Professional Documents
Culture Documents
For Torts PDF
For Torts PDF
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a
Resolution dated July 3, 2019 which reads asfollows:
~
RESOLUTION 2 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019
Alma went inside Regalos while her children and their nannies
remained in the vehicle. While inside, Alma heard a loud rumbling
and crushing sound as if there was an earthquake. The lady behind
·· ..,.. ' ,.. VAltna:.,excl'aimed that something fell. Upon inquiry by Alma, the lady
speculated that some sort of machine must have fallen from the top of
the building being constructed near Regalos. As Alma headed towards
the exit, she was informed by the security guard of Regalos that her
vehicle was hit. Alma was so shocked she was rendered immobile,
· such that somebody had to push her out of the premises. 6
Terrified, Alma ran towards the vehicle and called out to her
children. She opened the vehicle and heard screams and cries. She
saw that the glass from the vehicle's wind shield broke and Austin
injured. Alma quickly took her children out of the vehicle and ordered
the nannies to disembark as well. She was forced to pull Joy-Ann out
of the vehicle since the latter was petrified and hysterical. 7
- over -
274
6
Id. at 23.
7
Id.
8
Id. at 24.
9
Id.
10
Id. at 26.
~
RESOLUTION 3 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019
tower, and while the first of the two jocks were successfully installed,
the second jack rod fell as it was lifted by the crane when a strong
wind blew and pushed the tower crane to swing towards Regalos. 11
The second jack rod then bumped and bounced on the concrete
parapet wall. Consequently, the lock of the trolley hook unfastened
and the rod fell on the vehicle. YBC submitted a Certification from
the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services
Association (PAG-ASA) stating the wind velocity in the area from 1
p.m. to 4 p.m. of the day of the incident. 12
SO ORDERED. 15
The RTC held that based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur,
YBC was negligent in operating the crane, which led to the falling of
the jack rod. The RTC belied the claim of YBC that the jack rod fell
due to strong winds. While the RTC acknowledged that PAG-ASA
certified the wind velocity on the day of the incident, PAG-ASA did
not state that it was abnormally strong. Further, the RTC found it
baffling that the first jack rod was successfully installed even though
the wind velocity at that time was stronger than when the second jack
- over -
274;
11
Id. at 26-27.
12
Id. at 27.
n Id.
14
Supra note 4.
15 Id. at 151.
~
RESOLUTION 4 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019
rod was installed. The RTC held that in any event, YBC should have
anticipated strong winds since it was operating on top of a building
and taken the necessary precaution to prevent falling objects on the
ground. 16 However, YBC failed to do the same. YBC's negligence
caused respondents "fright, mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded
feelings and shock." 17 In addition, Austin suffered multiple abrasions
on her right leg. The vehicle was also damaged. 18 Hence, the RTC
ordered YBC to pay damages to respondents.
- over -
274,
16
Id. at I 50.
17 Id. at 149-150.
18
Id. at 150.
19
Id.at151.
20
Supra note 2.
21 Id. at 40.
22 Id. at 31
23
Id. at 32.
24
Id. at 33-34.
~
RESOLUTION 5 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019
Both the RTC and the CA held that respondents proved that
they suffered psychological trauma because of the incident. We see no
- over -
274/
25 Id. at 38.
26
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
{l) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in article 309;
(l0)Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this
article, may also recover moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned
in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.
27
Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the
court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule
applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
28
Manila Electric Companyv. Spouses Ramos, G.R. No. 195145, February 10, 2016, 783 SCRA
597,612 citing Rega/av. Carin, G.R. No. 188715, April 6, 2011, 647 SCRA 419, 427-428.
~
RESOLUTION 6 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019
With respect to the second and third requisites, the courts a quo
found that YBC was negligent pursuant to the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur which presumes negligence from the very nature of the
accident itself using common human knowledge or experience." 30 We
also agree with the CA, as records clearly disclose that the
requirements to dispense with expert testimony to sustain an
allegation of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur3 1
obtain here.
First, it is unlikely that a jack rod would not fall from the top of
a building by accident. Second, the jack rod, as well as the crane used
to lift it, was within the exclusive control of YBC. Third, respondents
did not perform any voluntary act which contributed to the injury they
suffered.
- over -
274
29
Rollo, pp. 137-141.
30
Borromeo v. Family Care Hospital, Inc., G.R. No. 191018, January 25, 2016, 781 SCRA 527,
549.
31
(I) The event is of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent;
(2) The cause of the injury was under the exclusive control of the person in charge; and
(3) The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the
part of the person injured. Geromo, et al. v. La Paz Housing and Development Corporation,
G.R. No. 211175, January 18, 2017, 814 SCRA 578, 594.
~
RESOLUTION 7 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019
that she suffered physical injuries. Petitioner explains that the absence
of the physical injuries by respondents removes this case from the
instances envisioned by the relevant laws, and therefore, the fourth
requisite is wanting.
The last requisite for the grant of moral damages provides that
the case must fall under either Article 2219 or 2220 of the Civil Code.
One of the instances under Article 2219 are quasi-delicts causing
physical injuries. We have consistently ruled that moral damages
cannot be recovered if a quasi-delict does not result in physical
injury. 32 We recently reiterated this holding in Coca-Cola Bottlers
Phils. Inc. v. Menez. 33 This limitation is implied from the provisions
of Article 2219. 34
- over -
274.,,
32
See Bagumbayan Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-66274, September 30,
1984, 132 SCRA 441, and Enervida v. De la Torre, G.R. No. L-38037, January 28, 1974, 55
SCRA 339, 347.
33
G.R. No. 209906, November 22, 2017, 846 SCRA 294.
34
Quezon City Government v. Dacra, G.R. No. 150304, June 15, 2005, 460 SCRA 243, 255.
lJ
RESOLUTION 8 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019
- over -
274 /
35
Coca-cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Menez, supra note 33 at 305-306, citations omitted.
36
G.R.No.L-13851,July27, 1960, 109Phil.16.
37
G.R. No. L-4722, December 29, 1954, 96 Phil. 321.
38
Supra note 36 at 20.
39 Id.
40
Supra note 32.
41
Expertravel & Tours, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130030, June 25, 1999, 309 SCRA
141, 146:
In culpa aquiliana, or quasi-delict, (a) when an act or omission causes physical injuries, or (b)
where the defendant is guilty of intentional tort, moral damages may aptly be recovered. This
rule also applies, as aforestated, to contracts when breached by tort.
\J
RESOLUTION 9 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019
In Chicago, R.1 & P. Ry Co. vs. Caple, 179 S.W. 2nd 151, it
was held that where the act is wanton or will.fa/ there may be a
recovery for humiliation and mental suffering without any physical
injury. It was further held that in negligence cases, where there is no
willful or wanton wrong, there can be no recovery for mental
suffering unless there is also physical injury.
to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
45
Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a
criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention, and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence;
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another rot be alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life,
place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
46
Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee
refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for
damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative
action that may be taken.
47 Art. 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor
through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or
highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage.
48 Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt
has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or
omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon
motion of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages
in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall
so declare. In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the
decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.
49 Art. 30. When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising from a
criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil
case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of.
50 Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and
- over -
274 ,1 ~
RESOLUTION 10 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019
- over -
274
~
RESOLUTION 11 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019
xx x Article 21, on the other hand, refers to acts contra bonus mores.
The act is within the article only when it is done willfully. The act is
willful if it is done with knowledge of its injurious effect; it is not
required that the act be done purposely to produce the injury. 56
xxxx
Under Article 2219 of the New Civil Code, moral damages may
be recovered, among others, in acts and actions referred to in Article
21. Moral damages may be awarded in cases referred to in the
chapter on human relations of the Civil Code without need of proof
that the wrongful act complained of had caused any physical injury
upon the complainant. 57
- over -
274 .I
53
G.R. No. 90856, July 23, 1992, 211 SCRA 723.
54
Id. at 731.
55
G.R. No. 174646, August 22, 2012, 678 SCRA 651.
56 Id at 670, citations omitted.
57
Id. at 672.
58
Rollo, p. 88.
59 See Northwest Orient Airlines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83033, June 8, 1990, 186 SCRA
440,446.
~
RESOLUTION 12 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019
- over -
6
° CIVIL CODE, Art. 2231.
61
National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Noble Casionan, G.R. No. 165969, November 27,
2008, 572 SCRA 71, 87.
~
RESOLUTION 13 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019
UR
~if