Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Torts Cases
Torts Cases
Facts: Plaintiffs are the legitimate parents of Carlos Salen who died from wounds caused by Gumersindo
Balce, a legitimate son of defendant who was then single, 18 yrs old and was living with defendant. As a
result of C. Salen's death, G. Balce was accused and convicted of homicide and was sentenced to
imprisonment and to pay the amount of P2,000.00. Plaintiffs brought this action against defendant
before CFI to recover the sum of P2,000.00, with legal interest. Defendant, in his answer, set up the
defense that the law upon which plaintiffs predicate their right to recover does not here apply for the
reason that law refers to quasi-delicts and not to criminal cases. CFI sustained the theory of defendant.
Issue: WON appellee can be held subsidiary liable to pay the indemnity in accordance with Art. 2180 of
the CC.
Ruling: Judgment reversed.
Art 2180 CC applies in the case at bar. To hold otherwise would result in the absurdity that while for an
act where mere negligence intervenes the father or mother may stand subsidiarily liable for the damage
caused by his or her son, no liability would attach if the damage is caused with criminal intent. Verily, the
void that apparently exists in the RPC (art.101) is subserved by this particular provision of our CC, as may
be gleaned from some recent decisions of the SC which cover equal or identical cases.
November 2, 2006
FACTS:
April 4, 1984: Natividad Agana was rushed to the Medical City General
Hospital because of difficulty of bowel movement and bloody anal
discharge. Dr. Miguel Ampil diagnosed her to be suffering from cancer of the
sigmoid.
After a couple of days, Natividad consulted both Dr. Ampil and Dr.
Fuentes about the excruciating pain in her anal region. Dr. Ampil
recommended that she consult an oncologist.
May 9, 1984: The Aganas went to the United States to seek further
treatment and was told she was FREE from cancer.
RTC: PSI solidarily liable with Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes for damages for
negligence and malpractice
CA: absolved Dr. Fuentes upon the same advise from the PRC Board of
Medicine for failure to show that he placed the guages or concealed the
fact from Natividad
ISSUE: W/N Dr. Fuentes may be held liable under the principle of res ipso
loquitor
not a rule of substantive law, hence, does not per se create or constitute
ones own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for
damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter
are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
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.
x
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.
By accrediting Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes and publicly advertising their
qualifications, the hospital created the impression that they were its
agents, authorized to perform medical or surgical services for its patients
doctrine of corporate negligence or corporate responsibility
knowledge of any of the staff of Medical City Hospital constitutes
knowledge of PSI
It is worthy to note that Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes
operated on Natividad with the assistance of the Medical City Hospitals
staff, composed of resident doctors, nurses, and interns
FACTS:
On February 5, 1989, Mayor Miguel of Koronadal, South Cotabato was on board the
Isuzu pick-up truck driven by Fidel Lozano, an employee of the Municipality of
Koronadal. The pick-up truck was registered under the name of Rodrigo Apostol, but it
was then in the possession of ErnestoSimbulan. Lozano borrowed the pick-up truck
from Simbulan to bring Miguel to Buayan Airport at General Santos City to catch his
Manila
flight.
The pick-up truck accidentally hit Marvin C. Jayme, a minor, who was then crossing the
National Highway in South Cotabato. The intensity of the collision sent Marvin some 50
meters away from the point of impact, a clear indication that Lozano was driving at a
very high speed at the time of the accident. Marvin sustained severe head injuries.
Despite medical attention, Marvin expired six (6) days after the accident.
ISSUE:
MAY a municipal mayor be held solidarily liable for the negligent acts of the driver
assigned
to
him
MAY an LGU be held liable for the tortuous act of a government employee.
RULING:
1. It is uncontested that Lozano was employed as a driver by the municipality. That he
was subsequently assigned to Mayor Miguel during the time of the accident is of no
moment.
The
Municipality
of
Koronadal
remains
to
be
Lozanos employer notwithstanding Lozanos assignment to Mayor Miguel. Even
assuming arguendo that Mayor Miguel hadauthority to give instructions or directions to
Lozano, he still cannot be held liable. In Benson v. Sorrell, the New England Supreme
Court ruled that mere giving of directions to the driver does not establish that the
passenger has control over the vehicle. Neither does it render one theemployer of the
driver.
Mayor Miguel was neither Lozanos employer nor the vehicles registeredowner. There
existed no causal relationship between him and Lozano or the vehicle used that will
make him accountable for Marvins death. Mayor Miguel was a mere passenger at the
time
of
the
accident.
2. The municipality may not be sued because it is an agency of the State engaged in
governmental functions and, hence, immune from suit. This immunity is illustrated in
Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Firme, where the Court held that municipal
corporations are suable because their charters grant them the competence to sue and be
sued. Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for torts committed by them in the
discharge of governmental functions and can only be held answerable only if it can be
shown that they were acting in proprietary capacity. In permitting such entities to be
sued, the State merely gives the claimantthe right to show that the defendant was not
acting in governmentalcapacity when the injury was committed or that the case comes
under
the
exceptions recognized by law. Failing this, the claimant cannot recover.
Liability attaches to the registered owner, the negligent driver and his direct employer.
Settled is the rule that the registered owner of a vehicle is jointly and severally liable
with the driver for damages incurred by passengers and third persons as a consequence
of injuries or death sustained in the operation of said vehicles. Regardless of who the
actual owner of the vehicle is, the operator of record continues to be the operator of the
vehicle as regards the public and third persons, and as such is directly and primarily
responsible
for
the consequences incident
to
its
operation.
The petition is DENIED.