Andamo vs.

IAC

the defendant and the damages incurred by the

plaintiff. 11

Andamo

vs.

Intermediate

Appellate

Court

Clearly, from petitioners complaint, the waterpaths

G.R. No. 74761 November 6, 1990

and contrivances built by respondent corporation are

Fernan, C.J.

alleged to have inundated the land of petitioners.

There is therefore, an assertion of a causal

Doctrine: It must be stressed that the use of ones

connection between the act of building these

property is not without limitations. Article 431 of the

waterpaths and the damage sustained by petitioners.

Civil Code provides that the owner of a thing cannot

Such action if proven constitutes fault or negligence

make use thereof in such a manner as to injure the

which may be the basis for the recovery of damages.

rights of a third person. SIC UTERE TUO UT

ALIENUM NON LAEDAS.

It must be stressed that the use of ones property is

Facts: Petitioner spouses Andamo owned a parcel of

not without limitations. Article 431 of the Civil Code

land situated in Biga Silang, Cavite which is adjacent

provides that the owner of a thing cannot make use

to that of private respondent corporation, Missionaries

thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a

of Our lady of La Salette, Inc. Within the land of the

third person. SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON

latter, waterpaths and contrivances, including an

LAEDAS.

artificial lake, were constructed, which allegedly

mutual and reciprocal duties which require that each

inundated and eroded petitioners land, caused a

must use his own land in a reasonable manner so as

young man to drown, damagaed petitioners crops

not to infringe upon the rights and interests of others.

and plants, washed away costly fences, endangered

Although we recognize the right of an owner to build

the livesofthepetitioners and their laborers and some

structures on his land, such structures must be so

other

destructions.

constructed and maintained using all reasonable care

This prompted petitioner spouses to file a criminal

so that they cannot be dangerous to adjoining

action for destruction by means of inundation under

landowners and can withstand the usual and

Article 324 of the RPC and a civil action for damages.

expected forces of nature. If the structures cause

Issue: Whether

injury or damage to an adjoining landowner or a third

claim

damages

petitioner spouses Andamo can

for

destruction

caused

by

respondents waterpaths and contrivances on the

Moreover, adjoining

landowners

have

person, the latter can claim indemnification for the

injury or damage suffered.

basis of Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on

quasi-delicts.

VDA. De Bataclan vs MEDINA

Held: Yes. A careful examination of the aforequoted

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

FACTS:
Medina is the owner and operator of a bus. This
bus, on Sept. 13, 1952 around 2:00AM
somewhere in Imus, Cavite, crashed and fell into
a ditch. Apparently, its front tire burst, zig-zagged
and turned turtle into the ditch. Bataclan was one
of the 18 passengers. Most of the passengers
were able to get out, but Bataclan and 3 others
were trapped. It appears that the bus drivers and
the passengers who already got out did not try to

help Bataclan et al get out, instead, about 10 of

the locals in the area came to their aid, they were
carrying a burning torch for illumination, but then
a fierce fire started and engulfed the bus and
killed Bataclan et al. It appears that there was a
gas leak from the bus and it caught fire from the
torch the would-be rescuers were using.
The heirs of Bataclan sued Medina.
The trial court found that there was a breach of a
contract of carriage where Medina undertook to
take Bataclan to his destination safely. The trial
court also found that there was negligence on the
part of Medina since at the time of the blow-out,
the bus was speeding. There is no question that
under the circumstances, the defendant carrier is
liable. The only question is to what degree. The
trial court argued that Medina is only liable for
the injuries suffered by Bataclan and not by his
death, the proximate cause of which was the fire,
which was not caused by Medina.
ISSUE: Whether or not it was the negligence of
Medina, owner of the bus company, which was
the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan.
HELD:
Yes. In this case, the proximate cause of the
death was the overturning of the bus, because of
the overturning, it leaked gas which is not
unnatural or unexpected. The locals coming to
the aid of the trapped passengers was most likely
because the driver and the conductor went out
looking for help. It is only natural that the wouldbe rescuers bring with them a torch because it
was 2:30AM and the place was unlit. The fire
could also be attributed to the bus driver and
conductor because he should have known, from
the circumstances, and because he should have
been able to smell gasoline and therefore he
should have warned the rescuers not to bring the
torch. Said negligence on the part of the agents
of the carrier come under the codal provisions
above-reproduced, particularly, Articles 1733,
1759 and 1763.

Proximate Cause that cause, which, in

natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause, produces the

injury, and without which the result would not

have occurred. And more comprehensively, the
proximate legal cause is that acting first and
producing the injury, either immediately or by
setting other events in motion, all constituting a
natural and continuous chain of events, each
having a close causal connection with its
immediate predecessor, the final event in the
chain immediately effecting the injury as a
natural and probable result of the cause which
first acted, under such circumstances that the
person responsible for the first event should, as
an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of
his act or default that an injury to some person
might probably result therefrom.

85 Phil 67 Civil Law Torts and Damages

Liability of possessors or users of animals
Assumption of Risk
Loreto Afialda was a caretaker of the carabaos
owned by Basilio Hisole. In March 1947, without
any fault from Afialda or any force majeure, one
of the carabaos gored him thereby causing his
death. Afialdas sister, Margarita Afialda, sued
Hisole arguing that under the Civil Code, The
possessor of an animal, or the one who uses the
same, is liable for any damages it may cause,
even if such animal should escape from him or
stray away. This liability shall cease only in case,
the damage should arise from force majeure or
from the fault of the person who may have
suffered it.
ISSUE: Whether or not Hisole is liable in the
case at bar as owner of the carabao which killed
Afialda.
HELD: No. The law uses the term possessor
and user of the animal. Afialda was the
caretaker of the animal and he was tasked and
paid to tend for the carabaos. He, at the time of
the goring, is the possessor and the user of the
carabao and therefore he is the one who had

custody and control of the animal and was in a

position to prevent the animal from causing
damage. It would have been different had Afialda
been a stranger. Obviously, it was the caretakers
business to try to prevent the animal from
causing injury or damage to anyone, including
himself. And being injured by the animal under
those circumstances was one of the risks of the
occupation which he had voluntarily assumed
and for which he must take the consequences.
This action could have been more appropriately
raised in court under the provisions of the
Workmens Compensation Act as the risk involve
was one of occupational hazards.

16 SCRA 448 Civil Law Torts and

Damages Res Ipsa Loquitur
In March 1948, in Rizal Avenue, Manila, a tank
truck was hosing gasoline into the underground
storage of Caltex. Apparently, a fire broke out
from the gasoline station and the fire spread and
burned several houses including the house of
Spouses Bernabe and Soledad Africa. Allegedly,
someone (a passerby) threw a cigarette while
gasoline was being transferred which caused the
fire. But there was no evidence presented to
prove this theory and no other explanation can
be had as to the real reason for the fire.
Apparently also, Caltex and the branch owner
(Mateo Boquiren) failed to install a concrete
firewall to contain fire if in case one happens.

ISSUE: Whether or not Caltex and Boquiren are

liable to pay for damages.
HELD: Yes. This is pursuant to the application on
the principle of res ipsa loquitur (the transaction
speaks for itself) which states: where the thing
which caused injury, without fault of the injured
person, is under the exclusive control of the
defendant and the injury is such as in the
ordinary course of things does not occur if he
having such control use proper care, it affords
reasonable evidence, in the absence of the
explanation, that the injury arose from
defendants want of care. The gasoline station,
with all its appliances, equipment and
employees, was under the control of Caltex and
Boquiren. A fire occurred therein and spread to
and burned the neighboring houses. The persons
who knew or could have known how the fire
started were Boquiren, Caltex and their
employees, but they gave no explanation thereof
whatsoever. It is a fair and reasonable inference
that the incident happened because of want of
care.
Note that ordinarily, he who charges negligence
shall prove it. However, res ipsa loquitur is the
exception because the burden of proof is shifted
to the party charged of negligence as the latter is
the one who had exclusive control of the thing
that caused the injury complained of.