1st Case

PNR VS ETHEL BRUNTY

Facts:

Rhonda Brunty, daughter of respondent Ethel Brunty and an American citizen, came to the Philippines
for a visit sometime in January 1980. Prior to her departure, she, together with her Filipino host Juan
Manuel M. Garcia, traveled to Baguio City on board a Mercedes Benz sedan with plate number FU 799,
driven by Rodolfo L. Mercelita. It was about 12:00 midnight, January 25, 1980. By then, PNR Train No. T-
71, driven by Alfonso Reyes, was on its way to Tutuban, Metro Manila as it had left the La Union station
at 11:00 p.m., January 24, 1980.

By 2:00 a.m., Rhonda Brunty, Garcia and Mercelita were already approaching the railroad crossing at
Barangay Rizal, Moncada, Tarlac. Mercelita, driving at approximately 70 km/hr, drove past a vehicle,
unaware of the railroad track up ahead and that they were about to collide with PNR Train No. T-71.
Mercelita was instantly killed when the Mercedes Benz smashed into the train; the two other
passengers suffered serious physical injuries. A certain James Harrow brought Rhonda Brunty to the
Central Luzon Doctor’s Hospital in Tarlac, where she was pronounced dead after ten minutes from
arrival. Garcia, who had suffered severe head injuries, was brought via ambulance to the same hospital.
He was transferred to the Manila Doctor’s Hospital, and later to the Makati Medical Center for further
treatment.

Ethel Brunty filed a complaint for damages against the PNR before the RTC of Manila. The case was
raffled to Branch 20 and was docketed as Civil Case No. 83-18645. They alleged that the death of
Mercelita and Rhonda Brunty, as well as the physical injuries suffered by Garcia, were the direct and
proximate result of the gross and reckless negligence of PNR in not providing the necessary equipment
at the railroad crossing in Barangay Rizal, Municipality of Moncada, Tarlac. They pointed out that there
was no flagbar or red light signal to warn motorists who were about to cross the railroad track, and that
the flagman or switchman was only equipped with a hand flashlight. The Court of Manila ruled in favor
of Brunty and the CA affirmed the ruling of the court of first instance, hence this petition for review.

Issue: Whether Brunty and Mercelita has contributory negligence barring them for claiming damages.

(culpa aquiliana).

Holding:

No.Considering the circumstances prevailing at the time of the fatal accident, it ruled that the alleged
safety measures installed by the PNR at the railroad crossing were not merely inadequate – they did not
satisfy the well-settled safety standards in transportation. However, we do not agree with the RTC’s
findings on the contributory negligence of Mercelita, the driver of the Mercedes Benz. It held that
Mercelita could not have foreseen the harm that would befall him and the two other passengers under
the prevailing circumstances, thus, could not be considered guilty of contributory negligence.

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations
which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a
prudent and reasonable man would not do.In Corliss v. Manila Railroad Company,this Court held that
negligence is want of the care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, not an
absolute, term and its application depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and
vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require.In determining whether or not there is negligence
on the part of the parties in a given situation, jurisprudence has laid down the following test: Did
defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily
prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, the person is guilty of negligence. The
law, in effect, adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet
pater familias of the Roman law.

Article 2176. Whoever, by act or omission, causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

In a long line of cases, the Court held that in order to sustain a claim based on quasi-delict, the following
requisites must concur: (1) damage to plaintiff; (2) negligence, by act or omission, of which defendant,
or some person for whose acts he must respond was guilty; and (3) connection of cause and effect
between such negligence and damage.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 15, 2005 is
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. The award of actual damages is deleted, and in lieu thereof,
temperate damages of P25,000.00 is awarded to the heirs of Rhonda Brunty. The award of moral
damages is reduced to P500,000.00

2nd Case

PNR v. CA G.R.No.157658

In the early afternoon of April 27, 1992, JoseAmores (Amores) was traversing the railroad
tracksin KahilumIIStreet,Pandacan, Manila. Beforecrossing the railroad track, he stopped for a
whilethen proceeded accordingly.Unfortunately, just asAmores was at the intersection, a
Philippine NationalRailways (PNR) train with locomotive number T-517turned up and collided
with the car.At the time of themishap, there was neither a signal nor a crossing barat the
intersection to warn motorists of anapproaching train. Aside from the railroad track, theonly
visible warning sign at that time was thedefective standard signboard STOP, LOOK andLISTEN
wherein the sign Listen was lacking while thatof Look was bent. No whistle blow from the train
waslikewise heard before it finally bumped the car ofAmores. After impact, the car was dragged
about ten(10) meters beyond the center of the crossing.Amoresdied as a consequence thereof.
The RTC of Manilathen decided that Amores was the proximate cause ofthe mishap, that fatal
misjudgment and the recklesscourse of action he took in crossing the railroad trackeven after
seeing or hearing the oncoming train. Hisdeath was his own carelessness and negligence,
andAmores wantonly disregarded traffic rules andregulations in crossing the railroad tracks and
tryingto beat the approaching train and the family of thedeceased, consisting of his surviving
wife and sixchildren, herein respondents who filed a Complaint forDamages in the RTC, were
not awarded.

ISSUE:Whether or not PNR and Borja should be held liable for the death of Amores

HELD: It is settled that every person or motorist crossing a railroad track should use ordinary
prudence and alertness to determine the proximity of a train before attempting to cross. We are
persuaded that the circumstances were beyond the control of Amores for no person would sacrifice
his precious life if he had the slightest opportunity to evade the catastrophe. Besides, the authority in
this jurisdiction is that the failure of a railroad company to install a semaphore or at the very least, to
post a flagman or watchman to warn the public of the passing train amounts to negligence

We will now discuss the liability of petitioner PNR. Article 218020 of the New Civil Code discusses the
liability of the employer once negligence or fault on the part of the employee has been established.
The employer is actually liable on the assumption of juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise
diligentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision of its employees. The liability is primary
and can only be negated by showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee,
a factual matter that has not been demonstrated.21 Even the existence of hiring procedures and
supervisory employees cannot be incidentally invoked to overturn the presumption of negligence on
the part of the employer.

the petition is DENIED.

3rd Case

Corinthian Gardens vs Sps. Tanjangcos

Facts:

Reynaldo and Maria Luisa Tanjangco (the Tanjangcos) own Lots 68 and 69 covered by Transfer
Certificates of Title (TCT) No. 242245 and 282961 respectively, located at Corinthian Gardens
Subdivision, Quezon City, which is managed by petitioner Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc.
(Corinthian).On the other hand, respondents-spouses Frank and Teresita Cuaso (the Cuasos) own Lot 65
which is adjacent to the Tanjangcos lots.

Before the Cuasos constructed their house on Lot 65, a relocation survey was necessary. As Geodetic
Engineer Democrito De Dios (Engr. De Dios), operating under the business name D.M. De Dios Realty
and Surveying, conducted all the previous surveys for the subdivision's developer, Corinthian referred
Engr. De Dios to the Cuasos. Before, during and after the construction of the said house, Corinthian
conducted periodic ocular inspections in order to determine compliance with the approved plans
pursuant to the Manual of Rules and Regulations of Corinthian.[6] Unfortunately, after the Cuasos
constructed their house employing the services of C.B. Paraz & Construction Co., Inc. (C.B. Paraz) as
builder, their perimeter fence encroached on the Tanjangcos Lot 69 by 87 square meters. The RTC ruled
in favor of Tanjangcos and the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.Hence this petition for review.

Issue:

Whether Corinthian was negligent under the circumstances and such negligence contributed to the
injury suffered by the Tanjangcos.(culpa aquiliana).

Holding:

The instant case is obviously one for tort, as governed by Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which provides:

ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

In every tort case filed under this provision, plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of evidence: (1)
the damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person
for whose act he must respond; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence and the damages incurred.

Undeniably, the perimeter fence of the Cuasos encroached on the lot owned by the Tanjangcos by 87
square meters as duly found by both the RTC and the CA in accordance with the evidence on record. As
a result, the Tanjangcos suffered damage in having been deprived of the use of that portion of their lot
encroached upon.Thus, the primordial issue to be resolved in this case is

A negligent act is an inadvertent act; it may be merely carelessly done from a lack of ordinary prudence
and may be one which creates a situation involving an unreasonable risk to another because of the
expectable action of the other, a third person, an animal, or a force of nature. A negligent act is one
from which an ordinary prudent person in the actor's position, in the same or similar circumstances,
would foresee such an appreciable risk of harm to others as to cause him not to do the act or to do it in
a more careful manner.

The test to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows: Did the
defendant in committing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinary person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law,
in effect, adopts the standard supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias in Roman
law. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal
judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law considers what would be reckless,
blameworthy, or negligent in a man of ordinary intelligence and prudence, and determines liability
according to that standard.In sum, Corinthians failure to prevent the encroachment of the Cuasos
perimeter wall into Tanjangcos property despite the inspection conducted constitutes negligence and, at
the very least, contributed to the injury suffered by the Tanjangcos. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

4th Case

SICAM v. JEORGE CASE DIGEST

FACTS: Lulu Jorge pawned several pieces of jewelry with Agencia de R. C. Sicam to secure a loan.

Later, two armed men entered the pawnshop and took away whatever cash and jewelry were found
inside the pawnshop vault.

Sicam sent respondent Lulu a letter informing her of the loss of her jewelry due to the robbery incident
in the pawnshop. Respondent Lulu expressed disbelief stating that when the robbery happened, all
jewelry pawned were deposited with Far East Bank near the pawnshop since it had been the practice
that before they could withdraw, advance notice must be given to the pawnshop so it could withdraw
the jewelry from the bank. Respondent Lulu then requested petitioner Sicam to prepare the pawned
jewelry for withdrawal on but petitioner Sicam failed to return the jewelry.

Respondent Lulu is seeking indemnification for the loss of pawned jewelry and payment of damages.
Petitioner is interposing the defense of caso fortuito on the robber committed against the pawnshop.

ISSUE:Whether Sicam is liable for the loss of the pawned articles in their possession?
RULING: Yes. The Court found that Sicam failed to exercise reasonable care and caution that an
ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation. It ruled that Sicam was guilty of
negligence in the operation of its pawnshop business. The Court quoted from the testimony of Sicam
where he admitted that the vault was open at the time of robbery. The court explained that Sicam’s
testimony revealed that there were no security measures adopted by Sicam in the operation of
pawnshop.