Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Torts First Digest
Torts First Digest
FACTS: On June 10, 1993, the legislature enacted Republic Act No. 7654, which took effect
FACTS: Clark field taxi, Inc., (CFTI)a family-owned corporation of Sergio Naguiat and on July 3, 1993. Prior to its effectivity, cigarette brands ‘Champion," "Hope," and "More"
AntolinNaguiat, the president and vice-president, respectively, held a concessionaire's were considered local brands subjected to an ad valorem tax at the rate of 20-45%.
contract with the Army Air Force Exchange Services (AAFES) for the operation of taxi However, on July 1, 1993, or two days before RA 7654 took effect, petitioner issued RMC
services within Clark Air Base. Private respondents were previously employed by CFTI as 37-93 reclassifying "Champion," "Hope," and "More" as locally manufactured cigarettes
taxicab drivers. Due to the phase-out of the US military bases in the Philippines, the AAFES
was dissolved, and the services of private respondents were officially terminated. During bearing a foreign brand subject to the 55% ad valorem tax. RMC 37-93 in effect subjected
negotiations, it was agreed that the separated drivers will be given P500.00 for every year of "Hope," "More," and "Champion" cigarettes to the provisions of RA 7654, specifically, to
service as severance pay. However, private respondents refused to accept it. Sec. 142, (c)(1) on locally manufactured cigarettes which are currently classified and taxed
at 55%, and which imposes an ad valorem tax of "55% provided that the minimum tax shall
Private respondents, through the National Organization of Workingmen (NOWM), a labor not be less than Five Pesos (P5.00) per pack." On July 2, BIR Deputy Commissioner sent
organization which they subsequently joined, filed a complaint against petitioners for
via telefax a copy of RMC 37-93 to Fortune Tobacco but it was addressed to no one in
payment of separation pay due to termination/phase-out.They alleged that they were hired
by CFTI and then assigned to Naguiat Enterprises which managed, controlled, and particular. On July 15, 1993, Fortune Tobacco received, by ordinary mail, a certified xerox
supervised their employment. CFTI’s defense that the cessation of business was due to copy of RMC 37-93. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration requesting the recall of
financial losses and lost business opportunity. RMC 37-93, but was denied in a letter. The same letter assessed respondent for ad valorem
tax deficiency amounting to P9,598,334.00 and demanded payment within 10 days from
Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering CFTI to pay respondents receipt thereof. Respondent filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals which
P1,200/year of service for humanitarian consideration. NLRC affirmed LA’s decision with issued an injunction enjoining the implementation of RMC 37-93. In its decision, the CTA
modification by granting separation pay $120/year of service, and held that Naguiat
ruled that RMC 37-93 is defective, invalid, and unenforceable and further enjoined petitioner
Enterprises, Sergio Naguiat and AntolinNaguiat, President and Vice-President, respectively,
should be jointly and severally liable. from collecting the deficiency tax assessment issued pursuant to RMC No. 37-93. This
ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and finally by this Court. It was held, among
others, that RMC 37-93, has fallen short of the requirements for a valid administrative
ISSUE: WhetherNaguiat Enterprises, S. Naguiat and A. Naguiat, President and Vice- issuance. Respondent filed before the RTC a complaint for damages against petitioner in
President of CFTI, respectively, is jointly and severally liable. her private capacity. Respondent contended that the latter should be held liable for
damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code considering that the issuance of RMC 37-93
RULING: No. Naguiat Enterprises is not liable. The Court ruled that respondents were
violated its constitutional right against deprivation of property without due process of law
employees of CFTI as they received salary from said office. Naguiat Enterprises is a
separate corporation completely (trading business); it is neither respondents’ indirect and the right to equal protection of the laws. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss contending
employer nor labor-only contractor. that: (1) respondent has no cause of action against her because she issued RMC 37-93 in
the performance of her official function and within the scope of her authority. She claimed
However, the Court found that the corporate president shall be held solidarily liable.Naguiat that she acted merely as an agent of the Republic and therefore the latter is the one
Enterprises and CFTI were closed corporation owned by Naguiat Family. Under the responsible for her acts; (2) the complaint states no cause of action for lack of allegation of
Corporation Code, stockholders actively engaged in the management or operation of the
malice or bad faith.
business and affairs of a close corporation are personally liable for corporate torts unless
the corporation has obtained reasonably adequate liability insurance.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner may be held liable for damages.
Our jurisprudence is wanting as to the definite scope of "corporate tort." Essentially, "tort"
consists in the violation of a right given or the omission of a duty imposed by law. Simply HELD: Yes. Article 32 of the Civil Code provides: ART. 32. Any public officer or employee,
stated, tort is a breach of a legal duty. Article 283 of the Labor Code mandates the employer or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates, or in any
to grant separation pay to employees in case of closure or cessation of operations of manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall
establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses. CFTI be liable to the latter for damages: x xxx (6) The right against deprivation of property without
failed to comply with this law-imposed duty or obligation. Consequently, its stockholder who
due process of law; x xxx (8) The right to the equal protection of the laws.
was actively engaged in the management or operation of the business should be held
personally liable.
Article 32 was patterned after the "tort" in American law. A tort is a wrong, a tortious act
Sergio F. Naguiat, admittedly, was the president of CFTI who actively managed the which has been defined as the commission or omission of an act by one, without right,
business. Thus, applying the ruling in A. C. Ransom, he falls within the meaning of an whereby another receives some injury, directly or indirectly, in person, property, or
"employer" as contemplated by the Labor Code, who may be held jointly and severally liable reputation. There are cases in which it has been stated that civil liability in tort is determined
for the obligations of the corporation to its dismissed employees. by the conduct and not by the mental state of the tortfeasor, and there are circumstances
D. Reasoning
“[t]he onus probandi was on the patient to establish before the trial court that the physicians
ignored standard medical procedure, prescribed and administered medication with
DOCTRINE:Intersections
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or 8.Elcano v. Hill G.R.No.L-28403
negligence, is obliged to pay
Torts and Damages – Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts vs Civil Liability from Crimes
for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is Reginald Hill, a minor, caused the death of Agapito (son of Elcano). Elcano filed a criminal
called quasi-delict xxx. [W]hether negligence occurs as an incident in the course of the case against Reginald but Reginald was acquitted for “lack of intent coupled with mistake.”
performance of a contractual undertaking or is itself the source of an extra-contractual Elcano then filed a civil action against Reginald and his dad (Marvin Hill) for damages based
obligation, its essential characteristics are identical. There is always an act or omission on Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Hill argued that the civil action is barred by his son’s
productive of damage due to carelessness or inattention on the part of the defendant. xxx acquittal in the criminal case; and that if ever, his civil liability as a parent has been
[T]he practical result is identical xxx.] The field of non-contractual obligation is much extinguished by the fact that his son is already an emancipated minor by reason of his
morebroader than that of contractual obligation, comprising, as it does, the whole extent of marriage.
juridical human relations. These two fields, figuratively speaking, concentric; that is to say,
the mere fact that a person is bound to another by contract does not relieve him from extra- ISSUE: Whether or not Marvin Hill may be held civilly liable under Article 2180.
contractual liability to such person. When such a contractual relation exists the obligor may
HELD: Yes. The acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case does not bar the filing of a
break the contract under such conditions that the same act which constitutes a breach of
separate civil action. A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act,
the contract would have
whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the
constituted the source of an extra-contractual obligationhad no contract existed between the
offended party is not allowed, if accused is actually charged also criminally, to recover
parties.
damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award
G.R. No. 74761 November 6, 1990 10. G.R. No. 97336 February 19, 1993
BAKSH v CA
Doctrine: It must be stressed that the use of one’s property is not without limitations. Article FACTS: Private respondent Marilou Gonzales filed a complaint for damages against
431 of the Civil Code provides that “the owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such a GasheemShookat, an Iranian Citizen, of breach of promise to marry. She said that both of
manner as to injure the rights of a third person.” SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON them agreed to marry after the end of the school semester. Marilou then introduced
LAEDAS. Gashem to her parents where they expressed their intention to get married. Marilou’s
parents then started inviting sponsors and relatives to the wedding. They even started
Facts: looking for animals to slaughter for the occasion.
Meanwhile, Marilou started living with Gashem in his apartment where they had sexual
Spouses Andamo, petitioner, owned a parcel of land situated in Biga Silang, Cavite which is intercourse. But in no time, their relationship went sour as Gashem began maltreating
adjacent to the property of respondent Missionaries of Our lady of La Salette, Inc., a Marilou. Gashem eventually revoked his promise of marrying Marilou and he told her that he
religious corporation. Respondent corporation constructed water paths and contrivances, is already married to someone in Bacolod City. So Marilou went home and later sued
including an artificial lake, which allegedly inundated and eroded petitioner’s land, caused a Gashem for damages.
young man to drown, damaged petitioner’s crops and plants, washed away costly fences,
endangered the lives of the petitioners and their laborers and some other destructions. The trial court ruled in favor of Marilou and awarded her P20k in moral damages. The Court
of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.
This prompted petitioner spouses to file a criminal action for destruction by means of On appeal, Gashem averred that he never proposed marriage to Marilou and that he cannot
inundation under Article 324 of the RPC and a civil action for damages. be adjudged to have violated Filipino customs and traditions since he, being an Iranian, was
not familiar with Filipino customs and traditions.
Issue:
ISSUE: Whether petitioner is liable for breach of promise to marry.
Whether petitioner spouses Andamo can claim damages for destruction caused by RULING: Yes. Gashem is liable to pay for damages in favor of Marilou not really because of
respondent’s waterpaths and contrivances. his breach of promise to marry her but based on Article 21 of the Civil Code which provides:
Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
Held: morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
Breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong per se. In this case, it is the deceit
Yes. The aforequoted complaint shows that the civil action is one under Articles 2176 and and fraud employed by Gashem that constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Civil Code.
2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. All the elements of a quasi-delict are present, His promise of marrying Marilou was a deceitful scheme to lure her into sexual congress.
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those ISSUE:Whether Sicam is liable for the loss of the pawned articles in their possession?
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the
doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.In Corliss v. Manila RULING: Yes. The Court found that Sicam failed to exercise reasonable care and caution
Railroad Company,this Court held that negligence is want of the care required by the that an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation. It ruled that Sicam
circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, not an absolute, term and its application was guilty of negligence in the operation of its pawnshop business. The Court quoted from
depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the the testimony of Sicam where he admitted that the vault was open at the time of robbery.
circumstances reasonably require.In determining whether or not there is negligence on the The court explained that Sicam’s testimony revealed that there were no security measures
part of the parties in a given situation, jurisprudence has laid down the following test: Did adopted by Sicam in the operation of pawnshop.
defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, use that reasonable care and caution which
an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, the person is 25. FAR EASTERN SHPPING vs. CA
guilty of negligence. The law, in effect, adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by the
imaginary conduct of the discreet pater familias of the Roman law.
REGALADO, J.
Article 2176. Whoever, by act or omission, causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no Generally, the degree of care required is graduated
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed according to the danger a person or property attendant
by the provisions of this Chapter. upon the activity which the actor pursues or the
instrumentality which he uses. The greater the danger the
In a long line of cases, the Court held that in order to sustain a claim based on quasi-delict, greater the degree of care required. What is ordinary under
the following requisites must concur: (1) damage to plaintiff; (2) negligence, by act or extraordinary of conditions is dictated by those conditions;
omission, of which defendant, or some person for whose acts he must respond was guilty; extraordinary risk demands extraordinary care. Similarly,
and (3) connection of cause and effect between such negligence and damage. the more imminent the danger, the higher the degree of
care. [
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 15,
2005 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. The award of actual damages is deleted, and
in lieu thereof, temperate damages of P25,000.00 is awarded to the heirs of Rhonda Brunty. Those who undertake any work calling for special skills
The award of moral damages is reduced to P500,000.00 are required not only to exercise reasonable care in what
they do but also possess a standard minimum of special
knowledge and ability.
Every man who offers his services to another, and is
employed, assumes to exercise in the employment such
26.PNR v. CA G.R.No.157658
Philippine National Railways (PNR) vs.CA (GR L-55347, 4 October 1985)Facts: FACTS: This case was instituted on October 18, 1950. In her original complaint instituted on
October 18, 1950, plaintiff Elena Amedo sought to collect from defendant Rio y Olabarrieta,
Inc., the sum of P2,038.40 as compensation for the death of her son, Filomeno Managuit,
ISSUE: It cannot be denied that in jumping into the sea, one mile and a half from the seashore of
Arceli, Dumarang, Palawan, Filomeno failed to exercise "even slight care and diligence,"
that he displayed a "reckless disregard of the safety" of his person, that he could not have
Whether Amedo could claim compensation from employer Rio
been but conscious of the probable consequences" of his carelessness and that he was
"indifferent, or worse, to the danger of injury. - this is distinguishable from cases wherein the
HELD: act done is not dangerous per se such as when an employee drops a cigarette on the
pavement and picks it up. So, also, if, while Filomeno Managuit was working, his 2-peso bill
merely fell from his pocket, and as he picked up the bill from the floor something
NO. Plaintiff‘s basis for appeal is the Workmen‘s Compensation Act. Sections 2 and 4 of
accidentally fell upon him and injured him, he would surely be entitled to compensation, his
which:
act being obviously innocent. - since the act done by Filomeno was dangerous, his accident
could be
Sec. 2. Grounds for compensation
- When any employee receives a personal injury from any accident arising out of and in the 28. G.R. No. L-8110. June 30, 1956
course of the employment, or contracts any illness directly caused by such employment, or MARINDUQUE v WORKMEN’S
the result of the nature of such employment, his employer shall pay compensation in the
sums and to the persons hereinafter specified.
FACTS:Marinduque Iron Mines Agents Inc. (MIMA) questions by certiorari the order of the
Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner confirming the referee’s award of compensation
Sec. 4. Injuries not covered. to the heirs of Pedro Mamador for his accidental death. On August 23, 1951, at 6:00 a.m.
the deceased Mamador together with other laborers of MIMA boarded a truck belonging to
the latter, which was then driven by one ProcopioMacunat, also employed by the
* Compensation shall not be allowed for injuries caused (1) by the voluntary intent of the
employee to inflict such injury upon himself or another person; (2) by drunkenness on the corporation, and on its way to their place of work at the mine camp at Talantunan, while
trying to overtake another truck on the company road, it turned over and hit a coconut tree,
part of the laborer who had the accident; (3) by notorious negligence of the same. - from
these provisions three conditions are essential to hold an employer liable. These are: (1) the resulting in the death of said Mamador and injury to the others. ProcopioMacunat was
accident must arise out of the employment; (2) it must happen in the course of the prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to indemnify the heirs of the deceased. (Criminal
Case No. 1491). He has paid nothing however, to the latter.
employment; and (3) it must not be caused by the "notorious negligence" of the employee.
Point in question is whether the accident was committed under these 3 conditions - "The MIMA contends that the deceased violated MIMA’s prohibition against laborers riding the
words "arising out of" refer to the origin or cause of the accident and are descriptive of its haulage trucks and is thus guilty of “notorious negligence” which, under the law, precludes
character, while the words `in the course of' refer to the time, place, and circumstances recovery.
under which the accident takes place - it may be conceded that the death of Filomeno took
place "in the course of" his employment, in that it happened at the "time" when, and at the ISSUES: Whether the deceased’s violation of MIMA’s policy not to ride the truck constitutes
"place" where-according to the amended complaint-he was working. However, the accident negligence.
which produced this tragic result did not "arise out of" his employment.
RULING: The Court ruled that mere riding on haulage truck or stealing a ride thereon is not
negligence, ordinarily. It couldn’t be, because transportation by truck is not dangerous per
The blowing of his 2-peso bill may have grown out of, or arisen from, his employment. It was se. It is argued that there was notorious negligence in this particular instance because there
the result of a risk peculiar to his work as a seaman or incidental to such work. But, his
However there is practical unanimity in the proposition that violation of a rule promulgated
RTC of Batangas City, finding that the failure of the doctor to arrive on time was not
by a Commission or board is not negligence per se; but it may be evidence of negligence.
This order of the employer (prohibition rather) couldn’t be of a greater obligation than the intentional, awarded Eva Marie only actual damages in the total amount of P9,939 and
rule of a Commission or board. And the referee correctly considered this violation as costs of suit. It found no adequate proof that Noel had been deprived of any job contract
possible evidence of negligence; but it declared that under the circumstance, the laborer while attending to his wife in the hospital.
could not be declared to have acted with negligence. Correctly, it is believed, since the
prohibition had nothing to do with personal safety of the riders. On appeal by the spouses, the Court of Appeals, finding Dr. Ilao-Oreta grossly negligent,
However, the Court also added that: modified the trial court’s decision.
Nevertheless, even granting there was negligence, it surely was not “notorious” ISSUE:Whether the petitioner acted with gross negligence.
negligence, which we have interpreted to mean the same thing as “gross”
negligence— implying “conscious indifference to consequences” “pursuing a
HELD: No. "Gross negligence" implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight
course of conduct which would naturally and probably result in injury” “utter
disregard of consequences.” Getting or accepting a free ride on the company’s care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of
haulage truck couldn’t be gross negligence, because as the referee found, “no consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them. It is characterized by want of even
danger or risk was apparent.” slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in
The award of compensation was affirmed with costs against petitioners.
so far as other persons may be affected.
29 CONCEPCION ILAO-ORETA, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES EVA MARIE and
BENEDICTO NOEL RONQUILLO, Respondents G.R. No. 172406 October 11, 2007 The records show that before leaving for Hawaii, Dr. Ilao-Oreta left an admitting order with
her secretary for one of the spouses to pick up, apprised Eva Marie of the necessary
FACTS: Respondentshad not been blessed with a child despite several years of marriage. preparations for the procedure, and instructed the hospital staff to perform pre-operative
They thus consulted petitioner, Dr. Ilao-Oreta, an obstetrician-gynecologist-consultant at the treatments. These acts of the doctor reflect an earnest intention to perform the procedure on
St. Luke’s Medical Center where she was, at the time material to the case, the chief of the the day and time scheduled.
Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Section.
The doctor’s act did not, however, reflect gross negligence as defined above. Her argument
Upon Dr. Ilao-Oreta’s advice, Eva Marie agreed to undergo a laparoscopic procedure that Although petitioner failed to take into consideration the time difference between the
whereby a laparascope would be inserted through the patient’s abdominal wall to get a Philippines and Hawaii, the situation then did not present any clear and apparent harm or
direct view of her internal reproductive organ in order to determine the real cause of her injury that even a careless person may perceive. Unlike in situations where the Supreme
infertility. Court had found gross negligence to exist, petitioner could not have been conscious of any
foreseeable danger that may occur since she actually believed that she would make it to the
The procedure was scheduled on April 5, 1999 at 2:00 p.m., to be performed by Dr. Ilao- operation that was elective in nature, the only purpose of which was to determine the real
Oreta. At around 7:00 a.m. of said date, Eva Marie, accompanied by her husband Noel, cause of infertility and not to treat and cure a life threatening disease.
checked in at the St. Luke’s Medical Center and underwent pre-operative procedures
including the administration of intravenous fluid and enema.
30. Picart v. Smith GR. no. l- 12219
Dr. Ilao-Oreta did not arrive at the scheduled time for the procedure, however, and no prior
notice of its cancellation was received. It turned out that the doctor was on a return flight Facts: Picart was riding his pony on the Carlatan Bridge, at San Fernando, La Union while
opposite him, Smith drives his automobile. Thinking that there will be no chance that the two
from Hawaii to, and arrived at 10:00 p.m. of April 5, 1999 in, Manila.
could collide or that one is not any nearer to another, Smith drove the automobile so near
the said pony causing for it to injure his hind legs and die as a result thereof. Picart was
The Ronquillo spouses filed a complaint against Dr. Ilao-Oreta and the St. Luke’s Medical thrown off violently from the animal and sustained temporary unconsciousness.
Center for breach of professional and service contract and for damages before the RTC of
Batangas City. In her Answer, Dr. Ilao-Oreta gave her side and explains that she failed to Issue: Whether or not the defendant in maneuvering his car in the manner above described
consider the time difference between Hawaii and the Philippines, however. was guilty of negligence such as gives rise to a civil obligation to repair the damage done.
It goes without saying that the plaintiff himself was not free from fault, for he was guilty of Sicam filed his Answer contending that he is not the real party-in-interest as the pawnshop
antecedent negligence in planting himself on the wrong side of the road. But as we have was incorporated on April 20, 1987 and known as Agencia de R.C. Sicam, Inc; that
already stated, the defendant was also negligent; and in such case the problem always is to petitioner corporation had exercised due care and diligence in the safekeeping of the
discover which agent is immediately and directly responsible. It will be noted that the articles pledged with it and could not be made liable for an event that is fortuitous.
negligent acts of the two parties were not contemporaneous, since the negligence of the
defendant succeeded the negligence of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under these
Respondents subsequently filed an Amended Complaint to include petitioner corporation.
circumstances the law is that the person who has the last fair chance to avoid the
impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without reference
to the prior negligence of the other party. RTC held that petitioner Sicam could not be made personally liable for a claim arising out of
a corporate transaction;in the Amended Complaint of respondents, they asserted that
"plaintiff pawned assorted jewelries in defendants' pawnshop"; and that as a consequence
of the separate juridical personality of a corporation, the corporate debt or credit is not the
31. G.R. No. 159617 August 8, 2007 debt or credit of a stockholder.
robbery is a fortuitous event which exempts the victim from liability for the loss,
ROBERTO C. SICAM and AGENCIA de R.C. SICAM, INC., petitioners, vs. LULU V.
JORGE and CESAR JORGE, respondents.AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
CA applied the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity reasoning that respondents
were misled into thinking that they were dealing with the pawnshop owned by petitioner
FACTS: It appears that on different dates from September to October 1987, Lulu V. Jorge
Sicam as all the pawnshop tickets issued to them bear the words "Agenciade R.C.
(respondent Lulu) pawned several pieces of jewelry with Agencia de R. C. Sicam located at
Sicam";CA concluded that both petitioners should be jointly and severally held liable
No. 17 Aguirre Ave., BF Homes Parañaque, Metro Manila, to secure a loan in the total
amount of P59,500.00.
ISSUE: WON CA Correct? Yes
On October 19, 1987, two armed men entered the pawnshop and took away whatever cash
HELD: The CA correctly pierced the veil of the corporate fiction and adjudged petitioner
and jewelry were found inside the pawnshop vault. The incident was entered in the police
Sicam liable together with petitioner corporation. The rule is that the veil of corporate fiction
blotter of the Southern Police District, Parañaque Police Station as follows:
may be pierced when made as a shield to perpetrate fraud and/or confuse legitimate issues.
Investigation shows that at above TDPO, while victims were inside the office, two (2) male
Petitioner Sicam had testified that there was a security guard in their pawnshop at the time
unidentified persons entered into the said office with guns drawn. Suspects(sic) (1) went
of the robbery. He likewise testified that when he started the pawnshop business in 1983,
straight inside and poked his gun toward Romeo Sicam and thereby tied him with an electric
he thought of opening a vault with the nearby bank for the purpose of safekeeping the
wire while suspects (sic) (2) poked his gun toward Divina Mata and Isabelita Rodriguez and
valuables but was discouraged by the Central Bank since pawned articles should only be
ordered them to lay (sic) face flat on the floor. Suspects asked forcibly the case and
stored in a vault inside the pawnshop. The very measures which petitioners had allegedly
assorted pawned jewelries items mentioned above.
adopted show that to them the possibility of robbery was not only foreseeable, but actually
foreseen and anticipated. Petitioner Sicam’s testimony, in effect, contradicts petitioners’
Suspects after taking the money and jewelries fled on board a Marson Toyota unidentified
defense of fortuitous event. in order for a fortuitous event to exempt one from liability, it is
plate number.
Whether Corinthian was negligent under the circumstances and such negligence
contributed to the injury suffered by the Tanjangcos.(culpa aquiliana).
FACTS:
Her present husband impregnated Nita Villanueva before they were legally married.
Holding: Desiring to conceal her pregnancy from the parent, she had herself aborted by petitioner
Antonio Geluz. After her marriage, she again became pregnant. As she was then employed
The instant case is obviously one for tort, as governed by Article 2176 of the Civil Code, in the COMELEC and her pregnancy proved to be inconvenient, she had herself aborted
which provides: again by Geluz. Less than 2 years later, Nita incurred a third abortion of a two-month old
fetus, in consideration of the sum of P50.00. Her husband did not know of, nor consented to
ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no the abortion. Hence Oscar Lazo, private respondent, sued petitioner for damages based on
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed the third and last abortion.
by the provisions of this Chapter.
The trial court rendered judgment ordering Antonio Geluz to pay P3,000.00 as damages,
In every tort case filed under this provision, plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of
P700.00 as attorney’s fee and the cost of the suit. Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
evidence: (1) the damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or negligence of the
defendant or some other person for whose act he must respond; and (3) the connection of
cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred.
Undeniably, the perimeter fence of the Cuasos encroached on the lot owned by the
RULING:
While she was pointing her tools to the man who will help her fixed the tires, she
was suddenly hit by another Mitsubishi Lancer driven by Richard Li who was
Personality begins at conception. This personality is called presumptive personality. It is, of
intoxicated and she slammed accross his windshield and fell to the ground
course, essential that birth should occur later, otherwise the fetus will be considered as
never having possessed legal personality.
She was sent to UERM where she stayed for 20 days and her leg was amputated
Since an action for pecuniary damages on account of injury or death pertains primarily to and was replaced with an artificial one.
the one injured, it is easy to see that if no action for damages could be instituted on behalf
of the unborn child on account of injuries it received, no such right of action could Her expenses totalled 147, 000 [120,000 php (confinement) + 27, 000
derivatively accrue to its parents or heirs. In fact, even if a cause of action did accrue on (aritificial leg)]
behalf of the unborn child, the same was extinguished by its pre-natal death, since no
transmission to anyone can take place from one that lacked juridical personality. RTC: Richard Li guilty of gross negligence and liable for damages under Article
2176 of the Civil Code. Alexander Commercial, Inc., Li’s employer, jointly and
It is no answer to invoke the presumptive personality of a conceived child under Article 40 of severally liable for damages pursuant to Article 2180 P41,840 actual
the Civil Code because that same article expressly limits such provisional personality by damages, P37,500 unrealized profits because of the stoppage of plaintiffs Bistro
imposing the condition that the child should be subsequently born alive. In the present case, La Conga restaurant 3 weeks after the accident on June 24, 1990, P20,000 a
the child was dead when separated from its mother’s womb. month as unrealized profits of Bistro La Conga restaurant, from August, 1990
until the date of this judgment, P30,000.00, a month, for unrealized profits in 2
This is not to say that the parents are not entitled to damages. However, such damages Beauty salons, P1,000,000 in moral damages, P50,000, as exemplary
must be those inflicted directly upon them, as distinguished from injury or violation of the damages, P60,000, as reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
rights of the deceased child.
CA: there was ample evidence that the car was parked at the side but absolved
Li's employer
115024 February 7, 1996 Rogelio Rodriguez, the owner-operator of an establishment located just
Lessons Applicable: across the scene of the accident: Valenzuela’s car parked parallel and
very near the sidewalk and Li was driving on a very fast speed and
there was only a drizzle (NOT heavy rain)
Factors in Determining Amount (Torts and Damages) 1. W/N Li was driving at 55 kph - NO
FACTS: 3. W/N Alexander Commercial, Inc. as Li's employer should be held liable - YES
4. W/N the awarding of damages is proper. - YES.
3. YES.