th$t priv$te respondent s c$r w$s
re$dy for rele$se $s e$rly $s $fternoon of 5pril @-? CHHC? $nd th$t it w$s priv$te
respondent s del$y in cl$iming it th$t w$s the c$use of the loss>981/ 8he tri$l
court sust$ined the priv$te respondent s contention th$t the f$ilure of defend$nt
to comply with +><> ;o> CKJG is in effect $ m$nifest $ct of negligence which
renders defend$nt Tpetitioner herein* li$ble for the loss of the c$r even if the
s$me w$s c$used by fire? even $s it ruled th$t the business of rustproffing is
definitely covered by +><> ;o> CKJG> :ince petitioner did not register his
business $nd insure it? he must be$r the cost of loss of his customers> 5s $lre$dy
noted? the court ordered petitioner to p$y priv$te respondent +GKG?CKK>-- with
interest $t IY per $nnum from the filing of the c$se $nd $ttorney s fees in the
$mount of +C-?--->-->15/ $ffirmed the decision of the 981> 8he 1ourt of 5ppe$ls
ruled th$t the provisions of the 1ivil 1ode relied upon by the petitioner $re not
$pplic$ble to this c$se? $nd th$t the l$w $pplic$ble to the c$se is +><> ;o> CKJG?
the purpose of which is to protect customers who entrust their properties to
service $nd rep$ir enterprises>B::0)/ 6hether or not petitioner w$s required to
insure his business $nd the vehicles received by him in the course of his business>
6hether or not his f$ilure to do so constituted negligence? rendering him li$ble
for loss due to the risk required to be insured $g$inst>:1/ 6e hold th$t both
questions must be $nswered in the $ffirm$tive>6e h$ve $lre$dy held th$t viol$tion
of $ st$tutory duty is negligence per se> Bn 4>4> 1ruz $nd 1o>? Bnc> v> 1ourt of
5ppe$ls? we held the owner of $ furniture shop li$ble for the destruction of the
pl$intiff s house in $ fire which st$rted in his est$blishment in view of his
f$ilure to comply with $n ordin$nce which required the construction of $ firew$ll>
Bn 8e$gue v> 4ern$ndez? we st$ted th$t where the very injury which w$s intended to
be prevented by the ordin$nce h$s h$ppened? nonEcompli$nce with the ordin$nce w$s
not only $n $ct negligence? but $lso the proxim$te c$use of the de$th>Bndeed? the
existence of $ contr$ct between petitioner $nd priv$te respondent does not b$r $
finding of negligence under the principles of qu$siEdelict? $s we recently held in
4$bre v> 1ourt of 5ppe$ls>+etitionerRs negligence is the source of his oblig$tion>
Ne is not being held li$ble for bre$ch of his contr$ctu$l oblig$tion due to
negligence but for his negligence in not complying with $ duty imposed on him by
l$w> Bt is therefore imm$teri$l th$t the loss occ$sioned to priv$te respondent w$s
due to $ fortuitous event? since it w$s petitioner s negligence in not insuring
$g$inst the risk which w$s the proxim$te c$use of the loss>8hus? +><> ;o> CKJG? C
requires service $nd rep$ir enterprises for motor vehicles? like th$t of
petitioner s to register with the <ep$rtment of 8r$de $nd Bndustry> 5s condition
for such registr$tion or $ccredit$tion? =inistry 2rder ;o> @G requires covered
enterprises to secure insur$nce cover$ge> 9ule BBB of this 2rder provides in
pertinent p$rts CE 9)(0B9)=);8: 429 5119)<B858B2;C% )nterprises $pplying for
origin$l $ccredit$tion sh$ll submit the following/C>C> 3ist of
m$chineriesXequipmentXtools in useful conditionSC>G> 3ist of certified
engineersX$ccredited technici$ns mech$nics with their person$l d$t$SC>@> 1opy of
Bnsur$nce +olicy of the shop covering the property entrusted by its customer for
rep$ir? service or m$inten$nce together with $ copy of the offici$l receipt
covering the full p$yment of premiumSC>"> 1opy of 7ond referred to under :ection J?
9ule BBB of this 9ules $nd 9egul$tionsSC>K> 6ritten service w$rr$nty in the form
prescribed by the 7ure$uSC>I> 1ertific$te issued by the :ecurities $nd )xch$nge
1ommission $nd 5rticles of Bncorpor$tion or +$rtnership in c$se of corpor$tion or
p$rtnershipSC>J> :uch other $ddition$l documents which the <irector m$y require
from time to time>C>F EB;:095;1) +23B1A8he insur$nce policy for the following risks
like theft? pilfer$ge?fire? flood $nd loss should cover exclusively the
m$chines?motor vehicles? he$vy equipment? engines? electronics? electric$l?
$irconditioners? refriger$tors? office m$chines $nd d$t$ processing equipment?
medic$l $nd dent$l equipment? other consumer mech$nic$l $nd industri$l equipment
stored for rep$ir $ndXor service in the premises of the $pplic$nt>8here is thus $
st$tutory duty imposed on petitioner $nd it is for his f$ilure to comply with this
duty th$t he w$s guilty of negligence rendering him li$ble for d$m$ges to priv$te
respondent> 6hile the fire in this c$se m$y be considered
$ fortuitous event?Tthis circumst$nce c$nnot exempt petitioner from li$bility for
loss>6e think? however? th$t the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls erred in sust$ining the $w$rd of
$ttorney s fees by the lower court> Bt is now settled th$t the re$sons or grounds
for $n $w$rd of $ttorney s fees must be set forth in the decision of the court>
8hey c$nnot be left to inference $s the $ppell$te court held in this c$se> 8he
re$son for this is th$t it is not sound policy to pen$lize the right to litig$te>
5n $w$rd of $ttorney s fees? being $n exception to this policy $nd limited to the
grounds enumer$ted in the l$w?Tmust be fully justified in the decision> Bt c$n not
simply be inserted $s $n item of recover$ble d$m$ges in the judgment of the court>
:ince in this c$se there is no justific$tion for the $w$rd of $ttorney s fees in
the decision of the tri$l court? it w$s error for the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls to sust$in
such $w$rd>6N)9)429)?the decision? d$ted ;ovember CF? CHHG? of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls
is 544B9=)<? with the modific$tion th$t the $w$rd of $ttorney s fees is <)3)8)<>IK>
4>4> 190O $nd 12>? B;1 vs 8N) 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/ 8he furniture m$nuf$cturing
shop of petitioner in 1$looc$n 1ity w$s situ$ted $dj$cent to the residence of
priv$te respondents> :ometime in 5ugust CHJC? priv$te respondent ,regorio =$ble
first $ppro$ched )ric 1ruz? petitionerRs pl$nt m$n$ger? to request th$t $ firew$ll
be constructed between the shop $nd priv$te respondentsR residence> 8he request w$s
repe$ted sever$l times but they fell on de$f e$rs> Bn the e$rly morning of
:eptember I? CHJ"? fire broke out in petitionerRs shop> +etitionerRs employees? who
slept in the shop premises? tried to put out the fire? but their efforts proved
futile> 8he fire spre$d to priv$te respondentsR house> 7oth the shop $nd the house
were r$zed to the ground> 8he c$use of the confl$gr$tion w$s never discovered> 8he
;$tion$l 7ure$u of Bnvestig$tion found specimens from the burned structures
neg$tive for the presence of infl$mm$ble subst$nces>1ourt of 4irst Bnst$nce/ the
1ourt hereby renders judgment? in f$vor of pl$intiffs? $nd $g$inst the defend$nt/C>
2rdering the defend$nt to p$y to the pl$intiffs the $mount of +F-?--->-- for
d$m$ges suffered by s$id pl$intiffs for the loss of their house? with interest of
IY from the d$te of the filing of the 1ompl$int on D$nu$ry G@? CHJK? until fully
p$idSG> 2rdering the defend$nt to p$y to the pl$intiffs the sum of +K-?--->-- for
the loss of pl$intiffsR furnitures? religious im$ges? silverw$res? chin$w$res?
jewelries? books? kitchen utensils? clothing $nd other v$lu$bles? with interest of
IY from d$te of the filing of the 1ompl$int on D$nu$ry G@? CHJK? until fully p$idS
@> 2rdering the defend$nt to p$y to the pl$intiffs the sum of +K?--->-- $s mor$l
d$m$ges? +G?--->-- $s exempl$ry d$m$ges? $nd +K?--->-- $s $nd by w$y of $ttorneyRs
feesS"> 6ith costs $g$inst the defend$ntSK> 1ountercl$im is ordered dismissed? for
l$ck of merit>15/ $ffirmed the decision of the tri$l court but reduced the $w$rd of
d$m$ges> 8he d$m$ges to be $w$rded to pl$intiff should be reduced to +J-?--->-- for
the house $nd +K-?--->-- for the furniture $nd other fixtures with leg$l interest
from the d$te of the filing of the compl$int until full p$yment>B::0)/ whether or
not the doctrine ofres ips$ loquitur is $pplic$ble in this c$ses:1/ 8he f$cts of
the c$se likewise c$ll for the $pplic$tion of the doctrine? considering th$t in the
norm$l course of oper$tions of $ furniture m$nuf$cturing shop? combustible m$teri$l
such $s wood chips? s$wdust? p$int? v$rnish $nd fuel $nd lubric$nts for m$chinery
m$y be found thereon>Bt must $lso be noted th$t negligence or w$nt of c$re on the
p$rt of petitioner or its employees w$s not merely presumed> 8he 1ourt of 5ppe$ls
found th$t petitioner f$iled to construct $ firew$ll between its shop $nd the
residence of priv$te respondents $s required by $ city ordin$nceS th$t the fire
could h$ve been c$used by $ he$ted motor or $ lit cig$retteS th$t g$soline $nd
$lcohol were used $nd stored in the shopS $nd th$t workers sometimes smoked inside
the shop T15 <ecision? p> KS 9ollo? p> @@>*)ven without $pplying the doctrine ofres
ips$ loquitur? petitionerRs f$ilure to construct $ firew$ll in $ccord$nce with city
ordin$nces would suffice to support $ finding of negligence>)ven then the fire
possibly would not h$ve spre$d to the neighboring houses were it not for $nother
negligent omission on the p$rt of defend$nts? n$mely? their f$ilure to provide $
concrete w$ll high enough to prevent the fl$mes from le$ping over it> 5s it w$s the
concrete w$ll w$s only GECXG meters high? $nd beyond th$t height it consisted
merely of g$lv$nized iron sheets? which would predict$bly crumble $nd melt when
subjected to intense he$t><efend$ntRs negligence? therefore? w$s not only with
respect to the c$use of the fire but $lso with respect to the spre$d thereof to the
neighboring houses>T5fric$ v> 1$ltex .+hil>%? Bnc>? supr$S )mph$sis supplied>*Bn
the inst$nt c$se? with more re$son should petitioner be found guilty of negligence
since it h$d f$iled to construct $ firew$ll between its property $nd priv$te
respondentsR residence which sufficiently complies with the pertinent city
ordin$nces> 8he f$ilure to comply with $n ordin$nce providing for s$fety
regul$tions h$d been ruled by the 1ourt $s $n $ct of negligence T8e$gue v>
4ern$ndez? ,>9> ;o> 3EGHJ"K? Dune "? CHJ@? KC :195 CFC>*8he 1ourt of 5ppe$ls?
therefore? h$d more th$n $dequ$te b$sis to find petitioner li$ble for the loss
sust$ined by priv$te respondents>G> :ince the $mount of the loss sust$ined by
priv$te respondents constitutes $ finding of f$ct? such finding by the 1ourt of
5ppe$ls should not be disturbed by this 1ourt T=><> 8r$nsit Q 8$xi 1o>? Bnc> v>
1ourt of 5ppe$ls? ,>9> ;o> 3EG@FFG? 4ebru$ry CJ? CHIF? GG :195 KKH*? more so when
there is no showing of $rbitr$riness>Bn the inst$nt c$se? both the 14B $nd the
1ourt of 5ppe$ls were in $greement $s to the v$lue of priv$te respondentsR
furniture $nd fixtures $nd person$l effects lost in the fire .i>e> +K-?--->--%>
6ith reg$rd to the house? the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls reduced the $w$rd to +J-?--->-- from
+F-?--->--> :uch c$nnot be c$tegorized $s $rbitr$ry considering th$t the evidence
shows th$t the house w$s built in CHKC for +"-?--->-- $nd? $ccording to priv$te
respondents? its reconstruction would cost +G"I?--->--> 1onsidering the
$ppreci$tion in v$lue of re$l est$te $nd the diminution of the re$l v$lue of the
peso? the v$lu$tion of the house $t +J-?--->-- $t the time it w$s r$zed c$nnot be
s$id to be excessive>@> 6hile this 1ourt finds th$t petitioner is li$ble for
d$m$ges to priv$te respondents $s found by the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls? the f$ct th$t
priv$te respondents h$ve been indemnified by their insurer in the $mount of
+@K?--->-- for the d$m$ge c$used to their house $nd its contents h$s not esc$ped
the $ttention of the 1ourt> Nence? the 1ourt holds th$t in $ccord$nce with 5rticle
GG-J of the 1ivil 1ode the $mount of +@K?--->-- should be deducted from the $mount
$w$rded $s d$m$ges> :$id $rticle provides/5rt> GG-J> Bf the pl$intiffs property h$s
been insured? $nd he h$s received indemnity from the insur$nce comp$ny for the
injury or loss $rising out of the wrong or bre$ch of contr$ct compl$ined of? the
insur$nce comp$ny is subrog$ted to the rights of the insured $g$inst the wrongdoer
or the person who viol$ted the contr$ct> Bf the $mount p$id by the insur$nce
comp$ny does not fully cover the injury or loss? the $ggrieved p$rty sh$ll be
entitled to recover the deficiency from the person c$using the loss or injury>
.)mph$sis supplied>*8he l$w is cle$r $nd needs no interpret$tion> N$ving been
indemnified by their insurer? priv$te respondents $re only entitled to recover the
deficiency from petitioner>2n the other h$nd? the insurer? if it is so minded? m$y
seek reimbursement of the $mount it indemnified priv$te respondents from
petitioner> 8his is the essence of its right to be subrog$ted to the rights of the
insured? $s expressly provided in 5rticle GG-J> 0pon p$yment of the loss incurred
by the insured? the insurer is entitled to be subrog$ted pro t$nto to $ny right of
$ction which the insured m$y h$ve $g$inst the third person whose negligence or
wrongful $ct c$used the loss T4irem$nRs 4und Bnsur$nce 1o> v> D$mil$ Q 1o>? Bnc>?
,>9> ;o> 3EGJ"GJ? 5pril J? CHJI? J- :195 @G@>*0nder 5rticle GG-J? the re$l p$rty in
interest with reg$rd to the indemnity received by the insured is the insurer T+hil>
5ir 3ines? Bnc> v> Ne$ld 3umber 1o>? C-C +hil> C-@C? .CHKJ%>* 6hether or not the
insurer should exercise the rights of the insured to which it h$d been subrog$ted
lies solely within the formerRs sound discretion> :ince the insurer is not $ p$rty
to the c$se? its identity is not of record $nd no cl$im is m$de on its beh$lf? the
priv$te respondentRs insurer h$s to cl$im his right to reimbursement of the
+@K?--->-- p$id to the insured>6N)9)429)? in view of the foregoing? the decision of
the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls is hereby 544B9=)< with the following modific$tions $s to the
d$m$ges $w$rded for the loss of priv$te respondentsR house? considering their
receipt of +@K?--->-- from their insurer/ .C% the d$m$ges $w$rded for the loss of
the house is reduced to +@K?--->--S $nd .G% the right of the insurer to subrog$tion
$nd thus seek reimbursement from petitioner for the +@K?--->-- it h$d p$id priv$te
respondents is recognized>II> N2;29B5 <)3,5<2 L<5> <) ,9),29B2? )8 53>? vs ,2 1N2;,
7B;, 4518:/ 2n or before Dune G? CHKG? defend$nt w$s the owner of $ truck> Ne h$d $
driver $nd $ c$rg$dor or driverRs helper by the n$me of 4r$ncisco 9osomer$> Bn the
$fternoon of Dune G? CHKG? defend$nt ordered 9omer$ to drive his truck? with
instructions to follow $nother tr$ck driven by his driver $nd help
the l$tter in crossing :umlog river which w$s then flooded? should it be un$ble to
cross the river bec$use of the flood> 9omer$ $t th$t time w$s not $ licensed
driver> Ne only h$d $ studentRs permit? issued to him on =$rch @C? CHKG .)xhibit
WCW%> 8he truck st$rted from the town of 3upon $t $bout K/@- oRclock in the
$fternoon? driven by 9omer$> :ome persons bo$rded the truck $nd $mong them w$s one
policem$n by the n$me of Len$ncio 2rf$nel> 6hile the truck w$s on the w$y? it m$de
$ stop $nd then 2rf$nel took the wheel from 9omer$? while the l$tter st$yed on the
driverRs left? reclined on $ sp$re tire inside of the truck> 5s to the
circumst$nces under which 2rf$nel w$s $ble to t$ke hold of $nd drive the truck?
there is some dispute $nd this m$tter will be t$ken up l$ter in the decision>6hile
the truck w$s being driven by 2rf$nel? with $nother truck $he$d of it driven by
defend$ntRs driver it so h$ppened th$t they c$me to $ truck th$t w$s trying to p$rk
on the left side of the ro$d> 9omer$ suggested to 2rf$nel th$t he shift to low ge$r
$nd 2rf$nel did so> 7ut $s they $ppro$ched the p$rking truck? $nd in order to $void
colliding with it? 2rf$nel swerved the truck tow$rds the right> Bt so h$ppened th$t
$t th$t time two pedestri$ns were on the right side of the ro$d? 5s the truck h$d
swerved to the right $nd w$s proceeding to hit the s$id pedestri$ns? 9omer$ told
2rf$nel to $pply the br$ke? but 2rf$nel inste$d of doing so put his foot on the
g$soline $nd the truck did not stop but went on $nd hit $nd run over one of the
pedestri$ns? by the n$me of (uirico ,regorio> 8he pl$intiffs $ppell$ntsR in this
$ction $re ,regorioRs widow $nd his children $nd of the $ccident? 2rf$nel w$s
prosecuted for homicide with reckless imprudence> Ne ple$ded guilty to the ch$rge
$nd w$s sentenced $ccordingly>1ourt of 4irst Bnst$nce/ $bsolved defend$nt from
li$bility for the $ccident$l de$th of (uirico ,regorioB::0)/ whether or not the
defend$nt is li$ble> :1/ 6e $re of the belief th$t defend$ntRs cl$im th$t 9omer$
g$ve the wheel to the policem$n for fe$r of? or out of respect for? the l$tter? h$s
been proved by $ preponder$nce of the evidence> 8he testimony of witness <$yo is
not corrobor$ted by $ny other testimony> 5s he testified th$t he w$s two meters
behind 9omer$? he could not h$ve noticed with ex$ctness the circumst$nces under
which the policem$n w$s $ble to get hold of the wheel $nd drive the truck $nd his
testimony in th$t respect c$nnot be believed> 6e $re? therefore? forced to the
conclusion th$t the defend$ntRs c$rg$dor? or 4r$ncisco 9omer$ g$ve the wheel to
2rf$nel out of respect for the l$tter? who w$s $ uniformed policem$n $nd bec$use he
believed th$t the l$tter h$d both the $bility $nd the $uthority to drive the truck?
especi$lly $s he himself h$d only $ studentRs permit $nd not $ driverRs license>8he
court $ quo dismissed the $ction on the ground th$t $s the de$th or $ccident w$s
c$used by $n $ct or omission of $ person who is not in $ny w$y rel$ted to the
defend$nt? $nd $s such $ct or omission w$s punish$ble by l$w? $nd $s $ m$tter of
f$ct he h$d $lre$dy been punished therefor? no civil li$bility should be imposed
upon the defend$nt> 5g$inst this decision the pl$intiffs h$ve $ppe$led to this
1ourt? contending th$t when defend$nt permitted his c$rg$dor? who w$s not provided
with $ driverRs license? to drive the truck? he thereby viol$ted the provisions of
the 9evised =otor Lehicle 3$w .section GF>? 5ct ;o> @HHG%? $nd th$t this
constitutes negligence per se> .+eople vs> :$ntos? et $l>? 15E,>9> ;o> C-FFEC-FH9>%
7ut $dmitting for the s$ke of $rgument th$t the defend$nt h$d so viol$ted the l$w?
or m$y be deemed negligent in entrusting the truck to one who is not provided with
$ driverRs license? it is cle$r th$t he m$y not be decl$red li$ble for the $ccident
bec$use his negligence w$s not the direct $nd proxim$te c$use thereof> 8he le$ding
c$se in this jurisdiction on negligence is th$t of 8$ylor vs> =$nil$ )lectric
9$ilro$d $nd 3ight 1omp$ny? CI +hil> F> ;egligence $s $ source of oblig$tion both
under the civil l$w $nd in 5meric$n c$ses w$s c$refully considered $nd it w$s held/
6e $gree with counsel for $ppell$nt th$t under the 1ivil 1ode? $s under the
gener$lly $ccepted doctrine in the 0nited :t$tes? the pl$intiff in $n $ction such
$s th$t under consider$tion? in order to est$blish his right to $ recovery? must
est$blish by competent evidence/.C% <$m$ges to the pl$intiff>.G% ;egligence by $ct
or omission of which defend$nt person$lly? or some person for whose $cts it must
respond? w$s guilty>.@% 8he connection of c$use $nd effect between the negligence
$nd the d$m$ge> .8$ylor vs> =$nil$ )lectric 9$ilro$d $nd 3ight 1o>?supr$> p>CK%Bn
$ccord$nce with the decision of the :upreme 1ourt of :p$in? in order th$t $ person
m$y be held guilty for d$m$ge through negligence? it is necess$ry th$t there be $n
$ct or omission on the p$rt of the person who is to be ch$rged with the li$bility
$nd th$t d$m$ge is produced by the s$id $ct or omission>Bn $ccord$nce with the
fund$ment$l principle of proof? th$t the burden thereof is upon the pl$intiff? it
is $pp$rent th$t it is the duty of him who sh$ll cl$im d$m$ges to est$blish their
existence> 8he decisions of 5pril H? CFHI? $nd =$rch CF? Duly I? $nd :eptember GJ?
CFHF? h$ve especi$lly supported the principle? the first setting forth in det$il
the necess$ry points of the proof? which $re two/ 5n 5ct or omission on the p$rt of
the person who is to be ch$rged with the li$bility? $nd the production of the
d$m$ge by s$id $ct or omission>8his includes? by inference? the est$blishment of $
rel$tion of c$use or effect between the $ct or the omission $nd the d$m$geS the
l$tter must be the direct result of one of the first two> 5s the decision of =$rch
GG? CFFC? s$id? it is necess$ry th$t the d$m$ges result immedi$tely $nd directly
from $n $ct performed culp$bly $nd wrongfullyS Rnecess$rily presupposing? $ leg$l
ground for imput$bility> .8$ylor vs> =$nil$ )lectric 9$ilro$d $nd 3ight 1o>?supr$?
p> GF>%>Bt is evident th$t the proxim$te? immedi$te $nd direct c$use of the de$th
of the pl$intiffsR intest$te w$s the negligence of 2rf$nel? $ uniformed policem$n?
who took the wheel of the truck from defend$ntRs c$rg$dor? in spite of the protest
of the l$tter> 8he re$son for $bsolving the defend$nt therefor is not bec$use the
one responsible for the $ccident h$d $lre$dy received indemnific$tion for the
$ccident? but bec$use there is no direct $nd proxim$te c$us$l connection between
the negligence or viol$tion of the l$w by the defend$nt to the de$th of the
pl$intiffRs intest$te>4or the foregoing consider$tions? the judgment $ppe$led from
is hereby $ffirmed? without costs>IJ> :5;B859A :8)5= 350;<9A? B;1 vs 12098 24
5++)53:4518:/ on 5ugust @C? CHF-? $ =ercedes 7enz p$nel truck of petitioner
:$nit$ry :te$m 3$undry collided with $ 1im$rron which c$used the de$th of three
persons $nd the injuries of sever$l others> 8he p$ssengers of the 1im$rron were
mostly employees of the +roject =$n$gement 1onsult$nts? Bnc> .+=1B%> 8he 1im$rron
w$s owned by :$lv$dor :$leng$? f$ther of one of the employees of +=1B> <riving the
vehicle w$s 9ol$ndo Nern$ndez> 8he driver of the truck cl$imed th$t $ jeepney in
front of him suddenly stopped> Ne s$id he stepped on the br$kes to $void hitting
the jeepney $nd th$t this c$used his vehicle to swerve to the left $nd encro$ch on
$ portion of the opposite l$ne> 5s $ result? his p$nel truck collided with the
1im$rron on the northEbound l$ne>981/ 9endered judgment for priv$te respondents>15/
5ffirmed the decision of the 981B::0)/ 6hether or not the driver of 1im$rron w$s
guilty of contributory negligence> :1/ 4irst of $ll? it h$s not been shown how the
$lleged negligence of the 1im$rron driver contributed to the collision between the
vehicles> Bndeed? petitioner h$s the burden of showing $ c$us$l connection between
the injury received $nd the viol$tion of the 3$nd 8r$nsport$tion $nd 8r$ffic 1ode>
Ne must show th$t the viol$tion of the st$tute w$s the proxim$te or leg$l c$use of
the injury or th$t it subst$nti$lly contributed thereto> ;egligence? consisting in
whole or in p$rt? of viol$tion of l$w? like $ny other negligence? is without leg$l
consequence unless it is $ contributing c$use of the injury> +etitioner s$ys th$t
driving $n overlo$ded vehicle with only one functioning he$dlight during nighttime
cert$inly incre$ses the risk of $ccident? th$t bec$use the 1im$rron h$d only one
he$dlight? there w$s decre$sed visibility? $nd th$t the f$ct th$t the vehicle w$s
overlo$ded $nd its front se$t overcrowded decre$sed Tits*
m$neuver$bility> Nowever? mere $lleg$tions such $s these $re not sufficient to
disch$rge its burden of proving cle$rly th$t such $lleged negligence w$s the
contributing c$use of the injury>4urthermore? b$sed on the evidence in this c$se?
there w$s no w$y either driver could h$ve $voided the collision>IF> N2;29B5 <)3,5<2
L<5> <) ,9),29B2? )8 53>? vs ,2 1N2;, 7B;, 4518:/ 2n or before Dune G? CHKG?
defend$nt w$s the owner of $ truck> Ne h$d $ driver $nd $ c$rg$dor or driverRs
helper by the n$me of 4r$ncisco 9osomer$> Bn the $fternoon of Dune G? CHKG?
defend$nt ordered 9omer$ to drive his truck? with instructions to follow $nother
tr$ck driven by his driver $nd help the l$tter in crossing :umlog river which w$s
then flooded? should it be un$ble to cross the river bec$use of the flood> 9omer$
$t th$t time w$s not $ licensed driver> Ne only h$d $ studentRs permit? issued to
him on =$rch @C? CHKG .)xhibit WCW%> 8he truck st$rted from the town of 3upon $t
$bout K/@- oRclock in the $fternoon? driven by 9omer$> :ome persons bo$rded the
truck $nd $mong them w$s one policem$n by the n$me of Len$ncio 2rf$nel> 6hile the
truck w$s on the w$y? it m$de $ stop $nd then 2rf$nel
took the wheel from 9omer$? while the l$tter st$yed on the driverRs left? reclined
on $ sp$re tire inside of the truck> 5s to the circumst$nces under which 2rf$nel
w$s $ble to t$ke hold of $nd drive the truck? there is some dispute $nd this m$tter
will be t$ken up l$ter in the decision>6hile the truck w$s being driven by 2rf$nel?
with $nother truck $he$d of it driven by defend$ntRs driver it so h$ppened th$t
they c$me to $ truck th$t w$s trying to p$rk on the left side of the ro$d> 9omer$
suggested to 2rf$nel th$t he shift to low ge$r $nd 2rf$nel did so> 7ut $s they
$ppro$ched the p$rking truck? $nd in order to $void colliding with it? 2rf$nel
swerved the truck tow$rds the right> Bt so h$ppened th$t $t th$t time two
pedestri$ns were on the right side of the ro$d? 5s the truck h$d swerved to the
right $nd w$s proceeding to hit the s$id pedestri$ns? 9omer$ told 2rf$nel to $pply
the br$ke? but 2rf$nel inste$d of doing so put his foot on the g$soline $nd the
truck did not stop but went on $nd hit $nd run over one of the pedestri$ns? by the
n$me of (uirico ,regorio> 8he pl$intiffs $ppell$ntsR in this $ction $re ,regorioRs
widow $nd his children $nd of the $ccident? 2rf$nel w$s prosecuted for homicide
with reckless imprudence> Ne ple$ded guilty to the ch$rge $nd w$s sentenced
$ccordingly>1ourt of 4irst Bnst$nce/ $bsolved defend$nt from li$bility for the
$ccident$l de$th of (uirico ,regorioB::0)/ whether or not the defend$nt is li$ble>
:1/ 6e $re of the belief th$t defend$ntRs cl$im th$t 9omer$ g$ve the wheel to the
policem$n for fe$r of? or out of respect for? the l$tter? h$s been proved by $
preponder$nce of the evidence> 8he testimony of witness <$yo is not corrobor$ted by
$ny other testimony> 5s he testified th$t he w$s two meters behind 9omer$? he could
not h$ve noticed with ex$ctness the circumst$nces under which the policem$n w$s
$ble to get hold of the wheel $nd drive the truck $nd his testimony in th$t respect
c$nnot be believed> 6e $re? therefore? forced to the conclusion th$t the
defend$ntRs c$rg$dor? or 4r$ncisco 9omer$ g$ve the wheel to 2rf$nel out of respect
for the l$tter? who w$s $ uniformed policem$n $nd bec$use he believed th$t the
l$tter h$d both the $bility $nd the $uthority to drive the truck? especi$lly $s he
himself h$d only $ studentRs permit $nd not $ driverRs license>8he court $ quo
dismissed the $ction on the ground th$t $s the de$th or $ccident w$s c$used by $n
$ct or omission of $ person who is not in $ny w$y rel$ted to the defend$nt? $nd $s
such $ct or omission w$s punish$ble by l$w? $nd $s $ m$tter of f$ct he h$d $lre$dy
been punished therefor? no civil li$bility should be imposed upon the defend$nt>
5g$inst this decision the pl$intiffs h$ve $ppe$led to this 1ourt? contending th$t
when defend$nt permitted his c$rg$dor? who w$s not provided with $ driverRs
license? to drive the truck? he thereby viol$ted the provisions of the 9evised
=otor Lehicle 3$w .section GF>? 5ct ;o> @HHG%? $nd th$t this constitutes negligence
per se> .+eople vs> :$ntos? et $l>? 15E,>9> ;o> C-FFEC-FH9>% 7ut $dmitting for the
s$ke of $rgument th$t the defend$nt h$d so viol$ted the l$w? or m$y be deemed
negligent in entrusting the truck to one who is not provided with $ driverRs
license? it is cle$r th$t he m$y not be decl$red li$ble for the $ccident bec$use
his negligence w$s not the direct $nd proxim$te c$use thereof> 8he le$ding c$se in
this jurisdiction on negligence is th$t of 8$ylor vs> =$nil$ )lectric 9$ilro$d $nd
3ight 1omp$ny? CI +hil> F> ;egligence $s $ source of oblig$tion both under the
civil l$w $nd in 5meric$n c$ses w$s c$refully considered $nd it w$s held/6e $gree
with counsel for $ppell$nt th$t under the 1ivil 1ode? $s under the gener$lly
$ccepted doctrine in the 0nited :t$tes? the pl$intiff in $n $ction such $s th$t
under consider$tion? in order to est$blish his right to $ recovery? must est$blish
by competent evidence/.C% <$m$ges to the pl$intiff>.G% ;egligence by $ct or
omission of which defend$nt person$lly? or some person for whose $cts it must
respond? w$s guilty>.@% 8he connection of c$use $nd effect between the negligence
$nd the d$m$ge> .8$ylor vs> =$nil$ )lectric 9$ilro$d $nd 3ight 1o>?supr$> p>CK%Bn
$ccord$nce with the decision of the :upreme 1ourt of :p$in? in order th$t $ person
m$y be held guilty for d$m$ge through negligence? it is necess$ry th$t there be $n
$ct or omission on the p$rt of the person who is to be ch$rged with the li$bility
$nd th$t d$m$ge is produced by the s$id $ct or omission>Bn $ccord$nce with the
fund$ment$l principle of proof? th$t the burden thereof is upon the pl$intiff? it
is $pp$rent th$t it is the duty of him who sh$ll cl$im d$m$ges to est$blish their
existence> 8he decisions of 5pril H? CFHI? $nd =$rch CF? Duly I? $nd :eptember GJ?
CFHF? h$ve especi$lly supported the principle? the first setting forth in det$il
the necess$ry points of the proof? which $re two/ 5n 5ct or omission on the p$rt of
the person who is to be ch$rged with the li$bility? $nd the production of the
d$m$ge by s$id $ct or omission>8his includes? by inference? the est$blishment of $
rel$tion of c$use or effect between the $ct or the omission $nd the d$m$geS the
l$tter must be the direct result of one of the first two> 5s the decision of =$rch
GG? CFFC? s$id? it is necess$ry th$t the d$m$ges result immedi$tely $nd directly
from $n $ct performed culp$bly $nd wrongfullyS Rnecess$rily presupposing? $ leg$l
ground for imput$bility> .8$ylor vs> =$nil$ )lectric 9$ilro$d $nd 3ight 1o>?supr$?
p> GF>%>Bt is evident th$t the proxim$te? immedi$te $nd direct c$use of the de$th
of the pl$intiffsR intest$te w$s the negligence of 2rf$nel? $ uniformed policem$n?
who took the wheel of the truck from defend$ntRs c$rg$dor? in spite of the protest
of the l$tter> 8he re$son for $bsolving the defend$nt therefor is not bec$use the
one responsible for the $ccident h$d $lre$dy received indemnific$tion for the
$ccident? but bec$use there is no direct $nd proxim$te c$us$l connection between
the negligence or viol$tion of the l$w by the defend$nt to the de$th of the
pl$intiffRs intest$te>4or the foregoing consider$tions? the judgment $ppe$led from
is hereby $ffirmed? without costs>1$ses I-EIF 0975;2E753=)2? =509A;) 4) ;>IH>;),92:
;5LB,58B2; L: 154518:/ +riv$te respondent 9$mon =ir$nd$ purch$sed from the ;egros
;$vig$tion 1o> inc four speci$l c$bin tickets for his f$mily who were going to
7$colod 1ity to $ttend $ f$mily reunion bo$rding to <on Du$n> <on Du$n collided off
the 8$bl$s :tr$itin =indoro? with the =X8 8$clob$n 1ity? $n oil t$nker owned by the
+hilippine ;$tion$l 2il 1omp$ny .+;21%> 5s $ result the =XL <on Du$n s$nk> :ever$l
of her p$ssengers perished in the se$ tr$gedy> 8he bodies of some of the victims
were found $nd broughts shore? but the four members of priv$te respondents
f$milies were never found>B::0)/ 6hether or not the petitioners exercised the
extr$ordin$ry diligence requiredVN)3</ ;o? $s with the =ecem$s c$se? this 1ourt
found petitioner guilty of negligence in .C% $llowing or toler$ting the ship
c$pt$in $nd crew members in pl$ying m$hjong during the voy$ge? .G% in f$iling to
m$int$in the vessel se$worthy $nd .@% in $llowing the ship to c$rry more p$ssengers
th$n it w$s $llowed to c$rry>5lso? the duty to exercise due diligence includes the
duty to t$ke p$ssengers or c$rgoes th$t $re within the c$rrying c$p$city of the
vessel>J-> 7);,0)8 )3)189B1 122+)958BL) L: 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/ 4or five .K%
ye$rs up to the time of his de$th? Dose 7ern$rdo m$n$ged $ st$ll $t the 7$guio 1ity
me$t m$rket> 2n C" D$nu$ry CHFK $t $round J/K- in the morning? Dose together with
other me$t vendors went out of their st$lls to meet $ jeepney lo$ded with
sl$ughtered pigs in order to select the me$t they would sell for the d$y>Dose w$s
the very first to re$ch the p$rked jeepney> ,r$sping the h$ndleb$rs $t the re$r
entr$nce of the vehicle? $nd $s he w$s $bout to r$ise his right foot to get inside?
Dose suddenly stiffened $nd trembled $s though suffering from $n epileptic seizure>
9omeo +imient$ who s$w Dose thought he w$s merely joking but noticed $lmost in
disbelief th$t he w$s $lre$dy turning bl$ck> Bn no time the other vendors rushed to
Dose $nd they discovered th$t the $ntenn$ of the jeepney be$ring the pigs h$d
gotten ent$ngled with $n open electric wire $t the top of the roof of $ me$t st$ll>
+imient$ quickly got hold of $ broom $nd pried the $ntenn$ loose from the open
wire> 7ut shortly $fter? Dose rele$sed his hold on the h$ndleb$rs of the jeep only
to slump to the ground> Ne died shortly in the hospit$l> 1$use of his de$th w$s
Wc$rdioErespir$tory $rrest second$ry to m$ssive br$in congestion with pethecci$l
hemorrh$ge? br$in bil$ter$l pulmon$ry edem$ $nd congestion $nd endoc$rdi$l
petecchi$l hemorrh$ge $nd dil$tion .history of electrocution%>W4B9:8 B::0)/ 6heter
or not respondent should be $w$rded d$m$ges notwithst$nding $ cle$r showing th$t
the electrocution $nd de$th of Dose 7ern$rdo were directly $ttribut$ble to the
f$ult $nd negligence of jeepney owner ,uillermo 1$n$ve? Dr> 4B9:8 N)3</ 8he records
of the c$se show th$t respondent court did not commit $ny reversible error in
$ffirming the findings of the tri$l court th$t 7);)12 w$s solely responsible for
the untimely de$th of Dose 7ern$rdo through $ccident$l electrocution>:)12;< B::0)/
6hether or not the gr$nt of mor$l d$m$ges $nd $ttorneyRs fees on the s$me ground of
nonEculp$bility is proper>:)12;< N)3</ Bt is settled th$t mor$l d$m$ges $re not
intended to enrich the compl$in$nt but to serve to obvi$te hisXher spiritu$l
suffering by re$son of the culp$ble $ction of the defend$nt> Bts $w$rd is $imed $t
the restor$tion of the spiritu$lst$tus quo $nte? $nd it must be commensur$te to the
suffering inflicted> 5s $ result of the $ccident$l de$th
of Dose? his widow 1$rid$d $nd their three .@% minor children h$d to scrounge for
$ living in order to keep their he$ds $bove w$ter> 1$rid$d h$d to depend on the
generosity of her rel$tives which c$me intermittently $nd f$r between $nd $ugment
wh$tever she received from them with her me$ger income from her sm$ll business> :he
must h$ve $gonized over the prospect of r$ising her three .@% sm$ll children $ll by
herself given her unst$ble fin$nci$l condition> 4or the foregoing re$sons? we
sust$in the $w$rd of mor$l d$m$ges by respondent court except $s to the $mount
thereof> Bn the inst$nt c$se? we $re of the opinion th$t mor$l d$m$ges in the
$mount of +K-?--->-- $re more in $ccord with the injury suffered by priv$te
respondent $nd her children>5s for $ttorneyRs fees? we find no leg$l nor f$ctu$l
b$sis to overturn the ruling of respondent court on the m$tterS $ccordingly? the
gr$nt of +G-?--->-- $ttorneyRs fees to priv$te respondent 7ern$rdo is $dopted>JC>
=5E52 :0,59 1);8953 12>? B;1> 5;< ,0B33)9=2 595;)85 L:> 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/ 2n
=$rch GG? CHF-? 4$moso w$s riding with $ coEemployee in the c$boose or Wc$rboner$W
of +lymouth ;o> CG? $ c$rgo tr$in of the petitioner? when the locomotive w$s
suddenly der$iled> Ne $nd his comp$nion jumped off to esc$pe injury? but the tr$in
fell on its side? c$ught his legs by its wheels $nd pinned him down> Ne w$s
decl$red de$d on the spot>8he cl$ims for de$th $nd other benefits h$ving been
denied by the petitioner? the herein priv$te respondent filed suit in the 9egion$l
8ri$l 1ourt of 7$go 1ity> Dudge =$riett$Nobill$E5linio ruled in her f$vor but
deducted from the tot$l d$m$ges $w$rded GKY thereof for the decedentRs contributory
negligence $nd the tot$l pension of +"C?@IJ>I- priv$te respondent $nd her children
would be receiving from the ::: for the next five ye$rs>B::0)/ 6hether or not the
petitioners exercised the ordin$ry diligence requiredVN)3</ ;o> Bnvestig$tion of
the $ccident reve$led th$t the der$ilment of the locomotive w$s c$used by
protruding r$ils which h$d come loose bec$use they were not connected $nd fixed in
pl$ce by fish pl$tes> 4ish pl$tes $re described $s strips of iron FW to CGW long
$nd @ CXGW thick which $re $tt$ched to the r$ils by " bolts? two on e$ch side? to
keep the r$ils $ligned> 5lthough they could be removed only with speci$l equipment?
the fish pl$tes th$t should h$ve kept the r$ils $ligned could not be found $t the
scene of the $ccident>Bt is possible th$t the fish pl$tes were loosened $nd
det$ched during its first trip $nd the r$ils were $s $ result $lre$dymisE$ligned
during the return trip> 7ut the 1ourt feels th$t even this w$s unlikely? for? $s
e$rlier noted? the fish pl$tes were supposed to h$ve been bolted to the r$ils $nd
could be removed only with speci$l tools> 8he f$ct th$t the fish pl$tes were not
found l$ter $t the scene of the mish$p m$y show they were never there $t $ll to
begin with or h$d been been removed long before>5t $ny r$te? the $bsence of the
fish pl$tes E wh$tever the c$use or re$son E is by itself $lone proof of the
negligence of the petitioner> 9esips$ loquitur> 8he doctrine w$s described recently
in 3$yug$n v> Bntermedi$te 5ppell$te 1ourt?thus/6here the thing which c$uses injury
is shown to be under the m$n$gement of the defend$nt? $nd the $ccident is such $s
in the ordin$ry course of things does not h$ppen if those who h$ve the m$n$gement
use proper c$re? it $ffords re$son$ble evidence? in the $bsence of $n expl$n$tion
by the defend$nt? th$t the $ccident $rose from w$nt of c$re>8he petitioner $lso
discl$ims li$bility on the ground of 5rticle GCJI of the 1ivil 1ode? contending it
h$s exercised due diligence in the selection $nd supervision of its employees> 8he
1ourt c$nnot $gree> 8he record shows it w$s in f$ct l$x in requiring them to
exercise the necess$ry vigil$nce in m$int$ining the r$ils in good condition to
prevent the der$ilments th$t sometimes h$ppened Wevery hour>W 2bviously? merely
ordering the br$kemen $nd conductors to fill out prescribed forms reporting
der$ilments E which reports h$ve not been $cted upon $sshown by the hourly
der$ilments E is not the kind of supervision envisioned by the 1ivil 1ode>JG>
92,)3B2 )> 95=2: vs> 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/ :ometime in CHFK? petitioner )rlind$
9$mos? $fter seeking profession$l medic$l help? w$s$dvised to undergo $n oper$tion
for the remov$l of $ stone in her g$ll bl$dder .cholecystectomy%>:he w$s referred
to <r> Nos$k$? $ surgeon? who $greed to perform the oper$tion on her> 8heoper$tion
w$s scheduled for Dune CJ? CHFK $t H/-- in the morning $t priv$te respondent <e
3os:$ntos =edic$l 1enter .<3:=1%> :ince neither petitioner )rlind$ nor her husb$nd?
petitioner 9ogelio? knew of $ny $nesthesiologist? <r> Nos$k$ recommended to them
the services of <r>,utierrez>+etitioner )rlind$ w$s $dmitted to the <3:=1 the d$y
before the scheduled oper$tion> 7y J/@-in the morning of the following d$y?
petitioner )rlind$ w$s $lre$dy being prep$red for oper$tion>0pon the request of
petitioner )rlind$? her sisterEinEl$w? Nermind$ 1ruz? who w$s then <e$n ofthe
1ollege of ;ursing $t the 1$pitol =edic$l 1enter? w$s $llowed to $ccomp$ny her
inside theoper$ting room5t $round H/@- in the morning? <r> Nos$k$ h$d not yet
$rrived so <r> ,utierrez tried to get intouch with him by phone> >W7y C-/-- in the
morning? when <r> Nos$k$ w$s still not $round? petitioner 9ogelio $lre$dyw$nted to
pull out his wife from the oper$ting room> Ne met <r> ,$rci$? who rem$rked th$t
hew$s $lso tired of w$iting for <r> Nos$k$> <r> Nos$k$ fin$lly $rrived $t the
hospit$l $t $roundCG/C- in the $fternoon? or more th$n three .@%hours $fter the
scheduled oper$tion> 1ruz? who w$s then still inside the oper$ting room? he$rd
$bout <r> Nos$k$ s $rriv$l>W 1ruz noticed $ bluish discolor$tion of )rlind$ s
n$ilbeds on her left h$nd> :he .1ruz% then he$rd <r> Nos$k$ instruct someone to
c$ll <r> 1$lderon? $nother $nesthesiologist> 6hen he $rrived? <r> 1$lderon
$ttempted to intub$te the p$tient> 1ruz went out of the oper$ting room to express
her concern to petitioner 9ogelio th$t )rlind$ s oper$tion w$s not going well> 1ruz
quickly rushed b$ck to the oper$ting room $nd s$w th$t the p$tient w$s still in
trendelenburg position>5t $lmost @/-- in the $fternoon? she s$w )rlind$ being
wheeled to the Bntensive 1$re 0nit .B10%> 8he doctors expl$ined to petitioner
9ogelio th$t his wife h$d bronchosp$sm> )rlind$ st$yed in the B10 for $ month> :he
w$s rele$sed from the hospit$l onlyfour months l$ter or on ;ovember CK? CHFK> :ince
the illEf$ted oper$tion? )rlind$ rem$ined in com$tose condition until she died on
5ugust @? CHHH>B::0):/C> 6hether or not dr> 2rlino hos$k$ .surgeon% is li$ble for
negligenceSG> 6hether or not dr> +erfect$ ,utierrez .$nesthesiologist% is li$ble
for negligenceS $nd@> 6hether or not the hospit$l .delos s$ntos medic$l center% is
li$ble for $ny $ct of negligence committed by their visiting consult$nt surgeon $nd
$nesthesiologist903B;,/ Bn the c$se $t b$r? the following issues were resolved $s
follows/C% <r> Nos$k$Rs irresponsible conduct of $rriving very l$te for the
scheduled oper$tion of petitioner )rlind$ is viol$tive? not only of his duty $s $
physici$n Wto serve the interest of his p$tients with the gre$test solicitude?
giving them $lw$ys his best t$lent $nd skill?Wbut $lso of 5rticle CH of the 1ivil
1ode which requires $ person? in the perform$nce of his duties? to $ct with justice
$nd give everyone his due>G% <r>
,utierrez##########################################################################
####################################### #c#l#$#i#m# #o#f# #l#$#c#k# #o#f#
#n#e#g#l#i#g#e#n#c#e# #o#n# #h#e#r# #p#$#r#t# #i#s# #b#e#l#i#e#d# #b#y# #t#h#e#
#r#e#c#o#r#d#s# #o#f# #t#h#e# ##c#$#s#e#># #B#t# #h#$#s#
#b#e#e#n#s#u#f#f#i#c#i#e#n#t#l#y# #e#s#t#$#b#l#i#s#h#e#d# #t#h#$#t# #s#h#e#
#f#$#i#l#e#d# #t#o# #e#x#e#r#c#i#s#e# #t#h#e# #s#t#$#n#d#$#r#d#s# #o#f# #c#$#r#e# #
#i#n# #t#h#e# #$#d#m#i#n#i#s#t#r#$#t#i#o#n# #o#f# #$#n#e#s#t#h#e#s#i#$# #o#n# #$#
#p#$#t#i#e#n#t#># #<#r#># #,#u#t#i#e#r#r#e#z# #o#m#i#t#t#e#d# #t#o# #p#e#r#f#o#r#m#
#$# ##t#h#orough preoper$tive ev$lu$tion on )rlind$> 4urther? there is no cogent
re$son for the 1ourt to reverse its finding th$t it w$s the f$ulty intub$tion on
)rlind$ th$t c$used her com$tose condition> 8here is no question th$t )rlind$
bec$me com$tose $fter <r> ,utierrez performed $ medic$l procedure on her>@%5fter $
c$reful consider$tion of the $rguments r$ised by <3:=1? the 1ourt finds th$t
respondent hospit$l s position on this issue is meritorious> 8here is no
employeremployee rel$tionship between <3:=1 $nd <rs> ,utierrez $nd Nos$k$ which
would hold <3:=1 solid$rily li$ble for the injury suffered by petitioner )rlind$
under5rticle GCF- of the 1ivil 1ode> 4urther? no evidence w$s $dduced to show th$t
the injury suffered by petitioner )rlind$ w$s due to $ f$ilure on the p$rt of
respondent <3:=1 to provide for hospit$l f$cilities $nd st$ff necess$ry for her
tre$tment> 4or these re$sons? the :upreme 1ord reverse the finding of li$bility on
the p$rt of <3:=1 for the injury suffered by petitioner )rlind$J@> <>=> 12;:0;DB
B;1> L 12098 24 5++)53: 5;< =59B5 D> D0),24518:/ 5round C/@-+= of ;ovember G? CHH-?
Dose Duergo? $ construction worker of <>=> 1onsunji Bnc> fell C" floors from the
9en$iss$nce 8ower? +$sig 1ity> Ne w$s immedi$tely rushed to 9iz$l =edic$l 1enter in
+$sig 1ity> 8he $ttending physici$n? <r> )rrol de Azo? pronounce Dose de$d on
$rriv$l .<25% $t $round G/CK+=>Dose Duergo? together with Dessie D$lu$g $nd <elso
<est$jo? performing their work $s c$rpenter $t the elev$tor core of the C"th floor
of 8ower <? 9en$iss$nce 8ower 7uilding were on bo$rd $ pl$tform> Dose w$s crushed
to de$th when the pl$tform fell due to remov$l or looseness of the pin? which w$s
merely inserted to the
connecting points of the ch$in block $nd pl$tform but without $ s$fety lock>
3uckily? Dessie $nd <elso jumped out of s$fety>+2@ 9ogelio Lill$nuev$ of the
)$stern +olice <istrict investig$ted the tr$gedy $nd filed report d$ted ;ov> GK?
CHH-> =$ri$ Duergo? Dose s widow filed $ compl$int on =$y H? CHHC for d$m$ges in
the 981 $nd w$s rendered $ f$vor$ble decision to receive support from <= 1onsunji
$mounting to +I""?---><= 1onsunji seeks revers$l of the 15 decision>B::0)/ 6hether
=$ri$ Duergo c$n still cl$im d$m$ges with <>=> 1onsunji $p$rt from the de$th
benefits she cl$imed in the :t$te Bnsur$nce 4und>N)3</ 8he respondent is not
precluded from recovering d$m$ges under the civil code>=$ri$ Duergo w$s un$w$re of
petitioner s negligence when she filed her cl$im for de$th benefits from the :t$te
Bnsur$nce 4und> :he filed the civil compl$int for d$m$ges $fter she received $ copy
of the police investig$tion report $nd the +rosecutor s =emor$ndum dismissing the
crimin$l compl$int $g$inst petitioner s personnel>:upreme 1ourt rem$nded to the 981
of +$sig 1ity to determine whether the $w$rd decreed in its decision is more th$n
th$t of the )mployees 1ompens$tion 1ommission .)11%> :hould the $w$rd decreed by
the tri$l court be gre$ter th$n th$t $w$rded by the )11? p$yments $lre$dy m$de to
priv$te respondent pursu$nt to the 3$bor 1ode sh$ll be deducted there from>J">
758B,0B; L 154518:/ <r> 7$tiquin performed $ c$es$ri$n oper$tion on $ p$tient>
5fterw$rds? she w$s found to be feverish> 6hen the p$tient submitted herself to
$nother surgery? she w$s found to h$ve $n ov$ri$n cyst on the left $nd right side
of the ov$ries $nd $ piece of rubber m$teri$l w$s embedded on the right side of the
uterus>N)3</ 9es ips$ 6here the thing which c$uses the injury isshown to underthe
m$n$gement ofthe defend$nt? $nd the $ccident is such $s in the ordin$ry course of
things does not h$ppen if those who h$ve the m$n$gement used proper c$re? it
$ffordsre$son$ble evidence? in the $bsence of $n expl$n$tion by thedefend$nt? th$t
the $ccident $rose from ordin$ry w$nt of c$re> 5ll the requisites $re present in
this c$se> .C% 8he entire proceedings ofthe c$es$ri$n were under the exclusive
control of <r> 7$tiquin>.G%8he p$tient underwent no other oper$tion which could
h$be c$used the offending piece ofrubberto $ppe$r in her uterus? it st$nds to
re$son th$t it could h$ve only been $ byEproduct of the c$es$ri$n section>903)/ 9es
ips$ 6here the thing which c$uses injury is shown to be under the m$n$gement of
the <efend$nt? $nd the $ccident is such $s in the ordin$ry course ofthings does not
h$ppen ifthose who h$ve them$n$gement use proper c$re?it $ffordsre$son$ble
evidence? in the $bsence of $n expl$n$tion by the defend$nt? th$t the $ccident
$rose from w$nt of ordin$ry c$re>JK> 1)70 :NB+A59< L 6B33B5=4518:/ 1ebu :hipy$rd
$nd )ngineering 6orks? Bnc> rep$ired m$rine vessels while the +rudenti$l is in the
nonElife insur$nce business> 6illi$m 3ines? Bnc>? the owner of =XL =$nil$ 1ity? $
luxury p$ssengerEc$rgo vessel? which c$ughtfire $nd s$nk> 5t the time of the
incident? subject vessel w$s insured with +rudenti$l for +"K= for hull $nd
m$chinery> 1:)6 w$s insured for only +hp C- million for the ship rep$irer s
li$bility policy> 8hey entered into $ contr$ct where negligence w$s the only f$ctor
th$t could m$ke 1:)6 li$ble for d$m$ges> =oreover? li$bility of 1:)6 w$s limited to
only +hp C million for d$m$ges> 8he Null +olicy included $n 5ddition$l +erils
.B;1N=59))% 1l$use covering loss of or d$m$ge to the vessel through the negligence
of? $mong others? ship rep$irmen> 6illi$m brought =$nil$ 1ity to the dry dock of
1:)6 for rep$irs> 8he officers $nd c$bin crew st$yed $t the ship while it w$s being
rep$ired> 5fter the vessel w$s tr$nsferred to the docking qu$y? it c$ughtfire $nd
s$nk? resulting to its tot$l loss>6illi$m brought suit $g$inst 1:)6 $lleging th$t
it w$s through the l$tter s negligence th$t the ship c$ughtfire $nd s$nk>
+rudenti$l w$s imple$ded $s coEpl$intiff $fter it h$d p$id the v$lue of insured
items> Bt w$s subrog$ted to "K million? or the v$lue it cl$imed to indemnify>8he
tri$l court brought judgment $g$inst 1:)6 "K million for the ship indemnity? IK
million for loss of income? $nd more th$n C@ million in other d$m$ges> 8he 15
$ffirmed the 81 decision>1:)6 contended th$t the c$use of the fire w$s due to
6illi$m s hot works on the s$id portion of the ship which they didn t $sk 1:)6
permission for>+rudenti$l? on the other h$nd? bl$med the negligence of the 1:)6
workers in the inst$nce when they didn t mind rubber insul$tion wire coming out of
the $irconditioning unit th$t w$s $lre$dy burning>Nence this =49>B::0)/C> 62; 1:)6
h$d m$n$gement $nd supervisory control of the ship $t the time the fire broke out
G> 62; the doctrine of res ips$ loquitur $pplies $g$inst the crew@> 62; +rudenti$l
h$sthe right of subrog$tion $g$inst its own insured"> 62; the provisions limiting
1:)6 s li$bility for negligence to $ m$ximum of +hp C million $re v$lidN)3</ Aes>
Aes> Aes> ;o> +etition denied>C> 8he th$t f$ctu$l findings by the 15 $re conclusive
on the p$rties $nd $re not review$ble by this 1ourt> 8hey $re entitled to gre$t
weight $nd respect when the 15 $ffirmed the f$ctu$l findings $rrived $t by the
tri$l court>8he 15 $nd the 1ebu 981 $re $greed th$t the fire which c$used the tot$l
loss of subject =XL =$nil$ 1ity w$s due to the negligence of the employees $nd
workers of 1:)6>4urthermore? in petitions for review on certior$ri? only questions
of l$w m$y be put into issue> (uestions of f$ct c$nnot be entert$ined>G> 4or the
doctrine of res ips$ loquitur to $pply to $ given situ$tion? the following
conditions must concur/ .C% the $ccident w$s of $ kind which does not ordin$rily
occur unless someone is negligentS $nd .G% th$t the instrument$lity or $gency which
c$used the injury w$s under the exclusive control of the person ch$rged with
negligence>8he f$cts $nd evidence reve$l the presence of these conditions> 4irst?
the fire would not h$ve h$ppened in the ordin$ry course of things if re$son$ble
c$re $nd diligence h$d been exercised>:econd? the $gency ch$rged with negligence?
$s found by the tri$l court $nd the 15 $nd $s shown by the records? is 1:)6? which
h$d control over subject vessel when it w$s docked for $nnu$l rep$irs>6h$t is more?
in the present c$se the tri$l court found direct evidence to prove th$t the workers
didn t exercise due diligence in the c$re of subject vessel> 8he direct evidence
subst$nti$tes the conclusion th$t 1:)6 w$s re$lly negligent even without $pplying
such doctrine>@> +etitioner contends th$t +rudenti$l is not entitled to be
subrog$ted to the rights of 6illi$m 3ines? Bnc>? theorizing th$t .C% the fire which
gutted =XL =$nil$ 1ity w$s $n excluded risk $nd .G% it is $ coE$ssured underthe
=$rineNull Bnsur$nce +olicy> 8his w$s wrong> 8he one who c$used the fire h$s
$lre$dy been $djudic$ted by the courts $s 1:)6>0pon proof of p$yment by +rudenti$l
to 6illi$m 3ines? Bnc>? the former w$s subrog$ted to the right of the l$tter to
indemnific$tion from 1:)6> 5s $ptly ruled by the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls? the l$w s$ys/
5rt> GG-J> Bf the pl$intiff s property h$s been insured? $nd he h$s received
indemnity fromthe insur$nce comp$ny for the injury or loss $rising out of the wrong
or bre$ch of contr$ct compl$ined of?the insur$nce comp$ny sh$ll be subrog$ted to
the rights of the insured $g$inst the wrongdoer or the person who h$s viol$ted the
contr$ct> Bf the $mount p$id by the insur$nce comp$ny does not fully cover the
injury or loss? the $ggrieved p$rty sh$ll be entitled to recover the deficiency
from the person c$using the loss or injury>6hen +rudenti$l p$id the l$tter the
tot$l $mount covered by its insur$nce policy? it w$s subrog$ted to the right of the
l$tter to recover the insured loss from the li$ble p$rty? 1:)6>+etitioner theorizes
further th$t there c$n be no right of subrog$tion $s it is deemed $ coE$ssured
under the subject insur$nce policy with reli$nce on 1l$use G- of the 6ork 2rder
which st$tes/8he insur$nce on the vessel should be m$int$ined by the customer
$ndXor owner of the vessel during the period the contr$ct is in effect>1l$use G- of
the 6ork 2rder in question is cle$r in the sense th$t it requires 6illi$m 3ines to
m$int$in insur$nce on the vessel during the period of dryEdocking or rep$ir>
Nowever? the f$ct th$t 1:)6 benefits from the s$id stipul$tion does not
$utom$tic$lly m$ke it $s $ coE$ssured of 6illi$m 3ines> 8he intention of the
p$rties to m$ke e$ch other $ coE$ssured under $n insur$nce policy is to be re$d
from the insur$nce contr$ct or policy itself $nd not from $ny other contr$ct or
$greement bec$use the insur$nce policy denomin$tes the benefici$ries of the
insur$nce> 8he hull $nd m$chinery insur$nce procured by 6illi$m 3ines? Bnc> from
+rudenti$l n$med only 6illi$m 3ines? Bnc> $s the $ssured> 8here w$s
nom$nifest$tion of $ny intention of 6illi$m 3ines? Bnc> to constitute 1:)6 $s $ coE
$ssured under subject policy> 8he cl$im of 1:)6 th$t it is $ coE$ssured is
unfounded>8hen too? in the 5ddition$l +erils 1l$use of the s$me =$rine Bnsur$nce
+olicy? it is provided th$t this insur$nce $lso covers loss of or d$m$ge to vessel
directly c$used by the negligence of ch$rterers $nd rep$irers who $re not $ssured>
5s correctly pointed out by respondent +rudenti$l? if 1:)6 were deemed $ coE$ssured
under the policy? it would nullify $ny cl$im of 6illi$m 3ines? Bnc> from +rudenti$l
for $ny loss or d$m$ge c$used by the negligence of 1:)6> 1ert$inly? no ship owner
would $gree to m$ke $ ship rep$irer $ coE$ssured under such insur$nce policyS
otherwise? $ny cl$im forloss or d$m$ge under the policy would be inv$lid$ted>">
5lthough in this jurisdiction? contr$cts of $dhesion h$ve been consistently upheld
$s v$lid per
seS $s binding $s $n ordin$ry contr$ct? the 1ourt recognizes inst$nces when
reli$nce on such contr$cts c$nnot be f$vored especi$lly where the f$cts $nd
circumst$nces w$rr$nt th$t subject stipul$tions be disreg$rded> 8hus? in ruling on
the v$lidity $nd $pplic$bility of the stipul$tion limiting the li$bility of 1:)6
for negligence to+C= only? the f$cts $nd circumst$nces visE$Evis the n$ture of the
provision sought to be enforced should be considered? be$ring in mind the
principles of equity $nd f$ir pl$y>Bt is worthy to note th$t =XL =$nil$ 1ity w$s
insured with +rudenti$l for +"K=> 0pon thorough investig$tion by its hull surveyor?
=XL =$nil$ 1ity w$s found to be beyond economic$l s$lv$ge $nd rep$ir> 8he
ev$lu$tion of the $ver$ge $djuster $lso reported $ constructive tot$l loss> 8he
s$id cl$im of 6illi$m 3ines? Bnc>? w$s then found to be v$lid $nd compens$ble such
th$t +rudenti$l p$id the l$tter the tot$l v$lue of its insur$nce cl$im>
4urthermore? it w$s $scert$ined th$t the repl$cement cost of the vessel? $mounts to
+KK=>1onsidering the circumst$nces? it would unf$ir to limit the li$bility of
petitioner to 2ne =illion +esos only> 8o $llow 1:)6 to limit its li$bility to +C=
notwithst$nding the f$ct th$t the tot$l loss suffered by the $ssured $nd p$id for
by +rudenti$l $mounted to +"K= would s$nction the exercise of $ degree of diligence
short of wh$t is ordin$rily required bec$use? then? it would not be difficult for
petitioner to esc$pe li$bility by the simple expedient of p$ying $n $mount very
much lower th$n the $ctu$l d$m$ge suffered by 6illi$m>JI>,28):12 B;L):8=);8
129+2958B2; L: 1N58824518: / +l$intiff,lori$ )> 1h$tto? $nd her CKEye$r old
d$ughter? 3in$ <elz$ )> 1h$tto went to see the movie W=other<e$rW $t :uper$m$
Bthe$ter? owned by defend$nt ,otesco Bnvestment 1orpor$tion>E N$rdly ten .C-%
minutes $fter entering the the$ter? the ceiling of its b$lcony coll$psed> 8he
the$ter w$s plunged into d$rkness $nd p$ndemonium ensued>E :hocked $nd hurt?
pl$intiffs m$n$ged to cr$wl under the f$llen ceiling> 5s soon $s they were $ble to
get outto the street they w$lked the ne$rby 4)0Nospit$l where they were confined
$nd tre$ted for one .C% d$y>E 8he next d$y? they tr$nsferred to the 0:8 hospit$l>
+l$intiff ,lori$ 1h$tto w$s tre$ted in s$id hospit$l fromDune K to Dune CH $nd
pl$intiff 3in$ <elz$ 1h$tto fromDune K to CC>E <ue to continuing p$in in the neck?
he$d$che $nd dizziness? pl$intiff went to Bllinois? 0:5 in Duly CHFG for further
tre$tment> :he w$s tre$ted $t the 1ook county hospit$l in 1hic$go? Bllinois> :he
st$yed in the0>:> for $bout three .@% months during which time she h$d toreturn to
the 1ook 1ounty Nospit$l five .K% or? six .I%times>E <efend$nt tried to $void
li$bility by $lleging th$t the coll$pse of the ceiling of its the$ter w$s done due
to forcem$jeure> Bt m$int$ined th$t its the$ter did not suffer from $ny structur$l
or construction defect>E 8he tri$l court $w$rded $ctu$l or compens$tory $nd mor$l
d$m$ges $nd $ttorneyRs fees to the pl$intiffs>E 9espondent 1ourt found the $ppe$l
l$ter filed to be without merit>E Bts motion forreconsider$tion ofthe decision
h$ving been denied by the respondent 1ourt? petitioner filed the petition in the
:1>B::0) 62; the coll$pse of the ceiling w$s c$used by 4orcem$jeureN)3</ ;2E
+etitionerRs cl$im th$t the coll$pse ofthe ceiling of the the$terRs b$lcony w$s due
to 4orce m$jeure is not even founded on f$cts bec$use its own witness? =r> Desus
limong? $dmitted th$t Whe could not give $ny re$son whythe ceiling
coll$psed>WN$ving interposed it $s $ defense? it h$d the burden to prove th$t the
coll$pse w$s indeed c$used by forcem$jeure> 8h$t =r> 2ng could not offer $ny
expl$n$tion does not imply forcem$jeure>8he re$l re$son why =r> 2ng could not
expl$in the c$use orre$son isth$t either he did not $ctu$lly conduct the
investig$tion or th$t he isincompetent> Ne is not $n engineer? but $n $rchitect who
h$d not even p$ssed the governmentRs ex$min$tion>E Lerily? post
incidentinvestig$tion c$nnot beconsidered$sm$teri$lto the present proceedings>6h$t
issignific$ntisthe finding ofthe tri$l court? $ffirmed by the respondent 1ourt?
th$t the coll$pse w$s due to construction defects> 8here w$s no evidence offered to
overturn this finding>E 8he building w$s constructed b$rely " ye$rs prior to the
$ccident in question> Bt w$s not shown th$t $ny ofthe c$uses denomin$tes $s
forcem$jeure2bt$ined immedi$tely before or $t the time of the coll$pse of the
ceiling> :uch defects could h$ve been e$sily discovered if only petitioner
exercised due diligence $nd c$re inkeeping $nd m$int$ining the premises> 7ut $s
disclosed by the testimony of =r> 2ng? there w$s no $dequ$te inspection ofthe
premises before the d$te ofthe $ccident>E 8h$t the structur$l designs $nd pl$ns of
the building were duly $pproved by the 1ity )ngineer $nd the building permits $nd
certific$te of occup$ncy were issued do not $t $ll prove th$t there were no defects
in the construction? especi$lly $sreg$rdsthe ceiling? considering th$t no testimony
w$s offered to prove th$t it w$s ever inspected $t $ll>E Bt is settled th$t/ 8he
owner or proprietor of $ pl$ce of public$musement impliedly w$rr$nts th$t the
premises $ppli$nces $nd $musement devices $re s$fe for the purpose for which they
$re designed? the doctrine being subject to no other exception or qu$lific$tion
th$n th$t he does not contr$ct $g$inst unknown defects not discover$ble by ordin$ry
orre$son$ble me$ns>E 8his implied w$rr$nty h$s given rise to the rule th$t/ 6here $
p$tron of $ the$ter or other pl$ce of public $musement is injured? $nd the thing
th$t c$used the injury is wholly $nd exclusively underthe control $nd m$n$gement of
the defend$nt? $nd the $ccident is such $s in the ordin$ry course of eventswould
not h$ve h$ppened if proper c$re h$d been exercised? its occurrence r$ises $
presumption or permits of $n inference of negligence on the p$rt of the defend$nt>
JJ><95> 57<03B5 92<9B,0)O? )8 53> L: 12098 24 5++)53:? )8 53>4518:/ 5 fire broke
out which c$used the destruction of two $p$rtment buildings owned by the
$ppell$nts? $nd p$rti$lly destroying $ commerci$l building> 8he $ppell$nts $lleged
th$t bec$use of the gross negligence $nd l$ck of due c$re of the workers of the
defend$nts? the bunkhouse of the workers c$ught fire th$t spre$d r$pidly $nd burnt
the $dj$cent buildings> 5ppell$nts b$sed their cl$im on $ fire investig$tion report
which st$ted th$t Wthe fire st$rted $t the gener$tor $nd extended to the bunkhouse
$nd spre$d $mong the combustible m$teri$ls within the construction site>WB::0)/ 62;
the $ppell$nts c$n invoke the doctrine of res ips$ loquiturV903B;,/ ;o> 8he tri$l
court concluded th$t the fire could not h$ve st$rted $t the gener$tor $fter $ll the
defend$ntRs witnesses testified th$t the gener$tor did not c$ught fire $nd $
picture w$s presented showing th$t the bunkhouse w$s int$ct while the fire w$s
r$ging> 8he tri$l court decl$red th$t Wthe fire w$s not c$used by $n
instrument$lity within the exclusive control of the defend$nts?W which is one of
the requisites for the $pplic$tion of res ips$ loquitur in the l$w of negligence>
1$ses IHEJJ3509);5? 50,0:80 95A 5;8N2;A 1>JF> 6B;<L533)A :NB++B;, 12> L 154518:/
:ometime in 4ebru$ry CHFF? the +hilippine 9ox$s? $ vessel owned by +hilippine
+resident 3ines? Bnc>? priv$te respondent herein? $rrived in +uerto 2rd$z?
Lenezuel$? to lo$d iron ore> =r> )zz$r del L$lle :ol$rz$no L$squez? $n offici$l
pilot of Lenezuel$? w$s design$ted by the h$rbour $uthorities in +uerto 2rd$z to
n$vig$te the +hilippine 9ox$s through the 2rinoco 9iver> 6hile on tr$nsit? the
+hilippine 9ox$s experienced some vibr$tions when it entered the :$n 9oque 1h$nnel
$t mile CJG> 8he vessel proceeded on its w$y? with the pilot $ssuring the w$tch
officer th$t the vibr$tion w$s $ result of the sh$llowness of the ch$nnel> 8hen?
the +hilippine 9ox$s r$n str$nded in the 2rinoco 9iver?thus obstructing the ingress
$nd egress of vessels> 5s $ result of the block$ge? the =$l$ndrinon? $ vessel owned
by herein petitioner 6ildv$lley :hipping 1omp$ny? 3td>? w$s un$ble to s$il out of
+uerto 2rd$z on th$t d$y>6ildv$lley :hipping 1omp$ny? 3td> filed $ suit with the
9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt of =$nil$ $g$inst +hilippine +resident 3ines? Bnc> $nd +ioneer
Bnsur$nce 1omp$ny .the underwriterXinsurer of +hilippine 9ox$s% for d$m$ges in the
form of une$rned profits? $nd interest thereon $mounting to 0: U"--?--->-- plus
$ttorneyRs fees? costs? $nd expenses of litig$tion> 8he compl$int $g$inst +ioneer
Bnsur$nce 1omp$ny w$s dismissed in $n 2rder d$ted ;ovember J? CHFF>8he tri$l court
rendered its decision on 2ctober CI? CHHC in f$vor of the petitioner? 6ildv$lley
:hipping 1o>? 3td> 6N)9)429)? judgment is rendered for the pl$intiff? ordering
defend$nt +hilippine +resident 3ines? Bnc> to p$y to the pl$intiff the sum of 0>:>
UGKH?G"@>"@? $s $ctu$l $nd compens$tory d$m$ges? $nd 0>:> UCIG?-@C>K@? $s expenses
incurred $bro$d for its foreign l$wyers? plus $ddition$l sum of 0>:> UGG?--->--? $s
$nd for $ttorneyRs fees of pl$intiffRs loc$l l$wyer? $nd to p$y the cost of this
suit> <efend$ntRs countercl$im is dismissed for l$ck of merit>7oth p$rties
$ppe$led/ the petitioner $ppe$ling the nonE$w$rd of interest with the priv$te
respondent questioning the decision on the merits of the c$se> 1>5 f$vored ++3>
W6N)9)429)? finding defend$ntE$ppell$ntRs $ppe$l to be meritorious? judgment is
hereby rendered reversing the <ecision of the lower court> +l$intiffE$ppell$ntRs
1ompl$int is dismissed $nd it is ordered to p$y defend$ntE$ppell$nt the $mount of
8hree Nundred 8wentyEthree 8hous$nd? 4ortyEtwo +esos $nd 4iftyEthree 1ent$vos
.+@G@?-"G>K@% $s $nd for $ttorneyRs fees plus cost of suit> +l$intiffE$ppell$ntRs
$ppe$l is <B:=B::)<>+etitioner filed $ motion for reconsider$tion but the s$me
w$s denied for l$ck of merit> B::0)/ 6hether or not no f$ult of negligence c$n be
$ttributed to the m$ster nor the owner of the +hilippine 9ox$s for the grounding of
s$id vessel resulting in the block$ge of the 9io 2rinico> N)3</ 8he petition is
without merit> 8here being no contr$ctu$l oblig$tion? the priv$te respondent is
obliged to give only the diligence required of $ good f$ther of $ f$mily in
$ccord$nce with the provisions of 5rticle CCJ@ of the ;ew 1ivil 1ode? thus/ 5rt>
CCJ@> 8he f$ult or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of th$t
diligence which is required by the n$ture of the oblig$tion $nd corresponds with
the circumst$nces of the persons? of the time $nd of the pl$ce> 6hen negligence
shows b$d f$ith? the provisions of $rticles CCJC $nd GG-C? p$r$gr$ph G? sh$ll
$pply> Bf the l$w or contr$ct does not st$te the diligence which is to be observed
in the perform$nce? th$t which is expected of $ good f$ther of $ f$mily sh$ll be
required> 8he diligence of $ good f$ther of $ f$mily requires only th$t diligence
which $n ordin$ry prudent m$n would exercise with reg$rd to his own property> 8his
we h$ve found priv$te respondent to h$ve exercised when the vessel s$iled only
$fter the Wm$in engine? m$chineries? $nd other $uxili$riesW were checked $nd found
to be in good running conditionS when the m$ster left $ competent officer? the
officer on w$tch on the bridge with $ pilot who is experienced in n$vig$ting the
2rinoco 9iverS when the m$ster ordered the inspection of the vesselRs double bottom
t$nks when the vibr$tions occurred $new>8he doctrine ofres ips$ loquitur does not
$pply to the c$se $t b$r bec$use the circumst$nces surrounding the injury do not
cle$rly indic$te negligence on the p$rt of the priv$te respondent> 4or the s$id
doctrine to $pply? the following conditions must be met/ .C% the $ccident w$s of
such ch$r$cter $s to w$rr$nt $n inference th$t it would not h$ve h$ppened except
for defend$ntRs negligenceS .G% the $ccident must h$ve been c$used by $n $gency or
instrument$lity within the exclusive m$n$gement or control of the person ch$rged
with the negligence compl$ined ofS $nd .@% the $ccident must not h$ve been due to
$ny volunt$ry $ction or contribution on the p$rt of the person injured> 5s h$s
$lre$dy been held $bove? there w$s $ tempor$ry shift of control over the ship from
the m$ster of the vessel to the pilot on $ compulsory pilot$ge ch$nnel> 8hus? two
of the requisites necess$ry for the doctrine to $pply? i>e>? negligence $nd
control? to render the respondent li$ble? $re $bsent>6N)9)429)? B; LB)6 24 8N)
429),2B;,? the petition is <);B)<$nd the decision of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls in 15
,>9> 1L ;o> @IFGC is 544B9=)<>JH> ):+B9B80 L:> +NB3B++B;) +26)9 5;< <)L> 12F->
95<B2 12==0;B158B2;: 24 8N) +NB3> B;1> L 154518:/ CJI 5: D9 CGCK+= H +5B<
=5;<530A2;, D03 GGEII 329)82 <B2;)35 1575;,5; 3),5:+B 1B8A6B9) 599BL53 24 1N)1M 4)9
329)82 <B2;)35E1575;,5;E6B9) 599BL53 24 1N)1ME+)9CCK +=:5 BA2 6535;, +5MB;575;,
<0=58B;, M5 <BA5;E6535EM5;, +5<535 <B82 M5NB8 703703 =28he $bove letter is the m$in
concern of +l$intiffErespondent 3oreto <ionel$> Ne $lleges th$t petitioner $dded
extr$neous $nd libelous m$tters in the mess$ge sent to the priv$te respondent> Ne
s$id the def$m$tory words on the telegr$m sent to him not only wounded his feelings
but $lso c$used him undue emb$rr$ssment $nd $ffected $dversely his business $s well
bec$use other people h$ve come to know of s$id def$m$tory words> <efend$nt
corpor$tion $s $ defense? $lleges th$t the $ddition$l words in 8$g$log w$s $
priv$te joke between the sending $nd receiving oper$tors $nd th$t they were not
$ddressed to or intended for pl$intiff $nd therefore did not form p$rt of the
telegr$m $nd th$t the 8$g$log words $re not def$m$tory> 8he $ddition$l words in
8$g$log were never noticed $nd were included in the telegr$m when delivered>8he
tri$l court ruled $g$inst the 9$dio 1ommunic$tions of the +hilippines :t$ting th$t
there is no question th$t the $ddition$l words in 8$g$log $re libelous> 8hey
cle$rly impute $ vice or defect of the pl$intiff> 6hether or not they were intended
for the pl$intiff? the effect on the pl$intiff is the s$me> 5ny person re$ding the
$ddition$l words in 8$g$log will n$tur$lly think th$t they refer to the $ddressee?
the pl$intiff> 8here is no indic$tion from the f$ce of the telegr$m th$t the
$ddition$l words in 8$g$log were sent $s $ priv$te joke between the oper$tors of
the defend$nt>8he li$bility of the defend$nt is predic$ted not only on 5rticle @@
of the 1ivil 1ode of the +hilippines but on the following $rticles of s$id 1ode/
598> CH>E )very person must? in the exercise of his rights $nd in the perform$nce
of his duties? $ct with justice? give everyone his due? $nd observe honesty $nd
good f$ith>598> G->E)very person who? contr$ry to l$w? wilfully or negligently
c$uses d$m$ge to $nother? sh$ll indemnify the l$tter for the s$me>Bt follows th$t
the pl$intiff is entitled to d$m$ges $nd $ttorneyRs fees> 8he pl$intiff is $
businessm$n> 8he libelous 8$g$log words must h$ve $ffected his business $nd soci$l
st$nding in the community> 8he respondent $ppell$te court confirmed tri$l court s
decision> 8he proxim$te c$use? therefore? resulting in injury to $ppellee? w$s the
f$ilure of the $ppell$nt to t$ke the necess$ry or prec$ution$ry steps to $void the
occurrence of the humili$ting incident now compl$ined of> 8he comp$ny h$d not
imposed $ny s$fegu$rd $g$inst such eventu$lities $nd this void in its oper$ting
procedure does not spe$k well of its concern for their clienteleRs interests>
;egligence here is very p$tent> 8his negligence is imput$ble to $ppell$nt $nd not
to its employees>B::0):/C> 6hether or not +etitionerEemployer should $nswer
directly $nd prim$rily for the civil li$bility $rising from the crimin$l $ct of its
employee>G> 6hether or not the li$bility of petitionerEcomp$nyEemployer is
predic$ted on 5rticles CH $nd G- of the 1ivil 1ode? 5rticles on Num$n 9el$tions>
903B;,/ +etitionerRs contentions do not merit our consider$tion> 8he $ction for
d$m$ges w$s filed in the lower court directly $g$inst respondent corpor$tion not $s
$n employer subsidi$rily li$ble under the provisions of 5rticle CCIC of the ;ew
1ivil 1ode in rel$tion to 5rt> C-@ of the 9evised +en$l 1ode> 8he c$use of $ction
of the priv$te respondent is b$sed on 5rts> CH $nd G- of the ;ew 1ivil 1ode
.supr$%> 5s well $s on respondentRs bre$ch of contr$ct thru the negligence of its
own employees>+etitioner is $ domestic corpor$tion eng$ged in the business of
receiving $nd tr$nsmitting mess$ges> )verytime $ person tr$nsmits $ mess$ge through
the f$cilities of the petitioner? $ contr$ct is entered into> 0pon receipt of the
r$te or fee fixed? the petitioner undert$kes to tr$nsmit the mess$ge $ccur$tely>
8here is no question th$t in the c$se $t b$r? libelous m$tters were included in the
mess$ge tr$nsmitted? without the consent or knowledge of the sender> 8here is $
cle$r c$se of bre$ch of contr$ct by the petitioner in $dding extr$neous $nd
libelous m$tters in the mess$ge sent to the priv$te respondent> 5s $ corpor$tion?
the petitioner c$n $ct only through its employees> Nence the $cts of its employees
in receiving $nd tr$nsmitting mess$ges $re the $cts of the petitioner> 8o hold th$t
the petitioner is not li$ble directly for the $cts of its employees in the pursuit
of petitionerRs business is to deprive the gener$l public $v$iling of the services
of the petitioner of $n effective $nd $dequ$te remedy> Bn most c$ses? negligence
must be proved in order th$t pl$intiff m$y recover> Nowever? since negligence m$y
be h$rd to subst$nti$te in some c$ses? we m$y $pply the doctrine of 9): B+:5
32(0B809 .the thing spe$ks for itself%? by considering the presence of f$cts or
circumst$nces surrounding the injury>6N)9)429)? premises considered? the judgment
of the $ppell$te court is hereby 544B9=)<>FC> 10:82<B2 L 154518:/ 8he c$se is $bout
the gr$nt of $n e$sement of right of w$y> 8he pl$intiff owns $ p$rcel of l$nd with
$ twoEdoor $p$rtment $nd w$s $ble to $cquire s$id property through $ contr$ct of
s$le with spouses =$merto 9$yos $nd 8eodor$ (uintero $s vendors> :$id property m$y
be described to be surrounded by other immov$bles pert$ining to defend$nts> 8here
$re two possible p$ss$gew$ys> 8he first p$ss$gew$y is $pproxim$tely one meter wide
$nd is $bout G- meters dist$nt from =$b$s$s residence to the m$in :treet> 8he
second p$ss$gew$y is $bout @ meters in width $nd length from pl$intiff =$b$s$s
residence to the m$in :treet> 8here were ten$nts of the p$lintiff occupying the
premises> Nowever? pl$intiff s ten$nts v$c$ted the $p$rtment bec$use there h$d been
built $n $dobe fence in the first p$ss$gew$y m$king it n$rrower in width $nd even
extended s$id fence in such $ w$y th$t the entire p$ss$gew$y w$s enclosed> 8ri$l
court rendered $ decision ordering defend$nts 1ustodios $nd :$ntoses to give
pl$intiff perm$nent $ccess E ingress $nd egress? to the public streetS 2rdering the
pl$intiff to p$y defend$nts 1ustodios $nd :$ntoses +F?--- $s indemnity for the
perm$nent use of the p$ss$gew$y> 8he p$rties $re to shoulder their respective
litig$tion expenses>8he 15 $ffirmed the judgment of the tri$l court with
modific$tion/ 6N)9)429)? the $ppe$led decision of the lower court is hereby
544B9=)< 6B8N =2<B4B158B2; only insof$r $s the herein gr$nt of d$m$ges to
pl$intiffsE$ppell$nts> 8he 1ourt hereby orders defend$ntsE$ppellees to p$y
pl$intiffsE$ppell$nts the sum of :ixty 4ive 8hous$nd .+IK?---% +esos $s 5ctu$l
<$m$ges? 8hirty 8hous$nd .+@-?---% +esos $s =or$l <$m$ges? $nd 8en 8hous$nd
.+C-?---% +esos $s )xempl$ry <$m$ges> 8he rest of the $ppe$led decision is $ffirmed
to $ll respects> 15 denied petitioners motion for reconsider$tion>B::0)/ 6hether or
not the $w$rd of d$m$ges is
in correct order>903B;,/ 6e $gree with petitioners th$t the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls erred
in $w$rding d$m$ges in f$vor of priv$te respondents> 8he $w$rd of d$m$ges h$s no
subst$nti$l leg$l b$sis> 5 re$ding of the decision of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls will
show th$t the $w$rd of d$m$ges w$s b$sed solely on the f$ct th$t the origin$l
pl$intiff? +$cifico =$b$s$? incurred losses in the form of unre$lized rent$ls when
the ten$nts v$c$ted the le$sed premises by re$son of the closure of the p$ss$gew$y>
Nowever? the mere f$ct th$t the pl$intiff suffered losses does not give rise to $
right to recover d$m$ges> 8o w$rr$nt the recovery of d$m$ges? there must be both $
right of $ction for $ leg$l wrong inflicted by the defend$nt? $nd d$m$ge resulting
to the pl$intiff therefrom> 6rong without d$m$ge? or d$m$ge without wrong? does not
constitute $ c$use of $ction? since d$m$ges $re merely p$rt of the remedy $llowed
for the injury c$used by $ bre$ch or wrong>8here is $ m$teri$l distinction between
d$m$ges $nd injury> Bnjury is the illeg$l inv$sion of $ leg$l rightS d$m$ge is the
loss? hurt? or h$rm which results from the injuryS $nd d$m$ges $re the recompense
or compens$tion $w$rded forthe d$m$ge suffered> 8hus? there c$n be d$m$ge without
injury in those inst$nces in which the loss or h$rm w$s not the result of $
viol$tion of $ leg$l duty> 8hese situ$tions $re often c$lled d$mnum $bsque injuri$>
Bn order th$t $ pl$intiff m$y m$int$in $n $ction for the injuries of which he
compl$ins? he must est$blish th$t such injuries resulted from $ bre$ch of duty
which the defend$nt owed to the pl$intiff E $ concurrence of injury to the
pl$intiff $nd leg$l responsibility by the person c$using it> 8he underlying b$sis
for the $w$rd of tort d$m$ges is the premise th$t $n individu$l w$s injured in
contempl$tion of l$w> 8hus? there must first be the bre$ch of some duty $nd the
imposition of li$bility for th$t bre$ch before d$m$ges m$y be $w$rdedS it is not
sufficient to st$te th$t there should be tort li$bility merely bec$use the
pl$intiff suffered some p$in $nd suffering>=$ny $ccidents occur $nd m$ny injuries
$re inflicted by $cts or omissions which c$use d$m$ge or loss to $nother but which
viol$te no leg$l duty to such other person? $nd consequently cre$te no c$use of
$ction in his f$vor> Bn such c$ses? the consequences must be borne by the injured
person $lone> 8he l$w $ffords no remedy for d$m$ges resulting from $n $ct which
does not $mount to $ leg$l injury or wrong>Bn other words? in order th$t the l$w
will give redress for $n $ct c$using d$m$ge? th$t $ct must be not only hurtful? but
wrongful> 8here must be d$mnum et injuri$> Bf? $s m$y h$ppen in m$ny c$ses? $
person sust$ins $ctu$l d$m$ge? th$t is? h$rm or loss to his person or property?
without sust$ining $ny leg$l injury? th$t is? $n $ct or omission which the l$w does
not deem $n injury? the d$m$ge is reg$rded $s d$mnum $bsque injuri$>Bn the c$se $t
b$r? $lthough there w$s d$m$ge? there w$s no leg$l injury> 1ontr$ry to the cl$im of
priv$te respondents? petitioners could not be s$id to h$ve viol$ted the principle
of $buse of right> Bn order th$t the principle of $buse of right provided in
5rticle GC of the 1ivil 1ode c$n be $pplied? it is essenti$l th$t the following
requisites concur/ .C% 8he defend$nt should h$ve $cted in $ m$nner th$t is contr$ry
to mor$ls? good customs or public policyS .G% 8he $cts should be willfulS $nd .@%
8here w$s d$m$ge or injury to the pl$intiff>FG> 157B,52 L:> 0;BL)9:B8A 24 8N) )5:8?
1>5>F@> <5;,65 895;:+29858B2; 12> B;1> L 154518:/ 8his is $ compl$intfor d$m$ges
$g$inst petitioners for the de$th of +edrito 1udi$m$t $s $ result of $ vehicul$r
$ccident> 6hile petitioner 8heodore => 3$rdiz$b$l w$s driving $ p$ssenger bus
belonging to petitioner corpor$tion in $ reckless $nd imprudent m$nner $nd without
due reg$rd to tr$ffic rules $nd regul$tions $nd s$fety to persons $nd property? it
r$n over its p$ssenger? +edrito 1udi$m$t> Nowever? inste$d of bringing +edrito
immedi$tely to the ne$rest hospit$l? the s$id driver? in utter b$d f$ith $nd
without reg$rd to the welf$re of the victim? first brought his other p$ssengers $nd
c$rgo to their respective destin$tions before b$nging s$id victim to the 3ep$nto
Nospit$l where he died> +etitioners $lleged th$t they h$d observed $nd continued to
observe the extr$ordin$ry diligence required in the oper$tion of the tr$nsport$tion
comp$ny $nd the supervision of the employees? even $s they $dd th$t they $re not
$bsolute insurers of the s$fety of the public $t l$rge> 4urther? it w$s $lleged
th$t it w$s the victimRs own c$relessness $nd negligence which g$ve rise to the
subject incident> 8ri$l court rendered decision/ B; LB)6 24 533 8N) 429),2B;,?
judgment is hereby pronounced th$t +edrito 1udi$m$t w$s negligent? which negligence
w$s the proxim$te c$use of his de$th> ;onetheless? defend$nts in equity? $re hereby
ordered to p$y the heirs of +edrito 1udi$m$t the sum of +C-?--->-- which
$pproxim$tes the $mount defend$nts initi$lly offered s$id heirs for the $mic$ble
settlement of the c$se> ;o costs>15 set $side the decision of the tri$l court $nd
rendered judgment/ 8he sum of 8hirty 8hous$nd .+@-?--->--% +esos by w$y of
indemnity for de$th of the victim +edrito 1udi$m$tS 8he sum of 8wenty 8hous$nd
.+G-?--->--% by w$y of mor$l d$m$gesS 8he sum of 8wo Nundred )ighty )ight 8hous$nd
.+GFF?--->--% +esos $s $ctu$l $nd compens$tory d$m$gesS 8he costs of this suit>
+etitionersR motion for reconsider$tion w$s denied by the 15>B::0)/ 6hether or not
petitioners $re negligent $nd li$ble for the d$m$ges cl$imed>903B;,/ Bt c$nnot be
s$id th$t the dece$sed in negligence> Bt is the duty of common c$rriers of
p$ssengers? including common c$rriers by r$ilro$d tr$in? streetc$r? or motorbus? to
stop their convey$nces $ re$son$ble length of time in order to $fford p$ssengers $n
opportunity to bo$rd $nd enter? $nd they $re li$ble for injuries suffered by
bo$rding p$ssengers resulting from the sudden st$rting up or jerking of their
convey$nces while they $re doing so>4urther? even $ssuming th$t the bus w$s moving?
the $ct of the victim in bo$rding the s$me c$nnot be considered negligent under the
circumst$nces> 5s cle$rly expl$ined in the testimony of the $forest$ted witness for
petitioners? Lirgini$ 5b$los? th bus h$d Wjust st$rtedW $nd Ww$s still in slow
motionW $t the point where the victim h$d bo$rded $nd w$s on its pl$tform>Bt is not
negligence per se? or $s $ m$tter of l$w? for one $ttempt to bo$rd $ tr$in or
streetc$r which is moving slowly> 5n ordin$rily prudent person would h$ve m$de the
$ttempt bo$rd the moving convey$nce under the s$me or simil$r circumst$nces> 8he
f$ct th$t p$ssengers bo$rd $nd $light from slowly moving vehicle is $ m$tter of
common experience both the driver $nd conductor in this c$se could not h$ve been
un$w$re of such $n ordin$ry pr$ctice>8he victim herein? by stepping $nd st$nding on
the pl$tform of the bus? is $lre$dy considered $ p$ssenger $nd is entitled $ll the
rights $nd protection pert$ining to such $ contr$ctu$l rel$tion> Nence? it h$s been
held th$t the duty which the c$rrier p$ssengers owes to its p$trons extends to
persons bo$rding c$rs $s well $s to those $lighting therefrom>1ommon c$rriers? from
the n$ture of their business $nd re$sons of public policy? $rebound to observe
extr$ordin$ry diligence for the s$fety of the p$ssengers tr$nsported by the
$ccording to $ll the circumst$nces of e$ch c$se> 5 common c$rrier is bound to c$rry
the p$ssengers s$fely $s f$r $s hum$n c$re $nd foresight c$n provide? using the
utmost diligence very c$utious persons? with $ due reg$rd for $ll the
circumst$nces>Bt h$s $lso been repe$tedly held th$t in $n $ction b$sed on $
contr$ct of c$rri$ge? the court need not m$ke $n express finding of f$ult or
negligence on the p$rt of the c$rrier in order to hold it responsible to p$y the
d$m$ges sought by the p$ssenger> 7y contr$ct of c$rri$ge? the c$rrier $ssumes the
express oblig$tion to tr$nsport the p$ssenger to his destin$tion s$fely $nd observe
extr$ordin$ry diligence with $ due reg$rd for $ll the circumst$nces? $nd $ny injury
th$t might be suffered by the p$ssenger is right $w$y $ttribut$ble to the f$ult or
negligence of the c$rrier> 8his is $n exception to the gener$l rule th$t negligence
must be proved? $nd it is therefore incumbent upon the c$rrier to prove th$t it h$s
exercised extr$ordin$ry diligence $s prescribed in 5rticles CJ@@ $nd CJKK of the
1ivil 1ode>6ith respect to the $w$rd of d$m$ges? $n oversight w$s? however?
committed by respondent 1ourt of 5ppe$ls in computing the $ctu$l d$m$ges b$sed on
the gross income of the victim> 8he rule is th$t the $mount recover$ble by the
heirs of $ victim of $ tort is not the loss of the entire e$rnings? but r$ther the
loss of th$t portion of the e$rnings which the benefici$ry would h$ve received> Bn
other words? only net e$rnings? not gross e$rnings? $re to be considered? th$t is?
the tot$l of the e$rnings less expenses necess$ry in the cre$tion of such e$rnings
or income $nd minus living $nd other incident$l expenses>F"> 3B,N8 95B3 895;:B8
508N29B8A L =59D29B) ;5LB<5<4518:/ 2n C" 2ctober CHH@? ;ic$nor ;$vid$d? while
drunk? entered the )<:5 398 st$tion $fter purch$sing $ token for his f$re> 6hile
;$vid$d w$s st$nding on the pl$tform ne$r the 398 tr$cks? Dunelito )sc$rtin? the
security gu$rd $ssigned to the $re$ $ppro$ched ;$vid$d> 5 misunderst$nding between
the two led to $ fist fight> ;o evidence? however? w$s $dduced to indic$te how the
fight st$rted or who? between the two? delivered the first blow or how ;$vid$d
l$ter fell on the 398 tr$cks> 5t the ex$ct moment th$t ;$vid$d fell? $n 398 tr$in?
oper$ted by petitioner 9odolfo 9om$n? w$s coming in> ;$vid$d w$s struck by the
moving tr$in? $nd he w$s killed inst$nt$neously>8here$fter?
the widow of ;ic$nor? herein respondent =$rjorie ;$vid$d? $long with her children?
filed $ compl$int for d$m$ges $g$inst Dunelito )sc$rtin? 9odolfo 9om$n? the 3985?
the =etro 8r$nsit 2rg$niz$tion? Bnc>? $nd +rudent for the de$th of her husb$nd>
3985 $nd 9om$n filed $ countercl$im $g$inst ;$vid$d $nd $ crossEcl$im $g$inst
)sc$rtin $nd +rudent> +rudent? in its $nswer? denied li$bility $nd $verred th$t it
h$d exercised due diligence in the selection $nd supervision of its security
gu$rds> 8he 3985 $nd 9om$n presented their evidence while +rudent $nd )sc$rtin?
inste$d of presenting evidence? filed $ demurrer contending th$t ;$vid$d h$d f$iled
to prove th$t )sc$rtin w$s negligent in his $ssigned t$sk> 8he tri$l court rendered
its decisionS 6N)9)429)? judgment is hereby rendered in f$vor of the pl$intiffs $nd
$g$inst the defend$nts +rudent :ecurity $nd Dunelito )sc$rtin ordering the l$tter
to p$y jointly $nd sever$lly the pl$intiffs> 8he compl$int $g$inst defend$nts 3985
$nd 9odolfo 9om$n $re dismissed for l$ck of merit> 8he compulsory countercl$im of
3985 $nd 9om$n $re likewise dismissed>+rudent $ppe$led to the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls> 8he
$ppell$te court promulg$ted its now $ss$iled decision exoner$ting +rudent from $ny
li$bility for the de$th of ;ic$nor ;$vid$d $nd? inste$d? holding the 3985 $nd 9om$n
jointly $nd sever$lly> 8he $ppell$te court r$tiocin$ted th$t while the dece$sed
might not h$ve then $s yet bo$rded the tr$in? $ contr$ct of c$rri$ge thereto h$d
$lre$dy existed when the victim entered the pl$ce where p$ssengers were supposed to
be $fter p$ying the f$re $nd getting the corresponding token therefor> Bn exempting
+rudent from li$bility? the court stressed th$t there w$s nothing to link the
security $gency to the de$th of ;$vid$d> Bt s$id th$t ;$vid$d f$iled to show th$t
)sc$rtin inflicted fist blows upon the victim $nd the evidence merely est$blished
the f$ct of de$th of ;$vid$d by re$son of his h$ving been hit by the tr$in owned
$nd m$n$ged by the 3985 $nd oper$ted $t the time by 9om$n> 8he $ppell$te court
denied petitioners motion for reconsider$tion>B::0)/ 6hether or not 3985 $nd $re
li$ble for the de$th of ;ic$nor ;$vid$d b$sed on $ common c$rri$ge contr$ct>903B;,/
8he l$w requires common c$rriers to c$rry p$ssengers s$fely using the utmost
diligence of very c$utious persons with due reg$rd for $ll circumst$nces> :uch duty
of $ common c$rrier to provide s$fety to its p$ssengers so oblig$tes it not only
during the course of the trip but for so long $s the p$ssengers $re within its
premises $nd where they ought to be in pursu$nce to the contr$ct of c$rri$ge> 8he
st$tutory provisions render $ common c$rrier li$ble for de$th of or injury to
p$ssengers .$% through the negligence or wilful $cts of its employees or b% on
$ccount of wilful $cts or negligence of other p$ssengers or of str$ngersif the
common c$rriers employees through the exercise of due diligence could h$ve
prevented or stopped the $ct or omission> Bn c$se of such de$th or injury? $
c$rrier is presumed to h$ve been $t f$ult or been negligent? $nd by simple proof of
injury? the p$ssenger is relieved of the duty to still est$blish the f$ult or
negligence of the c$rrier or of its employees $nd the burden shifts upon the
c$rrier to prove th$t the injury is due to $n unforeseen event or to force m$jeure>
Bn the $bsence of s$tisf$ctory expl$n$tion by the c$rrier on how the $ccident
occurred? which petitioners? $ccording to the $ppell$te court? h$ve f$iled to show?
the presumption would be th$t it h$s been $t f$ult? $n exception from the gener$l
rule th$t negligence must be proved>8he found$tion of 3985s li$bility is the
contr$ct of c$rri$ge $nd its oblig$tion to indemnify the victim $rises from the
bre$ch of th$t contr$ct by re$son of its f$ilure to exercise the high diligence
required of the common c$rrier> Bn the disch$rge of its commitment to ensure the
s$fety of p$ssengers? $ c$rrier m$y choose to hire its own employees or $v$il
itself of the services of $n outsider or $n independent firm to undert$ke the t$sk>
Bn either c$se? the common c$rrier is not relieved of its responsibilities under
the contr$ct of c$rri$ge>:hould +rudent be m$de likewise li$bleV Bf $t $ll? th$t
li$bility could only be for tort under the provisions of 5rticle GCJI $nd rel$ted
provisions? in conjunction with 5rticle GCF-? of the 1ivil 1ode> 8he premise?
however? for the employers li$bility is negligence or f$ult on the p$rt of the
employee> 2nce such f$ult is est$blished? the employer c$n then be m$de li$ble on
the b$sis of the presumption juris t$ntumth$t the employer f$iled to exercise
diligentissimi p$tris f$miliesin the selection $nd supervision of its employees>
8he li$bility is prim$ry $nd c$n only be neg$ted by showing due diligence in the
selection $nd supervision of the employee? $ f$ctu$l m$tter th$t h$s not been
shown> 5bsent such $ showing? one might $sk further? how then must the li$bility of
the common c$rrier? on the one h$nd? $nd $n independent contr$ctor? on the other
h$nd? be describedV Bt would be solid$ry> 5 contr$ctu$l oblig$tion c$n be bre$ched
by tort $nd when the s$me $ct or omission c$uses the injury? one resulting in culp$
contr$ctu$l $nd the other in culp$ $quili$n$? 5rticle GCH" of the 1ivil 1ode c$n
well $pply> Bn fine? $ li$bility for tort m$y $rise even under $ contr$ct? where
tort is th$t which bre$ches the contr$ct> :t$ted differently? when $n $ct which
constitutes $ bre$ch of contr$ct would h$ve itself constituted the source of $
qu$siEdelictu$l li$bility h$d no contr$ct existed between the p$rties? the contr$ct
c$n be s$id to h$ve been bre$ched by tort? thereby $llowing the rules on tortto
$pply>8he $w$rd of nomin$l d$m$ges in $ddition to $ctu$l d$m$ges is unten$ble>
;omin$l d$m$ges $re $djudic$ted in order th$t $ right of the pl$intiff? which h$s
been viol$ted or inv$ded by the defend$nt? m$y be vindic$ted or recognized? $nd not
for the purpose of indemnifying the pl$intiff for $ny loss suffered by him> Bt is
$n est$blished rule th$t nomin$l d$m$ges c$nnot coEexist with compens$tory d$m$ges>
FK> NB<53,2 );8)9+9B:): L 7535<5;4518:/ +etitioner Nid$lgo )nterprises? Bnc> w$s
the owner of $n iceEpl$nt f$ctory in whose premises were inst$lled two t$nks full
of w$ter? nine feet deep? for cooling purposes of its engine> 6hile the f$ctory
compound w$s surrounded with fence? the t$nks themselves were not provided with $ny
kind of fence or top covers> 8he wide g$te entr$nce is continu$lly open where
$nyone c$n p$ss through it> 8here w$s no gu$rd $ssigned on the g$te> 5t $bout noon
of 5pril CI? CH"F? pl$intiffRs son? =$rio 7$l$nd$n? $n Fye$r old boy? while pl$ying
with $nd in comp$ny of other boys of his $ge entered the f$ctory premises through
the g$te? to t$ke $ b$th in one of s$id t$nks $nd while b$thing? =$rio s$nk to the
bottom of the t$nk? only to be fished out l$ter? $lre$dy $ c$d$ver? h$ving been
died of drowning>8he 1ourt of 5ppe$ls? $nd the 1ourt of 4irst Bnst$nce of 3$gun$?
took the view th$t the petitioner m$int$ined $n $ttr$ctive nuis$nce .the t$nks%?
$nd neglected to $dopt the necess$ry prec$utions to $void $ccidents to persons
entering its premises> Bt $pplied the doctrine of $ttr$ctive nuis$nce? of 5meric$n
origin? recognized in this Durisdiction in 8$ylor vs> =$nil$ )lectric CI +hil>? F>
8he doctrine m$y be st$ted? in short? $s follows/ 2ne who m$int$ins on his premises
d$ngerous instrument$lities or $ppli$nces of $ ch$r$cter likely to $ttr$ct children
in pl$y? $nd who f$ils to exercise ordin$ry c$re to prevent children from pl$ying
therewith or resorting thereto? is li$ble to $ child of tender ye$rs who is injured
thereby? even if the child is technic$lly $ tresp$sser in the premises> 8he
principle re$son for the doctrine is th$t the condition or $ppli$nce in question
$lthough its d$nger is $pp$rent to those of $ge? is so enticing or $lluring to
children of tender ye$rs $s to induce them to $ppro$ch? get on or use it? $nd this
$ttr$ctiveness is $n implied invit$tion to such children>B::0)/ 6hether or not the
body of w$ter like swimming pool or w$ter t$nk $n $ttr$ctive nuis$nce in order to
cl$im d$m$ges for the injury or de$th suffered by $ child>903B;,/ 8he $ttr$ctive
nuis$nce doctrine gener$lly is not $pplic$ble to bodies of w$ter? $rtifici$l $s
well $s n$tur$l? in the $bsence of some unusu$l condition or $rtifici$l fe$ture
other th$n the mere w$ter $nd its loc$tion> 8he re$son why $ swimming pool or pond
or reservoir of w$ter is not considered $n $ttr$ctive nuis$nce w$s lucidly
expl$ined by the Bndi$n$ 5ppell$te 1ourt $s follows/ ;$ture h$s cre$ted stre$ms?
l$kes $nd pools which $ttr$ct children> 3urking in their w$ters is $lw$ys the
d$nger of drowning> 5g$inst this d$nger children $re e$rly instructed so th$t they
$re sufficiently presumed to know the d$ngerS $nd if the owner of priv$te property
cre$tes $n $rtifici$l pool on his own property? merely duplic$ting the work of
n$ture without $dding $ny new d$nger? > > > .he% is not li$ble bec$use of h$ving
cre$ted $n W$ttr$ctive nuis$nce>W 5nderson vs> 9eith9iley 1onst> 1o>? ;> )>? Gnd?
CF"? CFKS CCG Bnd> 5pp>? CJ-> 8herefore? $s petitionerRs t$nks $re not cl$ssified
$s $ttr$ctive nuis$nce? the question whether the petitioner h$d t$ken re$son$ble
prec$utions become imm$teri$l>FI> 5;<5=2 L B514518:/ +etitioner spouses )mm$nuel
$nd ;$tivid$d 5nd$mo $re the owners of $ p$rcel of l$nd $dj$cent to th$t of priv$te
respondent? =ission$ries of 2ur 3$dy of 3$ :$lette? Bnc>? $ religious corpor$tion>
8he corpor$tion s w$terp$ths $nd contriv$nces? including $n $rtifici$l l$ke? were
constructed? which $llegedly inund$ted $nd eroded petitionersR l$nd? c$used $ young
m$n to drown? d$m$ged petitionersR crops $nd pl$nts? w$shed $w$y costly fences?
end$ngered the lives of petitioners $nd their
l$borers during r$iny $nd stormy se$sons? $nd exposed pl$nts $nd other
improvements to destruction>+etitioners instituted $ crimin$l $ction $g$inst )fren
=usngi? 2rl$ndo :$pu$y $nd 9utillo =$llillin? officers $nd directors of respondent
corpor$tion? for destruction by me$ns of inund$tion under 5rticle @G" of the
9evised +en$l 1ode> 5nd l$ter on? petitioners filed $nother $ction $g$inst
respondent 1orpor$tion for d$m$ges with pr$yer for the issu$nce of $ writ of
prelimin$ry injunction before the s$me court> 9espondent corpor$tion filed its
$nswer to the compl$int $nd opposition to the issu$nce of $ writ of prelimin$ry
injunction> 8he tri$l court issued the disputed order dismissing the 1ivil 1$se for
l$ck of jurisdiction? $s the crimin$l c$se which w$s instituted $he$d of the civil
c$se w$s still unresolved> :$id order w$s $nchored on the provision of :ection @
.$%? 9ule BBB of the 9ules of 1ourt which provides th$t Wcrimin$l $nd civil $ctions
$rising from the s$me offense m$y be instituted sep$r$tely? but $fter the crimin$l
$ction h$s been commenced the civil $ction c$nnot be instituted until fin$l
judgment h$s been rendered in the crimin$l $ction> +etitioners $ppe$led from th$t
order to the Bntermedi$te 5ppell$te 1ourt> B51 $ffirmed the questioned order of the
tri$l court> 5 motion for reconsider$tion w$s $lso denied> B::0)/ 6hether $
corpor$tion? which h$s built through its $gents? w$terp$ths? w$ter conductors $nd
contriv$nces within its l$nd? thereby c$using inund$tion $nd d$m$ge to $n $dj$cent
l$nd? c$n be held civilly li$ble for d$m$ges under 5rticles GCJI $nd GCJJ of the
1ivil 1ode on qu$siEdelicts such th$t the resulting civil c$se c$n proceed
independently of the crimin$l c$se>903B;,/ 8he petitioners h$ve $ v$lid point> 5
c$reful ex$min$tion of the $forequoted compl$int shows th$t the civil $ction is one
under 5rticles GCJI $nd GCJJ of the 1ivil 1ode on qu$siEdelicts> 5ll the elements
of $ qu$siEdelict $re present? to wit/ .$% d$m$ges suffered by the pl$intiff? .b%
f$ult or negligence of the defend$nt? or some other person for whose $cts he must
respondS $nd .c% the connection of c$use $nd effect between the f$ult or negligence
of the defend$nt $nd the d$m$ges incurred by the pl$intiff>1le$rly? from
petitionerRs compl$int? the w$terp$ths $nd contriv$nces built by respondent
corpor$tion $re $lleged to h$ve inund$ted the l$nd of petitioners> 8here is
therefore? $n $ssertion of $ c$us$l connection between the $ct of building these
w$terp$ths $nd the d$m$ge sust$ined by petitioners> :uch $ction if proven
constitutes f$ult or negligence which m$y be the b$sis for the recovery of d$m$ges>
Bt must be stressed th$t the use of oneRs property is not without limit$tions>
5rticle "@C of the 1ivil 1ode provides th$t Wthe owner of $ thing c$nnot m$ke use
thereof in such $ m$nner $s to injure the rights of $ third person>W :B1 08)9) 802
08 53B);0= ;2; 35)<5:> =oreover? $djoining l$ndowners h$ve mutu$l $nd reciproc$l
duties which require th$t e$ch must use his own l$nd in $ re$son$ble m$nner so $s
not to infringe upon the rights $nd interests of others> 5lthough we recognize the
right of $n owner to build structures on his l$nd? such structures must be so
constructed $nd m$int$ined using $ll re$son$ble c$re so th$t they c$nnot be
d$ngerous to $djoining l$ndowners $nd c$n withst$nd the usu$l $nd expected forces
of n$ture> Bf the structures c$use injury or d$m$ge to $n $djoining l$ndowner or $
third person? the l$tter c$n cl$im indemnific$tion for the injury or d$m$ge
suffered>5rticle GCJI of the 1ivil 1ode imposes $ civil li$bility on $ person for
d$m$ge c$used by his $ct or omission constituting f$ult or negligence> 5rticle
GCJI? whenever it refers to Wf$ult or negligenceW? covers not only $cts Wnot
punish$ble by l$wW but $lso $cts crimin$l in ch$r$cter? whether intention$l $nd
volunt$ry or negligent> 1onsequently? $ sep$r$te civil $ction lies $g$inst the
offender in $ crimin$l $ct? whether or not he is crimin$lly prosecuted $nd found
guilty or $cquitted? provided th$t the offended p$rty is not $llowed? .if the
tortfe$sor is $ctu$lly ch$rged $lso crimin$lly%? to recover d$m$ges on both scores?
$nd would be entitled in such eventu$lity only to the bigger $w$rd of the two?
$ssuming the $w$rds m$de in the two c$ses v$ry>8he distinctness of qu$siEdelict$ is
shown in 5rticle GCJJ of the 1ivil 1ode? which st$tes/ 5rticle GCJJ> 9esponsibility
for f$ult or negligence under the preceding $rticle is entirely sep$r$te $nd
distinct from the civil li$bility $rising from negligence under the +en$l 1ode> 7ut
the pl$intiff c$nnot recover d$m$ges twice for the s$me $ct or omission of the
defend$nt>5ccording to the 9eport of the 1ode 1ommission Wthe foregoing provision
though $t first sight st$rtling? is not so novel or extr$ordin$ry when we consider
the ex$ct n$ture of crimin$l $nd civil negligence> 8he former is $ viol$tion of the
crimin$l l$w? while the l$tter is $ distinct $nd independent negligence? which is $
Wculp$ $quili$n$W or qu$sidelict? of $ncient origin? h$ving $lw$ys h$d its own
found$tion $nd individu$lity? sep$r$te from crimin$l negligence> :uch distinction
between crimin$l negligence $nd Wculp$ extr$Econtr$ctu$lW or Wcu$siEdelitoW h$s
been sust$ined by decisions of the :upreme 1ourt of :p$in>1$ses JFEFI:5;82:? 9A5;
,>FJ> 9)==5; );8)9+9B:):? B;1> vs> 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/ )==5; );8)9+9B:):? B;1>
.9)==5;%? $nd 19B:+B; )> 358 $re $djoining l$ndowners in 7$r$ng$y 7ugtong ;$ +ulo?
3ip$ 1ity> 8he l$nd of 3$t cont$ining $n $re$ of C>F hect$res is $gricultur$l $nd
pl$nted mostly with fruit trees while 9)==5; occupies $ l$nd $re$ of fifteen .CK%
hect$res six .I% hect$res of which $re devoted to its piggery business> 9)==5;Rs
l$nd is one $nd $ h$lf .C % meters higher in elev$tion th$n th$t of respondent 3$t>
:ometime in Duly CHF" 3$t noticed th$t 9)==5;Rs w$ste dispos$l l$goon w$s $lre$dy
overflowing $nd inund$ting oneEfourth .CX"% of 3$tRs pl$nt$tion> Ne m$de sever$l
represent$tions with 9)==5; but they fell on de$f e$rs> 2n C" =$rch CHFK? $fter
$lmost one .C% hect$re of 3$tRs pl$nt$tion w$s $lre$dy inund$ted with w$ter
cont$ining pig m$nure? $s $ result of which the trees growing on the flooded
portion st$rted to wither $nd die? 3$t filed $ compl$int for d$m$ges with
prelimin$ry m$nd$tory injunction $g$inst 9)==5;> 3$t $lleged th$t the $cidity of
the soil in his pl$nt$tion incre$sed bec$use of the overflow of the w$ter he$vy
with pig m$nure from 9)==5;Rs piggery f$rm>9)==5; denied $ll the $lleg$tions of 3$t
$nd r$ised $s $n $ffirm$tive defense th$t me$sures such $s the construction of
$ddition$l l$goons were $lre$dy $dopted to cont$in the w$ste w$ter coming from its
piggery to prevent $ny d$m$ge to the $djoining est$tes>981 <)1B:B2;/ 5fter
conducting $n ocul$r inspection $nd ev$lu$ting the evidence of both p$rties the
9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt found th$t indeed 9)==5; s w$ste dispos$l l$goon overflowed
with the cont$min$ted w$ter flooding one .C% hect$re of 3$tRs pl$nt$tion> 8he w$ste
w$ter w$s $nkleEdeep $nd c$used de$th $nd destruction to one .C% j$ckfruit tree?
fifteen .CK% coconut trees? one hundred twentyEtwo .CGG% coffee trees? $nd $n
unspecified number of m$ngo trees? b$n$n$s $nd veget$bles> 5s $ consequence? the
tri$l court ordered 9)==5; to indemnify 3$t +CFI?HJK>-- for lost profits for three
.@% crop ye$rs $nd +@-?--->-- $s $ttorneyRs fees :1 903B;,/ 9)==5; $rgues th$t its
li$bility for the d$m$ges suffered by 3$t w$s not cle$rly est$blished>6e dis$gree>
<uring the ocul$r inspection conducted by the lower court where represent$tives of
both p$rties were present? it w$s est$blished th$t the w$ste w$ter cont$ining pig
m$nure w$s continuously flowing from 9)==5;Rs piggery f$rm to 3$tRs pl$nt$tion> 8he
w$ter w$s $nkleEdeep $nd flooded one .C% hect$re of 3$tRs pl$nt$tion> 8he overflow
of the W$cidic? m$lodorous $nd polluted w$terW continued from Dune CHF" to =$rch
CHFK thus destroying one .C% j$ckfruit tree? fifteen .CK% coconut trees? one
hundred $n twentyEtwo .CGG% coffee trees? $nd $n unspecified number of m$ngo trees?
b$n$n$s $nd veget$bles>Bn $ddition? the $ppell$te court found th$t there w$s indeed
negligence on the p$rt of 9)==5; which directly c$used the d$m$ge to the pl$nt$tion
of 3$t> 8hus Enoverox x x ;egligence w$s cle$rly est$blished> Bt is uncontroverted
th$t the l$nd of $ppellee w$s flooded on $ccount of the overflow of $cidic?
m$lodorous $nd polluted w$ter coming from the $dj$cent piggery f$rm of $ppell$nt
sometime in =$y CHF"> 8his resulted in the imp$irment of the productivity of
$ppelleeRs l$nd $s wmll $s the e!entu$l des rqction $nd de$th of wever$l fruit
trees?Usuch $s coconuts? coffee? j$ckfsuits? b n$nZs $nd kthYr pl$nts x x x x
5ppell$nt c$nnot $void li$bility beb$use th)ir negligence w$s the proxi$te c$use
of the d$m$ge> 5ppelleeRs property w$s pr$ctyc$lly m de $ c$tchEb$sin of pkllutel
w$ter $nd other noxious sub@t$nces emptykng from $ppellintgs piggery wh$ch could
h$ve been preventeU h$d it notZbeen fgr thu negligence of $ppel3$nt $rising from
its/ .$% f$ilure to oonitos uxe incrY$ses in the level of w$ter in the l$goons
before? during $nd $fter the he$vy downpours which occurred during the r$iny months
of CHF"S .b% f$ilure to $ugment the existing l$goons prior to the incident?
notwithst$nding the f$ct th$t $t the time of the flooding? the piggery h$d grown to
$ c$p$city of CC?--- he$ds? $nd considering th$t it w$s re$son$bly forsee$ble th$t
the existing w$ste dispos$l f$cilities were no longer $dequ$te to $ccomod$te the
incre$sing volume of w$ste m$tters in such $ big f$rmS $nd more import$ntly? .c%
the repe$ted f$ilure to comply with their promise to $ppellee9)==5; contends th$t
the d$m$ges $llegedly sust$ined by 3$t h$ve not been s$tisf$ctorily est$blished>6e
$ not convinced>
8he f$ctu$l findings of the court $ quo rightly support its conclusions on this
respect 1oming now to the issue of d$m$ges? 6e find $ppell$ntRs $lleg$tions not
wellEt$ken> 5ppell$nt contends th$t $ctu$l $nd compens$tory d$m$ges require
evidenti$ry proof? $nd there being no evidence presented $s to the necessity of the
$w$rd for d$m$ges? it w$s erroneous for the lower court to h$ve m$de such $w$rd> Bt
must be remembered th$t $fter the ocul$r inspection? the court $ quo rendered $n
inventory of de$d $nd rotten trees $nd pl$nts found in $ppelleeRs property>
5ppellee $lso testified on the $pproxim$te $nnu$l h$rvest $nd f$ir m$rket v$lue
thereof> :ignific$ntly? no opposition or controverting evidence w$s presented by
$ppell$nt on the m$tter> Nence? $ppell$nt is bound thereby $nd c$nnot now be he$rd
to compl$in> 5s correctly held by the court $ quo/5n ocul$r inspection h$s been
conducted by the tri$l court> 8he inventory of the trees d$m$ged $nd the itemized
v$lu$tion pl$ced therein by priv$te respondent $fter the ocul$r inspection which is
not rebutted by the petitioner? is the more $ccur$te indic$tor of the s$id $mount
pr$yed for $s d$m$ges> Bf the v$lu$tion is indeed unre$son$ble? petitioner should
present controverting evidence of the f$ir m$rket v$lue of the crops involved> 8he
tri$l court held th$t the priv$te respondent himself h$d been subjected to
extensive cross $nd reEcross ex$min$tion by the counsel for the petitioner on the
$mount of d$m$gesFF> D03B85 8> L<5> <) :)L)92 vs> 4)3B1B5;24518:/ 8his c$se tre$ted
$s $ speci$l civil $ction for certior$ri w$s origin$lly filed $s $ petition for
review by w$y of $ppe$l on certior$ri seeking to set $side the order of the then
1ourt of 4irst Bnst$nce of :$m$r? 7r$nch L? in 1$lb$yog 1ity d$ted 5pril I? CHJI
dismissing 1ivil 1$se ;o> KGGE11 entitled WDulit$ 8> Ld$? de :evero? et $l>? versus
3uningning 4elici$no ,o? et $l>R for l$ck of jurisdiction>8he $ntecedents of the
c$se $re $s follows/8he l$te 9ic$rdo :evero w$s $n employee of herein priv$te
respondents 3uningning 4elici$no ,o $nd Do$quin ,o? first $s b$ker of RDoniRs 1$kes
$nd +$stries?W $n enterprise owned by respondents loc$ted $t CI@" +> ,uev$rr$
:treet? :$nt$ 1ruz? =$nil$ $nd fin$lly? $s driverEmech$nic from CHIC up to 4ebru$ry
CI? CHJG> 2n the l$tter d$te? unidentified $rmed men forcibly took $w$y $ndXor
c$rn$pped the c$r owned by respondents $nd driven by 9ic$rdo :evero who? in his
efforts to resist the c$rn$ppers? w$s shot $nd killed by the l$tter> 0p to now? the
p$rties responsible for :everoRs de$th h$ve not been Bdentified nor $pprehended>2n
:eptember CF? CHJ"? herein petitioners? the widow $nd minor children of 9ic$rdo
:evero? filed $n $ction $g$inst respondentsEemployers before the tri$l court for
W<e$th 1ompens$tion $nd <$m$gesW in the tot$l $mount of +J"?K-->--89B53 12098
903B;,/ 8he respondent court? $cting on the l$test motion to dismiss? issued $n
order d$ted 5pril I? CHJI st$ting th$t petitionersR c$use of $ction f$lls within
the purview of the 6orkmenRs 1ompens$tion 5ct $nd the proper forum w$s the
6orkmenRs 1ompens$tion 1ommission> Bt decl$red itself without jurisdiction
following 2ur ruling in the c$se of 9obles vs> A$p 6ing? 3EG-""G? 2ctober "? CHJC?
"C :195 GIJ? to wit/8he 1ourt $fter $ c$reful consider$tion of the grounds in the
defend$ntsR motion? $nd considering the $lleg$tion of the compl$int describing
their m$in c$use of $ction? which is $ cl$im for de$th compens$tion $nd d$m$ges? is
of the opinion $nd so holds th$t this 1ourt h$s no jurisdiction to he$r $nd decide
the c$se> 8he pl$intiffsR right to relief being derived on $n $ccident resulting in
de$th of 9ic$rdo :evero? $n employee of the defend$nts? while eng$ged in the
perform$nce of the t$sk $ssigned to him? this 1ourt is devoid of st$tutory
competence to p$ss upon the subject m$tter of the pl$intiffsR cl$im? $s of the time
the c$use of $ction $ccrue? f$lls within the purview of the 6orkmenRs 1ompens$tion
5ct $s $mended $nd? therefore? the proper form .sic% w$s the 6orkmenRs 1ompens$tion
1ommission? thru its region$l offices under the <ep$rtment of 3$bor? $ body
empowered to $ct upon $ll cl$ims for compens$tion for de$th? injury or sickness>
8hus our :upreme 1ourt in the c$se of 1iri$co 9obles vs> A$p 6ing? ;o> 3EG-""G?
2ct> "? CHJC ruled/7efore the en$ctment of 9epublic 5ct ;o> JGG.5mending 5ct> ;o>
@GGF%? which took effect on Dune G-? CHKG? cl$ims for compens$tion under the
6orkmenRs 1ompens$tion 5ct were cogniz$ble by the regul$r courts? but since then?
$s provided in :ection "I thereof $s $mended? Rthe 6orkmenRs 1ompens$tion sh$ll
h$ve jurisdiction to he$r $nd decide cl$ims for compens$tion under the 6orkmenRs
1ompens$tion 5ct? subject to $ppe$l to the :upreme 1ourt> >>> Bn rel$tion to this?
:ection K of the 5ct provides th$t the rights $nd remedies gr$nted by this 5ct to
$n employee by re$son of $ person$l injury entitling him to compens$tion sh$ll
exclude $ll other rights $nd remedies $ccruing to $n employee? his person$l
represent$tives? dependents or ne$rest of kin $g$inst the employer under the 1ivil
1ode or other l$ws? bec$use of s$id injury>:1 903B;,/ 8he petition is impressed
with merit> 8he ruling in the c$se of 9obles vs> A$p 6ing?supr$? th$t the $ction of
the injured employee or th$t of his heirs in c$se of his de$th is restricted to
seeking the limited compens$tion provided under the 6orkmenRs 1ompens$tion 5ct
relied upon by the tri$l court? no longer controls> 6e h$ve $b$ndoned the s$me in
the recent c$se of Asm$el =$ritime 1orpor$tion vs> Non> 1elso 5velino? ,>9> ;o> 3E
"@IJ"? promulg$ted on Dune @-? CHFJ? citing the c$se of 4loresc$ vs> +hilex =ining
1omp$ny? 3E@-I"G? 5pril @-? CHFK? C@I :195 C"C> 6e st$ted thus>Bn the recent c$se
of 4loresc$ vs> +hilex =ining 1omp$ny? 3E@-I"G? 5pril @-? CHFK? C@I :195 C"C?
involving $ compl$int for d$m$ges for the de$th of five miners in $ c$veEin on Dune
GF? CHIJ? this 1ourt w$s confronted with three divergent opinions on the
exclusivity rule $s presented by sever$l $mici curi$e> 2ne view is th$t the injured
employee or his heirs? in c$se of de$th? m$y initi$te $n $ction to recover d$m$ges
.not compens$tion under the 6orkmenRs 1ompens$tion 5ct% with the regul$r courts on
the b$sis of negligence of the employer pursu$nt to the 1ivil 1ode> 5nother view?
$s enunci$ted in the 9obles c$se? is th$t the remedy of $n employee for work
connected injury or $ccident is exclusive in $ccord$nce with :ection K of the 615>
5 third view is th$t the $ction is selective $nd the employee of his heirs h$ve $
choice of $v$iling themselves of the benefits under the 615 or of suing in the
regul$r courts under the 1ivil 1ode for higher d$m$ges from the employer by re$son
of his negligence> 7ut once the election h$s been exercised? the employee or his
heirs $re no longer free to opt for the other remedy> Bn other words? the employee
c$nnot pursue both $ctions simult$neously> 8his l$tter view w$s $dopted by the
m$jority in the 4loresc$ c$se? reiter$ting $s m$in $uthority its e$rlier decision
in +$c$n$ vs> 1ebu 5utobus 1omp$ny? 3EGK@FG? 5pril @-? CHFG? @G :195 ""G> Bn so
doing? the 1ourt rejected the doctrine of exclusivity of the rights $nd remedies
gr$nted by the 615 $s l$id down in the 9obles c$seFH> +NB3B++B;) 75;M 24 12==)91)?
vs> 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/ 1h$llenged in this petition for review is the <ecision
d$ted 4ebru$ry GF? CHHC C rendered by public respondent 1ourt of 5ppe$ls which
$ffirmed the <ecision d$ted ;ovember CK? CHFK of the 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt? ;$tion$l
1$pit$l Dudici$l 9egion? 7r$nch 13P .CI-%? +$sig 1ity? in 1ivil 1$se ;o> GJGFF
entitled W9ommelRs =$rketing 1orpor$tion? etc> v> +hilippine 7$nk of 1ommerce? now
$bsorbed by +hilippine 1ommerci$l $nd Bndustri$l 7$nk>W8he c$se stemmed from $
compl$int filed by the priv$te respondent 9ommelRs =$rketing 1orpor$tion .9=1 for
brevity%? represented by its +resident $nd ,ener$l =$n$ger 9omeo 3ip$n$? to recover
from the former +hilippine 7$nk of 1ommerce .+71 for brevity%? now $bsorbed by the
+hilippine 1ommerci$l Bntern$tion$l 7$nk? the sum of +@-"?HJH>J" representing
v$rious deposits it h$d m$de in its current $ccount with s$id b$nk but which were
not credited to its $ccount? $nd were inste$d deposited to the $ccount of one
7ienvenido 1ot$s? $llegedly due to the gross $nd inexcus$ble negligence of the
petitioner b$nk981 D0<,=);8/ 9=1 dem$nded from petitioner b$nk the return of its
money? but $s its dem$nd went unheeded? it filed $ collection suit before the
9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt of +$sig? 7r$nch CI-> 8he tri$l court found petitioner b$nk
negligent $nd ruled $s follows/6N)9)429)? judgment is hereby rendered sentencing
defend$nt +hilippine 7$nk of 1ommerce? now $bsorbed by defend$nt +hilippine
1ommerci$l Q Bndustri$l 7$nk? $nd defend$nt 5zucen$ =$b$y$d to p$y the pl$intiff?
jointly $nd sever$lly? $nd without prejudice to $ny crimin$l $ction which m$y be
instituted if found w$rr$nted/C> 8he sum of +@-"?HJH>JG? representing pl$intiffs
lost deposit? plus interest thereon $t the leg$l r$te from the filing of the
compl$intSG> 5 sum equiv$lent to C"Y thereof? $s exempl$ry d$m$gesS@> 5 sum
equiv$lent to GKY of the tot$l $mount due? $s $nd for $ttorneyRs feesS $nd"> 1osts>
:1 903B;,/2ur l$w on qu$siEdelicts st$tes/5rt> GCJI> 6hoever by $ct or omission
c$uses d$m$ge to $nother? there being f$ult or negligence? is obliged to p$y for
the d$m$ge done> :uch f$ult or negligence? if there is no preEexisting contr$ctu$l
rel$tion between the p$rties? is c$lled $ qu$siEdelict $nd is governed by the
provisions of this 1h$pter>8here $re three elements of $ qu$siEdelict/ .$% d$m$ges
suffered by the pl$intiffS .b% f$ult or negligence of the defend$nt? or some other
person for whose $cts he must respondS $nd .c% the connection of c$use $nd effect
between the f$ult or negligence of the defend$nt $nd the d$m$ges incurred by the
pl$intiff>Bn the c$se $t bench? there is no dispute $s to the d$m$ge suffered by
the priv$te respondent .pl$intiff in the tri$l court% 9=1 in the $mount of
+@-"?HJH>J"> Bt is in $scribing f$ult or negligence which c$used the d$m$ge where
the p$rties point to e$ch other $s the culprit>;egligence is the omission to do
something which $ re$son$ble m$n? guided by those consider$tions which ordin$rily
regul$te the conduct of hum$n $ff$irs? would do? or the doing of something which $
prudent $nd re$son$ble m$n would do> 8he seventyEeight .JF%Eye$rEold? yet still
relev$nt? c$se of +ic$rt v> :mith? provides the test by which to determine the
existence of negligence in $ p$rticul$r c$se which m$y be st$ted $s follows/ <id
the defend$nt in doing the $lleged negligent $ct use th$t re$son$ble c$re $nd
c$ution which $n ordin$rily prudent person would h$ve used in the s$me situ$tionV
Bf not? then he is guilty of negligence> 8he l$w here in effect $dopts the st$nd$rd
supposed to be supplied by the im$gin$ry conduct of the discreet p$terf$mili$s of
the 9om$n l$w> 8he existence of negligence in $ given c$se is not determined by
reference to the person$l judgment of the $ctor in the situ$tion before him> 8he
l$w considers wh$t would be reckless? bl$meworthy? or negligent in the m$n of
ordin$ry intelligence $nd prudence $nd determines li$bility by th$t>2; 8N) <2189B;)
24 35:8 13)59 1N5;1) 5;< 8N) 12;1)+8 24 +92PB=58) 150:)/+roxim$te c$use is
determined on the f$cts of e$ch c$se upon mixed consider$tions of logic? common
sense? policy $nd precedent> Ld$> de 7$t$cl$n v> =edin$?reiter$ted in the c$se of
7$nk of the +hil> Bsl$nds v> 1ourt of 5ppe$ls? defines proxim$te c$use $s Wth$t
c$use? which? in n$tur$l $nd continuous sequence? unbroken by $ny efficient
intervening c$use? produces the injury? $nd without which the result would not h$ve
occurred> > > >W Bn this c$se? $bsent the $ct of =s> =$b$y$d in negligently
v$lid$ting theincomplete duplic$te copy of the deposit slip? =s> Brene A$but would
not h$ve the f$cility with which to perpetr$te her fr$udulent scheme with impunity>
5propos? once $g$in? is the pronouncement m$de by the respondent $ppell$te court?
to wit/> > > > )ven if A$but h$d the fr$udulent intention to mis$ppropri$te the
funds entrusted to her by pl$intiff? she would not h$ve been $ble to deposit those
funds in her husb$ndRs current $ccount? $nd then m$ke pl$intiff believe th$t it w$s
in the l$tterRs $ccounts wherein she h$d deposited them? h$d it not been for b$nk
teller =$b$y$dRs $fores$id gross $nd reckless negligence> 8he l$tterRs negligence
w$s thus the proxim$te? immedi$te $nd efficient c$use th$t brought $bout the loss
cl$imed by pl$intiff in this c$se? $nd the f$ilure of pl$intiff to discover the
s$me soon enough by f$iling to scrutinize the monthly st$tements of $ccount being
sent to it by $ppell$nt b$nk could not h$ve prevented the fr$ud $nd
mis$ppropri$tion which Brene A$but h$d $lre$dy completed when she deposited
pl$intiffRs money to the $ccount of her husb$nd inste$d of to the l$tterRs
$ccounts>4urthermore? under the doctrine of Wl$st cle$r ch$nceW .$lso referred to?
$t times $s Wsupervening negligenceW or $s Wdiscovered perilW%? petitioner b$nk w$s
indeed the culp$ble p$rty> 8his doctrine? in essence? st$tes th$t where both
p$rties $re negligent? but the negligent $ct of one is $ppreci$bly l$ter in time
th$n th$t of the other? or when it is impossible to determine whose f$ult or
negligence should be $ttributed to the incident? the one who h$d the l$st cle$r
opportunity to $void the impending h$rm $nd f$iled to do so is ch$rge$ble with the
consequences thereof> :t$ted differently? the rule would $lso me$n th$t $n
$ntecedent negligence of $ person does not preclude the recovery of d$m$ges for the
supervening negligence of? or b$r $ defense $g$inst li$bility sought by $nother? if
the l$tter? who h$d the l$st f$ir ch$nce? could h$ve $voided the impending h$rm by
the exercise of due diligence>Nere? $ssuming th$t priv$te respondent 9=1 w$s
negligent in entrusting c$sh to $ dishonest employee? thus providing the l$tter
with the opportunity to defr$ud the comp$ny? $s $dv$nced by the petitioner? yet it
c$nnot be denied th$t the petitioner b$nk? thru its teller? h$d the l$st cle$r
opportunity to $vert the injury incurred by its client? simply by f$ithfully
observing their selfEimposed v$lid$tion procedureH-> =)892+23B85; 75;M 5;< 890:8
12=+5;A vs> 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/ 8his petition for certior$riseeks to $nnul the
decision of respondent 1ourt of 5ppe$ls d$ted 2ctober GH? CHHG in 15 ,9 1L ;o>
GIKJC $ffirming the decision of the 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt of 3ip$? 7$t$ng$s 7r$nch
PBBB for d$m$ges? $nd the 9esolution d$ted ;ovember CC? CHH@ denying petitionerRs
motion for reconsider$tion of the $fores$id decision>8he c$se em$n$ted from $
dispute between the 9ur$l 7$nk of +$dre ,$rci$? Bnc> .97+,% $nd =etropolit$n 7$nk
$nd 8rust 1omp$ny .=781% rel$tive to $ credit memor$ndum d$ted 5pril K? CHFG from
the 1entr$l 7$nk in the $mount of +@-"?--->-- in f$vor of 97+,>8he records show
th$t Bs$bel M$tigb$k is the president $nd director of 97+,? owning IKY of the
sh$res thereof> =etropolit$n 7$nk $nd 8rust 1omp$ny .=781% is the rur$l b$nkRs
depository b$nk? where M$tigb$k m$int$ins current $ccounts with =781Rs m$in office
in =$k$ti $s well $s its 3ip$ 1ity br$nch>2n 5pril I? CHFG? =781 received from the
1entr$l 7$nk $ credit memo d$ted 5pril K? CHFG th$t its dem$nd deposit $ccount w$s
credited with +@-"?--->-- for the $ccount of 97+,? representing lo$ns gr$nted by
the 1entr$l 7$nk to 97+,> 2n the b$sis of s$id credit memo? Bs$bel M$tigb$k issued
sever$l checks $g$inst its $ccount with =781 in the tot$l $mount of +@--?--->--?
two .G% of which .=etrob$nk 1heck ;os> --IH $nd --J-% were p$y$ble to <r> 4elipe 1>
9oque $nd =rs> )liz$ 9oque for +GK?--->-- e$ch> :$id checks issued to <r> $nd =rs>
9oque were deposited by the 9oques with the +hilippine 7$nking 1orpor$tion?
;ov$liches 7r$nch in (uezon 1ity> 6hen these checks were forw$rded to =781 on 5pril
CG? CHFG for p$yment .six .I% d$ys from receipt of the 1redit =emo%? the checks
were returned by =781 with the $nnot$tions W<5B4 8;1W .<r$wn 5g$inst Bnsufficient
4unds 8ry ;ext 1le$ring% so they were redeposited on 5pril C"? CHFG> 8hese were
however $g$in dishonored $nd returned unp$id for the following re$son/ W<5B4 8;1
;2 5<LB1) 492= 17>W:1 903B;,/ 2n 2ctober GH? CHHG? the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls rendered $
decision $ffirming th$t of the tri$l court? except for the deletion of the $w$rd of
temper$te d$m$ges? the reduction of mor$l d$m$ges from +K--?--->-- to +K-?--->-- in
f$vor of 97+, $nd +C--?--->-- for Bs$bel M$tigb$k $nd +K-?--->--? $s $ttorneyRs
fees> +l$intiffsE$ppellees filed $ motion for reconsider$tion of the decision?
questioning the deletion of the $w$rd of temper$te d$m$ges $nd the reduction of the
$w$rd of mor$l d$m$ges $nd $ttorneyRs fees> 8he motion w$s denied> 8he d$m$ge to
priv$te respondentsR reput$tion $nd soci$l st$nding entitles them to mor$l d$m$ges>
=or$l d$m$ges include physic$l suffering? ment$l $nguish? fright? serious $nxiety?
besmirched reput$tion? wounded feelings? mor$l shock? soci$l humili$tion $nd
simil$r injury> 8emper$te or moder$te d$m$ges which $re more th$n nomin$l but less
th$n compens$tory d$m$ges? m$y be recovered when the court finds th$t some
pecuni$ry loss h$s been suffered but its $mount c$nnot? from the n$ture of the
c$se? be proved with cert$inty> 8emper$te d$m$ges m$y be $llowed in c$ses where
from the n$ture of the c$se? definite proof of pecuni$ry loss c$nnot be $dduced?
$lthough the court is convinced th$t there h$s been such loss> 8he $ppell$te court?
however? justified its deletion when =781 re$soned out th$t the $mount of
+K-?--->-- is not p$rt of the relief pr$yed for in the compl$int? $side from the
f$ct th$t the $mount $llegedly suffered by =rs> M$tigb$k is susceptible of proof>
=or$l $nd temper$te d$m$ges which $re not susceptible of pecuni$ry estim$tion $re
not $w$rded to pen$lize the petitioner but to compens$te the respondents for
injuries suffered $s $ result of the formerRs f$ult $nd negligence? t$king into
$ccount the l$tterRs credit $nd soci$l st$nding in the b$nking community?
p$rticul$rly since this is the very first time such humili$tion h$s bef$llen
priv$te respondents> 8he $mount of such losses need not be est$blished with
ex$ctitude? precisely due to their n$ture>8he c$relessness of petitioner b$nk?
$ggr$v$ted by the l$ck of promptness in rep$iring the error $nd the $rrog$nt
$ttitude of the b$nk officer h$ndling the m$tter? justifies the gr$nt of mor$l
d$m$ges? which $re cle$rly not excessive $nd unconscion$ble>HC> +NB3B++B;) 75;M 24
12==)91)? vs> 12098 24 5++)53:? s$me .FH%HG> 8575153)95 B;:095;1) 12> vs>;298N
492;8 :NB++B;, :)9LB1):? B;1>4518:/ 575153)95 B;:095;1) 12>? +rudenti$l ,u$r$ntee Q
5ssur$nce? Bnc>? $nd ;ew Oe$l$nd Bnsur$nce 1o>? 3td>? in this petition for review
on certior$ri? $ss$il the GG <ecember CHH" decision of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls $nd its
9esolution of CI 4ebru$ry CHHK which $ffirmed the C Dune CHH@ decision of the
9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt dismissing their compl$int for d$m$ges $g$inst ;orth 4ront
:hipping :ervices? Bnc>2n G 5ugust CHH-? G-?G@" s$cks of corn gr$ins v$lued $t
+@?K--?I"->-- were shipped on bo$rd;orth 4ront JJJ? $ vessel owned by ;orth 4ront
:hipping :ervices? Bnc> 8he c$rgo w$s consigned to 9epublic 4lour =ills 1orpor$tion
in =$nil$ under 7ill of 3$ding ;o> --C$nd insured with the herein mentioned
insur$nce comp$nies> 8he vessel w$s inspected prior to $ctu$l lo$ding by
represent$tives of the shipper $nd w$s found fit to c$rry the merch$ndise> 8he
c$rgo w$s covered with t$rp$ulins $nd wooden
bo$rds> 8he h$tches were se$led $nd could only be opened by represent$tives of
9epublic 4lour =ills 1orpor$tion>8he vessel left 1$g$y$n de 2ro 1ity on G 5ugust
CHH- $nd $rrived =$nil$ on CI 5ugust CHH-> 9epublic 4lour =ills 1orpor$tion w$s
$dvised of its $rriv$l but it did not immedi$tely commence the unlo$ding
oper$tions> 8here were d$ys when unlo$ding h$d to be stopped due to v$ri$ble
we$ther conditions $nd sometimes for no $pp$rent re$son $t $ll> 6hen the c$rgo w$s
eventu$lly unlo$ded there w$s $ short$ge of GI>@@@ metric tons> 8he rem$ining
merch$ndise w$s $lre$dy moldy? r$ncid $nd deterior$ting> 8he unlo$ding oper$tions
were completed on K :eptember CHH- or twenty .G-% d$ys $fter the $rriv$l of the
b$rge $t the wh$rf of 9epublic 4lour =ills 1orpor$tion in +$sig 1ity>+recision
5n$lytic$l :ervices? Bnc>? w$s hired to ex$mine the corn gr$ins $nd determine the
c$use of deterior$tion> 5 1ertific$te of 5n$lysis w$s issued indic$ting th$t the
corn gr$ins h$d CF>KIY moisture content $nd the wetting w$s due to cont$ct with
s$lt w$ter> 8he mold growth w$s only incipient $nd not sufficient to m$ke the corn
gr$ins toxic $nd unfit for consumption> Bn f$ct the mold growth could still be
$rrested by drying>9epublic 4lour =ills 1orpor$tion rejected the entire c$rgo $nd
form$lly dem$nded from ;orth 4ront :hipping :ervices? Bnc>? p$yment for the d$m$ges
suffered by it> 8he dem$nds however were unheeded> 8he insur$nce comp$nies were
perforce obliged to p$y 9epublic 4lour =ills 1orpor$tion +G?CFH?"@@>"->89B53 12098
903B;,/ 8he court below dismissed the compl$int $nd ruled th$t the contr$ct entered
into between ;orth 4ront :hipping :ervices? Bnc>? $nd 9epublic 4lour =ills
1orpor$tion w$s $ ch$rterEp$rty $greement> 5s such? only ordin$ry diligence in the
c$re of goods w$s required of ;orth 4ront :hipping :ervices? Bnc> 8he inspection of
the b$rge by the shipper $nd the represent$tives of the shipping comp$ny before
$ctu$l lo$ding? coupled with the +ermit to :$il issued by the 1o$st ,u$rd? sufficed
to meet the degree of diligence required of the c$rrier>2n the other h$nd? the
1ourt of 5ppe$ls ruled th$t $s $ common c$rrier required to observe $ higher degree
of diligence;orth 4ront JJJ s$tisf$ctorily complied with $ll the requirements hence
w$s issued $ +ermit to :$il $fter proper inspection> 1onsequently? the compl$int
w$s dismissed $nd the motion for reconsider$tion rejected>8he ch$rterEp$rty
$greement between ;orth 4ront :hipping :ervices? Bnc>? $nd 9epublic 4lour =ills
1orpor$tion did not in $ny w$y convert the common c$rrier into $ priv$te c$rrier>
6e h$ve $lre$dy resolved this issue with fin$lity in +l$nters +roducts? Bnc> v>
1ourt of 5ppe$lsthus 5 Rch$rterEp$rtyR is defined $s $ contr$ct by which $n entire
ship? or some princip$l p$rt thereof? is let by the owner to $nother person for $
specified time or useS $ contr$ct of $ffreightment by which the owner of $ ship or
other vessel lets the whole or $ p$rt of her to $ merch$nt or other person for the
convey$nce of goods? on $ p$rticul$r voy$ge? in consider$tion of the p$yment of
freight x x x x 1ontr$ct of $ffreightment m$y either be time ch$rter? wherein the
vessel is le$sed to the ch$rterer for $ fixed period of time? or voy$ge ch$rter?
wherein the ship is le$sed for $ single voy$ge> Bn both c$ses? the ch$rterEp$rty
provides for the hire of the vessel only? either for $ determin$te period of time
or for $ single or consecutive voy$ge? the ship owner to supply the shipRs store?
p$y for the w$ges of the m$ster of the crew? $nd defr$y the expenses for the
m$inten$nce of the ship>0pon the other h$nd? the term Rcommon or public c$rrierR is
defined in 5rt> CJ@G of the 1ivil 1ode> 8he definition extends to c$rriers either
by l$nd? $ir or w$ter which hold themselves out $s re$dy to eng$ge in c$rrying
goods or tr$nsporting p$ssengers or both for compens$tion $s $ public employment
$nd not $s $ c$su$l occup$tion:1 903B;,/ Bn fine? we find th$t the c$rrier f$iled
to observe the required extr$ordin$ry diligence in the vigil$nce over the goods
pl$ced in its c$re> 8he proofs presented by ;orth 4ront :hipping :ervices? Bnc>?
were insufficient to rebut the prim$ f$cie presumption of priv$te respondentRs
negligence? more so if we consider the evidence $dduced by petitioners>Bt is not
denied by the insur$nce comp$nies th$t the vessel w$s indeed inspected before
$ctu$l lo$ding $nd th$t;orth 4ront JJJ w$s issued $ +ermit to :$il> 8hey proved the
f$ct of shipment $nd its consequent loss or d$m$ge while in the $ctu$l possession
of the c$rrier> ;ot$bly? the c$rrier f$iled to volunteer $ny expl$n$tion why there
w$s spoil$ge $nd how it occurred> 2n the other h$nd? it w$s shown during the tri$l
th$t the vessel h$d rusty bulkhe$ds $nd the wooden bo$rds $nd t$rp$ulins bore he$vy
concentr$tion of molds> 8he t$rp$ulins used were not new? contr$ry to the cl$im of
;orth 4ront :hipping :ervices? Bnc>? $s there were $lre$dy sever$l p$tches on them?
hence? m$king it highly prob$ble for w$ter to enter>3$bor$tory $n$lysis reve$led
th$t the corn gr$ins were cont$min$ted with s$lt w$ter> ;orth 4ront :hipping
:ervices? Bnc>? f$iled to rebut $ll these $rguments> Bt did not even ende$vor to
est$blish th$t the loss? destruction or deterior$tion of the goods w$s due to the
following/ .$% flood? storm? e$rthqu$ke? lightning? or other n$tur$l dis$ster or
c$l$mityS .b% $ct of the public enemy in w$r? whether intern$tion$l or civilS .c%
$ct or omission of the shipper or owner of the goodsS .d% the ch$r$cter of the
goods or defects in the p$cking or in the cont$inersS .e% order or $ct of competent
public $uthority>8his is $ closed list> Bf the c$use of destruction? loss or
deterior$tion is other th$n the enumer$ted circumst$nces? then the c$rrier is
rightly li$ble therefor>Nowever? we c$nnot $ttribute the destruction? loss or
deterior$tion of the c$rgo solely to the c$rrier> 6e find the consignee 9epublic
4lour =ills 1orpor$tion guilty of contributory negligence> Bt w$s se$son$bly
notified of the $rriv$l of the b$rge but did not immedi$tely st$rt the unlo$ding
oper$tions> ;o expl$n$tion w$s proffered by the consignee $s to why there w$s $
del$y of six .I% d$ys> N$d the unlo$ding been commenced immedi$tely the loss could
h$ve been completely $voided or $t le$st minimized> 5s testified to by the chemist
who $n$lyzed the corn s$mples? the mold growth w$s only $t its incipient st$ge $nd
could still be $rrested by drying> 8he corn gr$ins were not yet toxic or unfit for
consumption> 4or its contributory negligence? 9epublic 4lour =ills 1orpor$tion
should sh$re $t le$st "-Y of the loss>H@> 753B65, 895;:B8? B;1> vs> 12098 24
5++)53:4518:/ 8his is $ petition for certior$rito review the <ecision of the 1ourt
of 5ppe$ls in 15E,>9> 1LE@CG"I $w$rding d$m$ges in f$vor of the spouses 5ntonio $nd
3etici$ ,$rci$ for bre$ch of contr$ct of c$rri$ge>filed by the spouses ,$rci$
questioning the s$me 1ourt of 5ppe$lsR <ecision which reduced their $w$rd of
d$m$ges> 2n ;ovember C@? CHHK? we denied their petition for review>8he records show
th$t on Duly @C? CHF-? 3etici$ ,$rci$? $nd her fiveEye$r old son? 5ll$n ,$rci$?
bo$rded 7$liw$g 8r$nsit 7us ;o> G-@I bound for 1$b$n$tu$n 1ity driven by D$ime
:$nti$go> 8hey took the se$t behind the driver>5t $bout J/@- in the evening? in
=$limb$? ,$p$n? ;uev$ )cij$? the bus p$ssengers s$w $ c$rgo truck p$rked $t the
shoulder of the n$tion$l highw$y> Bts left re$r portion jutted to the outer l$ne?
the shoulder of the ro$d w$s too n$rrow to $ccommod$te the whole truck> 5 kerosene
l$mp $ppe$red $t the edge of the ro$d obviously to serve $s $ w$rning device> 8he
truck driver? Dulio 9econtique? $nd his helper? 5rturo )sc$l$? were then repl$cing
$ fl$t tire> 8he truck is owned by respondent 5 Q D 8r$ding>7us driver :$nti$go w$s
driving $t $n inordin$tely f$st speed $nd f$iled to notice the truck $nd the
kerosene l$mp $t the edge of the ro$d> :$nti$goRs p$ssengers urged him to slow down
but he p$id them no heed> :$nti$go even c$rried $nim$ted convers$tions with his coE
employees while driving> 6hen the d$nger of collision bec$me imminent? the bus
p$ssengers shouted W7$b$ngg$ t$yoZW> :$nti$go stepped on the br$ke? but it w$s too
l$te> Nis bus r$mmed into the st$lled c$rgo truck> Bt c$used the inst$nt de$th of
:$nti$go $nd )sc$l$? $nd injury to sever$l others> 3etici$ $nd 5ll$n ,$rci$ were
$mong the injured p$ssengers>3etici$ suffered $ fr$cture in her pelvis $nd right
leg> 8hey rushed her to the provinci$l hospit$l in 1$b$n$tu$n 1ity where she w$s
given emergency tre$tment> 5fter three d$ys? she w$s tr$nsferred to the ;$tion$l
2rthopedic Nospit$l where she w$s confined for more th$n $ month> :he underwent $n
oper$tion for p$rti$l hip prosthesis> 5ll$n? on the other h$nd? broke $ leg> Ne w$s
$lso given emergency tre$tment $t the provinci$l hospit$l>:pouses 5ntonio $nd
3etici$ ,$rci$ sued 7$liw$g 8r$nsit? Bnc>? 5 Q D 8r$ding $nd Dulio 9econtique for
d$m$ges in the 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt of 7ul$c$n> 3etici$ sued $s $n injured
p$ssenger of 7$liw$g $nd $s mother of 5ll$n> 5t the time of the compl$int? 5ll$n
w$s $ minor? hence? the suit initi$ted by his p$rents in his f$vor>7$liw$g? 5 Q D
8r$ding $nd 9econtique discl$imed responsibility for the mish$p> 7$liw$g $lleged
th$t the $ccident w$s c$used solely by the f$ult $nd negligence of 5 Q D 8r$ding
$nd its driver? 9econtique> 7$liw$g ch$rged th$t 9econtigue f$iled to pl$ce $n
e$rly w$rning device $t the corner of the dis$bled c$rgo truck to w$rn oncoming
vehicles>2n the other h$nd? 5 Q D 8r$ding $nd 9econtique $lleged th$t the $ccident
w$s the result of the negligence $nd reckless driving of :$nti$go? bus driver of
7$liw$g>:1 903B;,/ 5s $ common c$rrier? 7$liw$g bre$ched its contr$ct of c$rri$ge
when it f$iled to deliver its p$ssengers? 3etici$ $nd 5ll$n
,$rci$ to their destin$tion s$fe $nd sound> 5 common c$rrier is bound to c$rry its
p$ssengers s$fely $s f$r $s hum$n c$re $nd foresight c$n provide? using the utmost
diligence of $ very c$utious person? with due reg$rd for $ll the circumst$nces> Bn
$ contr$ct of c$rri$ge? it is presumed th$t the common c$rrier w$s $t f$ult or w$s
negligent when $ p$ssenger dies or is injured> 0nless the presumption is rebutted?
the court need not even m$ke $n express finding of f$ult or negligence on the p$rt
of the common c$rrier> 8his st$tutory presumption m$y only be overcome by evidence
th$t the c$rrier exercised extr$ordin$ry diligence $s prescribed in 5rticles CJ@@
$nd CJKK of the 1ivil 1ode> 8he records $re bereft of $ny proof to show th$t
7$liw$g exercised extr$ordin$ry diligence> 2n the contr$ry? the evidence
demonstr$tes its driverRs recklessness> 3etici$ ,$rci$ testified th$t the bus
w$srunning $t $ very high speed despite the drizzle $nd the d$rkness of the
highw$y> 8he p$ssengers ple$ded for its driver to slow down? but their ple$ w$s
ignored> 3etici$ $lso reve$led th$t the driver w$s smelling of liquor> :he could
smell him $s she w$s se$ted right behind the driver> 5nother p$ssenger? 4elix 1ruz
testified th$t immedi$tely before the collision? the bus driver w$s conversing with
$ coemployee> 5ll these prove the bus driverRs w$nton disreg$rd for the physic$l
s$fety of his p$ssengers? which m$ke 7$liw$g $s $ common c$rrier li$ble for d$m$ges
under 5rticle CJKH of the 1ivil 1ode> 8he $w$rd of mor$l d$m$ges is in $ccord with
l$w> Bn $ bre$ch of contr$ct of c$rri$ge? mor$l d$m$ges $re recover$ble if the
c$rrier? through its $gent? $cted fr$udulently or in b$d f$ith> 8he evidence shows
the gross negligence of the driver of 7$liw$g bus which $mounted to b$d f$ith>
6ithout doubt? 3etici$ $nd 5ll$n experienced physic$l suffering? ment$l $nguish $nd
serious $nxiety by re$son of the $ccident> 3etici$ underwent $n oper$tion to
repl$ce her broken hip bone with $ met$l pl$te> :he w$s confined $t the ;$tion$l
2rthopedic Nospit$l for "K d$ys> 8he young 5ll$n w$s $lso confined in the hospit$l
for his foot injury> 1ontr$ry to the contention of 7$liw$g? the decision of the
tri$l court $s $ffirmed by the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls $w$rded mor$l d$m$ges to 5ntonio
$nd 3etici$ ,$rci$ not in their c$p$city $s p$rents of 5ll$n> 3etici$ w$s given
mor$l d$m$ges $s $n injured p$rty> 5ll$n w$s $lso gr$nted mor$l d$m$ges $s $n
injured p$rty but bec$use of his minority? the $w$rd in his f$vor h$s to be given
to his f$ther who represented him in the suit> H"> 4579)? D9> vs> 12098 24 5++)53:
4518:/ 8his is $ petition for review on certior$ri of the decision of the 1ourt of
5ppe$lsin 15E,9 ;o> GFG"K? d$ted :eptember @-? CHHG? which $ffirmed with
modific$tion the decision of the 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt of =$k$ti? 7r$nch KF?
ordering petitioners jointly $nd sever$lly to p$y d$m$ges to priv$te respondent
5myline 5ntonio? $nd its resolution which denied petitioners motion for
reconsider$tion for l$ck of merit>+etitioners )ngr$cio 4$bre? Dr> $nd his wife were
owners of $ CHFG model =$zd$ minibus> 8hey used the bus princip$lly in connection
with $ bus service for schoolchildren which they oper$ted in =$nil$> 8he couple h$d
$ driver? +orfirio D> 1$bil? whom they hired in CHFC? $fter trying him out for two
weeks> Nis job w$s to t$ke school children to $nd from the :t> :chol$stic$ s
1ollege in =$l$te? =$nil$>2n ;ovember G? CHF" priv$te respondent 6ord for the 6orld
1hristi$n 4ellowship Bnc> .6614% $rr$nged with petitioners for the tr$nsport$tion
of @@ members of its Aoung 5dults =inistry from =$nil$ to 3$ 0nion $nd b$ck in
consider$tion of which priv$te respondent p$id petitioners the $mount of +@?--->-->
8he group w$s scheduled to le$ve on ;ovember G? CHF"? $t K/-- o clock in the
$fternoon> Nowever? $s sever$l members of the p$rty were l$te? the bus did not
le$ve the 8ropic$l Nut $t the corner of 2rtig$s 5venue $nd )<:5 until F/-- o clock
in the evening> +etitioner +orfirio 1$bil drove the minibus>8he usu$l route to
1$b$? 3$ 0nion w$s through 1$rmen? +$ng$sin$n> Nowever? the bridge $t 1$rmen w$s
under rep$ir? so th$t petitioner 1$bil? who w$s unf$mili$r with the $re$ .it being
his first trip to 3$ 0nion%? w$s forced to t$ke $ detour through the town of 7$E$y
in 3ing$yen? +$ng$sin$n> 5t CC/@- th$t night? petitioner 1$bil c$me upon $ sh$rp
curve on the highw$y? running on $ south to e$st direction? which he described $s
siete> 8he ro$d w$s slippery bec$use it w$s r$ining? c$using the bus? which w$s
running $t the speed of K- kilometers per hour? to skid to the left ro$d shoulder>
8he bus hit the left tr$ffic steel br$ce $nd sign $long the ro$d $nd r$mmed the
fence of one Desus )sc$no? then turned over $nd l$nded on its left side? coming to
$ full stop only $fter $ series of imp$cts> 8he bus c$me to rest off the ro$d> 5
coconut tree which it h$d hit fell on it $nd sm$shed its front portion>:ever$l
p$ssengers were injured> +riv$te respondent 5myline 5ntonio w$s thrown on the floor
of the bus $nd pinned down by $ wooden se$t which c$me off $fter being unscrewed>
Bt took three persons to s$fely remove her from this position> :he w$s in gre$t
p$in $nd could not move>8he driver? petitioner 1$bil? cl$imed he did not see the
curve until it w$s too l$te> Ne s$id he w$s not f$mili$r with the $re$ $nd he could
not h$ve seen the curve despite the c$re he took in driving the bus? bec$use it w$s
d$rk $nd there w$s no sign on the ro$d> Ne s$id th$t he s$w the curve when he w$s
$lre$dy within CK to @- meters of it> Ne $llegedly slowed down to @- kilometers per
hour? but it w$s too l$te>8he 3ing$yen police investig$ted the incident the next
d$y? ;ovember @? CHF"> 2n the b$sis of their finding they filed $ crimin$l
compl$int $g$inst the driver? +orfirio 1$bil> 8he c$se w$s l$ter filed with the
3ing$yen 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt> +etitioners 4$bre p$id Desus )sc$no +C?K-->-- for
the d$m$ge to the l$tter s fence> 2n the b$sis of )sc$no s $ffid$vit of desist$nce
the c$se $g$inst petitioners 4$bre w$s dismissed>5myline 5ntonio? who w$s seriously
injured? brought this c$se in the 981 of =$k$ti? =etro =$nil$> 5s $ result of the
$ccident? she is now suffering from p$r$plegi$ $nd is perm$nently p$r$lyzed from
the w$ist down> <uring the tri$l she described the oper$tions she underwent $nd
$dduced evidence reg$rding the cost of her tre$tment $nd ther$py> Bmmedi$tely $fter
the $ccident? she w$s t$ken to the ;$z$reth Nospit$l in 7$E$y? 3ing$yen> 5s this
hospit$l w$s not $dequ$tely equipped? she w$s tr$nsferred to the :to> ;i o
Nospit$l? $lso in the town of 7$E$y? where she w$s given sed$tives> 5n xr$y w$s
t$ken $nd the d$m$ge to her spine w$s determined to be too severe to be tre$ted
there> :he w$s therefore brought to =$nil$? first to the +hilippine ,ener$l
Nospit$l $nd l$ter to the =$k$ti =edic$l 1enter where she underwent $n oper$tion to
correct the disloc$tion of her spine>981 903B;,/ ;o convincing evidence w$s shown
th$t the minibus w$s properly checked for tr$vel to $ long dist$nce trip $nd th$t
the driver w$s properly screened $nd tested before being $dmitted for employment>
Bndeed? $ll the evidence presented h$ve shown the negligent $ct of the defend$nts
which ultim$tely resulted to the $ccident subject of this c$se>5ccordingly? it g$ve
judgment for priv$te respondents holding/1onsidering th$t pl$intiffs 6ord for the
6orld 1hristi$n 4ellowship? Bnc> $nd =s> 5myline 5ntonio were the only ones who
$dduced evidence in support of their cl$im for d$m$ges? the 1ourt is therefore not
in $ position to $w$rd d$m$ges to the other pl$intiffs>6N)9)429)? premises
considered? the 1ourt hereby renders judgment $g$inst defend$nts =r> Q =rs>
)ngr$cio 4$bre? Dr> $nd +orfirio 1$bil y D$mil pursu$nt to $rticles GCJI $nd GCF-
of the 1ivil 1ode of the +hilippines $nd s$id defend$nts $re ordered to p$y jointly
$nd sever$lly to the pl$intiffs15 903B;,/ he 1ourt of 5ppe$ls sust$ined the tri$l
court s finding th$t petitioner 1$bilf$iled to exercise due c$re $nd prec$ution in
the oper$tion of his vehicle considering the time $nd the pl$ce of the $ccident>
8he 1ourt of 5ppe$ls held th$t the 4$bres were themselves presumptively negligent>
Nence? this petition> +etitioners r$ise the following B::0):/B> 6hether or not
petitioners were negligent>BB> 6hether or not petitioners were li$ble for the
injuries suffered by priv$te respondents>BBB> 6hether or not d$m$ges c$n be $w$rded
$nd in the positive? up to wh$t extent>:1 903B;,/ 5s common c$rriers? the 4$bres
were bound to exercise extr$ordin$ry diligence for the s$fe tr$nsport$tion of the
p$ssengers to their destin$tion> 8his duty of c$re is not excused by proof th$t
they exercised the diligence of $ good f$ther of thef$mily in the selection $nd
supervision of their employee> 5s 5rt> CJKH of the 1ode provides/1ommon c$rriers
$re li$ble for the de$th of or injuries to p$ssengers through the negligence or
wilful $cts of the former s employees? $lthough such employees m$y h$ve $cted
beyond the scope of their $uthority or in viol$tion of the orders of the common
c$rriers>8his li$bility of the common c$rriers does not ce$se upon proof th$t they
exercised $ll the diligence of $ good f$ther of $ f$mily in the selection $nd
supervision of their employees>8he s$me circumst$nces det$iled $bove? supporting
the finding of the tri$l court $nd of the $ppell$te court th$t petitioners $re
li$ble under 5rts> GCJI $nd GCF- for qu$si delict? fully justify finding them
guilty of bre$ch of contr$ct of c$rri$ge under 5rts> CJ@@? CJKK $nd CJKH of the
1ivil 1ode>:econdly? we sust$in the $w$rd of d$m$ges in f$vor of 5myline 5ntonio>
Nowever? we think the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls erred in incre$sing the $mount of
compens$tory d$m$ges bec$use priv$te respondents did not question this $w$rd
$s in$dequ$te>8o the contr$ry? the $w$rd of +K--?--->-- for compens$tory d$m$ges
which the 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt m$de is re$son$ble considering the contingent n$ture
of her income $s $ c$su$l employee of $ comp$ny $nd $s distributor of be$uty
products $nd the f$ct th$t the possibility th$t she might be $ble to work $g$in h$s
not been foreclosed> Bn f$ct she testified th$t one of her previous employers h$d
expressed willingness to employ her $g$in>6ith respect to the other $w$rds? while
the decisions of the tri$l court $nd the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls do not sufficiently
indic$te the f$ctu$l $nd leg$l b$sis for them? we find th$t they $re nevertheless
supported by evidence in the records of this c$se> Liewed $s $n $ction for qu$si
delict?this c$se f$lls squ$rely within the purview of 5rt> GGCH.G% providing for
the p$yment of mor$l d$m$ges in c$ses of qu$si delict> 2n the theory th$t
petitioners $re li$ble for bre$ch of contr$ct of c$rri$ge? the $w$rd of mor$l
d$m$ges is$uthorized by 5rt> CJI"? in rel$tion to 5rt> GGG-? since 1$bil s gross
negligence $mounted to b$d f$ith> 5myline 5ntonio s testimony? $s well $s the
testimonies of her f$ther $nd coEp$ssengers? fully est$blish the physic$l suffering
$nd ment$l $nguish sheendured $s $ result of the injuries c$used by petitioners
negligence>8he $w$rd of exempl$ry d$m$ges $nd $ttorney s fees w$s $lso properly
m$de> Nowever? for the s$me re$son th$t it w$s error for the $ppell$te court to
incre$se the $w$rd of compens$tory d$m$ges? we hold th$t it w$s $lso error for it
to incre$se the $w$rd of mor$l d$m$ges $nd reduce the $w$rd of $ttorney s fees?
in$smuch $s priv$te respondents? in whose f$vor the $w$rds were m$de? h$ve not
$ppe$led>5s $bove st$ted? the decision of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls c$n be sust$ined
either on the theory of qu$si delict or on th$t of bre$ch of contr$ct> 8he question
is whether? $s the two courts below held? petitioners? who $re the owners $nd
driver of the bus? m$y be m$de to respond jointly $nd sever$lly to priv$te
respondent> 6e hold th$t they m$y be> Bn<$ngw$ 8r$ns> 1o> Bnc> v> 1ourt of 5ppe$ls?
on f$cts simil$r to those in this c$se? this 1ourt held the bus comp$ny $nd the
driver jointly $nd sever$lly li$ble for d$m$ges for injuries suffered by $
p$ssenger> 5g$in? in 7$chelor )xpress? Bnc> v> 1ourt of 5ppe$ls $ driver found
negligent in f$iling to stop the bus in order to let off p$ssengers when $ fellow
p$ssenger r$n $muck? $s $ result of which the p$ssengers jumped out of the speeding
bus $nd suffered injuries? w$s held $lso jointly $nd sever$lly li$ble with the bus
comp$ny to the injured p$ssengers>8he s$me rule of li$bility w$s $pplied in
situ$tions where the negligence of the driver of the bus on which pl$intiff w$s
riding concurred with the negligence of $ third p$rty who w$s the driver of $nother
vehicle? thus c$using $n $ccident> Bn 5nur$n v> 7u o? 7$t$ng$s 3$gun$ 8$y$b$s 7us
1o> v> Bntermedi$te 5ppell$te 1ourt?$nd =etro =$nil$ 8r$nsit 1orpor$tion v> 1ourt
of 5ppe$ls*the bus comp$ny? its driver? the oper$tor of the other vehicle $nd the
driver of the vehicle were jointly $nd sever$lly held li$ble to the injured
p$ssenger or the l$tter s heirs> 8he b$sis of this $lloc$tion of li$bility w$s
expl$ined in Lilu$n v> 1ourt of 5ppe$ls?thus/;or should it m$ke $ny difference th$t
the li$bility of petitioner Tbus owner* springs from contr$ct while th$t of
respondents Towner $nd driver of other vehicle* $rises fromqu$siEdelict> 5s e$rly
$s CHC@? we $lre$dy ruled in ,utierrez vs> ,utierrez? KI +hil> CJJ? th$t in c$se of
injury to $ p$ssenger due to the negligence of the driver of the bus on which he
w$s riding $nd of the driver of $nother vehicle? the drivers $s well $s the owners
of the two vehicles $re jointly $nd sever$lly li$ble for d$m$ges> :ome members of
the 1ourt? though? $re of the view th$t under the circumst$nces they $re li$ble on
qu$siEdelict>Bt is true th$t in +hilippine 9$bbit 7us 3ines? Bnc> v> 1ourt of
5ppe$lsthis 1ourt exoner$ted the jeepney driver from li$bility to the injured
p$ssengers $nd their f$milies while holding the owners of the jeepney jointly $nd
sever$lly li$ble? but th$t is bec$use th$t c$se w$s expressly tried $nd decided
exclusively on the theory of culp$ contr$ctu$l> 5s this 1ourt there expl$ined/8he
tri$l court w$s therefore right in finding th$t =$n$lo Tthe driver* $nd spouses
=$ngune $nd 1$rreon Tthe jeepney owners* were negligent> Nowever? its ruling th$t
spouses =$ngune $nd 1$rreon $re jointly $nd sever$lly li$ble with =$n$lo is
erroneous> 8he driver c$nnot be held jointly $nd sever$lly li$ble with the c$rrier
in c$se of bre$ch of the contr$ct of c$rri$ge> 8he r$tion$le behind this is re$dily
discernible> 4irstly? the contr$ct of c$rri$ge is between the c$rrier $nd the
p$ssenger? $nd in the event of contr$ctu$l li$bility? the c$rrier is exclusively
responsible therefore to the p$ssenger? even if such bre$ch be due to the
negligence of his driver .see Lilu$n v> 8he 1ourt of 5ppe$ls? et $l>? ,>9> ;os> 3E
GC"JJEFC? 5pril GH? CHII? CI :195 J"G%HK> 9)A):? vs> :B:8)9: 24 =)91A N2:+B853
4518:/ 8his is $ petition for review of the decision of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls in 15E
,>9> 1L ;o> @IKKC $ffirming the decision of the 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt? 7r$nch BP?
1ebu 1ity which dismissed $ compl$int for d$m$ges filed by petitioners $g$inst
respondents>8he f$cts $re $s follows/+etitioner 3e$h 5lesn$ 9eyes is the wife of
the l$te Dorge 9eyes> 8he other petitioners? n$mely? 9ose ;$hdj$? Dohnny? 3loyd?
$nd Mristine? $ll surn$med 9eyes? were their children> 4ive d$ys before his de$th
on D$nu$ry F? CHFJ? Dorge h$d been suffering from $ recurring fever with chills>
5fter he f$iled to get relief from some home medic$tion he w$s t$king? which
consisted of $n$lgesic? $ntipyretic? $nd $ntibiotics? he decided to see the doctor>
2n D$nu$ry F? CHFJ? he w$s t$ken to the =ercy 1ommunity 1linic by his wife>Ne w$s
$ttended to by respondent <r> =$rlyn 9ico? resident physici$n $nd $dmitting
physici$n on duty? who g$ve Dorge $ physic$l ex$min$tion $nd took his medic$l
history> :he noted th$t $t the time of his $dmission? Dorge w$s conscious?
$mbul$tory? oriented? coherent? $nd with respir$tory distress> 8yphoid fever w$s
then prev$lent in the loc$lity? $s the clinic h$d been getting from CK to G- c$ses
of typhoid per month>:uspecting th$t Dorge could be suffering from this dise$se?
<r> 9ico ordered $ 6id$l 8est? $ st$nd$rd test for typhoid fever? to be performed
on Dorge> 7lood count? routine urin$lysis? stool ex$min$tion? $nd m$l$ri$l sme$r
were $lso m$de> 5fter $bout $n hour? the medic$l technici$n submitted the results
of the test from which <r> 9ico concluded th$t Dorge w$s positive for typhoid
fever> 5s her shift w$s only up to K/-- p>m>? <r> 9ico indorsed Dorge to
respondent<r> =$rvie 7l$nes><r> =$rvie 7l$nes $ttended to Dorge $t $round six in
the evening> :he $lso took Dorge s history $nd g$ve him $ physic$l ex$min$tion>
3ike <r> 9ico? her impression w$s th$t Dorge h$d typhoid fever> 5ntibiotics being
the $ccepted tre$tment for typhoid fever? she ordered th$t $ comp$tibility test
with the $ntibiotic chloromycetin be done on Dorge> :$id test w$s $dministered by
nurse Dosephine +$gente who $lso g$ve the p$tient $ dose of triglobe> 5s she did
not observe $ny $dverse re$ction by the p$tient to chloromycetin? <r> 7l$nes
ordered the first five hundred milligr$ms of s$id $ntibiotic to be $dministered on
Dorge $t $round H/-- p>m> 5 second dose w$s $dministered on Dorge $bout three hours
l$ter just before midnight>5t $round C/-- $>m> of D$nu$ry H? CHFJ? <r> 7l$nes w$s
c$lled $s Dorge s temper$ture rose to "C 1> 8he p$tient $lso experienced chills $nd
exhibited respir$tory distress? n$use$? vomiting? $nd convulsions><r> 7l$nes put
him under oxygen? used $ suction m$chine? $nd $dministered hydrocortisone?
tempor$rily e$sing the p$tient s convulsions> 6hen he reg$ined consciousness? the
p$tient w$s $sked by <r> 7l$nes whether he h$d $ previous he$rt $ilment or h$d
suffered from chest p$ins in the p$st>Dorge replied he did not>5fter $bout CK
minutes? however? Dorge $g$in st$rted to vomit? showed restlessness? $nd his
convulsions returned><r> 7l$nes reE$pplied the emergency me$sures t$ken before $nd?
in $ddition? v$lium w$s $dministered>Dorge? however? did not respond to the
tre$tment $nd slipped into cy$nosis? $ bluish or purplish discolor$tion of the skin
or mucous membr$ne due to deficient oxygen$tion of the blood> 5t $round G/-- $>m>?
Dorge died> Ne w$s forty ye$rs old> 8he c$use of his de$th w$s Lentricul$r
5rrythemi$ :econd$ry to Nyperpyrexi$ $nd typhoid fever> 2n Dune @? CHFJ?
petitioners filed before the 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt of 1ebu 1ity $ compl$int for
d$m$ges $g$inst respondents :isters of =ercy? :ister 9ose +$l$cio? <r> =$rvie
7l$nes? <r> =$rlyn 9ico? $nd nurse Dosephine +$gente> 2n :eptember G"? CHFJ?
petitioners $mended their compl$int to imple$d respondent =ercy 1ommunity 1linic $s
$ddition$l defend$nt $nd to drop the n$me of Dosephine +$gente $s defend$nt since
she w$s no longer connected with respondent hospit$l> 8heir princip$l contention
w$s th$t Dorge did not die of typhoid fever>Bnste$d? his de$th w$s due to the
wrongful $dministr$tion of chloromycetin> 8hey contended th$t h$d respondent
doctors exercised due c$re $nd diligence? they would not h$ve recommended $nd
rushed the perform$nce of the 6id$l 8est? h$stily concluded th$t Dorge w$s
suffering from typhoid fever? $nd $dministered chloromycetin without first
conducting sufficient tests on the p$tient s comp$tibility with s$id drug> 8hey
ch$rged respondent clinic $nd its directress? :ister 9ose +$l$cio? with negligence
in f$iling to provide $dequ$te f$cilities $nd in hiring negligent doctors $nd nurse
89B53 12098 903B;,/ 2n :eptember CG? CHHC? the tri$l court rendered its decision
$bsolving respondents from the ch$rges of negligence $nd dismissing petitioners
$ction for d$m$ges> 8he tri$l court likewise dismissed respondents countercl$im?
holding th$t? in seeking d$m$ges from respondents? petitioners were impelled by the
honest belief th$t Dorge s de$th w$s due to the l$tter s negligence>+etitioners
brought the m$tter to the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls>2n Duly @C? CHHJ? the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls
$ffirmed the decision of the tri$l court>Nence this petition>+etitioners r$ise the
following $ssignment of errors/B::0):/B> 8he honor$ble court of $ppe$ls committed $
reversible error when it ruled th$t the doctrine ofres ips$ loquituris not
$pplic$ble in the inst$nt c$se>BB> 8he honor$ble court of $ppe$ls committed
reversible error when it m$de $n unfounded $ssumption th$t the level of medic$l
pr$ctice is lower in ilig$n city>BBB> 8he honor$ble court of $ppe$ls gr$vely erred
when it ruled for $ lesser st$nd$rd of c$re $nd degree of diligence for medic$l
pr$ctice in ilig$n city when it $ppreci$teTd* no doctor s negligence in the
tre$tment of jorge reyes>:1 903B;,/ Bn the present c$se? there is no doubt th$t $
physici$nEp$tient rel$tionship existed between respondent doctors $nd Dorge 9eyes>
9espondents were thus dutybound to use $t le$st the s$me level of c$re th$t $ny
re$son$bly competent doctor would use to tre$t $ condition under the s$me
circumst$nces> Bt is bre$ch of this duty which constitutes $ction$ble m$lpr$ctice>
5s to this $spect of medic$l m$lpr$ctice? the determin$tion of the re$son$ble level
of c$re $nd the bre$ch thereof? expert testimony is essenti$l> Bn$smuch $s the
c$uses of the injuries involved in m$lpr$ctice $ctions $re determin$ble only in the
light of scientific knowledge? it h$s been recognized th$t expert testimony is
usu$lly necess$ry to support the conclusion $s to c$us$tion>9es Bps$ 3oquitur8here
is $ c$se when expert testimony m$y be dispensed with? $nd th$t is under the
doctrine ofres ips$ loquitur> 5s held in 9$mos v> 1ourt of 5ppe$ls/5lthough
gener$lly? expert medic$l testimony is relied upon in m$lpr$ctice suits to prove
th$t $ physici$n h$s done $ negligent $ct or th$t he h$s devi$ted from the st$nd$rd
medic$l procedure? when the doctrine ofres ips$ loquitoris $v$iled by the
pl$intiff? the need for expert medic$l testimony is dispensed with bec$use the
injury itself provides the proof of negligence> 8he re$son is th$t the gener$l rule
on the necessity of expert testimony $pplies only to such m$tters cle$rly within
the dom$in of medic$l science? $nd not to m$tters th$t $re within the common
knowledge of m$nkind which m$y be testified to by $nyone f$mili$r with the
f$cts>2rdin$rily? only physici$ns $nd surgeons of skill $nd experience $re
competent to testify $s to whether $ p$tient h$s been tre$ted or oper$ted upon with
$ re$son$ble degree of skill $nd c$re>Nowever? testimony $s to the st$tements $nd
$cts of physici$ns $nd surgeons? extern$l $ppe$r$nces? $nd m$nifest conditions
which $re observ$ble by $ny one m$y be given by nonEexpert witnesses>Nence? in
c$ses where the res ips$ loquituris $pplic$ble? the court is permitted to find $
physici$n negligent upon proper proof of injury to the p$tient? without the $id of
expert testimony? where the court from its fund of common knowledge c$n determine
the proper st$nd$rd of c$re> 6here common knowledge $nd experience te$ch th$t $
resulting injury would not h$ve occurred to the p$tient if due c$re h$d been
exercised? $n inference of negligence m$y be dr$wn giving rise to $n $pplic$tion of
the doctrine ofres ips$ loquitur without medic$l evidence? which is ordin$rily
required to show not only wh$t occurred but how $nd why it occurred> 6hen the
doctrine is $ppropri$te? $ll th$t the p$tient must do is prove $ nexus between the
p$rticul$r $ct or omission compl$ined of $nd the injury sust$ined while under the
custody $nd m$n$gement of the defend$nt without need to produce expert medic$l
testimony to est$blish the st$nd$rd of c$re> 9esort to res ips$ loquitoris $llowed
bec$use there is no other w$y? under usu$l $nd ordin$ry conditions? by which the
p$tient c$n obt$in redress for injury suffered by him>8hus? courts of other
jurisdictions h$ve $pplied the doctrine in the following situ$tions/ le$ving of $
foreign object in the body of the p$tient $fter $n oper$tion? injuries sust$ined on
$ he$lthy p$rt of the body which w$s not under? or in the $re$? of tre$tment?
remov$l of the wrong p$rt of the body when $nother p$rt w$s intended? knocking out
$ tooth while $ p$tient s j$w w$s under $nesthetic for the remov$l of his tonsils?
$nd loss of $n eye while the p$tient w$s under the influence of $nesthetic? during
or following $n oper$tion for $ppendicitis? $mong others>+etitioners $sserted in
the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls th$t the doctrine ofres ips$ loquitur $pplies to the present
c$se bec$use Dorge 9eyes w$s merely experiencing fever $nd chills for five d$ys $nd
w$s fully conscious? coherent? $nd $mbul$nt when he went to the hospit$l> Aet? he
died $fter only ten hours from the time of his $dmission>8his contention w$s
rejected by the $ppell$te court>+etitioners now contend th$t $ll requisites for the
$pplic$tion ofres ips$ loquitur were present? n$mely/ .C% the $ccident w$s of $
kind which does not ordin$rily occur unless someone is negligentS .G% the
instrument$lity or $gency which c$used the injury w$s under the exclusive control
of the person in ch$rgeS $nd .@% the injury suffered must not h$ve been due to $ny
volunt$ry $ction or contribution of the person injured>8he contention is without
merit> 6e $gree with the ruling of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls> Bn the 9$mos c$se? the
question w$s whether $ surgeon? $n $nesthesiologist? $nd $ hospit$l should be m$de
li$ble for the com$tose condition of $ p$tient scheduled for cholecystectomy Bn
th$t c$se? the p$tient w$s given $nesthesi$ prior to her oper$tion> ;oting th$t the
p$tient w$s neurologic$lly sound $t the time of her oper$tion? the 1ourt $pplied
the doctrine ofres ips$ loquitur $s ment$l br$in d$m$ge does not norm$lly occur in
$ g$llbl$der oper$tion in the $bsence of negligence of the $nesthesiologist> 8$king
judici$l notice th$t $nesthesi$ procedures h$d become so common th$t even $n
ordin$ry person could tell if it w$s $dministered properly? we $llowed the
testimony of $ witness who w$s not $n expert> Bn this c$se? while it is true th$t
the p$tient died just $ few hours $fter profession$l medic$l $ssist$nce w$s
rendered? there is re$lly nothing unusu$l or extr$ordin$ry $bout his de$th> +rior
to his $dmission? the p$tient $lre$dy h$d recurring fevers $nd chills for five d$ys
unrelieved by the $n$lgesic? $ntipyretic? $nd $ntibiotics given him by his wife>
8his shows th$t he h$d been suffering from $ serious illness $nd profession$l
medic$l help c$me too l$te for him>9espondents $lleged f$ilure to observe due c$re
w$s not immedi$tely $pp$rent to $ l$ym$n so $s to justify $pplic$tion ofres ips$
loquitur> 8he question required expert opinion on the $lleged bre$ch by respondents
of the st$nd$rd of c$re required by the circumst$nces> 4urthermore? on the issue of
the correctness of her di$gnosis? no presumption of negligence c$n be $pplied to
<r> =$rlyn 9ico>5s held in 9$mos/> > > > 9es ips$ loquituris not $ rigid or
ordin$ry doctrine to be perfunctorily used but $ rule to be c$utiously $pplied?
depending upon the circumst$nces of e$ch c$se> Bt is gener$lly restricted to
situ$tions in m$lpr$ctice c$ses where $ l$ym$n is $ble to s$y? $s $ m$tter of
common knowledge $nd observ$tion? th$t the consequences of profession$l c$re were
not $s such $s would ordin$rily h$ve followed if due c$re h$d been exercised> 5
distinction must be m$de between the f$ilure to secure results? $nd the occurrence
of something more unusu$l $nd not ordin$rily found if the service or tre$tment
rendered followed the usu$l procedure of those skilled in th$t p$rticul$r pr$ctice>
Bt must be conceded th$t the doctrine ofres ips$ loquitur c$n h$ve no $pplic$tion
in $ suit $g$inst $ physici$n or $ surgeon which involves the merits of $ di$gnosis
or of $ scientific tre$tment> 8he physici$n or surgeon is not required $t his peril
to expl$in why $ny p$rticul$r di$gnosis w$s not correct? or why $ny p$rticul$r
scientific tre$tment did not produce the desired result>:pecific 5cts of ;egligence
6e turn to the question whether petitioners h$ve est$blished specific $cts of
negligence $llegedly committed by respondent doctors>+etitioners contend th$t/ .C%
<r> =$rlyn 9ico h$stily $nd erroneously relied upon the 6id$l test? di$gnosed
Dorge s illness $s typhoid fever? $nd immedi$tely prescribed the $dministr$tion of
the $ntibiotic chloromycetinS $nd .G% <r> =$rvie 7l$nes erred in ordering the
$dministr$tion of the second dose of K-- milligr$ms of chloromycetin b$rely three
hours $fter the first w$s given>+etitioners presented the testimony of <r> 5polin$r
L$c$l$res? 1hief +$thologist of the ;orthern =ind$n$o 8r$ining Nospit$l? 1$g$y$n de
2ro 1ity? who performed $n $utopsy on the body of Dorge 9eyes><r> L$c$l$res
testified th$t? b$sed on his findings during the $utopsy? Dorge 9eyes did not die
of typhoid fever but of shock undetermined? which could be due to $llergic re$ction
or chloromycetin overdose> 6e $re not persu$ded>4irst> 6hile petitioners presented
<r> 5polin$r L$c$l$res $s $n expert witness? we do not find him to be so $s he is
not $ speci$list on infectious dise$ses like typhoid fever>4urthermore? $lthough he
m$y h$ve h$d extensive experience in performing $utopsies? he $dmitted th$t he h$d
yet to do one on the body of $ typhoid victim $t the time he conducted the
postmortem on Dorge 9eyes> Bt is $lso pl$in from his testimony th$t he h$s tre$ted
only $bout three c$ses of typhoid fever> Ne is thus not qu$lified to prove th$t <r>
=$rlyn
9ico erred in her di$gnosis> 7oth lower courts were therefore correct in
disc$rding his testimony? which is re$lly in$dmissible>Bn 9$mos? the defend$nts
presented the testimony of $ pulmonologist to prove th$t br$in injury w$s due to
oxygen depriv$tion $fter the p$tient h$d bronchosp$smstriggered by her $llergic
response to $ drug?* $nd not due to f$ulty intub$tion by the $nesthesiologist> 5s
the issue w$s whether the intub$tion w$s properly performed by $n $nesthesiologist?
we rejected the opinion of the pulmonologist on the ground th$t he w$s not/ .C% $n
$nesthesiologist who could enlighten the court $bout $nesthesi$ pr$ctice?
procedure? $nd their complic$tionsS nor .G% $n $llergologist who could properly
$dv$nce expert opinion on $llergic medi$ted processesS nor .@% $ ph$rm$cologist who
could expl$in the ph$rm$cologic $nd toxic effects of the drug $llegedly responsible
for the bronchosp$sms>:econd>2n the other h$nd? the two doctors presented by
respondents cle$rly were experts on the subject> 8hey vouched for the correctness
of <r> =$rlyn 9ico s di$gnosis> <r> +eter ,otiong? $ diplom$te whose speci$liz$tion
is infectious dise$ses $nd microbiology $nd $n $ssoci$te professor $t the
:outhwestern 0niversity 1ollege of =edicine $nd the ,ull$s 1ollege of =edicine?
testified th$t he h$s $lre$dy tre$ted over $ thous$nd c$ses of typhoid fever>
5ccording to him? when $ c$se of typhoid fever is suspected? the 6id$l test is
norm$lly used?$nd if the C/@G- results of the 6id$l test on Dorge 9eyes h$d been
presented to him $long with the p$tient s history? his impression would $lso be
th$t the p$tient w$s suffering from typhoid fever>5s to the tre$tment of the
dise$se? he st$ted th$t chloromycetin w$s the drug of choice>Ne $lso expl$ined th$t
despite the me$sures t$ken by respondent doctors $nd the intr$venous $dministr$tion
of two doses of chloromycetin? complic$tions of the dise$se could not be
discounted>5s reg$rds <r> L$c$l$res finding during the $utopsy th$t the dece$sed s
g$strointestin$l tr$ct w$s norm$l? <r> 9ico expl$ined th$t? while hyperpl$si$ in
the p$yer s p$tches or l$yers of the sm$ll intestines is present in typhoid fever?
the s$me m$y not $lw$ys be grossly visible $nd $ microscope w$s needed to see the
texture of the cells>9espondents $lso presented the testimony of <r> Bb$rr$ 8>
+$nopio who is $member of the +hilippine $nd 5meric$n 7o$rd of +$thology? $n
ex$miner of the +hilippine 7o$rd of +$thology? $nd chief p$thologist $t the
=etro1ebu 1ommunity Nospit$l? +erpetu$l :uccor Nospit$l? $nd the 5ndres :ori$no Dr>
=emori$l =edic$l 1enter>Ne st$ted th$t? $s $ clinic$l p$thologist? he recognized
th$t the 6id$l test is used for typhoid p$tients? $lthough he did not encour$ge its
use bec$use $ single test would only give $ presumption necessit$ting th$t the test
be repe$ted? becoming more conclusive $t the second $nd third weeks of the
dise$se>Ne corrobor$ted <r> ,otiong s testimony th$t the d$nger with typhoid fever
is re$lly the possible complic$tions which could develop like perfor$tion?
hemorrh$ge? $s well $s liver $nd cerebr$l complic$tions>5s reg$rdsthe C/@G- results
of the 6id$l test on Dorge 9eyes? <r> +$nopio st$ted th$t no $ddition$l inform$tion
could be obt$ined from $ higher r$tio>Ne $lso $greed with <r> ,otiong th$t
hyperpl$si$ in the p$yer s p$tches m$y be microscopic>Bndeed? the st$nd$rd
contempl$ted is not wh$t is $ctu$lly the $ver$ge merit $mong $ll known
pr$ctitioners from the best to the worst $nd from the most to the le$st
experienced? but the re$son$ble $ver$ge merit $mong the ordin$rily good
physici$ns>Nere? <r> =$rlyn 9ico did not dep$rt from the re$son$ble st$nd$rd
recommended by the experts $s she in f$ct observed the due c$re required under the
circumst$nces> 8hough the 6id$l test is not conclusive? it rem$ins $ st$nd$rd
di$gnostic test for typhoid fever $nd? in the present c$se? gre$ter $ccur$cy
through repe$ted testing w$s rendered unobt$in$ble by the e$rly de$th of the
p$tient> 8he results of the 6id$l test $nd the p$tient s history of fever with
chills for five d$ys? t$ken with the f$ct th$t typhoid fever w$s then prev$lent $s
indic$ted by the f$ct th$t the clinic h$d been getting $bout CK to G- typhoid c$ses
$ month? were sufficient to give upon $ny doctor of re$son$ble skill the impression
th$t Dorge 9eyes h$d typhoid fever><r> 9ico w$s $lso justified in recommending the
$dministr$tion of the drug chloromycetin? the drug of choice for typhoid fever> 8he
burden of proving th$t Dorge 9eyes w$s suffering from $ny other illness rested with
the petitioners> 5sthey f$iled to present expert opinion on this? preponder$nt
evidence to support their contention is cle$rly $bsent>8hird> +etitioners contend
th$t respondent <r> =$rvie 7l$nes? who took over from <r> 9ico? w$s negligent in
ordering the intr$venous $dministr$tion of two doses of K-- milligr$ms of
chloromycetin $t $n interv$l of less th$n three hours> +etitioners cl$im th$t Dorge
9eyes died of $n$phyl$ctic shockor possibly from overdose $s the second dose should
h$ve been $dministered five to six hours $fter the first? per instruction of <r>
=$rlyn 9ico> 5s held by the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls? however/8h$t chloromycetin w$s
likewise $ proper prescription is best est$blished by medic$l $uthority> 6ilson?
et> $l>? in N$rrison s +rinciple of Bntern$l =edicine? CGth ed> write th$t
chlor$mpenicol .which is the generic of chloromycetin% is the drug of choice for
typhoid fever $nd th$t no drug h$s yet proven better in promoting $ f$vor$ble
clinic$l response> 1hlor$mpenicol .1hloromycetin% is specific$lly indic$ted for
b$cteri$l meningitis? typhoid fever? rickettsi$l infections? b$cteriodes
infections? etc> .+B=: 5nnu$l? CHH"? p> GCC% 8he dos$ge likewise including the
first $dministr$tion of five hundred milligr$ms .K-- mg>% $t $round nine o clock in
the evening $nd the second dose $t $round CC/@- the s$me night w$s still within
medic$lly $ccept$ble limits? since the recommended dose of chloromycetin is one .C%
gr$m every six .I% hours> .cf> +edi$tric <rug N$ndbook? Cst )d>? +hilippine
+edi$tric :ociety? 1ommittee on 8her$peutics $nd 8oxicology? CHHI%> 8he intr$venous
route is likewise correct> .=$nsser? 2 ;ick? +h$rm$cology $nd 8her$peutics% )ven if
the test w$s not $dministered by the physici$nEonEduty? the evidence introduced
th$t it w$s <r$> 7l$nes who interpreted the results rem$in uncontroverted>
.<ecision? pp> CIECJ%2nce more? this 1ourt rejects $ny cl$im of profession$l
negligence in this reg$rd>> > > >5s reg$rds $n$phyl$ctic shock? the usu$l w$y of
gu$rding $g$inst it prior to the $dministr$tion of $ drug? is the skin test of
which? however? it h$s been observed/ :kin testing with h$ptenic drugs is
gener$lly not reli$ble> 1ert$in drugs c$use nonspecific hist$mine rele$se?
producing $ we$lE$ndEfl$re re$ction in norm$l individu$ls> Bmmunologic $ctiv$tion
of m$st cells requires $ polyv$lent $llergen? so $ neg$tive skin test to $
univ$lent h$ptenic drug does not rule out $n$phyl$ctic sensitivity to th$t drug>
.8err? 5n$phyl$xis $nd 0rtic$ri$ in 7$sic $nd 1linic$l Bmmunology? p> @"H% 6h$t
$ll this me$ns leg$lly is th$t even if the dece$sed suffered from $n $n$phyl$ctic
shock? this? of itself? would not yet est$blish the negligence of the
$ppelleephysici$ns for $ll th$t the l$w requires of them is th$t they perform the
st$nd$rd tests $nd perform st$nd$rd procedures> 8he l$w c$nnot require them to
predict every possible re$ction to $ll drugs $dministered> 8he onus prob$ndi w$s on
the $ppell$nts to est$blish? before the tri$l court? th$t the $ppelleeEphysici$ns
ignored st$nd$rd medic$l procedure? prescribed $nd $dministered medic$tion with
recklessness $nd exhibited $n $bsence of the competence $nd skills expected of
gener$l pr$ctitioners simil$rly situ$ted>4ourth> +etitioners correctly observe th$t
the medic$l profession is one which? like the business of $ common c$rrier? is
$ffected with public interest> =oreover? they $ssert th$t since the l$w imposes
upon common c$rriers the duty of observing extr$ordin$ry diligence in the vigil$nce
over the goods $nd for the s$fety of the p$ssengers? physici$ns $nd surgeons should
h$ve the s$me duty tow$rd their p$tients>8hey $lso contend th$t the 1ourt of
5ppe$ls erred when it $llegedly $ssumed th$t the level of medic$l pr$ctice is lower
in Blig$n 1ity? thereby reducing the st$nd$rd of c$re $nd degree of diligence
required from physici$ns $nd surgeons in Blig$n 1ity>8he st$nd$rd of extr$ordin$ry
diligence is peculi$r to common c$rriers> 8he 1ivil 1ode provides/5rt> CJ@@> 1ommon
c$rriers? from the n$ture of their business $nd for re$sons of public policy? $re
bound to observe extr$ordin$ry diligence in the vigil$nce over the goods $nd for
the s$fety of the p$ssengers tr$nsported by them? $ccording to the circumst$nces of
e$ch c$se> > > >8he pr$ctice of medicine is $ profession eng$ged in only by
qu$lified individu$ls> Bt is $ right e$rned through ye$rs of educ$tion? tr$ining?
$nd by first obt$ining $ license from the st$te through profession$l bo$rd
ex$min$tions> :uch license m$y? $t $ny time $nd for c$use? be revoked by the
government> Bn $ddition to st$te regul$tion? the conduct of doctors is $lso
strictly governed by the Nippocr$tic 2$th? $n $ncient code of discipline $nd
ethic$l rules which doctors h$ve imposed upon themselves in recognition $nd
$ccept$nce of their gre$t responsibility to society>,iven these s$fegu$rds? there
is no need to expressly require of doctors the observ$nce of extr$ordin$ry
diligence> 5s it is now? the pr$ctice of medicine is $lre$dy conditioned upon the
highest degree of diligence> 5nd? $s we h$ve $lre$dy noted? the st$nd$rd
contempl$ted for doctors is simply the re$son$ble $ver$ge merit $mong ordin$rily
good physici$ns> 8h$t is re$son$ble diligence for
doctors or? $s the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls c$lled it? the re$son$ble skill $nd
competence > > > th$t $ physici$n in the s$me or simil$r loc$lity > > > should
$pply> 1$ses FJEHKL53<)O? 30B,B )>HI> <9> ;B;)L)81N 190O vs> 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/
2n =$rch GG? CHHC? prosecution witness? 9owen$ 0m$li <e 2c$mpo? $ccomp$nied her
mother to the +erpetu$l Nelp 1linic $nd ,ener$l Nospit$l situ$ted in 7$l$gt$s
:treet? :$n +$blo 1ity? 3$gun$> 8hey $rrived $t the s$id hospit$l $t $round "/@- in
the $fternoon of the s$me d$y> +rior to =$rch GG? CHHC? 3ydi$ w$s ex$mined by the
petitioner who found $ Wmyom$W in her uterus? $nd scheduled her for $ hysterectomy
oper$tion on =$rch G@? CHHC>7ec$use of the untidy st$te of the clinic? 9owen$ tried
to persu$de her mother not to proceed with the oper$tion> 8he following d$y? before
her mother w$s wheeled into the oper$ting room? 9owen$ $sked the petitioner if the
oper$tion could be postponed> 8he petitioner c$lled 3ydi$ into her office $nd the
two h$d $ convers$tion> 3ydi$ then informed 9owen$ th$t the petitioner told her
th$t she must be oper$ted on $s scheduled> <r> )rcillo went out of the oper$ting
room $nd instructed them to buy t$g$met $mpules which 9owen$Rs sister immedi$tely
bought> 5n hour l$ter? <r> )rcillo c$me out $g$in this time to $sk them to buy
blood for 3ydi$> 8hey bought type W5W blood from the :t> ,er$ld 7lood 7$nk $nd the
s$me w$s brought by the $ttend$nt into the oper$ting room> 5fter the l$pse of $ few
hours? the petitioner informed them th$t the oper$tion w$s finished> :ome thirty
minutes $fter? 3ydi$ w$s brought out of the oper$ting room in $ stretcher $nd the
petitioner $sked 9owen$ $nd the other rel$tives to buy $ddition$l blood for 3ydi$>
0nfortun$tely? they were not $ble to comply with petitionerRs order $s there w$s no
more type W5W blood $v$il$ble in the blood b$nk> 8here$fter? $ person $rrived to
don$te blood which w$s l$ter tr$nsfused to 3ydi$> 9owen$ then noticed her mother?
who w$s $tt$ched to $n oxygen t$nk? g$sping for bre$th> 5pp$rently the oxygen
supply h$d run out $nd 9owen$Rs husb$nd together with the driver of the $ccused h$d
to go to the :$n +$blo <istrict Nospit$l to get oxygen> 3ydi$ w$s given the fresh
supply of oxygen $s soon $s it $rrived> 7ut $t $round C-/-- oRclock +>=> she went
into shock $nd her blood pressure dropped to I-XK-> 3ydi$Rs unst$ble condition
necessit$ted her tr$nsfer to the :$n +$blo <istrict Nospit$l so she could be
connected to $ respir$tor $nd further ex$mined> 8he tr$nsfer to the :$n +$blo
<istrict Nospit$l w$s without the prior consent of 9owen$ nor of the other
rel$tives present who found out $bout the intended tr$nsfer only when $n $mbul$nce
$rrived to t$ke 3ydi$ to the :$n +$blo <istrict Nospit$l>0pon 3ydi$Rs $rriv$l $t
the :$n +$blo <istrict Nospit$l? she w$s wheeled into the oper$ting room $nd the
petitioner $nd <r> )rcillo reEoper$ted on her bec$use there w$s blood oozing from
the $bdomin$l incision> 8he $ttending physici$ns summoned <r> 7$rtolome 5ngeles?
he$d of the 2bstetrics $nd ,ynecology <ep$rtment of the :$n +$blo <istrict
Nospit$l> Nowever? when <r> 5ngeles $rrived? 3ydi$ w$s $lre$dy in shock $nd
possibly de$d $s her blood pressure w$s $lre$dy -X-> 6hile the petitioner w$s
closing the $bdomin$l w$ll? the p$tient died> 8hus? on =$rch G"? CHHC? $t @/--
oRclock in the morning? 3ydi$ 0m$li w$s pronounced de$d> Ner de$th certific$te
st$tes WshockW $s the immedi$te c$use of de$th $nd W<issemin$ted Bntr$v$scul$r
1o$gul$tion .<B1%W $s the $ntecedent c$use> 903B;,:/ =811/ Bn convicting the
petitioner? the =811 found the following circumst$nces $s sufficient b$sis to
conclude th$t she w$s indeed negligent in the perform$nce of the oper$tion/> > > ?
the clinic w$s untidy? there w$s l$ck of provision like blood $nd oxygen to prep$re
for $ny contingency th$t might h$ppen during the oper$tion> 8he m$nner $nd the f$ct
th$t the p$tient w$s brought to the :$n +$blo <istrict Nospit$l for reoper$tion
indic$tes th$t there w$s something wrong in the m$nner in which <r$> 1ruz conducted
the oper$tion> 8here w$s no showing th$t before the oper$tion? $ccused <r$> 1ruz
h$d conducted $ c$rdio pulmon$ry cle$r$nce or $ny typing of the blood of the
p$tient> Bt w$s .sic% s$id in medic$l p$rl$nce th$t the Wthe $bdomen of the person
is $ temple of surprisesW bec$use you do not know the whole thing the moment it w$s
open .sic% $nd surgeon must be prep$red for $ny eventu$lity thereof> 8he p$tient
.sic% ch$rt which is $ public document w$s not presented bec$use it is only there
th$t we could determine the condition of the p$tient before the surgery> 8he court
$lso noticed in )xh> W4ECW th$t the sister of the dece$sed wished to postpone the
oper$tion but the p$tient w$s prev$iled upon by <r$> 1ruz to proceed with the
surgery> 8he court finds th$t 3ydi$ 0m$li died bec$use of the negligence $nd
c$relessness of the surgeon <r$> ;inevetch 1ruz bec$use of loss of blood during the
oper$tion of the dece$sed for evident unprep$redness $nd for l$ck of skill? the
re$son why the p$tient w$s brought for oper$tion $t the :$n +$blo 1ity <istrict
Nospit$l> 5s such? the surgeon should $nswer for such negligence> 6ith respect to
<r$> 3in$ )rcillo? the $n$esthesiologist? there is no evidence to indic$te th$t she
should be held jointly li$ble with <r$> 1ruz who $ctu$lly did the oper$tion>981/
8he 981 reiter$ted the $bovementioned findings of the =811 $nd upheld the l$tterRs
decl$r$tion of Wincompetency? negligence $nd l$ck of foresight $nd skill of
$ppell$nt .herein petitioner% in h$ndling the subject p$tient before $nd $fter the
oper$tion>W15/ > > > 6hile we m$y gr$nt th$t the untidiness $nd filthiness of the
clinic m$y not by itself indic$te negligence? it nevertheless shows the $bsence of
due c$re $nd supervision over her subordin$te employees> <id this uns$nit$ry
condition perme$te the oper$ting roomV 6ere the surgic$l instruments properly
sterilizedV 1ould the conditions in the 29 h$ve contributed to the infection of the
p$tientV 2nly the petitioner could $nswer these? but she opted not to testify> 8his
could only give rise to the presumption th$t she h$s nothing good to testify on her
defense> 5nyw$y? the $lleged Wunverified st$tement of the prosecution witnessW
rem$ins unch$llenged $nd unrebutted>3ikewise undisputed is the prosecutionRs
version indic$ting the following f$cts/ th$t the $ccused $sked the p$tientRs
rel$tives to buy 8$g$met c$psules while the oper$tion w$s $lre$dy in progressS th$t
$fter $n hour? they were $lso $sked to buy type W5W blood for the p$tientS th$t
$fter the surgery? they were $g$in $sked to procure more type W5W blood? but such
w$s not $nymore $v$il$ble from the sourceS th$t the oxygen given to the p$tient w$s
emptyS $nd th$t the sonEinEl$w of the p$tient? together with $ driver of the
petitioner? h$d to rush to the :$n +$blo 1ity <istrict Nospit$l to get the
muchneeded oxygen> 5ll these conclusively show th$t the petitioner h$d not prep$red
for $ny unforeseen circumst$nces before going into the first surgery? which w$s not
emergency in n$ture? but w$s elective or preEscheduledS she h$d no re$dy
$ntibiotics? no prep$red blood? properly typed $nd crossEm$tched? $nd no sufficient
oxygen supply>=oreover? there $re $ lot of questions th$t keep n$gging 0s> 6$s the
p$tient given $ny c$rdioEpulmon$ry cle$r$nce? or $t le$st $ cle$r$nce by $n
internist? which $re st$nd$rd requirements before $ p$tient is subjected to
surgery> <id the petitioner determine $s p$rt of the preEoper$tive ev$lu$tion? the
bleeding p$r$meters of the p$tient? such $s bleeding time $nd clotting timeV 8here
is no showing th$t these were done> 8he petitioner just $ppe$rs to h$ve been in $
hurry to perform the oper$tion? even $s the f$mily w$nted $ postponement to 5pril
I? CHHC> 2bviously? she did not prep$re the p$tientS neither did she get the
f$milyRs consent to the oper$tion> =oreover? she did not prep$re $ medic$l ch$rt
with instructions for the p$tientRs c$re> Bf she did $ll these? proof thereof
should h$ve been offered> 7ut there is none> Bndeed? these $re overwhelming
evidence of recklessness $nd imprudence>B::0) 7)429) 8N) :1/ 6hether or not
petitionerRs conviction of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide?
$rising from $n $lleged medic$l m$lpr$ctice? is supported by the evidence on
record>:1 903B;,/ 6hether or not $ physici$n h$s committed $n Winexcus$ble l$ck of
prec$utionW in the tre$tment of his p$tient is to be determined $ccording to the
st$nd$rd of c$re observed by other members of the profession in good st$nding under
simil$r circumst$nces be$ring in mind the $dv$nced st$te of the profession $t the
time of tre$tment or the present st$te of medic$l science> Bn the recent c$se of
3eonil$ ,$rci$E9ued$ v> 6ilfred 3> +$sc$sio? et $l>? this 1ourt st$ted th$t in
$ccepting $ c$se? $ doctor in effect represents th$t? h$ving the needed tr$ining
$nd skill possessed by physici$ns $nd surgeons pr$cticing in the s$me field? he
will employ such tr$ining? c$re $nd skill in the tre$tment of his p$tients> Ne
therefore h$s $ duty to use $t le$st the s$me level of c$re th$t $ny other
re$son$bly competent doctor would use to tre$t $ condition under the s$me
circumst$nces> Bt is in this $spect of medic$l m$lpr$ctice th$t expert testimony is
essenti$l to est$blish not only the st$nd$rd of c$re of the profession but $lso
th$t the physici$nRs conduct in the tre$tment $nd c$re f$lls below such st$nd$rd>
4urther? in$smuch $s the c$uses of the injuries involved in m$lpr$ctice $ctions $re
determin$ble only in the light of scientific knowledge? it h$s been recognized th$t
expert testimony is usu$lly necess$ry to support the conclusion $s to c$us$tion>
Bmmedi$tely $pp$rent from $ review of the records of this c$se is the $bsence of
$ny expert testimony on
the m$tter of the st$nd$rd of c$re employed by other physici$ns of good st$nding
in the conduct of simil$r oper$tions> 8he prosecutionRs expert witnesses in the
persons of <r> 4loresto 5riz$l$ $nd <r> ;ieto :$lv$dor? Dr> of the ;$tion$l 7ure$u
of Bnvestig$tion .;7B% only testified $s to the possible c$use of de$th but did not
venture to illumin$te the court on the m$tter of the st$nd$rd of c$re th$t
petitioner should h$ve exercised>5ll three courts below bew$il the in$dequ$cy of
the f$cilities of the clinic $nd its untidinessS the l$ck of provisions such $s
blood? oxygen? $nd cert$in medicinesS the f$ilure to subject the p$tient to $
c$rdioEpulmon$ry test prior to the oper$tionS the omission of $ny form of blood
typing before tr$nsfusionS $nd even the subsequent tr$nsfer of 3ydi$ to the :$n
+$blo Nospit$l $nd the reoper$tion performed on her by the petitioner> 7ut while it
m$y be true th$t the circumst$nces pointed out by the courts below seemed beyond
c$vil to constitute reckless imprudence on the p$rt of the surgeon? this conclusion
is still best $rrived $t not through the educ$ted surmises nor conjectures of
l$ymen? including judges? but by the unquestion$ble knowledge of expert witnesses>
4or whether $ physici$n or surgeon h$s exercised the requisite degree of skill $nd
c$re in the tre$tment of his p$tient is? in the gener$lity of c$ses? $ m$tter of
expert opinion> @- 8he deference of courts to the expert opinion of qu$lified
physici$ns stems from its re$liz$tion th$t the l$tter possess unusu$l technic$l
skills which l$ymen in most inst$nces $re inc$p$ble of intelligently ev$lu$ting>
)xpert testimony should h$ve been offered to prove th$t the circumst$nces cited by
the courts below $re constitutive of conduct f$lling below the st$nd$rd of c$re
employed by other physici$ns in good st$nding when performing the s$me oper$tion>
Bt must be remembered th$t when the qu$lific$tions of $ physici$n $re $dmitted? $s
in the inst$nt c$se? there is $n inevit$ble presumption th$t in proper c$ses he
t$kes the necess$ry prec$ution $nd employs the best of his knowledge $nd skill in
$ttending to his clients? unless the contr$ry is sufficiently est$blished> 8his
presumption is rebutt$ble by expert opinion which is so s$dly l$cking in the c$se
$t bench>)ven gr$nting $rguendo th$t the in$dequ$cy of the f$cilities $nd
untidiness of the clinicS the l$ck of provisionsS the f$ilure to conduct preE
oper$tion tests on the p$tientS $nd the subsequent tr$nsfer of 3ydi$ to the :$n
+$blo Nospit$l $nd the reoper$tion performed on her by the petitioner do indic$te?
even without expert testimony? th$t petitioner w$s recklessly imprudent in the
exercise of her duties $s $ surgeon? no cogent proof exists th$t $ny of these
circumst$nces c$used petitionerRs de$th> 8hus? the $bsence of the fourth element of
reckless imprudence/ th$t the injury to the person or property w$s $ consequence of
the reckless imprudence>Bn litig$tions involving medic$l negligence? the pl$intiff
h$s the burden of est$blishing $ppell$ntRs negligence $nd for $ re$son$ble
conclusion of negligence? there must be proof of bre$ch of duty on the p$rt of the
surgeon $s well $s $ c$us$l connection of such bre$ch $nd the resulting de$th of
his p$tient>8his 1ourt h$s no recourse but to rely on the expert testimonies
rendered by both prosecution $nd defense witnesses th$t subst$nti$te r$ther th$n
contr$dict petitionerRs $lleg$tion th$t the c$use of 3ydi$Rs de$th w$s <B1 which?
$s $ttested to by $n expert witness? c$nnot be $ttributed to the petitionerRs f$ult
or negligence> 8he prob$bility th$t 3ydi$Rs de$th w$s c$used by <B1 w$s unrebutted
during tri$l $nd h$s engendered in the mind of this 1ourt $ re$son$ble doubt $s to
the petitionerRs guilt> 8hus? her $cquitt$l of the crime of reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide> 6hile we condole with the f$mily of 3ydi$ 0m$li? our h$nds
$re bound by the dict$tes of justice $nd f$ir de$ling which hold inviol$ble the
right of $n $ccused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond re$son$ble
doubt> ;evertheless? this 1ourt finds the petitioner civilly li$ble for the de$th
of 3ydi$ 0m$li? for while $ conviction of $ crime requires proof beyond re$son$ble
doubt? only $ preponder$nce of evidence is required to est$blish civil li$bility>
8he petitioner is $ doctor in whose h$nds $ p$tient puts his life $nd limb> 4or
insufficiency of evidence this 1ourt w$s not $ble to render $ sentence of
conviction but it is not blind to the reckless $nd imprudent m$nner in which the
petitioner c$rried out her duties> 5 precious life h$s been lost $nd the
circumst$nces le$ding thereto ex$cerb$ted the grief of those left behind> 8he heirs
of the dece$sed continue to feel the loss of their mother up to the present time
$nd this 1ourt is $w$re th$t no $mount of comp$ssion $nd commiser$tion nor words of
bere$vement c$n suffice to $ssu$ge the sorrow felt for the loss of $ loved one>
1ert$inly? the $w$rd of mor$l $nd exempl$ry d$m$ges in f$vor of the heirs of 3ydi$
0m$li $re proper in the inst$nt c$se>6N)9)429)? premises considered? petitioner <9>
;B;)L)81N 190O is hereby 51(0B88)< of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide but is ordered to p$y the heirs of the dece$sed 3ydi$ 0m$li the $mount of
4B48A 8N20:5;< +):2: .+K-?--->--% $s civil li$bility? 2;) N0;<9)< 8N20:5;< +):2:
.+C--?--->--% $s mor$l d$m$ges? $nd 4B48A 8N20:5;< +):2: .+K-?--->--% $s exempl$ry
d$m$ges>3et $ copy of this decision be furnished to the +rofession$l 9egul$tion
1ommission .+91% for $ppropri$te $ction>HJ> 92,)3B2 )> 95=2: vs> 12098 24 5++)53:
4518:/ )rlind$ 9$mos h$d occ$sion$l compl$ints of discomfort due to p$ins $llegedly
c$used by the presence of $ stone in her g$ll bl$dder> 7ec$use the discomforts
somehow interfered with her norm$l w$ys? she sought profession$l $dvice> :he w$s
$dvised to undergo $n oper$tion for the remov$l of $ stone in her g$ll bl$dder> :he
underwent $ series of ex$min$tions which included blood $nd urine tests which
indic$ted she w$s fit for surgery> 5t $round J/@- 5>=> of Dune CJ? CHFK $nd while
still in her room? she w$s prep$red for the oper$tion by the hospit$l st$ff> 5t
$round C-/-- 5>=>? 9ogelio )> 9$mos w$s W$lre$dy dying T$nd* w$iting for the
$rriv$l of the doctorW even $s he did his best to find somebody who will $llow him
to pull out his wife from the oper$ting room> 5t $bout CG/CK +>=>? Nermind$ 1ruz?
who w$s inside the oper$ting room with the p$tient? he$rd somebody s$y th$t W<r>
Nos$k$ is $lre$dy here>W :he then s$w people inside the oper$ting room Wmoving?
doing this $nd th$t? T$nd* prep$ring the p$tient for the oper$tionW> :he then s$w
<r> ,utierrez intub$ting the h$pless p$tient> :he there$fter noticed bluish
discolor$tion of the n$ilbeds of the left h$nd of the h$pless )rlind$ even $s <r>
Nos$k$ $ppro$ched her> :he then he$rd <r> Nos$k$ issue $n order for someone to c$ll
<r> 1$lderon? $nother $nesthesiologist> 5fter <r> 1$lderon $rrived $t the oper$ting
room? she s$w this $nesthesiologist trying to intub$te the p$tient> 8he p$tientRs
n$ilbed bec$me bluish $nd the p$tient w$s pl$ced in $ trendelenburg position $
position where the he$d of the p$tient is pl$ced in $ position lower th$n her feet
which is $n indic$tion th$t there is $ decre$se of blood supply to the p$tientRs
br$in> Bmmedi$tely there$fter? she went out of the oper$ting room? $nd she told
9ogelio )> 9$mos Wth$t something wrong w$s > > > h$ppeningW> <r> 1$lderon w$s then
$ble to intub$te the p$tient> 5t $lmost @/-- +>=> of th$t f$teful d$y? she s$w the
p$tient t$ken to the Bntensive 1$re 0nit .B10%>5bout two d$ys there$fter? 9ogelio
)> 9$mos w$s $ble to t$lk to <r> Nos$k$> 8he l$tter informed the former th$t
something went wrong during the intub$tion> 9e$cting to wh$t w$s told to him?
9ogelio reminded the doctor th$t the condition of his wife would not h$ve h$ppened?
h$d he looked for $ good $nesthesiologist> )rlind$ 9$mos st$yed $t the B10 for $
month> 5bout four months there$fter or on ;ovember CK? CHFK? the p$tient w$s
rele$sed from the hospit$l><uring the whole period of her confinement? she incurred
hospit$l bills $mounting to +H@?K"G>GK which is the subject of $ promissory note
$nd $ffid$vit of undert$king executed by 9ogelio )> 9$mos in f$vor of <3:=1> :ince
th$t f$teful $fternoon of Dune CJ? CHFK? she h$s been in $ com$tose condition> :he
c$nnot do $nything> :he c$nnot move $ny p$rt of her body> :he c$nnot see or he$r>
:he is living on mech$nic$l me$ns> :he suffered br$in d$m$ge $s $ result of the
$bsence of oxygen in her br$in for four to five minutes> 5fter being disch$rged
from the hospit$l? she h$s been st$ying in their residence? still needing const$nt
medic$l $ttention? with her husb$nd 9ogelio incurring $ monthly expense r$nging
from +F?--->-- to +C-?--->--> :he w$s $lso di$gnosed to be suffering from Wdiffuse
cerebr$l p$renchym$l d$m$geW>903B;,:/ 981/ 5fter considering the evidence from both
sides? the 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt rendered judgment in f$vor of petitioners? to
wit/5fter ev$lu$ting the evidence $s shown in the finding of f$cts set forth
e$rlier? $nd $pplying the $forecited provisions of l$w $nd jurisprudence to the
c$se $t b$r?this 1ourt finds $nd so holds th$t defend$nts $re li$ble to pl$intiffs
for d$m$ges> 8he defend$nts were guilty of? $t the very le$st? negligence in the
perform$nce of their duty to pl$intiffp$tient )rlind$ 9$mos>2n the p$rt of <r>
+erfect$ ,utierrez? this 1ourt finds th$t she omitted to exercise re$son$ble c$re
in not only intub$ting the p$tient? but $lso in not repe$ting the $dministr$tion of
$tropine .8:;? 5ugust G-? CHHC? pp> KEC-%? without due reg$rd to the f$ct th$t the
p$tient w$s inside the oper$ting room for $lmost three .@% hours> 4or $fter she
committed $ mist$ke in intub$ting Tthe* p$tient? the p$tientRs
n$ilbed bec$me bluish $nd the p$tient? there$fter? w$s pl$ced in trendelenburg
position? bec$use of the decre$se of blood supply to the p$tientRs br$in> 8he
evidence further shows th$t the h$pless p$tient suffered br$in d$m$ge bec$use of
the $bsence of oxygen in her .p$tientRs% br$in for $pproxim$tely four to five
minutes which? in turn? c$used the p$tient to become com$tose>2n the p$rt of <r>
2rlino Nos$k$? this 1ourt finds th$t he is li$ble for the $cts of <r> +erfect$
,utierrez whom he h$d chosen to $dminister $nesthesi$ on the p$tient $s p$rt of his
oblig$tion to provide the p$tient $ good $nesthesiologistR? $nd for $rriving for
the scheduled oper$tion $lmost three .@% hours l$te>2n the p$rt of <3:=1 .the
hospit$l%? this 1ourt finds th$t it is li$ble for the $cts of negligence of the
doctors in their Wpr$ctice of medicineW in the oper$ting room> =oreover? the
hospit$l is li$ble for f$iling through its responsible offici$ls? to c$ncel the
scheduled oper$tion $fter <r> Nos$k$ inexcus$bly f$iled to $rrive on time>Bn h$ving
held thus? this 1ourt rejects the defense r$ised by defend$nts th$t they h$ve $cted
with due c$re $nd prudence in rendering medic$l services to pl$intiffEp$tient> 4or
if the p$tient w$s properly intub$ted $s cl$imed by them? the p$tient would not
h$ve become com$tose> 5nd? the f$ct th$t $nother $nesthesiologist w$s c$lled to try
to intub$te the p$tient $fter her .the p$tientRs% n$ilbed turned bluish? belie
their cl$im> 4urthermore? the defend$nts should h$ve rescheduled the oper$tion to $
l$ter d$te> 8his? they should h$ve done? if defend$nts $cted with due c$re $nd
prudence $s the p$tientRs c$se w$s $n elective? not $n emergency c$se>6N)9)429)?
$nd in view of the foregoing? judgment is rendered in f$vor of the pl$intiffs $nd
$g$inst the defend$nts> 5ccordingly? the l$tter $re ordered to p$y? jointly $nd
sever$lly? the former the following sums of money? to wit/C% the sum of +F?--->--
$s $ctu$l monthly expenses for the pl$intiff )rlind$ 9$mos reckoned from ;ovember
CK? CHFK or in the tot$l sum of +I@G?--->-- $s of 5pril CK? CHHG? subject to its
being upd$tedSG% the sum of +C--?--->-- $s re$son$ble $ttorneyRs feesS@% the sum of
+F--?--->-- by w$y of mor$l d$m$ges $nd the further sum of +G--?---?-- by w$y of
exempl$ry d$m$gesS $nd?"% the costs of the suit>:2 29<)9)<>15/ 8he $ppell$te court
rendered $ <ecision? d$ted GH =$y CHHK? reversing the findings of the tri$l court>
8he decret$l portion of the decision of the $ppell$te court re$ds/6N)9)429)? for
the foregoing premises the $ppe$led decision is hereby 9)L)9:)<? $nd the compl$int
below $g$inst the $ppell$nts is hereby ordered <B:=B::)<> 8he countercl$im of
$ppell$nt <e 3os :$ntos =edic$l 1enter is ,95;8)< but only insof$r $s $ppellees $re
hereby ordered to p$y the unp$id hospit$l bills $mounting to +H@?K"G>GK? plus leg$l
interest for justice must be tempered with mercy>:2 29<)9)<>B::0) 7)429) 8N) :1/
6hether or not the doctrine of 9es Bps$ 3oquitur is $pplic$ble to the inst$nt c$se>
:1 903B;,/ 6e find the doctrine of res ips$ loquitur $ppropri$te in the c$se $t
b$r> 5s will herein$fter be expl$ined? the d$m$ge sust$ined by )rlind$ in her br$in
prior to $ scheduled g$ll bl$dder oper$tion presents $ c$se for the $pplic$tion of
res ips$ loquitur>Bn the present c$se? )rlind$ submitted herself for
cholecystectomy $nd expected $ routine gener$l surgery to be performed on her g$ll
bl$dder> 2n th$t f$teful d$y she delivered her person over to the c$re? custody $nd
control of priv$te respondents who exercised complete $nd exclusive control over
her> 5t the time of submission? )rlind$ w$s neurologic$lly sound $nd? except for $
few minor discomforts? w$s likewise physic$lly fit in mind $nd body> Nowever?
during the $dministr$tion of $nesthesi$ $nd prior to the perform$nce of
cholecystectomy she suffered irrep$r$ble d$m$ge to her br$in> 8hus? without
undergoing surgery? she went out of the oper$ting room $lre$dy decerebr$te $nd
tot$lly inc$p$cit$ted> 2bviously? br$in d$m$ge? which )rlind$ sust$ined? is $n
injury which does not norm$lly occur in the process of $ g$ll bl$dder oper$tion> Bn
f$ct? this kind of situ$tion does not in the $bsence of negligence of someone in
the $dministr$tion of $nesthesi$ $nd in the use of endotr$che$l tube> ;orm$lly? $
person being put under $nesthesi$ is not rendered decerebr$te $s $ consequence of
$dministering such $nesthesi$ if the proper procedure w$s followed> 4urthermore?
the instruments used in the $dministr$tion of $nesthesi$? including the
endotr$che$l tube? were $ll under the exclusive control of priv$te respondents? who
$re the physici$nsEinEch$rge> 3ikewise? petitioner )rlind$ could not h$ve been
guilty of contributory negligence bec$use she w$s under the influence of
$nesthetics which rendered her unconscious>1onsidering th$t $ sound $nd un$ffected
member of the body .the br$in% is injured or destroyed while the p$tient is
unconscious $nd under the immedi$te $nd exclusive control of the physici$ns? we
hold th$t $ pr$ctic$l $dministr$tion of justice dict$tes the $pplic$tion of res
ips$ loquitur> 0pon these f$cts $nd under these circumst$nces the 1ourt would be
$ble to s$y? $s $ m$tter of common knowledge $nd observ$tion? if negligence
$ttended the m$n$gement $nd c$re of the p$tient> =oreover? the li$bility of the
physici$ns $nd the hospit$l in this c$se is not predic$ted upon $n $lleged f$ilure
to secure the desired results of $n oper$tion nor on $n $lleged l$ck of skill in
the di$gnosis or tre$tment $s in f$ct no oper$tion or tre$tment w$s ever performed
on )rlind$> 8hus? upon $ll these initi$l determin$tion $ c$se is m$de out for the
$pplic$tion of the doctrine of res ips$ loquitur>;onetheless? in holding th$t res
ips$ loquitur is $v$il$ble to the present c$se we $re not s$ying th$t the doctrine
is $pplic$ble in $ny $nd $ll c$ses where injury occurs to $ p$tient while under
$nesthesi$? or to $ny $nd $ll $nesthesi$ c$ses> )$ch c$se must be viewed in its own
light $nd scrutinized in order to be within the res ips$ loquitur cover$ge>N$ving
in mind the $pplic$bility of the res ips$ loquitur doctrine $nd the presumption of
negligence $llowed therein? the 1ourt now comes to the issue of whether the 1ourt
of 5ppe$ls erred in finding th$t priv$te respondents were not negligent in the c$re
of )rlind$ during the $nesthesi$ ph$se of the oper$tion $nd? if in the $ffirm$tive?
whether the $lleged negligence w$s the proxim$te c$use of )rlind$Rs com$tose
condition> 1oroll$ry thereto? we sh$ll $lso determine if the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls erred
in relying on the testimonies of the witnesses for the priv$te respondents>Bn
sust$ining the position of priv$te respondents? the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls relied on the
testimonies of <r$> ,utierrez? <r$> 1$lderon $nd <r> D$mor$> Bn giving weight to
the testimony of <r$> ,utierrez? the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls r$tion$lized th$t she w$s
c$ndid enough to $dmit th$t she experienced some difficulty in the endotr$che$l
intub$tion of the p$tient $nd thus? c$nnot be s$id to be covering her negligence
with f$lsehood> 8he $ppell$te court likewise opined th$t priv$te respondents were
$ble to show th$t the br$in d$m$ge sust$ined by )rlind$ w$s not c$used by the
$lleged f$ulty intub$tion but w$s due to the $llergic re$ction of the p$tient to
the drug 8hiopent$l :odium .+entoth$l%? $ shortE$cting b$rbitur$te? $s testified on
by their expert witness? <r> D$mor$> 2n the other h$nd? the $ppell$te court
rejected the testimony of <e$n Nermind$ 1ruz offered in f$vor of petitioners th$t
the c$use of the br$in injury w$s tr$ce$ble to the wrongful insertion of the tube
since the l$tter? being $ nurse? w$s $llegedly not knowledge$ble in the process of
intub$tion> Bn so holding? the $ppell$te court returned $ verdict in f$vor of
respondents physici$ns $nd hospit$l $nd $bsolved them of $ny li$bility tow$rds
)rlind$ $nd her f$mily>Bn view of the evidence $t h$nd? we $re inclined to believe
petitionersR st$nd th$t it w$s the f$ulty intub$tion which w$s the proxim$te c$use
of )rlind$Rs com$tose condition>+roxim$te c$use h$s been defined $s th$t which? in
n$tur$l $nd continuous sequence? unbroken by $ny efficient intervening c$use?
produces injury? $nd without which the result would not h$ve occurred> 5n injury or
d$m$ge is proxim$tely c$used by $n $ct or $ f$ilure to $ct? whenever it $ppe$rs
from the evidence in the c$se? th$t the $ct or omission pl$yed $ subst$nti$l p$rt
in bringing $bout or $ctu$lly c$using the injury or d$m$geS $nd th$t the injury or
d$m$ge w$s either $ direct result or $ re$son$blyprob$ble consequence of the $ct or
omission> Bt is the domin$nt? moving or producing c$use>5pplying the $bove
definition in rel$tion to the evidence $t h$nd? f$ulty intub$tion is undeni$bly the
proxim$te c$use which triggered the ch$in of events le$ding to )rlind$Rs br$in
d$m$ge $nd? ultim$tely? her com$tosed condition>+riv$te respondents themselves
$dmitted in their testimony th$t the first intub$tion w$s $ f$ilure> 8his f$ct w$s
likewise observed by witness 1ruz when she he$rd respondent <r$> ,utierrez
rem$rked? W5ng hir$p m$Eintub$te nito? m$li y$t$ $ng p$gk$k$p$sok> 2 lum$l$ki $ng
tiy$n>W 8here$fter? witness 1ruz noticed $bdomin$l distention on the body of
)rlind$> 8he development of $bdomin$l distention? together with respir$tory
emb$rr$ssment indic$tes th$t the endotr$che$l tube entered the esoph$gus inste$d of
the respir$tory tree> Bn other words? inste$d of the intended endotr$che$l
intub$tion wh$t $ctu$lly took pl$ce w$s $n esoph$ge$l intub$tion> <uring
intub$tion? such distention indic$tes th$t $ir h$s entered the g$strointestin$l
tr$ct through the esoph$gus inste$d of the lungs through the tr$che$> )ntry into
the esoph$gus would cert$inly c$use some del$y in oxygen delivery into the lungs $s
the tube which c$rries
oxygen is in the wrong pl$ce> 8h$t $bdomin$l distention h$d been observed during
the first intub$tion suggests th$t the length of time utilized in inserting the
endotr$che$l tube .up to the time the tube w$s withdr$wn for the second $ttempt%
w$s f$irly signific$nt> <ue to the del$y in the delivery of oxygen in her lungs
)rlind$ showed signs of cy$nosis> II 5s st$ted in the testimony of <r> Nos$k$? the
l$ck of oxygen bec$me $pp$rent only $fter he noticed th$t the n$ilbeds of )rlind$
were $lre$dy blue> Nowever? priv$te respondents contend th$t $ second intub$tion
w$s executed on )rlind$ $nd this one w$s successfully done> 6e do not think so> ;o
evidence exists on record? beyond priv$te respondentsR b$re cl$ims? which supports
the contention th$t the second intub$tion w$s successful> 5ssuming th$t the
endotr$che$l tube fin$lly found its w$y into the proper orifice of the tr$che$? the
s$me g$ve no gu$r$ntee of oxygen delivery? the h$llm$rk of $ successful intub$tion>
Bn f$ct? cy$nosis w$s $g$in observed immedi$tely $fter the second intub$tion>
+roceeding from this event .cy$nosis%? it could not be cl$imed? $s priv$te
respondents insist? th$t the second intub$tion w$s $ccomplished> )ven gr$nting th$t
the tube w$s successfully inserted during the second $ttempt? it w$s obviously too
l$te> 5s $ptly expl$ined by the tri$l court? )rlind$ $lre$dy suffered br$in d$m$ge
$s $ result of the in$dequ$te oxygen$tion of her br$in for $bout four to five
minutes> 8he $bove conclusion is not without b$sis> :cientific studies point out
th$t intub$tion problems $re responsible for oneEthird .CX@% of de$ths $nd serious
injuries $ssoci$ted with $nesthesi$> ;evertheless? ninetyEeight percent .HFY% or
the v$st m$jority of difficult intub$tions m$y be $nticip$ted by performing $
thorough ev$lu$tion of the p$tientRs $irw$y prior to the oper$tion> 5s st$ted
beforeh$nd? respondent <r$> ,utierrez f$iled to observe the proper preEoper$tive
protocol which could h$ve prevented this unfortun$te incident> N$d $ppropri$te
diligence $nd re$son$ble c$re been used in the preEoper$tive ev$lu$tion? respondent
physici$n could h$ve been much more prep$red to meet the contingency brought $bout
by the perceived $n$tomic v$ri$tions in the p$tientRs neck $nd or$l $re$? defects
which would h$ve been e$sily overcome by $ prior knowledge of those v$ri$tions
together with $ ch$nge in technique> Bn other words? $n experienced
$nesthesiologist? $dequ$tely $lerted by $ thorough preEoper$tive ev$lu$tion? would
h$ve h$d little difficulty going $round the short neck $nd protruding teeth> N$ving
f$iled to observe common medic$l st$nd$rds in preEoper$tive m$n$gement $nd
intub$tion? respondent <r$> ,utierrezR negligence resulted in cerebr$l $noxi$ $nd
eventu$l com$ of )rlind$>6e now determine the responsibility of respondent <r>
2rlino Nos$k$ $s the he$d of the surgic$l te$m> 5s the soEc$lled Wc$pt$in of the
ship?W it is the surgeonRs responsibility to see to it th$t those under him perform
their t$sk in the proper m$nner> 9espondent <r> Nos$k$Rs negligence c$n be found in
his f$ilure to exercise the proper $uthority .$s the Wc$pt$inW of the oper$tive
te$m% in not determining if his $nesthesiologist observed proper $nesthesi$
protocols> Bn f$ct? no evidence on record exists to show th$t respondent <r> Nos$k$
verified if respondent <r$> ,utierrez properly intub$ted the p$tient> 4urthermore?
it does not esc$pe us th$t respondent <r> Nos$k$ h$d scheduled $nother procedure in
$ different hospit$l $t the s$me time $s )rlind$Rs cholecystectomy? $nd w$s in f$ct
over three hours l$te for the l$tterRs oper$tion> 7ec$use of this? he h$d little or
no time to confer with his $nesthesiologist reg$rding the $nesthesi$ delivery> 8his
indic$tes th$t he w$s remiss in his profession$l duties tow$rds his p$tient> 8hus?
he sh$res equ$l responsibility for the events which resulted in )rlind$Rs
condition>6e now discuss the responsibility of the hospit$l in this p$rticul$r
incident> 8he unique pr$ctice .$mong priv$te hospit$ls% of filling up speci$list
st$ff with $ttending $nd visiting Wconsult$nts?W who $re $llegedly not hospit$l
employees? presents problems in $pportioning responsibility for negligence in
medic$l m$lpr$ctice c$ses> Nowever? the difficulty is only more $pp$rent th$n re$l>
Bn the first pl$ce? hospit$ls exercise signific$nt control in the hiring $nd firing
of consult$nts $nd in the conduct of their work within the hospit$l premises>
<octors who $pply for Wconsult$ntW slots? visiting or $ttending? $re required to
submit proof of completion of residency? their educ$tion$l qu$lific$tionsS
gener$lly? evidence of $ccredit$tion by the $ppropri$te bo$rd .diplom$te%? evidence
of fellowship in most c$ses? $nd references> 8hese requirements $re c$refully
scrutinized by members of the hospit$l $dministr$tion or by $ review committee set
up by the hospit$l who either $ccept or reject the $pplic$tion> 8his is
p$rticul$rly true with respondent hospit$l>5fter $ physici$n is $ccepted? either $s
$ visiting or $ttending consult$nt? he is norm$lly required to $ttend clinicoE
p$thologic$l conferences? conduct bedside rounds for clerks? interns $nd residents?
moder$te gr$nd rounds $nd p$tient $udits $nd perform other t$sks $nd
responsibilities? for the privilege of being $ble to m$int$in $ clinic in the
hospit$l? $ndXor for the privilege of $dmitting p$tients into the hospit$l> Bn
$ddition to these? the physici$nRs perform$nce $s $ speci$list is gener$lly
ev$lu$ted by $ peer review committee on the b$sis of mort$lity $nd morbidity
st$tistics? $nd feedb$ck from p$tients? nurses? interns $nd residents> 5 consult$nt
remiss in his duties? or $ consult$nt who regul$rly f$lls short of the minimum
st$nd$rds $ccept$ble to the hospit$l or its peer review committee? is norm$lly
politely termin$ted>Bn other words? priv$te hospit$ls? hire? fire $nd exercise re$l
control over their $ttending $nd visiting Wconsult$ntW st$ff> 6hile Wconsult$ntsW
$re not? technic$lly employees? $ point which respondent hospit$l $sserts in
denying $ll responsibility for the p$tientRs condition? the control exercised? the
hiring? $nd the right to termin$te consult$nts $ll fulfill the import$nt h$llm$rks
of $n employerEemployee rel$tionship? with the exception of the p$yment of w$ges>
Bn $ssessing whether such $ rel$tionship in f$ct exists? the control test is
determining> 5ccordingly? on the b$sis of the foregoing? we rule th$t for the
purpose of $lloc$ting responsibility in medic$l negligence c$ses? $n employerE
employee rel$tionship in effect exists between hospit$ls $nd their $ttending $nd
visiting physici$ns> 8his being the c$se? the question now $rises $s to whether or
not respondent hospit$l is solid$rily li$ble with respondent doctors for
petitionerRs condition> 8he b$sis for holding $n employer solid$rily responsible
for the negligence of its employee is found in 5rticle GCF- of the 1ivil 1ode which
considers $ person $ccount$ble not only for his own $cts but $lso for those of
others b$sed on the formerRs responsibility under $ rel$tionship of p$tri$
potest$s> :uch responsibility ce$ses when the persons or entity concerned prove
th$t they h$ve observed the diligence of $ good f$ther of the f$mily to prevent
d$m$ge> Bn other words? while the burden of proving negligence rests on the
pl$intiffs? once negligence is shown? the burden shifts to the respondents .p$rent?
gu$rdi$n? te$cher or employer% who should prove th$t they observed the diligence of
$ good f$ther of $ f$mily to prevent d$m$ge>Bn the inst$nt c$se? respondent
hospit$l? $p$rt from $ gener$l deni$l of its responsibility over respondent
physici$ns? f$iled to $dduce evidence showing th$t it exercised the diligence of $
good f$ther of $ f$mily in the hiring $nd supervision of the l$tter> Bt f$iled to
$dduce evidence with reg$rd to the degree of supervision which it exercised over
its physici$ns> Bn neglecting to offer such proof? or proof of $ simil$r n$ture?
respondent hospit$l thereby f$iled to disch$rge its burden under the l$st p$r$gr$ph
of 5rticle GCF->N$ving f$iled to do this? respondent hospit$l is consequently
solid$rily responsible with its physici$ns for )rlind$Rs condition>7$sed on the
foregoing? we hold th$t the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls erred in $ccepting $nd relying on the
testimonies of the witnesses for the priv$te respondents> Bndeed? $s shown by the
$bove discussions? priv$te respondents were un$ble to rebut the presumption of
negligence> 0pon these disquisitions we hold th$t priv$te respondents $re
solid$rily li$ble for d$m$ges under 5rticle GCJI of the 1ivil 1ode>6e now come to
the $mount of d$m$ges due petitioners> 8he tri$l court $w$rded $ tot$l of
+I@G?--->-- pesos .should be +ICI?--->--% in compens$tory d$m$ges to the pl$intiff?
Wsubject to its being upd$tedW covering the period from CK ;ovember CHFK up to CK
5pril CHHG? b$sed on monthly expenses for the c$re of the p$tient estim$ted $t
+F?--->-->5t current levels? the +F---Xmonthly $mount est$blished by the tri$l
court $t the time of its decision would be grossly in$dequ$te to cover the $ctu$l
costs of homeEb$sed c$re for $ com$tose individu$l> 8he c$lcul$ted $mount w$s not
even $rrived $t by looking $t the $ctu$l cost of proper hospice c$re for the
p$tient> 6h$t it reflected were the $ctu$l expenses incurred $nd proved by the
petitioners $fter they were forced to bring home the p$tient to $void mounting
hospit$l bills>5nd yet ide$lly? $ com$tose p$tient should rem$in in $ hospit$l or
be tr$nsferred to $ hospice speci$lizing in the c$re of the chronic$lly ill for the
purpose of providing $proper milieu $dequ$te to meet minimum st$nd$rds of c$re> Bn
the inst$nt c$se for inst$nce? )rlind$ h$s to be const$ntly turned from side to
side to prevent bedsores $nd hypost$tic pneumoni$> 4eeding is done
by n$sog$stric tube> 4ood prep$r$tion should benorm$lly m$de by $ dietiti$n to
provide her with the correct d$ily c$loric requirements $nd vit$min supplements>
4urthermore? she h$s to be seen on $ regul$r b$sis by $ physic$l ther$pist to $void
muscle $trophy? $nd by $ pulmon$ry ther$pist to prevent the $ccumul$tion of
secretions which c$n le$d to respir$tory complic$tions>,iven these consider$tions?
the $mount of $ctu$l d$m$ges recover$ble in suits $rising from negligence should $t
le$st reflect the correct minimum cost of proper c$re? not the cost of the c$re the
f$mily is usu$lly compelled to undert$ke $t home to $void b$nkruptcy> Nowever? the
provisions of the 1ivil 1ode on $ctu$l or compens$tory d$m$ges present us with some
difficulties>6ellEsettled is the rule th$t $ctu$l d$m$ges which m$y be cl$imed by
the pl$intiff $re those suffered by him $s he h$s duly proved> 8he 1ivil 1ode
provides/5rt> GCHH> )xcept $s provided by l$w or by stipul$tion? one is entitled
to $n $dequ$te compens$tion only for such pecuni$ry loss suffered by him $s he h$s
duly proved> :uch compens$tion is referred to $s $ctu$l or compens$tory d$m$ges>2ur
rules on $ctu$l or compens$tory d$m$ges gener$lly $ssume th$t $t the time of
litig$tion? the injury suffered $s $ consequence of $n $ct of negligence h$s been
completed $nd th$t the cost c$n be liquid$ted> Nowever? these provisions neglect to
t$ke into $ccount those situ$tions? $s in this c$se? where the resulting injury
might be continuing $nd possible future complic$tions directly $rising from the
injury? while cert$in to occur? $re difficult to predict>Bn these c$ses? the $mount
of d$m$ges which should be $w$rded? if they $re to $dequ$tely $nd correctly respond
to the injury c$used? should be one which compens$tes for pecuni$ry loss incurred
$nd proved? up to the time of tri$lS $nd one which would meet pecuni$ry loss
cert$in to be suffered but which could not? from the n$ture of the c$se? be m$de
with cert$inty> Bn other words? temper$te d$m$ges c$n $nd should be $w$rded on top
of $ctu$l or compens$tory d$m$ges in inst$nces where the injury is chronic $nd
continuing> 5nd bec$use of the unique n$ture of such c$ses? no incomp$tibility
$rises when both $ctu$l $nd temper$te d$m$ges $re provided for> 8he re$son is th$t
these d$m$ges cover two distinct ph$ses>5s it would not be equit$ble $nd
cert$inly not in the best interests of the $dministr$tion of justice for the
victim in such c$ses to const$ntly come before the courts $nd invoke their $id in
seeking $djustments to the compens$tory d$m$ges previously $w$rded temper$te
d$m$ges $re $ppropri$te> 8he $mount given $s temper$te d$m$ges? though to $ cert$in
extent specul$tive? should t$ke into $ccount the cost of proper c$re>Bn the inst$nt
c$se? petitioners were $ble to provide only homeEb$sed nursing c$re for $ com$tose
p$tient who h$s rem$ined in th$t condition for over $ dec$de> N$ving premised our
$w$rd for compens$tory d$m$ges on the $mount provided by petitioners $t the onset
of litig$tion? it would be now much more in step with the interests of justice if
the v$lue $w$rded for temper$te d$m$ges would $llow petitioners to provide optim$l
c$re for their loved one in $ f$cility which gener$lly speci$lizes in such c$re>
8hey should not be compelled by dire circumst$nces to provide subst$nd$rd c$re $t
home without the $id of profession$ls? for $nything less would be grossly
in$dequ$te> 0nder the circumst$nces? $n $w$rd of +C?K--?--->-- in temper$te d$m$ges
would therefore be re$son$ble> +etitioner )rlind$ 9$mos w$s in her midEforties when
the incident occurred> :he h$s been in $ com$tose st$te for over fourteen ye$rs
now> 8he burden of c$re h$s so f$r been heroic$lly shouldered by her husb$nd $nd
children? who? in the intervening ye$rs h$ve been deprived of the love of $ wife
$nd $ mother>=e$nwhile? the $ctu$l physic$l? emotion$l $nd fin$nci$l cost of the
c$re of petitioner would be virtu$lly impossible to qu$ntify> )ven the temper$te
d$m$ges herein $w$rded would be in$dequ$te if petitionerRs condition rem$ins
unch$nged for the next ten ye$rs>6e recognized? in L$lenzuel$ th$t $ discussion of
the victimRs $ctu$l injury would not even scr$tch the surf$ce of the resulting
mor$l d$m$ge bec$use it would be highly specul$tive to estim$te the $mount of
emotion$l $nd mor$l p$in? psychologic$l d$m$ge $nd injury suffered by the victim or
those $ctu$lly $ffected by the victimRs condition> F" 8he husb$nd $nd the children?
$ll petitioners in this c$se? will h$ve to live with the d$y to d$y uncert$inty of
the p$tientRs illness? knowing $ny hope of recovery is close to nil> 8hey h$ve
f$shioned their d$ily lives $round the nursing c$re of petitioner? $ltering their
long term go$ls to t$ke into $ccount their life with $ com$tose p$tient> 8hey? not
the respondents? $re ch$rged with the mor$l responsibility of the c$re of the
victim> 8he f$milyRs mor$l injury $nd suffering in this c$se is cle$rly $ re$l one>
4or the foregoing re$sons? $n $w$rd of +G?---?--->-- in mor$l d$m$ges would be
$ppropri$te>4in$lly? by w$y of ex$mple? exempl$ry d$m$ges in the $mount of
+C--?--->-- $re hereby $w$rded> 1onsidering the length $nd n$ture of the inst$nt
suit we $re of the opinion th$t $ttorneyRs fees v$lued $t +C--?--->-- $re likewise
proper>2ur courts f$ce unique difficulty in $djudic$ting medic$l negligence c$ses
bec$use physici$ns $re not insurers of life $nd? they r$rely set out to
intention$lly c$use injury or de$th to their p$tients> Nowever? intent is
imm$teri$l in negligence c$ses bec$use where negligence exists $nd is proven? the
s$me $utom$tic$lly gives the injured $ right to rep$r$tion for the d$m$ge c$used>
)st$blished medic$l procedures $nd pr$ctices? though in const$nt flux $re devised
for the purpose of preventing complic$tions> 5 physici$nRs experience with his
p$tients would sometimes tempt him to devi$te from est$blished community pr$ctices?
$nd he m$y end $ distinguished c$reer using unorthodox methods without incident>
Nowever? when f$ilure to follow est$blished procedure results in the evil precisely
sought to be $verted by observ$nce of the procedure $nd $ nexus is m$de between the
devi$tion $nd the injury or d$m$ge? the physici$n would necess$rily be c$lled to
$ccount for it> Bn the c$se $t b$r? the f$ilure to observe preEoper$tive $ssessment
protocol which would h$ve influenced the intub$tion in $ s$lut$ry w$y w$s f$t$l to
priv$te respondentsR c$se>6N)9)429)? the decision $nd resolution of the $ppell$te
court $ppe$led from $re hereby modified so $s to $w$rd in f$vor of petitioners? $nd
solid$rily $g$inst priv$te respondents the following/ C% +C?@KG?--->-- $s $ctu$l
d$m$ges computed $s of the d$te of promulg$tion of this decision plus $ monthly
p$yment of +F?--->-- up to the time th$t petitioner )rlind$ 9$mos expires or
mir$culously survivesS G% +G?---?--->-- $s mor$l d$m$ges? @% +C?K--?--->-- $s
temper$te d$m$gesS "% +C--?--->-- e$ch $s exempl$ry d$m$ges $nd $ttorneyRs feesS
$nd? K% the costs of the suit>:2 29<)9)<>HF,591B5E90)<5 vs> +5:15:B24518:/
4lorencio L> 9ued$? husb$nd of petitioner 3eonil$ ,$rci$E9ued$? underwent surgic$l
oper$tion $t the 0:8 hospit$l for the remov$l of $ stone blocking his ureter> Ne
w$s $ttended by <r> <omingo 5ntonio? Dr> who w$s the surgeon? while <r> )rlind$
7$l$tb$tE9eyes w$s the $n$esthesiologist> :ix hours $fter the surgery? however?
4lorencio died of complic$tions of Wunknown c$use?W $ccording to offici$ls of the
0:8 Nospit$l> ;ot s$tisfied with the findings of the hospit$l? petitioner requested
the ;$tion$l 7ure$u of Bnvestig$tion .;7B% to conduct $n $utopsy on her husb$ndRs
body> 1onsequently? the ;7B ruled th$t 4lorencioRs de$th w$s due to l$ck of c$re by
the $ttending physici$n in $dministering $n$esthesi$> +ursu$nt to its findings? the
;7B recommended th$t <r> <omingo 5ntonio $nd <r> )rlind$ 7$l$tb$tE9eyes be ch$rged
for Nomicide through 9eckless Bmprudence before the 2ffice of the 1ity +rosecutor>
8he c$se w$s initi$lly $ssigned to +rosecutor 5ntonio => Bsr$el? who h$d to inhibit
himself bec$use he w$s rel$ted to the counsel of one of the doctors> 5s $ result?
the c$se w$s reEr$ffled to +rosecutor ;orberto ,> 3eono who w$s? however?
disqu$lified on motion of the petitioner since he disreg$rded prev$iling l$ws $nd
jurisprudence reg$rding prelimin$ry investig$tion> 8he c$se w$s then referred to
+rosecutor 9$mon 2> 1$rism$? who issued $ resolution recommending th$t only <r>
9eyes be held crimin$lly li$ble $nd th$t the compl$int $g$inst <r> 5ntonio be
dismissed>8he c$se took $nother perplexing turn when 5ssist$nt 1ity +rosecutor
Dosefin$ :$ntos :ioson? in the Winterest of justice $nd pe$ce of mind of the
p$rties?W recommended th$t the c$se be reEr$ffled on the ground th$t +rosecutor
1$rism$ w$s p$rti$l to the petitioner> 8hus? the c$se w$s tr$nsferred to +rosecutor
3eonci$ 9> <im$gib$? where $ volte f$ce occurred $g$in with the endorsement th$t
the compl$int $g$inst <r> 9eyes be dismissed $nd inste$d? $ corresponding
inform$tion be filed $g$inst <r> 5ntonio> +etitioner filed $ motion for
reconsider$tion? questioning the findings of +rosecutor <im$gib$>+ending the
resolution of petitionerRs motion for reconsider$tion reg$rding +rosecutor
<im$gib$Rs resolution? the investig$tive WpingpongW continued when the c$se w$s
$g$in $ssigned to $nother prosecutor? )udoxi$ 8> ,u$lberto? who recommended th$t
<r> 9eyes be included in the crimin$l inform$tion of Nomicide through 9eckless
Bmprudence> 6hile the recommend$tion of +rosecutor ,u$lberto w$s pending? the c$se
w$s tr$nsferred to :enior :t$te +rosecutor ,regorio 5> 5riz$l$? who resolved to
exoner$te <r> 9eyes from $ny wrongdoing? $ resolution which w$s $pproved by both
1ity +rosecutor +orfirio ,> =$c$r$eg $nd 1ity +rosecutor Desus 4> ,uerrero>B::0)
7)429) 8N) :1/ 6hether or not there w$s negligence on the p$rt of the $tteding
physici$ns>:1 903B;,/ W+rob$ble c$use is $ re$son$ble ground of presumption th$t $
m$tter is? or m$y be? well founded? such $ st$te of f$cts in the mind of the
prosecutor $s would le$d $ person of ordin$ry c$ution $nd prudence to believe? or
entert$in $n honest or strong suspicion? th$t $ thing is so>W 8he term does not
me$n $ctu$l $nd positive c$use nor does it import $bsolute cert$inty> Bt is merely
b$sed on opinion $nd re$son$ble belief> 8hus? $ finding of prob$ble c$use does not
require $n inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure $
conviction> Bt is enough th$t it is believed th$t the $ct or omission compl$ined of
constitutes the offense ch$rged> +recisely? there is $ tri$l for the reception of
evidence of the prosecution in support of the ch$rge> Bn the inst$nt c$se? no less
th$n the ;7B pronounced $fter conducting $n $utopsy th$t there w$s indeed
negligence on the p$rt of the $ttending physici$ns in $dministering the
$n$esthesi$> 8he f$ct of w$nt of competence or diligence is evidenti$ry in n$ture?
the ver$city of which c$n best be p$ssed upon $fter $ fullEblown tri$l for it is
virtu$lly impossible to $scert$in the merits of $ medic$l negligence c$se without
extensive investig$tion? rese$rch? ev$lu$tion $nd consult$tions with medic$l
experts> 1le$rly? the 1ity +rosecutors $re not in $ competent position to p$ss
judgment on such $ technic$l m$tter? especi$lly when there $re conflicting evidence
$nd findings> 8he b$ses of $ p$rtyRs $ccus$tion $nd defenses $re better ventil$ted
$t the tri$l proper th$n $t the prelimin$ry investig$tion>5 word on medic$l
m$lpr$ctice or negligence c$ses>Bn its simplest terms? the type of l$wsuit which
h$s been c$lled medic$l m$lpr$ctice or? more $ppropri$tely? medic$l negligence? is
th$t type of cl$im which $ victim h$s $v$il$ble to him or her to redress $ wrong
committed by $ medic$l profession$l which h$s c$used bodily h$rm>Bn order to
successfully pursue such $ cl$im? $ p$tient must prove th$t $ he$lth c$re provider?
in most c$ses $ physici$n? either f$iled to do something which $ re$son$bly prudent
he$lth c$re provider would h$ve done? or th$t he or she did something th$t $
re$son$bly prudent provider would not h$ve doneS $nd th$t th$t f$ilure or $ction
c$used injury to the p$tient> Nence? there $re four elements involved in medic$l
negligence c$ses/ duty? bre$ch? injury $nd proxim$te c$us$tion>)vidently? when the
victim employed the services of <r> 5ntonio $nd <r> 9eyes? $ physici$nEp$tient
rel$tionship w$s cre$ted> Bn $ccepting the c$se? <r> 5ntonio $nd <r> 9eyes in
effect represented th$t? h$ving the needed tr$ining $nd skill possessed by
physici$ns $nd surgeons pr$cticing in the s$me field? they will employ such
tr$ining? c$re $nd skill in the tre$tment of their p$tients> 8hey h$ve $ duty to
use $t le$st the s$me level of c$re th$t $ny other re$son$bly competent doctor
would use to tre$t $ condition under the s$me circumst$nces> 8he bre$ch of these
profession$l duties of skill $nd c$re? or their improper perform$nce? by $
physici$n surgeon whereby the p$tient is injured in body or in he$lth? constitutes
$ction$ble m$lpr$ctice> 1onsequently? in the event th$t $ny injury results to the
p$tient from w$nt of due c$re or skill during the oper$tion? the surgeons m$y be
held $nswer$ble in d$m$ges for negligence> =oreover? in m$lpr$ctice or negligence
c$ses involving the $dministr$tion of $n$esthesi$? the necessity of expert
testimony $nd the $v$il$bility of the ch$rge of res ips$ loquitur to the pl$intiffS
h$ve been $pplied in $ctions $g$inst $n$esthesiologists to hold the defend$nt
li$ble for the de$th or injury of $ p$tient under excessive or improper
$n$esthesi$> )ssenti$lly? it requires twoEpronged evidence/ evidence $s to the
recognized st$nd$rds of the medic$l community in the p$rticul$r kind of c$se? $nd $
showing th$t the physici$n in question negligently dep$rted from this st$nd$rd in
his tre$tment> 5nother element in medic$l negligence c$ses is c$us$tion which is
divided into two inquiries/ whether the doctorRs $ctions in f$ct c$used the h$rm to
the p$tient $nd whether these were the proxim$te c$use of the p$tientRs injury>
Bndeed here? $ c$us$l connection is discernible from the occurrence of the victimRs
de$th $fter the negligent $ct of the $n$esthesiologist in $dministering the
$nesthesi$? $ f$ct which? if confirmed? should w$rr$nt the filing of the
$ppropri$te crimin$l c$se> 8o be sure? the $lleg$tion of negligence is not entirely
b$seless> =oreover? the ;7B deduced th$t the $ttending surgeons did not conduct the
necess$ry interview of the p$tient prior to the oper$tion> Bt $ppe$rs th$t the
c$use of the de$th of the victim could h$ve been $verted h$d the proper drug been
$pplied to cope with the symptoms of m$lign$nt hyperthermi$> 5lso? we c$nnot ignore
the f$ct th$t $n $ntidote w$s re$dily $v$il$ble to counter$ct wh$tever deleterious
effect the $n$esthesi$ might produce> 6hy these prec$ution$ry me$sures were
disreg$rded must be sufficiently expl$ined>HH> <2=B;,5 92(0) vs> =5,85;,,23 1>
,0;B,0;<24518:/ 2n Duly G@? CHJ" respondent ,unigundo received $ copy of the order
in the s$id c$se dismissing it on the grounds of l$ches $nd prior judgment> 2n
5ugust GG or the l$st d$y of the reglement$ry period within which to $ppe$l or file
$ motion for new tri$l he filed? through $n $ssoci$te? $ motion for $n extension of
fifteen d$ys or up to :eptember I within which to file $ motion for
reconsider$tion> 8he motion w$s gr$nted but ,unigundo w$s not $ble to file the
motion for reconsider$tion> Bnste$d? on the l$st d$y? :eptember I? he sent by
registered m$il $ motion for $ second extension of ten d$ys> 2n :eptember CI? the
l$st d$y of the second extension sought by him? he filed $ motion for $ third
extension of fortyEeight hours> 8he motion for reconsider$tion w$s m$iled on
:eptember CF? CHJ"? the l$st d$y of the third extension>8he tri$l court denied the
second $nd third motions for extension on the ground th$t the order of dismiss w$s
$lre$dy fin$l Bt $lso denied ,unigundoRs motion for reconsider$tion of the orders
denying his motions for extension> ,unigundo then filed in the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls $
petition for certior$ri $nd m$nd$mus wherein he $ss$iled the orders denying his
motions for extension> Ne pr$yed th$t the lower court be directed to resolve his
motion for reconsider$tion> 8he 1ourt of 5ppe$ls dismissed his petition .9oque vs>
1ourt of 4irst Bnst$nce? 15E,>9> ;o> :+E-""@C? ;ovember GJ? CHJK%> Bt $pplied the
ruling th$t the filing of $ motion for extension of the period to file the record
on $ppe$l does not suspend the period for $ppe$l> 2n :eptember I? CHJI? the spouses
<oming$ 9oque $nd Dose ,> O$pl$n two of the eight pl$intiffs in 1ivil 1$se ;o>
@FGIE=? filed in this 1ourt $ joint $ffid$vit ch$rging 5tty> ,unigundo with gross
negligence in not se$son$bly filing the motion for reconsider$tion $nd in not
perfecting $n $ppe$l from the tri$l courtRs order of dismiss$l>5fter the submission
of respondentRs $nswer? the c$se w$s referred to the :olicitor ,ener$l for
investig$tion? report $nd recommend$tion>Bn Dune CHJF or during the pendency of the
c$se in the :olicitor ,ener$lRs office? the compl$ining spouses m$de $ volteEf$cie>
8hey executed $n $ffid$vit of desist$nce before 5tty> 9os$rio 9> 9$p$nut? $ senior
$ttorney in the 1itizens 3eg$l 5ssist$nce 2ffice> 8hey $lleged th$t their compl$int
for disb$rment w$s due to $ misunderst$nding> 8hey $ffirmed th$t respondent
,unigundo w$s not negligent in h$ndling their c$se> B::0) 7)429) 8N) :1/ 6hether or
not the l$wyer? through his own f$ult? is li$ble for d$m$ges>:1 903B;,/ Bn this
c$se? h$d the respondent been more conscientious or experienced? he could h$ve
e$sily $voided the loss of his clientRs right to $ppe$l by filing the motion for
reconsider$tion within the thirtyEd$y period> Ne could h$ve even withdr$wn from the
c$se with his clientsR consent $nd required them to get $nother l$wyer to perfect
their $ppe$l>Nowever? the f$ct th$t the compl$ints $nd their six coEpl$intiffs lost
the right to $ppe$l would not necess$rily me$n th$t they were d$m$ged> 8he lower
courtRs order of dismiss$l h$s in its f$vor the presumption of v$lidity or
correctness> Bndeed? $n ex$min$tion of th$t order discloses th$t the tri$l court
p$inst$kingly studied the motion to dismiss $nd c$refully r$tion$lized its order>
Bf found th$t the $ction w$s filed more th$n forty ye$rs $fter the disputed l$nd
w$s registered in the n$me of defend$ntsR predecessorEinEinterest>6here $ judgment
bec$me fin$l through the f$ult of the l$wyer who did not $ppe$l therefrom? th$t
f$ct $lone is not $ sufficient ground for the losing p$rty to recover d$m$ges from
his l$wyer since the $ction for d$m$ges rests Won the unsubst$nti$ted $nd $rbitr$ry
supposition of the injustice of the decision which bec$me fin$l through the f$ult
$nd negligenceW of the l$wyer .Neridi$ vs> :$lin$s? C- +hil> CKJ? CIG> :ee
Lent$nill$ vs> 1enteno? CC- +hil> FCC? where the l$wyer who f$iled to perfect $n
$ppe$l w$s ordered to p$y his client two hundred pesos $s nomin$l d$m$ges%>Bn view
of the foregoing $nd considering compl$in$ntsR $ffid$vit of desist$nce in this
c$se? dr$stic disciplin$ry $ction $g$inst the respondent is not w$rr$nted> 7ut he
is $dmonished to exercise c$re $nd circumspection in $ttending to the $ff$irs of
his clients> 5 repetition of the s$me irregul$rity will be tre$ted with more
severity> 5 copy of this decision should be $tt$ched to respondentRs person$l
record>C--> 95A;)95vs> NB1)854518:/ 2n =$rch G@? CHFH? $t $bout G/-- in the
morning? 9eyn$ldo 9$yner$ w$s on his w$y home> Ne w$s riding $ motorcycle tr$veling
on the southbound l$ne of )$st :ervice 9o$d?
1up$ng? =untinlup$> 8he Bsuzu truck w$s tr$velling $he$d of him $t G- to @-
kilometers per hour> 8he truck w$s lo$ded with two .G% met$l sheets extended on
both sides? two .G% feet on the left $nd three .@% feet on the right> 8here were
two .G% p$irs of red lights? $bout @K w$tts e$ch? on both sides of the met$l
pl$tes> 8he $sph$lt ro$d w$s not well lighted>5t some point on the ro$d? 9eyn$ldo
9$yner$ cr$shed his motorcycle into the left re$r portion of the truck tr$iler?
which w$s without t$il lights> <ue to the collision? 9eyn$ldo sust$ined he$d
injuries $nd truck helper ,er$ldino <> 3ucelo rushed him to the +$r$ $que =edic$l
1enter> 0pon $rriv$l $t the hospit$l? the $ttending physici$n? <r> =$rivic 5guirre?
pronounced 9eyn$ldo 9$yner$ de$d on $rriv$l>2n =$y CG? CHFH? the heirs of the
dece$sed dem$nded from respondents p$yment of d$m$ges $rising from the de$th of
9eyn$ldo 9$yner$ $s $ result of the vehicul$r $ccident> 8he respondents refused to
p$y the cl$ims> 2n :eptember C@? CHFH? petitioners filed with the 9egion$l 8ri$l
1ourt? =$nil$ $ compl$int for d$m$ges $g$inst respondents owner $nd driver of the
Bsuzu truck> Bn their compl$int $g$inst respondents? petitioners sought recovery of
d$m$ges for the de$th of 9eyn$ldo 9$yner$ c$used by the negligent oper$tion of the
truckEtr$iler $t nighttime on the highw$y? without t$il lights>Bn their $nswer
filed on 5pril "? CHH-? respondents $lleged th$t the truck w$s tr$velling slowly on
the service ro$d? not p$rked improperly $t $ d$rk portion of the ro$d? with no t$il
lights? license pl$te $nd e$rly w$rning device>903B;,:/ 981/ 2n <ecember CH? CHHC?
the tri$l court rendered decision in f$vor of petitioners> Bt found respondents
4reddie Nicet$ $nd Dimmy 2rpill$ negligent in view of these circumst$nces/ .C% the
truck tr$iler h$d no license pl$te $nd t$il lightsS .G% there were only two p$irs
of red lights? K- w$tts e$ch? on both sides of the steel pl$tesS $nd .@% the truck
tr$iler w$s improperly p$rked in $ d$rk $re$>8he tri$l court held th$t respondents
negligence w$s the immedi$te $nd proxim$te c$use of 9eyn$ldo 9$yner$ s de$th? for
which they $re jointly $nd sever$lly li$ble to p$y d$m$ges to petitioners> 8he
tri$l court $lso held th$t the victim w$s himself negligent? $lthough this w$s
insufficient to overcome respondents negligence> 8he tri$l court $pplied the
doctrine of contributory negligence $nd reduced the responsibility of respondents
by G-Y on $ccount of the victim s own negligence>8he dispositive portion of the
lower court s decision re$ds $s follows/ 5ll things considered? the 1ourt is of the
opinion th$t it is f$ir $nd re$son$ble to fix the living $nd other expenses of the
dece$sed the sum of +K"?--->-- $ ye$r or $bout +"?K-->-- $ month .+CK->-- pXd% $nd
th$t? consequently? the loss or d$m$ge sust$ined by the pl$intiffs m$y be estim$ted
$t +C?IJ"?--->-- for the @C ye$rs of 9eyn$ldo 9$yner$ s life expect$ncy> 8$king
into $ccount the cooper$tive negligence of the dece$sed 9eyn$ldo 9$yner$? the 1ourt
believes th$t the dem$nd of subst$nti$l justice $re s$tisfied by $lloc$ting the
d$m$ges on F-EG- r$tio> 8hus? +C?@@J?G-->-- sh$ll be p$id by the defend$nts with
interest thereon? $t the leg$l r$te? from d$te of decision? $s d$m$ges for the loss
of e$rnings> 8o this sum? the following sh$ll be $dded/.$% +@@?"CG>--? $ctu$lly
spent for funer$l services? interment $nd memori$l lotS.b% +G-?--->-- $s $ttorney s
feesS.c% cost of suit> :2 29<)9)<> 15/ 5fter due proceedings? on 5pril GF? CHHK?
the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls rendered decision setting $side the $ppe$led decision> 8he
$ppell$te court held th$t 9eyn$ldo 9$yner$ s bumping into the left re$r portion of
the truck w$s the proxim$te c$use of his de$th? $nd consequently? $bsolved
respondents from li$bility>B::0): 7)429) 8N) :1/5> 6hether or not respondents were
negligent>7> 6hether such negligence w$s the proxim$te c$use of the de$th of
9eyn$ldo 9$yner$>:1 903B;,/ 8he 1ourt finds no re$son to disturb the f$ctu$l
findings of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls> ;egligence is the omission to do something which
$ re$son$ble m$n? guided by those consider$tions which ordin$rily regul$te the
conduct of hum$n $ff$irs? would do? or the doing of something? which $ prudent $nd
re$son$ble m$n would not do> +roxim$te c$use is th$t c$use? which? in n$tur$l $nd
continuous sequence? unbroken by $ny efficient intervening c$use? produces the
injury? $nd without which the result would not h$ve occurred> <uring the tri$l? it
w$s est$blished th$t the truck h$d no t$il lights> 8he photogr$phs t$ken of the
scene of the $ccident showed th$t there were no t$il lights or license pl$tes
inst$lled on the Bsuzu truck> Bnste$d? wh$t were inst$lled were two .G% p$irs of
lights on top of the steel pl$tes? $nd one .C% p$ir of lights in front of the
truck> 6ith reg$rd to the re$r of the truck? the photos t$ken $nd the sketch in the
spot report proved th$t there were no t$il lights><espite the $bsence of t$il
lights $nd license pl$te? respondents truck w$s visible in the highw$y> Bt w$s
tr$veling $t $ moder$te speed? $pproxim$tely G- to @- kilometers per hour> Bt used
the service ro$d? inste$d of the highw$y? bec$use the c$rgo they were h$uling posed
$ d$nger to p$ssing motorists> Bn compli$nce with the 3$nd 8r$nsport$tion 8r$ffic
1ode .9epublic 5ct ;o> "C@I% respondents inst$lled G p$irs of lights on top of the
steel pl$tes? $s the vehicle s c$rgo lo$d extended beyond the bed or body thereof>
6e find th$t the direct c$use of the $ccident w$s the negligence of the victim>
8r$veling behind the truck? he h$d the responsibility of $voiding bumping the
vehicle in front of him> Ne w$s in control of the situ$tion> Nis motorcycle w$s
equipped with he$dlights to en$ble him to see wh$t w$s in front of him> Ne w$s
tr$versing the service ro$d where the prescribed speed limit w$s less th$n th$t in
the highw$y>8r$ffic investig$tor 1pl> Lirgilio del =onte testified th$t two p$irs
of K-Ew$tts bulbs were on top of the steel pl$tes? which were visible from $
dist$nce of C-- meters> Lirgilio :$ntos $dmitted th$t from the tricycle where he
w$s on bo$rd? he s$w the truck $nd its c$rgo of iron pl$tes from $ dist$nce of ten
.C-% meters> Bn light of these circumst$nces? $n $ccident could h$ve been e$sily
$voided? unless the victim h$d been driving too f$st $nd did not exercise due c$re
$nd prudence dem$nded of him under the circumst$nces>Lirgilio :$ntos testimony
strengthened respondents defense th$t it w$s the victim who w$s reckless $nd
negligent in driving his motorcycle $t high speed> 8he tricycle where :$ntos w$s on
bo$rd w$s not much different from the victim s motorcycle th$t figured in the
$ccident> 5lthough :$ntos cl$imed the tricycle $lmost bumped into the improperly
p$rked truck? the tricycle driver w$s $ble to $void hitting the truck>Bt h$s been
s$id th$t drivers of vehicles who bump the re$r of $nother vehicle $re presumed
to be the c$use of the $ccident? unless contr$dicted by other evidence > 8he
r$tion$le behind the presumption is th$t the driver of the re$r vehicle h$s full
control of the situ$tion $s he is in $ position to observe the vehicle in front of
him>6e $gree with the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls th$t the responsibility to $void the
collision with the front vehicle lies with the driver of the re$r vehicle>
1onsequently? no other person w$s to bl$me but the victim himself since he w$s the
one who bumped his motorcycle into the re$r of the Bsuzu truck> Ne h$d the l$st
cle$r ch$nce of $voiding the $ccident>6N)9)429)? we <);A the petition for review on
certior$ri $nd 544B9= the decision of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls in 15E,> 9> 1L ;o>
@KFHK? dismissing the $mended compl$int in 1ivil 1$se ;o> FHEK-@KK? 9egion$l 8ri$l
1ourt? 7r$nch "K? =$nil$>;o costs> :2 29<)9)<>C-C> +3<8 vs> 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/
8his c$se h$d its inception in $n $ction for d$m$ges instituted in the former 1ourt
of 4irst Bnst$nce of ;egros 2ccident$l by priv$te respondent spouses $g$inst
petitioner +hilippine 3ong <ist$nce 8elephone 1omp$ny .+3<8? for brevity% for the
injuries they sust$ined in the evening of Duly @-? CHIF when their jeep r$n over $
mound of e$rth $nd fell into $n open trench? $n exc$v$tion $llegedly undert$ken by
+3<8 for the inst$ll$tion of its underground conduit system> 8he compl$int $lleged
th$t respondent 5ntonio )steb$n f$iled to notice the open trench which w$s left
uncovered bec$use of the creeping d$rkness $nd the l$ck of $ny w$rning light or
signs> 5s $ result of the $ccident? respondent ,lori$ )steb$n $llegedly sust$ined
injuries on her $rms? legs $nd f$ce? le$ving $ perm$nent sc$r on her cheek? while
the respondent husb$nd suffered cut lips> Bn $ddition? the windshield of the jeep
w$s sh$ttered>+3<8? in its $nswer? denies li$bility on the contention th$t the
injuries sust$ined by respondent spouses were the result of their own negligence
$nd th$t the entity which should be held responsible? if $t $ll? is 3>9> 7$rte $nd
1omp$ny .7$rte? for short%? $n independent contr$ctor which undertook the
construction of the m$nhole $nd the conduit system> 5ccordingly? +3<8 filed $
thirdEp$rty compl$int $g$inst 7$rte $lleging th$t? under the terms of their
$greement? +3<8 should in no m$nner be $nswer$ble for $ny $ccident or injuries
$rising from the negligence or c$relessness of 7$rte or $ny of its employees> Bn
$nswer thereto? 7$rte cl$imed th$t it w$s not $w$re nor w$s it notified of the
$ccident involving respondent spouses $nd th$t it h$d complied with the terms of
its contr$ct with +3<8 by inst$lling the necess$ry $nd $ppropri$te st$nd$rd signs
in the vicinity of the work site? with b$rric$des $t both ends of the exc$v$tion
$nd with red lights $t night $long the exc$v$ted $re$ to w$rn the tr$veling public
of the presence of exc$v$tions> 903B;,:/ 981/2n 2ctober C? CHJ"?
the tri$l court rendered $ decision in f$vor of priv$te respondents? the decret$l
p$rt of which re$ds/B; LB)6 24 8N) 429),2B;, consider$tions the defend$nt
+hilippine 3ong <ist$nce 8elephone 1omp$ny is hereby ordered .5% to p$y the
pl$intiff ,lori$ )steb$n the sum of +G-?--->-- $s mor$l d$m$ges $nd +K?--->--
exempl$ry d$m$gesS to pl$intiff 5ntonio )steb$n the sum of +G?--->-- $s mor$l
d$m$ges $nd +K-->-- $s exempl$ry d$m$ges? with leg$l r$te of interest from the d$te
of the filing of the compl$int until fully p$id> 8he defend$nt is hereby ordered to
p$y the pl$intiff the sum of +@?--->-- $s $ttorneyRs fees>.7% 8he thirdEp$rty
defend$nt is hereby ordered to reimburse wh$tever $mount the defend$ntEthird p$rty
pl$intiff h$s p$id to the pl$intiff> 6ith costs $g$inst the defend$nt>15/ 2n
:eptember GK? CHJH? the :peci$l :econd <ivision of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls rendered $
decision in s$id $ppe$led c$se? with Dustice 1or$zon Duli$no 5gr$v$ $s ponente?
reversing the decision of the lower court $nd dismissing the compl$int of
respondent spouses> Bt held th$t respondent )steb$n spouses were negligent $nd
consequently $bsolved petitioner +3<8 from the cl$im for d$m$ges>B::0): 7)429) 8N)
:1/ 6hether or not the $ccident which befell priv$te respondents w$s due to the
l$ck of diligence of respondent 5ntonio )steb$n $nd not imput$ble to negligent
omission on the p$rt of petitioner +3<8>:1 903B;,/ :uch findings were re$ched $fter
$n exh$ustive $ssessment $nd ev$lu$tion of the evidence on record? $s evidenced by
the respondent courtRs resolution of D$nu$ry G"? CHF- which we quote with $pprov$l/
4irst> +l$intiffRs jeep w$s running $long the inside l$ne of 3$cson :treet> Bf it
h$d rem$ined on th$t inside l$ne? it would not h$ve hit the 511B<);8 =20;<>)xhibit
7 shows? through the tirem$rks? th$t the 511B<);8 =20;< w$s hit by the jeep
swerving from the left th$t is? swerving from the inside l$ne> 6h$t c$used the
swerving is not disclosedS but? $s the c$use of the $ccident? defend$nt c$nnot be
m$de li$ble for the d$m$ges suffered by pl$intiffs> 8he $ccident w$s not due to the
$bsence of w$rning signs? but to the unexpl$ined $brupt swerving of the jeep from
the inside l$ne> 8h$t m$y expl$in pl$intiffEhusb$ndRs insistence th$t he did not
see the 511B<);8 =20;< for which re$son he r$n into it>:econd> 8h$t pl$intiffRs
jeep w$s on the inside l$ne before it swerved to hit the 511B<);8 =20;< could h$ve
been corrobor$ted by $ picture showing 3$cson :treet to the south of the 511B<);8
=20;<>Bt h$s been st$ted th$t the ditches $long 3$cson :treet h$d $lre$dy been
covered except the @ or " meters where the 511B<);8 =20;< w$s loc$ted> )xhibit 7EC
shows th$t the ditches on 3$cson :treet north of the 511B<);8 =20;< h$d $lre$dy
been covered? but not in such $ w$y $s to $llow the outer l$ne to be freely $nd
conveniently p$ss$ble to vehicles> 8he situ$tion could h$ve been worse to the south
of the 511B<);8 =20;< for which re$son no picture of the 511B<);8 =20;< f$cing
south w$s t$ken>8hird> +l$intiffRs jeep w$s not running $t GK kilometers $n hour $s
pl$intiffEhusb$nd cl$imed> 5t th$t speed? he could h$ve br$ked the vehicle the
moment it struck the 511B<);8 =20;<> 8he jeep would not h$ve climbed the 511B<);8
=20;< sever$l feet $s indic$ted by the tirem$rks in )xhibit 7> 8he jeep must h$ve
been running quite f$st> Bf the jeep h$d been br$ked $t GK kilometers $n hour?
pl$intiffRs would not h$ve been thrown $g$inst the windshield $nd they would not
h$ve suffered their injuries>4ourth> Bf the $ccident did not h$ppen bec$use the
jeep w$s running quite f$st on the inside l$ne $nd for some re$son or other it h$d
to swerve suddenly to the right $nd h$d to climb over the 511B<);8 =20;<? then
pl$intiffEhusb$nd h$d not exercised the diligence of $ good f$ther of $ f$mily to
$void the $ccident> 6ith the drizzle? he should not h$ve run on dim lights? but
should h$ve put on his regul$r lights which should h$ve m$de him see the 511B<);8
=20;< in time> Bf he w$s running on the outside l$ne $t GK kilometers $n hour? even
on dim lights? his f$ilure to see the 511B<);8 =20;< in time to br$ke the c$r w$s
negligence on his p$rt> 8he 511B<);8 =20;< w$s rel$tively big $nd visible? being G
to @ feet high $nd CECXG feet wide> Bf he did not see the 511B<);8 =20;< in time?
he would not h$ve seen $ny w$rning sign either> Ne knew of the existence $nd
loc$tion of the 511B<);8 =20;<? h$ving seen it m$ny previous times> 6ith ordin$ry
prec$ution? he should h$ve driven his jeep on the night of the $ccident so $s to
$void hitting the 511B<);8 =20;<> 8he $bove findings cle$rly show th$t the
negligence of respondent 5ntonio )steb$n w$s not only contributory to his injuries
$nd those of his wife but goes to the very c$use of the occurrence of the $ccident?
$s one of its determining f$ctors? $nd thereby precludes their right to recover
d$m$ges> 8he perils of the ro$d were known to? hence $ppreci$ted $nd $ssumed by?
priv$te respondents> 7y exercising re$son$ble c$re $nd prudence? respondent 5ntonio
)steb$n could h$ve $voided the injurious consequences of his $ct? even $ssuming
$rguendo th$t there w$s some $lleged negligence on the p$rt of petitioner>8he
presence of w$rning signs could not h$ve completely prevented the $ccidentS the
only purpose of s$id signs w$s to inform $nd w$rn the public of the presence of
exc$v$tions on the site> 8he priv$te respondents $lre$dy knew of the presence of
s$id exc$v$tions> Bt w$s not the l$ck of knowledge of these exc$v$tions which
c$used the jeep of respondents to f$ll into the exc$v$tion but the unexpl$ined
sudden swerving of the jeep from the inside l$ne tow$rds the $ccident mound> 5s
opined in some qu$rters? the omission to perform $ duty? such $s the pl$cing of
w$rning signs on the site of the exc$v$tion? constitutes the proxim$te c$use only
when the doing of the s$id omitted $ct would h$ve prevented the injury> Bt is b$sic
th$t priv$te respondents c$nnot ch$rge +3<8 for their injuries where their own
f$ilure to exercise due $nd re$son$ble c$re w$s the c$use thereof> Bt is both $
societ$l norm $nd necessity th$t one should exercise $ re$son$ble degree of c$ution
for his own protection> 4urthermore? respondent 5ntonio )steb$n h$d the l$st cle$r
ch$nce or opportunity to $void the $ccident? notwithst$nding the negligence he
imputes to petitioner +3<8> 5s $ resident of 3$cson :treet? he p$ssed on th$t
street $lmost everyd$y $nd h$d knowledge of the presence $nd loc$tion of the
exc$v$tions there> Bt w$s his negligence th$t exposed him $nd his wife to d$nger?
hence he is solely responsible for the consequences of his imprudence>=oreover? we
$lso sust$in the findings of respondent 1ourt of 5ppe$ls in its origin$l decision
th$t there w$s insufficient evidence to prove $ny negligence on the p$rt of +3<8>
6e h$ve for consider$tion only the selfEserving testimony of respondent 5ntonio
)steb$n $nd the unverified photogr$ph of merely $ portion of the scene of the
$ccident> 8he $bsence of $ police report of the incident $nd the nonEsubmission of
$ medic$l report from the hospit$l where priv$te respondents were $llegedly tre$ted
h$ve not even been s$tisf$ctorily expl$ined>5s $ptly observed by respondent court
in its $forecited extended resolution of D$nu$ry G"? CHF- .$% 8here w$s no third
p$rty eyewitness of the $ccident> 5s to how the $ccident occurred? the 1ourt c$n
only rely on the testimoni$l evidence of pl$intiffs themselves? $nd such evidence
should be very c$refully ev$lu$ted? with defend$nt? $s the p$rty being ch$rged?
being given the benefit of $ny doubt> <efinitely without $scribing the s$me
motiv$tion to pl$intiffs? $nother person could h$ve deliber$tely engineered $
simil$r $ccident in the hope $nd expect$tion th$t the 1ourt c$n gr$nt him
subst$nti$l mor$l $nd exempl$ry d$m$ges from the big corpor$tion th$t defend$nt is>
8he st$tement is m$de only to stress the dis$dv$nt$geous position of defend$nt
which would h$ve extreme difficulty in contesting such personRs cl$im> Bf there
were no witness or record $v$il$ble from the police dep$rtment of 7$colod?
defend$nt would not be $ble to determine for itself which of the conflicting
testimonies of pl$intiffs is correct $s to the report or nonEreport of the $ccident
to the police dep$rtment> 5 person cl$iming d$m$ges for the negligence of $nother
h$s the burden of proving the existence of such f$ult or negligence c$us$tive
thereof> 8he f$cts constitutive of negligence must be $ffirm$tively est$blished by
competent evidence> 6hosoever relies on negligence for his c$use of $ction h$s the
burden in the first inst$nce of proving the existence of the s$me if contested?
otherwise his $ction must f$il>6N)9)429)? the resolutions of respondent 1ourt of
5ppe$ls? d$ted =$rch CC? CHF- $nd :eptember @?CHF-? $re hereby :)8 5:B<)> Bts
origin$l decision? promulg$ted on :eptember GK?CHJH? is hereby 9)B;:858)< $nd
544B9=)<>:2 29<)9)<>C-G> MB= vs> +NB3B++B;) 5)9B53 85PB 12>4518:/ 2n the =orning of
:eptember "? CH@C? the pl$intiff herein bought? in =$nil$? $ p$ssenger ticket for $
flight to Bloilo in one of the defend$nt comp$nyRs hydropl$nes st$rting from
=$drig$l 4ield in +$s$y> Bn$smuch $s the engine of the pl$ne =$buh$y? in which he
w$s to t$ke the flight? w$s not working s$tisf$ctorily? the s$id pl$intiff h$d to
w$it for some time> 6hile the engine w$s being tested? the pl$intiff s$w how it w$s
st$rted by turning the propeller repe$tedly $nd how the m$n who did it r$n $w$y
from it e$ch time in order not to be c$ught by the s$id propeller> 7efore the pl$ne
=$buh$y w$s put in condition for the flight? the pl$ne 8$$l $rrived $nd it w$s
decided to h$ve the pl$intiff m$ke the flight therein> 8he pl$intiff $nd his
comp$nion were c$refully c$rried from the be$ch to the pl$ne? entering the s$me by
the re$r or t$il end?
$nd were pl$ced in their se$ts to which they were str$pped> 3$ter? they were shown
how the str$ps could be tightened or loosened in c$se of $ccident $nd were
instructed further not to touch $nything in the pl$ne> 5fter $n uneventful flight?
the pl$ne l$nded on the w$ters of ,uim$r$s :tr$it? in front of Bloilo? $nd t$xied
tow$rd the be$ch until its pontoons struck bottom? when the pl$ne stopped> the
pilot shut off the g$soline feed pipe? permitting the engine? however? to continue
to function until $ll the g$soline w$s dr$ined from the feed pipe $nd c$rburetor>
8his oper$tion w$s necess$ry in $ccord$nce with the est$blished pr$ctice of
$vi$tion in order to $void d$nger of fire which would exist if the pipes $nd
c$rburetor rem$ined full of g$soline? $nd to prevent the sudden cooling of the
engine which might c$use serious d$m$ge? especi$lly to the v$lves>6h$t re$lly
h$ppened w$s th$t $t the moment the pontoons touched bottom $nd while the pilot w$s
sign$lling to the b$nc$? the pl$intiff unf$stened the str$ps $round him $nd? not
even w$iting to put on his h$t? climbed over the door to the lower wing? went down
the l$dder to the pontoon $nd w$lked $long the pontoon tow$rd the revolving
propeller> 8he propellerfirst gr$zed his forehe$d $nd? $s he threw up his $rm? it
w$s c$ught by the revolving bl$des thereof $nd so injured th$t it h$d be $mput$ted>
B::0) 7)429) 8N) :1/ 6hether or not the defend$nt entity h$s complied with its
contr$ctu$l oblig$tion to c$rry the pl$intiffE$ppell$nt 8eh 3e Mim s$fe $nd sound
to his destin$tion>:1 903B;,/ 8he contr$ct entered into by the pl$intiff 8eh 3e Mim
$nd the defend$nt entity +hilippine 5eri$l 8$xi 1o>? Bnc>? w$s th$t upon p$yment of
the price of the p$ss$ge? which the c$rrier h$d received? the l$tter would c$rry
the former by $ir in one of its hydropl$nes $nd put him? s$fe $nd sound? on the
be$ch $t Bloilo> 5fter $n uneventful flight? the hydropl$ne? which c$rried the
pl$intiff $nd his comp$nion? $rrived $t the Bloilo be$ch? $s usu$l? with nothing
more left to do but to t$ke the pl$intiff $nd his comp$nion? s$fe $nd sound?
$shore> Bn order to do this? it w$s necess$ry to w$it for the propeller to stop?
turn the re$r or t$il end of the pl$ne tow$rds the shore? t$ke the p$ssengers out
by the $fores$id re$r or t$il end thereof? pl$ce them in $ b$nc$ $nd t$ke them
$shore> 7y sheer common sense? the pl$intiff ought to know th$t $ propeller? be it
th$t of $ ship or of $n $eropl$ne? is d$ngerous while in motion $nd th$t to
$ppro$ch it is to run the risk of being c$ught $nd injured thereby> Ne ought to
know furthermore th$t in$smuch $s the pl$ne w$s on the w$ter? he h$d to w$it for $
b$nc$ to t$ke him $shore> ;otwithst$nding the shouts $nd w$rning sign$ls given him
from the shore by the represent$tives of the consignee firm? the pl$intiff herein?
not being $ m$n of ordin$ry prudence? h$stily left the c$bin of the pl$ne? w$lked
$long one of the pontoons $nd directly into the revolving propeller? while the
b$nc$ which w$s to t$ke him $shore w$s still some dist$nce $w$y $nd the pilot w$s
instructing the bo$tm$n to keep it $t $ s$fe dist$nce from the pl$ne> 0nder such
circumst$nces? it is not difficult to underst$nd th$t the pl$intiffE$ppell$nt $cted
with reckless negligence in $ppro$ching the propeller while it w$s still in motion?
$nd when the b$nc$ w$s not yet in $ position to t$ke him> 8h$t the pl$intiffE
$ppell$ntRs negligence $lone w$s the direct c$use of the $ccident? is so cle$r th$t
it is not necess$ry to cite $uthorit$tive opinions to support the conclusion th$t
the injury to his right $rm $nd the subsequent $mput$tion thereof were due entirely
$nd exclusively to his own imprudence $nd not to the slightest negligence
$ttribut$ble to the defend$nt entity or to its $gents> 8herefore? he $lone should
suffer the consequences of his $ct>6herefore? not finding $ny error in the judgment
$ppe$led from? it is hereby $ffirmed in toto? with the costs $g$inst the $ppell$nt>
:o ordered>C-@> +NB3B++B;) 12==)91B53 B;8)9;58B2;53 75;M vs> 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/
8hese consolid$ted petitions involve sever$l fr$udulently negoti$ted checks>8he
origin$l $ctions $ quo were instituted by 4ord +hilippines to recover from the
dr$wee b$nk? 1B8B75;M? ;>5> .1itib$nk% $nd collecting b$nk? +hilippine 1ommerci$l
Bntern$tion$l 7$nk .+1B7$nk% Tformerly Bnsul$r 7$nk of 5si$ $nd 5meric$*? the v$lue
of sever$l checks p$y$ble to the 1ommissioner of Bntern$l 9evenue? which were
embezzled $llegedly by $n org$nized syndic$te>2n 2ctober CH? CHJJ? the pl$intiff
4ord drew $nd issued its 1itib$nk 1heck ;o> :;E-"FIJ in the $mount of
+"?J"I?CC">"C? in f$vor of the 1ommissioner of Bntern$l 9evenue $s p$yment of
pl$intiffs percent$ge or m$nuf$cturerRs s$les t$xes for the third qu$rter of CHJJ>
8he $fores$id check w$s deposited with the degend$nt B755 .now +1B7$nk% $nd w$s
subsequently cle$red $t the 1entr$l 7$nk> 0pon presentment with the defend$nt
1itib$nk? the proceeds of the check w$s p$id to B755 $s collecting or depository
b$nk> 8he proceeds of the s$me 1itib$nk check of the pl$intiff w$s never p$id to or
received by the p$yee thereof? the 1ommissioner of Bntern$l 9evenue>5s $
consequence? upon dem$nd of the 7ure$u $ndXor 1ommissioner of Bntern$l 9evenue? the
pl$intiff w$s compelled to m$ke $ second p$yment to the 7ure$u of Bntern$l 9evenue
of its percent$geXm$nuf$cturersR s$les t$xes for the third qu$rter of CHJJ $nd th$t
s$id second p$yment of pl$intiff in the $mount of +"?J"I?CC">"C w$s duly received
by the 7ure$u of Bntern$l 9evenue> Bt h$s been duly est$blished th$t for the
p$yment of pl$intiffRs percent$ge t$x for the l$st qu$rter of CHJJ? the 7ure$u of
Bntern$l 9evenue issued 9evenue 8$x 9eceipt ;o> CFJ"J--G? d$ted 2ctober G-? CHJJ?
design$ting therein in =untinlup$? =etro =$nil$? $s the $uthorized $gent b$nk of
=etrob$nl? 5l$b$ng br$nch to receive the t$x p$yment of the pl$intiff>2n <ecember
CH? CHJJ? pl$intiffRs 1itib$nk 1heck ;o> :;E-"FIJ? together with the 9evenue 8$x
9eceipt ;o> CFJ"J--G? w$s deposited with defend$nt B755? through its )rmit$ 7r$nch>
8he l$tter $ccepted the check $nd sent it to the 1entr$l 1le$ring Nouse for
cle$ring on the s$md d$y? with the indorsement $t the b$ck W$ll prior indorsements
$ndXor l$ck of indorsements gu$r$nteed>W 8here$fter? defend$nt B755 presented the
check for p$yment to defend$nt 1itib$nk on s$me d$te? <ecember CH? CHJJ? $nd the
l$tter p$id the f$ce v$lue of the check in the $mount of +"?J"I?CC">"C>
1onsequently? the $mount of +"?J"I?CC">"C w$s debited in pl$intiffRs $ccount with
the defend$nt 1itib$nk $nd the check w$s returned to the pl$intiff>Bn $ letter
d$ted 4ebru$ry GF? CHF- by the 5cting 1ommissioner of Bntern$l 9evenue $ddressed to
the pl$intiff Esupposed to be )xhibit W<W? the l$tter w$s offici$lly informed?
$mong others? th$t its check in the $mount of +"? J"I?CC">"C w$s not p$id to the
government or its $uthorized $gent $nd inste$d enc$shed by un$uthorized persons?
hence? pl$intiff h$s to p$y the s$id $mount within fifteen d$ys from receipt of the
letter> 0pon $dvice of the pl$intiffRs l$wyers? pl$intiff on =$rch CC? CHFG? p$id
to the 7ure$u of Bntern$l 9evenue? the $mount of +"?J"I?CC">"C? representing
p$yment of pl$intiffRs percent$ge t$x for the third qu$rter of CHJJ> 5s $
consequence of defend$ntRs refus$l to reimburse pl$intiff of the p$yment it h$d
m$de for the second time to the 7B9 of its percent$ge t$xes? pl$intiff filed on
D$nu$ry G-? CHF@ its origin$l compl$int before this 1ourt>2n <ecember G"? CHFK?
defend$nt B755 w$s merged with the +hilippine 1ommerci$l Bntern$tion$l 7$nk .+1B
7$nk% with the l$tter $s the surviving entity><efend$nt 1itib$nk m$int$ins th$t/
the p$yment it m$de of pl$intiffRs 1itib$nk 1heck ;o> :;E-"FIJ in the $mount of
+"?J"I?CC">"C Ww$s in due courseW? it merely relied on the cle$ring st$mp of the
depositoryXcollecting b$nk? the defend$nt B755 th$t W$ll prior indorsements $ndXor
l$ck of indorsements gu$r$nteedW? $nd the proxim$te c$use of pl$intiffRs injury is
the gross negligence of defend$nt B755 in indorsing the pl$intiffRs 1itib$nk check
in question>Bt is $dmitted th$t on <ecember CH? CHJJ when the proceeds of
pl$intiffRs 1itib$nk 1heck ;o> :;E-"FFIJ w$s p$id to defend$nt B755 $s collecting
b$nk? pl$intiff w$s m$int$ining $ checking $ccount with defend$nt 1itib$nk>5lthough
it w$s not $mong the stipul$ted f$cts? $n investig$tion by the ;$tion$l 7ure$u of
Bnvestig$tion .;7B% reve$led th$t 1itib$nk 1heck ;o> :;E-"FIJ w$s rec$lled by
,odofredo 9iver$? the ,ener$l 3edger 5ccount$nt of 4ord> Ne purportedly needed to
hold b$ck the check bec$use there w$s $n error in the comput$tion of the t$x due to
the 7ure$u of Bntern$l 9evenue .7B9%> 6ith 9iver$Rs instruction? +1B7$nk repl$ced
the check with two of its own =$n$gerRs 1hecks .=1s%> 5lleged members of $
syndic$te l$ter deposited the two =1s with the +$cific 7$nking 1orpor$tion>4ord?
with le$ve of court? filed $ thirdEp$rty compl$int before the tri$l court
imple$ding +$cific 7$nking 1orpor$tion .+71% $nd ,odofredo 9iver$? $s third p$rty
defend$nts> 7ut the court dismissed the compl$int $g$inst +71 for l$ck of c$use of
$ction> 8he course likewise dismissed the thirdEp$rty compl$int $g$inst ,odofredo
9iver$ bec$use he could not be served with summons $s the ;7B decl$red him $s $
Wfugitive from justice >903B;,:/ 981/2n Dune CK? CHFH? the tri$l court rendered its
decision? $s follows/W+remises considered? judgment is hereby rendered $s follows/
WC> 2rdering the defend$nts 1itib$nk $nd B755 .now +1B 7$nk%? jointly $nd
sever$lly? to p$y the pl$intiff the $mount of +"?J"I?CC">"C representing the f$ce
v$lue of pl$intiffRs 1itib$nk 1heck ;o> :;E-"FIJ? with interest thereon $t the
leg$l r$te st$rting D$nu$ry G-? CHF@? the d$te when the origin$l compl$int w$s
filed until the $mount is
fully p$id? plus costsSWG> 2n defend$nt 1itib$nkRs crossEcl$im/ ordering the
crossEdefend$nt B755 .now +1B 7$nk% to reimburse defend$nt 1itib$nk for wh$tever
$mount the l$tter h$s p$id or m$y p$y to the pl$intiff in $ccord$nce with next
preceding p$r$gr$phSW@> 8he countercl$ims $sserted by the defend$nts $g$inst the
pl$intiff? $s well $s th$t $sserted by the crossEdefend$nt $g$inst the crossE
cl$im$nt $re dismissed? for l$ck of meritsS $ndW"> 6ith costs $g$inst the
defend$nts>:2 29<)9)<>W15/2n =$rch GJ? CHHK? the $ppell$te court issued its
judgment $s follows/W6N)9)429)? in view of the foregoing? the court 544B9=: the
$ppe$led decision with modific$tions>8he court hereby renderes judgment/C>
<ismissing the compl$int in 1ivil 1$se ;o> "HGFJ insof$r $s defend$nt 1itib$nk ;>5>
is concernedSG> 2rdering the defend$nt B755 now +1B 7$nk to p$y the pl$intiff the
$mount of +"?J"I?CC">"C representing the f$ce v$lue of pl$intiffRs 1itib$nk 1heck
;o> :;E-"FIJ? with interest thereon $t the leg$l r$te st$rting D$nu$ry G-? CHF@?
the d$te when the origin$l compl$int w$s filed until the $mount is fully p$idS@>
<ismissing the countercl$ims $sserted by the defend$nts $g$inst the pl$intiff $s
well $s th$t $sserted by the crossEdefend$nt $g$inst the crossEcl$im$nt? for l$ck
of merits>1osts $g$inst the defend$nt B755 .now +1B 7$nk%>B8 B: :2 29<)9)<>WB::0)
7)429) 8N) :1/ 6hether or not the the collecting b$nkRs negligence is the proxim$te
c$use of the loss it incurred> :1 903B;,/ 1itib$nk 1heck ;o> :;E-"FIJ w$s deposited
$t +1B7$nk through its )rmit$ 7r$nch> Bt w$s coursed through the ordin$ry b$nking
tr$ns$ction? sent to 1entr$l 1le$ring with the indorsement $t the b$ck W$ll prior
indorsements $ndXor l$ck of indorsements gu$r$nteed?W $nd w$s presented to 1itib$nk
for p$yment> 8here$fter +1B7$nk? inste$d of remitting the proceeds to the 1B9?
prep$red two of its =$n$gerRs checks $nd en$bled the syndic$te to enc$sh the s$me>
2n record? +1B7$nk f$iled to verify the $uthority of =r> 9iver$ to negoti$te the
checks> 8he neglect of +1B7$nk employees to verify whether his letter requesting
for the repl$cement of the 1itib$nk 1heck ;o> :;E-"FIJ w$s duly $uthorized? showed
l$ck of c$re $nd prudence required in the circumst$nces>4urthermore? it w$s
$dmitted th$t +1B7$nk is $uthorized to collect the p$yment of t$xp$yers in beh$lf
of the 7B9> 5s $n $gent of 7B9? +1B7$nk is duty bound to consult its princip$l
reg$rding the unw$rr$nted instructions given by the p$yor or its $gent> 5s $ptly
st$ted by the tri$l court? to wit/Wxxx> :ince the questioned crossed check w$s
deposited with B755 Tnow +1B7$nk*? which cl$imed to be $ depositoryXcollecting b$nk
of 7B9? it h$s the responsibility to m$ke sure th$t the check in question is
deposited in +$yeeRs $ccount only>5s $gent of the 7B9 .the p$yee of the check%?
defend$nt B755 should receive instructions only from its princip$l 7B9 $nd not from
$ny other person especi$lly so when th$t person is not known to the defend$nt> Bt
is very imprudent on the p$rt of the defend$nt B755 to just rely on the $lleged
telephone c$ll of the one ,odofredo 9iver$ $nd in his sign$ture considering th$t
the pl$intiff is not $ client of the defend$nt B755>WBt is $ wellEsettled rule th$t
the rel$tionship between the p$yee or holder of commerci$l p$per $nd the b$nk to
which it is sent for collection is? in the $bsence of $n $rgreement to the
contr$ry? th$t of princip$l $nd $gent>GG 5 b$nk which receives such p$per for
collection is the $gent of the p$yee or holder>G@)ven considering $rguendo? th$t
the diversion of the $mount of $ check p$y$ble to the collecting b$nk in beh$lf of
the design$ted p$yee m$y be $llowed? still such diversion must be properly
$uthorized by the p$yor> 2therwise st$ted? the diversion c$n be justified only by
proof of $uthority from the dr$wer? or th$t the dr$wer h$s clothed his $gent with
$pp$rent $uthority to receive the proceeds of such check>1itib$nk further $rgues
th$t +1B 7$nkRs cle$ring st$mp $ppe$ring $t the b$ck of the questioned checks
st$ting th$t 533 +9B29 B;<29:)=);8: 5;<X29 351M 24 B;<29:)=);8: ,095;8))< should
render +1B7$nk li$ble bec$use it m$de it p$ss through the cle$ring house $nd
therefore 1itib$nk h$d no other option but to p$y it> 8hus? 1itib$nk h$d no other
option but to p$y it> 8hus? 1itib$nk $ssets th$t the proxim$te c$use of 4ordRs
injury is the gross negligence of +1B7$nk> :ince the questione dcrossed check w$s
deposited with +1B7$nk? which cl$imed to be $ depositoryXcollecting b$nk of the
7B9? it h$d the responsibility to m$ke sure th$t the check in questions is
deposited in +$yeeRs $ccount only>Bndeed? the crossing of the check with the phr$se
W+$yeeRs 5ccount 2nly?W is $ w$rning th$t the check should be deposited only in the
$ccount of the 1B9> 8hus? it is the duty of the collecting b$nk +1B7$nk to
$scert$in th$t the check be deposited in p$yeeRs $ccount only> 8herefore? it is the
collecting b$nk .+1B7$nk% which is bound to scruninize the check $nd to know its
depositors before it could m$ke the cle$ring indorsement W$ll prior indorsements
$ndXor l$ck of indorsement gu$r$nteedW>Bn 7$nco de 2ro :$vings $nd =ortg$ge 7$nk
vs> )quit$ble 7$nking 1orpor$tion?G" we ruled/W5nent petitionerRs li$bility on s$id
instruments? this court is in full $ccord with the ruling of the +1N1Rs 7o$rd of
<irectors th$t/RBn presenting the checks for cle$ring $nd for p$yment? the
defend$nt m$de $n express gu$r$ntee on the v$lidity of W$ll prior endorsements>W
8hus? st$mped $t the b$ck of the checks $re the defed$ntRs cle$r w$rr$nty/ 533
+9B29 );<29:)=);8: 5;<X29 351M 24 );<29:)=);8: ,0595;8))<> 6ithout such w$rr$nty?
pl$intiff would not h$ve p$id on the checks>R;o $mount of leg$l j$rgon c$n reverse
the cle$r me$ning of defend$ntRs w$rr$nty> 5s the w$rr$nty h$s proven to be f$lse
$nd in$ccur$te? the defend$nt is li$ble for $ny d$m$ge $rising out of the f$lsity
of its represent$tion>W3$stly? b$nking business requires th$t the one who first
c$shes $nd negoti$tes the check must t$ke some perc$utions to le$rn whether or not
it is genuine> 5nd if the one c$shing the check through indifference or othe
circumst$nce $ssists the forger in committing the fr$ud? he should not be permitted
to ret$in the proceeds of the check from the dr$wee whose sole f$ult w$s th$t it
did not discover the forgery or the defect in the title of the person negoti$ting
the instrument before p$ying the check> 4or this re$son? $ b$nk which c$shes $
check dr$wn upon $nother b$nk? without requiring proof $s to the identity of
persons presenting it? or m$king inquiries with reg$rd to them? c$nnot hold the
proceeds $g$inst the dr$wee when the proceeds of the checks were $fterw$rds
diverted to the h$nds of $ third p$rty> Bn such c$ses the dr$wee b$nk h$s $ right
to believe th$t the c$shing b$nk .or the collecting b$nk% h$d? by the usu$l proper
investig$tion? s$tisfied itself of the $uthenticity of the negoti$tion of the
checks> 8hus? one who enc$shed $ check which h$d been forged or diverted $nd in
turn received p$yment thereon from the dr$wee? is guilty of negligence which
proxim$tely contributed to the success of the fr$ud pr$cticed on the dr$wee b$nk>
8he l$tter m$y recover from the holderthe money p$id on the check>N$ving
est$blished th$t the collecting b$nkRs negligence is the proxim$te c$use of the
loss? we conclude th$t +1B7$nk is li$ble in the $mount corresponding to the
proceeds of 1itib$nk 1heck ;o> :;E-"FIJ>6N)9)429)? the $ss$iled <ecision $nd
9esolution of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls in 15E,>9> 1L ;o> GK-CJ $re 544B9=)<> +1B7$nk?
know formerly $s Bnsul$r 7$nk of 5si$ $nd 5meric$? is decl$red solely responsible
for the loss of the proceeds of 1itib$nk 1heck ;o :; -"FIJ in the $mount
+"?J"I?CC">"C? which sh$ll be p$id together with six percent .IY% interest thereon
to 4ord +hilippines Bnc> from the d$te when the origin$l compl$int w$s filed until
s$id $mount is fully p$id>Nowever? the <ecision $nd 9esolution of the 1ourt of
5ppe$ls in 15E,>9> ;o> GF"@- $re =2<B4B)< $s follows/ +1B7$nk $nd 1itib$nk $re
$djudged li$ble for $nd must sh$re the loss? .concerning the proceeds of 1itib$nk
1heck ;umbers :; C-KHJ $nd CIK-F tot$lling +CG?CI@?GHF>C-% on $ fiftyEfifty r$tio?
$nd e$ch b$nk is 29<)9)< to p$y 4ord +hilippines Bnc> +I?-FC?I"H>-K? with six
percent .IY% interest thereon? from the d$te the compl$int w$s filed until full
p$yment of s$id $mount>C wphiC>n t1osts $g$inst +hilippine 1ommerci$l Bntern$tion$l
7$nk $nd 1itib$nk ;>5> :2 29<)9)<>C-"> ;+1 vs> 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/ 8his present
controversy tr$ces its beginnings to four ."% sep$r$te compl$ints G for d$m$ges
filed $g$inst the ;+1 $nd 7enj$min 1h$vez before the tri$l court> 8he pl$intiffs
therein? now priv$te respondents? sought to recover $ctu$l $nd other d$m$ges for
the loss of lives $nd the destruction to property c$used by the inund$tion of the
town of ;orz$g$r$y? 7ul$c$n on GIEGJ 2ctober CHJF> 8he flooding w$s purportedly
c$used by the negligent rele$se by the defend$nts of w$ter through the spillw$ys of
the 5ng$t <$m .Nydroelectric +l$nt%> Bn s$id compl$ints? the pl$intiffs $lleged?
inter $li$? th$t/ C% defend$nt ;+1 oper$ted $nd m$int$ined $ multiEpurpose
hydroelectric pl$nt in the 5ng$t 9iver $t Nilltop? ;orz$g$r$y? 7ul$c$nS G%
defend$nt 7enj$min 1h$vez w$s the pl$nt supervisor $t the time of the incident in
questionS @% despite the defend$ntsR knowledge? $s e$rly $s G" 2ctober CHJF? of the
impending entry of typhoon WM$ding?W they f$iled to exercise due diligence in
monitoring the w$ter level $t the d$mS "% when the s$id w$ter level went beyond the
m$ximum $llow$ble limit $t the height of the typhoon? the defend$nts suddenly?
negligently $nd recklessly opened three .@% of the d$mRs spillw$ys? thereby
rele$sing $ l$rge $mount of w$ter which inund$ted the b$nks
of the 5ng$t 9iverS $nd K% $s $ consequence? members of the household of the
pl$intiffs? together with their $nim$ls? drowned? $nd their properties were w$shed
$w$y in the evening of GI 2ctober $nd the e$rly hours of GJ 2ctober CHJF>Bn their
5nswers? the defend$nts? now petitioners? $lleged th$t/ C% the ;+1 exercised due
c$re? diligence $nd prudence in the oper$tion $nd m$inten$nce of the hydroelectric
pl$ntS G% the ;+1 exercised the diligence of $ good f$ther in the selection of its
employeesS @% written notices were sent to the different municip$lities of 7ul$c$n
w$rning the residents therein $bout the impending rele$se of $ l$rge volume of
w$ter with the onset of typhoon WM$dingW $nd $dvise them to t$ke the necess$ry
prec$utionsS "% the w$ter rele$sed during the typhoon w$s needed to prevent the
coll$pse of the d$m $nd $void gre$ter d$m$ge to people $nd propertyS K% in spite of
the prec$utions undert$ken $nd the diligence exercised? they could still not
cont$in or control the flood th$t resulted $ndS I% the d$m$ges incurred by the
priv$te respondents were c$used by $ fortuitous event or force m$jeure $nd $re in
the n$ture $nd ch$r$cter of d$mnum $bsque injuri$> 7y w$y of speci$l $ffirm$tive
defense? the defend$nts $verred th$t the ;+1 c$nnot be sued bec$use it performs $
purely government$l function>903B;,:/ 981/ 8he lower court rendered its decision on
@- 5pril CHH- dismissing the compl$ints Wfor l$ck of sufficient $nd credible
evidence>W15/ Bn its joint decision promulg$ted on CH 5ugust CHHC? the 1ourt of
5ppe$ls reversed the $ppe$led decision $nd $w$rded d$m$ges in f$vor of the priv$te
respondents> 8he dispositive portion of the decision re$ds/12;429=573A 82 8N)
429),2B;,? the joint decision $ppe$led from is hereby 9)L)9:)< $nd :)8 5:B<)? $nd $
new one is hereby rendered/C> Bn 1ivil 1$se ;o> :=EHK-? ordering defend$ntsE
$ppellees to p$y? jointly $nd sever$lly? pl$intiffsE$ppell$nts? with leg$l interest
from the d$te when this decision sh$ll become fin$l $nd executory? the following/5>
5ctu$l d$m$ges? to wit/C% ,$udencio 1> 9$yo? 8wo Nundred 8hirty 2ne 8hous$nd 8wo
Nundred :ixty +esos .+G@C?GI->--%SG% 7ienvenido +> +$scu$l? 8wo Nundred 4our
8hous$nd 4ive Nundred +esos .+G-">K-->--%S@% 8om$s =$nuel? 2ne Nundred 4ifty 4ive
8hous$nd +esos .+CKK?--->--%S"% +edro 1> 7$rtolome? 2ne Nundred 4orty :even
8hous$nd +esos .+C"J?--->--%S>K% 7ern$rdino 1ruz? 2ne Nundred 4orty 8hree 8hous$nd
4ive Nundred 4ifty 8wo +esos $nd 4ifty 1ent$vos .+C"@?KKG>K-%SI% Dose +$l$d? 4ifty
:even 8hous$nd 4ive Nundred +esos .+KJ?K-->--%SJ% =$ri$no :> 1ruz? 4orty 8hous$nd
+esos .+"-?--->--%SF% 3ucio 4$j$rdo? 8wenty nine 8hous$nd )ighty +esos
.+GH?-F->--%S $nd7> 3itig$tion expenses of 8en 8hous$nd +esos .+C-?--->--%SG> Bn
1ivil c$se ;o> :=EHKC? ordering defend$ntsE$ppellees to p$y jointly $nd sever$lly?
pl$intiffE$ppell$nt? with leg$l interest from the d$te when this decision sh$ll
h$ve become fin$l $nd executory? the following /5> 5ctu$l d$m$ges of 4ive Nundred
8wenty 8hous$nd +esos .+KG-?--->--%S>7> =or$l d$m$ges of five hundred 8hous$nd
+esos .+K--?--->--%S $nd>1> 3itig$tion expenses of 8en 8hous$nd +esos
.+C-?--->--%S>@> Bn 1ivil 1$se ;o> :=EHK@? ordering defend$ntsE$ppellees to p$y?
jointly $nd sever$lly? with leg$l interest from the d$te when this decision sh$ll
h$ve become fin$l $nd executoryS5> +l$intiffE$ppell$nt 5ngel 1> 8orres/C% 5ctu$l
d$m$ges of 2ne Nundred ;inety ;ine 8hous$nd 2ne Nundred 8wenty +esos .+CHH?CG->--%S
G% =or$l <$m$ges of 2ne Nundred 4ifty 8hous$nd +esos .+CK-?--->--%S7> +l$intiffE
$ppell$nt ;orberto 8orres/C% 5ctu$l d$m$ges of 4ifty 8hous$nd +esos .+K-?--->--%SG%
=or$l d$m$ges of 4ifty 8hous$nd +esos .+K-?--->--%S1> +l$intiffE$ppell$nt 9odelio
Do$quin/C% 5ctu$l d$m$ges of 2ne Nundred 8hous$nd +esos .+C--?--->--%SG% =or$l
d$m$ges of 2ne Nundred 8hous$nd +esos .+C--?--->--%S $nd<> +l$intifsfE$ppell$nts
litig$tion expenses of 8en 8hous$nd +esos .+C-?--->--%S"> Bn 1ivil c$se ;o> :=E
CG"J? ordering defend$ntsE$ppellees to p$y? jointly $nd sever$lly? with leg$l
interest from the d$te when this decision sh$ll h$ve become fin$l $nd executory /5>
+l$intiffsE$ppell$nts +resent$cion 3orenzo $nd 1lodu$ldo 3orenzo/C% 5ctu$l d$m$ges
of 8wo Nundred 4ifty :ix 8hous$nd :ix Nundred +esos .+GKI?I-->--%SG% =or$l d$m$ges
of 4ifty 8hous$nd +esos .+K-?--->--%S7> +l$intiffE$ppell$nt 1onsol$cion ,uzm$n /C%
5ctu$l d$m$ges of 2ne Nundred forty 8hous$nd +esos .+C"-?--->--%SG% =or$l d$m$ges
of 4ifty 8hous$nd +esos .+K-?--->--%S1> +l$intiffE$ppell$nt Lirgini$ ,uzm$n /C%
5ctu$l d$m$ges of 8wo Nundred 4ive Nundred 8wenty +esos .G-K?KG->--%S $nd<>
+l$intiffsE$ppell$nts litig$tion expenses of 8en 8hous$nd +esos .C-?--->--%>Bn
$ddition? in $ll the four ."% inst$nt c$ses? ordering defend$ntsE$ppellees to p$y?
jointly $nd sever$lly? pl$intiffsE$ppell$nts $ttorney fees in $n $mount equiv$lent
to CKY of the tot$l $mount $w$rded>;o pronouncement $s to costs> 8he foregoing
judgment is b$sed on the public respondentRs conclusion th$t the petitioners were
guilty of/> > > $ p$tent gross $nd evident l$ck of foresight? imprudence $nd
negligence > > > in the m$n$gement $nd oper$tion of 5ng$t <$m> 8he unholiness of
the hour? the extent of the opening of the spillw$ys? 5nd the m$gnitude of the
w$ter rele$sed? $re $ll but products of defend$ntsE$ppelleesR he$dlessness?
slovenliness? $nd c$relessness> 8he resulting fl$sh flood $nd inund$tion of even
$re$s .sic% one .C% kilometer $w$y from the 5ng$t 9iver b$nk would h$ve been
$voided h$d defend$ntsE$ppellees prep$red the 5ng$t <$m by m$int$ining in the first
pl$ce? $ w$ter elev$tion which would $llow room for the expected torrenti$l r$ins>
8his conclusion? in turn? is $nchored on its findings of f$ct? to wit/5s e$rly $s
2ctober GC? CHJF? defend$ntsE$ppellees knew of the impending onsl$ught of $nd
imminent d$nger posed by typhoon WM$dingW> 4or $s $lleged by defend$nts$ppellees
themselves? the coming of s$id super typhoon w$s b$nnered by 7ulletin 8od$y? $
newsp$per of n$tion$l circul$tion? on 2ctober GK? CHJF? $s W:uper Nowler to hit
9>+>W 8he next d$y? 2ctober GI? CHJF? s$id typhoon once $g$in merited $ he$dline in
s$id newsp$per $s WM$dingRs 7ig 7low expected this $fternoonW .5ppelleeRs 7rief? p>
I%> 5p$rt from the newsp$pers? defend$ntsE$ppellees le$rned of typhoon WM$dingR
through r$dio $nnouncements .1ivil 1$se ;o> :=EHK-? 8:;? 7enj$min 1h$vez? <ecember
"? CHF"? pp> JEH%><efend$ntsE$ppellees doubly knew th$t the 5ng$t <$m c$n s$fely
hold $ norm$l m$ximum he$dw$ter elev$tion of GCJ meters .5ppelleeRs brief? p> CGS
1ivil 1$se ;o> :=EHKC? )xhibit WBEIWS 1ivil 1$se ;o> :=EHK@? )xhibit WDEIWS 1ivil
1$se ;o> :=ECG"J? )xhibit W,EIW%>Aet? despite such knowledge? defend$ntsE$ppellees
m$int$ined $ reservoir w$ter elev$tion even beyond its m$ximum $nd s$fe level?
thereby giving no sufficient $llow$nce for the reservoir to cont$in the r$in w$ter
th$t will inevit$bly be brought by the coming typhoon>2n 2ctober G"? CHJF? before
typhoon WM$dingW entered the +hilippine $re$ of responsibility? w$ter elev$tion
r$nged from GCJ>IC to GCJ>K@? with very little opening of the spillw$ys? r$nging
from CXG to C meter> 2n 2ctober GK? CHJF? when typhoon WM$dingW entered the
+hilippine $re$ of responsibility? $nd public storm sign$l number one w$s hoisted
over 7ul$c$n $t C-/"K $>m>? l$ter r$ised to number two $t "/"K p>m>? $nd then to
number three $t C-/"K p>m>? w$ter elev$tion r$nged from GCJ>"J to GCJ>KJ? with very
little opening of the spillw$ys? r$nging from CXG to C meter> 2n 2ctober GI? CHJF?
when public storm sign$l number three rem$ined hoisted over 7ul$c$n? the w$ter
elev$tion still rem$ined $t its m$ximum level of GCJ>-- to GCF>-- with very little
opening of the spillw$ys r$nging from CXG to G meters? until $t or $bout midnight?
the spillw$ys were suddenly opened $t K meters? then incre$sing swiftly to F? C-?
CG? CG>K? C@? C@>K? C"? C">K in the e$rly morning hours of 2ctober GJ? CHJF?
rele$sing w$ter $t the r$te of "?K-- cubic meters per second? more or less> 2n
2ctober GJ? CHJF? w$ter elev$tion rem$ined $t $ r$nge of GCF>@- to GCJ>-K .1ivil
1$se ;o> :=EHK-? )xhibits W<W $nd series? W3W? W=W? W;W? $nd W2W $nd )xhibits W@W
$nd W"WS 1ivil 1$se ;o> :=EHKC? )xhibits WNW $nd WNECWS 1ivil 1$se ;o> :=EHK@?
)xhibits WBW $nd WBECWS 1ivil 1$se ;o> := CG"J? )xhibits W4W $nd W4ECW%>4rom the
m$ss of evidence ext$nt in the record? 6e $re convinced? $nd so hold th$t the fl$sh
flood on 2ctober GJ? CHJF? w$s c$used not by r$in w$ters .sic%? but by stored
w$ters .sic% suddenly $nd simult$neously rele$sed from the 5ng$t <$m by
defend$nts$ppellees? p$rticul$rly from midnight of 2ctober GI? CHJF up to the
morning hours of 2ctober GJ? CHJF>B::0) 7)429) 8N) :1/ 6hether or not the ;+1
should be held li$ble to the priv$te respondents for $ny kind of d$m$ge E such
d$m$ge being in the n$ture of d$mnum $bsque injuri$? since the incident in question
w$s c$used by force m$jeure>:1 903B;,/ 6e reiter$te here in 2ur pronouncement in
the l$tter c$se th$t Du$n 4> ;$kpil Q :ons vs> 1ourt of 5ppe$ls is still good l$w
$s f$r $s the concurrent li$bility of $n obligor in the c$se of force m$jeure is
concerned> Bn the ;$kpil c$se? 6e held/8o exempt the obligor from li$bility under
5rticle CCJ" of the 1ivil 1ode? for $ bre$ch of $n oblig$tion due to $n W$ct of
,od?W the following must concur/ .$% the c$use of the bre$ch of the oblig$tion must
be independent of the will of the debtorS .b% the event must be either unforsee$ble
or un$void$bleS .c% the event must be such $s to render it impossible for the
debtor to fulfill his oblig$tion in $ mor$l m$nnerS $nd .d% the debtor must be free
from $ny p$rticip$tion in? or $ggr$v$tion of the injury to the creditor> .L$squez
v> 1ourt of 5ppe$ls? C@F :195 KK@S )str$d$ v> 1onsol$cion? JC :195 "G@S 5ustri$
v> 1ourt of 5ppe$ls? @H :195 KGJS 9epublic of the +hil> v> 3uzon :tevedoring
1orp>? GC :195 GJHS 3$s$m v> :mith? "K +hil> IKJ%>8hus? if upon the h$ppening of $
fortuitous event or $n $ct of ,od? there concurs $ corresponding fr$ud? negligence?
del$y or viol$tion or contr$vention in $ny m$nner of the tenor of the oblig$tion $s
provided for in 5rticle CCJ- of the 1ivil 1ode? which results in loss or d$m$ge?
the obligor c$nnot esc$pe li$bility>8he principle embodied in the $ct of ,od
doctrine strictly requires th$t the $ct must be one occ$sioned exclusively by the
violence of n$ture $nd $ll hum$n $gencies $re to be excluded from cre$ting or
entering into the c$use of the mischief> 6hen the effect? the c$use of which is to
be considered? is found to be in p$rt the result of the p$rticip$tion of m$n?
whether it be from $ctive intervention or neglect? or f$ilure to $ct? the whole
occurrence is thereby hum$nized? $s it were? $nd removed from the rules $pplic$ble
to the $cts of ,od> .C 1orpus Duris? pp> CCJ"ECCJK%>8hus it h$s been held th$t when
the negligence of $ person concurs with $n $ct of ,od in producing $ loss? such
person is not exempt from li$bility by showing th$t the immedi$te c$use of the
d$m$ge w$s the $ct of ,od> 8o be exempt from li$bility for loss bec$use of $n $ct
of ,od? he must be free from $ny previous negligence or misconduct by which th$t
loss or d$m$ge m$y h$ve been occ$sioned> .4ish Q )lective 1o> v> +hil> =otors? KK
+hil> CGHS 8ucker v> =il$n? "H 2>,> "@JHS 3imp$ngco Q :ons v> A$ngco :te$mship 1o>?
@" +hil> KH"? I-"S 3$s$m v> :mith? "K +hil> IKJ%> 5ccordingly? petitioners c$nnot
be he$rd to invoke the $ct of ,od or force m$jeure to esc$pe li$bility for the loss
or d$m$ge sust$ined by priv$te respondents since they? the petitioners? were guilty
of negligence> 8he event then w$s not occ$sioned exclusively by $n $ct of ,od or
force m$jeureS $ hum$n f$ctor negligence or imprudence h$d intervened> 8he
effect then of the force m$jeure in question m$y be deemed to h$ve? even if only
p$rtly? resulted from the p$rticip$tion of m$n> 8hus? the whole occurrence w$s
thereby hum$nized? $s it were? $nd removed from the l$ws $pplic$ble to $cts of ,od>
6N)9)429)? for w$nt of merit? the inst$nt petition is hereby <B:=B::)< $nd the
1onsolid$ted <ecision of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls in 15E,>9> 1L ;os> GJGH-EH@ is
544B9=)<? with costs $g$inst the petitioners>:2 29<)9)<>1$ses HIEC-"585;51B2?
OB;;B5 459B15 =5A L>C-K> :208N)5:8)9; 1233),)? B;1> vs> 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/
+riv$te respondents $re owners of $ house $t @GI 1ollege 9o$d? +$s$y 1ity? while
petitioner owns $ fourEstorey school building $long the s$me 1ollege 9o$d> 2n
2ctober CC? CHFH? $t $bout I/@- in the morning? $ powerful typhoon :$ling hit
=etro =$nil$> 7uffeted by very strong winds? the roof of petitioner s building w$s
p$rtly ripped off $nd blown $w$y? l$nding on $nd destroying portions of the roofing
of priv$te respondents house> 5fter the typhoon h$d p$ssed? $n ocul$r inspection
of the destroyed buildings w$s conducted by $ te$m of engineers he$ded by the city
building offici$l? )ngr> Desus 3> 9eyn$> Bn the compl$int before the 9egion$l 8ri$l
1ourt of +$s$y 1ity? 7r$nch CCJ? for d$m$ges b$sed on culp$ $quili$n$? priv$te
respondents $lleged th$t the d$m$ge to their house rendered the s$me uninh$bit$bleS
forcing them to st$y tempor$rily in others houses $nd this w$s gr$nted> 2n $ppe$l?
the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls $ffirmed with modific$tion the tri$l court s disposition
reducing the $w$rd for mor$l d$m$ges from +C? ---?--->-- to +G--? --->--> B::0)/
6hether or not the $w$rding of $ctu$l $nd mor$l d$m$ges $s well $s $ttorney s fees
$nd costs of suit binding even if fortuitous event $rises without hum$n
interventionV903B;,/ Bn order th$t $ fortuitous event m$y exempt $ person from
li$bility? it is necess$ry th$t he be free from $ny previous negligence or
misconduct by re$son of which the loss m$y h$ve been occ$sioned> 5n $ct of ,od
c$nnot be invoked for the protection of $ person who h$s been guilty of gross
negligence in not trying to forest$ll its possible $dverse consequences> 6hen $
person s negligence concurs with $n $ct of ,od in producing d$m$ge or injury to
$nother? such person is not exempt from li$bility by showing th$t the immedi$te or
proxim$te c$use of the d$m$ge or injury w$s $ fortuitous event> 6hen the effect is
found to be p$rtly the result of the p$rticip$tion of m$n whether it be from
$ctive intervention? or neglect? or f$ilure to $ct the whole occurrence is hereby
hum$nized? $nd removed from the rules $pplic$ble to $cts of ,od>8here is no
question th$t $ typhoon or storm is $ fortuitous event? $ n$tur$l occurrence which
m$y be foreseen but is un$void$ble despite $ny $mount of foresight? diligence or
c$re> Bn order to be exempt from li$bility $rising from $ny $dverse consequence
engendered thereby? there should h$ve been no hum$n p$rticip$tion $mounting to $
negligent $ct> Bn other words? the person seeking exoner$tion from li$bility must
not be guilty of negligence> ;egligence? $s commonly understood? is conduct which
n$tur$lly or re$son$bly cre$tes undue risk or h$rm to others> Bt m$y be the f$ilure
to observe th$t degree of c$re? prec$ution? $nd vigil$nce which the circumst$nces
justly dem$nd? or the omission to do something which $ prudent $nd re$son$ble m$n?
guided by consider$tions which ordin$rily regul$te the conduct of hum$n $ff$irs?
would do> 5t the outset? it be$rs emph$sizing th$t $ person cl$iming d$m$ges for
the negligence of $nother h$s the burden of proving the existence of f$ult or
negligence c$us$tive of his injury or loss> 8he f$cts constitutive of negligence
must be $ffirm$tively est$blished by competent evidence? not merely by presumptions
$nd conclusions without b$sis in f$ct> +riv$te respondents? in est$blishing the
culp$bility of petitioner? merely relied on the $forementioned report submitted by
$ te$m which m$de $n ocul$r inspection of petitioner s school building $fter the
typhoon> 5s the term imp$rts? $n ocul$r inspection is one by me$ns of $ctu$l sight
or viewing> 6h$t is visu$l to the eye though? is not $lw$ys reflective of the re$l
c$use behind> 4or inst$nce? one who he$rs $ gunshot $nd then sees $ wounded person
c$nnot $lw$ys definitely conclude th$t $ third person shot the victim> Bt could
h$ve been selfEinflicted or c$used $ccident$lly by $ str$y bullet> 8he rel$tionship
of c$use $nd effect must be cle$rly shown>2n the other h$nd? petitioner elicited
from one of the witnesses of priv$te respondents? city building offici$l Desus
9eyn$? th$t the origin$l pl$ns $nd design of petitioner s school building were
$pproved prior to its construction> )ngr> 9eyn$ $dmitted th$t it w$s $ leg$l
requirement before the construction of $ny building to obt$in $ permit from the
city building offici$l .city engineer? prior to the p$ss$ge of the 7uilding 5ct of
CHJJ%> Bn like m$nner? $fter construction of the building? $ certific$tion must be
secured from the s$me offici$l $ttesting to the re$diness for occup$ncy of the
edifice> N$ving obt$ined both building permit $nd certific$te of occup$ncy? these
$re? $t the very le$st? prim$ f$cie evidence of the regul$r $nd proper construction
of subject school building>Bn $ddition? petitioner presented its vice president for
fin$nce $nd $dministr$tion who testified th$t $n $nnu$l m$inten$nce inspection $nd
rep$ir of subject school building were regul$rly undert$ken> +etitioner w$s even
willing to present its m$inten$nce supervisor to $ttest to the extent of such
regul$r inspection but priv$te respondents $greed to dispense with his testimony
$nd simply stipul$ted th$t it would be corrobor$tive of the vice president s
n$rr$tion>=oreover? the city building offici$l? who h$s been in the city government
service since CHJ"? $dmitted in open court th$t no compl$int reg$rding $ny defect
on the s$me structure h$s ever been lodged before his office prior to the
institution of the c$se $t bench> Bt is $ m$tter of judici$l notice th$t typhoons
$re common occurrences in this country> Bf subject school building s roofing w$s
not firmly $nchored to its trusses? obviously? it could not h$ve withstood long
ye$rs $nd sever$l typhoons even stronger th$n :$ling> 6ith this disposition on the
pivot$l issue? priv$te respondents cl$im for $ctu$l $nd mor$l d$m$ges $s well $s
$ttorney s fees must f$il> +etitioner c$nnot be m$de to $nswer for $ purely
fortuitous event> =ore so bec$use no b$d f$ith or willful $ct to c$use d$m$ge w$s
$lleged $nd proven to w$rr$nt mor$l d$m$ges>+riv$te respondents f$iled to $dduce
$dequ$te $nd competent proof of the pecuni$ry loss they $ctu$lly incurred> Bt is
not enough th$t the d$m$ge be c$p$ble of proof but must be $ctu$lly proved with $
re$son$ble degree of cert$inty? pointing out specific f$cts th$t $fford $ b$sis for
me$suring wh$tever compens$tory d$m$ges $re borne> +riv$te respondents merely
submitted $n estim$ted $mount needed for the rep$ir of the roof of their subject
building> 6h$t is more? whether the necess$ry rep$irs were c$used 2;3A by
petitioner s $lleged negligence in the m$inten$nce of its school building? or
included the ordin$ry we$r $nd te$r of the house itself? is $n essenti$l question
th$t rem$ins indetermin$ble>8he 1ourt deems unnecess$ry to resolve the other issues
posed by petitioner> Nowever? the writ of execution issued on 5pril C? CHH@ by the
tri$l court is hereby nullified $nd set $side> +riv$te respondents $re ordered to
reimburse $ny $mount or return to petitioner $ny property which they m$y h$ve
received by virtue of the enforcement of s$id writ>6N)9)429)? the petition is
,95;8)< $nd the ch$llenged <ecision is 9)L)9:)<> 8he compl$int of priv$te
respondents in 1ivil 1$se ;o> J@C" before the tri$l court $ quo is ordered
<B:=B::)<
$nd the writ of execution issued on 5pril C? CHH@ in s$id c$se is :)8 5:B<)>
5ccordingly? priv$te respondents $re 29<)9)< to return to petitioner $ny $mount or
property received by them by virtue of s$id writ> 1osts $g$inst the priv$te
respondents>C-I> B3212: ;298) )3)189B1 12=+5;A vs> 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/ 4rom the
evidence of pl$intiffs it $ppe$rs th$t in the evening of Dune GF until the e$rly
morning of Dune GH? CHIJ $ strong typhoon by the code n$me W,eningW buffeted the
province of Blocos ;orte? bringing he$vy r$ins $nd consequent flooding in its w$ke>
7etween K/@- $nd I/-- 5>=> on Dune GH? CHIJ? $fter the typhoon h$d $b$ted $nd when
the floodw$ters were beginning to recede the dece$sed Bs$bel 3$o Du$n? fondly
c$lled ;$n$ 7elen? ventured out of the house of her sonEinEl$w? 5ntonio A$bes? on
;o> CH ,uerrero :treet? 3$o$g 1ity? $nd proceeded northw$rd tow$rds the direction
of the 4ive :isters )mporium? of which she w$s the owner $nd proprietress? to look
$fter the merch$ndise therein th$t might h$ve been d$m$ged> 6$ding in w$istEdeep
flood on ,uerrero? the dece$sed w$s followed by 5id$ 7ulong? $ :$lesgirl $t the
4ive :isters ,rocery? $lso owned by the dece$sed? $nd by 3ind$ 5lonzo )st$villo? $
ticket seller $t the AD 1inem$? which w$s p$rtly owned by the dece$sed> 5id$ $nd
3ind$ w$lked side by side $t $ dist$nce of between K $nd I meters behind the
dece$sed? :uddenly? the dece$sed scre$med W5yW $nd quickly s$nk into the w$ter> 8he
two girls $ttempted to help? but fe$r dissu$ded them from doing so bec$use on the
spot where the dece$sed s$nk they s$w $n electric wire d$ngling from $ post $nd
moving in sn$keElike f$shion in the w$ter> 0pon their shouts for help? )rnesto del$
1ruz c$me out of the house of 5ntonio A$bes> )rnesto tried to go to the dece$sed?
but $t four meters $w$y from her he turned b$ck shouting th$t the w$ter w$s
grounded> 5id$ $nd 3ind$ prodded )rnesto to seek help from 5ntonio A$bes $t the AD
1inem$ building which w$s four or five blocks $w$y> 5fter due tri$l? the 14B found
the f$cts in f$vor of petitioner $nd dismissed the compl$int but $w$rded to the
l$tter +GK?--- in mor$l d$m$ges $nd $ttorneyRs fees of +"K?---> 5n $ppe$l w$s filed
with the 15 which issued the controverted decision> B::0)/ 6hether or not the tri$l
court did not err in $w$rding mor$l d$m$ges $nd $ttorneyRs fees to <efend$nt
1orpor$tionV903B;,/ 4rom the preceding? we find th$t the 15 did not $buse its
discretion in reversing the tri$l courtRs findings but tediously considered the
f$ctu$l circumst$nces $t h$nd pursu$nt to its power to review questions of f$ct
r$ised from the decision of the 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt? formerly the 1ourt of 4irst
Bnst$nce .see sec> H? 7+ CGH%> Bn considering the li$bility of petitioner? the
respondent 15 $w$rded the following in priv$te respondentRs f$vor/ +@-?GGH>"K in
$ctu$l d$m$ges .i>e>? +CG?--- for the victimRs de$th $nd +CF?GGH>"K for funer$l
expenses%S +K-?--- in compens$tory d$m$ges? computed in $ccord$nce with the formul$
set in the Lill$E9ey 8r$nsit c$se .@C :195 KCC% with the b$se of +CK?--- $s $ver$ge
$nnu$l income of the dece$sedS +C-?--- in exempl$ry d$m$gesS +@?--- $ttorneyRs
feesS $nd costs of suit> )xcept for the $w$rd of +CG?--- $s compens$tion for the
victimRs de$th? 6e $ffirm the respondent 15Rs $w$rd for d$m$ges $nd $ttorneyRs
fees> +usu$nt to recent jurisprudence .+eople vs> =$n$nquil? C@G :195 CHIS +eople
vs> 8r$y$? C"J :195 @FC%? 6e incre$se the s$id $w$rd of +CG?--- to +@-?---? thus?
incre$sing the tot$l $ctu$l d$m$ges to +"F?GGH>"K> 8he exclusion of mor$l d$m$ges
$nd $ttorneyRs fees $w$rded by the lower court w$s properly m$de by the respondent
15? the ch$rge of m$lice $nd b$d f$ith on the p$rt of respondents in instituting
his c$se being $ mere product of wishful thinking $nd specul$tion> 5w$rd of d$m$ges
$nd $ttorneyRs fees is unw$rr$nted where the $ction w$s filed in good f$ithS there
should be no pen$lty on the right to litig$te .)spiritu vs> 15? C@J :195 K-%> Bf
d$m$ge results from $ personRs exercising his leg$l rights? it is d$mnum$bsque
injuri$ .5uyong Ni$n vs> 185? KH :195 CC-%> 6N)9)429)? the questioned decision of
the respondent? except for the slight modific$tion th$t $ctu$l d$m$ges be incre$sed
to +"F?GGH>"K is hereby 544B9=)<>C-J> +3)5:5;8LB33) <)L)32+=);8 129+2958B2;vs>
12098 24 5++)53:4518:/ )dith 9obillo purch$sed from petitioner $ p$rcel of l$nd
design$ted $s 3ot H? +h$se BB $nd loc$ted $t 8$culing 9o$d? +le$s$ntville
:ubdivision? 7$colod 1ity> Bn CHJK? respondent )ldred D$rdinico bought the rights
to the lot from 9obillo> 5t th$t time? 3ot H w$s v$c$nt>0pon completing $ll
p$yments? D$rdinico secured from the 9egister of <eeds of 7$colod 1ity on <ecember
CH? CHJF 8r$nsfer 1ertific$te of 8itle ;o> C-I@IJ in his n$me> Bt w$s then th$t he
discovered th$t improvements h$d been introduced on 3ot H by respondent 6ilson Mee?
who h$d t$ken possession thereof>Bt $ppe$rs th$t on =$rch GI? CHJ"? Mee bought on
inst$llment 3ot F of the s$me subdivision from 1>8> 8orres )nterprises? Bnc>
.188)B%? the exclusive re$l est$te $gent of petitioner> 0nder the 1ontr$ct to :ell
on Bnst$llment? Mee could possess the lot even before the completion of $ll
inst$llment p$yments> 2n D$nu$ry G-? CHJK? Mee p$id 188)B the reloc$tion fee of
+K->-- $nd $nother +K->-- on D$nu$ry GJ? CHJK? for the prep$r$tion of the lot pl$n>
8hese $mounts were p$id prior to MeeRs t$king $ctu$l possession of 3ot F> 5fter the
prep$r$tion of the lot pl$n $nd $ copy thereof given to Mee? 188)B through its
employee? Oen$id$ 2ct$vi$no? $ccomp$nied MeeRs wife? <on$belle Mee? to inspect 3ot
F> 0nfortun$tely? the p$rcel of l$nd pointed by 2ct$vi$no w$s 3ot H> 8here$fter?
Mee proceeded to construct his residence? $ store? $n $uto rep$ir shop $nd other
improvements on the lot>8he =811 held th$t the erroneous delivery of 3ot H to Mee
w$s $ttribut$ble to 188)B> Bt further ruled th$t petitioner $nd 188)B could not
successfully invoke $s $ defense the f$ilure of Mee to give notice of his intention
to begin construction required under p$r$gr$ph GG of the 1ontr$ct to :ell on
Bnst$llment $nd his h$ving built $ s$riEs$ri store without the prior $pprov$l of
petitioner required under p$r$gr$ph GI of s$id contr$ct? s$ying th$t the purpose of
these requirements w$s merely to regul$te the type of improvements to be
constructed on the 3ot>2n $ppe$l? the 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt? 7r$nch "F? 7$colod 1ity
.981% ruled th$t petitioner $nd 188)B were not $t f$ult or were not negligent?
there being no preponder$nt evidence to show th$t they directly p$rticip$ted in the
delivery of 3ot H to MeeK8he $ppell$te court ruled th$t Mee w$s $ builder in good
f$ith? $s he w$s un$w$re of the WmixEupW when he beg$n construction of the
improvements on 3ot F>B::0)/ 6hether or not the $w$rd of $ttorneyRs fees is properV
903B;,/ 8he =811 $w$rded D$rdinico $ttorneyRs fees $nd costs in the $mount of
+@?--->-- $nd +J-->--? respectively? $s pr$yed for in his compl$int> 8he 981
deleted the $w$rd? consistent with its ruling th$t petitioner w$s without f$ult or
negligence> 8he 1ourt of 5ppe$ls? however? reinst$ted the $w$rd of $ttorneyRs fees
$fter ruling th$t petitioner w$s li$ble for its $gentRs negligence>8he $w$rd of
$ttorneyRs fees lies within the discretion of the court $nd depends upon the
circumst$nces of e$ch c$se > 6e sh$ll not interfere with the discretion of the
1ourt of 5ppe$ls> D$rdinico w$s compelled to litig$te for the protection of his
interests $nd for the recovery of d$m$ges sust$ined $s $ result of the negligence
of petitionerRs $gent >Bn sum? we rule th$t Mee is $ builder in good f$ith> 8he
disposition of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls th$t Mee Wis entitled to the rights gr$nted him
under 5rticles ""F? K"I $nd K"F of the ;ew 1ivil 1odeW is deleted? in view of the
deed of s$le entered into by Mee $nd D$rdinico? which deed now governs the rights
of D$rdinico $nd Mee $s to e$ch other> 8here is $lso no further need? $s ruled by
the $ppell$te 1ourt? to rem$nd the c$se to the court of origin Wfor determin$tion
of the $ctu$l v$lue of the improvements $nd the property .3ot H%? $s well $s for
further proceedings in conformity with 5rticle ""F of the ;ew 1ivil 1ode>W6N)9)429)
? the petition is p$rti$lly ,95;8)<> 8he <ecision of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls is hereby
=2<B4B)< $s follows/.C% 6ilson Mee is decl$red $ builder in good f$ithS.G%
+etitioner +le$s$ntville <evelopment 1orpor$tion $nd respondent 1>8> 8orres
)nterprises? Bnc> $re decl$red solid$rily li$ble for d$m$ges due to negligenceS
however? since the $mount $ndXor extent of such d$m$ges w$s not proven during the
tri$l? the s$me c$nnot now be qu$ntified $nd $w$rdedS.@% +etitioner +le$s$ntville
<evelopment 1orpor$tion $nd respondent 1>8> 8orres )nterprises? Bnc> $re ordered to
p$y in solidum the $mount of +@?--->-- to D$rdinico $s $ttorneyRs fees? $s well $s
litig$tion expensesS $nd."% 8he $w$rd of rent$ls to D$rdinico is dispensed with>
C-F> A27B<2vs> 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/ 2n 5pril GI? CHFF? spouses 8ito $nd 3eny
8umboy $nd their minor children n$med 5rdee $nd D$smin? be$rded $t =$ng$goy?
:urig$o del :ur? $ Aobido 3iner bus bound for <$v$o 1ity> 5long +icop 9o$d in Mm>
CJ? :t$> =$ri$? 5gus$n del :ur? the left front tire of the bus exploded> 8he bus
fell into $ r$vine $round three .@% feet from the ro$d $nd struck $ tree> 8he
incident resulted in the de$th of GFEye$rEold 8ito 8umboy $nd physic$l injuries to
other p$ssengers>2n ;ovember GC? CHFF? $ compl$int for bre$ch of contr$ct of
c$rri$ge? d$m$ges $nd $ttorneyRs fees w$s filed by 3eny $nd her children $g$inst
5lbert$ Aobido? the owner of the bus? $nd 1resencio Aobido? its driver? before the
9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt of <$v$o 1ity> 6hen the defend$nts therein filed their $nswer
to the compl$int? they r$ised the $ffirm$tive defense of c$so fortuito>
8hey $lso filed $ thirdEp$rty compl$int $g$inst +hilippine +hoenix :urety $nd
Bnsur$nce? Bnc> 8his thirdEp$rty defend$nt filed $n $nswer with compulsory
countercl$im> 5t the preEtri$l conference? the p$rties $greed to $ stipul$tion of
f$cts>2n 5ugust GH? CHHC? the lower court rendered $ decision dismissing the $ction
for l$ck of merit> 2n the issue of whether or not the tire blowout w$s $ c$so
fortuito? it found th$t Wthe f$lling of the bus to the cliff w$s $ result of no
other outside f$ctor th$n the tire blowEout>W<iss$tisfied? the pl$intiffs $ppe$led
to the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls> 8he 1ourt of 5ppe$ls rendered the <ecision reversing th$t
of the lower court>B::0)/ 6hether or not the d$m$ges being pr$yed for justifies the
$ct bre$ch of contr$ct of c$rri$ge by the petitioner in this p$rticul$r c$seV
903B;,/ Bn view of the foregoing? petitionersR contention th$t they should be
exempt from li$bility bec$use the tire blowout w$s no more th$n $ fortuitous event
th$t could not h$ve been foreseen? must f$il> 5 fortuitous event is possessed of
the following ch$r$cteristics/ .$% the c$use of the unforeseen $nd unexpected
occurrence? or the f$ilure of the debtor to comply with his oblig$tions? must be
independent of hum$n willS .b% it must be impossible to foresee the event which
constitutes the c$so fortuito? or if it c$n be foreseen? it must be impossible to
$voidS .c% the occurrence must be such $s to render it impossible for the debtor to
fulfill his oblig$tion in $ norm$l m$nnerS $nd .d% the obliger must be free from
$ny p$rticip$tion in the $ggr$v$tion of the injury resulting to the creditor> 5s
5rticle CCJ" provides? no person sh$ll be responsible for $ fortuitous event which
could not be foreseen? or which? though foreseen? w$s inevit$ble> Bn other words?
there must be $n entire exclusion of hum$n $gency from the c$use of injury or loss>
0nder the circumst$nces of this c$se? the explosion of the new tire m$y not be
considered $ fortuitous event> 8here $re hum$n f$ctors involved in the situ$tion>
8he f$ct th$t the tire w$s new did not imply th$t it w$s entirely free from
m$nuf$cturing defects or th$t it w$s properly mounted on the vehicle> ;either m$y
the f$ct th$t the tire bought $nd used in the vehicle is of $ br$nd n$me noted for
qu$lity? resulting in the conclusion th$t it could not explode within five d$ysR
use> 7e th$t $s it m$y? it is settled th$t $n $ccident c$used either by defects in
the $utomobile or through the negligence of its driver is not $ c$so fortuito th$t
would exempt the c$rrier from li$bility for d$m$ges>=oreover? $ common c$rrier m$y
not be $bsolved from li$bility in c$se of force m$jeureor fortuitous event $lone>
8he common c$rrier must still prove th$t it w$s not negligent in c$using the de$th
or injury resulting from $n $ccident>N$ving f$iled to disch$rge its duty to
overthrow the presumption of negligence with cle$r $nd convincing evidence?
petitioners $re hereby held li$ble for d$m$ges> 5rticle CJI" CH in rel$tion to
5rticle GG-I G- of the 1ivil 1ode prescribes the $mount of $t le$st three thous$nd
pesos $s d$m$ges for the de$th of $ p$ssenger> 0nder prev$iling jurisprudence? the
$w$rd of d$m$ges under 5rticle GG-I h$s been incre$sed to fifty thous$nd pesos
.+K-?--->--%>=or$l d$m$ges $re gener$lly not recover$ble in culp$ contr$ctu$l
except when b$d f$ith h$d been proven> Nowever? the s$me d$m$ges m$y be recovered
when bre$ch of contr$ct of c$rri$ge results in the de$th of $ p$ssenger? GG $s in
this c$se> )xempl$ry d$m$ges? $w$rded by w$y of ex$mple or correction for the
public good when mor$l d$m$ges $re $w$rded? G@ m$y likewise be recovered in
contr$ctu$l oblig$tions if the defend$nt $cted in w$nton? fr$udulent? reckless?
oppressive? or m$levolent m$nner> G"7ec$use petitioners f$iled to exercise the
extr$ordin$ry diligence required of $ common c$rrier? which resulted in the de$th
of 8ito 8umboy? it is deemed to h$ve $cted recklessly> GK 5s such? priv$te
respondents sh$ll be entitled to exempl$ry d$m$ges>6N)9)429)? the <ecision of the
1ourt of 5ppe$ls is hereby 544B9=)< subject to the modific$tion th$t petitioners
sh$ll? in $ddition to the monet$ry $w$rds therein? be li$ble for the $w$rd of
exempl$ry d$m$ges in the $mount of +G-?--->--> 1osts $g$inst petitioners>C-H>
M95=)9? D9> vs> 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/ 8he record of the c$se discloses th$t in the
e$rly morning of 5pril F? CHJI? the 4X7 =$rjole$? $ fishing bo$t owned by the
petitioners )rnesto Mr$mer? Dr> $nd =$rt$ Mr$mer? w$s n$vig$ting its w$y from
=$rinduque to =$nil$> :omewhere ne$r =$ric$bon Bsl$nd $nd 1$pe :$nti$go? the bo$t
figured in $ collision with $n interEisl$nd vessel? the =XL 5si$ +hilippines owned
by the priv$te respondent 8r$nsE5si$ :hipping 3ines? Bnc> 5s $ consequence of the
collision? the 4X7 =$rjole$ s$nk? t$king with it its fish c$tch>2n =$y @-? CHFK?
the petitioners instituted $ 1ompl$int for d$m$ges $g$inst the priv$te respondent
before 7r$nch CCJ of the 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt in +$s$y 1ity> Bt w$s gr$nted due to
the need to rely on highly technic$l $spects $ttend$nt to such collision>8he
priv$te respondent elev$ted the c$se to the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls by w$y of $ speci$l
civil $ction for certior$ri $nd prohibition? $lleging therein th$t the tri$l court
committed $ gr$ve $buse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the 1ompl$int filed by
the petitioners> Bn $ <ecision d$ted ;ovember GJ? CHFJ? J$nd cl$rified in $
9esolution d$ted D$nu$ry CG? CHFF? Fthe 1ourt of 5ppe$ls gr$nted the +etition filed
by the priv$te respondent $nd ordered the tri$l court to dismiss the 1ompl$int> 8he
petitioners filed $ =otion for the reconsider$tion of the s$id <ecision but the
s$me w$s denied by the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls in $ 9esolution d$ted =$y GJ? CHFF>B::0)/
6hether or not $ 1ompl$int for d$m$ges instituted by the petitioners $g$inst the
priv$te respondent $rising from $ m$rine collision is st$tute of limit$tionsV
903B;,/ 8he petition is devoid of merit> 0nder 5rticle CC"I of the 1ivil 1ode? $n
$ction b$sed upon $ qu$siEdelict must be instituted within four ."% ye$rs> 8he
prescriptive period begins from the d$y the qu$siEdelict is committed> Bn +$ul$n
vs> :$r$bi$? this 1ourt ruled th$t in $n $ction for d$m$ges $rising from the
collision of two .G% trucks? the $ction being b$sed on $ qu$siEdelict? the four ."%
ye$r prescriptive period must be counted from the d$y of the collision>Bn )sp$nol
vs> 1h$irm$n? +hilippine Leter$ns 5dministr$tion? CJ this 1ourt held $s follows8he
right of $ction $ccrues when there exists $ c$use of $ction? which consists of @
elements? n$mely/ $% $ right in f$vor of the pl$intiff by wh$tever me$ns $nd under
wh$tever l$w it $rises or is cre$tedS b% $n oblig$tion on the p$rt of defend$nt to
respect such rightS $nd c% $n $ct or omission on the p$rt of such defend$nt
viol$tive of the right of the pl$intiff >>> Bt is only when the l$st element occurs
or t$kes pl$ce th$t it c$n be s$id in l$w th$t $ c$use of $ction h$s $risen >>>
>4rom the foregoing ruling? it is cle$r th$t the prescriptive period must be
counted when the l$st element occurs or t$kes pl$ce? th$t is? the time of the
commission of $n $ct or omission viol$tive of the right of the pl$intiff? which is
the time when the c$use of $ction $rises> Bt is therefore cle$r th$t in this $ction
for d$m$ges $rising from the collision of two .G% vessels the four ."% ye$r
prescriptive period must be counted from the d$y of the collision> 8he $ggrieved
p$rty need not w$it for $ determin$tion by $n $dministr$tive body like $ 7o$rd of
=$rine Bnquiry? th$t the collision w$s c$used by the f$ult or negligence of the
other p$rty before he c$n file $n $ction for d$m$ges> 8he ruling in L$squez does
not $pply in this c$se> Bmmedi$tely $fter the collision the $ggrieved p$rty c$n
seek relief from the courts by $lleging such negligence or f$ult of the owners?
$gents or personnel of the other vessel>8hus? the respondent court correctly found
th$t the $ction of petitioner h$s prescribed> 8he collision occurred on 5pril F?
CHJI> 8he compl$int for d$m$ges w$s filed in court only on =$y @-? C HFK? w$s
beyond the four ."% ye$r prescriptive period> 6N)9)429)? the petition is dismissed>
;o costs> CC-> 95A;)95 vs>NB1)854518:/ 2n =$rch G@? CHFH? $t $bout G/-- in the
morning? 9eyn$ldo 9$yner$ w$s on his w$y home> Ne w$s riding $ motorcycle tr$veling
on the southbound l$ne of )$st :ervice 9o$d? 1up$ng? =untinlup$> 8he Bsuzu truck
w$s tr$velling $he$d of him $t G- to @- kilometers per hour> 8he truck w$s lo$ded
with two .G% met$l sheets extended on both sides? two .G% feet on the left $nd
three .@% feet on the right> 8here were two .G% p$irs of red lights? $bout @K w$tts
e$ch? on both sides of the met$l pl$tes> 8he $sph$lt ro$d w$s not well lighted>5t
some point on the ro$d? 9eyn$ldo 9$yner$ cr$shed his motorcycle into the left re$r
portion of the truck tr$iler? which w$s without t$il lights> <ue to the collision?
9eyn$ldo sust$ined he$d injuries $nd truck helper ,er$ldino <> 3ucelo rushed him to
the +$r$ $que =edic$l 1enter> 0pon $rriv$l $t the hospit$l? the $ttending
physici$n? <r> =$rivic 5guirre? pronounced 9eyn$ldo 9$yner$ de$d on $rriv$l>2n =$y
CG? CHFH? the heirs of the dece$sed dem$nded from respondents p$yment of d$m$ges
$rising from the de$th of 9eyn$ldo 9$yner$ $s $ result of the vehicul$r $ccident>
8he respondents refused to p$y the cl$ims>2n :eptember C@? CHFH? petitioners filed
with the 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt? =$nil$ $ compl$intfor d$m$ges $g$inst respondents
owner $nd driver of the Bsuzu truck> 2n <ecember CH? CHHC? the tri$l court rendered
decision in f$vor of petitioners $nd it held th$t respondents negligence w$s the
immedi$te $nd proxim$te c$use of 9eyn$ldo 9$yner$ s de$th? for which they $re
jointly $nd sever$lly li$ble to p$y d$m$ges to petitioners> 2n D$nu$ry C-?
CHHG? respondents Nicet$ $nd 2rpill$ $ppe$led to the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls>5fter due
proceedings? on 5pril GF? CHHK? the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls rendered decision setting
$side the $ppe$led decision> 8he $ppell$te court held th$t 9eyn$ldo 9$yner$ s
bumping into the left re$r portion of the truck w$s the proxim$te c$use of his
de$th? $nd consequently? $bsolved respondents from li$bility>B::0)/ 6hether or not
the respondents were negligent? $nd if so? whether such negligence w$s the
proxim$te c$use of the de$th of 9eyn$ldo 9$yner$V903B;,/ 8he 1ourt finds no re$son
to disturb the f$ctu$l findings of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls> ;egligence is the omission
to do something which $ re$son$ble m$n? guided by those consider$tions which
ordin$rily regul$te the conduct of hum$n $ff$irs? would do? or the doing of
something? which $ prudent $nd re$son$ble m$n would not do> TG@*+roxim$te c$use is
th$t c$use? which? in n$tur$l $nd continuous sequence? unbroken by $ny efficient
intervening c$use? produces the injury? $nd without which the result would not h$ve
occurred> <uring the tri$l? it w$s est$blished th$t the truck h$d no t$il lights>
8he photogr$phs t$ken of the scene of the $ccident showed th$t there were no t$il
lights or license pl$tes inst$lled on the Bsuzu truck> Bnste$d? wh$t were inst$lled
were two .G% p$irs of lights on top of the steel pl$tes? $nd one .C% p$ir of lights
in front of the truck> 6ith reg$rd to the re$r of the truck? the photos t$ken $nd
the sketch in the spot report proved th$t there were no t$il lights><espite the
$bsence of t$il lights $nd license pl$te? respondents truck w$s visible in the
highw$y> Bt w$s tr$veling $t $ moder$te speed? $pproxim$tely G- to @- kilometers
per hour> Bt used the service ro$d? inste$d of the highw$y? bec$use the c$rgo they
were h$uling posed $ d$nger to p$ssing motorists> Bn compli$nce with the 3$nd
8r$nsport$tion 8r$ffic 1ode .9epublic 5ct ;o> "C@I% TGK* respondents inst$lled G
p$irs of lights on top of the steel pl$tes? $s the vehicle s c$rgo lo$d extended
beyond the bed or body thereof>6e find th$t the direct c$use of the $ccident w$s
the negligence of the victim> 8r$veling behind the truck? he h$d the responsibility
of $voiding bumping the vehicle in front of him> Ne w$s in control of the
situ$tion> Nis motorcycle w$s equipped with he$dlights to en$ble him to see wh$t
w$s in front of him> Ne w$s tr$versing the service ro$d where the prescribed speed
limit w$s less th$n th$t in the highw$y>8r$ffic investig$tor 1pl> Lirgilio del
=onte testified th$t two p$irs of K-Ew$tts bulbs were on top of the steel pl$tes?
TGI* which were visible from $ dist$nce of C-- meters> TGJ* Lirgilio :$ntos
$dmitted th$t from the tricycle where he w$s on bo$rd? he s$w the truck $nd its
c$rgo of iron pl$tes from $ dist$nce of ten .C-% meters> TGF* Bn light of these
circumst$nces? $n $ccident could h$ve been e$sily $voided? unless the victim h$d
been driving too f$st $nd did not exercise due c$re $nd prudence dem$nded of him
under the circumst$nces>Lirgilio :$ntos testimony strengthened respondents
defense th$t it w$s the victim who w$s reckless $nd negligent in driving his
motorcycle $t high speed> 8he tricycle where :$ntos w$s on bo$rd w$s not much
different from the victim s motorcycle th$t figured in the $ccident> 5lthough
:$ntos cl$imed the tricycle $lmost bumped into the improperly p$rked truck? the
tricycle driver w$s $ble to $void hitting the truck>Bt h$s been s$id th$t drivers
of vehicles who bump the re$r of $nother vehicle $re presumed to be the c$use of
the $ccident? unless contr$dicted by other evidence > TGH* 8he r$tion$le behind the
presumption is th$t the driver of the re$r vehicle h$s full control of the
situ$tion $s he is in $ position to observe the vehicle in front of him>6e $gree
with the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls th$t the responsibility to $void the collision with the
front vehicle lies with the driver of the re$r vehicle>1onsequently? no other
person w$s to bl$me but the victim himself since he w$s the one who bumped his
motorcycle into the re$r of the Bsuzu truck> Ne h$d the l$st cle$r ch$nce of
$voiding the $ccident> 6N)9)429)? we <);A the petition for review on certior$ri $nd
544B9= the decision of the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls in 15E,> 9> 1L ;o> @KFHK? dismissing
the $mended compl$int in 1ivil 1$se ;o> FHEK-@KK? 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt? 7r$nch "K?
=$nil$>;o costs>CCC> +NB3B++B;) 9577B8 70: 3B;):? B;1> vs> B;8)9=)<B58) 5++)3358)
12098? ,>9> ;os> IIC-GE-"? 5ugust @-? CHH-4518:/ 5bout CC/-- oRclock in the morning
on <ecember G"? CHII? 1$t$lin$ +$scu$? 1$rid$d +$scu$? 5del$id$ )stomo? )rlind$
=eri$les? =ercedes 3orenzo? 5lej$ndro =or$les $nd Oen$id$ +$rej$s bo$rded the
jeepney owned by spouses Bsidro =$ngune $nd ,uillerm$ 1$rreon $nd driven by
8r$nquilino =$n$lo $t <$u? =$b$l$c$t? +$mp$ng$ bound for 1$rmen? 9os$les?
+$ng$sin$n to spend 1hristm$s $t their respective homes> 5lthough they usu$lly ride
in buses? they h$d to ride in $ jeepney th$t d$y bec$use the buses were full> 8heir
contr$ct with =$n$lo w$s for them to p$y +G">-- for the trip>0pon re$ching b$rrio
:in$yo$n? :$n =$nuel? 8$rl$c? the right re$r wheel of the jeepney w$s det$ched? so
it w$s running in $n unb$l$nced position> =$n$lo stepped on the br$ke? $s $ result
of which? the jeepney which w$s then running on the e$stern l$ne .its right of w$y%
m$de $ 0Eturn? inv$ding $nd eventu$lly stopping on the western l$ne of the ro$d in
such $ m$nner th$t the jeepneyRs front f$ced the south .from where it c$me% $nd its
re$r f$ced the north .tow$rds where it w$s going%> 8he jeepney pr$ctic$lly occupied
$nd blocked the gre$ter portion of the western l$ne? which is the right of w$y of
vehicles coming from the north? $mong which w$s 7us ;o> JK@ of petitioner
+hilippine 9$bbit 7us 3ines? Bnc> .9$bbit% driven by 8om$s delos 9eyes> 5s $ result
of the collision? three p$ssengers of the jeepney .1$t$lin$ +$scu$? )rlind$
=eri$les $nd 5del$id$ )stomo% died while the other jeepney p$ssengers sust$ined
physic$l injuries>5fter conducting the investig$tion? the police filed with the
=unicip$l 1ourt of :$n =$nuel? 8$rl$c? $ crimin$l compl$int $g$inst the two drivers
for =ultiple Nomicide> 5t the prelimin$ry investig$tion? $ prob$ble c$use w$s found
with respect to the c$se of =$n$lo? thus? his c$se w$s elev$ted to the 1ourt of
4irst Bnst$nce> Nowever? finding no sufficiency of evidence $s reg$rds the c$se of
delos 9eyes? the 1ourt dismissed it> =$n$lo w$s convicted $nd sentenced to suffer
imprisonment> ;ot h$ving $ppe$led? he served his sentence>8he compl$int for d$m$ges
w$s then filed before the 1ourt of 4irst Bnst$nce in +$ng$sin$n where costs $re
$djudged $g$inst defend$nts =$ngune? 1$rreon $nd =$n$lo $nd 4ilriters ,u$r$nty> 7ut
on $ppe$l? the Bntermedi$te 5ppell$te 1ourt reversed the $boveEquoted decision by
finding delos 9eyes negligent>B::0)/ 6hether or not the +hilippine 9$bbit 7us
3ines? Bnc> $nd its driver 8om$s delos 9eyes who $cted with diligence required to
p$y the pl$intiffsE $ppell$nt jointly $nd sever$lly d$m$ges th$t the former pr$yed
forV903B;,/ Bt c$nnot be s$id th$t the bus w$s tr$velling $t $ f$st speed when the
$ccident occurred bec$use the speed of F- to H- kilometers per hour? $ssuming such
c$lcul$tion to be correct? is yet within the speed limit $llowed in highw$ys> 6e
c$nnot even f$ult delos 9eyes for not h$ving $voided the collision> 5s $forest$ted?
the jeepney left $ skid m$rk of $bout "K meters? me$sured from the time its right
re$r wheel w$s det$ched up to the point of collision> <elos 9eyes must h$ve noticed
the perilous condition of the jeepney from the time its right re$r wheel w$s
det$ched or some H- meters $w$y? considering th$t the ro$d w$s str$ight $nd points
G-- meters north $nd south of the point of collision? visible $nd unobstructed>
<elos 9eyes $dmitted th$t he w$s running more or less K- kilometers per hour $t the
time of the $ccident> 0sing this speed? delos 9eyes covered the dist$nce of "K
meters in @>G" seconds> Bf 6e $dopt the speed of F- kilometers per hour? delos
9eyes would h$ve covered th$t dist$nce in only G>-GK seconds> Lerily? he h$d little
time to re$ct to the situ$tion> 8o require delos 9eyes to $void the collision is to
$sk too much from him> 5side from the time element involved? there were no options
$v$il$ble to him> 5s the tri$l court rem$rked .pp> C-JEC-F? 9ecord on 5ppe$l%/> > >
8hey .pl$intiffs% tried to impress this 1ourt th$t defend$nt de los 9eyes? could
h$ve t$ken either of two options/ .C% to swerve to its right .western shoulder% or
.G% to swerve to its left .e$stern l$ne%? $nd thus steer cle$r of the =$ngune
jeepney> 8his 1ourt does not so believe? considering the existing exigencies of
sp$ce $nd time>5s to the first option? +hil> 9$bbitRs evidence is convincing $nd
unrebutted th$t the 6estern shoulder of the ro$d w$s n$rrow $nd h$d t$ll gr$sses
which would indic$te th$t it w$s not p$ss$ble> )ven pl$intiffs own evidence? the
pictures .)xhs> + $nd +EG? +$scu$% $re mute confirm$tion of such f$ct> Bndeed? it
c$n be noticed in the picture .)xh> +EG? +$scu$% $fter the 9$bbit bus c$me to $
full stop? it w$s tilted to right front side? its front wheels resting most
prob$bly on $ c$n$l on $ much lower elev$tion th$t of the shoulder or p$ved ro$d>
Bt too shows th$t $ll of the wheels of the 9$bbit bus were cle$r of the ro$dw$y
except the outer left re$r wheel> 8hese observ$tion $ppe$ring in s$id picture .)xh
+EG? +$scu$% cle$rly shows coupled with the finding the 9$bbit bus c$me to $ full
stop only five meters from the point of imp$ct .see sketch? )xh> ME+$scu$% cle$rly
show th$t driver de los 9eyes veered his 9$bbit bus to the right $ttempt to $void
hitting the =$nguneRs jeepney> 8h$t it w$s not successful in fully cle$ring the
=$ngune jeepney $s its .9$bbitRs% left front hit s$id jeepney
.see picture )xh> C-E5E9$bbit% must h$ve been due to limit$tions of sp$ce $nd
time>5fter $ minute scrutiny of the f$ctu$l m$tters $nd duly proven evidence? 6e
find th$t the proxim$te c$use of the $ccident w$s the negligence of =$n$lo $nd
spouses =$ngune $nd 1$rreon> 8hey $ll f$iled to exercise the prec$utions th$t $re
needed precisely pro h$c vice>Bn culp$ contr$ctu$l? the moment $ p$ssenger dies or
is injured? the c$rrier is presumed to h$ve been $t f$ult or to h$ve $cted
negligently? $nd this disput$ble presumption m$y only be overcome by evidence th$t
he h$d observed extr$Eordin$ry diligence $s prescribed in 5rticles CJ@@? CJKK $nd
CJKI of the ;ew 1ivil 1ode Gor th$t the de$th or injury of the p$ssenger w$s due to
$ fortuitous event @.3$s$m v> :mith? Dr>? "K +hil> IKJ%>8he negligence of =$n$lo
w$s proven during the tri$l by the unrebutted testimonies of 1$rid$d +$scu$? +olice
Bnvestig$tor 8$cp$l? +olice 1orpor$l 1$c$ld$? his .=$n$loRs%conviction for the
crime of =ultiple Nomicide $nd =ultiple :erious Bnjuries with <$m$ge to +roperty
thru 9eckless Bmprudence? $nd the $pplic$tion of the doctrine of res ips$ loquitur
supr$> 8he negligence of spouses =$ngune $nd 1$rreon w$s likewise provenduring the
tri$l .p> CC-? 9ecord on 5ppe$l%/8o esc$pe li$bility? defend$nts =$ngune $nd
1$rreon offered to show thru their witness ;$t$lio ;$v$rro? $n $lleged mech$nic?
th$t he periodic$lly checks $nd m$int$ins the jeepney of s$id defend$nts? the l$st
on <ec> G@? the d$y before the collision? which included the tightening of the
bolts> 8his notwithst$nding the right re$r wheel of the vehicle w$s det$ched while
in tr$nsit> 5s to the c$use thereof no evidence w$s offered> :$id defend$nt did not
even $ttempt to expl$in? much less est$blish? it to be one c$used by $ c$so
fortuito> > > >Bn $ny event? WTi*n $n $ction for d$m$ges $g$inst the c$rrier for
his f$ilure to s$fely c$rry his p$ssenger to his destin$tion? $n $ccident c$used
either by defects in the $utomobile or through the negligence of its driver? is not
$ c$so fortuito which would $void the c$rriers li$bility for d$m$ges .:on v> 1ebu
5utobus 1omp$ny? H" +hil> FHG citing 3$s$m? et $l> v> :mith? Dr>? "K +hil> IKJS
;ecesito? etc> v> +$r$s? et $l>? C-" +hil> JK%>8he tri$l court w$s therefore right
in finding th$t =$n$lo $nd spouses =$ngune $nd 1$rreon were negligent> Nowever? its
ruling th$t spouses =$ngune $nd 1$rreon $re jointly $nd sever$lly li$ble with
=$n$lo is erroneous>8he driver c$nnot be held jointly $nd sever$lly li$ble with the
c$rrier in c$se of bre$ch of the contr$ct of c$rri$ge> 8he r$tion$le behind this is
re$dily discernible> 4irstly? the contr$ct of c$rri$ge is between the c$rrier $nd
the p$ssenger? $nd in the event of contr$ctu$l li$bility? the c$rrier is
exclusively responsible therefore to the p$ssenger? even if such bre$ch be due to
the negligence of his driver .sees Lilu$n v> 8he 1ourt of 5ppe$ls et $l>? ,>9>
;o s> 3EGC"JJEFC 5pril GH? CHII? CI :195 J"G%> Bn other words? the c$rrier c$n
neither shift his li$bility on the contr$ct to his driver nor sh$re it with him?
for his driverRs negligence is his>:econdly? if 6e m$ke the driver jointly $nd
sever$lly li$ble with the c$rrier? th$t would m$ke the c$rrierRs li$bility person$l
inste$d of merely vic$rious $nd consequently? entitled to recover only the sh$re
which corresponds to the driver? contr$dictory to the explicit provision of 5rticle
GCFC of the ;ew 1ivil 1ode> 6e $ffirm the $mount of d$m$ges $djudged by the tri$l
court? except with respect to the indemnity for loss of life> 0nder 5rticle CJI" in
rel$tion to 5rticle GG-I of the ;ew 1ivil 1ode? the $mount of d$m$ges for the de$th
of $ p$ssenger is $t le$st three thous$nd pesos .+@?--->--%> 8he prev$iling
jurisprudence h$s incre$sed the $mount of +@?--->-- to +@-?--->-- .see Neirs of
5mp$ro delos :$ntos? et $l> v> Nonor$ble 1ourt of 5ppe$ls? et $l>? ,>9> ;o> KCCIK?
Dune GC? CHH- citing <e 3im$ v> 3$gun$ 8$y$b$s 1o>? ,>9> ;os> 3E@KIHJEHH? 5pril CK?
CHFF? CI- :195 J-%>51129<B;,3A? the petition is hereby ,95;8)<> 8he decision of the
Bntermedi$te 5ppell$te 1ourt d$ted Duly GH? CHF@ $nd its resolution d$ted ;ovember
GF? CHF@ $re :)8 5:B<)> 8he decision of the 1ourt of 4irst Bnst$nce d$ted <ecember
GJ? CHJF is 9)B;:858)< =2<B4B158B2; th$t only Bsidro =$ngune? ,uillerm$ 1$rreon $nd
4ilriters ,u$r$nty 5ssur$nce 1orpor$tion? Bnc> $re li$ble to the victims or their
heirs $nd th$t the $mount of indemnity for loss of life is incre$sed to thirty
thous$nd pesos .+@-?--->--%>:o ordered>CCG> 4B32=);2 0975;2? vs>N2;> B515;< +)2+3)
24 8N) +NB3B++B;):4518:/ 5t $bout F/-- oRclock in the morning of 2ctober G@? CHF-?
petitioner 4ilomeno 0rb$no went to his rice field $t 7$r$ng$y 5non$ng? :$n 4$bi$n?
+$ng$sin$n loc$ted $t $bout C-- meters from the tob$cco seedbed of =$rcelo D$vier>
Ne found the pl$ce where he stored his p$l$y flooded with w$ter coming from the
irrig$tion c$n$l ne$rby which h$d overflowed> 0rb$no s$w =$rcelo D$vier $nd )milio
)rfe cutting gr$ss $nd $sked them who w$s responsible for the opening of the
irrig$tion c$n$l $nd D$vier $dmitted th$t he w$sthe one> 0rb$no then got $ngry $nd
dem$nded th$t D$vier p$y for his so$ked p$l$y> 5 qu$rrel between them ensued>
0rb$no unshe$thed his bolo $nd h$cked D$vier hitting him on the right p$lm of his
h$nd> D$vier who w$s then un$rmed r$n $w$y from 0rb$no but w$s overt$ken by 0rb$no
who h$cked him $g$in hitting D$vier on the left leg with the b$ck portion of s$id
bolo? c$using $ swelling on s$id leg> 6hen 0rb$no tried to h$ck $nd inflict further
injury? his d$ughter embr$ced $nd prevented him from h$cking D$vier> Bmmedi$tely
there$fter? 5ntonio )rfe? )milio )rfe? $nd 4elipe )rfe brought D$vier to the
physici$n> 0pon the intercession of 1ouncilm$n :olis? 0rb$no $nd D$vier $greed to
settle their differences> 0rb$no promised to p$y +J-->-- for the medic$l expenses
of D$vier>5t $bout C/@- $>m> on ;ovember C"? CHF-? D$vier w$s rushed to the
;$z$reth ,ener$l Nospit$l in $ very serious condition> 6hen $dmitted to the
hospit$l? D$vier h$d lockj$w $nd w$s h$ving convulsions> <r> )dmundo )xconde who
person$lly $ttended to D$vier found th$t the l$tterRs serious condition w$s c$used
by tet$nus toxin> Ne noticed the presence of $ he$ling wound in D$vierRs p$lm which
could h$ve been infected by tet$nus> 5nd on ;ovember CK? CHF- $t ex$ctly "/CF p>m>?
D$vier died in the hospit$l> 0rb$no w$s then ch$rged with the crime of homicide
before the then 1ircuit 1rimin$l 1ourt of <$gup$n 1ity? 8hird Dudici$l <istrict>
0pon $rr$ignment? 0rb$no ple$ded Wnot guilty>W 5fter tri$l? the tri$l court found
0rb$no guilty $s ch$rged> Ne w$s sentenced to suffer $n indetermin$te prison term>
8he then Bntermedi$te 5ppell$te 1ourt $ffirmed the conviction of 0rb$no on $ppe$l
but r$ised the $w$rd of indemnity to the heirs of the dece$sed to +@-?--->-- with
costs $g$inst the $ppell$nt> B::0)/ 6hether or not there w$s $n efficient
intervening c$use from the time D$vier w$s wounded until his de$th which would
exculp$te 0rb$no from $ny li$bility for D$vierRs de$thV903B;,/ 6e look into the
n$ture of tet$nus8he incub$tion period of tet$nus? i>e>? the time between injury
$nd the $ppe$r$nce of unmist$k$ble symptoms? r$nges from G to KI d$ys> Nowever?
over F- percent of p$tients become symptom$tic within C" d$ys> 5 short incub$tion
period indic$tes severe dise$se? $nd when symptoms occur within G or @ d$ys of
injury the mort$lity r$te $ppro$ches C-- percent> ;onEspecific premonitory symptoms
such $s restlessness? irrit$bility? $nd he$d$che $re encountered occ$sion$lly? but
the commonest presenting compl$ints $re p$in $nd stiffness in the j$w? $bdomen? or
b$ck $nd difficulty sw$llowing> 5s the progresses? stiffness gives w$y to rigidity?
$nd p$tients often compl$in of difficulty opening their mouths> Bn f$ct? trismus in
the commonest m$nifest$tion of tet$nus $nd is responsible for the f$mili$r
descriptive n$me of lockj$w> 5s more muscles $re involved? rigidity becomes
gener$lized? $nd sust$ined contr$ctions c$lled risus s$rdonicus> 8he intensity $nd
sequence of muscle involvement is quite v$ri$ble> Bn $ sm$ll proportion of
p$tients? only loc$l signs $nd symptoms develop in the region of the injury> Bn the
v$st m$jority? however? most muscles $re involved to some degree? $nd the signs $nd
symptoms encountered depend upon the m$jor muscle groups $ffected> 9eflex sp$sm
usu$lly occur within G" to JG hours of the first symptom? $n interv$l referred to
$s the onset time> 5s in the c$se of the incub$tion period? $ short onset time is
$ssoci$ted with $ poor prognosis> :p$sms $re c$used by sudden intensific$tion of
$fferent stimuli $rising in the periphery? which incre$ses rigidity $nd c$uses
simult$neous $nd excessive contr$ction of muscles $nd their $nt$gonists> :p$sms m$y
be both p$inful $nd d$ngerous> 5s the dise$se progresses? minim$l or in$pp$rent
stimuli produce more intense $nd longer l$sting sp$sms with incre$sing frequency>
9espir$tion m$y be imp$ired by l$ryngosp$sm or tonic contr$ction of respir$tory
muscles which prevent $dequ$te ventil$tion> Nypoxi$ m$y then le$d to irreversible
centr$l nervous system d$m$ge $nd de$th> =ild tet$nus is ch$r$cterized by $n
incub$tion period of $t le$st C" d$ys $nd $n onset time of more th$n I d$ys>
8rismus is usu$lly present? but dysph$gi$ is $bsent $nd gener$lized sp$sms $re
brief $nd mild> =oder$tely severe tet$nus h$s $ somewh$tshorter incub$tion period
$nd onset timeS trismus is m$rked? dysph$gi$ $nd gener$lized rigidity $re present?
but ventil$tion rem$ins $dequ$te even during sp$sms> 8he criteri$ for severe
tet$nus include $ short incub$tion time? $nd $n onset time of JG hrs>? or less?
severe trismus? dysph$gi$ $nd rigidity $nd frequent prolonged? gener$lized
convulsive sp$sms> .N$rrisonRs +rinciple of Bntern$l
=edicine? CHF@ )dition? pp> C--"EC--KS )mph$sis supplied% 8herefore? medic$lly
spe$king? the re$ction to tet$nus found inside $ m$nRs body depends on the
incub$tion period of the dise$se> Bn the c$se $t b$r? D$vier suffered $ GEinch
incised wound on his right p$lm when he p$rried the bolo which 0rb$no used in
h$cking him> 8his incident took pl$ce on 2ctober G@? CHF-> 5fter GG d$ys? or on
;ovember C"? CHF-? he suffered the symptoms of tet$nus? like lockj$w $nd muscle
sp$sms> 8he following d$y? ;ovember CK? CHF-? he died> Bf? therefore? the wound of
D$vier inflicted by the $ppell$nt w$s $lre$dy infected by tet$nus germs $t the
time? it is more medic$lly prob$ble th$t D$vier should h$ve been infected with only
$ mild c$use of tet$nus bec$use the symptoms of tet$nus $ppe$red on the GGnd d$y
$fter the h$cking incident or more th$n C" d$ys $fter the infliction of the wound>
8herefore? the onset time should h$ve been more th$n six d$ys> D$vier? however?
died on the second d$y from the onset time> 8he more credible conclusion is th$t $t
the time D$vierRs wound w$s inflicted by the $ppell$nt? the severe form of tet$nus
th$t killed him w$s not yet present> 1onsequently? D$vierRs wound could h$ve been
infected with tet$nus $fter the h$cking incident> 1onsidering the circumst$nce
surrounding D$vierRs de$th? his wound could h$ve been infected by tet$nus G or @ or
$ few but not G- to GG d$ys before he died> 8he rule is th$t the de$th of the
victim must be the direct? n$tur$l? $nd logic$l consequence of the wounds inflicted
upon him by the $ccused> .+eople v> 1$rden$s? supr$% 5nd since we $re de$ling with
$ crimin$l conviction? the proof th$t the $ccused c$used the victimRs de$th must
convince $ r$tion$l mind beyond re$son$ble doubt> 8he medic$l findings? however?
le$d us to $ distinct possibility th$t the infection of the wound by tet$nus w$s $n
efficient intervening c$use l$ter or between the time D$vier w$s wounded to the
time of his de$th> 8he infection w$s? therefore? distinct $nd foreign to the crime>
.+eople v> 9ellin? JJ +hil> C-@F%> <oubts $re present> 8here is $ likelihood th$t
the wound w$s but the remote c$use $nd its subsequent infection? for f$ilure to
t$ke necess$ry prec$utions? with tet$nus m$y h$ve been the proxim$te c$use of
D$vierRs de$th with which the petitioner h$d nothing to do> 5s we ruled in =$nil$
)lectric 1o> v> 9emoquillo? et $l> .HH +hil> CCF%> W5 prior $nd remote c$use c$nnot
be m$de the be of $n $ction if such remote c$use did nothing more th$n furnish the
condition or give rise to the occ$sion by which the injury w$s m$de possible? if
there intervened between such prior or remote c$use $nd the injury $ distinct?
successive? unrel$ted? $nd efficient c$use of the injury? even though such injury
would not h$ve h$ppened but for such condition or occ$sion> Bf no d$nger existed in
the condition except bec$use of the independent c$use? such condition w$s not the
proxim$te c$use> 5nd if $n independent negligent $ct or defective condition sets
into oper$tion the inst$nces which result in injury bec$use of the prior defective
condition? such subsequent $ct or condition is the proxim$te c$use>W ."K 1>D> pp>
H@CEH@G%> .$t p> CGK% Bt str$ins the judici$l mind to $llow $ cle$r $ggressor to go
scot free of crimin$l li$bility> 5t the very le$st? the records show he is guilty
of inflicting slight physic$l injuries> Nowever? the petitionerRs crimin$l
li$bility in thisrespect w$s wiped out by the victimRs own $ct> 5fter the h$cking
incident? 0rb$no $nd D$vier used the f$cilities of b$r$ng$y medi$tors to effect $
compromise $greement where D$vier forg$ve 0rb$no while 0rb$no defr$yed the medic$l
expenses of D$vier> 8his settlement of minor offenses is $llowed under the express
provisions of +residenti$l <ecree ,>9> ;o> CK-F? :ection G.@%> .:ee $lso +eople v>
1$runcho? CGJ :195 CI%> 6e must stress? however? th$t our discussion of proxim$te
c$use $nd remote c$use is limited to the crimin$l $spects of this r$ther unusu$l
c$se> Bt does not necess$rily follow th$t the petitioner is $lso free of civil
li$bility> 8he wellEsettled doctrine is th$t $ person? while not crimin$lly li$ble?
m$y still be civilly li$ble> 8hus? in the recent c$se of +eople v> 9ogelio 3igon y
8ri$? et $l> .,>9> ;o> J"-"C? Duly GH? CHFJ%? we s$id/ >>> 6hile the guilt of the
$ccused in $ crimin$l prosecution must be est$blished beyond re$son$ble doubt? only
$ preponder$nce of evidence is required in $ civil $ction for d$m$ges> .5rticle GH?
1ivil 1ode%> 8he judgment of $cquitt$l extinguishes the civil li$bility of the
$ccused only when it includes $ decl$r$tion th$t the f$cts from which the civil
li$bility might $rise did not exist> .+$dill$ v> 1ourt of 5ppe$ls? CGH :195 KKH%>
8he re$son for the provisions of $rticle GH of the 1ivil 1ode? which provides th$t
the $cquitt$l of the $ccused on the ground th$t his guilt h$s not been proved
beyond re$son$ble doubt does not necess$rily exempt him from civil li$bility for
the s$me $ct or omission? h$s been expl$ined by the 1ode 1ommission $s follows/ 8he
old rule th$t the $cquitt$l of the $ccused in $ crimin$l c$se $lso rele$ses him
from civil li$bility is one of the most serious fl$ws in the +hilippine leg$l
system> Bt h$s given use to numberless inst$nces of misc$rri$ge of justice? where
the $cquitt$l w$s due to $ re$son$ble doubt in the mind of the court $s to the
guilt of the $ccused> 8he re$soning followed is th$t in$smuch $s the civil
responsibility is derived from the crimin$l offense? when the l$tter is not proved?
civil li$bility c$nnot be dem$nded> 8his is one of those c$uses where confused
thinking le$ds to unfortun$te $nd deplor$ble consequences> :uch re$soning f$ils to
dr$w $ cle$r line of dem$rc$tion between crimin$l li$bility $nd civil
responsibility? $nd to determine the logic$l result of the distinction> 8he two
li$bilities $re sep$r$te $nd distinct from e$ch other> 2ne $ffects the soci$l order
$nd the other? priv$te rights> 2ne is for the punishment or correction of the
offender while the other is for rep$r$tion of d$m$ges suffered by the $ggrieved
p$rty> 8he two responsibilities $re so different from e$ch other th$t $rticle CFC@
of the present .:p$nish% 1ivil 1ode re$ds thus/ W8here m$y be $ compromise upon the
civil $ction $rising from $ crimeS but the public $ction for the imposition of the
leg$l pen$lty sh$ll not thereby be extinguished>W Bt is just $nd proper th$t? for
the purposes of the imprisonment of or fine upon the $ccused? the offense should be
proved beyond re$son$ble doubt> 7ut for the purpose of indemnity the compl$ining
p$rty? why should the offense $lso be proved beyond re$son$ble doubtV Bs not the
inv$sion or viol$tion of every priv$te right to be proved only by $ preponder$nce
of evidenceV Bs the right of the $ggrieved person $ny less priv$te bec$use the
wrongful $ct is $lso punish$ble by the crimin$l l$wV W4or these re$sons? the
1ommission recommends the $doption of the reform under discussion> Bt will correct
$ serious defect in our l$w> Bt will close up $n inexh$ustible source of injusticeE
$ c$use for disillusionment on the p$rt of the innumer$ble persons injured or
wronged>W 8he respondent court incre$sed the +CG?--->-- indemnific$tion imposed by
the tri$l court to +@-?--->--> Nowever? since the indemnific$tion w$s b$sed solely
on the finding of guilt beyond re$son$ble doubt in the homicide c$se? the civil
li$bility of the petitioner w$s not thoroughly ex$mined> 8his $spect of the c$se
c$lls for fuller development if the heirs of the victim $re so minded> 6N)9)429)?
the inst$nt petition is hereby ,95;8)<> 8he questioned decision of the then
Bntermedi$te 5ppell$te 1ourt? now 1ourt of 5ppe$ls? is 9)L)9:)< $nd :)8 5:B<)> 8he
petitioner is 51(0B88)< of the crime of homicide> 1osts de oficio> :2 29<)9)<> CC@>
,35; +)2+3)R: 30=7)9 5;< N59<659) vs> B;8)9=)<B58) 5++)3358) 12098? 4518:/ )ngineer
2rl$ndo 8> 1$libo? 5gripino 9or$nes? $nd =$ximo +$tos were on the jeep owned by the
7$cnot$n 1onsolid$ted Bndustries? Bnc>? with 1$libo $t the wheel? $s it $ppro$ched
from the :outh 3iz$d$ 7ridge going tow$rds the direction of <$v$o 1ity $t $bout
C/"K in the $fternoon of Duly "?CHJH> 5t $bout th$t time? the c$rgo tr$ck? lo$ded
with cement b$gs? ,B sheets? plywood? driven by defend$nt +$ul O$c$ri$s y Bnf$nts?
coming from the opposite direction of <$v$o 1ity $nd bound for ,l$n? :outh
1ot$b$to? h$d just crossed s$id bridge> 5t $bout KH y$rds $fter crossing the
bridge? the c$rgo truck $nd the jeep collided $s $ consequence of which )ngineer
1$libo died while 9or$nes $nd +$tos sust$ined physic$l injuries> 5s $ result of the
imp$ct? the left side of the truck w$s slightly d$m$ged while the left side of the
jeep? including its fender $nd hood? w$s extensively d$m$ged> 5fter the imp$ct? the
jeep fell $nd rested on its right side on the $sph$lted ro$d $ few meters to the
re$r of the truck? while the truck stopped on its wheels on the ro$d> 2n ;ovember
GJ? CHJH? the inst$nt c$se for d$m$ges w$s filed by the surviving spouse $nd
children of the l$te )ngineer 1$libo who $re residents of 8$gbil$r$n 1ity $g$inst
the driver $nd owners of the c$rgo truck> 8he 1ourt re$ched the conclusion Wth$t
the pl$intiffs f$iled to est$blish by preponder$nce of evidence the negligence? $nd
thus the li$bility? of the defend$nts>W 5ccordingly? the 1ourt dismissed the
compl$int .$nd defend$ntsR countercl$im% Wfor insufficiency of evidence>W 3ikewise
dismissed w$s thirdp$rty compl$int presented by the defend$nts $g$inst the insurer
of the truck> 8he 1ourt of 5ppe$ls s$w things differently> Bt rendered judgment on
the pl$intiffsR $ppe$l? reversing the decision of the 8ri$l 1ourt> Bt found
O$c$ri$s to be negligentB::0)/ 6hether or not negligence of $n employee g$ve rise
to the presumption of negligence on
the p$rt of the employer? $nd their li$bility is both prim$ry $nd solid$ryV
903B;,/ 8he finding th$t Wthe truck driven by defend$nt +$ul O$c$ri$s occupied the
l$ne of the jeep when the collision occurredW is $ loose one? b$sed on nothing more
th$n the showing th$t $t the time of the $ccident? the truck driven by O$c$ri$s h$d
edged over the p$inted center line of the ro$d into the opposite l$ne by $ width of
twentyEfive .GK% centimeters> Bt ignores the f$ct th$t by the uncontr$dicted
evidence? the $ctu$l center line of the ro$d w$s not th$t indic$ted by the p$inted
stripe but? $ccording to me$surements m$de $nd testified by +$trolm$n Du$nit$
<im$$no? one of the two officers who investig$ted the $ccident? correctly l$y
thirtyEsix .@I% centimeters f$rther to the left of the truckRs side of s$id stripe>
8he 5ppell$te 1ourt w$s not correct in finding th$t +$ulino O$c$ri$s h$d $cted
negligently in $pplying his br$kes inste$d of getting b$ck inside his l$ne upon
espying the $ppro$ching jeep> 7eing well within his own l$ne? $s h$s $lre$dy been
expl$ined? he h$d no duty to swerve out of the jeepRs w$y $s s$id 1ourt would h$ve
h$d him do> 5nd even supposing th$t he w$s in f$ct p$rtly inside the opposite l$ne?
coming to $ full stop with the jeep still thirty .@-% meters $w$y c$nnot be
considered $n uns$fe or imprudent $ction? there $lso being uncontr$dicted evidence
th$t the jeep w$s Wzigz$ggingW G- $nd hence no w$y of telling in which direction it
would go $s it $ppro$ched the truck> 5lso cle$rly erroneous is the finding of the
Bntermedi$te 5ppell$te 1ourt th$t O$c$ri$s h$d no driverRs license $t the time> 8he
tr$ffic $ccident report $ttests to the proven f$ct th$t O$c$ri$s volunt$rily
surrendered to the investig$ting officers his driverRs license? v$lid for CHJH?
th$t h$d been renewed just the d$y before the $ccident? on Duly @? CHJH>GC 8he
1ourt w$s $pp$rently misled by the circumst$nce th$t when s$id driver w$s first
$sked to show his license by the investig$tors $t the scene of the collision? he
h$d first in$dvertently produced the license of $ fellow driver? 3eon$rdo
7$ricu$tro? who h$d left s$id license in <$v$o 1ity $nd h$d $sked O$c$ri$s to bring
it b$ck to him in ,l$n? 1ot$b$to>8he evidence not only $cquits O$c$ri$s of $ny
negligence in the m$tterS there $re $lso quite $ few signific$nt indic$tors th$t it
w$s r$ther )ngineer 1$liboRs negligence th$t w$s the proxim$te c$use of the
$ccident> O$c$ri$s h$d told +$trolm$n <im$$no $t the scene of the collision $nd
l$ter confirmed in his written st$tement $t the police he$dqu$rters G@ th$t the
jeep h$d been Wzigz$gging?W which is to s$y th$t it w$s tr$velling or being driven
err$tic$lly $t the time> 8he other investig$tor? +$trolm$n Dose )sp$rci$? $lso
testified th$t eyewitnesses to the $ccident h$d rem$rked on the jeepRs
Wzigz$gging>W G"8here is moreover more th$n $ suggestion th$t 1$libo h$d been
drinking shortly before the $ccident> 8he decision of the 8ri$l 1ourt $dverts to
further testimony of )sp$rci$ to the effect th$t three of 1$liboRs comp$nions $t
the be$ch p$rty he w$s driving home from when the collision occurred? who? h$ving
left $he$d of him went to the scene when they he$rd $bout the $ccident? h$d s$id
th$t there h$d been $ drinking spree $t the p$rty $nd? referring to 1$libo? h$d
rem$rked/ W:$bi n$ hu$g n$ng m$g drive > > > > pumipilit?W .loosely tr$nsl$ted? WNe
w$s $dvised not to drive? but he insisted>W% 8he doctrine of the l$st cle$r ch$nce
provides $s v$lid $nd complete $ defense to $ccident li$bility tod$y $s it did when
invoked $nd $pplied in the CHCF c$se of +ic$rt vs> :mith? supr$? which involved $
simil$r st$te of f$cts> 2f those f$cts? which should be f$mili$r to every student
of l$w? it is only necess$ry to rec$ll the summ$ry m$de in the syll$bus of this
1ourtRs decision th$t/ .t%he pl$intiff w$s riding $ pony on $ bridge> :eeing $n
$utomobile $he$d he improperly pulled his horse over to the r$iling on the right>
8he driver of the $utomobile? however guided his c$r tow$rd the pl$intiff without
diminution of speed until he w$s only few feet $w$y> Ne then turned to the right
but p$ssed so closely to the horse th$t the l$tter being frightened? jumped $round
$nd w$s killed by the p$ssing c$r> > > > >+l$intiff +ic$rt w$s thrown off his horse
$nd suffered contusions which required sever$l d$ys of medic$l $ttention> Ne sued
the defend$nt :mith for the v$lue of his $nim$l? medic$l expenses $nd d$m$ge to his
$pp$rel $nd obt$ined judgment from this 1ourt which? while finding th$t there w$s
negligence on the p$rt of both p$rties? held th$t th$t of the defend$nt w$s the
immedi$te $nd determining c$use of the $ccident $nd th$t of the pl$intiff W> > >
the more remote f$ctor in the c$seW/ Bt goes without s$ying th$t the pl$intiff
himself w$s not free from f$ult? for he w$s guilty of $ntecedent negligence in
pl$nting himself on the wrong side of the ro$d> 7ut $s we h$ve $lre$dy st$ted? the
defend$nt w$s $lso negligentS $nd in such c$se the problem $lw$ys is to discover
which $gent is immedi$tely $nd directly responsible> Bt will be noted th$t the
negligent $cts of the two p$rties were not contempor$neous? since the negligence of
the defend$nt succeeded the negligence of the pl$intiff by $n $ppreci$ble interv$l>
0nder these circumst$nces the l$w is th$t the person who h$s the l$st f$ir ch$nce
to $void the impending h$rm $nd f$ils to do so is ch$rge$ble with the consequences?
without reference to the prior negligence of the other p$rty> :ince s$id ruling
cle$rly $pplies to exoner$te petitioner O$c$ri$s $nd his employer .$nd coE
petitioner% ,eorge 3im? $n inquiry into whether or not the evidence supports the
l$tterRs $ddition$l defense of due diligence in the selection $nd supervision of
s$id driver is no longer necess$ry $nd wig not be undert$ken> 8he f$ct is th$t
there is such evidence in the record which h$s not been controverted> Bt must be
pointed out? however? th$t the Bntermedi$te 5ppell$te 1ourt $lso seriously erred in
holding the petitioners +$blo :> 5g$d $nd 4elix 3im solid$rily li$ble for the
d$m$ges $w$rded in its $ppe$led decision? $s $lleged owners? with petitioner ,eorge
3im? of ,l$n +eopleRs 3umber $nd N$rdw$re? employer of petitioner O$c$ri$s> 8his
m$nifestly disreg$rded? not only the certific$te of registr$tion issued by the
7ure$u of <omestic 8r$de identifying ,l$n +eopleRs 3umber $nd N$rdw$re $s $
business n$me registered by ,eorge 3im? GF but $lso unimpugned $lleg$tions into the
petitionersR $nswer to the compl$int th$t +$blo :> 5g$d w$s only $n employee of
,eorge 3im $nd th$t 4elix 3im? then $ child of only eight .F% ye$rs? w$s in no w$y
connected with the business> Bn conclusion? it must $lso be st$ted th$t there is no
doubt of this 1ourtRs power to review the $ss$iled decision of the Bntermedi$te
5ppell$te 1ourt under the $uthority of precedents recognizing exceptions to the
f$mili$r rule binding it to observe $nd respect the l$tterRs findings of f$ct> =$ny
of those exceptions m$y be cited to support the review here undert$ken? but only
the most obvious th$t s$id findings directly conflict with those of the 8ri$l
1ourt will suffice> GH Bn the opinion of this 1ourt $nd $fter $ c$reful review of
the record? the evidence singul$rly f$ils to support the findings of the
Bntermedi$te 5ppell$te 1ourt which? for $ll th$t $ppe$rs? seem to h$ve been
prompted r$ther by symp$thy for the heirs of the dece$sed )ngineer 1$libo th$n by
$n objective $ppr$is$l of the proofs $nd $ correct $pplic$tion of the l$w to the
est$blished f$cts> 1omp$ssion for the plight of those whom $n $ccident h$s robbed
of the love $nd support of $ husb$nd $nd f$ther is $n entirely n$tur$l $nd
underst$nd$ble sentiment> Bt should not? however? be $llowed to st$nd in the w$y
of? much less to influence? $ just verdict in $ suit $t l$w> 6N)9)429)? the
$ppe$led judgment of the Bntermedi$te 5ppell$te 1ourt is hereby 9)L)9:)<? $nd the
compl$int $g$inst herein petitioners in 1ivil 1$se ;o> @GF@ of the 1ourt of 4irst
Bnst$nce of 7ohol? 7r$nch BL? is <B:=B::)<> ;o pronouncement $s to costs> :2
29<)9)<>1$ses C-KECC@351=55;? 49)1NB) 2>CC"> 92,)3B2 );,5<5vs> N2;> 12098 24
5++)53:? ,>9> ;o> C"-IHF> Dune G-? G--@4518:/ 2n ;ovember GH? CHFH? $t $bout C/@-
in the $fternoon? )dwin Br$n w$s driving $ blue 8oyot$ 8$m$r$w jeepney bound for
Bloilo 1ity> 2n bo$rd w$s :heil$ :ey$n? the registered owner of the 8$m$r$w> 6hile
tr$versing the ro$d $long 7$r$ng$y 5cquit? 7$rot$c ;uevo? the 8$m$r$w p$ssengers
$llegedly s$w from the opposite direction $ speeding Bsuzu pickEup? driven by
petitioner 9ogelio )ng$d$> 8he pickEup h$d just negoti$ted $ hilly gr$dient on the
highw$y> 6hen it w$s just $ few meters $w$y from the 8$m$r$w? the Bsuzu pickEup s
right sign$l light fl$shed? $t the s$me time? it swerved to its left? encro$ching
upon the l$ne of the 8$m$r$w $nd he$ded tow$rds $ he$dEon collision course with it>
:ey$n shouted $t Br$n to $void the pickEup> Br$n swerved to his left but the pickE
up $lso swerved to its right> 8hus? the pickEup collided with the 8$m$r$w? hitting
the l$tter $t its right front p$ssenger side> 8he imp$ct c$used the he$d $nd
ch$ssis of the 8$m$r$w to sep$r$te from its body> :ey$n w$s thrown out of the
8$m$r$w $nd l$nded on $ ricefield> 8he pickEup stopped di$gon$lly $stride the
center of the ro$d> :ey$n $nd Br$n were brought to 7$rot$c ;uevo =edic$re Nospit$l>
:ey$n w$s profusely bleeding from her nose $nd w$s in $ st$te of shock with her
eyes closed> Bn the $fternoon of the s$me d$y? ;ovember GH? CHFH? she w$s
tr$nsferred to :t> +$ul s Nospit$l in Bloilo 1ity where she w$s confined> Ner
medic$l certific$te reve$led th$t she suffered $ fr$cture on the right femur?
l$cer$ted wound on the right foot? multiple contusions? $br$sions? blunt $bdomin$l
injury? $nd l$cer$tions
of the upperElower pole of the right kidney> :he w$s disch$rged from the hospit$l
only on D$nu$ry CK? CHH-> :ey$n incurred +C@-?--- in medic$l expenses> 8he 8oyot$
8$m$r$w jeepney ended up in the junk he$p> Bts tot$l loss w$s computed $t +F-?--->
2n 5ugust GK? CHH" the tri$l court found the $ccused guilty beyond re$son$ble doubt
of :imple Bmprudence resulting in physic$l injuries $nd d$m$ge to property defined
$nd pen$lized in 5rticle GI@? p$r$gr$ph " $nd in rel$tion with 5rticle @IK?
p$r$gr$ph G of the 9evised +en$l 1ode? hereby sentences the $ccused 9ogelio )ng$d$
to suffer imprisonment of one .C% month $nd one .C% d$y of $rresto m$yor> 5ccused
is further ordered to p$y compl$in$nt =rs> :heil$ :ey$n the $mount of +KC?--->--
for the tot$l destruction of the 8oyot$ 8$m$r$w Deepney $nd +CC-?--->-- for
indemnific$tion of hospit$l $nd medic$l expenses? $nd to p$y the cost of the suit>
+etitioner $ppe$led to the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls> 2n =$y @C? CHHH? the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls
dismissed the $ppe$l $nd $ffirmed withmodific$tion the tri$l court s decision $s to
the pen$lty imposed upon the $ccused who is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment
of four ."% months of $rresto m$yor>B::0)/ 6hether or not the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls err
in finding th$t the $ction of petitioner? 9ogelio )ng$d$? w$s the proxim$te c$use
of the collision> 903B;,/ 4or f$iling to observe the duty of diligence $nd c$re
imposed on drivers of vehicles $b$ndoning their l$ne? petitioner must be held
li$ble>Br$n could not be f$ulted when in his $ttempt to $void the pickEup? he
swerved to his left> +etitioner s $cts h$d put Br$n in $n emergency situ$tion which
forced him to $ct quickly> 5n individu$l who suddenly finds himself in $ situ$tion
of d$nger $nd is required to $ct without much time to consider the best me$ns th$t
m$y be $dopted to $void the impending d$nger? is not guilty of negligence if he
f$ils to undert$ke wh$t subsequently $nd upon reflection m$y $ppe$r to be $ better
solution? unless the emergency w$s brought by his own negligence>+etitioner tries
to extric$te himself from li$bility by invoking the doctrine of l$st cle$r ch$nce>
Ne $vers th$t between him $nd Br$n? the l$tter h$d the l$st cle$r ch$nce to $void
the collision? hence Br$n must be held li$ble>8he doctrine of l$st cle$r ch$nce
st$tes th$t $ person who h$s the l$st cle$r ch$nce or opportunity of $voiding $n
$ccident? notwithst$nding the negligent $cts of his opponent? is considered in l$w
solely responsible for the consequences of the $ccident> 7ut $s $lre$dy st$ted on
this point? no convincing evidence w$s $dduced by petitioner to support his
invoc$tion of the $bove cited doctrine> Bnste$d? wh$t h$s been shown is the
presence of $n emergency $nd the proper $pplic$tion of the emergency rule>
+etitioner s $ct of swerving to the 8$m$r$w s l$ne $t $ dist$nce of @- meters from
it $nd driving the Bsuzu pickEup $t $ f$st speed $s it $ppro$ched the 8$m$r$w?
denied Br$n time $nd opportunity to ponder the situ$tion $t $ll> 8here w$s no cle$r
ch$nce to spe$k of> 5ccordingly? the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls did not err in holding
petitioner responsible for the vehicul$r collision $nd the resulting d$m$ges?
including the injuries suffered by =rs> :heil$ :ey$n $nd the tot$l loss of the
8$m$r$w jeepney> Bt $lso did not err in imposing on petitioner the sentence of four
."% months of $rresto m$yor>CCK> +5;895;12 ;298N )P+9)::? B;1> L:> =59B159 75):5
4518:/ 5t $bout J/-- o clock in the morning of Dune CG? CHFC? the spouses 1e$s$r
$nd =$rilyn 7$es$ $nd their children N$rold Dim? =$rcelino $nd =$ric$r? together
with spouses <$vid Bco $nd 4e 2> Bco with their son )rwin Bco $nd seven other
persons? were $bo$rd $ p$ssenger jeepney on their w$y to $ picnic $t =$l$l$m 9iver?
Bl$g$n? Bs$bel$? to celebr$te the fifth wedding $nnivers$ry of 1e$s$r $nd =$rilyn
7$es$> 8he group? numbering fifteen .CK% persons? rode in the p$ssenger jeepney
driven by <$vid Bco? who w$s $lso the registered owner thereof> 4rom Bl$g$n?
Bs$bel$? they proceeded to 7$rrio 1$p$y$c$n to deliver some vi$nds to one =rs>
7$scos $nd thenceforth to :$n 4elipe? t$king the highw$y going to =$l$l$m 9iver>
0pon re$ching the highw$y? the jeepney turned right $nd proceeded to =$l$l$m 9iver
$t $ speed of $bout G- kph> 6hile they were proceeding tow$rds =$l$l$m 9iver? $
speeding +5;895;12 bus from 5p$rri? on its regul$r route to =$nil$? encro$ched on
the jeepney s l$ne while negoti$ting $ curve? $nd collided with it> 5s $ result of
the $ccident <$vid Bco? spouses 1e$s$r 7$es$ $nd =$rilyn 7$es$ $nd their children?
N$rold Dim $nd =$rcelino 7$es$? died while the rest of the p$ssengers suffered
injuries> 8he jeepney w$s extensively d$m$ged> 5fter the $ccident the driver of the
+5;895;12 7us? 5mbrosio 9$mirez? bo$rded $ c$r $nd proceeded to :$nti$go? Bs$bel$>
4rom th$t time on up to the present? 9$mirez h$s never been seen $nd h$s $pp$rently
rem$ined in hiding> 5ll the victims $ndXor their surviving heirs except herein
priv$te respondents settled the c$se $mic$bly under the ;o 4$ult insur$nce
cover$ge of +5;895;12>2n Duly @? CHF"? the 1ourt of 4irst Bnst$nce of +$ng$sin$n
rendered $ decision $g$inst +5;895;12 $w$rding the tot$l $mount of 8wo =illion
8hree Nundred 4our 8hous$nd :ix Nundred 4ortyE:even +esos .+G?@-"?I"J>--% $s
d$m$ges? plus C-Y thereof $s $ttorney s fees $nd costs to =$ric$r 7$es$ in 1ivil
1$se ;o> KICE9? $nd the tot$l $mount of :ix Nundred 4ifty 8wo 8hous$nd :ix Nundred
:eventyE8wo +esos .+IKG?IJG>--% $s d$m$ges? plus C-Y thereof $s $ttorney s fees $nd
costs to 4e Bco $nd her children in 1ivil 1$se ;o> KFHE9> 2n $ppe$l? the c$ses were
consolid$ted $nd the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls modified the decision of the tri$l court by
ordering +5;895;12 to p$y the tot$l $mount of 2ne =illion 2ne Nundred )ightyE;ine
8hous$nd ;ine Nundred 8wentyE:even +esos .+C?CFH?HGJ>--% $s d$m$ges? plus 8wenty
8hous$nd +esos .+G-?--->--% $s $ttorney s fees to =$ric$r 7$es$? $nd the tot$l
$mount of 8hree Nundred 4ortyE4our 8hous$nd +esos .+@""?--->--% plus 8en 8hous$nd
+esos .+C-?--->--% $s $ttorney s fees to 4e Bco$nd her children? $nd to p$y the
costs in both c$ses>+5;895;12 filed $ motion for reconsider$tion of the 1ourt of
5ppe$l s decision? but on Dune GI? CHFJ? it denied the s$me for l$ck of merit>
B::0):/C> 6hether or not the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls erred in $pplying the doctrine of the
l$st cle$r ch$nce >G> 6hether or not the petitioner h$d observed the diligence of
$ good f$ther of $ f$mily to prevent d$m$ge>@> 6hether or not the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls
erred in fixing the d$m$ges for the loss of e$rning c$p$city of the dece$sed
victims>903B;,/C> 8he $bove contention of petitioner is m$nifestly devoid of merit>
1ontr$ry to the petitioner s contention? the doctrine of l$st cle$r ch$nce finds
no $pplic$tion in this c$se> 4or the doctrine to be $pplic$ble? it is necess$ry to
show th$t the person who $llegedly h$d the l$st opportunity to $vert the $ccident
w$s $w$re of the existence of the peril or should? with exercise of due c$re? h$ve
been $w$re of it>2ne c$nnot be expected to $void $n $ccident or injury if he does
not know or could not h$ve known the existence of the peril> Bn this c$se? there is
nothing to show th$t the jeepney driver <$vid Bco knew of the impending d$nger>
6hen he s$w $t $ dist$nce th$t the $ppro$ching bus w$s encro$ching on his l$ne? he
did not immedi$tely swerve the jeepney to the dirt shoulder on his right since he
must h$ve $ssumed th$t the bus driver will return the bus to its own l$ne upon
seeing the jeepney $ppro$ching from the opposite direction>+etitioner s mispl$ced
reli$nce on the $fores$id l$w is re$dily $pp$rent in this c$se> 8he cited l$w
itself provides th$t it $pplies only to vehicles entering $ through highw$y or $
stop intersection> 5t the time of the $ccident? the jeepney h$d $lre$dy crossed the
intersection $nd w$s on its w$y to =$l$l$m 9iver> +etitioner itself cited 4e Bco s
testimony th$t the $ccident occurred $fter the jeepney h$d tr$velled $ dist$nce of
$bout two .G% meters from the point of intersection> Bn f$ct? even the witness for
the petitioner? 3eo =$r$nt$n? testified th$t both vehicles were coming from
opposite directions? cle$rly indic$ting th$t the jeepney h$d $lre$dy crossed the
intersection>1onsidering the foregoing? the 1ourt finds th$t the negligence of
petitioner s driver in encro$ching into the l$ne of the incoming jeepney $nd in
f$iling to return the bus to its own l$ne immedi$tely upon seeing the jeepney
coming from the opposite direction w$s the sole $nd proxim$te c$use of the $ccident
without which the collision would not h$ve occurred> 8here w$s no supervening or
intervening negligence on the p$rt of the jeepney driver which would h$ve m$de the
prior negligence of petitioner s driver $ mere remote c$use of the $ccident>G> 8he
1ourt finds the $bove contention unmeritorious>8he finding of negligence on the
p$rt of its driver 5mbrosio 9$mirez g$ve rise to the presumption of negligence on
the p$rt of petitioner $nd the burden of proving th$t it exercised due diligence
not only in the selection of its employees but $lso in $dequ$tely supervising their
work rests with the petitioner .3ilius v> =$nil$ 9$ilro$d 1omp$ny? KH +hil> JKF
.CH@"%? 0m$li v> 7$c$ni? ,>9> ;o> 3E"-KJ-? Dune @-? CHJI? IH :195 IG@>* 1ontr$ry to
petitioner s cl$im? there is no presumption th$t the usu$l recruitment procedures
$nd s$fety st$nd$rds were observed> 8he mere issu$nce of rules $nd regul$tions $nd
the formul$tion of v$rious comp$ny policies on s$fety? without showing th$t they
$re being complied with? $re not sufficient to exempt petitioner from li$bility
$rising from the negligence of its employee> Bt is incumbent upon petitioner to
show th$t in recruiting $nd employing the erring driver? the recruitment procedures
$nd comp$ny policies on efficiency
$nd s$fety were followed> +etitioner f$iled to do this>Nence? the 1ourt finds no
cogent re$son to disturb the finding of both the tri$l court $nd the 1ourt of
5ppe$ls th$t the evidence presented by the petitioner? which consists m$inly of the
uncorrobor$ted testimony of its 8r$ining 1oordin$tor? is insufficient to overcome
the presumption of negligence $g$inst petitioner>@> 8he 1ourt finds th$t the 1ourt
of 5ppe$ls committed no reversible error in fixing the $mount of d$m$ges for the
loss of e$rning c$p$city of the dece$sed victims> 6hile it is true th$t priv$te
respondents should h$ve presented document$ry evidence to support their cl$im for
d$m$ges for loss of e$rning c$p$city of the dece$sed victims? the $bsence thereof
does not necess$rily b$r the recovery of the d$m$ges in question> 8he testimony of
4e Bco $nd 4r$ncisc$ 7$scos $s to the e$rning c$p$city of <$vid Bco $nd the spouses
7$es$? respectively? $re sufficient to est$blish $ b$sis from which the court c$n
m$ke $ f$ir $nd re$son$ble estim$te of the d$m$ges for the loss of e$rning c$p$city
of the three dece$sed victims> =oreover? in fixing the d$m$ges for loss of e$rning
c$p$city of $ dece$sed victim? the court c$n consider the n$ture of his occup$tion?
his educ$tion$l $tt$inment $nd the st$te of his he$lth $t the time of de$th>
Nowever? it should be pointed out th$t the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls committed error in
fixing the compens$tory d$m$ges for the de$th of N$rold Dim 7$es$ $nd =$rcelino
7$es$>9espondent court $w$rded to pl$intiff .priv$te respondent% =$ric$r 7$es$
8hirty 8hous$nd +esos .+@-?--->--% $s compens$tory d$m$ges for the de$th of N$rold
Dim 7$es$ $nd =$rcelino 7$es$> T15 <ecision? p>C"S 9ollo? KJ>* Bn other words? the
1ourt of 5ppe$ls $w$rded only 4ifteen 8hous$nd +esos .+CK?--->--% $s indemnity for
the de$th of N$rold Dim 7$es$ $nd $nother 4ifteen 8hous$nd +esos .+CK?--->--% for
the de$th of =$rcelino 7$es$> 8his is cle$rly erroneous> Bn the c$se of +eople v>
de l$ 4uente? ,>9> ;os> I@GKCEKG? <ecember GH? CHF@? CGI :195 KCF? the indemnity
for the de$th of $ person w$s fixed by this 1ourt $t 8hirty 8hous$nd +esos
.+@-?--->--%> +l$intiff =$ric$r 7$es$ should therefore be $w$rded :ixty 8hous$nd
+esos .+I-?--->--% $s indemnity for the de$th of her brothers? N$rold Dim 7$es$ $nd
=$rcelino 7$es$ or 8hirty 8hous$nd +esos .+@-?--->--% for the de$th of e$ch
brother>8he other items of d$m$ges $w$rded by respondent court which were not
ch$llenged by the petitioner $re hereby $ffirmed>CCI> 371 5B9 159,2? B;1>? L:> N2;>
12098 24 5++)53:4518:/ 2n ;ovember CK? CHFJ? $t $bout CC/@- in the morning? 9ogelio
=onterol$? $ licensed driver? w$s tr$veling on bo$rd his :uzuki motorcycle tow$rds
=$ng$goy on the right l$ne $long $ dusty n$tion$l ro$d in 7islig? :urig$o del :ur>
5t $bout the s$me time? $ c$rgo v$n of the 371 5ir 1$rgo Bncorpor$ted? driven by
defend$nt D$ime 8$no? Dr>? w$s coming from the opposite direction on its w$y to the
7islig 5irport> 2n bo$rd were p$ssengers 4ern$ndo Au? =$n$ger of 371 5ir 1$rgo? $nd
his son who w$s se$ted beside 8$no> 6hen 8$no w$s $ppro$ching the vicinity of the
$irport ro$d entr$nce on his left? he s$w two vehicles r$cing $g$inst e$ch other
from the opposite direction> 8$no stopped his vehicle $nd w$ited for the two r$cing
vehicles to p$ss by> 8he stirred cloud of dust m$de visibility extremely b$d>
Bnste$d of w$iting for the dust to settled? 8$no st$rted to m$ke $ sh$rp left turn
tow$rds the $irport ro$d> 6hen he w$s $bout to re$ch the center of the right l$ne?
the motorcycle driven by =onterol$ suddenly emerged from the dust $nd sm$shed he$dE
on $g$inst the right side of the 371 v$n> =onterol$ died from the severe injuries
he sust$ined> 5 crimin$l c$se for Whomicide thru reckless imprudenceW w$s filed
$g$inst 8$no> 5 civil suit w$s likewise instituted by the heirs of dece$sed
=onterol$ $g$inst 8$no? $long with 4ern$ndo Au $nd 371 5ir 1$rgoBncorpor$ted? for
the recovery of d$m$ges> 8he two c$ses were tried jointly by the 9egion$l 8ri$l
1ourt? 7r$nch GH? of :urig$o del :ur>2n GH Duly CHH-? the tri$l court dismissed
both c$ses on the ground th$t the proxim$te c$use of the W$ccidentW w$s the
negligence of dece$sed 9ogelio =onterol$>> 2n CF Duly CHHC? the $ppell$te court
reversed the court $ quo>B::0):/C> 6hether or not the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls erred in
finding th$t D$ime 8$no? Dr> w$s negligent in the driving of his vehicle $nd in
f$iling to give $ sign$l to $ppro$ching vehicles of his intention to m$ke $ left
turn>G> 6hether or not the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls erred in not finding th$t the proxim$te
c$use of the $ccident w$s the victimRs negligence in the driving of his motorcycle
in $ very f$st speed $nd thus hitting the petitionerRs c$rgo v$n903B;,/C>
+etitioners poorly invoke the doctrine of Wl$st cle$r ch$nceW .$lso referred to? $t
times? $s Wsupervening negligenceW or $s Wdiscovered perilW%> 8he doctrine? in
essence? is to the effect th$t where both p$rties $re negligent? but the negligent
$ct of one is $ppreci$bly l$ter in time th$n th$t of the other? or when it is
impossible to determine whose f$ult or negligence should be $ttributed to the
incident? the one who h$d the l$st cle$r opportunity to $void the impending h$rm
$nd f$iled to do so is ch$rge$ble with the consequences thereof> :t$ted
differently? the rule would $lso me$n th$t $n $ntecedent negligence of $ person
does not preclude the recovery of d$m$ges for supervening negligence of? or b$r $
defense $g$inst the li$bility sought by? $nother if the l$tter? who h$d the
l$stf$ir ch$nce? could h$ve $voided the impending h$rm by the exercise of due
diligence .+$ntr$nco ;orth )xpress? Bnc> vs> 7$es$? CJH :195 @F"S ,l$n +eopleRs
3umber $nd N$rdw$re vs> Bntermedi$te 5ppell$te 1ourt? CJ@ :195 "I"%>Bn the c$se $t
bench? the victim w$s tr$veling $long the l$ne where he w$s rightly supposed to be>
8he incident occurred in $n inst$nt> ;o $ppreci$ble time h$d el$psed? from the
moment 8$no swerved to his left to the $ctu$l imp$ctS th$t could h$ve $fforded the
victim $ l$st cle$r opportunity to $void the collision>Bt is true however? th$t the
dece$sed w$s not $ll th$t free from negligence in evidently speeding too closely
behind the vehicle he w$s following> 6e? therefore? $gree with the $ppell$te court
th$t there indeed w$s contributory negligence on the victimRs p$rt th$t could
w$rr$nt $ mitig$tion of petitioner s li$bility for d$m$ges>G> 4rom every
indic$tion? the proxim$te c$use of the $ccident w$s the negligence of 8$no who?
despite extremely poor visibility? h$stily executed $ left turn .tow$rds the 7islig
$irport ro$d entr$nce% without first w$iting for the dust to settle> Bt w$s this
negligent $ct of 8$no? which h$d pl$ced his vehicle .371 v$n% directly on the p$th
of the motorcycle coming from the opposite direction? th$t $lmost inst$nt$neously
c$used the collision to occur> :imple prudence required him not to $ttempt to cross
the other l$ne until $fter it would h$ve been s$fe from $nd cle$r of $ny oncoming
vehicle>CCJ> :50<B 5957B5; 5B93B;): vs> 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/ 2n D$nu$ry GC? CHFF
:50<B5 hired =il$gros +> =or$d$ $s $ 4light 5ttend$nt for its $irlines b$sed in
Dedd$h? :$udi 5r$bi$> 2n 5pril GJ? CHH-? while on $ l$yEover in D$k$rt$? Bndonesi$?
=or$d$ went to $ disco d$nce with fellow crew members 8h$mer 5l,$zz$wi $nd 5ll$h
5lE,$zz$wi? both :$udi n$tion$ls> 5ll$h left on some pretext $nd 8h$mer $ttempted
to r$pe her> 8he Bndonesi$n police c$me $nd $rrested 8h$mer $nd 5ll$h 5lE,$zz$wi?
the l$tter $s $n $ccomplice> 6hen she returned to Dedd$h? sever$l :50<B5 offici$ls
interrog$ted her $bout the D$k$rt$ incident> 2n Dune GF? CHH@? $ :$udi judge
interrog$ted her through $n interpreter $bout the D$k$rt$ incident then they let
her go> Dust $s her pl$ne w$s $bout to t$ke off? $ :50<B5 officer told her th$t the
$irline h$d forbidden her to t$ke flight> 2n Duly @? CHH@ $ :50<B5 leg$l officer
escorted her to the s$me court where the judge? to her $stonishment $nd shock?
rendered $ decision? tr$nsl$ted to her in )nglish? sentencing her to five months
imprisonment $nd to GFI l$shes> 2nly then did she re$lized th$t the :$udi court h$d
tried her? together with 8h$mer $nd 5ll$h? for wh$t h$ppened in D$k$rt$> 8he court
found =or$d$ guilty of .C% $dulteryS .G% going to $ disco? d$ncing $nd listening to
the music in viol$tion of Bsl$mic l$wsS $nd .@% soci$lizing with the m$le crew? in
contr$vention of Bsl$mic tr$dition> 7ec$use she w$s wrongfully convicted? the
+rince of =$kk$h dismissed the c$se $g$inst her $nd $llowed her to le$ve :$udi
5r$bi$> :hortly before her return to =$nil$?she w$s termin$ted from the service by
:50<B5? without her being informed of the c$use>8he tri$l court issued $n 2rder
d$ted 5ugust GH? CHH" denying the =otion to <ismiss 5mended 1ompl$int filed by
:$udi$> 9espondent Dudge subsequently issued $nother 2rder d$ted 4ebru$ry G? CHHK?
denying :50<B5Rs =otion for 9econsider$tion>Nowever? during the pendency of the
inst$nt +etition? respondent 1ourt of 5ppe$ls rendered the <ecision d$ted 5pril C-?
CHHI? now $lso $ss$iled> Bt ruled th$t the +hilippines is $n $ppropri$te forum
considering th$t the 5mended 1ompl$intRs b$sis for recovery of d$m$ges is 5rticle
GC of the 1ivil 1ode? $nd thus? cle$rly within the jurisdiction of respondent
1ourt> Bt further held th$t certior$ri is not the proper remedy in $ deni$l of $
=otion to <ismiss? in$smuch $s the petitioner should h$ve proceeded to tri$l? $nd
in c$se of $n $dverse ruling? find recourse in $n $ppe$l>B::0)/ 6hether or not the
1ourt of 5ppe$ls erred in ruling th$t in this c$se +hilippine 3$w should govern>
903B;,/ 5s to the choice of $pplic$ble l$w? we note th$t choiceEofEl$w problems
seek to $nswer two import$nt questions/ .C% 6h$t leg$l system should control $
given situ$tion where some of the signific$nt f$cts
occurred in two or more st$tesS $nd .G% to wh$t extent should the chosen leg$l
system regul$te the situ$tion> :ever$l theories h$ve been propounded in order to
identify the leg$l system th$t should ultim$tely control> 5lthough ide$lly? $ll
choiceEofEl$w theories should intrinsic$lly $dv$nce both notions of justice $nd
predict$bility? they do not $lw$ys do so> 8he forum is then f$ced with the problem
of deciding which of these two import$nt v$lues should be stressed> 7efore $ choice
c$n be m$de? it is necess$ry for us to determine under wh$t c$tegory $ cert$in set
of f$cts or rules f$ll> 8his process is known $s Wch$r$cteriz$tionW? or the
Wdoctrine of qu$lific$tionW> Bt is the Wprocess of deciding whether or not the
f$cts rel$te to the kind of question specified in $ conflicts rule>W 8he purpose of
Wch$r$cteriz$tionW is to en$ble the forum to select the proper l$w>1onsidering th$t
the compl$int in the court $ quo is one involving torts? the Wconnecting f$ctorW or
Wpoint of cont$ctW could be the pl$ce or pl$ces where the tortious conduct orlex
loci $ctus occurred> 5nd $pplying the torts principle in $ conflicts c$se? we find
th$t the +hilippines could be s$id $s $ situs of the tort .the pl$ce where the
$lleged tortious conduct took pl$ce%> 8his is bec$use it is in the +hilippines
where petitioner $llegedly deceived priv$te respondent? $ 4ilipin$ residing $nd
working here> 5ccording to her? she h$d honestly believed th$t petitioner would? in
the exercise of its rights $nd in the perform$nce of its duties? W$ct with justice?
give her due $nd observe honesty $nd good f$ith>W Bnste$d? petitioner f$iled to
protect her? she cl$imed> 8h$t cert$in $cts or p$rts of the injury $llegedly
occurred in $nother country is of no moment> 4or in our view wh$t is import$nt here
is the pl$ce where the overE$ll h$rm or the tot$lity of the $lleged injury to the
person? reput$tion? soci$l st$nding $nd hum$n rights of compl$in$nt? h$d lodged?
$ccording to the pl$intiff below .herein priv$te respondent%> 5ll told? it is not
without b$sis to identify the +hilippines $s the situs of the $lleged tort>
=oreover? with the widespre$d criticism of the tr$dition$l rule oflex loci delicti
commissi? modern theories $nd rules on tort li$bility h$ve been $dv$nced to offer
fresh judici$l $ppro$ches to $rrive $t just results> Bn keeping $bre$st with the
modern theories on tort li$bility? we find here $n occ$sion to $pply the W:t$te of
the most signific$nt rel$tionshipW rule? which in our view should be $ppropri$te to
$pply now? given the f$ctu$l context of this c$se> Bn $pplying s$id principle to
determine the :t$te which h$s the most signific$nt rel$tionship? the following
cont$cts $re to be t$ken into $ccount $nd ev$lu$ted $ccording to their rel$tive
import$nce with respect to the p$rticul$r issue/ .$% the pl$ce where the injury
occurredS .b% the pl$ce where the conduct c$using the injury occurredS .c% the
domicile? residence? n$tion$lity? pl$ce of incorpor$tion $nd pl$ce of business of
the p$rties? $nd .d% the pl$ce where the rel$tionship? if $ny? between the p$rties
is centered>3$stly? no error could be imputed to the respondent $ppell$te court in
upholding the tri$l courtRs deni$l of defend$ntRs .herein petitionerRs% motion to
dismiss the c$se> ;ot only w$s jurisdiction in order $nd venue properly l$id? but
$ppe$l $fter tri$l w$s obviously $v$il$ble? $nd expeditious tri$l itself indic$ted
by the n$ture of the c$se $t h$nd> Bndubit$bly? the +hilippines is the st$te
intim$tely concerned with the ultim$te outcome of the c$se below? not just for the
benefit of $ll the litig$nts? but $lso for the vindic$tion of the countryRs system
of l$w $nd justice in $ tr$nsn$tion$l setting> 6ith these guidelines in mind? the
tri$l court must proceed to try $nd $djudge the c$se in the light of relev$nt
+hilippine l$w? with due consider$tion of the foreign element or elements involved>
;othing s$id herein? of course? should be construed $s prejudging the results of
the c$se in $ny m$nner wh$tsoever>CCF> ,327) =51M5A 1573) 5;< 95<B2 129+> vs> 8N)
N2;29573) 154518:/ 9estituto => 8obi$s w$s employed by ,lobe =$ck$y 1$ble $nd 9$dio
1orpor$tion .,327) =51M5A% in $ du$l c$p$city $s $ purch$sing $gent $nd
$dministr$tive $ssist$nt to the engineering oper$tions m$n$ger> Bn CHJG? ,327)
=51M5A discovered fictitious purch$ses $nd other fr$udulent tr$ns$ctions for which
it lost sever$l thous$nds of pesos> 5ccording to 8obi$s? it w$s he who $ctu$lly
discovered the $nom$lies $nd reported them on ;ovember C-? CHJG to his immedi$te
superior )du$rdo 8> 4err$ren $nd to petitioner Nerbert 1> Nendry who w$s then the
)xecutive LiceE+resident $nd ,ener$l =$n$ger of ,327) =51M5A> 2n ;ovember CC? CHJG?
one d$y $fter 8obi$s m$de the report? petitioner Nendry confronted him by st$ting
th$t he w$s the number one suspect? $nd ordered him to t$ke $ one week forced
le$ve? not to communic$te with the office? to le$ve his t$ble dr$wers open? $nd to
le$ve the office keys> 2n ;ovember G-? CHJG? when 8obi$s returned to work $fter the
forced le$ve? petitioner Nendry went up to him $nd c$lled him $ WcrookW $nd $
Wswindler>W 8obi$s w$s then ordered to t$ke $ lie detector test> Ne w$s $lso
instructed to submit specimen of his h$ndwriting? sign$ture? $nd initi$ls for
ex$min$tion by the police investig$tors to determine his complicity in the
$nom$lies> 8obi$s filed $ civil c$se for d$m$ges $nchored on $lleged unl$wful?
m$licious? oppressive? $nd $busive $cts of petitioners> +etitioner Nendry? cl$iming
illness? did not testify during the he$rings> 8he 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt .981% of
=$nil$? 7r$nch BP? through Dudge =$nuel 8> 9eyes rendered judgment in f$vor of
priv$te respondent by ordering petitioners to p$y him eighty thous$nd pesos
.+F-?--->--% $s $ctu$l d$m$ges? two hundred thous$nd pesos .+G--?--->--% $s mor$l
d$m$ges? twenty thous$nd pesos .+G-?--->--% $s exempl$ry d$m$ges? thirty thous$nd
pesos .+@-?--->--% $s $ttorneyRs fees? $nd costs> +etitioners $ppe$led the 981
decision to the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls> 2n the other h$nd? 8obi$s $ppe$led $s to the
$mount of d$m$ges> Nowever? the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls? $n $ decision d$ted 5ugust @C?
CHFJ $ffirmed the 981 decision in toto> +etitionersR motion for reconsider$tion
h$ving been denied? the inst$nt petition for review on certior$ri w$s filed>B::0):/
6hether or not petitioners $re li$ble for d$m$ges to respondent 8obi$s>903B;,/
1onsidering the extent of the d$m$ge wrought on 8obi$s? the 1ourt finds th$t?
contr$ry to petitionersR contention? the $mount of d$m$ges $w$rded to 8obi$s w$s
re$son$ble under the circumst$nces>5ccording to the principle of d$mnum $bsque
injuri$? d$m$ge or loss which does not constitute $ viol$tion of $ leg$l right or
$mount to $ leg$l wrong is not $ction$ble T)sc$no v> 15? ,>9> ;o> 3E"JG-J?
:eptember GK? CHF-? C-- :195 CHJS :ee $lso ,ilchrist v> 1uddy GH +hil? K"G .CHCK%S
8he 7o$rd of 3iquid$tors v> M$l$w? ,>9> ;o> 3ECFF-K? 5ugust C"? CHIJ? G- :195 HFJ*>
8his principle finds no $pplic$tion in this c$se> Bt be$rs repe$ting th$t even
gr$nting th$t petitioners might h$ve h$d the right to dismiss 8obi$s from work? the
$busive m$nner in which th$t right w$s exercised $mounted to $ leg$l wrong for
which petitioners must now be held li$ble> =oreover? the d$m$ge incurred by 8obi$s
w$s not only in connection with the $busive m$nner in which he w$s dismissed but
w$s $lso the result of sever$l other qu$siEdelictu$l $cts committed by petitioners>
Nowever? the 1ourt h$s $lre$dy ruled in 6$ssmer v> Lelez? ,>9> ;o> 3EG--FH?
<ecember GI? CHI"? CG :195 I"F? IK@? th$t per express provision of 5rticle GGCH
.C-% of the ;ew 1ivil 1ode? mor$l d$m$ges $re recover$ble in the c$ses mentioned in
5rticle GC of s$id 1ode>W Nence? the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls committed no error in
$w$rding mor$l d$m$ges to 8obi$s>5lthough 5rticle GG@C of the 1ivil 1ode provides
th$t Win qu$siEdelicts? exempl$ry d$m$ges m$y be gr$nted if the defend$nt $cted
with gross negligence?W the 1ourt? in Ouluet$ v> +$n 5meric$n 6orld 5irw$ys? Bnc>?
,>9> ;o> 3E GFKFH? D$nu$ry F? CHJ@? "H :195 C? ruled th$t if gross negligence
w$rr$nts the $w$rd of exempl$ry d$m$ges? with more re$son is its imposition
justified when the $ct performed is deliber$te? m$licious $nd t$inted with b$d
f$ith> 5s in the Ouluet$ c$se? the n$ture of the wrongful $cts shown to h$ve been
committed by petitioners $g$inst 8obi$s is sufficient b$sis for the $w$rd of
exempl$ry d$m$ges to the l$tter>CCH> 3329);8) vs> 8N) :5;<B,5;75A5;4518:/ 5tty>
3lorente w$s employed in the +15? $ public corpor$tion .:ec> C? +< C"IF% from CHJK
to 5ugust @C? CHFI? when he resigned> Ne occupied the positions of 5ssist$nt
1orpor$te :ecret$ry for $ ye$r? then 1orpor$te 3eg$l 1ounsel until ;ovember G? CHFC
$nd? fin$lly? <eputy 5dministr$tor for 5dministr$tive :ervices? 4in$nce :ervices?
3eg$l 5ff$irs <ep$rtments> 5s $ result of $ m$ssive reorg$niz$tion in CHFC?
hundreds of +15 employees resigned effective 2ctober @C? CHFC> 5mong them were =r>
1urio? =rs> +erez? =r> 5zucen$? $nd =rs> D$vier> 8hey were $ll required to $pply
for +15 cle$r$nces in support of their gr$tuity benefits> 5fter the cle$r$nce w$s
signed by the +15 officers concerned? it w$s to be $pproved? first? by 5tty>
3lorente? in the c$se of $ r$nkE$ndEfile employee? or by 1ol> <uefi$s? the $cting
$dministr$tor? in the c$se of $n officer? $nd then by 5tty> 9odriguez? the
corpor$te $uditor> 8he cle$r$nceof =rs> D$vier of the s$me d$te of 2ctober @-? CHHC
w$s $lso signed by $ll +15 officers concerned? including =rs> :otto even though the
former h$d unsettled oblig$tions noted thereon> 8he cle$r$nce of =r> 1urio d$ted
;ovember "?CHFC? likewise f$vor$bly p$ssed $ll officers concerned? including =rs>
:otto? the l$tter signing despite the not$tion h$ndwritten on <ecember F? CHFC> 2n
<ecember C? CHFG?
=r> 1urio brought the m$tter of his un$pproved cle$r$nce to 1ol> <ue $s> Nis
voucher w$s $lso $pproved? $nd his gr$tuity benefits p$id to him in the middle of
<ecember CHFI? $fter deducting those oblig$tions> 7etween <ecember CHFC $nd
<ecember CHFI? =r> 1urio f$iled to get g$inful employmentS $s $ result? his f$mily
liter$lly went hungry? Bn CHFC? he $pplied for work with the +hilippine 1otton
5uthority? but w$s refused? bec$use he could not present his +15 cle$r$nce>
5ccording to the :$ndig$nb$y$n? the petitioner w$s guilty nonetheless of $buse of
right under 5rticle CH of the 1ivil 1ode $nd $s $ public officer? he w$s li$ble for
d$m$ges suffered by the $ggrieved p$rty .under 5rticle GJ%>B::0)/ 6hether or not
the petitioner is li$ble under 5rticle CH of the 1ivil 1ode $nd li$ble for d$m$ges
suffered by the $ggrieved p$rty>903B;,/ Bt is no defense th$t the petitioner w$s
motiv$ted by no illEwill .$ grudge? $ccording to the :$ndig$nb$y$n%? since the
f$cts spe$k for themselves> Bt is no defense either th$t he w$s? $fter $ll?
complying merely with leg$l procedures since? $s we indic$ted? he w$s not $s strict
with respect to the three retiring other employees> 8here c$n be no other logic$l
conclusion th$t he w$s $cting unf$irly? no more? no less? to =r> 1urio>Bt is the
essence of 5rticle CH of the 1ivil 1ode? under which the petitioner w$s m$de to p$y
d$m$ges? together with 5rticle GJ? th$t the perform$nce of duty be done with
justice $nd good f$ith> Bn the c$se of Lel$yo vs> :hell 1o> of the +hilippines? we
held the defend$nt li$ble under 5rticle CH for disposing of its propertv $
perfectly leg$l $ct in order to esc$pe the re$ch of $ creditor> Bn two f$irly more
recent c$ses? :evill$ vs> 1ourt of 5ppe$ls $nd L$lenzuel$ vs> 1ourt of 5ppe$ls? we
held th$t $ princip$l is li$ble under 5rticle CH in termin$ting the $gency $g$in?
$ leg$l $ct when termin$ting the $gency would deprive the $gent of his legitim$te
business>6e believe th$t the petitioner is li$ble under 5rticle CH>8he 1ourt finds
the $w$rd of +H-?--->-- to be justified bv 5rticle GG-G of the 1ivil 1ode? which
holds the defend$nt li$ble for $ll Wn$tur$l $nd prob$bleW d$m$ges> Nennenegildo
1unct presented evidence th$t $s $ consequence of the petitionerRs refus$l to cle$r
him? he f$iled to l$nd $ job $t the +hilippine 1otton 5uthority $nd +hilippine
4irst =$rketing 5uthority> Ne $lso testified th$t $ job in either office would h$ve
e$rned him s$l$ry of +G?K-->-- $ month? or +CK-?--->-- in five ye$rs> <educting his
prob$ble expenses of re$son$bly $bout +C?--->-- $ month or +I-?--->-- in five
ye$rs? the petitioner owes him $ tot$l $ctu$l d$m$ges of +H-?--->--CG-> 598092 +>
L53);O0)35 vs> 8N) N2;29573) 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/ 5rturo +> L$lenzuel$
.L$lenzuel$% is $ ,ener$l 5gent of priv$te respondent +hilippine 5meric$n ,ener$l
Bnsur$nce 1omp$ny? Bnc> .+hil$mgen% since CHIK> 5s such? he w$s $uthorized to
solicit $nd sell in beh$lf of +hil$mgen $ll kinds of nonElife insur$nce? $nd in
consider$tion of services rendered w$s entitled to receive the full $gentRs
commission of @G>KY from +hil$mgen under the scheduled commission r$tes> 4rom CHJ@
to CHJK? L$lenzuel$ solicited m$rine insur$nce from one of his clients? the <elt$
=otors? Bnc> .<ivision of )lectronics 5irconditioning $nd 9efriger$tion% in the
$mount of +">" =illion from which he w$s entitled to $ commission of @GY> Nowever?
L$lenzuel$ did not receive his full commission which $mounted to +C>I =illion from
the +">" =illion insur$nce cover$ge of the <elt$ =otors> <uring the period CHJI to
CHJF? premium p$yments $mounting to +C?H"I?FFI>-- were p$id directly to +hil$mgen
$nd L$lenzuel$Rs commission to which he is entitled $mounted to +I@G?J@J>--> Bn
CHJJ? +hil$mgen st$rted to become interested in $nd expressed its intent to sh$re
in the commission due L$lenzuel$ on $ fiftyEfifty b$sis> L$lenzuel$ refused> 2n
4ebru$ry F? CHJF +hil$mgen $nd its +resident? 7ienvenido => 5r$gon insisted on the
sh$ring of the commission with L$lenzuel$> 7ec$use of the refus$l of L$lenzuel$?
+hil$mgen $nd its officers? n$mely/ 7ienvenido 5r$gon? 1$rlos 1$tolico $nd 9obert
)> +$rnell took dr$stic $ction $g$inst L$lenzuel$> 8hey/ .$% reversed the
commission due him by not crediting in his $ccount the commission e$rned from the
<elt$ =otors? Bnc> insur$nce [ .b% pl$ced $gency tr$ns$ctions on $ c$sh $nd c$rry
b$sisS .c% thre$tened the c$ncell$tion of policies issued by his $gency S $nd .d%
st$rted to le$k out news th$t L$lenzuel$ h$s $ subst$nti$l $ccount with +hil$mgen>
5ll of these $cts resulted in the decline of his business $s insur$nce $gent 8hen
on <ecember GJ? CHJF? +hil$mgen termin$ted the ,ener$l 5gency 5greement of
L$lenzuel$>5fter due proceedings? the tri$l court found th$tsince defend$nts $re
not justified in the termin$tion of 5rturo +> L$lenzuel$ $s one of their ,ener$l
5gents? defend$nts sh$ll be li$ble for the resulting d$m$ge $nd loss of business of
5rturo +> L$lenzuel$> 2n D$nu$ry GH? CHFF? respondent 1ourt of 5ppe$ls promulg$ted
its decision in the $ppe$led c$se>B::0):/ 6hether or not +hil$mgen $ndXor its
officers c$n be held li$ble for d$m$ges due to the termin$tion of the ,ener$l
5gency 5greement it entered into with the petitioners>903B;,/ +rescinding from the
foregoing? $nd considering th$t the priv$te respondents termin$ted L$lenzuel$ with
evident m$l$ fide it necess$rily follows th$t the former $re li$ble in d$m$ges>
9espondent +hil$mgen h$s been $ppropri$ting for itself $ll these ye$rs the gross
billings $nd income th$t it unceremoniously took $w$y from the petitioners> 8he
preponder$nce of the $uthorities sust$in the preposition th$t $ princip$l c$n be
held li$ble for d$m$ges in c$ses of unjust termin$tion of $gency> Bn <$non v>
7rimo? "G +hil> C@@ TCHGC*%? this 1ourt ruled th$t where no time for the
continu$nce of the contr$ct is fixed by its terms? either p$rty is $t liberty to
termin$te it $t will? subject only to the ordin$ry requirements of good f$ith> 8he
right of the princip$l to termin$te his $uthority is $bsolute $nd unrestricted?
except only th$t he m$y not do so in b$d f$ith>8he tri$l court in its decision
$w$rded to L$lenzuel$ the $mount of :eventy 4ive 8hous$nd +esos .+JK?---?--% per
month $s compens$tory d$m$ges from Dune CHF- until its decision becomes fin$l $nd
executory> 8his $w$rd is justified in the light of the evidence ext$nt on record
showing th$t the $ver$ge gross premium collection monthly of L$lenzuel$ over $
period of four ."% months from <ecember CHJF to 4ebru$ry CHJH? $mounted to over
+@--?--->-- from which he is entitled to $ commission of +C--?--->-- more or less
per month> =oreover? his $nnu$l s$les production $mounted to +G?K--?--->-- from
where he w$s given @G>KY commissions> 0nder 5rticle GG-- of the new 1ivil 1ode?
Windemnific$tion for d$m$ges sh$ll comprehend not only the v$lue of the loss
suffered? but $lso th$t of the profits which the obligee f$iled to obt$in>W8he
circumst$nces of the c$se? however? require th$t the contr$ctu$l rel$tionship
between the p$rties sh$ll be termin$ted upon the s$tisf$ction of the judgment> ;o
more cl$ims $rising from or $s $ result of the $gency sh$ll be entert$ined by the
courts $fter th$t d$te>CGC> :)9,B2 5=2;2A vs> :pouses ,08B)99)O4518:/ 2n CG D$nu$ry
CHIK? the +roject of +$rtition submitted w$s $pproved $nd two .G% of the s$id lots
were $djudic$ted to 5suncion +$s$mb$ $nd 5lfonso 4ormild$> 8he 5ttorneyRs fees
ch$rged by 5monoy w$s +GJ?I-->-- $nd on G- D$nu$ry CHIK 5suncion +$s$mb$ $nd
5lfonso 4ormid$ executed $ deed of re$l est$te mortg$ge on the s$id two .G% lots
$djudic$ted to them? in f$vor of 5monoy to secure the p$yment of his $ttorneyRs
fees> 7ut it w$s only on I 5ugust CHIH $fter the t$xes h$d been p$id? the cl$ims
settled $nd the properties $djudic$ted? th$t the est$te w$s decl$red closed $nd
termin$ted>5suncion +$s$mb$ died on G" 4ebru$ry CHIH while 5lfonso 4ornild$ p$sssed
$w$y on G Duly CHIH> 5mong the heirs of the l$tter w$s his d$ughter? pl$intiffE
$ppell$nt 5ngel$ ,utierrez> 2n GF :eptember CHJG judgment w$s rendered in f$vor of
5monoy requiring the heirs to p$y within H- d$ys the +GJ?I-->-- secured by the
mortg$ge? +CC?FF->-- $s v$lue of the h$rvests? $nd +H?I"K>-- $s $nother round of
$ttorneyRs fees> 4$iling in th$t? the two .G% lots would be sold $t public $uction>
8hey f$iled to p$y>Bn its D$nu$ry GJ? CHH@ <ecision? the 981 dismissed respondentsR
suit> 2n $ppe$l? the 15 set $side the lower courtRs ruling $nd ordered petitioner
to p$y respondents +GK-?--- $s $ctu$l d$m$ges> +etitioner then filed $ =otion for
9econsider$tion? which w$s $lso denied>B::0)/ 6hether or not the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls
w$s correct w$s correct in deciding th$t the petition w$s li$ble to the respondents
for d$m$ges>903B;,/ 6ellEsettled is the m$xim th$t d$m$ge resulting from the
legitim$te exercise of $ personRs rights is $ loss without injuryE d$mnum $bsque
injuri$ E for which the l$w gives no remedy> Bn other words? one who merely
exercises oneRs rights does no $ction$ble injury $nd c$nnot be held li$ble for
d$m$ges>1le$rly then? the demolition of respondentsR house by petitioner? despite
his receipt of the 892? w$s not only $n $buse but $lso $n unl$wful exercise of such
right> Bn insisting on his $lleged right? he w$ntonly viol$ted this 1ourtRs 2rder
$nd wittingly c$used the destruction of respondentsS house>C wphiC>n t2bviously?
petitioner c$nnot invoke d$mnum $bsque injuri$? $ principle premised on the v$lid
exercise of $ right>5nything less or beyond such exercise will not give rise to the
leg$l protection th$t the principle $ccords> 5nd when d$m$ge or prejudice to
$nother is occ$sioned thereby? li$bility c$nnot be obscured? much less $b$ted>Bn
the ultim$te $n$lysis? petitionerRs li$bility is premised on the oblig$tion to
rep$ir
or to m$ke whole the d$m$ge c$used to $nother by re$son of oneRs $ct or omission?
whether done intention$lly or negligently $nd whether or not punish$ble by l$w>CGG>
D2:0) 593),0B vs>N2;> 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/ 8he object of the controversy is $
residenti$l $p$rtment unit .no> CK% loc$ted $tthe corner of 9omu$ldez $nd M$lentong
:treets in =$nd$luyong 1ity> 8he s$id property w$s formerly owned by :er$fi$ 9e$l
)st$te? Bncorpor$ted .herein$fter referred to $s :er$fi$%? $ comp$ny owned by
5lberto? 5lfonso $nd :imeon? $ll surn$med 7$rretto? $nd their siblings 9os$ 7>
2cho$ $nd 8eresit$ 7> 5lc$nt$r$> 4or more th$n twenty .G-% ye$rs? unit no> CK w$s
le$sed by :er$fi$ to the spouses ,il $nd 7e$triz ,enguyon> Bn $ letter d$ted =$rch
GI? CHF"? the ,enguyon spouses? $long with the other ten$nts in the $p$rtment
building were informed by 5lberto 7$rretto th$t :er$fi$ $nd its $ssets h$d $lre$dy
been $ssigned $nd tr$nsferred to 5>7> 7$rretto )nterprises> 5pprehensive th$t they
were $bout to be ejected from their respective units? the ten$nts formed $n
org$niz$tion c$lled the 7$rretto 5p$rtment 8en$nts 5ssoci$tion> 8hey elected
officers from $mong themselves to represent them in the negoti$tions with 5>7>
7$rretto )nterprises for the purch$se of their respective $p$rtment units> 5mong
those elected were Dosue 5rlegui $s viceEpresident $nd =$teo 8$n 3u $s $uditor of
the $ssoci$tion> :ometime there$fter? believing th$t negoti$tions were still
ongoing? the ,enguyons were surprised to le$rn on D$nu$ry G@? CHFJ th$t the unit
they were le$sing h$d $lre$dy been sold to =$teo 8$n 3u> 8his notwithst$nding? the
,enguyons continued to occupy the subject premises $nd p$id the rent$ls therefore>
8he following ye$r? or on Duly J? CHFF? the ,enguyons were informed th$t =$teo 8$n
3u h$d sold the subject $p$rtment unit to Dosue 5rlegui> ;ot long there$fter? they
received $ letter from 5rlegui s l$wyer dem$nding th$t they v$c$te the premises>
6hen they f$iled to $ccede to 5rlegui s dem$nd? the l$tter filed $n $ction for
ejectment $g$inst the ,enguyons before the =etropolit$n 8ri$l 1ourt of =$nd$luyong
1ity>>2n D$nu$ry CC? CHH-? the 981 ordered the issu$nce of $ writ of prelimin$ry
injunction directing the =81 to desist from t$king further $ction in the ejectment
c$se pending before it>2n 4ebru$ry C"? CHHI? the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls rendered judgment
in 15E,>9> 1L ;o> @GF@@? $nnulling $nd setting $side the 981 decision>B::0):/
6hether or not the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls erred in holding th$t the priv$te respondents
$re entitled to d$m$ges inste$d of the petitioner>903B;,/ 8here is no doubt th$t
bec$use of 8$n 3u $nd 5rlegui s viol$tion of the trust $nd confidence reposed in
them $s officers $nd negoti$tors in beh$lf of the ten$ntsmembers of the
5ssoci$tion? d$m$ges h$ve $ccrued upon spouses ,enguyons for which they must be
indemnified>5rticle CH of the ;ew 1ivil 1ode of the +hilippines exhorts the
citizens in the correct exercise of rights $nd perform$nce of duties in this wise/
5rt> CH> )very person must? in the exercise of his rights $nd in the perform$nce of
his duties? $ct with justice? give everyone his due? $nd observe honesty $nd good
f$ith>8his principle of $buse of rights is b$sed upon the f$mous m$ximsuum jus
summ$ injuri$ .the $buse of $ right is the gre$test possible wrong%>8he $cts of 8$n
3u $nd 5rlegui directly viol$te the principles enunci$ted in 5rt> CH which decl$res
th$t every person must pr$ctice justice? honesty $nd good f$ith in his de$lings
with his fellowmen> 8h$t there w$s $ v$lid p$ct or $greement $mong the 5ssoci$tion
members $nd their entrusted officers ch$rged with the negoti$tions? is $n $ccepted
f$ct> 5s two of the three entrusted officers ch$rged with the negoti$tions? 8$n 3u
$nd 5rlegui f$ll within the purview of 5rt> CH which is $lso implemented by 5rt>
GC? ;ew 1ivil 1ode? $ sequent of 5rt> CH? which decl$res th$t WT5*ny person who
wilfully c$uses loss or injury to $nother in $ m$nner th$t is contr$ry to mor$ls?
good customs or public policy sh$ll compens$te the l$tter for the d$m$ge> Bn
$ddition? 5rticles GGGC $nd GGGG of the ;ew 1ivil 1ode provide th$t the 1ourt m$y
$w$rd nomin$l d$m$ges/ .C% in order th$t $ right of the pl$intiff? which h$s been
viol$ted or inv$ded? m$y be vindic$ted or recognizedS or .G% in every c$se where
$ny property right h$s been inv$ded> 0nder the circumst$nces? whether $s
compens$tory or nomin$l d$m$ges? the $mount of +@K?--->--? inclusive of $ttorney s
fees? is just $nd re$son$ble>1$sesCC"ECGG85=5;,? :6B83) =5) 5>CG@> +)892+NB3
129+2958B2;vs> 12098 24 5++)53:4518:/ 2n <ecember GJ? CHJ-? +etrophil 1orpor$tion
.+etrophil% entered into contr$ct with <r> 5m$nd$ 8ernid$E1ruz? $llowing the l$tter
to h$ul $nd tr$nsport $ny $nd $ll p$ck$ges $ndXor bulk products of +etrophil> 8he
contr$ct provided th$t .C% +etrophil could termin$te the contr$ct for bre$ch?
negligence? discourtesy? improper $ndXor in$dequ$te perform$nce or $b$ndonmentS .G%
th$t <r> 1ruz is required to reserve the use of $t le$st two .G% units of t$nk
trucks solely for the h$uling requirements of +etrophilS $nd .@% th$t the cont$ct
sh$ll be for $n indefinite period? provided th$t +etrophil m$y termin$te s$id
contr$ct $t $ny time with @- d$ys prior written notice>Bn $ letter d$ted =$y GC?
CHFJ? +etrophil? $dvised <r> 1ruz th$t it w$s termin$ting her h$uling contr$ct in
$ccord$nce with wh$t the provisions of the contr$ct><r> 1ruz filed with the
9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt of =$nil$? $ compl$int $g$inst +etrophil seeking the nullity
of the termin$tion of the contr$ct $nd decl$ring its suspension $s unjustified $nd
contr$ry to its terms $nd conditions> Dessie de Ler$? =$rci$l =ulig? 5ntonio $nd
9ufino 1uenc$? $ll t$nk truck drivers of <r> 1ruz? $lso filed $ compl$int for
d$m$ges $g$inst +etrophil> 8he two c$ses consolid$ted $nd tried jointly><uring the
he$ring? <r> 1ruz cl$imed th$t the termin$tion of her h$uling contr$ct w$s $
ret$li$tion $g$inst her for $llegedly symp$thizing with the then striking +etrophil
employees $nd for informing the +;21 president of $nom$lies perpetr$ted by some of
its officers $nd employees> <river Dessie de Ler$ corrobor$ted these $lleg$tions
$nd testified th$t before the termin$tion of the contr$ct? +etrophil offici$ls
reduced their h$uling trips to m$ke life h$rder for them so th$t they would resign
from <r/ 1ruzRs employ? which in turn would result in the closure of her business>
+etrophil on the other h$nd professed th$t the h$uling trips were reduced not
bec$use <r> 1ruz w$s being punished? but bec$use the comp$ny w$s $ssigning h$uling
trips on the b$sis of comp$rtment$tion $nd not on $ firstEcome firstEserve>
5ddition$lly? witnesses for +etrophil testified th$t on 5pril GK? CHFJ? there w$s $
strike $t the +$nd$c$n termin$l $nd <r> 1ruz $nd her husb$nd were $t the picket
line> 8hey refused to lo$d petroleum products? resulting in the disruption of
delivery to service st$tions in =etro =$nil$ $nd in the provinces? which in turn
resulted in loss of s$les $nd revenues> 7ec$use of <r> 1ruzRs refus$l to lo$d? the
m$n$gement termin$ted the h$uling contr$ct8he tri$l court ruled in f$vor of <r 1ruz
$nd ordered +etrophil to p$y <r> 1ruz the sum of +@-H?JG@>IK $s une$rned h$uling
ch$rges $nd +G-?--->-- $s $ttorneyRs fees $nd expenses of suit $nd to p$y Dessie de
Ler$ $nd 9ufino 1uenc$ the sums of +I"?@H->-- $nd +K?--->-- $s une$rned income $nd
$ttorneyRs fees>8he 1ourt of 5ppe$ls sust$ined the tri$l court decl$ring th$t the
termin$tion of the contr$ct w$s Wfor c$useW? $nd th$t the procedures set forth in
petitionerRs policy guidelines should be followed>Nence this petition>B::0)/ C>
6hether petitioner w$s guilty of $rbitr$ry termin$tion of the contr$ct? which would
entitle <r> 1ruz to d$m$ges>G> 6hether the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls erred when it imposed $
tortious li$bility where the requisites were not est$blished by the evidence>
903B;,/ 6e differ with +etrophil on the first issue> 9ec$ll th$t before +etrophil
termin$ted the contr$ct on =$y GK? CHFJ? there w$s $ strike of its employees $t the
+$nd$c$n termin$l> <r> 1ruz $nd her husb$nd were seen $t the picket line $nd were
reported to h$ve instructed their truck drivers not to lo$d petroleum products> 5t
the resumption of the oper$tion in +$nd$c$n termin$l? <r> 1ruzRs contr$ct w$s
suspended for one week $nd eventu$lly termin$ted> 7$sed on these circumst$nces? the
1ourt of 5ppe$ls like the tri$l court concluded th$t +etrophil termin$ted the
contr$ct bec$use of <r> 1ruzRs refus$l to lo$d petroleum products during the
strike> Bn respondent courtRs view? the termin$tion $ppe$red $s $ ret$li$tion or
punishment for her symp$thizing with the striking employees> ;owhere in the record
do we find th$t petitioner $sked her to expl$in her $ctions> +etrophil simply
termin$ted her contr$ct> 8hese f$ctu$l findings $re binding $nd conclusive on us?
especi$lly in the $bsence of $ny $lleg$tion th$t s$id findings $re unsupported by
the evidence? or th$t the $ppell$te $nd tri$l courts mis$pprehended these f$cts>CI
Bn termin$ting the h$uling contr$ct of <r> 1ruz without he$ring her side on the
f$ctu$l context $bove described? $ petitioner opened itself to $ ch$rge of b$d
f$ith> 6hile +etrophil h$d the right to termin$te the contr$ct? petitioner could
not $ct purposely to injure priv$te respondents> Bn 7+B )xpress 1$rd 1orpor$tion
vs> 15? GHI :195 GI-? GJG .CHHF%? we held th$t there is $buse of $ right under
5rticle CH if the following elements $re present/ C% there is $ leg$l right or
dutyS G% which is exercised in b$d f$ithS @% for the sole purpose of prejudicing or
injuring $nother> 6e find $ll these three elements present in the inst$nt c$se>
Nence? we $re convinced th$t the termin$tion by petitioner of the contr$ct with <r>
1ruz c$lls for $ppropri$te s$nctions by w$y of d$m$ges>2n
the second $ssigned error? petitioner contends th$t the 1ourt of 5ppe$ls erred
when it imposed $ tortious li$bility where the requisites therefor were not
est$blished by the evidence> 5ccording to petitioner? $side from the he$rs$y $nd
in$dmissible testimony of Dessie de Ler$? there is no other evidence th$t the
termin$tion of the contr$ct w$s done with deliber$te intent to h$rm or for the sole
purpose of prejudicing the respondentdrivers> +etitioner $dds th$t the termin$tion
w$s $n exercise of $ right $nd directed prim$rily $t <r> 1ruz>5rticle G- of the
1ivil 1ode provides th$t every person who? contr$ry to l$w? willfully or
negligently c$uses d$m$ge to $nother? sh$ll indemnify the l$tter for the d$m$ge
done> +etitioner might not h$ve deliber$tely intended to injure the respondentE
drivers> 7ut $s $ consequence of its willful $ct directed $g$inst <r> 1ruz?
respondentEdrivers lost their jobs $nd consequently suffered loss of income> ;ote
th$t under 5rticle G-? there is no requirement th$t the $ct must be directed $t $
specific person? but it suffices th$t $ person suffers d$m$ge $s $ consequence of $
wrongful $ct of $nother in order th$t indemnity could be dem$nded from the
wrongdoer>8he $ppell$te court did not err? given the circumst$nces of this c$se? in
$w$rding d$m$ges to respondentEdrivers>CG"> LB9,B;B5 => 5;<95<) vs> 12098 24
5++)53:4518:/ 2n Duly I? CHJC? Lirgini$ 5ndr$de w$s $ppointed $s perm$nent te$cher
in the <ivision of 1ity :chools? =$nil$ $nd w$s initi$lly $ssigned $s )nglish
te$cher $t the 5r$ullo Nigh :chool? =$nil$> :he w$s referred by Lirgini$ 4ermin to
<omin$dor 6ingsing principl$ of 5r$ullo Nigh :chool reg$rding her te$ching lo$d>
Nowever bec$use of 5ndr$de s low te$ching perform$nce? she w$s referred b$ck to =s
4ermin><isple$sed from being referred b$ck $nd forth from one person to $nother?
she wrote $ letter to :uperintendent 5rturo 4> 1oronel? 5ssist$nt :chools <ivision
:uperintendent of the <ivision of 1ity :chools? =$nil$? requesting th$t she be
given $ te$ching $ssignment> Bn $n indorsement $ddressed to :uperintendent 1oronel?
respondent 6ingsing cited three .@% re$sons why petitioner 5ndr$de w$s not given
$ny te$ching lo$d/ .C% dr$stic drop of enrollmentS .G% she w$s decl$red $n excess
te$cherS $nd .@% she r$nked lowest in her perform$nce r$ting hence? :uperintendent
1oronel informed th$t the she would be design$ted to $ nonEte$ching position in the
me$ntime>2n 2ctober "? CHFK? 5ndr$de m$de $ request to 7enedicto => Normill$? 1hief
of +ersonnel :ervices of the <ivision of 1ity :chools of =$nil$? th$t she be
tr$nsferred to 9$mon =$gs$ys$y Nigh :chool in =$nil$? $nd s$id request w$s
f$vor$bly $cted upon by :uperintendent 1oronel> 5ndr$de then reported for work $t
the 9$mon =$gs$ys$y Nigh :chool? but in $ letter of the s$me d$te? she rel$yed th$t
she is withdr$wing her request for tr$nsfer b$ck $t the 5r$ullo Nigh :chool>
8here$fter? she discovered th$t her n$me h$s been deleted from the regul$r monthly
p$yroll $nd tr$nsferred to $ speci$l voucher list>5ndr$de? distressed by the
situ$tion filed $n $ction for d$m$ges with m$nd$tory injunction $g$inst respondent
6ingsing? )nglish <ep$rtment Ne$d 4ermin $nd 5ssist$nt :chools <ivision
:uperintendent 1oronel before the 9egion$l 8ri$l 1ourt (uezon 1ity cl$iming th$t
they conspired in depriving her of her te$ching lo$d $nd humili$ted her further by
excluding her n$me from the regul$r monthly p$yroll>Bn his $nswer? respondent
6ingsing expl$ined th$t the decre$se in the enrollment for the school ye$r CHFKE
CHFI necessit$ted th$t $ number of te$chers be decl$red in $ list $s excess
te$chers? $nd $s petitioner h$d the lowest perform$nce r$ting? she w$s included in
the s$id list $nd $s for the deletion of 5ndr$de s n$me from the regul$r monthly
p$yroll? 6ingsing decl$red th$t he $nd his coEdefend$nts were merely exercising $nd
doing their duties in $ccord$nce with the existing school policies? rules $nd