NAPOCOR v. CA, G.R. No.

96410
Facts:

NPC entered into a contract with private respondent, an engineering construction in

constructing tunnel work.
When a typhoon hit the project area causing water from dam to spill over, NPC opened
the spillway gates of the dam only at the height of the typhoon.
It caused the inundation of the towns neighboring the Angat Dam, particularly
Norzagaray, Bulacan, at the height of the typhoon.
It resulted to deaths and the loss and destruction of houses, farms, plants, working
animals
and
other
properties
of
the
people
residing
nearby.

Issue:

W/N NAPOCOR was negligent in abruptly opening the dam and spilling the water only
at the height of the storm YES

Decision:

NPC cannot escape liability because its negligence was the proximate cause of the loss
and damage even though the typhoon was an act of God.
It could have opened the gates at an earlier time, hence it has been negligent.
But exemplary damages should not be awarded since there was no bad faith and gross
negligence on the part of NPC.

Taylor v. Meralco, G.R. No. 4977

Facts:

September 30, 1905 Sunday afternoon: David Taylor, 15 years of age, the son of a
mechanical engineer, more mature than the average boy of his age, and having
considerable aptitude and training in mechanics with a boy named Manuel Claparols,
about 12 years of age, crossed the footbridge to the Isla del Provisor, for the purpose of
visiting Murphy, an employee of the defendant, who and promised to make them a
cylinder for a miniature engine
After leaving the power house where they had asked for Mr. Murphy, they walked across
the open space in the neighborhood of the place where the company dumped in the cinders
and ashes from its furnaces
They found some twenty or thirty brass fulminating caps scattered on the ground
These caps are approximately of the size and appearance of small pistol cartridges and
each has attached to it 2 long thin wires by means of which it may be discharged by the
use of electricity

They are intended for use in the explosion of blasting charges of dynamite, and have in
themselves a considerable explosive power
The boys picked up all they could find, hung them on stick, of which each took end, and
carried them home
After crossing the footbridge, they met Jessie Adrian, less than 9 years old, and they went
to Manuel's home
The boys then made a series of experiments with the caps
o Thrust the ends of the wires into an electric light socket - no result
o Break the cap with a stone - failed
o Opened one of the caps with a knife, and finding that it was filled with a yellowish
substance they got matches
David held the cap while Manuel applied a lighted match to the contents
An explosion followed, causing more or less serious injuries to all three
Jessie, who when the boys proposed putting a match to the contents of the cap, became
frightened and started to run away, received a slight cut in the neck
Manuel had his hand burned and wounded
David was struck in the face by several particles of the metal capsule, one of which injured
his right eye to such an extent as to the necessitate its removal by the surgeons
Trial Court: held Manila Electric Railroad And Light Company liable

Issue:

W/N the elements of quasi-delict exist to make Manila Electric Railroad And Light
Company liable - NO
W/N Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co. sufficiently proved that they employed all
the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damage - NO

Decision:

In order to establish his right to a recovery, must establish by competent evidence:

1. Damages to the plaintiff
2. Negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally, or some person for
whose acts it must respond, was guilty.
3. The connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the damage.
While we hold that the entry upon the property without express invitation or permission
would not have relieved Manila Electric from responsibility for injuries incurred, without
other fault on his part, if such injury were attributable to his negligence, the negligence in
leaving the caps exposed on its premises was not the proximate cause of the injury
received
Cutting open the detonating cap and putting match to its contents was the proximate
cause of the explosion and of the resultant injuries inflicted
Manila Electric is not civilly responsible for the injuries thus incurred
2 years before the accident, David spent 4 months at sea, as a cabin boy on one of the
interisland transports. Later he took up work in his father's office, learning mechanical

drawing and mechanical engineering. About a month after his accident he obtained
employment as a mechanical draftsman and continued in that employment for 6 months
at a salary of P2.50 a day; and it appears that he was a boy of more than average
intelligence, taller and more mature both mentally and physically than most boys of 15
The series of experiments made by him in his attempt to produce an explosion, as
described by Jessie who even ran away
True, he may not have known and probably did not know the precise nature of the
explosion which might be expected from the ignition of the contents of the cap, and of
course he did not anticipate the resultant injuries which he incurred; but he well knew
that a more or less dangerous explosion might be expected from his act, and yet he
willfully, recklessly, and knowingly produced the explosion. It would be going far to say
that "according to his maturity and capacity" he exercised such and "care and caution" as
might reasonably be required of him, or that defendant or anyone else should be held
civilly responsible for injuries incurred by him under such circumstances.
The law fixes no arbitrary age at which a minor can be said to have the necessary
capacity to understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of his own acts, so as
to make it negligence on his part to fail to exercise due care and precaution in the
commission of such acts; and indeed it would be impracticable and perhaps impossible so
to do, for in the very nature of things the question of negligence necessarily depends on
the ability of the minor to understand the character of his own acts and their
consequences
He was sui juris in the sense that his age and his experience qualified him to understand
and appreciate the necessity for the exercise of that degree of caution which would have
avoided the injury which resulted from his own deliberate act; and that the injury incurred
by him must be held to have been the direct and immediate result of his own willful and
reckless act, so that while it may be true that these injuries would not have been incurred
but for the negligence act of the defendant in leaving the caps exposed on its premises,
nevertheless plaintiff's own act was the proximate and principal cause of the accident
which inflicted the injury
Rule of the Roman law was: Quod quis ex culpa sua damnum sentit, non intelligitur
sentire - just thing is that a man should suffer the damage which comes to him through
his own fault, and that he can not demand reparation therefor from another
Negligence is not presumed, but must be proven by him who alleges it.

Philippine Bank of Commerce, et al. v. CA, G.R. No. 97626

Facts:

Rommels Marketing Corporation (RMC) maintained two separate current accounts with
PBC in connection with its business of selling appliances.
The RMC General Manager Lipana entrusted to his secretary, Irene Yabut, RMC funds
amounting to P300,000+ for the purpose of depositing the same to RMCs account with
PBC.

However, it turned out that Yabut deposited the amounts in her husbands account instead
of RMC.
Lipana never checked his monthly statement of accounts regularly furnished by PBC so
that Yabuts modus operandi went on for the span of more than one year.

Issue:

What is the proximate cause of the loss Lipanas negligence in not checking his
monthly statements or the banks negligence through its teller in validating the deposit
slips?

Decision:

The bank teller was negligent in validating, officially stamping and signing all the deposit
slips prepared and presented by Yabut, despite the glaring fact that the duplicate copy was
not completely accomplished contrary to the self-imposed procedure of the bank with
respect to the proper validation of deposit slips, original or duplicate.
The bank tellers negligence, as well as the negligence of the bank in the selection and
supervision of its bank teller, is the proximate cause of the loss suffered by the private
respondent, not the latters entrusting cash to a dishonest employee. Xxx Even if Yabut
had the fraudulent intention to misappropriate the funds, she would not have been able to
deposit those funds in her husbands current account, and then make plaintiff believe that
it was in the latters accounts wherein she had deposited them, had it not been for the
bank tellers aforesaid gross and reckless negligence.
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act
of one is appreciably later in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to
determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident, the one who
had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is
chargeable with the consequences thereof. It means that the antecedent negligence of a
person does not preclude the recovery of damages for the supervening negligence of, or
bar a defense against liability sought by another, if the latter, who had the last fair
chance, could have avoided the impending harm by exercise of due diligence. (Phil. Bank
of Commerce v. CA, supra)

Corliss v. Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. L-21291

Facts:

Feb 21, 1957 near midnight: although the conductor applied the brakes Ralph W.
Corliss' jeep collided with a locomotive of Manila Railroad Company
In his eagerness to beat, despite the tooting of the horn and the oncoming locomotive,
took the risk and attempted to reach the other side, but unfortunately he became the
victim of his own miscalculation
Case was filed by Preciolita V. Corliss, 21 year old widow

Plaintiff contends that the defendant was negligent because the crossing bars have not
been put down and there was no guard at the gate-house, as well as the driver of the
locomotive, Capili, was not qualified at the time of the accident operate the said
locomotive.

Issue:

W/N the Manila Railroad Co. contributed negligence in the accident, thus should be held
responsible thereto

Decision: NO.

Negligence - The failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person
that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand
whereby such other person suffers injury.
Negligence is want of the care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or
comparative, not an absolute term and its application depends upon the situation of the
parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require.
Where the danger is great, a high degree of care is necessary, and the failure to observe it
is a want of ordinary care under the circumstances.
The weight of authorities is to the effect that a railroad track is in itself a warning or a
signal of danger to those who go upon it, and that those who, for reasons of their own,
ignore such warning, do so at their own risk and responsibility
Corliss Jr., who undoubtedly had crossed the checkpoint frequently, if not daily, must
have known that locomotive engines and trains usually pass at that particular crossing
where the accident had taken place
It was incumbent upon him to avoid a possible accident and this consisted simply in
stopping his vehicle before the crossing and allowing the train to move on. A prudent
man under similar circumstances would have acted in this manner

Culion, Ice and Electric, Co. v. Philippine Motors Corp., G.R. No. 32611
Facts:

The Culion Ice, Fish & Electric Co Inc (CIFECI) and Philippine Motors Corporation
(PMC) are domestic corporations. Cranston was the representative of CIFECI in the City
of Manila and the latter was the registered owner of the motor schooner Gwendoline,
which was used in the fishing trade in the Philippine Islands.
Cranston decided to have the engine on the Gwendoline changed from a gasoline
consumer to a crude oil burner. He accordingly repaired to the office of the PMC and had
a conference with Quest, its manager, who agreed to do the job. As a result of the
aforesaid interview, Quest, in company with Cranston, visited the Gwendoline while it
lay at anchor in the Pasig River, and the work of effecting the change in the engine was
begun and conducted under the supervision of Quest.

Upon preliminary inspection of the engine, Quest came to the conclusion that the
principal thing necessary to accomplish the end in view was to install a new carburetor.
After this appliance had been installed, the engine was tried with gasoline as a fuel. The
next problem was to introduce into the carburetor the baser fuel, consisting of a low grade
of oil mixed with distillate. For this purpose a temporary tank to contain the mixture was
placed on deck above and at a short distance from the compartment covering the engine.
This tank was connected with the carburetor by a piece of tubing, which was apparently
not well fitted at the point where it was connected with the tank. Owing to this fact the
fuel mixture leaked from the tank and dripped sown into the engine compartment.
In the course of the preliminary work upon the carburetor and its connections, it was
observed that the carburetor was flooding, and that the gasoline, or other fuel, was
trickling freely from the lower part to the carburetor to the floor. This fact was called to
Quests attention, but he appeared to think lightly of the matter.
After preliminary experiments and adjustments had been made the boat was taken out
into the bay for a trial run. As the boat was coming in from this run, the engine stopped,
and connection again had to be made with the gasoline line to get a new start. A moment
later a back fire occurred in the cylinder chamber. This caused a flame to shoot back into
the carburetor, and instantly the carburetor and adjacent parts were covered with a mass
of flames, which the members of the crew were unable to subdue. They were therefore
compelled, as the fire spread, to take to a boat, and their escape was safely effected, but
the Gwendoline was reduced to a mere hulk.
An action was instituted in the CFI of Manila by CIFECI for the purpose of recovering
from the PMC the sum of P11,350, with interest and costs.
Upon hearing the cause the trial court gave judgment in favor of CIFECI to recover the
sum of P9,850, with interest.. From this judgment PMC appealed.

Issue:

W/N the loss of the boat was due to the negligence and lack of skill of Quest YES
W/N the action should be considered stale - NO

Decision:

A study of the testimony lead us to the conclusion that the loss of this boat was
chargeable to the negligence and lack of skill of Quest.
The back fire may have been due either to the fact that the spark was too advanced or the
fuel improperly mixed.
In this connection it must be remembered that when a person holds himself out as being
competent to do things requiring professional skill, he will be held liable for negligence if
he fails to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular work which
he attempts to do.
The proof shows that Quest had had ample experience in fixing the engines of
automobiles and tractors, but it does not appear that he was experienced in the doing of
similar work on boats.

For this reason, possibly the dripping of the mixture form the tank on deck and the
flooding of the carburetor did not convey to his mind an adequate impression of the
danger of fire.
But a person skilled in that particular sort of work would, we think have been sufficiently
warned from those circumstances to cause him to take greater and adequate precautions
against the danger.
In other words Quest did not use the skill that would have been exhibited by one
ordinarily expert in repairing gasoline engines on boats.
There was here, in our opinion, on the part of Quest, a blameworthy antecedent
inadvertence to possible harm, and this constitutes negligence.
The burning of the Gwendoline may be said to have resulted from accident, but this
accident was in no sense an unavoidable accident.
It would not have occured but for Quests carelessness or lack of skill. The test of
liability is not whether the injury was accidental in a sense, but whether Quest was free
from blame.
This action was instituted about two years after the accident in question had occured, and
after Quest had ceased to be manager of the defendant corporation and had gone back to
the United States. Upon these facts, the defendant bases the contention that the action
should be considered stale. It is sufficient reply to say that the action was brought within
the period limited by the statute of limitations and the situation is not one where the
defense of laches can be properly invoked.3

PLDT v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 57079

Facts:

Spouses Esteban were riding their jeep when they ran over an earth mound and fell in an
open trench on the road resulting to slight injuries to the husband and serious injuries to
the wife.
The windshield of the jeep was also shattered due to the accident.
Spouses Esteban accused PLDT of negligence because of lack of warning signs placed
near the manhole dug resulting on the earth mound on the road causing injuries to the
wife.
PLDT contends the injuries were the result of the negligence of the independent
contractor the company hired (Barte) and should be the one held liable and not the
company.
RTC ruled in favour of the spouses while the CA under Justice Agrava asponente
reversed the decision of the RTC.

Issue:

W/N PLDT can be held liable for the injuries caused to spouses Esteban - NO

Decision:

PLDT and Barte contends that the independent contractor placed signs on the road and
that it was the fault of Mr. Esteban because he did not diligently drive the jeepney.
Mr. Esteban had quickly swerved from the outer lane thereby hitting the earth mound.
SC finds no error in the findings of the respondent court in its original decision that the
accident which befell private respondents was due to the lack of diligence of respondent
Antonio Esteban and was not imputable to negligent omission on the part of petitioner
PLDT.
The findings clearly show that the negligence of respondent Antonio Esteban was not
only contributory to his injuries and those of his wife but goes to the very cause of the
occurrence of the accident, as one of its determining factors, and thereby precludes their
right to recover damages.
The presence of warning signs could not have completely prevented the accident; the
only purpose of said signs was to inform and warn the public of the presence of
excavations on the site.
The private respondents already knew of the presence of said excavations. It was not the
lack of knowledge of these excavations which caused the jeep of respondents to fall into
the excavation but the unexplained sudden swerving of the jeep from the inside lane
towards the accident mound.