Singson vs BPI 23 SCRA 1117

FACTS: Singson, was one of the defendants in a civil case, in which judgment had
been rendered sentencing him and his co-defendants therein Lobregat and Villa-Abrille
& Co., to pay a sum of money to the plaintiff therein. Said judgment became final and
executory as only against Ville-Abrille for its failure to file an appeal. A writ of
garnishment was subsequently served upon BPI in which the Singsons had a current
account insofar as Villa-Abrilles credits against the Bank were concerned.

Upon receipt of the said Writ of Garnishment, a clerk of the bank, upon reading the
name of the Singson in the title of the Writ of Garnishment as a party defendants,
without further reading the body and informing himself that said garnishment was
merely intended for the deposits of defendant Villa-Abrille & Co., et al, prepared a letter
informing Singson of the garnishment of his deposits by the plaintiff in that case.

Subsequently, two checks issued by the plaintiff Julian C. Singson, one in favor of B. M.
Glass Service and another in favor of the Lega Corporation, were dishonored by the
bank. B. M. Glass Service then wrote to Singson that the check was not honored by BPI
because his account therein had already been garnished and that they are now
constrained to close his credit account with them.

Singson wrote to BPI, claiming that his name was not included in the Writ of Execution
and Notice of Garnishment, which was served upon the bank. The defendants lost no
time to rectify the mistake that had been inadvertently committed.

Thus this action for damages.

ISSUE: WON the existence of a contract between the parties bars a plaintiffs claim for
damages based on torts?

HELD: NO. The existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the
commission of a tort by the one against the order and the consequent recovery of
damages therefore. Indeed, this view has been, in effect, reiterated in a comparatively
recent case. Thus, in Air France vs. Carrascoso, involving an airplane passenger who,
despite his first-class ticket, had been illegally ousted from his first-class
accommodation and compelled to take a seat in the tourist compartment, was held
entitled to recover damages from the air-carrier, upon the ground of tort on the latters
part, for, although the relation between a passenger and a carrier is contractual both in
origin and nature the act that breaks the contract may also be a tort.

In view, however, of the facts obtaining in the case at bar, and considering, particularly,
the circumstance, that the wrong done to the plaintiff was remedied as soon as the
President of the bank realized the mistake he and his subordinate employee had
committed, the Court finds that an award of nominal damages the amount of which
need not be proven in the sum of P1,000, in addition to attorneys fees in the sum of
P500, would suffice to vindicate plaintiffs rights.
Light Rail Transit Authority & Rodolfo Roman v. Marjorie Navidad
FACTS:
On 14 October 1993, about 7:30 in the evening, Nicanor Navidad, then drunk, entered the EDSA LRT
station after purchasing a token. While Navidad was standing on the platform near the LRT tracks, the
assigned security guard Junelito Escartin approached Navidad. A misunderstanding between them
was apparently ensued that led to a fist fight. No evidence was adduced to indicate how the fight
started or who, between the two, delivered the first blow or how Navidad later fell on the LRT tracks. At
the exact moment that Navidad fell, an LRT train, operated by petitioner Rodolfo Roman, was coming
in. Navidad was struck by the moving train, and he was killed instantaneously. The widow of Nicanor,
Marjorie Navidad, along with her children, filed a complaint for damages against Junelito Escartin,
Rodolfo Roman, the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization, Inc. (Metro Transit), and Prudent Security
Agency for the death of her husband. Prudent Security Agency denied liability and averred that it had
exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its security guards. The LRTA and Roman
presented their evidence while Prudent and Escartin filed a demurrer contending that Navidad had
failed to prove that Escartin was negligent in his assigned task. The RTC Pasig ruled against Prudent
Security Agency and Junelito Escartin ordering them
to pay for actual and moral damages, the attorneys fees and cost of suit, and dismissed the
complaint against LRTA and Roman for lack of merit Prudent appealed to the Court of Appeals
and the court modified the lower courts decision
by exonerating Prudent from any liability for the death of Nicanor Navidad and, instead, holding the
LRTA and Roman jointly and severally liable.
ISSUE:
Is the LRTA liable for the death of Nicanor Navidad?
RULING:
Yes, LRTA is liable. The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost
diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all circumstances. Such duty of a common
carrier to provide safety to its passengers so obligates it not only during the course of the trip but for so
long as the passengers are within its premises and where they ought to be in pursuance to the
contract of carriage. The statutory provisions render a common carrier liable for death of or injury to
passengers (a) through the negligence or willful acts of its employees or b) on account of willful acts or
negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carriers employees through the
exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. In case of such death
or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been negligent, and by simple proof of injury,
the passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its
employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event
or to force majeure.

The foundation of LRTA

s liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to indemnify the victim arises from the
breach of that contract by reason of its failure to exercise the high diligence required of the common
carrier. In the discharge of its commitment to ensure the safety of passengers, a carrier may choose to
hire its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an independent firm to undertake
the task. In either case, the common carrier is not relieved of its responsibilities under the contract of
carriage.