Juntilla vs Fontanar Case Digest

Juntilla vs Fontanar
(136 SCRA 624)

Facts: Herein plaintiff was a passenger of the public utility jeepney on course from Danao City to
Cebu City. The jeepney was driven by driven by defendant Berfol Camoro and registered under the
franchise of Clemente Fontanar. When the jeepney reached Mandaue City, the right rear tire
exploded causing the vehicle to turn turtle. In the process, the plaintiff who was sitting at the front
seat was thrown out of the vehicle. Plaintiff suffered a lacerated wound on his right palm aside from
the injuries he suffered on his left arm, right thigh, and on his back.

Plaintiff filed a case for breach of contract with damages before the City Court of Cebu City.
Defendants, in their answer, alleged that the tire blow out was beyond their control, taking into
account that the tire that exploded was newly bought and was only slightly used at the time it blew
up.

Issue: Whether or not the tire blow-out is a fortuitous event?

Held: No. In the case at bar, the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence was not
independent of the human will. The accident was caused either through the negligence of the driver
or because of mechanical defects in the tire. Common carriers should teach drivers not to overload
their vehicles, not to exceed safe and legal speed limits, and to know the correct measures to take
when a tire blows up thus insuring the safety of passengers at all times.

MARGARITA AFIALDA, Plaintiff-Appellant

VS

BASILIO HISOLE and FRANCISCO HISOLE, Defendants-Appellees

G.R. No. L-2075 [November 29, 1949]

Facts of the Case:

Deceased Loreto Afialda was employed by the defendant spouses as caretaker of

their carabaos at a fixed compensation. On March 21, 1947, while he was tending
the animals, he was gored by one of them and consequently died of his injuries. Thus,
herein appellant, Loreto’s elder sister who depended on him for support, filed the action
for damages. The complaint was dismissed by the trial court upon granting a motion to
dismiss filed by spouses Hisole. Subsequently, the plaintiff had taken the present
appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not defendants may be held liable for damages when damage is
caused to the animal’s caretaker.
Ruling of the Court:

Under Article 1905 of the old Civil Code, the owner of an animal is answerable
only for damages caused to a stranger, and that for damage caused to the caretaker of
the animal the owner would be liable only if he had been negligent or at fault under
Article 1902 of the same code. In the case at hand, the animal was in custody and under
the control of the caretaker, who was paid for his work as such. Thus, it was his business
to try to prevent the animal from causing injury or damage to anyone, including himself.
Being injured by the animal under those circumstances, was one of the risks of the
occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the
consequences. Deceased does not fall within the ambit of “stranger”, which is significant
for the claim for damages under the said article.

Moreover, under the said circumstances, the action should not come under Article 1905
of the Civil Code but under the labor laws, i.e. Workmen’s Compensation Act. The
complaint contained no allegation as to constitute liability under the Civil Code nor the
Workmen’s Compensation Act. Hence, it alleges no cause of action.

The order appealed from was affirmed.

Afialda vs Hisole

Subject: case digest, Torts and Damages 19 Sep

G.R. No. L-2075
November 29, 1949

FACTS: Loreto Afialda was the caretaker of the carabaos of the spouses Basilio and Francisco. While
tending the animals, he was gored by one of them, and later died as a consequence of his injuries.

ISSUE: Whether or not the owner of the animal is liable when damage is caused to its caretaker

HELD: No. The law uses the term possessor or user of the animal as the person liable for "any
damages it may cause." Afialda was the caretaker of the animals and was paid for his service. He, at
the time of the goring, was the possessor or user of the carabaos, and therefore, has the custody and
control of the animal. As its caretaker, he is the one in position to prevent the animal from causing
injury or damage to anyone, including himself. And being injured by the animal under those
circumstances was one of the risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for
which he must take the consequences.