Jimenez vs City of Manila 28 May 1987

FACTS
On 15 August 1974 (morning), the plaintiff (petitioner herein) went to Sta. Ana public market together
with his friends, to buy bagoong at the time when the public market was flooded with ankle-deep
rainwater. After his purchase, he turned around to return home but had stepped on an uncovered
opening which could not be seen due to the dirty rainwater, causing a dirty and rusty four-inch nail,
stuck inside the uncovered opening, to pierce the left leg of plaintiff-petitioner penetrating to a depth of
about one and a half inches.

He was confined for twenty (20) days, and upon his discharge from the hospital, he had to walk around
with crutches for fifeen (15) days. His injury prevented him from attending to the school buses he is
operating. As a result, he had to engage the services of one Bienvenido Valdez to supervise his business
for an aggregate compensation of nine hundred pesos (P900.00).

iSSUE

The lone assignment of error raised in this petition is on whether or not the Intermediate Appellate
Court erred in not ruling that respondent City of Manila should be jointly and severally liable with Asiatic
Integrated Corporation for the injuries petitioner suffered.

RULING

The City of Manila shall be held liable even though they maintained their argument regarding Article 1,
Section 4 of Republic Act No.409, as they are liable to Article 2189 of the Civil Code.

Article 1 Section 4 of RA No. 409 refers to liability arising from negligence in general, while Article 2189
of CC provides a particular liability of the province, city or municipality in regards to their control or
supervision to public buildings.

In the case at bar, there is no question that the Sta. Ana Public Market, despite the Management and
Operating Contract between respondent City and Asiatic Integrated Corporation remained under the
control of the former.

Respondent City of Manila and Asiatic Integrated Corporation being joint tort-feasors, aresolidarily liable
under Article 2194 of the Civil Cod
Saludaga vs FEU 30 April 2008

FACTS
Petitioner Joseph Saludaga was a sophomore law student of respondent Far Eastern University
(FEU) when he was shot by Alejandro Rosete (Rosete), one of the security guards on duty at the
school premises.
Petitioner thereafter filed a complaint for damages against respondents on the ground that
they breached their obligation to provide students with a safe and secure environment and an
atmosphere conducive to learning. Respondents, in turn, filed a Third-Party Complaint against
Galaxy Development and Management Corporation (Galaxy), the agency contracted by
respondent FEU to provide security services within its premises to indemnify them for whatever
would be adjudged in favor of petitioner.

ISSUES
https://jeffsarabusing.wordpress.com/2018/08/26/case-brief-saludaga-vs-feu/
VIRATA vs OCHOA 31 January 1978

FACTS
On September 24, 1975 one Arsenio Virata died as a result of having been bumped while
walking along Taft Avenue, Pasay City by a passenger jeepney driven by Maximo Borilla and
registered in the name of Victoria Ochoa
An action for homicide through reckless imprudence was instituted on September 25, 1975
against Maximo Borilla
On December 12, 1975, Atty. Julio Francisco, the private prosecutor, made a reservation to file
a separate civil action for damages against the driver on his criminal liability
On February 19, 1976 Atty. Julio Francisco filed a motion in said case to withdraw the
reservation to file a separate civil action; that thereafter, the private prosecutor actively
participated in the trial and presented evidence on the damages
On June 29, 1976 the heirs of Arsenio Virata again reserved their right to institute a separate
civil action
On July 19, 1977 the heirs of Arsenio Virata, petitioners herein, commenced Civil No. B-134 in
the Court of First Instance of Cavite at Bacoor, Branch V, for damages based on quasi-delict
against the driver Maximo Borilla and the registered owner of the jeepney,
On August 13, 1976 the defendants, private respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that there is another action, Criminal Case No. 3162-P, pending between the same
parties for the same cause
On September 8, 1976 the Court of First Instance of Rizal at Pasay City a decision in Criminal
Case No. 3612-P acquitting the accused Maximo Borilla on the ground that he caused an injury
by name accident
On January 31, 1977, the Court of First Instance of Cavite at Bacoor granted the motion to Civil
Case No. B-134 for damages. 2

ISSUE
weather or not the of the Arsenio Virata, can prosecute an action for the damages based on
quasi-delict against Maximo Borilla and Victoria Ochoa, driver and owner, respectively on the
passenger jeepney that bumped Arsenio Virata.
RULING
It is settled that in negligence cases the aggrieved parties may choose between an action under
the Revised Penal Code or of quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
What is prohibited by Article 2177 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is to recover twice for the
same negligent act.
Civil Case No. B-134 is quasi-delict, not an act or omission punishable by law. Under Article 1157
of the Civil Code of the Philippines, quasi-delict and an act or omission punishable by law are
two different sources of obligation.
Moreover, for the petitioners to prevail in the action for damages, Civil Case No. B-134, they
have only to establish their cause of action by preponderance of the evidence.