1. Elcano v.

Hill 77 SCRA 98
Facts:

Respondent Reginald Hill killed the son of the plaintiffs named Agapito Elcano. A criminal
complaint was instituted against him but he was acquitted on the ground that his act was not
criminal, because of lack of intent to kill, couple with mistake. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a
complaint for recovery of damages against defendantReginald Hill, a minor, married at the
time of the occurrence, and his father, the defendant Marvin Hill, with who he was living and
getting subsistence, for the same killing. A motion to dismiss was filed by the defendants. The
Court of First Instanceof Quezon City denied the motion. Nevertheless, the civil case was
finally dismissed upon motion for reconsideration.

Issues:

1. WON the present civil action for damages is barred by the acquittal of Reginald in

the criminal case.

2. WON Article 2180 (2nd and last paragraphs) of the Civil Code may be applied against Atty.
Hill, notwithstanding the undisputed fact that at the time of the occurrence complained of.
Reginald, though a minor, living with and getting subsistence from his father, was already
legally married.

Ruling of the Court:

1. No, the present civil action for damages is not barred by the acquittal of Reginald in
the criminal case. Firstly, there is a distinction as regards the proof required in a criminal
case and a civil case. To find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil case, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to
make the defendant pay in damages. Furthermore, a civil case for damages on the basis of
quasi-delict does is independently instituted from a criminal act. As such the acquittal of
Reginald Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for quasi-delict, hence that
acquittal is not a bar to the instant action against him.

2. Yes, the above mentioned provision may still be applied against Atty Marvin Hill. Although
parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child, emancipation by marriage is
not absolute, i.e. he can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his father,
mother or guardian. As in the present case, killing someone else contemplated judicial
litigation, thus, making Article 2180 apply to Atty. Hill.However, inasmuch as it is evident that
Reginald is now of age, as a matter of equity, the liability of Atty. Hill has become milling,
subsidiary to that of his son.

2. Cangco v. Manila Railroad 38 Phil 768

3. Gregorio v. CA GR No. 179799

Facts:
Respondents Emma J. Datuin (Datuin) and Sansio Philippines, Inc. (Sansio)filed an
affidavit of complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)against petitioner
Zenaida R. Gregorio (Gregorio), a proprietor of Alvi Marketing. Datuinand Sansio claimed
that Gregorio delivered insufficiently funded bank checks as paymentfor appliances Alvi
Marketing bought from Sansio. Gregorio was then indicted for threecounts of violation of
B.P. Blg. 22 before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Branch 3,Manila. The MTC issued
a warrant of arrest and she was subsequently arrested by armedoperatives while visiting
her family house in Quezon City.On December 5, 1997, Gregorio filed before the MTC a
Motion for Deferment of Arraignment and Reinvestigation. She alleged that she could not
have issued the bouncedchecks as she did not have a checking account with the bank on
which the checks weredrawn. This was certified by the manager of the said bank.

Federico|Mendoza,S. Torts Case 1 1

 Gregorio also alleged that thesignature on the bounced checks were radically and
patently different from her ownsignature. The MTC granted the motion, and a
reinvestigation was conducted.Subsequently, the MTC ordered the B.P. Blg. 22 cases
dismissed.On August 18, 2000, Gregorio filed a complaint for damages against Sansio
andDatuin before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Ligao, Albay. Part of
hercomplaint was that as a result of her wrongful arrest and arraignment, she
sufferedhelplessness, hunger and humiliation and being distraught. Datuin and Sansio
meanwhile
filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds that Gregorio’s complaint arose from grounds of
compensation arising from malicious prosecution. On October 10, 2000, the RTC
deniedthis Motion to Dismiss. Sansio and Datuin then filed a Motion for Reconsideration
butwas again denied in January 5, 2001. They went to the Court of Appeals alleging
graveabuse of discretion on the part of the presiding judge of the RTC in denying their
motions to dismiss and for reconsideration. On January 31, 2007, the CA rendered a
Decision
granting the petition and ordering Gregorio’s damage suit to be dismissed.

ISSUE: Are Sansio and Datuin liable for damages to Gregorio?

HELD:
Yes. Among other reasons, the Supreme Court decided
that Gregorio’s rights “
topersonal dignity, personal security, privacy, and peace of mind were infringed by
Sansioand Datuin when they failed to exercise the requisite diligence in determining the
identityof the person they should rightfully accuse of tendering insufficiently funded
checks. . .. Because she was not able to refute the charges against her, petitioner was
falselyindicted for three (3) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Gregorio was conveniently
ather city residence while visiting her family. She suffered embarrassment and
humiliationover her sudden arrest and detention and she had to spend time, effort, and
money to clearher tarnished name and reputation, considering that she had held several
honorablepositions in different organizations and offices in the public service, particularly
herbeing a Kagawad in Oas, Albay at the time of her arrest.

4.
5.Air France v. Carrascoso 18 SCRA 185
Facts:
In March 1958, Rafael Carrascoso and several other Filipinos were tourists en route to Rome
from Manila. Carrascoso was issued a first class round trip ticket by Air France. But during a
stop-over in Bangkok, he was asked by the plane manager of Air France to vacate his seat
because a white man allegedly has a “better right” than him. Carrascoso protested but when
things got heated and upon advise of other Filipinos on board, Carrascoso gave up his seat
and was transferred to the plane’s tourist class.
After their tourist trip when Carrascoso was already in the Philippines, he sued Air France for
damages for the embarrassment he suffered during his trip. In court, Carrascoso testified,
among others, that he when he was forced to take the tourist class, he went to the plane’s
pantry where he was approached by a plane purser who told him that he noted in the plane’s
journal the following:
First-class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will,
and that the captain refused to intervene
The said testimony was admitted in favor of Carrascoso. The trial court eventually awarded
damages in favor of Carrascoso. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Air France is assailing the decision of the trial court and the CA. It avers that the issuance of a
first class ticket to Carrascoso was not an assurance that he will be seated in first class
because allegedly  in truth and in fact, that was not the true intent between the parties.
Air France also questioned the admissibility of Carrascoso’s testimony regarding the note
made by the purser because the said note was never presented in court.
ISSUE 1: Whether or not Air France is liable for damages and on what basis.

Federico|Mendoza,S. Torts Case 1 2

ISSUE 2: Whether or not the testimony of Carrasoso regarding the note which was not
presented in court is admissible in evidence.
HELD 1: Yes. It appears that Air France’s liability is based on culpa-contractual and on culpa
aquiliana.
Culpa Contractual
There exists a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso. There was a contract
to furnish Carrasocoso a first class passage; Second, That said contract was breached when
Air France failed to furnish first class transportation at Bangkok; and Third, that there was bad
faith when Air France’s employee compelled Carrascoso to leave his first class
accommodation berth “after he was already, seated” and to take a seat in the tourist class, by
reason of which he suffered inconvenience, embarrassments and humiliations, thereby
causing him mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social humiliation,
resulting in moral damages.
The Supreme Court did not give credence to Air France’s claim that the issuance of a first
class ticket to a passenger is not an assurance that he will be given a first class seat. Such
claim is simply incredible.
Culpa Aquiliana
Here, the SC ruled, even though there is a contract of carriage between Air France and
Carrascoso, there is also a tortuous act based on culpa aquiliana. Passengers do not contract
merely for transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carrier’s employees with
kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against
personal misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses from such employees. So it
is, that any rule or discourteous conduct on the part of employees towards a passenger gives
the latter an action for damages against the carrier. Air France’s contract with Carrascoso is
one attended with public duty. The stress of Carrascoso’s action is placed upon his wrongful
expulsion. This is a violation of public duty by the Air France — a case of quasi-delict.
Damages are proper.
HELD: 2: Yes. The testimony of Carrascoso must be admitted based on res gestae. The
subject of inquiry is not the entry, but the ouster incident. Testimony on the entry does not
come within the proscription of the best evidence rule. Such testimony is admissible. Besides,
when the dialogue between Carrascoso and the purser happened, the impact of the startling
occurrence was still fresh and continued to be felt. The excitement had not as yet died down.
Statements then, in this environment, are admissible as part of the res gestae. The utterance
of the purser regarding his entry in the notebook was spontaneous, and related to the
circumstances of the ouster incident. Its trustworthiness has been guaranteed. It thus
escapes the operation of the hearsay rule. It forms part of the res gestae.

6.
7. Equitable Leasing v. Suyom GR No. 143360
Facts:
On July 17, 1994, a Fuso Road Tractor driven by Raul Tutor rammed into the house
cum  store of Myrna Tamayo in Tondo, Manila. A portion of the house was destroyed which
caused death and injury. Tutor was charged with and later convicted of reckless imprudence
resulting in multiple homicide and multiple physical injuries.

Upon verification with the Land Transportation Office, it was known that the registered owner
of the tractor was Equitable Leasing Corporation/leased to Edwin Lim. On April 15, 1995,
respondents filed against Raul Tutor, Ecatine Corporation (Ecatine) and Equitable Leasing
Corporation (Equitable) a Complaint for damages.

The petitioner alleged that the vehicle had already been sold to Ecatine and that the former
was no longer in possession and control thereof at the time of the incident. It also claimed that
Tutor was an employee, not of Equitable, but of Ecatine.

Federico|Mendoza,S. Torts Case 1 3

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner was liable for damages based on quasi delict for the negligent
acts.

Held:
The Lease Agreement between petitioner and Edwin Lim stipulated that it is the intention of
the parties to enter into a finance lease agreement. Ownership of the subject tractor was to be
registered in the name of petitioner, until the value of the vehicle has been fully paid by Edwin
Lim.

Lim completed the payments to cover the full price of the tractor. Thus, a Deed of Sale over
the tractor was executed by petitioner in favor of Ecatine represented by Edwin Lim. However,
the Deed was not registered with the LTO.

Petitioner is liable for the deaths and the injuries complained of, because it was the registered
owner of the tractor at the time of the accident.The Court has consistently ruled that,
regardless of sales made of a motor vehicle, the registered owner is the lawful operator
insofar as the public and third persons are concerned.

Since Equitable remained the registered owner of the tractor, it could not escape primary
liability for the deaths and the injuries arising from the negligence of the driver.

8.
9.Barredo and Garcia v. Almario GR No. 48006
Facts:
ACTS:
At about half past one in the morning of May 3, 1936, on the road between Malabon and
Navotas, Province of Rizal, there was a head- on collision between a taxi of the Malate
Taxicab driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a carretela guided by Pedro Dimapalis. The carretela
was overturned, and one of its passengers, 16-year-old boy Faustino Garcia, suffered injuries
from which he died two days later. A criminal action was filed against Fontanilla in the Court
of First Instance of Rizal. 

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS (CRIMINAL CASE):

1. CFI- Rizal – Fontanilla was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one
year and one day to two years of prision correccional. The court in the criminal case granted
the petition that the right to bring a separate civil action be reserved.
2. CA: affirmed the sentence of the lower court in the criminal case. 
Severino Garcia and Timotea Almario, parents of the deceased on March 7, 1939, brought an
action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Fausto Barredo as the sole proprietor of
the Malate Taxicab and employer of Pedro Fontanilla. 

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS (CIVIL CASE):

1. CFI – Manila: Fausto Barredo is liable in damages for the death of Faustino Garcia caused
by negligence of Pedro Fontanilla, a taxi driver employed by Barredo in the amount of 2,000.
2. CA: reduced the damages to 1,000. 

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action against Fausto Barredo, thus
making him primarily and directly, responsible under article 1903 of the Civil Code as an
employer of Pedro thus making him primarily and directly, responsible under article 1903 of
the Civil Code as an employer of Pedro Fontanilla 

RULING:
Yes.
The responsibility in question is imposed on the occasion of a crime or fault, but not because
of the same, but because of the cuasi- delito, that is to say, the imprudence or negligence of
the father, guardian, proprietor or manager of the establishment, of the teacher, etc.
Whenever anyone of the persons enumerated in the article referred to (minors, incapacitated

Federico|Mendoza,S. Torts Case 1 4

persons, employees, apprentices) causes any damage, the law presumes that the father,
guardian, teacher, etc. have committed an act of negligence in not preventing or avoiding the
damage. It is this fault that is condemned by the law.
One is not responsible for the acts of others, because one is liable only for his own faults, this
being the doctrine of article 1902; but, by exception, one is liable for the acts of those persons
with whom there is a bond or tie which gives rise to the responsibility. 

Crimes under penal code

1. affect public interest
2. Penal Code punishes or corrects the criminal act
3. not as broad as quasi-delicts because crimes are punished only if there is a penal law
clearly covering them
4. proof beyond reasonable doubt is required

Culpa aquiliana / Cuasi-delito

1. Only of private concern

2. Civil Code, by means of indemnification, merely repairs the damage (includes both reckless
and simple negligence)
3. include all acts in which “any kind of fault or negligence intervenes”
when there is exercise of the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption
is overcome and he is relieved from liability.
4. only preponderance of evidence is required

Note: not all violations of the penal law produce civil responsibility.

The action against the principal is accessory in the sense that it implies the existence of a
prejudicial act committed by the employee, but it is not subsidiary in the sense that it can not
be instituted till after the judgment against the author of the act or at least, that it is subsidiary
to the principal action; the action for responsibility (of the employer) is in itself a principal
action. (Laurent, Principles of French Civil Law) The basis of civil law liability is
not respondent superior  but the relationship of pater familias. This theory bases the liability of
the master ultimately on his own negligence and not on that of his servant. A quasi-
delict  or culpa extra-contractual is a separate and distinct legal institution,
independent from the civil responsibility arising from criminal liability, and that an
employer is, under article 1903 of the Civil Code, primarily and directly responsible for
the negligent acts of his employee. 

Thus, there were two liabilities of Barredo: first, the subsidiary one because of the civil liability
of the taxi driver arising from the latter's criminal negligence; and, second, Barredo's primary
liability as an employer under article 1903. The plaintiffs were free to choose which course to
take, and they preferred the second remedy. In so doing, they were acting within their rights.
It might be observed in passing, that the plaintiff choose the more expeditious and effective
method of relief, because Fontanilla was either in prison, or had just been released, and
besides, he was probably without property which might be seized in enforcing any judgment
against him for damages. 
Section 1902 of that chapter reads: "A person who by an act or omission causes damage to
another when there is fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the damage so done.
"SEC. 1903. The obligation imposed by the preceeding article is demandable, not only for
personal acts and omissions, but also for those of the persons for whom they should be
responsible. 
"The father, and on his death or incapacity, the mother, is liable for the damages caused by
the minors who live with them.
xxx xxx xxx "Owners or directors of an establishment or enterprise are equally liable for the
damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter may be
employed or in the performance of their duties. xxx xxx xxx

Federico|Mendoza,S. Torts Case 1 5

"The liability referred to in this article shall cease when the persons mentioned therein prove
that they employed all the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damage." 

the same act of negligence being a proper subject-matter either of a criminal action
with its consequent civil liability arising from a crime or of an entirely separate and
independent civil action for fault or negligence under article 1902 of the Civil Code.
Thus, in this jurisdiction, the separate individually of a cuasi-delito or culpa
aquiliana under the Civil Code has been fully and clearly recognized, even with regard
to a negligent act for which the wrongdoer could have been prosecuted and convicted
in a criminal case and for which, after such a conviction, he could have been sued for
this civil liability arising from his crime. 

10.
11.People v. Ramirez GR No. L-24084
Facts:
The appellant was sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, for the crime of
homicide, to the penalty of fourteen years eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, to
indemnify the mother of the deceased in the sum of P500 and to pay the costs. On the night
of February 18, 1923, one Bartolome Quiaoit invited Pedro Ramirez, the accused herein,
Victoriano Ranga, the deceased, and Agustin Menor to hunt in the mount Balitok of the
municipality of Nueva Era, Province of Ilocos Norte. The three last named proceeded to hunt,
leaving Bartolome Quiaoit in a hut approximately 1 kilometer from the place where the act
complained of took place. Upon the hunters having arrived at a place in mount Balitok,
Pedro Ramirez, who was carrying the shotgun of Bartolome Quiaoit with a lantern, happened
to hunt a deer, and then he told his companions to stay there and watch over the prey while
he entered the forest to get it. Thus Victoriano Ranga and Agustin Menor were waiting when
suddenly the report of the shotgun was heard hitting Victoriano Ranga in the eye and the right
temple, who thereafter died on that night as a result of the wounds.||| 

Issue:
WON Pedro Ramirez (accused) is liable for the death of Victoriano Ranga

Held:
While the fact that the defendant, a few days after the event, has offered to the
mother of the deceased a carabao and a horse by way of indemnity, indicates on the one
hand that the defendant admitted the commission of the crime, on the other it shows that
he performed the act without criminal intent and only through a real imprudence.
The defense alleges that the trial court must have solved the reasonable doubt in
favor of the defendant. After considering carefully the evidence and all the circumstances
of the case, we are of the opinion and so hold that the defendant is guilty of the crime of
homicide through reckless imprudence, and must be punished under paragraph 1 of
article 568 of the Penal Code.
|Where it appears that the accused killed the deceased while hunting at night by
shooting him in the belief that he was a deer, after having left the deceased, who was
his companion, at another place, he cannot be convicted of the crime of homicide, no
proof having been introduced as to the existence of enmity between them, but of
homicide through reckless imprudence, since he has not exercised due diligence to
avoid the accident.

12.
13.Manila Electric Co. V. Remoquillo 99 Phil 117
Facts:
On August 22, 1950, Efren Magno went to the 3-story house of Antonio Peñaloza, his
stepbrother, located on Rodriguez Lanuza street, Manila, to repair a "media agua" said to be
in a leaking condition. The "media agua" was just below the window of the third story.
Standing on said "media agua", Magno received from his son thru that window a 3' X 6'
galvanized iron sheet to cover the leaking portion, turned around and in doing so the lower
end of the iron sheet came into contact with the electricwire of the Manila Electric Company

Federico|Mendoza,S. Torts Case 1 6

(later referred to as the Company) strung parallel to the edge of the "media agua" and 2 1/2
feet from it, causing his death by electrocution. His widow and children fled suit to recover
damages from the company. After hearing, the trial court rendered judgment in their favor —
P10,000 as compensatory damages; P784 as actual damages; P2,000 as moral and
exemplary damages; and P3,000 as attorney's fees, with costs. On appeal to the Court of
Appeals, the latter affirmed the judgment with slight modification by reducing the attorney's
fees from P3,000 to P1,000 with costs. The electric company has appealed said decision to
us.||| 

Issue: WON the Manila Electric Company is liable for the death of Magno

Held: No
After a careful study and discussion of the case and the circumstances surrounding the same,
we are inclined to agree to the contention of petitioner Company that the death of Magno was
primarily caused by his own negligence and in some measure by the too close proximity of
the "media agua" or rather its edge to the electric wire of the company by reason of the
violation of the original permit given by the city and the subsequent approval of said illegal
construction of the "media agua". ||| We realize that the presence of the wires in question
quite close to the house or its "media agua" was always a source of danger considering their
high voltage and uninsulated as they were, but the claim of the company and the reasons
given by it for not insulating said wires were unrefuted as we gather from the findings of the
Court of Appeals, and so we have to accept them as satisfactory. ||| 
To us it is clear that the principal and proximate cause of the electrocution was not
the electric wire, evidently a remote cause, but rather the reckless and negligent act of
Magno in turning around and swinging the galvanized iron sheet without taking any
precaution, such as looking back toward the street and at the wire to avoid its contacting
said iron sheet, considering the latter's length of 6 feet. For a better understanding of the
rule on remote and proximate cause with respect to injuries, we find the following citation
helpful:
"A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action if
such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise
to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there intervened
between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive,
unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would
not have happened but for such condition or occasion. If no danger existed
in the condition except because of the independent cause, such condition
was not the proximate cause. And if an independent negligent act or
defective condition sets into operation the circumstances which result in
injury because of the prior defective condition, such subsequent act or
condition is the proximate cause." (45 C. J. pp. 931-332.).
|||Where it is shown that the death of the deceased was primarily caused by his own
negligence, the company could not be held guilty of negligence or as lacking in due
diligence. To hold the latter liable in damages for the death of the deceased, such
supposed negligence of the company must have been the proximate and principal
cause of the accident. But in the case at bar, the act of the deceased in turning around
and swinging the galvanized iron sheet with his hands was the proximate and principal
cause of the electrocution, therefore his heirs cannot recover.|||

14.
15. Taylor v. Manila Electric Railroad 16 Phil 8
Facts:
David Taylor was a 15 year old boy who spent time as a cabin boy at sea; he was also able to
learn some principles of mechanical engineering and mechanical drawing from his dad’s
office (his dad was a mechanical engineer); he was also employed as a mechanical
draftsman earning P2.50 a day – all said, Taylor was mature well beyond his age.
One day in 1905, he and another boy entered into the premises of Manila Electric power plant
where they found 20-30 blasting caps which they took home. In an effort to explode the said

Federico|Mendoza,S. Torts Case 1 7

caps, Taylor experimented until he succeeded in opening the caps and then he lighted it
using a match which resulted to the explosion of the caps causing severe injuries to his
companion and to Taylor losing one eye.
Taylor sued Manila Electric alleging that because the company left the caps exposed to
children, they are liable for damages due to the company’s negligence.
ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Electric is liable for damages.
HELD: No. The SC reiterated the elements of quasi delict as follows:
(1)  Damages to the plaintiff.
(2)  Negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally, or some person for whose
acts it must respond, was guilty.
(3)  The connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the damage.
In the case at bar, it is true that Manila Electric has been negligent in disposing off the caps
which they used for the power plant, and that said caps caused damages to Taylor. However,
the causal connection between the company’s negligence and the injuries sustained by
Taylor is absent. It is in fact the direct acts of Taylor which led to the explosion of the caps as
he even, in various experiments and in multiple attempts, tried to explode the caps. It is from
said acts that led to the explosion and hence the injuries.
Taylor at the time of the accident was well-grown youth of 15, more mature both mentally and
physically than the average boy of his age; he had been to sea as a cabin boy; was able to
earn P2.50 a day as a mechanical draftsman thirty days after the injury was incurred; and the
record discloses throughout that he was exceptionally well qualified to take care. The
evidence of record leaves no room for doubt that he well knew the explosive character of the
cap with which he was amusing himself. The series of experiments made by him in his
attempt to produce an explosion admit of no other explanation. His attempt to discharge the
cap by the use of electricity, followed by his efforts to explode it with a stone or a hammer,
and the final success of his endeavors brought about by the applications of a match to the
contents of the cap, show clearly that he knew what he was about. Nor can there be any
reasonable doubt that he had reason to anticipate that the explosion might be dangerous.
“The just thing is that a man should suffer the damage which comes to him through his own
fault, and that he cannot demand reparation therefor from another.”
16.
16. Ylarde v. Aquino 163 SCRA 679
Facts:
Private respondent Mariano Soriano was the principal of the Gabaldon Primary School in
Pangasinan. Defendant Edgardo Aquino was a teacher therein. During that time, the school
had several concrete blocks which were remnants of the old school shop destroyed in World
War II. Defendant decided to help clear the area so he gathered 18 of his male students and
ordered them to dig beside a one ton concrete block in making a hole where the stone can be
buried. It was left unfinished so the following day he called 4 of the 18 students including the
Novelito Ylarde to complete the excavation. Defendant left the children to level the loose soil
while he went to see Banez for the key to the school workroom where he can get some rope.
It was alleged that before leaving, he told the children “not to touch the stone”. After he left,
the children playfully jumped into the pit when suddenly the concrete block slide down.
Unfortunately, Novelito Ylarde was pinned to the wall causing serious physical injuries which
as a consequence led to his death, 3 days thereafter. The parents of the victim, herein
petitioners, filed a suit for damages against both Aquino and Soriano.

ISSUE: WON both Soriano and Aquino can be held liable for damages.

HELD:

As held in Amadora vs CA, “it is only the teacher and not the head of an academic school
who should be answerable for torts committed by their students”. Where the school is
academic rather than technical or vocational in nature, responsibility for the tort committed by
the student will attach to the teacher in charge of such student, this is the general rule.

Federico|Mendoza,S. Torts Case 1 8

However, in casea of establishments of arts and trades, it is the head thereof, and only he,
who shall be held liable as an exception to the general rule. In other words, teachers in
general shall be liable for the acts of their students except where the school is technical in
nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable. Hence, Soriano as
principal cannot be held liable for the reason that the school he heads is an academic school
and he did not give any instruction regarding the digging.

A teacher who stands in loco parentis to his tudents should make sure that the children are
protected from all harm. The excavation instructed clearly exposed the students to risk and
should not be placed under the category of Work Education such as school gardening,
planting trees etc. Aquino acted with fault and gross negligence where instead of availing
himself of adult manual laborers he instead utilized his students. Furthermore, the warning
given is not sufficient to cast away all serious danger that the concrete block adjacent to the
excavation would present to the children. He is therefore ordered to pay damages to the
petitioners.

18.
19.United States v. Bonifacio 34 Phil 65
Facts:
On the 31st of October, 1913, Eligio Castillo, a deaf-mute, was run down and
killed, while attempting to cross the railroad track in the barrio of Santa Rita, Batangas, by
an engine on which the accused was employed as engineer. The deaf-mute stepped out
on the track from an adjoining field shortly before the accident, walked along one side of
the track for some little distance and was killed as the attempted, for some unknown
reason, to cross over to the other side.
When the accused engineer first saw the deceased, he was walking near the
track, in the same direction as that in which the train was running. The train, a heavy
freight train, had just rounded a curve, and the man in front was about 175 meters ahead
of the engine. The engineer immediately blew his whistle twice, and noticing, a few
moments afterwards, that the man in front did not respond to the warning by stepping
aside from the track, he tried to slow down the engine, but did not succeed in stopping in
time to avoid running down the pedestrian. He did not attempt to stop his engine when he
first saw the walking along the side of the track; but he claims that he did all in his power
to slow down a few moments afterwards, that is to say after he had blown his whistle
without apparently attracting the attention of the pedestrian, who, about that time, turned
and attempted to cross the track.
The only evidence as to the rate of speed at which the train was running at the
time of the accident was the testimony of the accused himself, who said that his indicator
showed that he was travelling at the rate of 35 kilometers an hour, the maximum speed
permitted under the railroad regulations for freight trains on that road.

Issue: WON Antonio Bonifacio will be held liable

Held:
NO. The judgment convicting and sentencing the appellant in this case should be reversed,
and the accused acquitted of the offense with which he is charged in the information, and his
bail bond exonerated, with the costs of both instances de officio. So ordered.|

There is no obligation on an engine driver to stop, or even to slow down his engine, when he
sees an adult pedestrian standing or walking on or near the track, unless there is something
in the appearance or conduct of the person on foot which would cause a prudent man to
anticipate the possibility that such person could not, or would not avoid the possibility of
danger by stepping aside. Ordinarily, all that may properly be required of an engine driver
under such circumstances is that he give warning of his approach, by blowing his whistle or
ringing his bell, until he is assured that the attention of the pedestrian has been attracted by
the oncoming train||. Nevertheless, it is the duty of an engine driver to adopt every measure in
his power to avoid the infliction of injury upon any person who may happen to be the track in
front of his engine, and to slow or stop altogether if that be necessary, should he have reason

Federico|Mendoza,S. Torts Case 1 9

to believe that only by doing so can an accident be averted.||| 
But an engine driver may fairly assume that all persons walking or standing on or near the
railroad track, except children of tender years, are aware of the danger to which they are
exposed, and that they will take reasonable precautions to avoid accident, by looking and
listening for the approach of trains, and stepping out of the way of danger when their attention
is directed to an oncoming train.|||
Not in every case in which one accidentally injuries or kills another is he criminally liable
therefor under the provisions of article 568 of the Criminal Code, even if at the time of the
accident he happens to be guilty of a violation of some regulation. The injury or death must
have resulted from some "imprudence or negligence" on his part. If it appears that the injury
in no wise resulted from the violation of the regulations, or the negligent conduct of the
accused, he incurs no criminal liability under the provisions of this article.
Although a presumption of negligence frequently arises from the very fact that an accident
occurred at the time when the accused was violating a regulation, especially if the
regulation has for its object the avoidance of such accident, this presumption may be
rebutted in criminal as well as in civil cases by competent evidence.

20.
21. Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping Agency Corp. v. Borja, G.R. No. 143008, [June 10, 2002],
432 PHIL 913-926

Facts: "It appears that on September 23, 1987, Smith Bell [herein petitioner] filed a written
request with the Bureau of Customs for the attendance of the latter's inspection team on
vessel M/T King Family which was due to arrive at the port of Manila on September 24, 1987.

"Said vessel contained 750 metric tons of alkyl benzene and methyl methacrylate monomer.

"On the same day, Supervising Customs Inspector Manuel Ma. D. Nalgan instructed
[Respondent Catalino Borja] to board said vessel and perform his duties as inspector upon
the vessel's arrival until its departure. At that time, [Borja] was a customs inspector of the
Bureau of Customs receiving a salary of P31,188.25 per annum.

"At about 11 o'clock in the morning on September 24, 1987, while M/T King Family was
unloading chemicals unto two (2) barges [—] ITTC 101 and CLC-1002 [—] owned by
[Respondent] ITTC, a sudden explosion occurred setting the vessels afire. Upon hearing the
explosion, [Borja], who was at that time inside the cabin preparing reports, ran outside to
check what happened. Again, another explosion was heard.

"Seeing the fire and fearing for his life, [Borja] hurriedly jumped over board to save himself.
However, the [water] [was] likewise on fire due mainly to the spilled chemicals. Despite the
tremendous heat, [Borja] swam his way for one (1) hour until he was rescued by the people
living in the squatters' area and sent to San Juan De Dios Hospital.

"After weeks of intensive care at the hospital, his attending physician diagnosed [Borja] to be
permanently disabled due to the incident. [Borja] made demands against Smith Bell and ITTC
for the damages caused by the explosion. However, both denied liabilities and attributed to
each other negligence."

Issue: Who, if any, is liable for Borja’s injuries?

Held: Smith Bell is liable. Both RTC and CA ruled that the fire and explosion originated from
Smith Bell’s vessel. (As
supported by the testimonies of the eyewitnesses and the investigation conducted by the
Special Board of Marine Inquiry and affirmed by the secretary of the Dept. of National
Defense.) Negligence is conduct that creates undue risk of harm to another.
It is the failure to observe that degree of care, precaution and vigilance that the circumstances
justly demand, whereby that other person suffers injury.

Federico|Mendoza,S. Torts Case 1 10

 Smith Bell's vessel was carrying chemical cargo. While knowing that their vessel was
carrying dangerous inflammable chemicals, its officers and crew failed to take all the
necessary precautions to prevent an accident. Smith Bell was, therefore, negligent. The
three elements of quasi-delict are:
(a) damages suffered by the plaintiff,
(b) fault or negligence of the defendant, and
(c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and
the damages inflicted on the plaintiff.

All these elements were established in this case.

Knowing fully well that it was carrying dangerous chemicals, Smith Bell was negligent in not
taking all the necessary precautions in transporting the cargo. As a result of the fire and the
explosion during the unloading of the chemicals from the vessel, Borja suffered damages and
injuries. Hence, the owner or the person in possession and control of a vessel and the vessel
are liable for all natural and proximate damage caused to persons and property by reason of
negligent management or navigation.
SC awarded: loss of earning capacity; moral damages and attorney’s fees under the Civil
Code’s Article 2219, par. 2, and Article 2208, par. 11, respectively

Federico|Mendoza,S. Torts Case 1 11