Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ramos v. Pepsi Cola
Ramos v. Pepsi Cola
Ramos v. Pepsi Cola
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161886e354d1a02faa5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/7
2/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 019
290
Law, not having been raised and argued in the Court of Appeals,
cannot be ventilated in this Court for the’ first time.
________________
291
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161886e354d1a02faa5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/7
2/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 019
________________
2 Italics supplied.
3 Among the exceptions to the rule that findings of fact by the Court of
Appeals cannot be reviewed on appeals by certiorari are:
1, When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
292
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161886e354d1a02faa5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/7
2/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 019
________________
293
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161886e354d1a02faa5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/7
2/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 019
“From this article two things are apparent: (I) That when an
injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee there
instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence
on the part of the master or employer either in the selection of the
servant or employee, or in supervision over him after the
selection, or both; and (2) that the presumption is juris tantum
and not juris et de jure, and consequently may be rebutted. It
follows necessarily that if the employer shows to the satisfaction
of the court that in selection and supervision he has exercised the
care and diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption is
overcome and he is relieved from liability.”
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161886e354d1a02faa5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/7
2/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 019
Decision affirmed.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161886e354d1a02faa5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/7