Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

G.R. No. L-82619 September 15, 1993 Philippine Airlines, Inc., petitioner Vs.

Court of Appeals and Pedro Zapatos, respondents

Dixie U. Corpuz MIHM

G.R. No. 126780 February 17, 2005 YHT Realty Corporation, Erlinda Lainez and Anicia Payam, petitioner Vs. The Court of Appelas and Maurice McLoughlin

The factual backdrop of the case follow. Private respondent McLoughlin, an Australian businessman-philanthropist, used to stay at Sheraton Hotel during his trips to the Philippines prior to 1984 when he met Tan. Tan befriended MCLoughlin by showing him around, introducing him to important people, accompanying him in visiting impoverished street children and assisting him in buying gifts for the children and in distributing the same to charitable institutions for poor children. Tan convinced McLoughkin to transfer from Sheraton Hotel to Tropicana where Lainez, Payam and Danilo Lopez were employed. Lopez served as manager of the hotel while Lainez and Payam had custody of the keys for the safety deposit boxes of Tropicana. Tan took care of McLOughlins booking at the Tropicana where he started staying during his trips to the Philippines from December 1984 to September 1987.

He registerd with Tropicana and rented a safety deposit box as it was his practice to rent a safety deposit box everytime he registered at Tropicana in his previous trips, that box could only be opened through the use of two keys, one of which is given to the registered guest and the other remaining in the possession of the management of the hotel. He placed money and jewelries at the box for several times only to found out later that somebody took some of it. The trial court found that MCLoughlins allegations as to the fact of loss and as to the amount of money he lost were sufficiently shown by his direct straightforward manner of testifying in court and found him to be credible and worthy of belief as it was

established that McLoughlins money was taken without his consent, the trial court added that if McLoughlins had not lost his dollars, he would not have gone through the trouble and personal inconvenience of seeking aid and assistance from the Office of the president, DOJ, police authorities and the city Fiscals office in his desire to recover his losses from the hotel management.

OPINION ABOUT THE CASE In my opinion defendants acted with gross negligence in the performance and exercise of their duties and obligations as innkeepers and were therefore liable to answer incurred by McLoughlins.


G.R. No. L-21486

May 14, 1966

La Mallorca and Pampanga Bus Company, petitioner De Jesus, Manolo Tolentino and Court of Appeals, repondents

La Mallorca and Pampanga bus company, Inc., commonly known as MallorcaPambusco, filed this appeal bycertiorari from the decision of the Court of appeals which affirmed that renderd by the Court of First Instance of Bulacan in its civil case No. 2100, entitled Valentin de Jesus and Manolo Tolentino vs. La Mallorca-Pambusco. The court a quo sentenced the defendant, now petitioner, to pay ech plaintiff by way of moral damages and 3,000.00 as counsel fees. The suit arose by reason of the death of Lolita de Jesus, 20 year old daughter of Valentin de Jesus and wife of Manolo Tolentino, in a head on collision between petitioners bus, on which she was a passenger, and a freight truck traveling in the opposite direction, in a barrio in Marilao Bulacan, in the morning of October 8, 1859. The immediate cause of the collision was the fact that the driver of the bus lost control of the wheel when its left front tire suddenly exploded.

For me, inorder not to have an accident the driver must have a more thorough and rigid check-up on his vehicle before using it. And the bus company must extend financial obligation for the daily maintenance and check up of their vehicles.