Onia, John Arjay 11/17/2022

Torts and Damages Case Digests

Custodio vs. Court of Appeals

GR No. 116100
February 9, 1996

FACTS:

Mabasa wanted to establish an easement of right of way going into their property against
petitioners who built an adobe wall in their properties which thereby restricted access to the
Mabasa property. Petitioners claim that they built the wall in order to protect their persons and
their property from their intrusive neighbors. The Trial Court nonetheless ordered that an
easement be created. Not satisfied, Mabasa went to the Court of Appeals which modified the
decision of the trial court by awarding actual damages (p65,000.00), moral damages
(p30,000.00) and exemplary damages (p10,000.00). Hence this petition. Damages were based on
the fact of loss in the form of unrealized rentals on the property due to the adobe wall restricting
access.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in awarding damages.

RULING:

Yes. The Court of Appeals erred, the award for damages has no legal basis. The mere fact of loss
does not give rise to a right to recover damages. There must be both a right of action for a legal
wrong inflicted by defendant and a damage to the plaintiff resulting therefrom. Damages are
merely a part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong. An injury is an
illegal invasion of a legal right, any loss, hurt and harm resulting from the injury is damage.
Damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered. In this case, the
petitioners merely constructed an adobe wall which was in keeping with and is a valid exercise
of their rights as the owner of their respective properties—i.e. there was no abuse of right as
provided for in Article 21 of the New Civil Code and where the following requisites must
concur: (1) defendant acted in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy; (2)
The acts should be willful and; (3) There was damage or injury to the plaintiff. None of these
requisites was present in this case. The loss was therefore not a result of a violation of a legal
duty. Instances where the damage was not a result of an injury is called damnum absque
injuria and the plaintiff is not normally given an award for damages.
Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals
GR No. 115024
February 7, 1996

FACTS:

At around 2:00 in the morning of June 24, 1990, plaintiff Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela was driving a
blue Mitsubishi lancer from her restaurant at Marcos highway to her home. While travelling along
Aurora Blvd., she noticed something wrong with her tires; she stopped at a lighted place where
there were people, to verify whether she had a flat tire and to solicit help if needed. Having been
told by the people present that her rear right tire was flat and that she cannot reach her home in
that car’s condition, she parked along the sidewalk, about 1½ feet away, put on her emergency
lights, alighted from the car, and went to the rear to open the trunk. She was standing at the left
side of the rear of her car pointing to the tools to a man who will help her fix the tire when she was
suddenly bumped by a 1987 Mitsubishi Lancer driven by defendant Richard Li and registered in
the name of defendant Alexander Commercial, Inc. Because of the impact plaintiff was thrown
against the windshield of the car of the defendant, which was destroyed, and then fell to the ground.
She was pulled out from under defendant’s car. Plaintiff’s left leg was severed up to the middle of
her thigh, with only some skin and suckle connected to the rest of the body. She was brought to
the UERM Medical Memorial Center where she was found to have a “traumatic amputation, leg,
left up to distal thigh (above knee).” She was confined in the hospital for twenty (20) days and was
eventually fitted with an artificial leg.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Valenzuela was contributory negligent.

RULING:

No. The Court held that Valenzuela was not negligent applying the emergency rule.

Under the “emergency rule,” an individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation of danger and
is required to act without much time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the
impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what subsequently and upon
reflection may appear to be a better solution, unless the emergency was brought by his own
negligence. Valenzuela did exercise the standard reasonably dictated by the emergency and could
not be considered to have contributed to the unfortunate circumstances which eventually led to the
amputation of one of her lower extremities. The emergency which led her to park her car on a
sidewalk in Aurora Boulevard was not of her own making, and it was evident that she had taken
all reasonable precautions. Obviously, the only negligence ascribable was the negligence of Li on
the night of the accident.
Ilocos Norte Electric Co. vs. Court of Appeals
GR No. L-53401
November 6, 1989

FACTS:

Typhoon Gening hit the province of llocos Norte, bringing heavy rains and consequent flooding.
Girl went into waist deep flood and sank into water. Electric wire slipped into the place where
girl went into. The died. Autopsy showed burns.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner may be held liable for the deceased's death

RULING:

Yes. Electric company's employees did not work around the clock during the occurrence of
typhoon. Petitioner was negligent in seeing to it that no harm is done to the public considering
that electricity is a subtle and deadly agency. The negligence of petitioner having been shown,
the event is now taken out the ambit of fortuitous events. When an act of God concurs with the
negligence of the defendant to produce an injury, the defendant is liable if the injury would not
have resulted but for his own negligent conduct or omission.
Philippine Long Distance Company vs. Court of Appeals
GR No. L-57079
September 29, 1989

FACTS:

A jeep driven by private respondent Esteban fell into an open trench, the excavation was due to
the installation of an underground conduit system by PLDT, the said open trench was without
cover and any warning signs. As a result the private respondent and his wife sustained injuries,
and their vehicle was also damaged. PLDT in its defense, imputes the injuries to the private
respondents own negligence. Also, it alleges that L.R. Barte and company acting as an independent
contractor, should be responsible for the excavation was performed by them. As for Barte, they
alleged that they have complied with the due standards in performing their work, and that it was
not aware of the accident involving the Estebans. Court of Appeals held that respondent Esteban
spouses were negligent and consequently absolved petitioner PLDT from the claim for damages.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was contributory negligence on the respondent.

RULING:

Yes. The findings clearly show that the negligence of respondent Antonio Esteban was not only
contributory to his injuries and those of his wife but goes to the very cause of the occurrence of
the accident, as one of its determining factors, and thereby precludes their right to recover
damages. The perils of the road were known to, hence appreciated and assumed by, private
respondents. By exercising reasonable care and prudence, respondent Antonio Esteban could
have avoided the injurious consequences of his act, even assuming arguendo that there was some
alleged negligence on the part of petitioner.
Philippine Commercial International Bank vs. Court of Appeals
GR No. 121413
January 29, 2001

FACTS:

Ford issued Citibank checks in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue as payments of its
taxes, through the depository bank Insular Bank of Asia and America (later PCIBank). Proceeds
of the checks were never received by the Commissioner, but were encashed and diverted to the
accounts of members of a syndicate, to which Ford’s General Ledger Accountant Godofredo
Rivera belongs. Upon demand of the Commissioner anew, Ford was forced to make second
payment of its taxes. Thus, Ford instituted actions to recover the amounts from the collecting
(depository) and drawee banks.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Ford has the right to recover from the collecting bank (PCI Bank) and/or the drawee
bank (Citibank) the value of the checks.

RULING:

The mere fact that forgery was committed by a drawer-payor’s confidential employee or agent,
who by virtue of his position had unusual facilities to perpetrate the fraud and imposing the forged
paper upon the bank, does not entitle the bank to shift the loss to the drawer-payor, in the absence
of some circumstance raising estoppel against the drawer. The rule applies to checks fraudulently
negotiated or diverted by the confidential employees who hold them in their possession. PCIBank
failed to verify the authority of Mr. Rivera to negotiate the checks. Furthermore, PCIBank’s
clearing stamp which guarantees prior or lack of indorsements render PCIBank liable as it allowed
Citibank without any other option but to pay the checks. PCIBank, being a depository / collecting
bank of the BIR, had the responsibility to make sure that the crossed checks were deposited in
“Payee’s account only” as found in the instrument.
Eastern Shipping Lines vs. IAC
GR No. L-71478
May 29, 1987

FACTS:

En route from Kobe, Japan to Manila, M/S Asiatica, the vessel owned by petitioner carrier,
Eastern Shipping Lines caught fire and sank, resulting in the total loss of ship and cargo. The
crew did not know what caused the fire. When they noticed the smoke, there was already a big
fire which might have started twenty-four (24) hours before they became aware of it. The
respective respondent Insurers paid the corresponding marine insurance values to the consignees
concerned and were thus subrogated unto the rights of the latter as the insured.

ISSUE:

What is the extent of carrier’s liability?

RULING:

Since there was actual fault on the part of the carrier, it is liable for the loss. Article 1749 allows
the limitation of liability. Although the Code expressly permits a stipulation limiting the liability
of a carrier it does not of itself limit the liability to a fixed amount per package. Thus, the
COGSA which is suppletory to the provisions of the Civil Code, supplements by establishing a
statutory provision limiting the carrier’s liability in the absence of a declaration of a higher value
of goods, which should not exceed US$500 per package.
Jarco Marketing Corp. vs. CA
GR No. L-129792
December 21, 1999

FACTS:

Petitioner is the owner of Syvel's Department Store, Makati City. Petitioners Leonardo Kong,
Jose Tiope and Elisa Panelo are the store's branch manager, operations manager, and supervisor,
respectively. Private respondents Conrado and Criselda Aguilar are spouses and the parents of
Zhieneth Aguilar. Private respondents demanded upon petitioners the reimbursement of the
hospitalization, medical bills and wake and funeral expenses which they had incurred. Petitioners
refused to pay. Consequently, private respondents filed a complaint for damages wherein they
sought the payment of P157,522.86 for actual damages, P300,000 for moral damages, P20,000
for attorney's fees and an unspecified amount for loss of income and exemplary damages. The
trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the proximate cause of the fall of the counter was
Zhieneth’s act of clinging to it. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court. It
found that petitioners were negligent in maintaining a structurally dangerous counter. The
counter was defective, unstable and dangerous. It also ruled that the child was absolutely
incapable of negligence or tort. Petitioners now seek for the reversal of this decision.

ISSUE:

Whether the death of Zhieneth was accidental or attributable to negligence.

RULING:

An accident pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence attaches to the

defendant. It is "a fortuitous circumstance, event or happening; an event happening without any
human agency, or if happening wholly or partly through human agency, an event which under
the circumstances is unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it happens." On the other
hand, 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. Negligence is "the failure to
observe, for the protection of the interest of another person, that degree of care, precaution and
vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury." The
test in determining the existence of negligence is: Did the 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, then he is guilty of negligence. We rule that the tragedy which
befell Zhieneth was no accident and that ZHIENETH's death could only be attributed to
negligence.
Allied Banking Corp. vs. CA
GR No. L-8586
October 13, 1989

FACTS:

Felimon Tanquenco and Lucia Domingo-Tanquenco owned a lot in Quezon City that they leased
to the petitioner Allied Banking Corporation. In its Provision No. 1, the lease contract
specifically states that “the term of the lease shall be fourteen years commencing from April 1,
1978, and may be renewed for a like term at the option of the lessee.” Allied constructed a
building to be used as its office and, as stipulated, the ownership of the building would be
transferred to the lessors upon the contract’s expiration. On February 1988, the lessor spouses
executed a deed of donation over the subject property of their four children, herein respondents,
who accepted the donation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not private respondents are liable for the obligation since there was no protest made
after dishonor.

RULING:

Yes. Section 152 of the Negotiable Instruments Law pertaining to indorsers, relied on by
respondents, is not pertinent to this case. There are well-defined distinctions between the contract
of an indorser and that of a guarantor/surety of a commercial paper, which is what is involved in
this case. The contract of indorsement is primarily that of transfer, while the contract of guaranty
is that of personal security. The liability of a guarantor/surety is broader than that of an indorser.
Unless the bill is promptly presented for payment at maturity and due notice of dishonor given to
the indorser within a reasonable time, he will be discharged from liability thereon. On the other
hand, except where required by the provisions of the contract of suretyship, a demand or notice
of default is not required to fix the surety’s liability. He cannot complain that the creditor has not
notified him in the absence of a special agreement to that effect in the contract of suretyship.
Therefore, no protest on the export bill is necessary to charge all the respondents jointly and
severally liable with G.G. Sportswear since the respondents held themselves liable upon demand
in case the instrument was dishonored and on the surety, they even waived notice of dishonor as
stipulated in their Letters of Guarantee.