Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
CA
on 6:00 AM in Case Digests, Civil Law
0
School's responsibility in loco parentis over its own students: the harm or
negligent act must be committed by its students against another student,
not by an outsider
FACTS:
Carlitos Bautista, a third-year commerce student of PSBA, was stabbed
to death while on the second-floor premises of the school. The
assailants were not members of the schools academic community but
were elements from outside the school. The parents of Carlitos filed
a civil action against the school authorities, alleging them
negligent, reckless and with failure to take security precautions,
means and methods before, during and after the attack on the victim.
The appellate court found in their favor, primarily anchoring its
decision on the law of quasi-delicts.
Hence, the petition.
ISSUE:
HELD:
The SC did not agree with the premises of the CAs ruling. Article
2180, in conjunction with Article 2176 of the Civil Code, establishes
the rule in in loco parentis. It had been stressed that the law
(Article 2180) plainly provides that the damage should have been
caused or inflicted by pupils or students of the educational
institution sought to be held liable for the acts of its pupils or
students while in its custody. However, this material situation does
not exist in the present case for, as earlier indicated, the
assailants of Carlitos were not students of PSBA, for whose acts the
school could have been made liable.
Torts and Damages Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts vs Civil Liability from Crimes
At about 1:30am on May 3, 1936, Fontanillas taxi collided with a kalesa thereby
killing the 16 year old Faustino Garcia. Faustinos parents filed a criminal suit against
Fontanilla and reserved their right to file a separate civil suit. Fontanilla was
eventually convicted. After the criminal suit, Garcia filed a civil suit against Barredo
the owner of the taxi (employer of Fontanilla). The suit was based on Article 1903 of
the civil code (negligence of employers in the selection of their employees). Barredo
assailed the suit arguing that his liability is only subsidiary and that the separate civil
suit should have been filed against Fontanilla primarily and not him.
ISSUE: Whether or not Barredo is just subsidiarily liable.
HELD: No. He is primarily liable under Article 1903 which is a separate civil action
against negligent employers. Garcia is well within his rights in suing Barredo. He
reserved his right to file a separate civil action and this is more expeditious because
by the time of the SC judgment Fontanilla is already serving his sentence and has no
property. It was also proven that Barredo is negligent in hiring his employees because
it was shown that Fontanilla had had multiple traffic infractions already before he
hired him something he failed to overcome during hearing. Had Garcia not reserved
his right to file a separate civil action, Barredo would have only been subsidiarily
liable. Further, Barredo is not being sued for damages arising from a criminal act (his
drivers negligence) but rather for his own negligence in selecting his employee
(Article 1903).
FACTS:
At about half past one in the morning of May 3, 1936, on the road between Malabon and
Navotas, Province of Rizal, there was a head- on collision between a taxi of the Malate
Taxicab driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a carretela guided by Pedro Dimapalis. The carretela
was overturned, and one of its passengers, 16-year-old boy Faustino Garcia, suffered
injuries from which he died two days later. A criminal action was filed against Fontanilla in
the Court of First Instance of Rizal.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS (CRIMINAL CASE):
1. CFI- Rizal Fontanilla was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one
year and one day to two years of prision correccional. The court in the criminal case granted
the petition that the right to bring a separate civil action be reserved.
2. CA: affirmed the sentence of the lower court in the criminal case.
Severino Garcia and Timotea Almario, parents of the deceased on March 7, 1939, brought
an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Fausto Barredo as the sole
proprietor of the Malate Taxicab and employer of Pedro Fontanilla.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS (CIVIL CASE):
1. CFI Manila: Fausto Barredo is liable in damages for the death of Faustino Garcia caused
by negligence of Pedro Fontanilla, a taxi driver employed by Barredo in the amount of
2,000.
2. CA: reduced the damages to 1,000.
ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action against Fausto Barredo, thus
making him primarily and directly, responsible under article 1903 of the Civil Code as an
employer of Pedro thus making him primarily and directly, responsible under article 1903 of
the Civil Code as an employer of Pedro Fontanilla
RULING:
Yes.
The responsibility in question is imposed on the occasion of a crime or fault, but not
because of the same, but because of the cuasi- delito, that is to say, the imprudence or
negligence of the father, guardian, proprietor or manager of the establishment, of the
teacher, etc. Whenever anyone of the persons enumerated in the article referred to
(minors, incapacitated persons, employees, apprentices) causes any damage, the law
presumes that the father, guardian, teacher, etc. have committed an act of negligence in
not preventing or avoiding the damage. It is this fault that is condemned by the law.
One is not responsible for the acts of others, because one is liable only for his own faults,
this being the doctrine of article 1902; but, by exception, one is liable for the acts of those
persons with whom there is a bond or tie which gives rise to the responsibility.
when there is exercise of the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the
presumption is overcome and he is relieved from liability.
FACTS:
The collision between the bus and the automobile resulted in Narciso Gutierrez
suffering a fractured right leg which required medical attendance for a considerable
period of time.
ISSUE: Whether or not both the driver of the truck and automobile are liable for
damages and indemnification due to their negligence. What are the legal obligations
of the defendants?
HELD: Bonifacio Gutierrezs obligation arises from culpa aquiliana. On the other
hand, Saturnino Cortezs and his chauffeur Abelardo Velascos obligation rise from
culpa contractual.
The liability of Saturnino Cortez, the owner of the truck, and his chauffeur Abelardo
Velasco rests on a different basis, namely, that of contract.
JACINTO TANGUILIG doing business under the name and style J.M.T.
ENGINEERING AND GENERAL MERCHANDISING vs COURT OF APPEALS and VICENTE
HERCE JR.
G.R.No. 125994 29June2001
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Herce contracted Tanguilig to construct a windmill system for him,
ISSUES
1. WON plaintiff falsely represented that he had an exclusive franchise to bottle
Mission beverages
2. WON false representation, if it existed, annuls the agreement to form the
partnership
HELD
1. Yes. Plaintiff did make false representations and this can be seen through his letters
to Mission Dry Corporation asking for the latter to grant him temporary franchise so
that he could settle the agreement with defendant. The trial court reasoned, and the
plaintiff on this appeal argues, that plaintiff only undertook in the agreement to
secure the Mission Dry franchise for and in behalf of the proposed partnership. The
existence of this provision in the final agreement does not militate against plaintiff
having represented that he had the exclusive franchise; it rather strengthens belief that
he did actually make the representation. The defendant believed, or was made to
believe, that plaintiff was the grantee of an exclusive franchise. Thus it is that it was
also agreed upon that the franchise was to be transferred to the name of the
partnership, and that, upon its dissolution or termination, the same shall be reassigned
to the plaintiff.
Again, the immediate reaction of defendant, when in California he learned that
plaintiff did not have the exclusive franchise, was to reduce, as he himself testified,
plaintiffs participation in the net profits to one half of that agreed upon. He could not
have had such a feeling had not plaintiff actually made him believe that he(plaintiff)
was the exclusive grantee of the franchise.
2. No. In consequence, article 1270 of the Spanish Civil Code distinguishes two kinds
of (civil) fraud, the causal fraud, which may be ground for the annulment of a
contract, and the incidental deceit, which only renders the party who employs it liable
for damages only. The Supreme Court has held that in order that fraud may vitiate
consent, it must be the causal (dolo causante), not merely the incidental (dolo
incidente) inducement to the making of the contract.
The record abounds with circumstances indicative of the fact that the principal
consideration, the main cause that induced defendant to enter into the partnership
agreement with plaintiff, was the ability of plaintiff to get the exclusive franchise to
bottle and distribute for the defendant or for the partnership. The original draft
prepared by defendants counsel was to the effect that plaintiff obligated himself to
secure a franchise for the defendant. But if plaintiff was guilty of a false
representation, this was not the causal consideration, or the principal inducement, that
led plaintiff to enter into the partnership agreement. On the other hand, this supposed
ownership of an exclusive franchise was actually the consideration or price plaintiff
gave in exchange for the share of 30 per cent granted him in the net profits of the
partnership business. Defendant agreed to give plaintiff 30 per cent share in the net
profits because he was transferring his exclusive franchise to the partnership.
Having arrived at the conclusion that the contract cannot be declared null and void,
may the agreement be carried out or executed? The SC finds no merit in the claim of
plaintiff that the partnership was already a fait accompli from the time of the
operation of the plant, as it is evident from the very language of the agreement that the
parties intended that the execution of the agreement to form a partnership was to be
carried out at a later date. , The defendant may not be compelled against his will to
carry out the agreement nor execute the partnership papers. The law recognizes the
individuals freedom or liberty to do an act he has promised to do, or not to do it, as
he pleases.
Dispostive Postion: With modification above indicated, the judgment appealed from
is hereby affirmed.
[T]
While the contract imposed no penalty for such violation, this does
not grant any of the parties the unbridled liberty to breach it with
impunity. Our law on contracts recognizes the principle that
actionable injury inheres in every contractual breach.
Those who in the performance of their obligations are
guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who in
any manner contravene the terms thereof, are liable for
damages.
Article 1170, Civil Code.
The power to rescind obligations is implied, in
reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not
comply with what is incumbent upon him.
Article 1191, Civil Code.
The contract in question gave rise to reciprocal obligations.
Reciprocal obligations are those which arise from the
same cause, and in which each party is a debtor and a
creditor of the other, such that the obligation of one is
dependent upon the obligation of the other. They are to
be performed simultaneously, so that the performance of
one is conditioned upon the simultaneous fulfillment of
the other.
Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV,
p. 175.
The power to rescind is given to the injured party.
Where the plaintiff is the party who did not perform the
undertaking which he was bound by the terms of the
agreement to perform, he is not entitled to insist upon
the performance of the contract by the defendant, or
recover damages by reason of his own breach.
Seva vs. Alfredo Berwin, 48 Phil. 581.
Under the law, when a contract is unlawfully novated by an applicable
and unilateral substitution of the obligor by another, the aggrieved
creditor is not bound to deal with the substitute. However, from the
evidence, it is clear that the Interphil (D), instead of availing
themselves of the options given to them by law of rescission or
refusal to recognize the substitute obligor, really wanted to
postpone the fight date owing to an injury that Elorde sustained in a
recent bout. That Interphil (D) had justification to renegotiate the
original contract, particularly the fight date is undeniable from the
facts. Under the circumstances, Interphil's (D) desire to postpone
the fight date could neither be unlawful nor unreasonable.
__________
* Keywords: rescission, reciprocal obligation
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DE LOS
ANGELES
35 SCRA 102
FACTS:
Issue/Scope
Facts
Held
VASQUEZ VS BORJA
4 Phil 560 Civil Law Torts and Damages Distinction of Liability of Employers
Under Article 2180 and Their Liability for Breach of Contract
In January 1932, Francisco De Borja entered into a contract of sale with the NVSD
(Natividad-Vasquez Sabani Development Co., Inc.). The subject of the sale was 4,000
cavans of rice valued at Php2.10 per cavan. On behalf of the company, the contract
was executed by Antonio Vasquez as the companys acting president. NVSD. only
delivered 2,488 cavans and failed and refused despite demand to deliver the rest hence
De Borja incurred damages (apparently, NVSD was insolvent). He then sue Vasquez
for payment of damages.
ISSUE: Whether or not Vasquez is liable for damages.
HELD: No. Vasquez is not party to the contract as it was NVSD which De Borja
contracted with. It is well known that a corporation is an artificial being invested by
law with a personality of its own, separate and distinct from that of its stockholders
and from that of its officers who manage and run its affairs. The mere fact that its
personality is owing to a legal fiction and that it necessarily has to act thru its agents,
does not make the latter personally liable on a contract duly entered into, or for an act
lawfully performed, by them for an in its behalf.
The fact that the corporation, acting thru Vazquez as its manager, was guilty of
negligence in the fulfillment of the contract did not make Vazquez principally or even
subsidiarily liable for such negligence. Since it was the corporations contract, its non
fulfillment, whether due to negligence or fault or to any other cause, made the
corporation and not its agent liable.
JUSTICE PARAS Dissenting :
Vasquez as president of NVSD is liable for damages. Vasquez, as acting president and
manager of NVSD, and with full knowledge of the then insolvent status of his
company, agreed to sell to De Borja 4,000 cavans of palay. Further, NVSD was soon
thereafter dissolved.
SSS VS. MOONWALK DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING CORPORATION
FACTS:
Plaintiff SSS approved the application of Defendant Moonwalk fora loan of
P30,000,000 for the purpose of developing andconstructing a housing project.
Out of P30,000,000 approved loan, the sum of P9,595,000 wasreleased to defendant
Moonwalk.
A third Amendment Deed of Mortgage was executed for thepayment of the amount of
P9,595,000.
Moonwalk made a total payment of P23,657,901.84 to SSS for theloan principal of
P12,254,700.
After settlement of the account, SSS issued to Moonwalk the
release of Mortgage for Moonwalks Mortgaged properties.
In letter to Moonwalk, SSS alleged that it committed an honestmistake in releasing
defendant.
That Moonwalk has still 12% penalty for failure to pay on time theamortization which
is in the penal clause of the contract.
Moonwalks counsel told SSS that it had completely paid its
obligation to SSS and therefore there is no recovery of any penalty.
ISSUE:
Is the penalty demandable even after the extinguishment of theprincipal obligation?
HELD:No. There has been a waiver of the penal clause as it was notdemanded before
the full obligation was fully paid andextinguished.
Default begins from the moment the creditor demands theperformance of the
obligation.In this case,
although there were late amortizations there wasno demand made by SSS for the
payment of the penalty
henceMoonwalk is not in delay in the payment of the penalty.No delay occurred and
there was no occasion when the penaltybecame demandable and enforceable.
Since there was no default in the performance of the mainobligation-payment of the
loan- SSS was never entitled torecover any penalty.
If the demand for the payment of the penalty was made prior tothe extinguishment of
the obligation which are: 1. e principalobligation 2. The interest of 12% on the
principal obligation 3.The penalty of 12% for late payment for after demand,
Moonwalkwould be in delay and therefore liable for the penalty.
ABELLA VS GONZAGA--
Issues:
a)W/N the CA committed reversible error when it awarded legal
interest in favor of the respondents notwithstanding the fact that
neither in the compromise agreement nor in the compromise of judgment
by the judge provides for payment of interest to the respondent?
b)W/N the CA erred in awarding legal interest to the respondents
although the obligation of the petitioner to the respondent is to pay
a sum of money that had been converted into an obligation to pay in
kind?
c)W/N respondents are barred from demanding payment of interest by
reason of the waiver provision in the compromise agreement, which
became the law among the parties.
Held:
On October 4, 1996, the trial court rendered a Decision dismissing
the respondents' complaint and ordering them to pay attorney's fees
and exemplary damages to petitioner. Respondents then appealed to the
Court of Appeals.
The only issue to be resolved is whether the respondents are entitled
to legal interest.
The appellate court reversed the ruling of the trial court:
WHEREFORE, finding merit in the appeal, the appealed Decision is
hereby REVERSED and judgment is hereby rendered ordering appellee
SVHFI to pay appellants Santos and Riverland, Inc.: (1) legal
interest on the principal amount of P13 million at the rate of 12%
per annum from the date of demand on October 28, 1992 up to the date
of actual payment of the whole obligation; and (2) P20,000 as
attorney's fees and costs of suit. SO ORDERED.
Delay
Delay as used in this article is synonymous to default or mora which
means delay in the fulfillment of obligations. It is the nonfulfillment of the obligation with respect to time. In the case at
bar, the obligation was already due and demandable after the lapse of
the two-year period from the execution of the contract. The two-year
period ended on October 26, 1992. When the respondents gave a demand
letter on October 28, 1992, to the petitioner, the obligation was
already due and demandable. Furthermore, the obligation is liquidated
because the debtor knows precisely how much he is to pay and when he
is to pay it.
The petition lacks merit
In the case at bar, the Compromise Agreement was entered into by the
parties on October 26, 1990. It was judicially approved on September
30, 1991. Applying existing jurisprudence, the compromise agreement
as a consensual contract became binding between the parties upon its
execution and not upon its court approval. From the time a compromise
is validly entered into, it becomes the source of the rights and
obligations of the parties thereto. The purpose of the compromise is
precisely to replace and terminate controverted claims.
As to the remaining P13 million, the terms and conditions of the
compromise agreement are clear and unambiguous. It provides that the
balance of P13 Million shall be paid, whether in one lump sum or in
installments, at the discretion of the Foundation, within a period of
not more than two (2) years from the execution of this agreement.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision
dated January 30, 2002 of the Court of Appeals and its April 12, 2002
Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 55122 are AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner. SO ORDERED