6. Garcia vs.

Florido
Facts: On August 4, 1971, petitioners, German C. Garcia, together with his wife, Luminosa L. Garcia, and
Ester Francisco hired and boarded a PU car with plate No. 241-8 G Ozamis 71 owned and operated by
respondent, Marcelino Inesin, and driven by respondent, Ricardo Vayson, for a round trip from Oroquieta
City to Zamboanga City. At about 9:30 a.m., while the PU car was negotiating a slight curve on the national
highway at kilometre, the car collided with an oncoming passenger bus (No. 25) with plate No. 77-4 W Z.N.
71 owned and operated by the Mactan Transit Co., Inc. And driven by defendant, Pedro Tumala. As a result
of the aforesaid collision, petitioners sustained various physical injuries which necessitated their medical
treatment and hospitalization.
Alleging that both drivers of the PU car and the passenger bus were at the time of the accident driving
their respective vehicles at a fast clip, in a reckless, grossly negligent and imprudent manner in gross
violation of traffic rules and without due regard to the safety of the passengers aboard the PU car,
petitioners, German C. Garcia, Luminosa L. Garcia, and Ester Francisco, filed with respondent Court of First
Instance of Misamis Occidental an action for damages against the private respondents, owners and drivers,
respectively, of the PU car and the passenger bus that figured in the collision, with prayer for preliminary
attachment.
Marcelino Inesin and Ricardo Vayson filed their answer in the aforementioned Civil Case admitting the
contract of carriage with petitioners but alleged, by way of defense, that the accident was due to the
negligence and reckless imprudence of the bus driver.
Respondents, Mactan Transit Co., Inc. And Pedro Tumala, filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that that
the petitioners had no cause of action for on August 11, 1971, or 20 days before the filing of the present
action for damages, respondent Pedro Tumala was charged in a Criminal Case of the Municipal Court of
Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, in a complaint filed by the Chief of Police for double serious and less
serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence, and that, with the filing of the aforesaid criminal
case, no civil action could be filed subsequent thereto unless the criminal case has been finally
adjudicated, pursuant to Sec. 3 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, and, therefore, the filing of the instant
civil action is premature, because the liability of the employer is merely subsidiary and does not arise until
after final judgment has been rendered finding the driver, Pedro Tumala, guilty of negligence; that Art. 33
of the New Civil Code, is not applicable because Art. 33 applied only to the crimes of physical injuries or
homicide, not to the negligent act or imprudence of the driver.
The lower court dismissed the complaint for damages.
Issue: Whether or not the dismissal is proper.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the dismissal is improper and ordered the lower court to proceed with
the trial.
The same negligent act causing damages may produce a civil liability arising from crime under article 100
of the Revised Penal Code or create an action for quasi-delict or culpa extra-contractual under articles
21762194 of the New Civil Code. The former is a violation of the criminal law, while the latter is a distinct
and independent negligence. Having always had its own foundation and individuality.
The circumstance that the complaint alleged that respondents violated traffic rules does not detract from
the nature and character of the action as one based on culpa aquiliana. The violation of traffic rules is
merely descriptive of the failure of the said driver to observe for the protection of the interests of others
that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, which failure
resulted in the injury on petitioners. Certainly excessive speed in violation of traffic rules is a clear
indication of negligence.

7. Andamo vs. IAC

Facts: Petitioner spouses Emmanuel and Natividad Andamo are the owners of a parcel of land situated in
Biga (Biluso) Silang, Cavite which is adjacent to that of private respondent, Missionaries of Our Lady of La
Salette, Inc., a religious corporation.
Within the land of respondent corporation, waterpaths and contrivances, including an artificial lake, were
constructed, which allegedly inundated and eroded petitioners land, caused a young man to drown,
damaged petitioners crops and plants, washed away costly fences, endangered the lives of petitioners
and their laborers during rainy and stormy seasons, and exposed plants and other improvements to
destruction.
In July 1982, petitioners instituted a criminal action, before the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, against Efren
Musngi, Orlando Sapuay and Rutillo Mallillin, officers and directors of herein respondent corporation, for
destruction by means of inundation under Article 324 of the Revised Penal Code. Subsequently, on
February 22, 1983, petitioners filed another action against respondent corporation, this time a civil case,
for damages with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction before the same court. The RTC
dismissed the civil case. On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the assailed decision.
Issue: Whether a corporation, which has built through its agents, waterpaths, water conductors and
contrivances within its land, thereby causing inundation and damage to an adjacent land, can be held
civilly liable for damages under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts such that the
resulting civil case can proceed independently of the criminal case.
Held: The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the IAC and order the ERTC to proceed with the hearing.
A careful examination of the aforequoted complaint shows that the civil action is one under Articles 2176
and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. All the elements of a quasi-delict are present, to wit: (a)
damages suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose
acts he must respond; and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the
defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff.
Clearly, from petitioners complaint, the waterpaths and contrivances built by respondent corporation are
alleged to have inundated the land of petitioners. There is therefore, an assertion of a causal connection
between the act of building these waterpaths and the damage sustained by petitioners. Such action if
proven constitutes fault or negligence which may be the basis for the recovery of damages.
While the property involved in the cited case belonged to the public domain and the property subject of
the instant case is privately owned, the fact ramains that petitioners complaint sufficiently alleges that
petitioners have sustained and will continue to sustain damage due to the waterpaths and contrivances
built by respondent corporation. Indeed, the recitals of the complaint, the alleged presence of damage to
the petitioners, the act or omission of respondent corporation supposedly constituting fault or negligence,
and the causal connection between the act and the damage, with no pre-existing contractual obligation
between the parties make a clear case of a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.
Article 2176, whenever it refers to fault or negligence, covers not only acts not punishable by law but
also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a separate
civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found
guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, (if the tortfeasor is actually charged

also criminally), to recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the
bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary.

8. Taylor vs. Manila Electric Company

Facts: The defendant is a foreign corporation engaged in the operation of a street railway and an electric
light system in the city of Manila. Its power plant is situated at the eastern end of a small island in the
Pasig River within the city of Manila, known as the Isla del Provisor. The power plant may be reached by
boat or by crossing a footbridge, impassable for vehicles, at the westerly end of the island.
The plaintiff, David Taylor, was at the time when he received the injuries complained of, 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.
On the 30th of September, 1905, plaintiff, with a boy named Manuel Claparols, about 12 years of age,
crossed the footbridge to the Isla del Provisor, for the purpose of visiting one Murphy, an employee of the
defendant, who had promised to make them a cylinder for a miniature engine. Finding on inquiry that Mr.
Murphy was not in his quarters, the boys, impelled apparently by youthful curiosity and perhaps by the
unusual interest which both seem to have taken in machinery, spent some time in wandering about the
company's premises
Inside the premises of Manila Electric power plant, they found 20-30 blasting caps which they took home.
In an effort to explode the said caps, Taylor experimented until he succeeded in opening the caps and then
he lighted it using a match which resulted to the explosion of the caps causing severe injuries to his
companion and to Taylor losing one eye.
Taylor sued Manila Electric alleging that because the company left the caps exposed to children, they are
liable for damages due to the companys negligence.
Issue: Whether or not the Company is liable for damages.
Held: The SC reiterated the elements of quasi delict as follows:
(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.
In the case at bar, it is true that Manila Electric has been negligent in disposing off the caps which they
used for the power plant, and that said caps caused damages to Taylor. However, the causal connection
between the companys negligence and the injuries sustained by Taylor is absent. It is in fact the direct
acts of Taylor which led to the explosion of the caps as he even, in various experiments and in multiple
attempts, tried to explode the caps. It is from said acts that led to the explosion and hence the injuries.

When the immediate cause of an accident resulting in an injury is the plaintiff's own act, which contributed
to the principal occurrence as one of its determining factors, he cannot recover damages for the injury.

9. Bulao vs. CA
Facts: On April 25, 1983, respondent Santiago Belleza filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
Tayum, Pearrubia, Abra, a complaint against petitioner Honorio Bulao. It was docketed as "Civil Case No.
70-Damages." The petitioner moved to dismiss the same on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. He argued
that the said case was cognizable by the Regional Trial Court, the real issue being one of ownership,
possession of the land where the ditches are located, and real rights involving the use of ditches. The court
denied the motion and required him to answer the complaint.
The petitioner failed to do so and was declared in default. He then moved for reconsideration and the
lifting of the order of default. This time he claimed that it was the National Water Resources Council that
had jurisdiction over the case because it involved rights on the utilization of water. The motion was also
denied, and the court proceeded to receive the evidence of the private respondent.
On October 4, 1984, the Court handed down a judgment by default ordering the petitioner to pay the
following amounts in favor of the private respondent, plus the costs:
1. 1. P6,000.00 representing the unrealized harvest of the private respondent on the land he was
working on;
2. 2. P2,625.00 representing his unrealized share from the harvest of his tenant; and
3. 3. P2,000.00 representing attorney's fees.
The petitioner did not appeal the decision and the corresponding writ of execution was issued in due time.
He moved to quash the writ but to no avail.
On March 25, 1985, the petitioner lodged before the Regional Trial Court of Abra Branch I, a petition for
relief from judgment/order in Civil Case 70. This was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner neither
filed his answer to the complaint nor later availed himself of his right to appeal from the judgment. His
motion for reconsideration was denied.
The petitioner next came to this Court to seek certiorari with preliminary injunction. His petition was
referred to the Court of Appeals for consideration and adjudication on the merits. On July 5, 1991, the
respondent court promulgated a decision denying the petition. His motion for reconsideration having been
likewise denied, the case is now before us for review.
Issue: What is the nature of the action filed?

Held: In any case, the injury has been done and that is what the private respondent was suing about in his
action for damages. The relief he prayed for did not change Civil Case No. 70 into a water dispute coming
under the jurisdiction of the National Water Research Council.
It follows that since the court a quo had jurisdiction over the action instituted by the private respondent, its
decision, which has already become final and executory, can no longer be disturbed.
The Court notes that the title of the complaint is "Civil Case No. 70Damages." Although not necessarily
determinative of the nature of the action, it would nevertheless indicate that what the private respondent
contemplated was an action for damages. It is pointed out, however, that paragraph (a) of the prayer for
relief seems to convey the impression that the private respondent is asking for the right to use the
irrigation water and for the recognition by the petitioner of an easement on his land. Would this change the
character of Civil Case 70? We have consistently held that the allegations of fact set forth in the complaint
and not the prayer for relief will determine the nature of an action.