CASE DIGEST 1N OBL.TGATIONS AND CONTRACTS
hy 9) CABUBNA, Mckinley P.
cast Tru People ¥- Bayotas
CaTariqy; @X.N0.182700 2 Seplember 904
Pear; Romere, J.
ers:
“The accused, who was chorged wth
rape, died bepuré the decision op Ms
appeal poreanniekon is rendered. THe
Supreme Court hereby dismissed He
Criminal aspect o He appeancense
quently. The Solietter General argue
hat cle ioblity asing From He
oprease coromited by the accused 8
not extinguished by ht death Hower,
{re counsel of the aeused eppesea the
Solicitor General's statement saying
that death while judgrent i peeing
“extinguishes boty ormial and eivit
liability.
IS9UR/Ss Whetheror not Beath extinguishes
ct Labi tty
su:
Yes, death of the accused peacling appeal
cop his conection oc wile wating Forte Fn
Judgment extinguishes both cami ntl and
ability, based en the éxiewe Committed which
is rape. Civ (ability can only survivetp the,
Seurce of ebligaten 15 other than ime or
aetict-CCASE DIGEST TN OBLTGATTONS. AND CONTRACTS
Fi9) CABUENA, Maintey P.
cist TITE:Vder De Pawan v.Seeris ——rosit/s: IS there sHill@ need to Inshhute ct
Separate cin ackion For the eopercement
CrTATION:@:RNe,U-37632 BOLMy M82 OF tenployer’s Subsidiary Vabulity 7
powite: Guerrero, J.
Pars: muna
A person Fell proma cargo tuck No.Underthe Cint Code, when & exirmoal
owned by Mindance Lumber Co..dieh atten is inshtuted, thecival action For He
caused his death."The drivee pleaded guily recovery oF aval ability 15 deere insti~
‘and was sentenced toimpisonmeat ar) fukel as wel, not unless here ts awalver or
Payroent Fer damages on the wictinds heirs, reservation of righty upon the ofrendedl
However, duete the Insolvency of Heacused, party to Inshtule it Separately.
tan execution on Subsidiary Wabilty Was As per the dekemination op the subst
Filed against He tropeyer, But the trapeyercliary Liability ep tre epleyer, the cour
argued that they were not notified that Me [3 yek fo conduct adeltional proceeclings
‘said employee was Criminally charged nd 4p Impose it-
“the Viena! betes must pile separate cv
‘action aginst them.CASE DIGEST TW OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS
1) \\ CABUENA, Molciniey P.
Ase TITLe; Villegas v. Court o- Appeds
crTArTew: 6682562 Apo! 1997
rawr; Rerere, J.
Pars
A bbe suit was piled aiganst es
Certain public official bu dita duaing
he pendency ep the case, Terepore, the
court dlaenissed the Criminal aspecter the
cage but reserved the right or theres
Hon ofits cil aspect. The oprended par
44y iterated his ight-9 claim For domages
agaist the heisop toe deceased despite
his death
roams: Whether ornok death oF the accused
before Firal elgment extinguished bis
‘vil abilty,and Ip the offended! party cam
claim For damages From the legal hele oF Me
accused
RULING
Yes, civil Wal iity is ectinguishedupon He
death oF Hae accused berore Final judgment
oF the oF rease Coramitled. Also, Hhe optaded
party can Claien For damages From the legal
thers oF the aocused 45 the executers/admis-
raters oF his properties by inshhehng Ose
parate ci action agaist them‘CASE DIGEST IN OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS
Hus) CABUENA, Mekimley P
CASE TTT letrsop He Lae Tedore Guang sss: Whelineror nok se judgment 1m she
¥- Court of Appeals minal cae extinguished the chi ently
CITATION6Rweteraas erMarchint7 oF HE accused
ron: Mendoza, J.
rors me.
A vehicular accident indving o No. The Supreme Court nied thet In spite
busond a privatecorhappeaed anc oF Ihe Acquilfal of the accused m the criminal
Ksliea the drive’ op the said car. Herein case, the Civil case Fordlaraages was not barrel
Pebhioners braightaciwl ackon FOF “smnee tHe causeor action was based on quasi-ddih-
damages based on quasi-detict ad 7 i
rgue thor terelgnegigenceontne _We,thectnl Habvilyisoteetingushed by
Partor tie bus driver. Howeres, the CA Arquital basedon reasonable deubr because
rendered a decision acquithing heb Prependerence epevidence Sonly required
liver of the criminal case hich rondowd in ei cases.
‘he civ case untenable. The acquittal
was based on rosenaible doubt. The
Peltioners contended that theacqui to)
or the accuse in he criminal case does
not bar the praseeution Fer damages
based on quasi-deict.(CASE DIGEST IN OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS
V0) CABUENA, Mckinley P.
CASH TITLE: Agular ¥.Covmrsecial Sings
‘Baal
CITATION-G-R Mo 26765 2a June 2001
PoneTe; Quisunbing, J.
acts
‘Aor registered under Comercial
Savings Bonk bit a pedestian and died
Herein petioner piled a complaint For
damages against the chiver who Fated to
spond during Hoe blemerstary period,
hewas declared dereute. Duting the
“tal respondent bank claieed is ewner=
Ship to said vehicle ard in Fact Me diver
was the assistant vice President of the
bank at the-trme of the incident. The,
Frtc hela that negligeace ep se employee
is presumed that op the employer ard
Liabutity is direct amd primary, How=
ever, theCA reversed the tal court's
decision and argued Hoot liabty wll
‘only arise when the employee acta by
reasen oy the Functions eninsied te
bum by his employer atthe hme of the
Inddent
Issit/5: Whether or nok the owner op He
vehige i Hae gor damages
‘Yes, tne bonk is Walle For damages by
merely owning the said vebvce, egpedess
or emplayer= employee relationship.
Existence or dbseate oF employer
ployee relationship beta te bonk
Gnd He cliver is immatendl in this case
PPrthe regisherd owner ofamotorvehile
is legaty abe fordamages incurred by
4hied peezons For injuries sustalard
the operation oH sit ei Fors
Teng as the espondent bane fans Me
Fegistered cunt ofthe car Invcved tn
the vector accident, ll sll bell
peredily Webte Pocthe death o— the
Pebtoner's fon.cas
1 \) CARUENA, Mekinity P.
case rrnug:Lasam v. Smith
crariov rene IRE 02 FeDwary 24
vote Otand, J
crs:
‘Avehice was bred by bescin
Petitioners na long-distnce evel
rth wuthan acident dhe engine
rralpunetion one mealgeace of ae
aver causing them iniues They
brought an acton¥e recor ckmager
ooninst te owne op the enicle Far
he injusiescustaned in the ehielor
accidents The nol court ruled Hea
he couse of action 13 Dastl on He
defendant's breach OF the coatract
op enriage, whi isnot based on
orkitous even, Peepoe, ted
Pendent Is Vable per damages
E DIGEST TN OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS
ssw: 15 the owner of the vehrcle
Vabie4e the Injuries caused by #6
accideot ?
sau
Yes, his Wabilityiscontra cal. The
“source op Wabulity ise contrac OF
‘carriage that by Entenng tno He contrac,
be bound hieselpto Carry Hoe posteagers
aptly anetsecurely tothern destination.
Failure to secure their sarety as his
Contractual obligation vl make lim
Uiabje Foe damages.(CASE DIGEST TN OBLIGATTONS AND CONTRACTS
\\ CABUEWA, Mckiniey P.
case rin. Servende v. Philipps sas: Whether or nok the cargo
Steam Navigation Co- vessel company ts Kable For dorages.
CITATION:GHHO.L-BoHEL 28 OCtee 1982
Pownrre; Escotin, J
nc mune
[A Fire of woknona cause razed No, Philippe State Newigation Co.,
the Bureau of Cushirns warehouse 85 obliges is exempk prom liabkiby
‘wnere the cargots eF hervin pebtioners
Foon eerere Feren-perpormance becouse the
were located. The sald cargets W Pe a aanaiaey
Joaded onboarel Inthe vessel owned by ee diesel
Phitippree Steam Nowigalien e:8°3 ang provimate cause op betes, 15 &
‘was successpully discharged in the Fortuitous event or Force majeure
aid warehouse They wire eshoyed hot 1s UnForseeable. Thereret, the
inthe Fire which prompled the petitions Cargovessel Company (5 not Wable for
+o ple For the recovery of damages damages.
chargeable agsinst te Cargo resi
coropory, +‘CASE DIGEST TN OBLTGATTONS AND CONTRACTS
0) \1 CABUE WA, Mokinley P.
CASE TITLE: Austra v.Courd of Appees ISSR: Whether or nop they Shou!
be lobe For the loss of the peadach.
CITATION:G-RNO.A-296H0 10Juoe 197
roware: Reyes, 6, 2
acts: re
A pendant withottamonds was No, they are not Wobte,
feceived by a woman who was éntus- The Supreme Court sustained the
ted byberan pelieneto slit For CIS nllng whe dedared Haat hey
«certain commission. However, the sare nok rtsponsibte forthe les op the,
Gewelaywa allegedly snatched prom Jewelry onaount ora Fortuttous
her whicn suite Filing of com- even and reveved them From Lnbilty
Plevniagainst certain persens. Die —_Fordlamages 40 the owner
+o the Failure op Hee woman to return,
‘the Jewelry or Yo payits equivalent
value, the Petitiones Filed an action
‘against her ond her husband pur the é
Fecovey oF the sid pendent, is value,
and For clamdyes, The-hral court mult
‘har her negligence caused Hreless oF
Phe said yewelry mating ber lable for
clamages. The CA, however held that
the las Is due toa Fortuitous event,
Hhereore, extinguishing tele cit
obligation:CASE DIGEST IN OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS
| CABUENA, Mckinley P.
Case TITLH: Overseas Bank or Mace
¥ Court op APpeals
COTATIGn Gren. t-¥49353. MU Juner¥#l
rowne: Narvaga, J
crs
Basedon the comract op sae
bemecn NAWASAand 4 certain
Suppher oF mareerals it wos agreed
that the payment Fortreservice
reodeted shea be placed on a ¥me
deposit with the Overseas Rawk oF
Mania. Honever, the Sard bank
Faitea te remit the Payment upon
natty of erheve deposit. AS
{esult, res pendent pied a complaint
agains the bank forthe recovery &F
{hs deposis and damages. The ta
owt rendered decision in Faver
ep NAWASA,tthich he CA has appirme.
sts: Whether or nok the bemk IS
rable 40 pay Fer iokeres op the
deposit and For the demages
mune
No, theoligation te pay interes
‘on the deposit Stopped when entrau
Bowk Suspended tre bank's ¢
hus the Ualoiity to pay por Wheto
is extinguished. Hower He :
II competed 4 pay For damages
1 ag tea asin dlorey
Tgnoaing respendent's requests FOr
payment
A‘CASE DIGEST TN OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS
Suis CABUENA, Mokintey
Ast TITLE Sweet Lines Ine. v. Cour
or Appeals
CITATION: GR. No. L430 2 Apo! 1982
rewayre: Melenete-Henrera, J.
Pacts:
Herein tspondents boarded on
a vessel enroute te Catbolegan,
Samar butdueto eagine trouble,
rey od net reac thei inkendeel
destination. Ths has prompled Hen
+o fate case For breach of contact
of carriage and covey eF damages
against the Shipping cnagzmy
Thechral court arel appoetcke cour
ar pied respondunks‘clavn ancl
direced the company to pay For
Gard damages. Hence, tis petbon.
Tas: Whether or not the ship ping
Company Is Uable For damages:
mune:
Yes, they are lable For damages
45 theres a breach of contract. FIs
‘the duty op the said shipping company
4o comply with is cmrbaotal ebliganon
+o deliver the passengers to theie ia
tended destinction and feakne-odo so
il constihetcto a breach ind consequatly,
making them dilly lable For damages.
We or 10