To: Mr.

Mario Castelo

From: Germaine Vida L. Carreon

Date: June 14, 2019

Re: Nullification of agreement; Injunction; Liability arising

from accident

Statement of Facts

Brendon Castello enrolled in Best Drive Learning School to

learn how to drive a car. Last 10 May 2019, he and his
driving instructor, Ferdinand Lopez, went out for an actual
driving lesson. Using the school’s Toyota Fortuner,
Brendon drove the same along Congressional Avenue.
Ferdinand was seated on the other seat located beside
Brendon.

While traversing Congressional Avenue, the Toyota

Fortuner being driven by Brendon collided with another
vehicle. Dianne Somera, who was driving the car bumped
by the Toyota Fortuner suffered very serious injuries. The
most serious injury she sustained is the puncture in her
lungs. Due to the same, Dianne suffered severe blood loss.

While on the hospital, Dianne was told that she would need
to undergo a lung operation and that she would be needing
to undertake a blood transfusion. She refused since her
religion does not allow blood transfusions. The doctor
pleaded with her, saying that the intended surgery has a
90% chance of saving her life and not undergoing the
blood transfusion would mean certain death for her.
Dianne did not change her mind and she thereafter died
after a few hours.

Felix Bocobo, who was with Dianne during the accident

also suffered very serious injuries. Unfortunately, the
accident also mangled his reproductive organ. When Felix
was made aware of it, he became depressed. Several days
after the accident, he opened the window of his hospital
room and jumped to his death.

Ferdinand, the driving instructor, unluckily also suffered

serious injuries. His two kidneys were severely damaged
and would now have to undergo dialysis for the rest of his
life. Brendon, who was very lucky, only suffered minor
injuries.

Ferdinand talked with Brendon. Ferdinand asked Brendon

to give one of his kidneys to him if ever the latter’s kidney
would be compatible with him. This will serve as his
compensation for the injuries he suffered by reason of the
accident. Brendon reluctantly agreed and they have signed
written agreement to that effect.

Brendon’s kidneys were found to be compatible with

Ferdinand. Brendon would like to go through with the
Agreement but his wife, Nadine, disagreed with it. As a
matter of fact, Nadine would be filing a Complaint for the
Nullification of the said Agreement with prayer for the
issuance of an Injunction against Brendon so that the
latter be prohibited from giving one of his kidneys to
Ferdinand.

II. Questions Presented

1. Who can be held liable for the accident suffered by

Dianne? Brendon and/or Ferdinand, and/or the
driving school?

2. What is the extent of the liability of any, some or all

of the three persons mentioned above in connection
with the accident suffered by Dianne?

3. Is the fact that the Dianne refused blood transfusion,

which thereby caused her death due to blood loss,
material to the computation of damages that can be
recovered?

4. Who can be held liable for the accident suffered by

Felix? Brendon and/or Ferdinand, and/or the driving
school?

5. What is the extent of the liability of any, some or all

of the three persons mentioned above in connection
with the accident suffered by Felix?

6. Is the fact that the Felix chose to commit suicide

material to the computation of damages that can be
recovered?

7. Who can be held liable for the accident suffered by

Ferdinand?

8. Can the driving school hold Brendon liable for the

damage caused to the Toyota Fortuner?

9. Is the fact the student drivers can be foreseen to

cause accidents while learning how to drive material
for purposes of who can be held liable for damages
and the extent of damages that can be recovered?
 10. What possible defenses may Brendon raise in
order to partially or fully negate his liability, if any,
against Ferdinand and/or the driving school?

11. Is the Agreement between Brendon and

Ferdinand valid and enforceable?

12. Does Nadine have legal standing to ask for the

nullification of the aforesaid Agreement?

13. Can Nadine ask Brendon to be legally

prohibited from giving one of his kidneys to
Ferdinand?

III. Brief Answers

1.) Brendon, Ferdinand and Best Drive Learning School

may be held liable if it can be proven that they acted with
negligence.

2.) Brendon and Ferdinand may be held liable criminally

and and civilly. Best Drive Learning School may be held
liable directly, based on quasi-delict and subsidiarily.

3.) The fact that Dianne refused the blood transfusion

which thereby caused her death due to blood loss is
material to the computation of damages that can be
recovered.

4.) Brendon, Ferdinand and Best Drive Learning School

may be held liable if it can be proven that they acted with
negligence.

5.) Brendon and Ferdinand may be held liable criminally

and and civilly. Best Drive Learning School may be held
liable directly, based on quasi-delict and subsidiarily.

6.) The fact that Felix committed suicide is not material to

the computation of damages that can be recovered.

7.) Either Brendon or Best Drive Learning School may be

held liable for the accident suffered by Ferdinand.

8.) Yes. Brendon can be held liable for the damage caused
to the Toyota Fortuner. Best Drive Learning School may
also be held liable if it acted negligently.

9.) No. The fact that student drivers can be foreseen to

cause accidents while learning how to drive is not material
for purposes of who can be held liable for damages and
the extent of damages that can be recovered.

10.) Brendon may raise the defense of contributory

negligence on the part of Ferdinand and the driving school
to partially negate his liability. He may raise the exempting
circumstance of accident to fully negate his liability.

11.) The agreement between Brendon and Ferdinand is

void as it is against public policy and the object of the
agreement is outside the commerce of men.

12.) No. Nadine has no legal standing to ask for the

nullification of the aforesaid agreement.

13.) No. Nadine cannot ask Brendon to be legally

prohibited from giving one of his kidneys to Ferdinand.

IV. Discussions

To determine who amongst those involved are liable, it is

necessary to find out who acted with negligence in the
performance of the the act which lead to such accident.

Art. 2176 of the New Civil Code, “Whoever by act or

omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such
fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is
governed by the provisions of this Chapter. “

The question of proximate cause is said to be determined,

not by the existence or non-existence of intervening
events, but by their character and the natural connection
between the original act or omission and the injurious
consequences. When the intervening cause is set in
operation by the original negligence, such negligence is still
the proximate cause; x x x If the party guilty of the first
act of negligence might have anticipated the intervening
cause, the connection is not broken; x x x. Any number of
causes and effects may intervene, and if they arc such as
might with reasonable diligence have been foreseen, the
last result is to be considered as the proximate result. But
whenever a new cause intervenes, which is not a
consequence of the first wrongful cause, which is not under
control of the wrongdoer, which could not have been
foreseen by the exercise of reasonable diligence, and
except for which the final injurious consequence could not
have happened, then such injurious consequence must be
deemed too remote
An intervening cause, to be considered efficient, must be
"one not produced by a wrongful act or omission, but
independent of it, and adequate to bring the injurious
results. Any cause intervening between the first wrongful
cause and the final injury which might reasonably have
been foreseen or anticipated by the original wrongdoer is
not such an efficient intervening cause as will relieve the
original wrong of its character as the proximate cause of
the final injury.” (Romulo Abrogar and Erlinda Abrogar vs.
Cosmos Bottling Company and Intergames, Inc., G.R. No.
164749, March 15, 2017)

Contributory negligence is negligence that is caused by

both plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff contributed to
his injury, then, in some states, the plaintiff will be
prevented from collecting any damages.

Brendon may argue that he is not the proximate cause of

the demise of the victim and it was broken by an efficient
intervening cause. He may also contend that there was a
contributory negligence on their part.

Issues 1, 2, 4 and 5.

The first issue and forth issue is who can be held liable for
the accident that happened to Dianne and Felix while the
second and fourth issue is what is the extent of the liability
of any, some or all of the three persons mentioned above
in connection with the accident that suffered by Dianne and
Felix.

Typically, in a crash involving a driving school vehicle and

student driver, three parties can be held liable. These are
the student, the driving instructor and the driving school.
But it still depends on the circumstances of the case and
whether they are negligent, thereby causing the accident.

The provisions of law which are applicable are Article 103

and 365 of the Revised Penal Code, Article 2176, 2180,
2194 and 2202 of the New Civil Code. The applicable
provisions are quoted hereto:

Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. –

The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding
article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons,
and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for
felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.

Art. 365 Any person who, by simple imprudence or

negligence, shall commit an act which would otherwise
constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto
mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if would have
constituted a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto
mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed.

When the execution of the act covered by this article

shall have only resulted in damages to the property of
another, the offender value of said damages to three times
such value, but which shall in no case be less than 25
pesos.

A fine not exceeding 200 pesos and censure shall be

imposed upon any person who, by simple imprudence or
negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done
maliciously, would have constituted alight felony.

Art. 2176 Whoever by act or omission causes

damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is
governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

Art. 2180 The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is

demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but
also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their

employees and household helpers acting within the scope
of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
engaged in any business or industry.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when

the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all
the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage.

Art. 2194 The responsibility of two or more persons

who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary.

Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant

shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and
probable consequences of the act or omission complained
of. It is not necessary that such damages have been
foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the
defendant.

Brendon can be held liable for simple imprudence resulting

to serious physical injuries under Art. 365 of The Revised
Penal Code if he is proven to be negligent. There being a
lack of precaution on his part. Considering that he is a
student driver, he should have been more careful in
driving. He shall be liable for all damages which are the
natural and probable consequences of his act under Art.
2202 of the New Civil Code.

Ferdinand can be held criminally liable under Art. 365 of

The Revised Penal Code and civilly liable under Art. 2176
of the New Civil Code if he is found to be negligent. As a
driving instructor, he should have kept his eyes on the road
and efficiently guide the student on how to properly drive.
Instructors also have a way to intervene in an emergency,
so they are required to take reasonable steps to prevent
an accident.

An employer’s liability based on quasi-delict is primary and

direct, while the employer’s liability based on delict is
merely subsidiary. (People vs. Fabro, 93 SCRA 200)

Best Drive Learning School may be held liable directly

under Art. 2180 of the New Civil Code if it can be proven
that it acted negligently. If it failed to provide safe vehicles
and equipments and if failed to hire competent instructors.

Best Drive Learning School shall be subsidiarily liable under

Art.103 of The Revised Penal Code if Ferdinand is found
guilty of negligence and if he is insolvent to satisfy the civil
liability adjudged.

However, before the employer’s subsidiary liability is

enforced, it is explained in the case of Calang vs. People
(G.R. No. 190696, August 3, 2010, Ponente: Honorable
former Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion), that:

“Nonetheless, before the employers subsidiary liability is

enforced, adequate evidence must exist establishing that
(1) they are indeed the employers of the convicted
employees; (2) they are engaged in some kind of industry;
(3) the crime was committed by the employees in the
discharge of their duties; and (4) the execution against the
latter has not been satisfied due to insolvency. The
determination of these conditions may be done in the same
criminal action in which the employees liability, criminal
and civil, has been pronounced, in a hearing set for that
precise purpose, with due notice to the employer, as part
of the proceedings for the execution of the judgment.”

The liability of Best Drive Learning School with Ferdinand

is joint and solidary under Art. 2202 of the New Civil Code.

Issue 3
Yes, the fact that Dianne refused blood transfusion which
thereby caused her death is material to the computation of
damages that can be recovered.

Under Art. 2179 of the New Civil Code, “When the plaintiff’s
own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause
of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his
negligence was only contributory, the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of
due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts
shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.”

Therefore, the award of damages may be mitigated by the

courts due to Dianne’s contributory negligence of not
undergoing blood transfusion.

Issue 6

The fact that Felix chose to commit suicide is not material

to the computation of damages that can be recovered.

Under the proximate cause doctrine, for one to be

criminally liable it is necessary that the felonious act and
the resulting felony must not be broken by an efficient
intervening cause.

An efficient intervening cause is an active force which is a

distinct act absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the
offender.

The act of Felix in committing suicide is an efficient

intervening cause, which is a distinct act foreign from the
serious physical injuries caused by Brendon.

Issue 7

Art. 2179 of the New Civil Code “The plaintiff’s own

negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his
injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence
was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause
of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the
plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate
the damages to be awarded."

Brendon can be held liable for the accident suffered by

Ferdinand if he is proven to be negligent. If Ferdinand is
also found to be negligent Brendon’s liability shall be
mitigated by his contributory negligence under Art. 2179
of the New Civil Code.
Best Drive Learning School may also be held liable if they
were negligent in providing a safe vehicle and equipments.

Issue 8

Brendon can be held liable by Best Drive Learning School

for the damage caused to the Toyota Fortuner.

Under Art. 2176 of the New Civil Code, “Whoever by act

or omission causes damage to another, there being fault
or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such
fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is
governed by the provisions of this Chapter.”

Issue 9

No. The fact that student drivers can be foreseen to cause

accidents while learning how to drive is not material for
purposes of who can be held liable for damages and the
extent of damages that can be recovered.

The Court of Appeal, consisting of Lord Denning MR,

Salmon LJ and Megaw LJ held that applying a lower
standard to the learner driver because the instructor was
aware of her inexperience would result in complicated
shifting standards. It would imply, for example, that an
inexperienced doctor owed his patient a lower standard of
care if the patient was aware of his lack of experience. The
standard of care for a learner driver would be the usual
standard applied to drivers: that of an experienced and
skilled driver. (Nettleship vs. Weston)

Under Art. 1173 of the New Civil Code, “If the law or
contract does not state the diligence which is to be
observed in the performance, that which is expected of a
good father of a family shall be required.”

Issue 10

Brendon can raise the defense of contributory negligence

on the part of Ferdinand and Best Drive Learning School to
partially negate his liability. If Ferdinand was to negligent
in guiding Brendon and if he did not take reasonable steps
to prevent the accident. Meanwhile, if the Best Drive
Learning School failed to provide safe vehicles and
equipment and failed to hire competent instructors they
are also negligent.

Brendon may raise the exempting circumstance of accident

to fully negate his liability.
In the case of People v. Dela Cruz (G.R. No. 187683,
February 11, 2010), an accident is an occurrence that
happens outside the way of our will, and although it comes
about through some act of our will, it lies beyond the
bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.

The elements of accident are the following:

1. A person is performing a lawful act
2. With due care
3. He causes injury to another by mere accident
4. Without fault or intention of causing it

If he will be able to prove that he was driving with due

care, and that the injury he caused was by mere accident
without fault or intention of causing it. He will be free from
both criminal and civil liability.

Issue 11

The agreement between Brendon and Ferdinand cannot be

said to be valid and enforceable. The agreement to give
one of Brendon’s kidney to Ferdinand as compensation for
the damages that he suffered from the accident is void for
being contrary to public policy.

As provided under Article 1306 of the Civil Code, “The

contracting parties may establish such stipulations,
clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem
convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public order, or public policy.”

The object of the agreement, which is one of Brendon’s

kidneys is against public policy, as it falls within the scope
of commercialization of human organs.

Also, the human blood, like other parts of the human body,
cannot be considered object of contracts (Art. 1347, Civil
Code) because they are outside the commerce of men.

The word “donation” instead of “selling” should be used as

the euphemisms for the act of “giving away” or
“transferring to another “any part of the human body for
scientific purposes, to save life or to advance the cause of
medical science. (Paras, Civil Code Volume IV)

Issue 12

We have consistently held that the parties to a contract are

the real parties-in-interest in an action upon it. The basic
principle of relativity of contracts is that contracts can only
bind the parties who entered into it, and cannot favor or
prejudice a third person, even if he is aware of such
contract and has acted with knowledge thereof. Hence, one
who is not a party to a contract, and for whose benefit it
was not expressly made, cannot maintain an action on it.
One cannot do so, even if the contract performed by the
contracting parties would incidentally inure to one's
benefit. (Juana vda. De Rojales, Substituted by her heirs,
represented by Celerina Rojales- Sevilla v. Marcelino Dime
, substituted by his heirs , represented by Bonifacia
Manibay)

Nadine, not being a privy to the agreement has no legal

standing to ask for the nullification of the aforesaid
agreement.

Issue 13

Nadine cannot ask Brendon to be legally prohibited from

giving one of his kidneys to Ferdinand.

Art. 1311 of the New Civil Code, “Contracts take effect only
between the parties, their assigns and heirs, except in case
where the rights and obligations arising from the contract
are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or
by provision of law.”

Nadine not being a party to the contract is not entitled to

the relief demanded, the commission of the act would not
work injustice to her and what Brendon is attempting to do
is not in violation of her rights.

V. Conclusion

A good argument would be to invoke the exempting

circumstance of accident. Evidence must be gathered and
presented to prove that Brendon was driving with due care
and that the injury he caused was by mere accident
without fault or intention of causing it.