Assignment for December 2, 2020

1) Articles 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code

2) Liability of Tortfeasors
a. Tortfeasors – an individual or entity that has been found to have committed a civil
offense that injures another party.
b. Liability – the responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is
solidary and sharing as between such solidary debtors is pro-rata.
- it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury and
either of them is responsible for the whole injury.
- Ancient common-law rule: (1) release of one joint tortfeasor releases all other,
regardless of the intent, (2) “first restatement rule,” release of one co-conspirator normally
releases all others unless the plaintiff expressly reserves his right against others, (3) effect of the
release upon co-conspirator shall be determined in accordance with the intentions of the
parties.
3) Art. 2180 of the Civil Code
4) Doctrine of Vicarious Liability/Imputed Negligence– the obligation imposed by 2176 is
demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions but also for those of persons for whom
one is responsible.
- primary and direct liability
a) Vicarious Liability of Parents – responsibility of father, in case of his death and
incapacity, the mother is responsible for the damages caused by their minor children who live
in their company. Also liable for the civil liability arising from criminal offenses, unless diligence
is proven.
b) Vicarious Liability of Guardians – responsibility of guardians, are the damages
caused by children under their care.
- 3 Kinds of Guardians: (1) legal guardian – by provision of law without need of judicial
appointment, parents. (2) guardian ad litem – competent person appointed by the court for
purposes of particular action or proceeding involving a minor. (3) judicial guardian – competent
person appointed by the court over the person and/or property of the ward to represent the
latter in all civil acts and transactions.
c) Vicarious Liability of Employers – owners and managers of an establishments
or enterprise are liable for damages of their employees in the service of the branches in which
the latter is employed or on the occasion of their functions
d) Vicarious Liability of Owner of Vehicle
e) Vicarious Liability of State
f) Vicarious Liability of Teachers and Heads of Establishments of Arts and Trade
g) Proprietor of Building or Structure

Cases:
1) Ngo Sin Sing vs. Li Seng Giap & Sons, Inc., G.R. No. 1270596, November 28, 2008 –
construction of building (NSS) that caused demolition of the building adjacent to it (LSG), joint
and several liable with Contech (contractor) RTC – half liable ang NSS at LSG, 4M lang
babayaran, NSS is negligent but LSG also, CA – affirmed RTC decision, liab of 8M to be paid by
NSS and Contech, SC – granted petition. LSG is liable of negligence for constructing additional
2storey w/o changing or checking the foundation built on just 2 storey bldg.., Contech is
liable for not being prudent to the job expected of them (4M), NSS sought them to do the job
which is the proximate cause, “supervening negligence”, where both parties are negligent but
the negligence of one is appreciably later in time than of the other, or when it is impossible to
determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident, the one who had
the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with
the consequences thereof. Contech should have sought or acquired a Contractor All Risk (CAR)
insurance policy and/or Erection All Risk (EAR) in the course of construction.
2) Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co., 38 Phil. 768 – watermelon boy, CFI – di liable si mnl
railroad, SC – contract of carriage ang issue, no contributory negligence si cangco
3) Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs. CA, G.R. No. 104408, June 21, 1993 – Nenita rode
a jeepney to work driven by calebag owned by lamayo, fast moving, it collided with a fast
moving mmtc bus in an intersection (no blowing of horns or slowing down), Nenita thrown out
and was not able to work 3 and a half months, minor and represented by her parents, RTC –
absolved MMTC, showing its hiring and supervision process, Lamayo, Calebag and Leonardo
jointly and severally liable. CA-
4) Cerezo vs. Tuazon. G.R. No. 141538, March 23, 2004
5) Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 115024 and 117944, February 7, 1996
6) Tamargo, et al. vs. CA, G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992 – minor nakabaril,
7) Libi, et al., vs. IAC, G.R. No. 70890, September 18, 1992
8) Castilex Industrial Corporation vs. Vasquez, et al., G.R. No. No. 132266, December 21,
1999
9) Martin vs. CA, 205 SCRA 591
10) Maranan vs. Perez, et al., G.R. No. L-22272, June 26, 1967
11) Marchan vs. Mendoza, et al., G.R. No. L-24471, August 30, 1968
12) Baliwag Transit vs. CA, G.R. No. 116110, May 15, 1996
13) Victory Liner vs. Heirs of Malecdan, G.R. No. 154278, December 27, 2002
14) Francis High School vs. CA, 194 SCRA 341
15) Filamer Christian Institute vs. IAC, 212 SCRA 637; G.R. No. 75112, August 17, 1992
16) Baliwag Transit vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 116624, September 20, 1996
17) Poblete vs. Fabros, G.R. No. L-29803, September 14, 1979
18) Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Baesa, G.R. Nos. 79050-51, November 14, 1989
19) Yambao vs. Zuniga, et al., G.R. No. 146173, December 11, 2003
20) Philippine Hawk Corporation vs. Lee, G.R. No. 166869, February 16, 2010
21) Syki vs. Begasa, G.R. No. 149149, October 23, 2003

(SAME REFERENCES)