Chapt

er2
QUASI
-DELI
CTS

1
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Ar t.21 76.Whoeverbyactor
omi ssion causes damage t o
anot her,t here being fault or
negl i
gence,i sobli
gedtopayf or
thedamagedone.Suchf aul
tor
negl i
gence,i fthereis no pr e-
existi
ng cont r
actual r el
ati
on
between t he parti
es,iscall
ed a
quasi -deli
ctand i sgoverned by
thepr ovisionofthisChapt
er .

COMMENT:
(
1)Requi
si
tes f
ora Quasi
-

Del
i
ct(
Cul
paAqui
l
iana)

(
a)Actoromissi
on.
(
b)Presenceoffaul
tor
2
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

negli
gence(lackofduecar e).
[NOTE:Int heabs enceoffault
ornegl i
gence,t here can be
NO awar df ordamages.Mer e
suspici
on or specul ati
on
withoutproofcannotbe t he
basis of such an awar d.
(Rebull
i
dav.Est r
ell
a,C.A.,L-
15256-R,Jun.24,1959) .
]

LRTv.Navi
dad
GR1
45804,Feb.6,2003
I
SSUE: Once f ault i s
established, can on
empl oyerbemadel i
ableon
thebasi softhepr esumpt i
on
j
uris t antum t hat t he
empl oyerf ai
led to exer ci
se
dil
i
gent i
ssimipat ri
sf ami l
i
es
i
n t he sel ecti
on and
super visionofitsempl oyees?
HELD: Yes.Thepr emi sef or
3
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

the empl oyer ’

s liabi l
it
y is
negl i
gence orf aulton t he
par toft he empl oyee.The
li
abili
tyi spr i
mar y and can
onlybenegat edbyshowi ng
due di li
gence i n t he
selectionandsuper visionof
the empl oyee, a f actual
mat tert hatmustbeshown.
Absentsuch a showi ng,one
mightask f urther,how t hen
mus t t he l iabil
it
y of t he
common car r
ier,on t he one
hand, and i
ndependent
contractor , upon t he ot her
hand,be descr ibed?I twoul d
bes oli
dar y.
c) D
( amaget oanot her.
d) C
( ausal connect i
on bet ween
4
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

thef
aul
tornegl
i
genceandt
he
damage.
(
e)

PHOENI
XCONSTRUCTI
ON,I
NC.V.I
AC
GR65295,Mar
.10,1
987
Court
sdi sti
nguish bet ween t he
acti
ve“ cause”oft hehar m and
the exi
st i
ng “conditions”upon
which the cause oper ated.I f
thedefendanthascr eat edonly
a passi ve st ati
c condi ti
on
which made t he damage
possibl
e,t hedef endanti ssaid
nottobel i
able.Butsof aras
the f act of causat i
on i s
concerned,i nt he sense of
necessar y antecedent s whi ch
havepl ayedani mpor tantpar t
i
npr oduci ngr esult
s,i tisqui t
e
i
mpossi ble t o di sti
ngui shed
5
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

between act i
ve f orces and
passive si tuat ions,par ti
cularl
y
since,asi si nvar iablyt hecase,
thel atterar et her esul toft he
otheract ivef or ceswhi chhave
gonebef or e.
Exampl e:
The def endant who spi ll
s
gasol i
ne aboutt he pr emi ses
creates “ a condi tion;butt he
actmaybecul pabl ebecause
oft hedangeroff i
re.Whena
spar kigni t
est hegasol i
ne,t he
condi t
ion has gone qui t
e as
muchast obr i
ngaboutt hef i
re
ast hespar k.Si ncet hatist he
veryr iskwhi cht hedef endant
hascr eat ed,t hedef endantwi ll
notescaper esponsi bil
i
ty.Even
6
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

the lapse ofa consi derable

ti
me dur ing whi ch t he
“condit
ion”r emai ns static wi l
l
notnecessar i
ly affectl i
abili
ty:
onewhodi gsat renchont he
highwaymayst illbe l i
ablet o
another who f allsi nto i ta
mont hafter
war d.
“
Cause”and“ condition”st i
l
lfind
occasional ment ion i n t he
decisi
ons.Butt hedi sti
nctionis
nowal mostent ir
elydi scredited.
Sof arasi thasanyval i
dityat
all
,itmustr efert ot het ypeof
case wher et he f orcesseti n
operati
on by t he def endant
havecomet ores tinaposi t
ion
ofappar entsaf ety,andsome
newf orceintervenes .
Buteveni nsuchcases,i tisnot
thedisti
ncti
onbet ween“ cause”
and “ conditi
on” whi ch i s
7
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

i
mpor tant ,butthenat ureoft he
ri
skand t he char acteroft he
i
nterveningcause.
(
f) No pr e- existi
ng cont r
act ual
rel
ati
on.
(12Manr esa613- 614;Al garav.
Sandejas,27Phi l
.284) .Indeed,
quasi-delictorcul paaqui l
iana
i
s an i ndependentsour ce of
obli
gation between two
personsnotsof or mer lybound
by j uridical t e. (
i Batangas
LagunaTayabasCo. ,Inc.,etal.
v.Cour tofAppeal s,etal .,L-
33138- 39,Jun.27,1975) .Of
course,i thasbeenr uledt hat
tortli
ability can exi steven i f
there are al ready cont r
act ual
rel
atons (
i Air Fr ance v.
8
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

Car r
ascoso,L-21438,Sep.28,
1966) , BUT this shoul d be
i
nt er
pr et
ed to mean t hatt he
tortl
iabil
it
yit
sel
fdoesnotar ise
because oft he cont r
act,but
becauseofsomeot herf act.
[NOTE:Theper sonr esponsible
(tort
feasor)i
sliableeveni fhe
doesnotknow t hei dentit
yof
thevi ctm.(
i Gil
chr i
stv.Cuddy,
29Phi l
.542)
.]

TEAGUEV.FERNANDEZ
51SCRA181
I
fanor di
nancer equi
rescert
ain
bui
lding t o pr ovi
de t wo
st
airways, fai
lure to comply
wit
ht he same consti
tut
esan
act of negl i
gence. Even if
9
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

anotheragencyhadi nt
er vened,
thenegl i
gententit
ywoul dsti
ll
bel i
abl
ei ftheoccur renceof
theaccident,i
nt hemanneri n
which ithappened,was t he
very thing sought t o be
prevented by the statute or
ordi
nance.

PEOPLE’SBANKANDTRUSTCO.
V.
DAHI CANLUMBERCO.
L-
17500,May16,1
967
FACTS: A per son i nduced
anot
hert o vi
olatet he lat
ter’
s
cont
ractwithat hir
dper son.Is
the inducer li
able f or t he

1
0
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

commi ssi
on ofa t ort(quasi
-
deli
ct)
?
HELD:Yes,because a quasi -
deli
ctortortcanarisebecause
ofnegligenceOR f aul
t.Inthi
s
case,wehavemor eorlessthe
tor
treferr
edt oas“int
erfer
ence
wit
hcont ract
ualr
elati
ons.”

PENULLARV.PHI LI
PPINE
NATIONALBANK
GR32762,Jan.27,1983
I
foneoft woi nnocentpart
ies
hastosufferthrutheactofa
thi
rd per
son,he who made
possi
ble the inj
ury(or was
negli
gent
)shouldbeart
heloss.
1
1
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

PRI
MAMALI POLV.LILYLIM TAN,
ETAL.
L-
27730,Jan.21,1
974
FACTS:Def endantswerenot
abletofil
et hei
ranswerinci vi
l
caseagai nstthem f
oraquasi
-deli
ctbecauseoft heerroror
negli
gence of t heir ori
ginal
counsel.Ar esaiddefendant s
bound by sai d er r
or or
negli
gence?

HELD: Yes. Cl i
ents ar e
general
lyboundbyt heer r
or
ornegli
genceoftheircounsel,
who f ail
ed t o f i
le their
ANSWER t o the compl ai
nt
wit
hinthet i
megi venbyt he
Rul
es.Thus,t heorderoft he
1
2
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

t
ri
alcour
tdecl
ari
ngi
ndef
aul
t
i
sproper
.

PEOPLEV.CAPI LLAS
L-38756,Nov.1
3,1 984
I
ndelictsandquasi-del
i
cts,
notonlyactualdamagesmay
berecoveredbutalsomor al
andexempl arydamages.
Phoeni
xConst
ruct
ion,I
nc.
v.I
AC
GR65295,Mar.1
0,1987
Ourlaw onquasi-
deli
ctsseeks
to r educe the r i
sks and
burdensofli
vi
nginsociet
yand
to al
locatethem among t he
member sofsoci
ety.
VALENZUELAV.CA
68SCAD113
1
996
1
3
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Thel iabil
it
yofanempl oyerf or
the negl igence of hi s
empl oyeei sNOTbasedont he
principal of r espondeat
super ior but t hat of pat er
fami l
ias.Wher enoal l
egat i
ons
wer e made ast o whet heror
not t he company t ook t he
stepsnecessar yt o det ermine
or ascer tain t he dr ivi
ng
proficiency and hi st
or y ofi ts
empl oyeet owhom i tgavef ul
l
and unl i
mi ted use of a
company car ,said company,
based on t he pr i
nci ple of
bonuspat erf amili
as,oughtt o
be joi nt
ly and sever all
yl iable
witht hef or merf orthei nj
uries
causedt ot hir
dper sons .

1
4
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

Once evi dence i si ntroduced

showi ng that t he empl oyer
exercisedther equiredamount
of car e in s electi
ng i ts
empl oyees, hal f of t he
empl oyer’
s burden is
overcome,butt hequest ionof
dil
i
gent super vision depends
on t he ci r
cumst ances of
empl oyment. Ordinar i
ly,
evidence demonst rat
ing t hat
the empl oyer has exer cised
dil
i
gent super vision of i ts
empl oyee during the
performance of t he l atter’s
assigned t asks woul d be
enough t oreli
eve hi m oft he
l
iabil
ityimposedbyAr t
.21 80i n
rel
ationtoAr t
.21 76oft heCi vil
Code.

1
5
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

(
2)‘
CulpaAqui l
iana’
Disti
ngui
shed
fr
om ‘CulpaCont r
actual
’
and‘CulpaCriminal
’
CULPA CULPA CULPA
CONTRACTUAL AQUI
LIANA CRI
MINAL

Negligenc Negl i
gen Negl i
ge
eismer ely ceher eis nce
i
ncident al di r
ect here is
to the substant
iv dir
ect
performan e, subst
ant
ce of an i ndepend i ve,
obli
gation ent . i
ndepen
al
ready dent of
exi
sting a
before a contr
act
contract. .
Therei
s a Ther
e is Ther
ei s
pre- no pre- no pre-

1
6
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

exi
sti
ng exist
ing exi st
ing
obli
gati
on obl i
gati
on obl i
gati
on
(acontract(except ( except
ei
ther ofcour se of
express orthe dut y course
i
mpl i
ed). t o be the duty
carefulin nevert o
allhuman har m
actuati
on ot hers)
s)
Proof Proof Proof
needed – needed– needed
preponder preponde – pr oof
ance ofrance ofbeyond
evidence. evidence. reasona
ble
doubt.
DefenseofDef ense Thi s is
a “ good of a not a
fat
herofa “ good proper
famil
y” inf at
her ofdef ense
the a f ami
ly”in culpa
sel
ecti
on i s t
he cr i
minal
.

1
7
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

and proper Heret he

super vis
io and empl oye
n ofcompl ete r’
s gui l
t
empl oyees def ense i s
i
s not a ( i
n-so f arautomat
pr oper as i
callythe
compl et
e empl oyer empl oye
def ense i ns orr’
s ci vi
l
cul pa guardians guil
t,I F
cont ractualar e THE
(though concer ne FORME
this may d) inR IS
MI TIGATE cul pa I
NSOLV
damages) . aquil
iana. ENT.
Her e we
follow t he
rule of
RESPOND
EAT
SUPERI OR
or
COMMAN

1
8
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

D
RESPONSI
BI
LITY or
t
he
MASTER
AND
SERVANT
RULE)
Asl ongas Or dinari
ly,Accuse
i
tispr oved thevi ct
im d i
s
that there has t
o pr esum
was a prove the ed
contract negl igenc innocent
and thatite of t he unt i
lt he
was notdef endant. contrary
carri
ed This isis
out,i ti s because pr oved,
presumed hi sact i
on so
that t he i
s based pr osecu
debtorisaton ti
on has
faul
t,anditnegl igenc t he
i
shi sdut y e on t he bur den
to pr ove part ofof

1
9
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

that theret he provi

ng
was no defendan the
negli
gence t . negli
gen
i
n carrying ce of
out the the
terms i n accused
the .
contr
act.

SYQUIA,ETAL.V.CA
ANDMANI LA
MEMORI ALPARK
CEMETERY,I NC.
GR98695,Jan.27,1993
I
nthecaseatbar
,ithasbeen

20
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

establi
shed t hatt he Syqui as
andt heMani l
aMemor ialPar k
Cemet er y,I
nc.,ent eredi nt
oa
contractent i
tl
ed“DeedofSal e
and Cer ti
fi
cate ofPer petual
Care.” That agr eement
governedt her el
ationsoft he
parti
es and def ined t heir
respective ri
ght s and
obli
gations.
Hence, has t her e been
actualnegl i
genceont hepar t
oft he Mani l
a Memor i
alPar k
Cemet er y,Inc.,itwoul d be
heldl i
abl e notf ora quasi -
deli
ctorcul pa aqui l
iana,but
forculpacont ractual.
(3) Necessity of Provi
ng
Negl
igence
Negli
gencemustbepr
oved

21
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

i
nasui tonaquasi -deli
ct,so
thatthepl ai
nt i
ffmayr ecover .
However , si nce negl igence
mayi nsomecasesbehar dt o
prove, we may appl y t he
doctrine of RES I PSA
LOQUI TOR ( the thing speaks
foritself).Thismeanst hati n
certain instances, the
presence of f acts or
cir
cumst ances sur roundi ng
the i njury cl earl
y i ndi
cat e
negligenceont hepartoft he
defendant — as when t he
defendant s was on t he
WRONG s i
de oft he street.
(SeeU. S.v.Cr ame,30Phi l.2)
.
The pr esumpt i
on is however
rebuttable. ( See U. S. v.

22
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

Boni
faci
o,34Phi
l
.65)
.

BERNABEAFRI CA,ETAL.V.
CALTEX,ETAL.
L-
12986,Mar .31
,1966
FACTS:A f i
re broke outata
Calt
exser vicestation.I tstar
ted
whil
egasol inewasbei nghosed
fr
om a t ank trunk i nto the
undergr
oundst orage,r ightatthe
opening oft he r eceiving tank
wheret he nozzle oft he hose
had been i nsert
ed. The f i
re
destr
oyedsever alhouses .Calt
ex
and the stati
on managerwer e
sued.

I
ssue:Wi t
houtproofas tothe
cause and ori
gin of t
he fi
re,
wouldthe doct
rne ofr
i esi
psa
l
oquit
or apply such that t
he

23
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

defendants can be pr esumed

negli
gent ?
HELD: Yes, f or the gasol i
ne
stati
onwasundert hecareof
the defendant ,who gave no
explanation at allregarding
thefire.Itisfai
rtoreasonably
i
nf er t hat t he i nci
dent
happened because of t heir
wantofcar e.

REPUBLI
CV.LUZON
STEVEDORINGCORPORATION
L-21
749,Sep.29,1
967
FACTS:Abar gebel
ongingt ot
he
Luzon St
evedori
ng Company
rammed againstone oft he
wooden support
s oft he ol
d
NagtahanBri
dge( astati
onar
y

24
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

obj ect). What pr esumpt ion

arises?
HELD: Ther e ar ises t he
presumpt ion thatt he bar ge
wasnegl i
gent( doct rineofr es
i
psa l oquit
or, meani ng t he
thingspeaksf ori tsel f)
.Thisi s
evidentbecauset hebr idge( at
thatt ime)wasani mmovabl e,
stationary object,adequat el y
provi dedwi thopeni ngsf orthe
passage ofwat er cr aft
).The
doct rine can i ndeed be
appl ied,f or i
nt he or di
nar y
cour se of event s, such a
rammi ng would notoccuri f
propercar eisused.

NI
A,etal
.v.IAC,etal
.
GR73919,Sep.18,1992

25
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

On t he i ssue of negl igence,

plainti
ffst hrut he testi
moni es
ofAndr esVent ura,Flor entino
Vent ura,andPr udencioMar ti
n
showed t hat t he NI A
const ruct ed i rrigati
on canal s
on t he l andhol dings of t he
plainti
ffsbyscr api ngawayt he
surfaceoft hel andholdingst o
raiset heembankmentoft he
canal .Asar esultoft hesai d
const ruct i
on, i n 1 967, t he
l
andhol dings oft he plaintiffs
wer ei nundat ed wi th wat er.
Althoughi tcannotbedeni ed
thatt hei r
rigat i
oncanaloft he
NIAi saboont ot heplai nti
ffs,
thedel ayofal most7year sin
i
nst all
ingt hesaf etymeas ures

26
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

such as t he check gat es,

drainage[ s], di tches , and
paddy dr ains has caused
subst antial damage t o t he
annual har vestoft heplaintiff
s.
In f act , Engi neer Car li
tos,
witness f or the def endant
declar ed t
hat these
impr ovement s wer e made
onlyaf tert hesettlementoft he
clai
m ofMr s.Virgini
aTecson,
whichwassomet imei n1 976
or1 977,whi let he irri
gat i
on
canal wasconst ructedin1 976.
Thet estimoni esoft hepl ainti
ffs
essent iall
ycor r
obor ated bya
disi
nt erest ed witness i n t he
person ofBar angay Capt ain
Prudenci oMar t
in,pr ovedt hat
the l andhol di
ngs of t he
compl ainant swer ei nundat ed

27
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

whent heNI Ai r
r i
gat i
oncanal
was const ructed wi thout
safety devi ces ther eby
reducing t heirannualhar vest
of 30 cavans per hect are
(porti
onsf l ooded) .Thef ailur e,
therefore, of t he NI A t o
provide the necessar y
safeguar ds t o pr event t he
i
nundat ion ofpl aintif
fs’l and-
holding[s] i st he pr oximat e
causeoft hedamagest ot he
poorf armer s.
Upon t he ot her hand, t he
defendantmai ntainst hatt he
cause of i nundat i
on of
plai
ntiff
s’landhol dingswast he
checkgat eoft heCi nco- cinco
creek, known as Tombo

28
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

check gate. However ,

evi
dence showed t hat t hi
s
check gat e exi sted l ong
beforetheNI Ai rr
igationcanal
was const ructed and t here
werenocompl ai
ntsf rom t he
pl
ainti
ff
sunt ilthecanaloft he
NIA was built
. The
uncontested t estimony of
barri
o capt ain Pr udencio
Mar t
inthatt he for mername
ofthesiti
owher ethepl ai
ntif
fs’
l
andholdings wer e l ocated
was“ Hil
erangDuhat ”butwas
changed t o Si ti
o Dagat -
dagatan because of t he
i
nundation was not wi thout
j
ustif
icati
on.

29
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

LEAHALESNAREYES,ETAL.V.
SI
STERSOFMERCYHOSPI TAL,ET
AL.
GR1
30547,Oct
.3,2000
FACTS: Pet it
ioner ’s husband
died while under going
treat
mentf ort yphoi dfeverat
respondenthospi tal.Peti
tioner,
thus, fi
led a compl ai
nt f or
negli
gence and damages
against r espondent s on
account of t he wr ongf ul
admi ni
strati
on of t he dr ug
chloromycet is.The t ri
alcour t
renderedadeci sioni nfavorof
respondent s, whi ch was
affi
rmed by t he Cour t of
Appeals( CA) .Onappeal ,the
Supreme Cour taf fir
med t he

30
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

CA.
HELD: Respondent s wer e not
guil
tyofmedi calmal practi
ce
ast heywer eabl etoest abli
sh
thruexper ttestimonyt hatthe
physicians who at t
ended t o
peti
tioner’
shusbandexer ci
sed
thenecessar ycar e,wi t
hinthe
reasonable aver age mer it
among ordinari
l
y good
physicians, in t r
eating him
under cir
cumst ances
pertaini
ngatt hatti
me.

Further,thedoctrneofr
i esipsa
loquiturdoes notappl yi na
suit against a physician or
sur geon which invol
ves t he
mer i
t of di agnosi
s or a
scientif
ic treatment. I t is

31
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

general l
y rest
ri
cted t
o
sit
uati
onsi nmal pr
acticecases
wher eal aymani sablet osay,
as a mat ter of common
knowledge and obser vat
ion,
that t he consequences of
professionalcar ewer enotas
suchaswoul dordinari
l
yhave
fol
lowedi fduecar ehadbeen
exercised.( Ramosv.CA,321
SCRA584[ 1999]).

( 4)Damnum AbsqueI njur

ia
Thismeanst hat“al
thoughthere
wasphysi caldamage,t herewas
no l egali nj
ury.” Hence, ifa
carefull
y dr i
ven car hur t
s a
pedest r
ian because l i
ghtni
ng
tempor ari
l
y bl i
nded the dr i
ver,

32
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

the pedestrian cannot r ecover

damages,f orlegall
ywhilehehas
beenDAMAGED,t herewasNO
INJURYorNO FAULTi nvi ew of
thefort
uit
ousevent .(SeeBoar d
of Liqui
dat ors v. Kal aw, GR
18805,Aug.14,1967,wher ethe
Court ruled t hat whi l
e t he
Nati
onal Coconut Cor por at
ion
wasnotabl et odelivert
hecopr a
i
thad pr omi sed to del
iver,and
ther
eforecauseddamaget othe
buyers,stil
lnobody can l egall
y
be blamed because t he non-
deli
verywascausedbyt yphoon.
This is a case of damnum
absqueinjuri
a.)

FAROLANV.SOLMAC
MARKETI
NGCORP.
GR83589,Mar.1
3,1
991

33
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

FACTS:Far olanwast hent he

Acti
ng Commi ssioner of
Cus t
oms,whi l
e Par ayno was
then t he Act i
ng Chi ef,
Cus t
oms I ntell
i
gence and
I
nvest igati
on Di vision. They
were sued i n t heir of ficial
capaci ti
esasof ficer si nt he
gover nment . Never theless ,
they wer e bot h held
personal l
y l iabl
e f or t he
awar deddamages“ si
ncet he
detention of t he goods by
defendant s ( Far ol
an and
Parayno) was i rregul ar and
devoid ofl egalbasi s,hence,
not done i n t he r egular
performanceofof fi
cialdut y.”
Solmac Mar keti
ng was t he

34
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

assignee and owner of an

i
mpor tation of Clojus
Recycl ing Plasti
cPr oductsof
202, 204ki l
ogramsofwhati s
techni call
y known as
polypr opylenef ilm,val uedat
US$69, 250. 05. The
i
mpor tation,consi sti
ng of1 7
contai ners, arrived i
n
December 1 981 . Upon
applicat i
on f or ent ry, t he
Bureau of Cust oms asked
Solmacf ori t
saut horit
yf rom
any gover nment agency t o
i
mpor tt hegoodsdescr i
bedi n
the Bi l
lof Ladi ng. Sol mac
present ed a Boar d of
I
nvest ment Aut hor i
ty f or
polypr opylene f il m scr ap.
However ,upon exami nation
of t he shi pment by t he

35
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Nat i
onalI nst
itute ofSci ence
andTechnol ogy,i tt urnedout
that t he f i
ber s of t he
i
mpor tati
on wer e or ient ed in
suchawayt hatt hemat erial
s
wer est rongert hanOPPf ilm
scrap.The Cl ojus shi pment
wasnotOPP f il m scr ap,as
decl ared by Sol mac t ot he
Bur eau ofCust omsand BOI
Gover nor Baut i
sta, but
orient ed pol ypr opylene t he
i
mpor tati
on of whi ch i s
restricted, i f not pr ohi bit
ed,
underLet t
erofI nst ruction658
-B.Consi deringt heshi pment
wasdi fferentf rom whathad
been aut horized by t he BOI
and by l aw, Par ayno and

36
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

Farolan wi thheldt he release

of the i mpor tation.Par ayno
wrotet heBOIaski ng forthe
l
atter’
sadvi ce on whet heror
nott he i mpor tation may be
rel
eased.Ther eaf ter,Sol mac
fil
edt heact ionf ormandamus
and i njunction wi tht he t rial
court,whi chor der ed Far olan
and Par ayno t or elease the
i
mpor tati
on.Sol macappeal ed
onlyi nsofarast he deni alof
the awar d of damages i s
concer ned. Par ayno and
Farolan di d notappeal .The
Court of Appeal s or dered
FarolanandPar aynosol idaril
y
l
iable i n t hei r per sonal
capaci ty t o pay Sol mac
temper at
e damages i n the
sum ofP1 00,000,exempl ary

37
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

damages inthe sum ofthe

P100,000 and P50,000 as
at
torney’
sfeesandexpenses
ofl
it
igati
on.

HELD:TheSupr emeCour tset

aside and annul l
ed t he
decision of t he Cour t of
Appeal s,andhel dthatt hereis
no convi ncing proofshowi ng
the al leged bad f aith of
FarolanandPar ayno.Ont he
contrary, t he evidence
bolsteredt hei
rcl ai
m ofgood
faih. Fi
t r
st,t here was t he
report of t he NI ST t hat
,
contrary t o what Sol mac
clai
med,t he impor t
ation was
not OPP f ilm scr aps but

38
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

oriented pol ypropylene, a

plas ti
c pr oduct of st ronger
mat er i
al,whosei mpor tationt o
thePhi l
ippineswasr est r
icted,
i
fnotpr ohi bit
ed.I twasont he
strengt h oft hi sf inding t hat
they wi thheldr elease oft he
i
mpor t
ationf orbei ngcont rary
to l aw. Second, on many
occasi ons, t he Bur eau of
Cus tomssoughtt headvi ceof
the BOI on whet her t he
subj ecti mpor tation mi ghtbe
released.Thi rd,upt ot het ime
oft het r
ialther ewasnocl ear-
cutpol i
cyont hepar toft he
BOIr egar ding t he ent ryi nto
the Phi li
ppines of or i
ent ed
polypr opylene. Even t he
highestof ficer s oft he BOI
wer enoti nagr eementast o

39
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

whatpr opercour setot akeon

the subj ect of t he var i
ous
i
mpor t
ations of Or i
ent ed
Polypropyl ene ( OPP) and
Polypropyl ene ( PP) wi t
hhel d
by the Bur eau ofCust oms .
The confl icting
recommendat i
onsoft he BOI
prompt ed pet it
ionerst o seek
fi
nal cl arifi
cati
on f rom t he
formerwi thregar dofi t
spol i
cy
on t he i mpor tati
ons. The
confusionovert hedi sposition
of the i mpor tat i
on obvi ates
badf aith.Whenapubl i
cof fi
certakeshi soat hofof fice,
he binds hi msel ft o per form
the dut ies of hi s of f i
ce
fai
thfull
y and t
o use

40
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

reasonabl eski llanddi li

gence,
and t o actpr i
mar il
yf ort he
benef itoft hepubl i
c.Thus,i n
thedi schar geofhi sdut ies,he
i
s t o use t hat pr udence,
caut i
on,and at tenti
on whi ch
car eful men use i n t he
managementoft heiraf fairs.
Thatpet iti
oner sact edi ngood
faith i n not i mmedi at ely
releasi ngt hei mpor tedgoods
i
ss uppor ted by subst ant i
al
evidence,i ndependentoft he
presumpt i
on of good f aith,
whi ch was notsuccessf ully
rebut ted. Her e, pr udence
dictated t hatpet i
ti
oner sf i
rst
obt ai
nf r
om t heBOIt hel atter’s
def i
nite gui deli
nes r egar ding
thedi spositionoft hevar ious
i
mpor tations of or i
ent ed

41
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

polypr opyl
ene and
polypr opyl
ene t hen bei ng
wit
hhel d at t he Bur eau of
Cus toms.Thesecel l
ophanef i
l
m pr oductswer e compet i
ng
wit
h l ocally manuf act ured
polypr opyl
ene and or iented
polypr opyl
ene as raw
mat erial
s whi ch wer e t hen
al
readysuf fi
cientt omeetl ocal
demands. Hence, t heir
i
mpor tati
onwer er est r
icted,i f
not prohibited. Thus ,
petit
ioner scoul d notbe sai d
tohaveact edi nbadf ait
hi n
noti mmedi atelyreleasingt he
i
mpor ted goods wi thout
obtaining t he necessar y
cl
ar i
ficator
y gui delines f rom

42
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

the BOI .As publ i

c of ficer s
,
pet i
tioner shadt hedut yt osee
toi tt hatt he law t hey wer e
taskedt oi mpl ement ,i.
e. ,LOI
658- B,wasf ai
thfull
ycompl ied
with.Buteven i fpet it
ioner s
commi tted a mi stake i n
withhol dingt her el
easeoft he
i
mpor tati
on because i t was
composed of f ilm scr aps,
nonet heless ,itist he dut yof
theCour ttoseei tthatpubl i
c
officer sar enothamper ed i n
the per formance of t heir
dut i
esori nmaki ngdeci sions
forf earofper sonalliabil
ityf or
damages due t o honest
mi stake.What everdamages
theymayhave caused asa
resul tofsuch an er roneous
i
nter pr etation,i fanyatal l
,i sin

43
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

the nat
ure of a damnum
absquei
njur
ia.

(
5)LastCl
earChance

The doct ri
ne of “ last clear
chance”i st ot he ef fectthat
eveni ft hei njuredpar tywas
or i
ginallyatf ault( aswhenhe
wason t he wr ong si de ofa
street )stil
lift heper sonwho
final
ly caused t he acci dent
hadt he“ l
astclearoppor t
unit
y”
toavoi dst ri
kinghi m,hewho
coul d have pr event ed t he
injuryi sstil
lli
ablei fhedi dnot
take advant age of such
oppor tunityorchance.

44
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

Othernamesf orthedoct ri
neof
“l
ast clear chance” i nclude
“doctr
ineofdi scover edper il
”;
“doctr
ine of super vening
negli
gence” ;“t
hehumani tari
an
doctri
ne.”
I
n t he case of Ong v.
Met r
opoli
tan Wat er Di str
ict
(104 Phil. 398) ,t he Cour t
appl ng38Am.Jur
yi .900,said
that accor di
ng t o t hi
rd
doctri
ne “the negl i
gence of
theplaint
if
fdoesnotpr eclude
(orprevent)ar ecover yforthe
negli
gence oft he def endant
wher e it appear s t hat the
defendant by exer cisi
ng
reasonable car e and
prudencemi ghthaveavoi ded
i
njuri
ousconsequencest ot he
plai
nti
ff not wit
hstanding t he

45
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

pl
aint
if
f’
snegl
i
gence.
”

ONGV.METROPOLITAN
WATERDISTRICT
104Phi
l.398
FACTS:A vi sit
orwasdr owned
i
n a swi mmi ng r esortdue t o
his own negl igence and
despitemeasur esont hepar t
of the r esort aut hori
ti
es t o
savehi m.Isther esortli
able?
HELD:No,t he r esortis NOT
l
iable.Whi l
eitisdut yboundt o
provide f
orsaf etymeasur es,
sti
l
litisnotanabsol uteinsurer

46
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

oft hesaf et yofitscust omer s

or vi sitors.The doct ri
ne of
“last cl ear chance” cannot
appl yi ft he:
a) n
( egl i
genceoft hepl ainti
ffis
concur rent with t
he
negl i
gence of t
he
def endant ;
b) p
( artychar gedi sr equiredt o
acti nstantaneousl y;
c) i
( njur y cannot be avoi ded
despi tet heappl i
cat i
onatal l
timesofal lthe meanst o
avoi dt he injury( aft
ert he
per i
lisorshoul dhavebeen
discover ed)
,atl easti n al
l
inst ances wher e t
he
pr evi ousnegl igenceoft he
par ty char ged cannot be
sai dt ohavecont ri
but edt o

47
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

t
hei
njur
yatal
l
.
PI
CARTV.SMITH
37Phi
l
.809
FACTS: A per son dr i
vi
ng an
automobi l
eonabr i
dgesaw a
man on hor seback r i
di ng
towardshim butont hewr ong
sideoft hebr i
dge.Thedr iver
sounded hi s hor n sever al
ti
mes;t he hor se-ridermade
nomovet ogot ot hecor rect
side;the drivercont i
nued i n
his ori
ginaldi rect
ion unt ili t
was t oo l ate t o avoi d a
coll
isi
on. Ist he aut o driver
l
iable?
HELD: Yes,f or although t he
horse-ri
derwas or igi
nall
y at

48
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

fault,itwas t he aut o dr i
ver
whohadt hel astcl earchance
to avoi dthei njurybymer ely
swer ving, whi l
e st i
ll some
distance away,t ot he ot her
par tof t he br idge.“ Wher e
bot h par ti
es ar e gui l
ty of
negl i
gence,butt henegl igent
actofone succeedst hatof
the ot herby an appr eciable
i
nt ervaloft i
me,t heonewho
has t he l ast r easonabl e
oppor tunit
y t o avoi d t he
i
mpendi ng harm and f ai
lst o
doso,i schar geabl ewi tht he
consequences , without
reference t o t he pr i
or
negl i
genceoft heot herpar ty.
”
Thati st hedoct ri
neknownas
the“ l
astclearchance. ”
[
NOTE: The contributory

49
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

negli
genceoft hevicti
m may
ofcoursebeconsi deredasa
ci
rcumstance t o mit
igatethe
other
’sliabil
i
ty.(DelPr ado v.
Manila Electr
ic Co.,53 Phi l
.
906).]

PHOENI
XCONSTRUCTION,INC.
V.I
AC
GR65295,Mar.1
0,1987
The l
astclearchancedoct r
ine
of the common l aw was
importedintoourj urisdi
cti
on,
butiti sa matterf ordebat e
whether,ort owhatext ent
,if
hasfoundi t
swayi ntot heCivi
l
Code oft he Phili
ppines.The
hist
ori
cal function of t hat
doctri
ne i
nt he common l aw

50
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

wast omi ti
gatet hehar shness
of anot her common l aw
doct r
ine or r ule — t hat of
cont r
ibutorynegligence.
The common- l
aw r ule of
cont r
ibutory negligence
prevent edanyr ecover yatal l
byt hepl ainti
ffwhowasal so
negligent,eveni fthepl ainti
ff’
s
negligence was r elati
vely
mi norascompar ed wi tht he
wr ongfulactoromi ssion of
thedef endant .Thecommon-
lawnot ionoflastcl earchance
per mitt
ed cour ts t o gr ant
recover ytoapl ainti
ffwhohad
alsobeennegl i
gent,pr ovided,
thatthedef endanthadt helast
clear chance t o avoi d t he
casual t
yandf ai
ledt odoso.I t
isdifficulttoseewhatr ol
e,if

51
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

any, t he common- law has

clearchancedoct ri
nehast o
playinaj uri
sdicti
onwher ethe
common- law concept of
cont r
ibutorynegl igenceasan
absolutebart or ecoverbyt he
plaint
iff
s, has i tself been
rejected,asi thasbeeni nArt.
21 79.
Inaci villaw jurisdictionl i
ke
our s, ther e is no gener al
conceptof“ l
astcl earchance”
thatmaybeext r
act edf rom it
s
common- law mat rixandused
asagener alrul
ei nnegl i
gence
cases.UnderAr t.21 79,t he
task ofa cour t
,i nt echni cal
terms,i st odet ermi newhose
negl i
gence ( the pl ai
nt i
ff’
s or

52
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

def endant ’s)wast hel egalor

proximat ecauseoft hei nj
ur y.
Thet aski snotsi mpl yoreven
primar i
ly an exer cise i n
chr onologyorphysi cs,asone
mayi mpl ybyt heuseoft erms
l
ike“ last”or“ i
nterveni ng.”The
relati
ve l ocat i
on i n t he
cont i
nuum of t i
me of t he
plainti
ff’
sandt hedef endant ’s
negl i
gentact soromi ssions,i s
only one of t he r elevant
factorst hatmaybet akeni nto
account . Of mor e
fundament ali mpor tance ar e
thenat ur eoft henegl igentact
oromi ssionofeachpar tyand
the char act erand gr avity of
ther iskscr eatedbysuchact
oromi ssionf ort her estoft he
communi ty.

53
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

(6)Tor tLi
abil
it
y May St
il
lExi
st
DespitePresenceofContr
act
ual
Relat
ions
AI
RFRANCEV.CARRASCOSO
L-
21438,Sep.28,1
966
FACTS:An ai rpl
ane passenger
despit
e hisf ir
stclass ticket,
wasi l
legall
youst ed fr
om hi s
fi
rst
-class accommodat ion,
andwascompel ledtot akea
seat in the tour i
st
compar tment.
I
ssue:Mayher ecoverdamages
from t
hecar ri
eront hegr ound
oftort
?
HELD:Yes,because al though
the r el
ati
on bet ween a
passenger and a car ri
er i s

54
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

cont r
actualbot hi nor i
ginand
nature,t heactt hatbr eakst he
cont r
actmayal sobeat ort.
NOTE:I
[ twoul dseem her ethat
the Cour t has i n a sense
modi fi
ed somehow Ar t
.21 76
which def i
nes “ quasi -deli
ct,
”
for under sai d ar t
icle, itis
i
mpor tantthat“ther ei snopr e
-existi
ng cont ract ualr elat
ion
between t he par ti
es. ” Be it
noted however t hat i n t hi
s
case,t heCour tr eferr edt othe
l
iabili
tyasonear isingf om t
r ort,
and notone ar ising f rom a
cont r
act.]

55
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Jul
i
anC.SingsonandRamona
delCast
il
l
ov.Bankofthe
Phi
l
ippi
neIsl
andsandSanti
ago
Frei
xas

L-
24837,Jun.27,1
968
FACTS:Because ofa mi st
ake
commi t
ted by a cl
erki nt he
Bankoft hePhil
ippi
neI slands,
the cur rent or checki ng
accountofJul i
anSingsonwas
frozenbysai dBank,andt he
depositor’
s checks wer e
dishonored. Singson
compl ai
ned.When t he Bank
reali
zed ithad commi tted a

56
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

mistake, i t apol ogized t o

Singson, and r est ored t he
checking account . Singson,
however ,suedf ordamages.I t
wasal legedbyt heBankt hat
therewoul dbenol iabil
i
tyf or
thenegl i
genceorquasi -delict
i
n vi ew oft he exi stence of
contractualrelati
onsbet ween
the Bank and Si ngson;t hat
mor eover, t he Bank had
i
mmedi ately cor rected i ts
error.
I
ssue:CanSi ngsonr ecover ?
HELD:Yes,damages may be
recoveredbySi ngson,despi te
the existence ofcont ractual
rel
ationsbecauset heactt hat
breakst hecont ractmayal so
beat ortoraquasi -deli
ct,as

57
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

i
n t his case. However ,
considering the recti
fi
cati
on
i
mmedi atel
y made by t he
Bank,an awar d of nomi nal
damages ( the amount of
whichneednotbepr oved)in
the amount of P1 ,000 in
addit
ion ofat t
orney’
sf eesin
thesum ofP500,wi llsuff
ice
to vi
ndi cat
e plai
nti
ff
’sr i
ghts.
(See Ar ts.2208 and 2221,
Civi
lCode) .
(
7)Non-
Liabi
l
it
y

NGV.REPUBLI C
L-
31935,Jan.24,1
980
I
faper son’
sregi
ster
ednameis
“BabyNg( NgKongDi ng)
”he
cannot be sai d to have

58
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
76

viol
atedt heAnt
i-Al
i
asLaw,for
the register
ed name al
ready
containsthesupposedal
i
as.
(8) An Unr
egi
ster
ed Deed of
Sal
e
Equi
tabl
eLeasi
ngCorpv.Lucit
a
Suyom,etal
.
GR143360,Sep.5,2002
I
SSUE: Can t he pet i
ti
oner ,a
regi
st ered ownerofa mot or
vehiclebehel dliabl
ef ort he
actsoft hedr iverempl oyedby
i
tsf ormer l essee who has
become t he owner of t hat
vehicle by vi rtue of an
unregi st
eredDeedofSal e?
HELD:Yes.I nanact i
onbased
onquasi -deli
ct,theregister
ed
ownerofa mot orvehi cl
ei s

59
Ar
t.21
76 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

soli
daril
yli
ableforinj
uri
esand
damages caused by t he
negligence of t he dr i
ver
,
i
nspite oft he factthatt he
vehicle may have al ready
been t he subject of an
unregister
ed Deed ofSal ein
favorofanotherperson.

60
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
77

Unlessregist
eredwi t
htheLand
Transportat
ion Of fi
ce ( LTO),
the sale, whi l
e val i
d and
binding between t he parti
es,
does notaf f
ectt hi
rd parti
es,
especial
ly t he vi ct
ims of
accidentsi nvol
ving the said
transpor
tequi pment.

61
Ar
t.21
77 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Art. 21 77. Responsibil

it
y f or
fault or negl igence under t he
precedi ng ar ti
cl
e i s ent i
rely
separ ate and di st
inctf r
om t he
civi
l l i
abil
it
y ar i
sing f r
om
negligenceundert hePenal Code.
Butt he pl aint
iffcannotr ecover
damagest wicef orthesameact
oromi ssi
onoft hedef endant.

COMMENT:
(1)CulpaAquili
anaDisti
ngui
shed
From Ci
vi
lLiabil
i
tyAri
singFr
om
aCrime
SeeTabl
eundert he
pr
ecedingArti
cle.
(2) Effect of Acqui t
tal i
n a
Cri
minal Case
Acquit
talfrom anaccusati
onof
cri
minal negligence whether
62
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
77

on r easonabl e doubtornot ,
shall not be a bar t o a
subsequent ci vi
l act i
on.
(Repor toft heCodeCom. ,p.
62andChanv.Yat co,L- 11163,
Apr .30,1958) .(Reason:The
evidence i nt he crimi nalcase
may not be suf fi
cientf ora
convi ction,butsuf fi
cientf ora
civi
l l i
abili
ty, wher e mer e
preponder anceofevi dencei s
sufficient.Mor eover,t hebasi s
ofliabi l
i
tyisdiffer
enti nt hetwo
cases:i nacr i
minalcase,t he
l
iability is subsidiary t o t he
crimi nalcase,t he l i
abi l
it
yi s
subsi diary t o t he cr i
minal
puni shment ;inacaseofcul pa
aqui l
iana,theliabi
lit
yi spr i
mar y.
(TS,Nov.22,1940 and See
Calo,etal .v.Peggy,L- 10756,
63
Ar
t.21
77 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Mar . 29, 1958].) However,

under the Revis
ed Rul es of
Court,the civi
lact i
on must
have been RESERVED,
otherwi
se the civi
lcase wi l
l
NOTpr osper.(
Rule111).
MARCI AV.CA
GR34529,Jan.27,1
983
I
finacr i
mi nalcasef orr eckless
i
mpr udence resulting in
physicali njuri
es,t he accused
i
sacqui tted because he was
notnegl igentandt hei ncident
was a “ pure acci dent ,
” a
separateci vilactionshoul dbe
dismissed.
[NOTE:Her e,t he cour tsaid
thatAr t.33 oft heCi vilCode
speaks onl y ofi ntentionalor
maliciousact s.Itforgott hatArt.
64
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
77

2177 read togetherwi th Ar t

.
2176 pr
ovides f or an
i
ndependent ci vil acti
on f or
negli
gentact s.However ,t he
conclusi
ons r eached by t he
courtmaybe j usti
fi
ed on t he
groundthatther ewasal sono
negli
gence i n t his pr esent
case.]
(
3)Quer y
I
f a hur t pedest ri
an f i
l
es a
cri
minalcaseagai nstthedri
ver
ofa common car r
ier,is he
al
lowedatt hesamet ime(orat
anystagedur i
ngt hependency
ofthecriminalcase)t obri
nga
ci
vilaction based on cul pa
aquil
i
ana?
ANS.:I twoul d seem t hatthe
corr
ectanswert ot hisprobl
em
65
Ar
t.21
77 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

i
s YES pr ovi
ded t hat a
RESERVATI ONt obringt heci vil
case had been setup i nt he
crimi nalcase.( See Rul e 111,
Revi sed Rul es of Cour t)
.I n
otherwor ds ,inacasel i
ket hi s
i
ti s not essent ial t o f irst
termi nate t he cr i
mi nal case
bef oret heci vilcaseofquasi -
del i
cti sbr ought .Indeed,t he
civilli
abili
tythatmayar isefrom
culpa aqui l
iana was never
i
nt ended by t he l aw t o be
mer gedi nt hecr iminalact ion.
Thecr iminalpr osecutionisnot
a condi ti
on pr ecedentt ot he
enf orcementoft heci vilright .
(Bat angas, Laguna, Tayabas
BusCo. ,Inc.,etal.v.Cour tof
Appeal s,etal.,L-33138- 9,Jun.
27,1975) .
66
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
77

Batangas,Laguna,Tayabas,Bus
Co.
,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,etal
.

L-
331
38-
39,Jun.27,1
975
FACTS: As a r esult of t he
reckl
essnessofadr i
ver( Il
agan)
ofabusofBLTBCompanyi n
overt
aking a cargo t ruck,the
bus crashed into an
automobile comi ng f rom the
oppositedirect
ion,resul t
ingto
death and physicalinj uri
esto
the passenger s of t he
automobile. A cr i
mi nalcase
was br ought,but dur i
ng it
s
pendency,a ci vi
lcase based
on culpa aquil
i
ana underAr t.
2177oft heCi vilCodewasf i
ed.I
l ssue:Cant heci vilacti
on
of culpa aquili
ana pr oceeds
i
ndependent lyoft he pendi ng
67
Ar
t.21
77 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

cri
minal case, or must t he
j
udgmenti nthecriminalcase
be f irst awai t
ed bef ore
proceedi ngwitht
heci vilcase?
HELD:The ci lcase ofcul
vi pa
aquil
iana can proceed
i
ndependent l
yoft he pendi ng
cri
minalcase.Thi sisexpr essly
all
owed underAr t.21 76 and
Art.21 77 oft he CivilCode,
because cul paaquili
ana i san
i
ndependent source of
obli
gations. The case of
Corpusv.Paj e,L-26737,Jul .
31, 1969 does not appl y
becauset hestat
ementt herein
thatnoi ndependentcivilaction
l
iesinacaseofcul paaqui l
i
ana
or r eckless i
mpr udence
(because Ar t.33 oft he Ci vi
l
Code does not ment ion
68
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
77

reckl
essimpr udence)isr eall
y
not doctrinal in char acter
,
l
ackingasi tdoes,onevot et o
make itan expr essi
on oft he
courtopi
nion.

NOTE:I
[ nf act
,whileitistrue
thatArt
.33makesnoment ion
ofnegli
gence,Art
.2177r ef
ers
to negl gence or cul
i pa
aquil
i
ana and makest he sui
t
anindependentci
vi
lacti
on.]
(
4)Ruleundert he1 985Rul eof
Court,asAmendedi n1 988
While Ar t
. 21 77 gi ves an
independentci vilaction,sti
ll
the Revised Rul es of Cour t
requir
edt hatifacr i
minalcase
be i nstit
uted f ir
st, t he
independentci vilacti
oni sal
so
69
Ar
t.21
77 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

automat i
call
yi nsti
tuted unl ess
thereisanexpr essr eservation
orwai ver.(
Rul e111).I f,ont he
otherhand,t he civilcase of
culpaaqui l
i
anai sf i
rstbr ought,
the subsequenti nst i
tuti
on of
the cr i
minal case wi ll NOT
SUSPEND t he ci vilact ion —
otherwise,itcannott hen be
caledi
l ndependent .Mor eover,
thever yinstit
utionoft heci vi
l
case ahead of t he cr i
minal
acti
on sati
sfi
ed the
requir
ementof“ reservat i
on.”

GARCIAV.FLORIDO
L-
35095,Aug.31
,1 973
FACTS: Af t
er a vehi cul
ar
accident
,t he vict
ims wer e
brought to the hospi
talfor
70
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
77

treatment .I nt he meant ime,

the pol ice aut hor i
ti
es f i
led a
crimi nal case of r eckless
i
mpr udence resulting i
n
physi cal i njuries, WI THOUT
maki ngar eservat ionast ot he
civilaspect .Whent hevi cti
ms
becamewel lenought ogot o
cour t,they deci ded t of ilea
civil case despi te t he
pendencyoft hecr i
mi nalcase.
ISSUE:Shoul dt heci vilcasebe
allowed,despi t
et hependency
oft hecr iminal proceedi ngs?
HELD:Yes,f orwhi lei ti
st rue
thata r eservation shoul d have
beenmadeunderRul e1 11oft he
Revi sed Rul esofCour t( t
hrough
such r ule hasbeen assai l
ed by
SOMEi nt hisrespectasvi rtuall
y

71
Ar
t.21
77 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

eliminati
ng or amendi ng t he
“substant i
ve”rightofal l
owingan
“i
ndependent ci vi
l act ion,” as
ordained byt he Ci lCode)st
vi i
l
l
theRul edoesnotst atewhent he
reservation is supposed t o be
made.Her e,t hevi cti
mshad no
chance t o make t he reservati
on
(fortheywer est i
llatthehospi tal)
;
mor eover ,the t r
ialhasnoteven
begun.I ti sther eforenotyett oo
l
at et o make t he r eservati
on;i n
fact,theact ualf ili
ngoft heci vi
l
case,t houghatt hisst age,iseven
bet t
ert han t he maki ng oft he
reservation.

72
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
77

Cr
ispi
nAbellanaandFranci
sco
Abell
anav.Hon.Ger oni
moR.
MaraueandGer onimo
Companer ,etal
.
L-
27760,May29,
1974
FACTS:Fr anciscoAbel l
anawas
drivi
ngacar got ruckwhenhe
hitamot ori
zedpedi cab.Four
of t he passenger s of t he
pedi cabwer einjured.Hewas
accused i nthe Ci ty Cour tof
Ozami s f or hi s r eckless
i
mpr udence ( no r eser vati
on
wasmadeast oanyci vil
act i
on
thatmi ghtbe i nsti
tuted);he
was convi cted. He t hen
appeal edt ot heCour tofFi rst
Instance( RegionalTr ialCourt).
Dur i
ng t he pendency oft he
appeal( andi nf act,beforet r
ial
73
Ar
t.21
77 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

i
nt he CFI[ RTC] )the vict
ims
decided t o make a wai ver
recl
aim f or damages i nt he
cri
mi nal case, and
RESERVATI ON wi t
hr espectt o
the civi
las pects.The vi ct
ims
theni nanot herBr anchoft he
CFI( RTC)al lowedt heFI LI
NG
oftheci vi
lcase.Theaccused
objected tot he all
owance on
thetheorythati ntheCityCour t
(ori
ginalcour t,no r
) eservation
hadbeenmade,t hust heci vi
l
aspect shoul d be deemed
i
ncluded i nt he cr i
minalsui t
,
conformablywi th Rule1 11of
the Revised Rul es ofCour t
.
TheCFI( RTC)mai ntai
nedt hat
the ci vi
l case shoul d be
all
owed, because wi th t he
appealt he j udgmentoft he
74
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
77

City Cour t had become

vacat ed ( sai
d cour twast hen
notacour tofr ecord)and i n
theCFI( RTC)t hecasewast o
bet ri
ed anew ( traldenovo)
i .
Thisr uling oft he CFI( RTC)
wasel evat edt ot heSupr eme
Cour toncer ti
orar i
.
I
SSUE:Mayaci vilcasest il
lbe
broughtdespi tet heappeali n
thecr imi nalcase?
HELD:Yes,f orthreer easons.
a) F
( i
rstl
y,wi tht heappeal ,the
original j udgment of
convi cti
on was VACATED;
therewi l
lbeat raldenovo
i
i
n
theCFI .A trialthathasnot
even began, t herefor
e, a
reser vati
oncanst il
lbemade

75
Ar
t.21
77 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

andaci vilacti
oncanst il
lbe
allowed.
b) S
( econdl y,t o say t hatt he
civil act i
on i s bar red
because no r eservati
on
(pur suantt o Rule1 11)had
beenmadei ntheCi tyCour t
whent hecr i
mi nalsui twasf i
l
ed i st o pr esenta gr ave
const it
ut ional questi
on,
namel y,can t he Supr eme
Cour t
,inRul e1 11amendor
restrict a SUBSTANTI VE
ri
ghtgr anted by t he Ci vi
l
Code?Thi scannotbedone.
The appar entl i
ter alimpor t
oft heRul ecannotpr evai
l.A
j
udge“ isnott of allprey,”as
admoni shed by Just i
ce
Fr ankfur ter,“ t
ot he vice of
l
iteralness. ”
76
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
77

(
c) Thir
dly,itwouldbeUNFAI R,
undert he cir
cumstancesif
the vict
ims woul d notbe
all
owedt orecoveranycivi
l
l
iabil
i
ty, consi der
ing the
damagedonet othem.

ESCUETAV.FANDI ALAN
L-
39675,Nov.29,1974
I
SSUE:Oneoft hequest i
ons
present
ed inthiscasewas
— whenacr i
minalcaseisfi
l
ed, is there a need of
makingar eservati
oni fi
tis
desir
ed to sue l
ateron an
i
ndependentcivilact
ion?
HELD:Ther eisNONEED,
77
Ar
t.21
77 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

becauset hecivil
casei sone
considered as an
“i
ndependentci vi
l act
ion.”
NOTE:How aboutRul
[ e1 1 1
,
Revised Rul es of Cour t
,
which requires t
he
reservat
ion, even i f an
i
ndependentci vilact i
on is
i
nvolved?]
(
5)NoDoubl
eRecover
y
PADUA,ETAL.V.ROBLES,ETAL.
L-40486,Aug.29,1
975
FACTS: Because of t he
reckl
essnessofataxi
- dr
iver,a
boy ( Padua) was kill
ed. A
cri
minalcase was i nstit
uted
against Punzal
an, the t axi-
dri
ver.Atthesametime,aci vi
l
acti
onf ordamageswasf iled

78
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
77

againstbot hthedr i
verandt he
owneroft het axi(Robl es).The
two caseswer er affled offt o
thesamej udgefordeci sion.In
the ci vilcase, t he t axi-
cab
owner ( company) was not
made t o pay anyt hing
(ostensi bl
ybecausei twasabl e
to pr ove due di li
gence i nt he
select i
on and super vi
sion of
empl oyees)butt het axi-dri
ver,
whowasf oundnegl igent ,was
held l i
abl e f or damages
(P12, 000 f oract ualdamages,
P5,000 f or mor al and
exempl ary damages, and
P10, 000f orattorney’sf ees).In
the cr iminalcase,t he j udge
convi cted t he taxi-dr i
ver,but
with r eference t o hi s ci vi
l
l
iabil
ity,t he cour tdid notf ix
79
Ar
t.21
77 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

anysum,st atingonl yt hatt he

“civilliabili
tyoft heaccus edi s
already det er mined and
assessed i nt he ci vilcase. ”
Whent hej udgmenti ntheci vi
l
case became f inal and
execut ory,t he par ent soft he
victim soughti tsexecut i
on,but
the wr iti ssued agai ns tt he
driverwasr eturnedunsat isfi
ed
becauseofhi si nsolvency.The
par ent s now sued t he
empl oyer t o enf orce hi s
subsi diaryl iabilit
y under t he
Revi sed PenalCode because
of t he dr iver ’
s convi ction.
Robl es,t heempl oyerpl eaded
resj udi cata.
I
ssue:Can t he empl oyers tillbe
heldl iable?

80
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
77

HELD:Yes,t he empl oyercan

stil
lbehel dl i
ablebecaus et he
j
udgmenti nt hecr i
mi nalcase,
i
nt alking oft he dr i
ver ’
s civil
l
iabili
ty,mader eferencet ot he
decision i n t he ci vil case,
relat
ivet ot hedr iver’sf i
nanci al
account abi l
i
ty.Itist hi
samount
for whi ch t he empl oyer i s
subsidi ari
lyl i
able under Ar t.
103oft heRevi sedPenal Code.
Fur t
her ,ther eisnor esj udicata
because t he r esponsi bil
it
y of
anempl oyeri ncul paaqui li
ana
(theci vilcase)i sdi ff
er entfrom
hisl iabi l
i
tyi n cul pa cr iminal
(the subsi diary civilli
abili
tyi n
the cr imi nalcase) .The onl y
l
imi t
ation i st hat whi le iti s
possibl et hati nbot hcasest he
empl oyercan be hel dl i
abl e,
81
Ar
t.21
77 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

act
ualrecover
yf ordamages
canbeavail
edofonl
yonce.
(
6)Dec.1
,2000AmendedRul
es
Avel
inoCasupanan&Robert
o
Capit
ulov.Mari
oLlavor
eLar
oya

GR1
45391
,Aug.26,2002
FACTS:The pet it
ion pr emises
the legalcont r
over sy int his
wise:“ I
n a cer tai
n vehicul ar
accidentinvolvingt wopar ti
es,
each one oft hem mayt hink
and believe thatt he accident
wascausedbyt hef aul
toft he
other.Thef ir
stpar ty,beli
eving
himselft o be t he aggr i
eved
party,optedtof il
eacr i
minal
casef orr ecklessi mprudence
against t he second par ty.

82
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
77

Upon t he ot her hand, t he

secondpar t
y,toget herwitht he
oper ator,believingt hemsel ves
tobet her ealaggr i
evedpar t
ies,
opt edi nturntof ileacivilcase
forquasi -
deli
ctagai nstthef irst
par ty who i sthe ver ypr ivate
compl ainant in t he cr i
mi nal
case. ”
I
SSUE: Whet her or not an
accusedi napendi ngcr i
mi nal
casef orr ecklessi mprudence
can vali
dly fil
ed,
simul t
aneousl y and
i
ndependent l
y,asepar ateci vil
actionf orquasi -deli
ctagai nst
private compl ainant in t he
cri
mi nal case.
HELD:Par .6,Sec.1 oft he
pres entRul eIIIoft heRul esof

83
Ar
t.21
77 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Cour twasi ncor por atedi nt he

Dec.1 ,2000 AmendedRul es
preciselytoaddr esst hei ssue.
Under t his pr ovi si
on, t he
accusedi sbar redf rom f il
inga
count ercl
aim,cr oss- claim,or
thir
d-par t
y compl aint i n t he
criminalcase.However ,t he
samepr ovisi
onst at est hat“ any
cause ofact ion whi ch coul d
havebeent hesubj ect( oft he
count ercl
aim,cr oss- claim,or
thir
dpar t
ycompl aint)maybe
l
iti
gated i n a separ ate ci vi
l
action.”The pr esentRul eI I
I
mandat estheaccusedt of il e
hiscount ercl
aimi nasepar at e
civi
lactionwhi chshal lpr oceed
i
ndependent l
y oft he cr i
mi nal
action,evenast heci vilaction
of t he of f
ended par t
y i s
84
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
77

li
ti
gat edi nthecr i
mi nalacti
on.
The accused can f i
le a ci vi
l
action f orquasi -deli
ctf ort he
same actoromi ssion he i s
accusedofi nt hecr iminalcase.
Thisi sexpr esslyal l
owedi npar .
6,Sec.1oft hepr esentRul eI I
I
whi ch st ates t hat t he
count erclaim oft he accused
“maybel iti
gat edi nasepar at e
civilact ion.”Thi sisonl yfairf or
two( 2)r easons:
1. The accused i s prohibited
from setting up any
count erclaim i n t he ci vi
l
aspect t hat i s deemed
i
nst ituted i n t he cr imi nal
case. The accused i s,
ther efore,f orced tol it
igant
separ atelyhi scount erclaim

85
Ar
t.21
77 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

agai nstt heof fended par t y.

Iftheaccuseddoesnotf ile
a separ ate ci vilact ion f or
quasi -delict,thepr escr i
ptive
per i
odmayseti nsi ncet he
per i
odcont i
nuest or ununt i
l
the ci vi
lact ion for quasi -
delictisfiled.
The accused,who i spr es umed
i
nnocent ,hasar ightt oinvokeAr t
.
2177,i nt he s ame wayt hatt he
offended par tycan avai loft hi s
remedywhi chi si ndependentof
the cr i
mi nalact i
on.To di sallow
the accused f rom f il ing a
separ at
e ci vilact i
on f or quasi -
delict
, whi le r efusing to
recognizehi scount ercl
aimi nthe
cri
mi nalcase,i st odenyhi m due
process ofl aw,access t ot he
cour t
s,and equalpr otect ion of
86
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
77

t
helaw.
Theci vilact onbasedonquasi
i -
delictf il ed separ ately,i s,
thus,pr oper.
[
NOTE: Mor e t han hal f-a-
cent ur y has passed si nce
the Ci vilCode i ntroduced
theconceptofaci vilaction
separ ate and i ndependent
from t he cr i
mi nal act ion
although ar i
sing f rom t he
same actoromi ssion.The
Supr eme Cour t, however ,
hasyett oencount eracase
of confl
icti
ng and
i
r r
econci labl
e deci sions of
tri
alcour t
s,onehear ingt he
crimi nalcaseandt heot her
the ci vilaction f orquasi -
del i
ct .Thef earofconf l
i
cting

87
Ar
t.21
77 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

andi rreconcilabledeci sions

maybemor eappar entt han
real.Inanyevent ,ther ear e
suf f
icient r emedi es under
the Rul esofCour tto deal
with such remot e
possi bili
ti
es. (Avel i
no
Casupanan & Rober to
Capi tulo v.Mar i
oiLl avore
Lar oya,supr a).].
[
NOTE:TheRevi sedRul eson
Crimi nal Pr ocedure t ook
effectonDecember1 ,2000
whi let he Muni ci
palCi rcuit
TrialCour t(MCTC)i nt he
Casupanan& Capi t
ulocase
(supr a)i ssued theor derof
dismi ssalonDec.28,1 999
orbef oret heamendmentof
ther ules.TheRevi sedRul es
onCr imi nalProcedur emust
88
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
77

be gi ven r et
roact i
ve ef fect
consider ingt hewel l
-settl
ed
rul
et hat“ statutesregul ati
ng
the pr ocedur e oft he cour t
will be const rued as
applicabl e to act i
ons
pendi ng and undet ermi ned
atthet i
meoft heirpassage.
Procedur al l aws are
retr
oact ivei nt hatsens eand
tot hatext ent.”(Peopl e v.
Arrojado, 350 SCRA 679
[2001] ,citingOcampov.CA,
180SCRA 27[ 1989],Al day
v.Cami lon,120 SCRA 521
[1983] , and Peopl e v.
Sumi long, 77 Phi l
. 764
[1946] ).
]

89
 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Ar
t.21
78

Art.2178.The provi
sions of
Art
icl
es 1172 t
o1 174 are al
so
appli
cabl
etoaquasi
- del
i
ct.
COMMENT:
(1) Appl icabil
ity of Some
Pr
ovi sionsonNegl i
gence
a) A
( rt
.1172 — Responsi bil
it
y
arisi
ng f rom negl i
gence i n
the per formance ofever y
kind of obl i
gation is also
demandabl e, but such
li
abili
tymayber egulatedby
thecour t
s,accor di
ngt ot he
circumst ances .
b) A
( rt
.1173 — The f ault or
negligence of t he obligor
consistsi nt he omission of
that di ligence whi ch i s
requiredbyt henatureoft he
90
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

obli
gation and cor responds
witht he circumst ances of
theper sons,oft hetimeand
of t he pl ace. When
negli
genceshowsbadf aith,
the pr ovisi
ons of ar ti
cles
1171and2201 ,paragr aph2
shallapply.
I
fthelaworcont ractdoesnot
statethedi l
igencewhi chi s
to be obser ved i n t he
performance,t hatwhi ch i s
expected ofa good f ather
ofaf ami l
yshallber equi red.
c) A
( r
t.1174— Excepti ncases
expressly speci f
ied by t he
l
aw,orwheni tisot her wise
declared by st ipul
ation,or
when t he nat ure of t he
obli
gation r equi r
es t he
assumpt ion of r i
sk, no

91
Ar
t.21
79 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

personshallberesponsibl
e
for those events whi ch
could notbe for
eseen,or
which, though f oreseen
wereinevi
tabl
e.
(
2)Cases

RONQUI
LLO,etal
.v.Singson
(C.
A.)L-22612-R,Apr.
22,1959
FACTS:A man or dered a ten-
year-ol
d boy,Jose Ronqui ll
o,
to cli
mb a hi gh and r ather
sl
ippery santoltr
ee, wi th a
promisetogivehim partoft he
fr
uit
s.Theboywaski l
ledint he
actofcl i
mbing.Istheper son
whoor deredhimli
able?

HELD: Yes, i
n view of hi
s
negl
i
gentacti n maki
ng t
he
92
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

or der.Hedi dnottakeduecar e
to avoi d a r easonabl y
for es
eeabl einjuryt ot he 1 0-
year -old boy.Thet reewasa
treacher ous one,a ver i
table
trap.Hi s actwas cl earlya
depar turefrom thest andar dof
conductr equir
edofapr udent
man.Heshoul dhavedesi sted
from maki ng t
heor der.Si nce
he f ailed to appr eciat e t he
pr edi
ctable danger and
aggr avated such negl igence
byof f
er i
ngpartoft hef ruitsas
ar ewar d,itis cleart hathe
shoul dbemadet or espondi n
damages f or the act ionabl e
wr ongcommi tt
edbyhi m.

93
Ar
t.21
79 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

VDA.DEI MPERIAL,ETAL.V.
HERALDLUMBERCO.
L-14088-89, L- 14112,
Sep.30,1961
Under t
aki ng an ai r
plane or
heli
copterf lghtwi
i t
houtsuf fi
cient
fuelisacl earcaseofnegl i
gence.
Mor eover, t he pilot
ing of a
heli
copter by an unl i
censed
i
ndividualvi olat
es CivilAviati
on
Regul at
ions .

94
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Art
.2179.Whent heplaint
if
f’
s
own negl i
gence was t he
i
mmedi at
eand pr oximatecause
ofhisinj
ury,he cannotr ecover
damages.Buti fhis negl i
gence
was onl y cont ri
butory, t he
i
mmedi at
eand pr oximatecause
of t he i njury bei ng t he
def
endant’
slackofduecar e,the
pl
aint
if
fmay r ecoverdamages,
butthecourtsshal lmi t
igatethe
damagestobeawar ded.

COMMENT:
(1)Eff
ectofSol eCauseofI njury
i
saPer son’sOwnNegl igence
I
tisunder st
oodt hatifthe sole
causei
st heplai
nti
ff’
sownf ault,
ther
ecanbenor ecovery.(TS,
May31,1932) .

95
Ar
t.21
79 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

(2) Ef fect of Cont r

ibut or y
NegligenceofPl ainti
ff
a) I
( ft hiswast hePROXI MATE
causeoft heacci dent ,ther e
canbenor ecover y.(Tayl or
v.Mani la El ectri
c Co. ,16
Phil
.8) .
b) I
( ft he PROXI MATE cause
wasst il
lt he negl igence of
the def endant ,t he pl aintiff
can st il
lr ecoverdamages,
BUT t he amount of
damages wi l
lbe mi tigated
due t o hi s cont r
ibut or y
negligence. ( Art. 2179) .
Thus,i fhecont ri
but est ot he
aggr avation of t he i njur y,
damagesi nhi sfavorwi llbe
reduced.( Rakesv.Ant lant i
c
GulfandPaci f
icCo. ,7Phi l
.
359;Ber nalv.House,54

96
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Phil
.327andDelRosar i
ov.
ManilaElect r
icCo.
,57Phi l
.
478).
[
NOTE:Thecour t
shavehel d
thatin CRI MES commi tt
ed
thru reckless i
mprudence,
thedef enseofcont r
ibutor y
negli
gencedoesNOTappl y.
One cannot al l
ege t he
negli
gence of anot her t o
evadet heef f
ect
sofhisown
negli
gence.

(
3)Pr oximateCause
I
tist hatadequateandef fi
cient
cause whi ch in t he natur al
orderofevent s,andundert he
particul
ar ci
rcumstances
surrounding t
he case,woul d
natur al
l
yproducetheevent .

97
Ar
t.21
79 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

SATURNI NOBAYASENV.
COURTOFAPPEALS
L-25785,Feb.28,1
981
While being dr i
ven at a
moderatespeed,apassenger
j
eep skidded and f ellint
oa
preci
pice.Itwas pr oved that
t
he pr oxi
mate cause of t he
t
ragedy was t he skidding of
t
her earwheelsoft hej eep.Is
t
hedr i
verguil
tyofnegl i
gence?

HELD: No, f or there was no

negligence.Car smayski don
greasy or sl i
pper y r oads
without t he dr i
ver’
s f aul
t.
Skidding means par t
ial or
compl etelossofcont rolofthe
carunderci rcumst ances not
necessaril
y i
mpl yi
ng
negligence. I t may occur
98
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

wi
thoutf
aul
t.
PHOENI
XCONSTRUCTION,INC.
V.IAC
GR65295,Mar.1
0,1987
I
ft he intervening cause i sone
whi ch i n or di
nary human
exper ienceisr easonabl ytobe
ant i
cipated,orone whi ch the
def endant has r eason t o
ant i
cipateundert hepar ti
cul
ar
circumst ances ,t he defendant
may be negl i
gent, among
other r easons , because of
fail
uret o guard agai nstit;or
the def endant may be
negl i
gentonl yf orthatreason.
Exampl e:
One who set sa f ir
e may be
required t o f oresee t hat an
ordinar y,usualandcust omary

99
Ar
t.21
79 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

wi ndar isi
ngl aterwi l
lspreadi t
beyond t he def endant ’
s own
proper ty,andt her eforet otake
precaut ions t o pr event t hat
event .Theper sonwhol eaves
combust i
ble or expl osive
mat er i
alexposed i n a publ i
c
placemayf or
eseet her i
skoff i
re f rom s ome i ndependent
sour ce.I n alloft hese cases
therei san i ntervening cause
combi ning with the
def endant ’
s conduct t o
producet her esul t
,andi neach
case the def endant ’
s
negl i
gence consi st
si nf ai
lure
to pr otectt hepl ainti
ffagai nst
thatver yr i
sk.
Thedef endantcannotber eli
eved
from l i
abil
it
ybyt hef actthatt he
ri
sk or a subst ant i
al and
i
mpor t
antpar toft he r i
sk,t o
1
00
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

whi ch t he def endant has

subj ected t he pl ainti
ff has
i
ndeed come t o pass.
For eseeabl einterveningf orces
are wi thint he scope oft he
originalr i
sk,andhenceoft he
def endant ’sagr eednegl i
gence.
Thecour t
sar equi t
e,gener al
ly,
agr eedt hei nterveningcauses
whi chf allfairl
yi nthiscat egor y
willnotsuper sededef endant ’s
responsi bilit
y.A def endantwi l
l
be r equi red t o anticipatet he
usualweat heroft he vi cini
ty,
i
ncl udingal lordinaryf orcesof
natur esuchasusualwi nd or
rai
n,orsnow orf rostorf ogor
evenl ightni ng.Onewhol eaves
anobst ruct i
onont her oadora
rai
lroad t r ack shoul df oresee
thatavehi cleorat rainwi l
lrun
i
ntoi t.
1
01
Ar
t.21
79 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

The r i
sk cr eated by t he
def endant may i nclude t he
interventionoft hef oreseeable
negl i
gence of ot hers. The
standar d of r easonable
conduct may r equire t he
def endant t o pr otect t he
plainti
ff agai nst “t
hat
occasi onalnegl i
gencewhi chis
oneoft heor dinaryincidentsof
humanl ife,andt hereforetobe
ant i
cipated.”

Exampl e:
A def endant who bl ocks the
sidewalk and f orces t he
plai
ntif
ft o walki n a street
wher e the plaint
iff wil
l be
exposedt other i
sksofheavy
traf
fi
c becomes l iable when
thepl ai
nti
ffi
sr undownbya

1
02
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

car,even though t he caris

negli
gent
ly driven.One who
parks an automobi l
e on the
hi
ghwaywi t
houtlightsatni
ght
i
snotr el
ievedofr esponsi
bil
it
y
when anot her negl i
gentl
y
dri
vesint
oit.

1
03
Ar
t.21
79 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

PHOENI
XCONSTRUCTION,INC.
V.IAC
GR65295,Mar.1
0,1987
FACTS:Atabout1: 30a. m.,LD
wasonhi swayhomef r
om a
cocktail
s-and-di
nnermeet ing
with hi s boss. Dur i
ng t he
cocktais,LDhadt
l akena“ shot
or two” of l i
quor. LD was
dri
ving his carand had j ust
crossed the int
ersecti
on,not
farf r
om hi shome when hi s
headlightssuddenlyfai
led.He
switched his headl i
ghts on
“bri
ght”andt her
euponhesaw
a For d dump t r
uck loomi ng
some2- 1/2metersawayf rom
1
04
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
79

his car . The dump t ruck,

owned by Phoeni x
Const ruct i
on,Inc.waspar ked
ont her ighthandsi deoft he
street( i
.e.,ont her ighthand
sideofaper sonf acingi nt he
same di recti
on t owar d whi ch
LD’ s car was pr oceedi ng) ,
facing t he oncomi ng t raf f
ic.
The dump t ruckwaspar ked
askew ( not par all
el to t he
streetcur b)insuchmanneras
to stick outont ot he st reet,
par t
ly bl ocking t he way of
oncomi ng traffi
c.Ther ewer e
no l i
ght s nor any so- cal l
ed
“early war ning” r eflector
devicessetanywher eneart he
dumpt ruck,f r
ontorr ear .LD
tri
ed t o avoi d a col li
si
on by
swer vinghi scart ot helef tbut
1
05
Ar
t.21
79 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

i
twas t oo late and hi s car
smashedi ntot hedumpt ruck.
LD suf f
ered physi calinj
uries
i
ncluding some per manent
facial scar s, a “ ner
vous
breakdown”and l ossoft wo
goldbridgedent ures.
LD suedPhoeni xandi tsdriver
clai
ming t hatt he legaland
proximatecauseofhi sinj
uries
wast he negl i
gentmanneri n
which phoeni x’s dr i
ver had
parked t he dump t ruck.
Phoenix and i ts dr i
ver
countered thatt hepr oxi
mat e
causeofLD’ sinjuri
eswashi s
own r ecklessness in dr i
ving
fastatthetimeoft heaccident,

1
06
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
79

while undert he inf l

uence of
l
iquor ,wi thouthi s headl ights
onandwi thoutacur few pass.
Phoeni x al so sought t o
establisht hatithadexer cised
duecar ei nt hesel ect i
onand
super visionoft hedr iver.The
tri
alcour tr ender edj udgment
i
nf avorofLD.The Cour tof
Appeal saf f
ir
medt hedeci sion
but modi fied t he awar d of
damages.
On pet iti
on f or r evi ew, t he
Supr emeCour tfoundt hatLD
wasnegl igentt heni ghtoft he
accident . He was hur rying
home t hatni ghtand dr i
ving
fastert han he shoul d have
been.Wor se,heext inguished
hisheadl i
ght satorneart he
i
nter section, as he
1
07
Ar
t.21
79 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

approached hi s r esidence,
andt husdi dnotseet hedump
truckt hatwaspar kedaskew
andst icki
ngoutont ot her oad
l
ane. Never t
heless , t he
Supreme Cour tagr eed wi t
h
the t ri
al cour t and t he
appel l
ate courtthatt he legal
and pr oximate cause oft he
accidentand ofLD’ si njuri
es
was t he wr ongful and
negli
gentmanneri nwhi chthe
truck was par ked. The
SupremeCour t—
HELD:Ther ewasar easonabl e
relat
ionship bet ween t he
dump t
ruck dri
ver’
s
negli
gence on t he one hand

1
08
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
79

and t he acci dent and LD’ s

i
nj ur i
esont heot herhand.The
col l
isionof
LD’ scarwi ththedumpt r
uck
wasanat uralandf oreseeabl e
consequence of t he t r
uck
dr i
ver ’snegl i
gence.Thet r
uck
dr i
ver ’s negl i
gence f arf rom
bei ng a “ passive and st at i
c
condi ti
on” was an
i
ndi spensabl e and ef fi
cient
cause.The col l
ision bet ween
thedumpt ruckand LD’ scar
woul d i n al lpr obabi l
it
y not
haveoccur redhadt hedump
trucknotbeenpar kedaskew
wi thoutanywar ning lightsor
reflect or devices. The
i
mpr operpar ki
ngoft hedump
truckcr eatedanunr easonabl e
ri
sk of i njury f or anyone
1
09
Ar
t.21
79 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

dr i
vi
ng and f or havi ng so
created t hisr isk the t ruck
dr i
ver must be held
responsible.LD’ snegl i
gence,
althoughl aterinpoi ntoft i
me
than t he t ruck dr iver’
s
negl i
gence, and t her efore
closertot heacci dent,wasnot
an ef f
icient intervening or
i
ndependent cause. What
Phoeni x and i ts dr i
ver
descr i
be as an “ i
nterveni ng
cause”wasno mor et han a
foreseeabl e consequence of
the r i
sk cr eat ed by t he
negl i
gentmanneri nwhi cht he
truck driverhad par ked t he
dump t uck.LD’
r snegl igence
was notofan i ndependent
1
10
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
79

and over power ing nat ure as

tocut ,asi twer e,t hechai nof
causat i
oni nf actbet weent he
impr operpar kingoft hedump
truckandt heacci dent ,nort o
sever t he jur i
s vi nculum of
li
abili
ty.LD’ snegl igence was
“only cont r
ibut ory.
” The
immedi at
e and pr oximat e
causeoft hei njur yremai ned
thet ruckdr i
ver ’
s“ l
ackofdue
care.”Hence,LD mayr ecover
damages though such
damages ar e subj ect t o
mi t
igati
onbyt heCour t
s.
The lastclearchance doct rine
oft hecommonl aw,i mported
into ourj ur
isdiction,has no
rolet o play i naj uri
sdicti
on
wher e t he common l aw
concept of cont ributory
1
11
Ar
t.21
79 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

negl i
genceasanabsol ut ebar
tor ecovery by the pl ainti
ff
s
hasi t
selfbeenr ej
ectedi nAr t.
21 79.Ourl awonquasi - delict
s
seekst oreducet her isksand
bur dens ofl i
vi
ng i n soci et
y
and t o all
ocatet hem among
themember sofsoci et y.The
truck dr
iver’
s pr oven
negl i
gence creates a
pr esumpt i
onofnegl i
genceon
the par tofhi s empl oyeri n
super visi
ng i ts empl oyees
pr operlyandadequat el y.
(4) Exampl es of Pr oxi
mat
e
Cause
a) I
( fapass engerboxesabus
dr
iver who subsequentl
y
1
12
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
79

l
osescont r
oloft hevehi cle,
theactoft hepassengeri s
thepr oximatecause.
b) I
( ft he Mer alco leaves an
exposed l i
ve wi r
e, and
subsequent el ect rocution
foll
owsbecausesomebody
touches t he wi r
e, t he
negl i
gence oft he Mer alco
i
st hepr oxi
mat ecause.
(TS,Feb.24,1928) .
c) I
( f somebody negl ectst o
coverhi sditch (fil
l
ed wi th
hot wat er
) and a chi l
d
carelesslyfallsint oit,t he
negl i
gencei sthepr oximat e
cause, t
hough the
cont r
ibutor
y negl igence of
thechi l
dwoul dr educet he
amount of r ecover able

1
13
Ar
t.21
79 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

damages. ( Bernal and

Enver so v. House &
Tacl oban El ectri
c and I ce
Plant ,54Phi l
.327) .
d) I
( fthedamagedvehi cl
ewas
dr i
venbyar ecklessdriver
who made t he vehi cle
travelataver yhighrateof
speed and on t he wrong
sideoft her oad,i tiscl
ear
thatt hisnegligencewast he
pr oximate cause of t he
col l
i on.(
si Tuasonv.Luzon
St evedoring Co. ,etal.,L-
13514,Jan.28,1961) .

1
14
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
79

(
5)Case
Metr
oMani l
aTransi
tCorp.&
Apol
inar
ioAjocv.CA,etc.

GR1
41089,Aug.1
,2002
FACTS:Pet i
ti
oner swer ef ound
l
iable f or t he deat h of
Florentina Sabal buro by t he
tr
ial cour t in a vehi cul
ar
accident involving a
passenger bus owned by
pet i
ti
oner . Met ro Mani l
a
Transit Cor p. ( MMTC) and
drivenbypet it
ionerApol inari
o
Ajoc.Accor dingly,pet i
ti
oner s
wer eor deredt opaydamages
to pr i
vate respondent s.
Pet i
ti
oner s reasonabl y
appeal ed t o t he Cour t of
Appeal s( CA),insist
ingthatthe
1
15
Ar
t.21
79 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

accidentwassol elyt he f aul

t
of t he vi ctim si nce she
suddenl ycr ossedaver ybusy
str
eetwi thcompl etedisregar d
forhersaf etyandi nvi olation
oftraffi
cr ulesandr egulations
designed to protect
pedest r
ians.TheCA af f
ir
med
the t ri
al cour t
’s deci sions.
Petit
ionerst hen moved f or
reconsiderat i
on,butt he CA
denied t hei r mot i
on i n i t
s
resoluti
on ofDec.1 0,1 999.
Hence,t hepr esentpet iti
on.
I
SSUE:Whet herornotAr t.21 79
asanexcept i
ont oAr t
.21 76i s
applicableint heinstantcase.
HELD:Recor ds suppor tpr ivate

1
16
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
79

respondent s’cl aim t hat t he

MMTC buswasbei ng driven
car elessly.As f ound by t he
tri
alcour tandaf firmedbyt he
CA, t he vi ct
im and her
compani onswer est andingon
the i sland of Andr ew Ave. ,
wai ti
ng f orthet r
af f
iclightt o
change so t heycoul d cross.
Uponseei ngt her edl i
ght ,the
victim and her compani ons
star t
ed t o cross.I twast hen
whenpet it
ionerAj oc,whowas
tryingt obeatt her edl i
ght ,hi
t
thevi ct
im.Ast hecour taquo
not ed,Aj oc’
s clai m that“ he
failedt oseet hevi cti
m andher
compani ons pr oves hi s
reckl essness and l ack of
caut ionindr i
vinghi svehi cl
e.”
Fi
ndi ngsoff actoft het ri
alcour t
,
1
17
Ar
t.21
79 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

especi al
ly when af f
ir
med by
the CA, ar e binding and
concl usi
ve on t he Supr eme
Cour t.( Aust r
ia v. CA, 327
SCRA 668 [ 2000]).Mor eso,
asi nthecaseatbar ,wher e
pet i
ti
oner s have not
adequat ely shown t hat t he
cour ts below over l
ooked or
disregarded cer t
ainf acts or
circumst ancesofsuchi mpor t
as woul d have al t
er ed t he
out comeoft hecase.Cont rary
to pet i
ti
oner s’insi
stence,t he
appl i
cablel aw int hi
scasei s
Art.21 76andnotAr t.21 79.

1
18
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Ar
t. 21 80. The obl i
gati
on
i
mposed by Ar t
icl
e 21 76 is
demandabl e notonlyf orone’s
ownactoromi ssi
ons,butalsof
or
thoseofper sonsf
orwhom onei s
responsi
ble.
(
1)Thef at
her
,and,i ncaseofhi s
death or i ncapacit
y, the
mother,ar er esponsi
blef or
the damagescaused byt he
minorchil
drenwhol i
vei nt
heir
company.
(
2)Guardians are l i
abl
e f or
damages caused by t he
minors or i ncapacit
ated
personswho are underthei
r
authori
ty and l
i
ve i n thei
r
company.
(
3)Theowner
sandmanager
sof

1
19
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

an establi
shment or
enterpr
ises ar e l ikewise
responsible f or damages
causedbyt heirempl
oyeesi n
theserviceoft hebr
anchesi n
whicht helat t
erareempl oyed
oron t he occasion oft hei
r
functi
ons.
(
4)Empl oyersshallbe li
ablef or
thedamagescausedbyt heir
empl oyees and househol d
helpers act i
ng wi thi
n t he
scopeoft hei
rassi
gnedt asks,
even t hough the f
ormerar e
notengagedi nanybusi ness
orindustry.
(
5)TheSt at
eisr esponsi
bleinli
ke
mannerwheni tactsthr
ougha
specialagent ;butnotwhen
thedamagehasbeencaused
by the off
icialto whom t he
taskdonepr operlypert
ains,i
n
whichcasewhati sprovided
1
20
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

i
n ar t
icl
e 21
76 shal
l be
appl
i
cable.
(
6)Lastly,teachersorheadsof
establi
shment s of arts and
trades shal l be liabl
e for
damages caused by t hei
r
pupils and st udents or
appr ent
ices,so l
ong ast hey
remai ni
nt hei
rcustody.

Theresponsibil
i
tytreat
edofi n
thi
sarti
cle shallcease when
thepersonher einment ioned
prove t
hatt hey observed al
l
thedil
i
genceofagoodf at
her
ofafamilyt
opr eventdamage.

COMMENT:
(1) Li
abi
li
tyfor the Acts and
Omissi
onsofAnother
Thi
sArti
cl
edealswit
hliabi
l
it
yfor
1
21
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

the act
s and omi
ssi
ons of
anot
her.
(2)Reasonf ortheLiabil
i
ty
Negli
gencei nsupervi on.(
si See
Bahiav.Li
tonjua,30
Phil
.624).
[
NOTE: Thi s negl igence i s
PRESUMED but may be
rebut
tedbypr oofofdili
gence.
(See l ast par agraph, Ar t
.
2180).
]
(
3)Soli
daril
yLiabil
it
y
The person responsiblef orthe
act( l
i
ke the mi nor),and t he
person exercisi
ng super visi
on
(l
ikethepar ents)ar esolidar
il
y
li e.(
abl Art.2194;Ar aneta,etal.
v.Ar r
eglado,etal .,104 Phil.
529).Indeed,theliabil
it
yoft he
1
22
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

guar di
anormast erispr i
mar y
and di r
ect , NOT subs i
diary.
(Barredo v.Sor i
ano,73 Phi l
.
607) .
[
NOTE:Themot herisl i
ableonl y
i
f t he f ather is dead or
i
ncapaci tated, hence, i ft he
fatherisal i
veandal lright,the
mot hershoul dnotbej oinedas
par t
ydef endant .(Romano,et
al.v.Par iñas,etal .,101Phi l
.
140) .
]
[
NOTE: I f a mi nor chi l
d
negligentlyoperatest hef ami ly
car,theheadoft hefami l
yand
owneroft hecarcanbesued
for l iabil
ity. (Gut i
errez v.
Gut i
errez,56Phi l
.177) .
]

1
23
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

MARIATERESACUADRAV.
ALFONSOMONFORT
L-24101
,Sep.30,1
970
FACTS:Whi l
e playing insi
de a
school yard, a 1 3-year-old gi r
l
playfull
yt ossedasaj okeagi rl
’s
headband ather1 2-yearol
d gi r
l
classmat e.The l att
er,who was
sur pr
ised by t he act ,t urned
aroundonl ytohavehereyeshi t
.
Oneeyeevent uallybecamebl i
nd
after unsuccessf ul sur gical
oper ati
ons t hereon.The vi ctim
thens uedt hecul pri
t’
sfatherf or
damages.I sthedef endantli
able?
HELD:No,t hecul pri
t’
sfatheri s
not li
able,f or he coul d not
havepr eventedt hedamagei n
any way.The chi l
d was at
school,wher esheoughtt obe

1
24
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

undert he super vision oft he

school author i
ti
es.
(DISSENTI NGOPI NIONof
Justi
ceAnt onioBar r
edo:
The culpr i
t’
sf at
hershoul d be
heldl i
ablef orno pr oofwas
presentedt hatheevenwar ned
thechildnott oplaydanger ous
jokeson hercl assmat es;the
burden of pr oof of non-
negli
gencemustbeont hepart
of t he cul pr i
t’
s par ents or
guardians. )
[NOTE:I nt hesai dcase,nosui t
wasbr oughtagai nstt heschool
authori
ties, t he t eacher i n
charge,ort heschool it
self
.]

LI
BI,ETAL.V.I
AC,ETAL.
1
25
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

GR70890,Sep.1
8,1
992
The civilliabi
li
tyofpar ent sf or
quasi -deli
cts of t heir mi nor
chil
dr en,as cont empl ated i n
Art.21 80oft heCi vilCode,i s
primar yandnotsubsi diary.I n
fact,ifweappl yAr t.21 94of
said code whi ch providesf or
soli
dar y l i
abili
ty of j oint
tort
feasor s, t he per sons
responsi ble for t he act or
omi ssion, in t hi
s case, t he
minorand t he fatherand,i n
caseofhi sdeat horincapaci ty,
themot her,aresolidari
lyliable.
Accor dingly, such par ental
li
abili
ty i s primary and not
subsidiary; hence, t he l ast
paragr aph of Ar t. 21 80
provides that “[t
]he
responsi bil
i
tytreatedofi nt his
1
26
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

art
icl
e shal lcease when t he
persons her ein ment i
oned
prove t hatt hey obser ved al l
thedi l
igenceofagoodf ather
ofaf ami l
yt opr eventdamage. ”
To hol dt hatt he ci villiabil
it
y
underAr t.21 80 woul d appl y
onlytoquas i
- deli
ctsandnott o
cri
mi nalof fenseswoul dr esult
i
nt heabsur ditythati nanact
i
nvolving mer e dili
gence,t he
parentswoul dbel iablebutnot
wher et he damage i scaused
withcrimi nali nt
ent.Thel iabil
it
y
of the par ents f or f elonies
commi tt
ed by t heir mi nor
chil
dreni slikewi sepr imar y,not
subsidiary.( SeeAr t.101oft he
RevisedPenalCode) .Itbear s
str
essing, however ,t hat t he
Revised PenalCode pr ovides
1
27
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

forsubsi di
ar yl i
abil
i
tyonl yf or
persons causi ng damages
under t he compul sion of
i
rresistibl
ef or ce orundert he
i
mpul se ofan uncont rol
lable
fear; i
nnkeeper s,
tavernkeeper s,andpr opr i
etor s
ofest abli
shment s;empl oyer s,
teacher s, per sons, and
corpor ati
ons engaged i n
i
ndust r
y; and pri
ncipal s,
accompl ices,andacces sories
fort he unpai d civi
ll i
abili
tyof
theirco- accused i nt he ot her
classes.
Under the foregoi ng
consi derati
ons,t herefore,i ti s
herebyr uled t hatthe par ent s
are and shoul d be hel d
primar il
y liable f or t he ci vil
l
iabil
ity ar i
sing f rom cr iminal
1
28
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

offenses commi tt
ed by t heir
mi norchi l
drenundert heirlegal
aut horit
yorcont r
ol,orwhol ive
i
nt heircompany,unl essi tis
proven t hatt he for meract ed
witht he di l
igence ofa good
fatherofa f amilyt o prevent
suchdamages.I nt hecaseat
bar ,whet hert hedeat hoft he
hapl essJulieAnnGot i
ongwas
causedbyaf elonyoraquasi -
delictcommi tt
ed by Wendel l
Libi,respondentcour tdidnot
erri nhol di
ngpet i
ti
oner sliable
fordamagesar i
si
ngt herefrom.
Subj ect t o t he pr eceding
modi f
icati
onsr eli
eduponbyi t
,
ther ef
ore,andont hebas esof
the l egali mper atives her ein
expl ai
ned, t he Cour t i s
conj oi
ned ini tsf indingst hat
1
29
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

said peti
ti
oner
sfail
ed t
o duly
exercise t
he r
equisi
te
dil
igenti
ssi
mipatr
isfamil
i
ast o
preventsuchdamages.

(
4)Owner
sandManager
s

Phi
l
.RabbitBusLines,I
nc.,etal
.
v.
Phi
l.Am.Forwarders,I
nc.,etal
.
L-251
42,Mar .25,1975
FACTS:Anact i
onfordamages
wasbr oughtagai nstthe
Phil
. Am. For warder
s, Inc.
because of t he al l
eged
negligence of t he dr i
ver.
I
ncluded as def endant
s were
thecor por ati
on,andacer tai
n
Bali
ngit,t he manageroft he
corporation.A mot i
on was fi
l
edt odi smi ssthecaseagainst
1
30
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

the managerBal i
ngiton t he
ground t hatwhi l
ei ndeed he
wast hemanager ,hewasal so
a mer e empl oyee of t he
company.Nowt hen,undert he
four t
hpar agr aphofAr t
.21 80,
thel aw speaksof“ owner sand
manager s” as bei ng l i
abl e.
Issue: Shoul d Bal i
ngit be
releasedf rom thecompl aint?
HELD:Yes,because t he term
‘
manager ’inAr t
.21 80 (fourt h
par agraph) i s used i n t he
sense of empl oyer, not
empl oyee.Hence,t herei sno
causeofact ionagainstBal i
ngi t
.

(
5)Empl oyers
(a) I
npar agr
aph5,notethatthe
employers can be l i
able
evenif“notengagedinany
1
31
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

business ori ndust r

y.”I fa
compl aint,therefore,makes
no r eference t o such
businessori ndustr
y,t herei s
sti
lla causeofact i
on,and
the compl aintshoul d NOT
be di smi ssed. ( Ortali
z v.
Echarri,101Phi l.947).
b) I
( tshouldbenot ed,too,t hat
paragraph 5 r efer s t o
“employeesand hous ehold
helpers,” nott o st ranger s.
Soi fast r
angershoul ddr ive
another ’
s car wi thout the
l
atter’
sconsent ,theowneri s
NOT l iable,even i fhe i s
engaged i n an i ndustr y.
(Duquill
o v.Bayot ,67 Phi l
.
131).
c) On
( e who hi
res an

1
32
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

“i
ndependent cont ractor ”
butcont rolsthel at ter
’swor k,
i
sr esponsi ble al so f ort he
l
at t
er’s negl igence. ( See
Cuison v. Nor ton and
Har ri
sonCo. ,55Phi l
.18) .
d) T
( he r egist ered ownerofa
publ i
c uti
lit
y vehi cle
cont i
nuest obei tsowneri f
he l eases i tt o anot her
wi t
hout t he per mi ssion of
the Publ ic Ser vice
Commi ssion. Ther efor e,
even i ft he dr iver of t he
l
essee i s negl igent , t he
registeredownercanst i
llbe
heldl i
abl e.( Timbolv.Osi as,
etal.,96Phi l.989;Mont oya
v.Ignaci o,L- 5868,Dec.29,
1953) .I ndeed,t o exempt
from liabi l
it
yt heownerofa
1
33
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

publ icvehi clewhooper at es

i
t under t he “ boundar y
syst em”ont hegr oundt hat
he mer el
yl eases i tt ot he
driverwoul dnotonl ybet o
abeta f l
agr antvi ol
ation of
thePubl i
cSer vi
ceLaw but
also t o pl ace t he r i
ding
publ ic at t he mer cy of
reckl ess and i rresponsi ble
driver s:“reckless ”because
the measur e of t heir
ear nings woul d depend
l
ar gel yupont henumberof
tri
pst heymakeandhence,
the speed at whi ch t hey
drive; and “ ir
responsibl e”
because most ,ifnotal lof
them,ar ei nno posi tiont o
pay damages t hey mi ght
cause. (Magboo v.
1
34
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

Bernar
do,L-
16790,Apr
.30,
1963).
Vi
nluanv.Cour
tofAppeal
s
L-21477-81
,Apr.29,1
966
FACTS:A passengerofa bus
was hur t because of t he
negligenceoft hedr i
veroft he
busaswel last henegl igence
ofthedr iverofanot hervehicle.
Whoshoul dbel i
abl
e?
HELD:Accor di
ng t ot he court,
four per sons ar el i
able:t he
owneroft hebus ,t
hedr i
verof
thebus,t heowneroft heother
vehicle,andt hedriverofsai d
other vehi cle — and t heir
l
iabil
ity i s SOLI DARY —
notwi t
hstanding the f actthat
theliabil
i
tyoft hebuscompany
i
spr edicatedonaCONTRACT,
1
35
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

whil
et heliabilit
yoft heowner
anddr i
veroft heot hervehi cle
i
sbasedonaQUASI -DELICT.
(Observati
on:The bus dr iver
canbeexcusedont hebasi sof
cul
pa cont ract ual f or t he
contr
actofcommon car r
iage
wasnotwi thhi m,butwi tht he
buscompany;nonet heless,he
canbehel dl iableont hebasi s
ofculpaaqui liana,therebei ng
no pre-existi
ng contract
between hi m and t he
passenger.Not eal sot hatt he
owneroft heot hervehi cl
ecan
be excused i fhe can pr ove
due dil
igence i nt he selection
and supervision ofhi sdr i
ver,
underAr t
.2180,l astpar agraph,
unl
ess at t he t ime of t he
col
li
sion,saidownerwasal so
1
36
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

i
n hi svehicl
e,in which case,
notwithst
andi
ng due car ei n
selecti
on and supervisi
on,he
woul dsti
l
lbeliable,i
fhecoul d
have, by use of di l
igence
preventedthemi sfor
tune.(See
Art.2184).
Ramosv.Pepsi-Col
a
L-22533,Feb.9,1967
FACTS:Adr iverofPepsi -
Col ais
admi t
tedly negl igent i n a
vehi cular coll
ision. Sui t was
broughtbyt heot hercarowner
agai nstbot ht he dr iver and
Pepsi -Cola. But Pepsi -Cola
wasabl etopr ovedi l
i
gencei n
selection(nocul pai nel i
giendo)
and super vi on (
si no cul pa in
vi
gilando) of t he dr i
ver .For
i
nst ance,i twas pr oved t hat
1
37
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Pepsi-Cola had car efull

y
previousl
yexami nedtheer ring
dri
verast o hi
squal i
ficat
ions,
record of ser vi
ce, and
exper i
ence.IsPepsi -Cola sti
ll
l
iable?

HELD:No,ot her
wise i twoul d
havebeenl iablesoli
dar i
l
ywi th
the dri
ver.I n Phili
ppine torts,
wedo notf oll
ow thedoct r
ine
ofrespondeatsuper ior(wher e
thenegl i
genceoft heser vanti s
thenegl i
genceoft hemast er).
I
nstead,wef oll
ow ther uleof
bonus pat er fami l
i
as ( good
fat
her of a f amily). The
negli
gence of t he empl oyer
here i ndicated i n t he last
paragraphofAr t.2180,i sonl y
presumpt i
ve;i tcan t herefore
1
38
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

ber
ebut
ted,asi
nthi
scase.

Bernar
do Jocson and Maria D.
Jocsonv.RedencionGlor
ioso
L-22686,Jan.30,1
968
FACTS:Fort hedeat hofat hree-
year-oldboywhowasr unover
bya passengerj eepney,t wo
acti
ons wer e f i
led by t he
parents:the f i
rst,agai nstt he
ownerandt hedr iverforcul pa
aquil
iana, and t he ot her,
againstthedr i
verf orhomi cide
thr
ough r ecklessi mprudence,
thecriminalactionhavi ngbeen
i
nstit
uted whilet he civilcase
was pendi ng t r
ial. The ci vi
l
case was di smi ssed;butt he
1
39
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

crimi nalcase r esulted in a

convi cti
on for homi ci
de
through r eckl essi mpr udence.
Asidef r
om t hepr isonsent ence
i
mposed,t he dr iverwasal so
order edt oi ndemni fythehei r
s
oft he deceased t he sum of
P6, 000 with subsidiary
i
mpr isonment i n case of
i
nsol vency. A wr i
tf or the
execut ion oft he civilli
abilit
y
was r eturned unsat i
sfied due
to t he i nsolvency of t he
accused.The par ents oft he
victi
mt hensuedt heownerof
the j eepney,pur suantt o Ar t.
103oft heRevi sedPenal Code.
The owner cl ai
ms t hat the
previ ousdi smi ssaloft heculpa
aqui li
ana case shoul d now
preventt heappl icati
onoft he
1
40
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

subsidi aryliabili
tyofanowner
undert heRevi sedPenalCode.
Isthiscl aim cor rect ?
HELD:Thecl aimi snotcor r
ect.
Afteral l,the cul pa aqui li
ana
casehadadi f f
er entcauseof
act i
onf r
om t hiscasei nvolvi
ng
the subsi diaryl i
abi li
ty of an
empl oyer f or an empl oyee’s
criminal act.Inot herwor ds,we
have t he cont rolling r ulet hat
oncet her eisaconvi cti
onf ora
felony,f inalinchar acter,the
empl oyer , accor ding t o the
plainandexpl icitcommandof
Art.1 03oft heRevi sedPenal
Code,i ssubsi diarilyl i
able,ifit
be shown t hat commi ssi
on
thereofwasi nt hedi schar geof
thedut iesofsuchempl oyee.

1
41
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Mali
polv.Tan
L-
27730,Jan.21,1
974
54SCRA202
(
1974)
FACTS:Labsan,a dr iverofa
gasoline t anker used i nt he
businessofhi sempl oyer,Tan,
hita pedest rian,causi ng t he
l
atter’
sdeat h.Int hecivilaction
fil
edbyt hehei rsoft hevi cti
m
againstbot hLabsanandTan,
noal legationwasmadet hata
cri
me had been commi tt
ed.
Thet rialcour tfoundt hedr i
ver
reckless,and so i thel d Tan
pri
mar ilyl
iabl
eont hebasi sof
a quasi-delict, without
prejudi cetot her i
ghtofTant o
demand r ei
mbur sementf rom
thedr iver.

1
42
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

I
ssue: I s t he i mposi t
ion of
primar yli
abili
tyonTanpr oper ?
HELD:Yes,t he imposi ti
on of
primar yli
abili
tyonanempl oyer
inthecaseofaquasi -del i
ctis
properi nt he absence ofan
all
egat i
on t hat a cr i
me had
beencommi t
tedinwhi chl att
er
case, t he l i
abil
it
y of t he
empl oyer woul d onl y be
subsidiary.
[NOTE:I naquasi -del
ict,bot h
empl oyerand empl oyee ar e
soli
dar i
ly l
iable, unless
empl oyeri sabl et oprovedue
dil
igence i nt he selection and
super vi
sion of empl oyees.
Her eTandi dnotpr esentany
such def ense si nce he was
declaredi ndef ault.
]

1
43
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

St
.Fr
anci
sHighSchoolv.CA
GR82465,Feb.25,1
991
FACTS: Fer dinand Cast il
l
o, a
freshman st udentatt he St.
Franci sHi ghSchoolwant edt o
j
oi n a schoolpi cnic at t he
beach. Fer dinand’s par ents
,
because ofshor tnoti
ce,di d
notal low t heirsont ojoinbut
mer ely allowed hi m to br ing
food t ot he t eachersf ort he
picnic,wi t
ht he direct
ive that
heshoul dgobackhomeaf t
er
doing so.However ,because
of t he per suas i
on of t he
teacher s,Fer dinand wenton
wi t
ht hem t ot hebeach.Dur ing
the pi cnic and whi l
e t he
student s,incl uding Ferdinand,
wer ei nt hewat er
,oneoft he
1
44
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

femal e teacher s was

appar entl
ydr owni ng.Someof
the student s, including
Fer dinand,camet oherr escue,
but i n the pr ocess, i t was
Fer dinand himsel f who
drowned.Fer dinand’spar ents
sued t he school and t he
teacher s for damages
all
egedl y incur red f rom t he
deat hoft hei
r1 3-year-oldson.
Cont ending thatt he deat h of
theirsonwasduet othef ai
lure
ofdef endant st o exerciset he
proper di li
gence of a good
father of t he f ami ly i n
prevent i
ng t
heir son’s
drowni ng, t hey ( Ferdinand’s
par ents) pr ayed f or act ual
mor alandexempl arydamages ,
attorney’ sfeesand expenses
1
45
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

for li
ti
gation. The t rialcour t
foundinf avorofpl ai nti
ff
sand
againstthet eacher s,or deri
ng
alloft hem t o pay pl ainti
ff
s
P30,000 as act ualdamages ,
P20,000 as mor aldamages ,
P15,000asat tor
ney’ sfeesand
topayt hecost s.However ,the
court di smissed t he case
againsttheschool .TheCour t
ofAppeal s( CA)r ul
edt hatthe
schooland t he teacher s are
guil
tyofnegl i
genceandl iabl
e
forFerdinand’sdeath.

ISSUES:
(
1) Wh et
herther
ewasnegl i
gence
at
tr
ibutabl
etot he defendant
s
whichwill
warranttheawardof
damagest ot
hepl ai
nti
ff
s.

1
46
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

(
2) Whet herornotAr t.21 80,in
rel
ati
ont oArt.2176oft henew
Civi
lCode,i sappli
cablet othe
caseatbar .
3) Wh
( ether t he awar d of
exempl aryandmor aldamages
i
s proper under t he
cir
cumst ancesofthecase.
HELD:
 The Supr eme Cour t set
aside the deci si
on oft he
Cour tofAppeal sinsofaras
the schooland t eachers
are concer ned, but t he
porti
onoft hesaiddeci si
on
dismissing their
count er
claim t here being
no mer it
,i s affi
rmed. I t
then hel d t hat if at all
petit
ioners ar e li
able for
1
47
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

negli
gence,thi
sisbecause
oftheirownnegligenceor
the negli
gence ofpeople
underthem.
 Here, pet it
ioners ar e
neit
herguil
tyoft hei
rown
negli
gencenorguilt
yofthe
negli
genceoft hoseunder
them.
 Hence, t
hey cannot be
sai
dthattheyareguilt
yat
al
lofanynegl
igence.
 Consequently,theycannot
beheldliabl
ef ordamages
ofanyki nd.Att heoutset
,
Ferdi
nand’s par
ents
al
lowed hi m to join the
excur
sion.

1
48
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

 The f act that hi

sf at
her
gave hi m money t o buy
food fort he picnic even
withoutknowi ng wher eit
wil
lbe hel d,is a sign of
consentf orFer dinand to
j
ointhesame.
 TheCAcommi t
tedaner
ror
i
nappl yingArt
.2180ofthe
Civi
lCodei nrenderi
ngthe
schoolliabl
eforthedeath
ofFerdinand.
I
nt he case atbar ,t he
teachers/
petit
ioner
s wer e
not i n the actual
performance of t heir
assignedtasks.
 Theincidenthappenednot
wit
hintheschoolpremises
,
1
49
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

noton a schooldayand
mosti mport
ant
lywhilet
he
teachers and st udent
s
wer e holdi
ng a pur el
y
privat
eaff
air
,apicni
c.
 The inci
dent happened
whil
es ome member s of
the cl
ass of t
he school
werehavi
ngapicni
catthe
beach.
 Thispi cni
chad no per mit
fr
om t heschoolheadori ts
princi
pal because t his
picnic was nota school
sanctionedactivi
ty,nei
ther
i
si tconsider
edasanext ra
-curri
cularact
ivit
y.
 Mere knowledge by
pet
it
ioner
/pr
inci
palof t
he
1
50
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

planning ofthe picnic by

thest udentsand planning
of t he pi cnic by t he
studentsandt hei
rteachers
doesnoti nanywayshow
acquiescence orconsent
tothehol di
ngofthes ame.
 Theappl i
cat
ion,t
herefore,
of Arti
cl
e 21 80 has no
basi
sinlawandnei t
herisit
support
ed by any
j
uri
sprudence.
I
fwe wer et o affi
rm t he
fi
ndings of the appel l
ate
court on t hi
s scor e,
empl oyer
s wil
lforeverbe
exposed tot he risk and
dangerofbei ng hai l
ed to
courtt o answer f or the
misdeedsoromi ssionsof
1
51
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

the empl oyees even if

such actoromi ssi
on be
commi t
tedwhi l
etheywere
notintheper formanceof
thei
rduti
es.
 No negl i
gence could be
att
ri
butablet
otheteachers
to warrantthe award of
damages t o Ferdinand’
s
parent
s.
 The class adviserofthe
class wher e Fer di
nand
belongeddidherbestand
exerci
sed dili
gence of a
goodf atherofaf amil
yto
prevent any unt oward
i
ncidentordamagest oal
l
the students who joi
ned
thepicni
c.

1
52
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

I
nf act,sheinvi
tedtheP.E.
i
nstructors and scout
mast ers who have
knowl edge in f i
rst aid
appli
cat i
onandswimmi ng.
 Mor eover,the peti
ti
oners
broughtlif
esaver si
ncase
ofemer gency.Peti
ti
oners
di
d al lwhat i s humanly
possibl
et osavethechi
ld.
 No mor al or exemplar
y
damagesmaybeawar ded
i
n favor of Fer di
nand’
s
par
ents.
 The case does not f al
l
underanyoft hegr ounds
to grantmor aldamages .
Peti
ti
onersarenotgui l
tyof
anyfaultornegl
igence.
1
53
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

 Hence,nomor aldamages
can be assessed agai
nst
them.
 Whi l
e i t is t rue t hat
Ferdinand’ s parents di d
givet heirconsentt ot hei
r
sont oj ointhepi cni
c,t hi
s
does not mean t hat
petit
ioners wer e al ready
reli
eved of t hei
r dut yt o
obser ve t he r equired
dil
igenceofagoodf ather
ofaf amilyinensur i
ngt he
safetyoft hechil
dren.
 Buther e,peti
ti
onerswere
abletoprovethattheyhad
exerci
sed t hat requi
red
di
li
gence.
 Hence,t
hecl
ai
mformor
al
1
54
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

or exemplar
y damages
becomesbasel
ess.

Fi
gur aci
onVda.de
Maglana,etal.v.Judge
FranciscoZ.Consolacion
&Af iscoInsur
anceCor p.
GR60506,Aug.6,1 992
Thel i
abi l
it
yofAFI SCO basedon
thei nsurancecont r actisdirect,
butnotsol i
dary wi tht hatof
Dest rajowhi chisbasedonAr t
.
21 80oft heCi vi
lCode.Assuch,
pet i
tioners have t he opt ion
either t o claim t he P1 5,000
from AFI SCO andt hebal ance
from Dest rajo orenf orce t he
ent i
rej udgmentf r
om Dest rajo,
subj ecttor eimbursementf rom
AFI SCO t ot he ext entoft he
1
55
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

i
nsur ancecover age.
Whilet he pet i
ti
on seeksa def i
nit
iver uli
ngonl yont henat ure
ofAFI SCO’ sl i
abili
ty,thisCour t
noticed t hatt he l owercour t
erredi nthecomput ati
onoft he
probabl elossofi ncome.Usi ng
thef ormul a:2/ 3 of( 80- 56)x
P12, 000,i tawar dedP28, 800.
Upon r ecomput ati
on, t he
correctamounti s P192, 000.
Beinga“ plainer r
or ,
”thisCour t
optt ocor rectthesame.( Sec.
7,Rul e 51,Rul es ofCour t)
.
Furthermor e, i n accor dance
with pr evaili
ng jur i
sprudence,
the deat hi ndemni tyisher eby
i
ncr easedt oP50, 000.

1
56
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

GOV.IAC
GR681
38,May13,1
991
FACTS: Fl over t
o Jazmi n, an
Amer ican ci ti
zen and r eti
red
empl oyeeoft heU. S.Feder al
Gover nment , had been a
visi
tori nthePhi li
ppi nessi nce
1972r esi
di nginMangat arem,
Pangasi nan.Asa pensi onado
oft he U. S.Gover nment ,he
recei vedannui tychecksi nt he
amount s of$67 f ordi sabi l
it
y
and $620 f or r eti
rement
throught heMangat arem Post
Of f
ice. On Aug. 22, 1 975,
Agus ti
n Go, as br anch
manager of Sol i
dbank i n
Bagui oCi ty,allowedaper son
named “ Fl overto Jazmi n” to
open Savi ngs Account No.
BG5206bydeposi tingt woU. S.
1
57
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

treasur ychecksi ntheamount s

of$1 81 0and$91 0respect i
vely
equi valentt ot het ot alamount
ofP20, 565.69bot hpayabl et o
theor derofFl over toJazmi nof
Mangat arem,Pangasi nanand
dr awnont heFi rstNat i
onal City
Bank, Mani l
a. The Savi ngs
Accountwas opened i nt he
or di
nar y cour se ofbusi ness.
Thebank,t hruGo,r equi redthe
deposi tor t o f i
l
l up t he
i
nf ormat i
on sheet f or new
account storeflecthi sper sonal
circumst ances .The deposi tor
i
ndi cat ed thereint hathe was
Flover to Jazmi n wi th mai l
i
ng
addr ess atMangat arem,t hat
hewasaFi li
pinoci tizenanda
secur ityof f
iceroft heUSar my;
that he was mar r
ied t o
1
58
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

Mi lagr osBaut i
sta;andt hathis
i
ni ti
aldeposi twasP3, 565.He
wr ote CSA 1 381 34 under
remar ksori nst
ruct i
onsandl ef
t
blank t he spaces under
telephone number ,r esidence
cer ti
ficate,passpor t,bankand
tradeper formanceast o who
i
nt roduced hi m t ot he bank.
The deposi t
or’s si gnature
speci mens wer e al so t aken.
Ther eaf ter, t he deposi ted
checks wer e sent t o t he
dr awee bank f or cl earance.
InasmuchasSol idbankdi dnot
recei ve any wor d f rom t he
dr awee bank,af tert hree (3)
weeksi tallowedt hedeposi tor
to wi t
hdr aw t he amount
i
ndi cat ed i nt he checks .On
Jun.29,1 976,ormor et hana
1
59
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

year l at
er,t he two dol l
ar
checks wer e r et
urned wi t
h
not ationthatt heamount swer e
altered.So Go r epor ted t he
mat t
er t o t he Phi l
ippine
Const abularyi n Bagui o Ci ty.
On Aug. 3, 1 976, Jazmi n
recei ved r adio messages
requi ringhimt oappearbef ore
the PC headquar ters i n
Benguet f or i nvest i
gation
regar di ng the compl aintf i
led
byGoagai nsthimf orest af a.
I
nitially, Jazmin was
i
nvest igated by the
const abul ary off
icer s i
n
Lingayen, and l at
er i n La
Trinidad. Event ually, t he
i
nvest igatorsf ound t hat t he
per son named “Floverto
Jazmi n”whomadet hedeposi t
1
60
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

andwi t
hdrawalwi t
hSol idbank
was an i mpost or. Flover to
Jazmi n’
snamewasusedbya
syndicate t o encash t he
checks. On Sep. 23, 1 976,
Jazmi n sued Agust in Go and
the Solidbank f ormor aland
exempl ary damages i n t he
amount of P90, 000 pl us
att
orney’sf ees.Thet r
ialcour t
orderedGoandCBTC t opay
Jazmi n P6, 000 as mor al
damages, P3,000 as
exempl ary damages and
P1,000asat torney’sfees .The
appellat
ecour tdisall
owedt he
mor alandexempl arydamages
andgr antednomi naldamages.

HELD: The Supreme Court

af
fi
rmed t
he deci
si
on oft
he
1
61
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Cour tofAppeal sandhel dt hat

her e,t hedamagesi nthef orm
of ment al angui sh, mor al
shock and soci alhumi l
iati
on
wer esuf f
eredbyJazmi nonl y
after t he f i
li
ng of Go’ s
compl ai ntwi t
ht hePC.I twas
onlyt hent hathehadt obear
thei nconveni enceoft r
avel i
ng
to Benguetand Li ngayen f or
thei nvest igati
onasi twasonl y
thent hathewassubj ectedt o
embar rassment f or bei ng a
suspect i n the unaut hor i
zed
alt
er ation of t he t reasur y
checks. Hence, i t i s
under standabl e why Go
appear st o have over l
ooked
the f act orsant ecedentt ot he
fi
li
ng oft he compl aintt ot he
Const abular yauthorit
iesandt o
1
62
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

have t o putundue emphasi s

on t he appel late cour t’
s
statementt hat“ denounci ng a
crimei snotnegl i
gence. ”
Although t her e shoul d be no
penaltyont her ightt ol it
igate
ander roralonei nt hef i
l
ingofa
casebei tbef or et hecour tsor
thepr operpol i
ceaut horit
ies,is
not a gr ound f or mor al
damages,undert he pecul i
ar
circumstances of t his case,
Jazmi nisent it
ledt oanawar d
ofdamages.
Itwoul dbeunj ustt oover look
the factt hatGo’ snegl igence
was t he r oot of al lt he
i
nconveni ence and
embar rassment exper ienced
by Jazmi n, al bei
t t hey
happenedaf terthef i
li
ngoft he
1
63
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

compl aint with the

Const abul aryaut horiti
es.
Go’ snegl i
gencei nf actledt o
thes wi ndlingofhi sempl oyer.
Had Go exer cised t he
dil
igenceexpect edofhi m asa
bank of f
icerhe woul d have
noticed t he di spari
tybet ween
thepayee’ snameandaddr ess
on t he t reasury checks
i
nvol vedandt henameoft he
deposi tor appear i
ng i n t he
bank’ sr ecords.
Thesi t
uat i
onwoul dhavebeen
dif
fer enti fthet reasurychecks
wer et amper edwi t
honl yast o
their amount s because t he
alt
er ati
on woul d have been
unnot iceabl e and har d t o
detectas t he her ein al
tered
checkbear i
ng t he amountof
1
64
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

$913shows.
Butt heer rorint henameand
address of t he payee was
patent and coul d not have
escaped t he trai
ned eyes of
bankof ficersandempl oyees.
Hence, t he bank t hru i t
s
empl oyees was grossly
negligent i n handl i
ng t he
businesst ransacti
onher ein.
I
ncr mesand quasi
i -del
icts,t he
defendantshal lbeli
ablef oral l
damageswhi char ethenat ur al
andpr obabl econsequencesof
the act or omi ssion
compl ained of . It i s not
necessar yt hatsuchdamages
have been f oreseen orcoul d
have reasonably been
for
es eenbyt hedef endant .As
Go’snegl i
gencewast her oot
1
65
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

of t
he compl ai
ned
i
nconveni ence and
embar rassment ,Goi sliablet o
Jazmi nf or damages.Under
the5t hpar agraphofAr t.2180
oft he Ci vilCode,“ empl oyers
shallbel i
ablef ort hedamages
caused by t heir empl oyees
actingwi t
hint hescopeoft heir
assigned t asks. Pur suant t o
this pr ovision, t he bank i s
responsi blef ort heact sofi ts
empl oyee, unl ess t her e i s
proof t hat i t exer cised t he
dil
igenceofagoodf at herofa
fami l
yt opr eventt hedamage.
Hence,t hebur denofpr ooflies
upon t he bankand i tcannot
disclaim liabili
tyin vi ew ofi ts
own f ail
uret o pr ove notonl y
thati texer cisedduedi l
igence
1
66
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

topreventdamagebutthatit
was not negligent i
n the
sel
ecti
onandsupervi
si
onofit
s
employees.
GeorgeMckee&Ar ar
eloKoh
MckeeV.I AC,Jai
meTayag&
Rosali
ndaManalo

GR681
02,Jul
.16,1
992
I
nt hecaseatbar ,asempl oyers
oft het ruckdr i
ver,thepr i
vate
respondent s ar e, under Ar t
.
21 80oft heCi vilCode,directl
y
and pr imar i
l
y l i
abl
e f or the
resulting damages. The
pres umpt ion t hat t hey ar e
negl i
gent f l ows f rom t he
negl i
genceoft heirempl oyee.
Thatpr esumpt ion,however ,is
onl yjuri
st ant
um,notj uri
setde
1
67
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

j
ur e. Thei r onl y possi bl
e
def ensei sthattheyexer ci sed
allt he dili
gence of a good
fatherofa f amilyt o pr
event
thedamage.
Thedi l
igenceofagoodf ather
referred t o means t hat
dil
igence i nt he select
ion and
super vi
sionofempl oyees .The
answer s of t he pr ivate
respondent sinCivil
CasesNos.
4477 and 4478 di d not
i
nter poset hisdefense.Nei ther
didt heyattemptt opr oveit.

SanMiguelCor
p.v.Hei
rsof
Sabi
anoIngui
to&Jul
iusOuano

GR1
4171
6,Jul
.4,2002
FACTS:SanMi
guelCor
p.(
SMC)

1
68
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

ent ered into a Ti me Char ter

Par ty Agr eementwi th Juli
us
Ouano,doi ng busi nessunder
thenameand st yleJ.Ouano
Mar i
ne Ser vi
ces. Under t he
termsoft heagr eement ,SMC
char ter
ed t he M/ V Doña
Rober t
a owned by Jul i
us
Ouano f or a per i
od of t wo
year s,fr
om Jul .1,1989t oMay
31 ,1 991,f ort he purpose of
transpor t
ing SMC’ s beverage
pr oductsf rom i t
s Mandaue
Citypl antt o var i
ouspoi ntsi n
VisayasandMi ndanao.
On Nov.1 1 ,1 990,dur ing the
term of t he char ter
, SMC
i
ssued sai l
i
ng or derst ot he
Mas ter of t he M/ V Doña
Rober t
a,Capt .Sabi anoInguito.
I
naccor dancet hereto,Inguito
1
69
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

obtainedt henecessar ys aili

ng
cl
ear ance f rom t he Phil
ippine
CoastGuar d.Loadi ng oft he
cargo on t he M/ V Doña
Rober ta was compl eted at
8:30 p. m.ofNov.1 1,1 990.
However ,the vesseldi d not
l
eaveMandaueCi tyunti
l6a. m.
oft hef ollowingday,Nov.1 2,
1990.Meanwhi leat4a. m.of
Nov.1 2,1 990,t yphoonRupi ng
was spot ted mowi ng int he
gener aldi r
ect ion of East er n
Visayas.At7 a. m.,Nov.1 2,
1990,onehouraf tertheM/ V
Doña Rober t
a depar t
ed from
Mandaue Ci ty, SMC Radi o
Oper at orRogel i
o P.Mor eno
cont acted I ngui t
o t hru radio
andadvi sedhi mt otakes helt
er.
Thel atterr epliedt hattheshi p
1
70
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

willproceedsi ncet het yphoon

wasf arawayanyway.At2p. m.
thatsameday,whi l
et hevessel
wast wokms.Abeam Bol joon
Pt., Mor eno again
communi cated wi th I ngui t
o
andadvi sedhi mt otakes helt
er.
Thecapt ainrespondedt hatthe
shipcanmanage.Hear i
ngt his,
Mor eno i mmedi atelyt ried to
geti ntouchwi t
hRi coOuano
tot el
lhimt hatI nguitodi dnot
heedt heiradvi ce.Ricowasout
of hi s of f
ice,however ,so
Mor enol eftt hemessagewi th
thes ecretary.
Again Mor eno cont acted
Inguito at4 p. m.ofNov.1 2,
1990.Byt hent hevesselwas
alr
eady9. 5mi lessout heastof
Balicasag I sland headi ng
1
71
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

towar ds Sul auan Pt .Mor eno

reit
erated t he advi ce and
pointedouti twi l
lbedi f
ficultto
take shel t
er af t
er passi ng
Balicasag I sland as t he shi p
wasappr oachi nganopensea.
Stil
l
,t he capt ai
nr efused t o
heedhi sadvi ce.At8p. m. ,the
vesselwas38mi lessout heast
of Bal i
casag I sl
and, and
West sout h wi nds wer e now
prevailing.At1 0p. m.,theM/ V
Doña Rober ta was 25 mi l
es
appr oachi ng Sul auan Pt .
Moment slat er,powerwentout
i
n Mor eno’ s of fi ce and
resumed at 1 1:40 p. m. He
i
mmedi atelymadeaser iesof
call
st ot heM/ VDoñaRober t
a
buthe f ailed t o geti nt ouch
withanyonei nthevessel .
1
72
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

At1 :15 a. m. ,Nov.1 3,1 990,

Ingui tocal l
edMor enoovert he
radi o and r equest ed hi m t o
cont act Ri co, son of Jul ius
Ouano,becauseahel i
copt eris
neededt opr ovider escue.The
vesselwas about 20 mi les
west of Sul auan Pt . Upon
bei ng t old by SMC’ s r adio
oper at
or,Ri co t urned on hi s
radi o and r ead t he di stress
signalf rom I ngui t
o.When he
talkedt ot hecapt ain,thel att
er
request ed f ora hel i
copt ert o
provi der escue.Ri cot alkedt o
the Chi ef Engi neer who
i
nf ormedhi mt hatt hecr ewcan
nol ongerst opt hewat erf rom
comi ng i nto t he vessel
because t he cr ew member s
wer e f eeling di zzy f rom
1
73
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

petroleum f umes .At2: 30a.m.

ofNov.1 3,1 990,M/ V Doña
Rober ta sank.Outoft he 25
officer sand cr ew on boar d
thevessel ,onl y5sur vived.On
Nov. 24, 1 990, shi powner
Juli
us Ouano,i nl ieu oft he
captain who per ished i nthe
sea t ragedy,f iled a Mar i
ne
Protest .Hei rsoft hedeceased
captain and cr ew,aswel las
survivor s oft he i ll
-fated M/V
Doña Rober t
a f i l ed a
compl ai ntfort ortagai nstSMC
andJul iusOuanoatt heRTCof
Lapu- LapuCi ty,Br .27.Jul i
us
Ouano f iled an answerwi t
h
crosscl aim,al l
eging t hatthe
proximat ecauseoft helossof
thevesselandi tsof ficersand
crew was t he f ault and
1
74
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

negl i
genceofSMC,whi chhad
compl et econt rolanddi sposal
oft hevesselaschar tererand
whi chi ssuedt hesai l
ingor der
fori t
sdepar turedespi tebei ng
forewar ned oft he i mpendi ng
typhoon.Thus,hepr ayedt hat
SMC i ndemni fy hi m f or the
costof t he vesseland t he
unrealizedr entalsandear nings
thereof .
SMC count ered t hati twas
Ouano who had t he cont rol
,
super visi
on, and
responsi bil
it
ies over t he
vessel ’
s navi gat i
on. Thi s
notwi t
hst anding, and despi te
knowl edge of t he i ncomi ng
typhoon, Ouano never
bother ed t o i ni
tiate cont act
withhi svessel .Cont r
aryt ohi s
1
75
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

all
egat i
on,SMC ar gued t hat
the pr oximat e cause of t he
sinkingwasOuano’ sbr eachof
hisobl i
gat iont oprovi deSMC
wi t
h a seawor thy vesseldul y
manned by compet entcr ew
member s. SMC i nt er posed
count erclaims againstOuano
fort heval ueoft hecar gol ost
i
nt heseat r
agedy.Af tert rial
,
the cour t a quo r ender ed
j
udgment f i ndi
ng t hat t he
proximat ecauseoft hel ossof
the M/ V Doña Rober ta was
attri
butablet oSMC.Bot hSMC
and Ouano appeal ed t ot he
Cour tofAppeal s( CA) .SMC
arguedt hatasmer echar t
erer,
i
tdi d nothave cont roloft he
vesselandt hatthepr ox i
mat e
causeoft helossoft hevessel
1
76
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

and i t
s car go was t he
negli
genceoft heshi pcapt ain.
For hi s part, Ouano
compl ained of t he r educed
damagesawar ded t o him by
the trialcour t.On Dec.1 0,
1998,t he CA modi fied t he
decisi
on appeal ed f rom,
declaring defendant -
appellantsSMC andJul i
anC.
Ouano j ointl
y and sever ally
l
iable t o pl aint
iff-appell
ees ,
exceptt othehei rsofI nguito.
SMC and Ouano f i l ed
separat e mot i
ons f
or
reconsi der
ation, whi ch wer e
denied byt he CA f orlackof
mer i
t.
I
SSUE:Under Ar t
s.1 176 and
2180,owner s and manager s
arer esponsi bl
ef ordamages
1
77
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

caused by negl igence of a

ser vantoran empl oyee,t he
mast er or empl oyer i s
pres umed t o be negl igent
eitheri nt hesel ect i
onori nt he
super vi
sion oft hatempl oyee.
May t hi
s pr esumpt ion be
over come?I fso,how?
HELD: Yes. Thi s pr esumpt ion
may be over come onl y by
satisfactor i
l
yshowi ng thatt he
empl oyerexer ci
sed t he car e
anddi l
i
genceofagoodf ather
ofaf ami lyint hesel ectionand
super vi
sion of i t
s empl oyee.
(Pest año v.Sumayang,346
SCRA870[ 2000] ).
I
nt hei nstantcase,t heSupr eme
Cour tdoesnotf indt heSMC
l
iabl ef ort he l ossesi ncurred.

1
78
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

Thecont enti
ont hati twast he
i
ssuanceoft hesai l
ingor derby
SMCwhi chwast hepr oximate
cause of t he si nking i s
untenable.
The f actt hatt her e was an
approachi ngt yphooni sofno
moment .I tappear st hatfor
one pr evious occasi on,SMC
i
ssued a sai l
ing or dert ot he
captain of t he M/ V Doña
Rober t
a, but t he vessel
cancelledi t
svoyageduet oa
typhoon.Li kewi se,i tappear s
from t he r ecor ds t hatSMC
i
ssuedt hesai l
ingor deronNov.
12,1 990,bef or et het yphoon,
“Ruping’’wasf irstspot tedat4
a.m. of Nov. 1 2, 1 990.
Consequent l
y,Ouano shoul d
answerf orthel os sofl i
vesand
1
79
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

damagessuf feredbyhei r
sof
the offi cer s and cr ew
member s who per i
shed on
boardtheM/ V DoñaRober ta,
except Capt . I ngui
to. The
awardofdamagesgr antedby
theCAisaffi
rmedonl yagai nst
Ouano, who shoul d al so
i
ndemnifySMCf orthecostof
the l
ost cargo, i n the total
amountofP10, 278,542.40.
Char
‘ t
erPart
y’Disti
ngui
shed
f
rom ‘Affrei
ght
ment ’
A char terpart
yisacont r
actby
vi
rtue ofwhi ch the owneror
agentofavesselbi ndshi msel
f
tot ranspor
tmer chandise or
personsf ora fixed pr ice.I
t
hasal so been defined asa
contractbyvirt
ueofwhi cht he

1
80
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

owner or t he agent of t he
vessel l eases f or a cer tain
pr i
cet hewhol eorapor ti
onof
the vessel f
or the
transpor tati
on of goods or
per sons f rom one por tt o
anot her.( SMC v.Hei rsofS.
Inguito&J.Ouano,supr a.)
I
tmayei therbea:( 1)bar eboat
or demi se char t
er or ( 2)
cont ract of af f
reightment .
Undera demi se orbar eboat
char ter,thechar t
erermanst he
vessel wi thhi sownpeopl eand
becomes,i nef f
ect,theowner
oft heshi pf orthevoyageor
service st ipulated,subj ectt o
l
iabili
tyf ordamagescausedby
negl gence.(
i Caltex[Phils.
],Inc.
v. Sul picio Li nes, Inc. , 315
SCRA709[ 1999]).
1
81
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

n a cont
I r
actofaf f
reightment ,
upon t he ot her hand, t he
owneroft hevess el l
easespar t
oral lofi t
sspacet ohaul goods
forot hers.I tisacont ractf or
speci alser vicet ober ender ed
by t he owneroft he vessel .
Undersuch cont ractt he shi p
ownerr etainst hepossessi on,
command and navi gation of
the shi p, t he char t
er er or
frei
ght ermer el
yhavi nguseof
the space i n the vesseli n
returnf orhi spaymentoft he
char t
er hi e. (
r Nat i
onalFood
Aut hor it
yv.CA,311SCRA700
[1999] ). Ot herwi se put , a
cont ract of af freightment i s
onebywhi cht heownerofa
ship orot hervessell et st he
whol e or par t of her t o a
1
82
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

mer chantorot herper son for

theconveyanceofgoods,ona
particular voyage, i
n
consi derati
on oft he payment
off reight .( SMC v.Hei rs of
Inguito&Ouano,supr a).
Acont r
actofaf frei
ght mentmay
beei thert i
mechar ter,wher ein
thel easedvesseli sl easedt o
thechar t
erf oraf ixedper iod
of t i
me,or voyage char ter,
wher eint heshi pisl easedf ora
single voyage.I n both cases,
thechar tererpr ovidesf ort he
hireoft hevesselonl y,either
for a det erminat e per i
od of
ti
me or f or a si mpl e or
consecut ive voyage,t he ship
owner t o suppl yt he shi p’s
store,payf orthewagesoft he
mast eroft hecr ew,anddef ray
1
83
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

the expenses f or t he
maintenanceoft heship.(I
bid.)
I
ft he char t
eri s a contractof
affr
eightment , which l eaves
the gener al owner s i s
possession of t he shi p as
owner f or t he voyage, t he
ri
ghts and r esponsibi
li
ti
es of
owner shi
pr estont heowner .
The char t
erer is free f rom
l
iabil
it
y t o t hi
rd per sons i n
respectof t he ship. (Caltex
[Phil
s.],Inc.v.Sul pi
cio Lines,
I
nc.,supr a.)
.
‘Emer gencyRul e’
Geor
geMckee,
etal
.v.I
AC,etal.
GR68102,Jul
.16,1
992
s known as t
Underwhati he

1
84
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

emer gency r ule, one who

suddenlyf inds himsel fi na
place of danger , and i s
requir
edt oactwi t
houtt imet o
considert he bestmeanst hat
maybeadopt ed to avoidt he
i
mpendi ngdanger ,isnotgui lt
y
ofnegl igence,i fhe f ail
st o
adoptwhatsubsequent lyand
uponr eflecti
onmayappeart o
have been a bet termet hod,
unlesstheemer gencyi nwhi ch
he finds hi msel fis br ought
aboutbyhi sownnegl igence.
‘
Labor
-Onl
y’Cont
ract
ing
Napocorv.CA
GR1
19121,Aug.14,1
998
FACTS:A vehicl
e owned by a
company and dr i
ven by a
dri
versuppl
i
ed byt he “
labor
-
1
85
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

only”cont ract orf igur edi nan

accidentand bot hwer esued
by t he hei rs oft he vi cti
ms.
Petit
ionerNapocori nsiststhat
the r esponsi bil
iti
es of t he
empl oyer cont empl at ed i na
“l
abor -onl y”cont r
actshoul d
be r estricted t ot he wor kers
and cannotbe expanded t o
coverl iabili
tiesf ordamagest o
thi
rdper sonsr esultingf rom the
empl oyee’ st or t
iousact sunder
Art.21 80oft heCi vilCodet hat
provides t hatempl oyer s are
l
iablef ort hedamagescaused
by t heir empl oyees and
househol d hel per s act i
ng
within t he scope of t heir
assigned t asks. Pet i
ti
oner
theorizes t hat i ts l i
abi l
it
y is
l
imitedonl yt ocompl iancewi t
h
1
86
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

the substant i
ve labor
provisions on wor king
condi t
ions,restper iods,wages
— and does not ext end t o
l
iabil
iti
es suf fered by t hird
persons.
HELD: Napocor ’s position i s
i
ncor rect si nce t he act i
on
broughtby t he hei rs oft he
vict
ims of t he vehi cul ar
accidentwaspr emisedont he
recover y of damages as a
resultofaquasi -deli
ctagai nst
both Napocor and Phesco.
Hence,i tistheCi vilCodeand
nottheLaborCodet hati st he
applicable law. The pr esent
controver sy is not a l abor
dispute on condi ti
ons of
empl oyment bet ween an
empl oyeeandanempl oyer .It
1
87
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

i
s a cl aim f ordamages f or
i
njurycausedbyt henegl i
gent
actsofan empl oyee and hi s
empl oyer .
Undert hef actualmi l
ieuoft he
case,r espondentPhesco,I nc.
was engaged i n“ l
abor-only”
contractingvi s- á-vispeti
ti
oner
Napocor and as such,i ti s
consider edmer el
yanagentof
the l
atter .Hence,Napocori s
deemed l iable. “ Labor-only”
contracting,asdef inedunder
Sec.9( b) ,RuleVI I,BookI I
Iof
the Omni bus Rul es
I
mpl ement ingt heLaborCode,
i
s pr ohibited and t he person
acti
ng as cont ractorshallbe
consider edmer elyasanagent
or i ntermedi ary of t he
empl oyer who shal l be
1
88
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

responsi bl
et othe wor ker sin
the same mannerand ext ent
as i fthe l att
erwer e di rectl
y
empl oyedbyhi m.Nonet heless,
pet i
ti
onerNapocorcoul dhave
disclai
medl iabi
li
tyhadi traised
thedef enseofduedi l
igencei n
thesel ectionorsuper vi
s i
onof
respondent Phes co and t he
truckdr iver.Int he same Ar t.
21 80 oft he Ci vi
lCode,t he
responsi bi
lit
yoft he empl oyer
ceaseswheni tcanpr ovedt hat
i
tobser vedal lthedili
genceof
a good f atherofa f ami l
yt o
pr event damages. For
unknown r easons , however ,
pet i
ti
oner Napocor di d not
i
nvokesai ddef ense.Byopt i
ng
nott o presentany evi dence
thatitexer ci
sed
1
89
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

due di li
gence i n t he
super vi
sionoft heact i
viti
es
ofr espondentPhesco and
the dr i
ver,i tforeclosed i t
s
ri
ghtt oi nterposet hesame
onappeali nconf ormi tywi t
h
ther ulethatpoi ntsofl aws,
theories,issuesoff acts,and
argument s not r aised i n
l
owercour tcannotber aised
forthef irstti
meonappeal .
FGU InsuranceCor
p.v.
CA,Fil
car
Tr
ansport,Inc.& For
tune
I
nsuranceCor p.
GR118889,Mar .23,1
998
I
SSUE:Fordamagessuf fered
by a thi
rd part
y,may an
actonbasedonquasi
i -delict
prosper agai
nst Fi
l
car ,a
1
90
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

rent-a-car company, and,

consequent l
y,it
si nsur er
,for
faultornegl igence oft he
car lessee i n dr i
ving t he
rentedvehi cl
e?
HELD: No. Fi lcar bei ng
engaged i n a r ent-a-car
business was onl y t he
owneroft hecarl eas edt o
DahlJensen.Assuch,t here
was no vi nculum j uri
s
betweent henempl oyerand
empl oyee.Fi lcarcannoti n
anywayber esponsi blefor
the negligentactofDahl -
Jensen, t he f ormer not
being an empl oyeroft he
l
atter.

1
91
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

(6) Li
abi
li
ty of Teachers and
HeadsofEstabli
shment(
of
Art
sandTr ades)
Pal
i
socv.Br
il
l
ant
es
41SCRA548
FACTS:Dur i
ngr ecess -t
ime,
onest udentofat echni -
cal,( t
rade,vocat i
onal)school
fatall
yi njur ed anot heratt he
school ’sl abor atoryr oom.Ar e
thepr esidentoft heschool and
thei nstruct orconcer nedl i
able
forthedeat hoft hest udent?
HELD:Yes,t heyar eliableunder
thepr ovisionsofAr t.21 80 of
theCi vilCode.Thecl auseused
i
nsai dar ticle“ solongast hey
remai ni nt heircust ody”does
not necessar ilyr efer to t he
cust ody over students
1
92
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

boar dingi ndor mitori

esoft he
school ( as erroneously
referredt oi napr eviouscase)
but t o t he pr otecti
ve and
super visory cust ody t hatt he
school and i t
s heads or
teacher s exer ci
s e over t he
pupi l
sandst udent s
for as l ong as t hey ar e at
attendance i n school and
i
ncl udesr ecess-time.Toavoi d
l
iabili
ty,t he schoolof f
ici al
s
concer nedshoul dhavepr oved
“that t hey obser ved al lt he
dili
genceofagoodf atherofa
fami l
y t o pr event damage. ”
Said school of fi cials and
teacher si ncidentall
yar eliabl
e
eveni ft hest udent sorpupi l
s
arenol ongermi nors.

1
93
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Magt
ibayv.Garci
a
GR28971,Jan.28,1
983
Whi l
e a schooli s obl i
ged t o
afford i t
s st udent s a f ai
r
oppor tuni
tyt o compl etet he
coursest heyseekt o pur sue,
thisoppor t
unityi sf or feit
ed if
thest udentscommi taser ious
breach of di scipline. Cour t
s
should not r evi ew the
discreti
on of uni versit
y
author i
ti
es inf ai
ling st udent s
for di scipl
inary r easons or
academi c def i
cienci es. The
requisite academi c st andar d
mus tbemai ntained.

Pascov.CFI
GR54357,Apr.25,1
987
FACTS:Reynal
do,t
oget
herwi
th

1
94
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

twocompani ons,whi lewalking

i
nsi det hecampusofAr aneta
Uni versi
ty, af ter at tending
clas sesinsai dUni versit
y,was
accost ed and maul ed by a
group ofMusl im student sled
by Teng.The Musl im gr oup
wer e al so st udent s of t he
Aranet a Uni versit
y. Reynal do
wasst abbedbyTengandasa
consequence, he was
hospi tal
izedandheunder went
sur gerytosavehi sli
fe.Inasui t
byReynal doagai nstTeng f or
damages, the Araneta
Uni versi
tywasi mpleadedasa
par tydef endantbasedonAr t.
21 80.Thet r
ialcourt,onmot i
on
of Araneta Universi
ty,
dismi ssedt hecompl aintast o
saiddef endant .
1
95
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

I
SSUE:I st he provi si
on oft he
penul ti
mat e par .ofAr t
.21 80
whi chst atest hat“ teacher sor
headsofest ablishmentofar t
s
and t radesshal lbe l iablefor
damages caused by t heir
pupi ls and st udent s or
appr ent i
ces,so l ong as t hey
remai n i n t hei
r cust ody” —
equal lyapplicablet oacademi c
insti
tutions?
HELD: The answer i si n the
negat ive. The provisi
on
concer ned speaks onl y of
“teacher sorheads. ”
(7)Liabilit
yoft heSt ate
ASt ate’sli
abili
tyhast wo
aspect s:
(
a)I
ts publ i
c or gover nment
aspect s(her ei tisliablefor

1
96
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

the t
orti
ousactsofspeci al
agentsonly.
)
(
b) I
ts pr ivat
e or bus i
ness
aspects(aswhenitengages
i
npr i
vateenter
pri
ses—her e
i
tisliableasanORDI NARY
EMPLOYER) .(
SeePalmav.
Garci
ano, et al.
, L-7240,
May16,1956) .
MMTC&Apol i
nar
ioAj
oc
v.CA,Etc.
GR1
41089,Aug.1
,2002
FACTS: Pet i
ti
oner MMTC
contendst hatthe Cour tof
Appeals( CA) er red in fi
nding itsoli
dari
lyliablefor
damages wit
h i
ts
dri
ver/employee, Aj
oc,
pursuant to Ar t
. 21 80. I
t
argues that Ajoc’s act in
1
97
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

bringing t he vi ct im t o a
hospi talref lect s MMTC’ s
dili
gence i n t he sel ecti
on
andsuper visionofi tsdri
vers,
par t
icular
ly wi thr egar dt o
safety measur es. Hence,
having exer cised t
he
dili
genceofagoodf atherof
af ami lyi
nt hesel ect i
onand
super visi
onofi tsempl oyees
to pr eventdamage,MMTC
shoul d not be hel d
vicariousl
yl i
able.
HELD:The cl aim t hatAj oc’
s
actofbr i
ngi ngt hevi cti
mt o
the near estmedi calf acil
it
y
showsadequat esuper visi
on
by MMTC over i t
s
empl oyees deser ves but
scantconsi der ati
on.Forone,
theactwasaf t
ert hef actof
1
98
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

negl i
gence on Aj oc’ s part.
For anot her,evi dence on
recor dshowst hatAj oc’sact
was nei ther vol untar y nor
spont aneous;hehadt obe
pr evail
ed upon by t he
victim’s compani ons t o
render assi stance t o his
victim.
Sufficei tt osay,owner sof
publ i
cut il
it
iesf allwi thi
nt he
scopeofAr t.21 80.MMTCi s
a publ i
c ut i
li
ty, or ganized
and owned by t he
gover nment f or publ i
c
transpor tser vi
ce.Hence,i t
s
l
iabi l
i
ty to pri
vate
respondent s, f or the
negl i
gentandr ecklessact s
ofi t
sdr i
ver ,Ajoc,underAr t.
21 80 isbot h mani festand
1
99
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

cl
ear.
Vi
ctorOrqui
ola&Honor ata
Orqui
olav.CA,Etc.
GR1 41463,Aug.6,2002
FACTS: Pet it
ioner -spouses
pur chasedt hesubj ectland
i
n1 964f r
om Mar ianoLisi
ng.
The spouses acqui red the
l
and i n ques ti
on wi t
hout
knowl edgeofanydef ectin
the t i
tl
e ofLi sing.Shor tl
y
afterwards,t hey bui lttheir
conj ugalhomeonsai dland.
Itwasonl yi n1 998,when
the sher i
ffofQuezon Ci t
y
tri
ed t o execut e t he
j
udgmenti n Ci vilCase Q-
1291 8,thattheyhadnot i
ce
to pr i
vate r espondent ’
s
adver seclai
m.

200
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

I
SSUE: Cant hei nst
it
uti
onof
CivilCaseQ- 1291 8serveas
notice of such adver se
clai
mt opetit
ioner s?
HELD: No.I tcannotsi nce
petiti
oner-spouseswer enot
i
mpl eadedther einaspar ti
es.
Asbui l
dersingoodf ait
hand
i
nnocent pur chases f or
value,petiti
oner shaver i
ghts
over t he subj ect proper t
y
and, hence, ar e pr oper
parties in inter est i
n any
caset eon.(
her Sec.2,Rul e
3, Rul es of Cour t).
Consequent l
y, pri
vate
respondent s shoul d have
i
mpl eaded t hem i n Ci vil
Case Q- 1291 8.Si nce they
fail
ed t o do so,pet i
ti
oners
cannotbe r eached by t he
201
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

deci sion i n said case.No

man shal lbe af f
ected by
anypr oceedi ngt owhi chhe
i
sast ranger ,andst ranger s
toacasear enotboundby
any j udgmentr ender ed by
thecour t.
I
nt hesamemanner ,awr itof
execut ion can be i ssued
onlyagai nstapar t
yandnot
agai nstone who di d not
havehi sdayi ncour t.Onl y
realpar ti
esini nteresti nan
act i
on ar e bound by t he
j
udgment t her ein and by
wr i
ts of execut ion and
demol ition issued pur suant
theret o. Thus, spouses
Victor and Honor ata
Or quiol a have val i
d and
mer itor i
ouscauset or esi
sts
202
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

thedemol i
ti
onofthei
rhouse
on theirti
tl
ed l
ot,which i
s
tant
amountt oadepr i
vati
on
of pr oper
ty without due
processoflaw.

(
8)Speci al Agent
a) T
( hi
s i s a gover nment
empl oyee who commi tsa
tor
twhi l
e per f
orming a job
oractf orei
gn t o hi
susual
dutes. (
i See Mer r
itt v.
Gover nment ,34Phi l
.311).
InRepubl icv.Pal acio(L-20322,
May29,1968) ,the Supreme
Cour thel dthatt he St at
ei s
liableonl yfortortscausedby
it s speci al agent s speciall
y
commi ssionedt ocarryoutt he
act sofwhi ch the tort
sar i
se,
and whi ch actsar e OUTSIDE
203
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

oft he REGULAR DUTI ES of

saidspeci alagent s.
b) He
( nce,when t he damage
hasbeencausedbyt heof fi
cialupon whom pr oper l
y
devolved t he doi ng oft he
act per f
or med, t he St ate
(both cent ral and l ocal
gover nment s)isNOTl i
able.
Wher e therefore the
plai
ntiff’
s f at
her was r un
overbyat ruckdr i
venbya
chauf feuroft he pr ovi
nci al
gover nmentofa pr ovince,
and at t he t ime of t he
accident ,he wasdr ivi
ng a
vehiclei n compl iance wi th
his dut i
es as such, hi s
empl oyeri sNOT l i
ablef or
the pl ai
ntiff’
s cl aim. The
chauf feur al one i s li
able.
204
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

(Palaf oxv.I locosNor t

e,et
al.,L- 10659,Jan.31,1958) .
The same pr inciple applies
to a chauf feur of t he
Phi l
i
ppi ne Gener alHospi tal
(Mer rittv.Gov’ t.
,34 Phi l.
311) ,ort oanyempl oyeeof
abr anchoft hegover nment
per f
or minghi susualdut ies.
(Rosel lv.Aud. -Gen. ,81Phi l.
453) .
NOTE:I
[ nt hecaseofPal mav.
Garciano,etal .,itwashel dthat
i
fagover norandamayorf ile
cri
mi nal char ges whi ch ar e
groundl ess,thei ract s cannot
havebor netheappr ovalofthe
provinceandt hemuni ci
palit
y;
hence, these poli
ti
cal
subdivisionscannotbe l i
able.
Mor eover ,the pr osecuti
on of
205
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

cri
mes i s NOT cor por
ate but
gover nment al or poli
ti
cal in
charact er.Inthedischargeof
functions of t hi
s nat ure,
muni cipalcorporati
onsarenot
l
iablef ortheactsofitsoff
icers,
excepti fandwhen,andonl yto
the ext ent that,they have
actedbyaut horit
yoflawandi n
confor mi t
y wi
th t
he
requirementt hereof
.]

Republ
i
cv.Pal
aci
o
L-
20322,May29,1968
FACTS:I l
defonso Orti
zf iled a
compl ai
nt against a
government ent
ity (
the
Irr
igat
ionServiceUni t
)all
eging
thatsaidenti
tyhadinducedt he
HandongI rri
gati
onAssoci at
ion
to occupy and possess t he
206
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

l
and of Or tiz. As a
consequenceoft hecompl aint,
the f unds of t he ent it
y
(deposi t
ed at t he Phi l
ippine
Nat ionalBank)wasgar nished.
Ther ewasnopr oof ,however ,
thatt heSt atehadspeci ficall
y
commi ssi
oned t he ent ity to
maket hetorti
ousi nducement .
ISSUES:
a) I
( st he gover nmenther e
l
iable,fortheact soft he
I
rrigat
ionSer viceUni t?
b) A
( ssumi ng that t her e is
l
iabil
it
y may t here be a
l
evyofexecut ionagai nst
t
he f unds deposi ted by
t
heent i
tywitht hePNB?
HELD:
a) T
( he gover nment i s not
207
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

l
iabl efornoaut horizati
on
was ever gi ven t o i t
s
alleged“ speci alagent .”If
ther e had been such
aut horization,t herewoul d
have been l i
abili
ty f or
then t he act saut hor i
zed
are NOT REGULARLY
per formedbyt heent i
ty.
b) A
( ssumi ng t hat t here i s
l
iabi l
it
y,theCour t
’spower
ends with the
pr omul gation of t he
j
udgment . Execut i
on
cannot i ssue on a
j
udgment agai nst t he
St ate.Af teral l,theSt ate
shoul d be r egar ded as
freet odet ermi newhet her
ornoti twi l
lhonort he
j
udgment by payment .
208
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

The pr esumpt ion of

cour se ist hatt he State
willhonorandr espectt he
j
udgment ,andthiscanbe
done when Congr ess,
recogni zi
ngt hef inal
it
yof
the j udgment ,enact sa
l
egi sl
ative measur e
providing for the
satisfacti
on of the
j
udgment .
(
9)Def ense
(a) Ifanempl oyee(orwar dor
mi norchild,etc.)isf ound
negl i
gent,iti s presumed
thattheempl oyer(orperson
i
nchar ge)wasnegl igentin
selecti
ngand/ orsupervisi
ng
him f oritis hardf ort he
victi
m t
o pr ove t he
209
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

negligence of such
empl oyer .I
tisimpossi blefor
thevi ct
imt ohaveobs erved
theconductofal lempl oyers,
etc. who ar e pot ential
tortf
easor s.(SeeCampo,et
al.v.Comar ot
e& Gemi l
ga,
L-9147,Nov.29,1956) .
b) I
( n Campov.Camar ot eand
Gemi lga( supra) ,itwashel d
thatt hemer ef actt hatt he
driverwasapr of essional
one does not show suf fi
cientdil
igenceont hepar tof
theempl oyer.Theempl oyer
shouldnothavebeensat i
sfi
edwi ththemer epossessi on
by hi s dr iver of a
professionaldr iver’slicense;
hehadt hedut yt oexami ne
thoroughl y the quali
fi
21
0
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

cat ions, exper ience, and

recor dofthedr i
ver.
c) E
( ven i ft he empl oyercan
pr ove t he dil
igence i nt he
sel ectionandsuper visi
onof
theempl oyee,stil
lifher at i
fi
est hewr ongfulacts,ort ake
no st eps t o aver tf urther
damage,he( theempl oyer)
woul d stil
lbe l iable. (See
Maxi on v.Mani la Rai l
road
Co. ,44Phi l
.597).
(
10)PenalPr ovi
sionsinCaseof
Cri
mes
Art
.365,par .3oft heRevi sed
PenalCodesi mplymeanst hat
i
ft hereis onl y damage t o
propert
y,the amountf ixed
t
hereinshal
lbei mposed,butif
t
herear ealsophysicali
njuri
es
21
1
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

ther
e shoul d be an addi ti
onal
penalt
y f or t he latter . The
i
nformat i
oncannotbespl i
tinto
two;one f orphysi cali njur
ies
andanot herf orthedamaget o
property,forbot hthei njuri
es,
and the damage commi t
ted
werecausedbyonesi ngleact
of t he def endant and
consti
tutedwhatmaybecal led
a compl ex cr i
me ofphysi cal
i
njuri
es and damage t o
property.Itiscleart hatt hefi
nefixedbyt helawi nt hiscase
i
sbeyondt hej ur
isdi
ctionoft he
municipalcour tandwi thinthat
ofthe Cour tofFi r
stI ns t
ance
(now Regi onal Trial Cour t)
.
(Peoplev.Vi l
lanueva,L- 15014,
Apr.29,1961) .

21
2
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

(
11)Fail
ure ofDoctorto Fol
low
Medi
calProcedureI
sa
Cl
earIndi
ciaofNegl
igence
Erl
i
ndaRamosv.Court
ofAppeal
s
GR1
24354,Apr.1
1,2002
FACTS:Pr i
vater espondent s
DeLosSant osMedi cal
Cent er ( DLSMC) , Dr . Or li
no
Hosaka, and Dr . Per fecta
Gut ierrez–– wer e held ci vi
ll
y
li
able f or pet i
tioner Er li
nda
Ramos’ comat ose condi ti
on
aftershe del i
vered her s
elft o
them f or t heir pr ofessional
careandmanagement .
The Phi l
ippine Col lege of
Sur geon ( PSC) f i l ed i t
s
petitionin- i
nter
vent i
on
cont endi ngi nthemai nthatt he
21
3
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

cour ter red i n holding pr ivate

respondentDr .Hosaka l iabl e
undert heCapt ain-of -
the- Ship
doct rine.For t he i ntervenor ,
sai d doct rine had l ong been
abandoned i n t he Uni ted
St ates i nr ecognition of t he
devel opment s i n moder n
medi cal andhospi t
al practice.
Forhi spar t,Dr .Hosakamai nly
cont endst hatt hecour ter red
inf indi nghi m negl igentasa
sur geon by appl yi
ng t he
Capt ain- of-the- Shi
p doct rine.
Dr .Hosaka ar gues t hatt he
trendi nU. S.jurisprudencehas
beent or ejectsai ddoct ri
nei n
li
ght of devel opment s i n
medi cal pr actice.Hepoi ntsout
that anest hesiology and
sur ger y ar et wo di stinctand
21
4
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

speci alizedf ieldsi nmedi cine

and asa sur geon,he i snot
deemed t o have cont r
olover
the act sofDr .Gut i
errez.As
anest hesi ologist,Dr .Gut ierrez
i
saspeci alistinherf ieldand
has acqui red ski l
ls and
knowl edgei nt hecour seofher
trainingwhi chDr .Hosaka,asa
sur geon,doesnotpossess.He
stat es f ur t
her t hat cur rent
Amer icanj ur i
spr udenceont he
mat ter r ecogni zes t hat t he
trendt owar dsspeci ali
zationi n
medi ci ne has created
situat ionswher e surgeonsdo
notal ways have t he r i
ghtt o
cont rolal lper sonnelwi thint he
oper at i
ng r oom,especi all
ya
fellowspeci alist.
Dr.Gut ierr
ezmai ntainsthatt he
21
5
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

cour t er red in f indi ng her

negligentandi nhol dingt hati t
wast hef aultyint ubat i
onwhi ch
was t he pr oximat e cause of
Erli
nda’ s comat ose condi ti
on.
The f ollowing obj ective facts
all
egedl ynegat eaf indi ngof
negligenceonherpar t:
1. That t he out come of t he
procedur e was a comat ose
patientandnotadeadone;
2. Thatt hepat ienthadacar diac
arrest;and
3. Thatt he pat ientwas r evived
from thatcar diacar r
est .
In ef fect,Dr .Gut ierrez,i nsist
s
that,cont r
aryt ot hef indingof
the cour t,the i nt ubat i
on she
perfor med on Er l
inda was
successf ul. The i nst r
ument s
21
6
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

used i nt he admi nistr

at i
on of
anesthesi a, i ncluding t he
endot r
acheal t ube, wer e all
undert heexcl usivecont rolof
pri
vat e respondent s Dr.
GutierrezandDr .Hosaka.
Meanwhi le,thehospi tal,
DLSMC,ar guest hati tcan-
notbe deemed l iablef ort he
result
ing i njur
y t o pet it
ioner
Erl
inda.DLSMC cont endst hat
applying t he f our- f
oldt esti n
determi ning whet her such a
rel
ationshi p exi sts bet ween i t
and r espondent doct ors, it
(DLSMC) cannot be
consider ed an empl oyer of
respondentdoct ors.Thef our-
fol
d t est i n det ermi ning
whet her an empl oyer-
empl oyee r el
at i
onshi p exi sts
21
7
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

between t he par t
ies aret he
fol
lowi ng:
1. selection and engagementof
services;
2. paymentofwages;
3. powert ohi reandf ire;and
4. powert o cont rolnotonl yt he
end t o be achi eved,butt he
meanst obeusedi nreaching
suchanend.
On t he 1 st t est, DLSMC
mai ntainst hatahospi t
aldoes
nothi reorengaget heservices
of a cons ultant , but rat
her,
accr editsthel at terandgr ants
him or her t he pr ivi
l
ege of
mai ntaining a cl ini
c and/ or
admi tti
ng pat i
ents i n t he
hospi t
al uponashowi ngbyt he
consul tant t hat he or she
21
8
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

possesst he necessar yqual if

i
cations,suchasaccr editati
on
by t he appr opri
at e boar d
(di
pl omat e), evi dence of
fel
lowshi pandr eferences .
On t he 2nd t est,i tis nott he
hospi t
albutt he pat i
entwho
pays t he consul tant’sf ee f or
servicesr ender edbyt hel atter.
Ont he3r dt est,ahospi taldoes
not di smi ss a consul tant;
i
nst ead,thel attermayl osehi s
or her accr editati
on or
pri
vi l
eges gr anted by t he
hospi t
al.
Ont he4t handl asttest,DLSMC
argues t hat when a doct or
refersapat ientf oradmi ssion
i
n a hospi t
al,i tist he doct or
who pr escr i
best he treatment

21
9
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

tobegi vent osai dpat i

ent .The
hospi tal’
s obl i
gat i
on i sl imi t
ed
to pr ovi ding t he pat i
entwi th
the pr eferred r
oom
accommodat i
on,t henut rit
ional
diet and medi cat i
ons
pr escribed byt he doct or ,the
equi pment and facilit
ies
necessar y f or t he pat i
ent ’
s
treatment , as wel l as t he
ser vi
ces oft he hospi talst af f
who per form t he mi ni sterial
tasks of ensur ing t hat t he
doct or’sor dersar ecar riedout
strict
ly.
I
ssues:( 1 )Whet herornotDr .
Hosaka( sur geon)i sliabl ef or
negl i
gence;( 2)Whet herornot
Dr .Gut ierrez( anest hesi ologist )
i
sl iablef ornegl i
gence;and( 3)
Whet herornott he hospi tal
220
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

(DLSMC)i sliabl ef oranyactof

negligencecommi ttedbyt heir
visi
ti
ng consul tant-surgeon
andanest hesi ologi st.
HELD:( 1 )Thatt her eisat rendi n
Amer i
canj urispr udencet o do
awaywi ththeCapt ain-of-the-
Ship doct ri
ne doesnotmean
thatt he Supr eme Cour twi l
l
i
pso f actof ollow sai dt rend.
Due r egar df or t he pecul iar
factual circumst ances
obtainingi nt hiscasej usti
fyt he
applicat i
on oft he Capt ainof -
the-Shi p doct rine.Fr om t he
facts on r ecor d, i t can be
l
ogical l
y i nfer red t hat Dr .
Hosaka exer cised a cer tain
degr ee of ,att he ver yl east ,
super visi
onovert hepr ocedur e
then bei ng per formed on
221
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Erl
inda.Thus:
a. It was Dr . Hosaka who
recommendedt opet i
ti
onert he
services ofDr .Gut i
errez.I n
effect, he r epresented t o
petit
ioner t hat Dr . Gut ierrez
possessed t he necessar y
compet ence and ski ll
s. Dr s.
Hosaka and Gut ier
rez had
wor ked t ogethersi nce 1 977.
Whenever Dr . Hosaka
perfor medasur gery,hewoul d
alwaysengaget heservicesof
Dr.Gut i
errr
ezt oadmi nisterthe
anest hesiaonhi spat i
ent.
b. Dr.Hosaka hi msel fadmi tt
ed
thathewast heat -
tending physi cian ofEr linda.
WhenEr l
indashowedsi gnsof
cyanosi s,itwas Dr .Hosaka

222
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

who gave i nst r

uct i
ons t o cal l
for anot her anest hesi ol
ogi st
and car diol ogist t o hel p
resuscitateEr linda.
c. I
t i s conceded t hat i n
per f
ormi ng t
hei r
responsi bil
ities t ot he pat i
ent ,
Dr . Hosaka and Gut i
errez
wor kedasat eam.Thei rwor k
cannotbepl aced i nsepar ate
wat ert
ight compar tment s
because t hei rdut i
esi ntersect
wi t
heachot her .
The dut i
es ofDr .Hosaka and
those ofDr .Gut ierrez i nt he
treatmentofpet iti
onerEr li
nda
are,t heref or e,nota cl earcut
asr espondent scl aimt hem t o
be.Ont hecont r
ar y,itisqui te
appar ent t hat t hey have a

223
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

commonr espons ibil

ityt ot r
eat
the patient, whi ch
responsi bil
it
ynecessi t
atest hat
theycal leachot her ’
sat tent i
on
tothecondi ti
onoft hepat i
ent
whilet he ot her physi cian i s
performi ng t he necessar y
medi cal procedur es.
I
tisimpor tantt opoi ntoutt hatDr .
Hosakawasr emi ssi nhi sdut y
of at t
endi ng t o pet iti
oner
Erli
ndapr ompt ly,f orhear r
ived
mor et han 3 hr s.l at ef ort he
schedul ed oper ation. I n
reckless di sregar d f or hi s
patient’
s wel l
- being, Dr .
Hosaka schedul ed two
procedur esont hesameday,
j
ust 30 mi nut es apar tf rom
each ot her, at di f
ferent
hospitals. When t he f ir st
224
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

procedur e( pr otoscopy)att he
Sta.Ter esi t
a Hospi taldi d not
proceed ont ime,Er l
i
ndawas
kepti nast ateofuncer taintyat
the DLSMC.The l ong per i
od
thatDr .HosakamadeEr l
inda
waitf orhim causeanxi etyt hat
adver sely affected the
admi nistr
at i
onofanest hesiaon
her.Apat ient’sanxi et
yusual ly
causes t he out pour i
ng of
adrenal i
ne whi ch, i n t ur n,
result
si nhi ghbl oodpr essur e
ordi sturbances i nt he hear t
rhythm. Dr . Hosaka’ s
i
rresponsi ble conduct of
arri
ving ver y l at
e f or t he
schedul ed operati
on of
peti
tionerEr li
nda i s violative,
not onl y of hi s dut y as a
physician“ toser vet hei nt
er est
225
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

ofhi spat i
ent swi ththegr eat est
soli
ci t
ude,gi vingt hem al ways
his bestt alentand ski l
l,
”but
al
soofAr t.19oft heCi vilCode
whi chr equiresaper son,i nthe
perf ormance ofhi sdut i
es,t o
act wi th j ust i
ce and gi ve
ever yonehi sdue.
(2) I twast hef ault
yi ntubat i
on
on Er li
nda t hat caused her
comat osecondi t
ion.Theri sno
ques t
ion thatEr li
nda became
comat ose af terDr .Gut ierr
ez
perf ormed a medi cal
procedur e on her .Even t he
counsel of Dr . Gut ierr
ez
admi t
tedt ot hef actdur ingt he
oral argument s.
The cyanosi s (bluish
discoloration of t he ski n or

226
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

mucous membr anes caused

byl ackofoxygenorabnor mal
hemogl obini nt hebl ood)and
enlargementoft hest omachof
Er l
i
nda i ndicate t hat t he
endot racheal t ube was
i
mpr oper l
yi nserted i nto t he
esophagus i nstead of t he
traches.Consequent l
y,oxygen
wasdel i
verednott othel ungs
butt othegast r
ointesti
naltract .
This concl usion is suppor t
ed
by t he f actt hatEr l
inda was
placed i
n tr
endel enbar g
position. Thi s i ndicates t hat
therewasadecr easeofbl ood
suppl yt ot he pat i
ent ’
s brai n.
The brain was, t hus,
tempor ari
lydepr ivedofoxygen
suppl y causi ng Er li
nda to go
i
nt ocoma.
227
Ar
t.21
80 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Thei njuryoccur redbypet i

tioner
Erli
nda does not nor mal ly
happenabsentanynegl igenve
in t he admi nistrati
on of
anest hesi aandi nt heuseofan
endot rachealt ube.I n Vossv.
Bridwel d( 364P2d955[ 1961] ),
the Kansas Supr eme Cour t
appl i
edt hedoct rineofr esi psa
loquitur ,r easoni ng t hat t he
inj
ur yt ot hepat ientt her einwas
onewhi chdoesnotor di narily
take pl ace i nthe absence of
negl i
gence in the
admi ni strationofananest hetic,
and i n t he use and
empl oyment of an
endot rachealt ube.The cour t
went t o say: “ Or dinar il
y, a
per son bei ng put under
anest hesi a i s not r ender ed
228
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES Ar
t.21
80

decer
ebr
ateasa

229
 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Ar
t.21
81

consequenceofadmi ni
stering
such anest hesi a i n t he
absenceofnegl igence. ”
(
3) Respondent hos pital’
s
posi t
ion on t his issue i s
mer i
torious. Ther e i s no
empl oyer -empl oyee
relati
onshi p bet ween DLSMC
andDr s.Gut i
errezandHosaka
whi ch woul d hol d DLSMC
solidar i
lyliablef ort he injury
suffer ed by pet iti
onerEr l
i
nda
underAr t
.21 80 oft he Ci vi
l
Code.Mor eover ,t he contract
bet ween t he consul tant i n
respondent hospi taland hi s
pat i
enti ssepar ateanddi sti
nct
from t he cont ract bet ween
respondenthospi t
aland sai d

230
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

patient.
Noevi dencewasadducedt o
showt hatthei nj
ur ysuf-
feredbypet i
ti
onerEr l
indawas
duet of ai
lureont hepar tofthe
respondentDLSMC t opr ovi
de
forhospi talfacili
ti
esand st aff
necessar yforhert reatment .
Apropos t o t he awar d of
damagest opet i
ti
oneri nview
ofthesuper veningeventoft he
former ’
s deat h, t he amount
representing act
ual
(P1,325,000) , mor al and
exempl ary damages,
att
or ney’sfees ,and cost s of
suit shoul d be awar ded t o
petiti
oner.

231
 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Art.21 81.Whoeverpays for

the damages caused by hi s
dependent s oremployees may
recoverf r
om the l
att
erwhathe
has pai d or del i
vered in
sati
sfact
ionofthecl
aim.

COMMENT:
RightofPer
son( WhoPays)to
GetReimbursement
ReasonfortheAr t
icl
e:Aft
erall
,
the person who act uall
y
caused t
he injur
y should be
madetoanswerf orhisf
ault
.

Sar
kiesTour
sPhil.v.
Int
ermediat
eAppel l
ate
Court
GR63723,Sep.2,1 983
I
fasa r esul
tofan acci
denta
touroper
atorandt
heownerof

232
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

theboatusedf orthet ourare

sued,t het ouroper atorhasa
ri
ghtofact i
onagai nsttheboat
ownerf orreimbursement .The
pri
ncipleembodi edinAr t
.2181
of the Ci vi
l Code may be
appli
ed i nf avoroft he t
our
operator .
Ar
ts.21
82-
2184

233
 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Art. 21 82. Ift he mi nor or

i
nsane per son causing damage
hasno par entsorguar dian,the
minorori nsaneper sonshal lbe
answer ablewithhisownpr opert
y
i
nanact ionagai nsthim wherea
guardian ad l i
tem shal l be
appointed.

COMMENT:
WhenaMi nororanI nsane
PersonI
sAnswerableWi t
h
HisOwnProperty
TheArti
cl
eexplai
nsi t
sel
f.

234
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Art.2183.Thepossessorofan
animalorwhoevermaymakeuse
ofthesamei sr esponsibl
eforthe
damage whi ch it may cause,
alt
houghitmayescapeorbel ost
.
This responsibil
i
ty shall cease
onlyincaset hedamageshoul d
comef rom f
or cemaj eureorfr
om
thefaultoftheper sonwhohave
suff
ereddamage.
COMMENT:
Damages Caused
ByAni
mal
s
Def
enses:

(
a) force majeure — as when
t
he t oot
ing ofa carhor n
fri
ghtens a hor se, who
t
her eby i
njur
es and ki
ll
sa
person.(Deri
fasv.Escano,
235
 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

[C.A.
]40 O. G.[ Supp.12]
526).
b) f
( aul
toftheper soninj
ured
NOTE: The l
[ aw does not
mention dil
igence of t he
possessoroftheani malasa
defense.]

236
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Art. 2184. I n mot or vehicle

mi shaps,t he owneri ssol i
daril
y
l
iablewi thhisdr i
ver ,i
fthef ormer,
who was i nt he vehi cle,coul d
have,byt heuseofduedi l
i
gence,
prevented t he mi sfort
une.I ti s
disputablypr esumedt hatadr i
ver
was negl i
gent ,ifhe had been
foundgui l
tyofr ecklessdr i
vingor
violat
ing t r
affic r egulati
ons at
l
east t wice wi thin t he next
precedingt womont hs.
Ifthe ownerwas noti nt he
mot orvehi cle,the pr ovisi
onsof
Articl
e21 80ar eappl i
cable
Ar
t.21
84

COMMENT:
(1)Li
abil
i
tyofOwnerofaMotor
Vehi
cle
Note the di
ff
erence i
n t
he
237
 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

owner’sresponsi
bil
i
tywhenhe
wasi nthevehi e,orwasnot
cl .
I
n a sens e, the owner is
compel l
edt obeani nt
ell
i
gent
“back-seatdri
ver
.”
(
2)Case
Marci
alT.Caedo,etal
.v.
YuKheThai,etal
.
L-20392,Dec.18,1968
FACTS:Mar cialT.Caedo and
the member s of hi sf amil
y
were i nj
ured when t hei
r
Mercury car was hi t on
Highway54byaCadi ll
accar
owned by Yu Khe Thai ,and
dri
ven by the l at
ter
’s dr i
ver
,
RafaelBer
nar do.Accor di
ngt o
thefact
s,t
heacci dentwasdue
to Ber nardo’s t r
ying t o
overakeacar
t r
etel
ainf rontof

238
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

the Cadi ll
ac. Ther e was
theref
or e no quest i
on about
Bernardo’s negl igence. Now
then,woul dt heownerYuKhe
Thaibe hel d sol i
dari
lyl iabl
e
i
nasmuchashewasi nthecar
atthet imeoft hecol l
isi
on?( It
waspr ovedt hatt hedr i
verhad
beendr ivi
ngf orover20year s,
and had no r ecord of an
accident;att he t i
me oft he
coll
isi
on, he was dr ivi
ng at
moder atespeed) .
HELD:Undert hef actsgiven,the
owner had no negl i
gence
eit
herinempl oyingthedr i
ver,
orinsuper vi
singt hedr iverat
or bef ore the t i
me of t he
accident. Hence, he i s not
l
iableatall,muchl esssolidari
ly
l
iable.Itistruet hatunderAr t.
2184 of t he Ci vilCode,“ I
n
239
 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

mot or vehi cl
e mi shaps ,t he
owneri s soli
dar il
yl i
able with
his dr iveri ft he f or mer ,who
wasi nt hevehi cle,coul dhave,
by t he use ofdue di l
igence,
prevent ed themi sfortune.Itis
disput abl y pr esumed t hat a
driverwasnegl igent ,ifhehad
been f ound gui l
tyofr eckless
drivi
ng or vi olating t r
affic
regul ationsatl eastt wicewi t
hin
thepr ecedi ngt womont hs.”
Thebasi soft hemast er’
sl i
abil
it
y
in civill aw i s notr espondeat
super i
or but r ather , t he
relati
onshi p ofpat erf ami l
i
as.
Thet heor yist hatul ti
mat elythe
negl i
gence oft he ser vant,if
known t o t he mast er and
suscept ibl
eoft i
mel y
Ar
ts.21
85-
2186

240
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

corr
ectionbyhi m,r eflectshi s
own negl i
gence i f he f ai
lst o
cor r
ectiti
nor dertopreventi njury
or damage.Ther eis no such
negligence here ast he imput ed
negligence i
s neces saril
y
subjecti
ve—dependi ngi nvar i
ably
on t he car-dri
vi
ng abi l
i
ty oft he
mast erhimsel f
.As a mat t
erof
fact,manycarowner spr ecisely
hie dr
r i
verssincet hef ormerf or
one r eason or anot her cannot
dri
ve t heir car s thems elves.
Hence, t he car e or vi gi
lance
demanded oft hem cannotbe
uniform;each case mustst and
oni t
sown.

241
 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Ar t
.2185.Unlesstherei sproof
tot he contr
ary,itis pr esumed
thata per son drivi
ng a mot or
vehi cl
e hasbeen negl igentifat
thet i
meoft hemi shap,hewas
violati
nganyt raf
ficregulati
on.

COMMENT:
PresumptionofDr
iver’
s
Negli
gence
Thepresumpti
onar i
sesifatt
he
ti
me oft he mi
shap,he was
VI NG any t
OLATI r
affi c
regul
ati
on.
Mikeev.IAC
GR681
02,Jul.16,1
992
UnderAr t
.2185oft heCivi
lCode,
a person dri
ving a vehicl
eis
presumed negl i
genti fatthe
ti
me oft he mishap,he was
vi
olati
nganyt r
afficregul
ati
on.
242
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Ar t
.21 86.Every ownerofa
mot orvehicl
eshallfilewi t
ht he
propergovernmentof fi
ceabond
executed by a gover nment
control
ledcorporat
ionorof fice,
to answerf ordamagest ot hi
rd
persons.Theamountoft hebond
andot herter
msshal lbefixedby
thecompet entpubl
icoffici
al.

COMMENT:
Dut yofOwnerofMot orVehicle
t
oFi l
eaBond
a) F
( ort hepr esent
,the“ proper
gover nmentof fice’’woul d
seem t o be t he Land
Transportati
on Commi ssion
(f
ormer l
yt heMot orVehicles
’
Office).
Ar
ts.21
87-
2189

243
 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

(
b) The GSI S may be cal led
upont otakechar geoft he
“bondi
ng.”
c) On
( ebigprobl em iswhet her
ornotmot orvehi clealr
eady
i
nsured pr ivately agai nst
thi
rdpartyli
abi l
i
ty( damages
tothir
dper sons )woul dst il
l
be covered by t he Arti
cl e.
Perhapsanamendmentcan
bett
er reveal the
Congressi
onal i
ntent.

244
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Ar t
.21 87.Manuf acturer
sand
processorsoff oodstuffs,drinks,
toi
letarti
cles and simil
argoods
shallbeli
ablefordeathori njuri
es
causedbyanynoxi ousorhar mf ul
substances used, al t
hough no
contract
ual r el
ati
on exists
between them and t
he
consumer s.
COMMENT:
Liabi
li
tyofManufact
urers
Notethatli
abi
l
it
yexi st
seveni n
the absence of cont r
act
ual
rel
ati
ons.

245
 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Art
.21 88.Ther eispri
maf acie
presumpt ionofnegl i
genceont he
partoft hedef endantift
hedeat h
or i njury r esults f r
om hi s
possession of dangerous
weaponsorsubst ances,suchas
fir earms and poi son, except
when t he possessi on or use
thereof isi ndispensabl
ei n his
occupat i
onorbusi ness.

COMMENT:
Presumption of Negl i
gence
BecauseofthePossessionof
Dangerous Weapons or
Subst
ances
Notetheexcept
ioni
ndicated
i
nthelaw.

246
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Ar t.2189.Provinces,cit
iesand
muni cipal
iti
es shallbe li
ablef or
damages f ort he deat h of,or
i
njuriessuf f
eredbyanyper sonby
reasonoft hedef ecti
veconditi
on
ofr oads,st r
eets,bridges,public
buil
dings,andot herpubli
cwor ks,
undert heircontr
ol orsupervi
si
on.
Ar
t.21
90

COMMENT:
Li
abi
l
ity of Munici
pal
Subdivi
sions Because of
Defecti
veRoads,Br
idges,Et
c.

(
a) Theliabi
l
it
yi sfortheDEATH
orINJURI ES suffered bya
person (
itwoul d seem that
damagest oproper t
ywoul d
notcomeundert hisArt
icl
e).
b) I
( fa pedest rian fal
lsintoa

247
 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

manhol e i n a ci ty st reet
(Mani la),theSupr emeCour t
has r uled t hat t he Ci t
y
Gover nmentwoul dbel iable
undert hisArti
cl
edespi tet he
factt hatundert heRevi sed
CharterofMani l
a,t he Ci t
y
i
ncur snol i
abil
i
ty.Whi l
et he
Charter of Mani l
a i s a
special l aw i nsofar as
terr
it
or yi sinvolved,st il
lthis
Arti
clei saspeci alprovi sion
i
nsof ar as def ective
condi ti
on ofst reets,et c.i s
concer ned.(Cit
yofMani lav.
Gener oN.Teot ico,L- 23052,
Jan.29,1968) .
Gui
lat
co v. Ci ty of
DagupanandCA
GR61516,Mar.21
,1989
The l
i
abi
l
it
y of publ
i
c
248
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

cor por ati

ons f or damages
ari
si ng f rom i njuri
es suf fered
by pedest r
ians f rom t he
def ect i
ve condi ti
on of r oads
extendst ot hef actthati ti
snot
even necessar y f or such
def ect i
ve r oad or st reet t o
belongt othepr ovi
nce,ci ty,or
muni cipali
ty f or liabil
ity t o
attach.Ar t.21 89onl yr equires
that ei ther cont r
ol or
super visi
on is ex ercised over
thedef ectiver oadorst reet.

249
 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Art.2190.Thepr opriet
orofa
buildi
ng or st ructur
e i
s
responsible for the damages
resulti
ng fr
om itstotalorpart
ial
collapse,i
fitshoul
dbeduet ot
he
l
ackofnecessar yr
epairs.

COMMENT:
Liabil
i
ty of Pr opriet
or i f a
Buildi
ngorSt r
uctureCollapses
TheAr t
icl
eissel
f-explanatory.
Ar
t.21
91

250
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Ar t
.21 91.Pr opr i
etor
sshal lalso
be r esponsi ble f or damages
caused:
(1) By t he expl osion of
machi nery whi ch has notbeen
takencar eofwi thduedi li
gence,
and t he i nfl ammat ion of
expl osivesubst anceswhi chhave
notbeen kepti n a saf e and
adequat eplace;
(2)Byexcessi vesmoke,whi ch
may be har mf ult o persons or
proper ty;
(3) By t he f al
li
ng of t rees
sit
uat edatornearhi ghways,or
l
anes,i f notcaused by f orce
maj eur e;
(4)Byemanat ionsfrom t ubes,
canal s,sewer s or deposi t
s of
i
nf ectious mat ter, const r
uct ed
withoutpr ecaut i
ons suitablet o
251
 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

t
hepl
ace.

COMMENT:
OtherLi abil
it
iesofPr opr i
etor s
ofBui l
dingsorSt r
ucture
a) T
( heAr ti
cl
eenumer atesf our
i
nstances.
b) I
( njuncti
on i s an avai l
able
remedy her e because t he
damagemaybei rreparabl e.
(See Bengzon v.Pr ov.of
Pangasinan, 62 Phi l. 816
and Ollendorf v.
Abrahamson,38Phi l
.585) .

Aust
inHardwareCo. ,Inc.&
Al
l-
SteelProducts,Inc.
v. The Cour t of
Appeal
s,etal.
L-
41754,Feb.27,1976
FACTS: A har
dwar
e busi
ness
252
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

and a f actory f or t he
manuf actureofst eelpr oducts
l
ocat edatNo.1 15L. K.Sant os
St., San Juan, Ri zal , was
order edst oppedbyt heMayor ,
purs uanttoamuni cipal counci
l
resolut i
onf indingsamet obe
nuisancesi nar es i
dent ialzone,
causi ng bot h noi se and ai r
pollution.May t he per mi tfor
thes amebeval idlyrevoked?
HELD:Yes.Thepowert ol i
cense
carries wi thi tt he powert o
revoke i t,eitherf orcause or
uponachangeofpol icy
Ar
ts.21
92-
2194

and l
egisl
ati
on.Moreover
,the
permit vi
olat
ed t
he ex i
sti
ng
ordi
nances.

253
 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

Ar t
.21 92.Ifdamagesr efer
redt o
i
n t he t wo pr ecedi ng ar ti
cles
shouldbet heresultofanydef ect
i
nt heconst r
uctionment ionedi n
Arti
cle 1 723, the t hir
d per son
sufferingdamagesmaypr oceed
only agai nst the engi neer or
architect or cont ractor i n
accor dance wi th sai d ar t
icl
e,
withint heper i
odt her
ei nfixed.

COMMENT:
Rul
e i
fthe Cause I
s a
Const
ruct
ion Def
ect The
Ar
ti
cl
eexpl
ainsi
tsel
f.

Art
.2193.Theheadofaf amil
y
thatli
vesinabui ldi
ng orapart
thereof, is r esponsi
ble for
damages caused by t hi
ngs

254
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

t
hrownorf
all
i
ngf
rom t
hesame.

COMMENT:
Responsibil
it
yforThrownor
Fall
enThings
The Arti
cle can applyt othe
less
ee of a house who
convertss ame into a hot
el.
(SeeDi ngcong v.Kanaan,72
Phil
.14).Notetheli
abi
li
tyoft
he
headoft hefamil
y.

Ar
t.2194.Ther esponsi
bil
i
tyof
t
wo ormor e persons who are
l
i
ableforaquasi-
delicti
ssoli
dar
y.

COMMENT:
(1) Soli
dar
y Liabi
li
ty of Tort-
Feasors
Al
though al
lthose responsi
ble
fora quasi-
deli
ctar e cal
l
ed
255
 CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

j
ointtor
tf
easor
s,thei
rli
abi
l
it
yis
SOLIDARY.(SeeWor cest
erv.
Ocampo,22Phi l
.42)
.

256
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NESAr
t.
21
94

(
2)Cases
Met
ro Manil
a Tr
ansi
t
Cor
p.v.CA
42SCAD538
1993
Wher ethe injuryisdue t othe
concurrentnegl igence ofthe
driver
soft hecolli
dingvehicl
es,
thedr i
ver
sandowner sofsai d
vehicl
es shal l be pr i
maril
y,
direct
lyandsol idari
lyl
iablefor
damagesand i tisimmat eri
al
thatone act i
on is based on
quasi-del
ictand t he otheron
culpacontr act
ual.

Li
ght Rai
l Tr
ansi
t
Author
it
y&Rodolf
o
Romanv.Marj
ori
e
257
 Navi
dad,Heir
softhel
ate
NicanorNavi
dad&
Pr
udent
Securi
tyAgency
GR1
45804,Feb.6,2003
I
SSUE: Can a cont ractual
obli
gationbebr eachedbyt ort
?
HELD:Yes,andwhent hesame
actor omi ssi
on causes t he
i
njury,one r esult
ing i n culpa
contractualandtheot herculpa
acquili
ana,Ar t
.21 94canwel l
apply. ( Air Fr ance v.
Carrascoso,124Phi l.722) .
I
nf ine,a l i
abil
it
yf ort or
tmay
ari
se even undera cont ract,
wher e t or
t i s t hat whi ch
breachest hecont ract .(PSBA
v.CA,205SCRA729) .Stated
di
fferentl
y,whenanactwhi ch
constit
utes a br each of

258
contract woul d have i tsel
f
constit
uted the sour ce of a
quasi-deli
ct liabi
l
ity and no
contractexisted between t he
part
ies,t he contractcan be
sai
dt ohavebeenbr eachedby
tor
t,therebyal l
owingt herules
on tortt o apply.(Cangco v.
Manila Railr
oad,38 Phi l
.768
and Mani la Rai lr
oad v.
Compani a Tr ansatl
antica, 38
Phil
.875) .
CI
VILCODEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES

259