V.

Vicarious Liability (Articles 2180, 2181, 2182)

1. Parents and Guardians (Articles 219, 221, 236 of the FC as amended by

RA 6809)

G.R. No. L-24803 May 26, 1977

PEDRO ELCANO and PATRICIA ELCANO, in their capacity as Ascendants

of Agapito Elcano, deceased, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
REGINALD HILL, minor, and MARVIN HILL, as father and Natural Guardian
of said minor, defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
This is an appeal from the order of RTC in civil case dismissing the
complaint of plaintiffs for recovery of damages from defendant Reginald hill, a
minor, married at the time of occurrence, and his father marvin hill, who he was
living and getting subsistence for the killing by Reginald of the son of the
plaintiffs, named elcano, who was not found guilty for lack of intent to kill due to
mistake.

ISSUE:
W/N THE FATHER MAY BE HELLD LIABLE TO THE ACTION DONE BY HIS
SON REGINALD BECAUSE THE LATTER IS STILL A MINOR THOUGH
ALREADY MARRIED.

HELD:

No, emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really absolute. It

only terminated the parental authority over the child.
He can administer his property as though he were of age, but he
cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber real property without the
consent of his parents. He can be sued and be sued in court only with the
assistance of his father, mother or guardian.
In this case, under article 2180, the obligations imposed by article
2176 on quasi delict is demandable not only for ones own acts or
omissions but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
The father, or mother, has the joint and solidary liability of
presuncion with their offending child, under its supervision.
Hence, article 2180 applies to atty hill, father of Reginald, notwithstanding
emancipation by marriage of Reginald. Upon of age, atty hill’s liability is only
subsidiary.

2. G.R. No. 143363               February 6, 2002

ST. MARY'S ACADEMY, petitioner,

vs.
WILLIAM CARPITANOS and LUCIA S. CARPITANOS, GUADA DANIEL,
JAMES DANIEL II, JAMES DANIEL, SR., and VIVENCIO
VILLANUEVA, respondents.

This is an appeal via certiorari from the decision of CA denying

reconsideration, upholding petitioner liable for damages arising from an accident
resulting to death of a student who joined a campaign to visit the public schools
in dipolog city to solicit enrollment.

Sherwin carpitanos –dead son

Sps. William carpitanos and lucia carpitanos files against
James Daniel II and his parents James Daniel sr and guada Daniel,
Owner of vehicle- vivencio Villanueva and st. mary’s academy

Issue:
W/N sps. Daniel is only subsidiarily liable to the commission of the crime
of the tort by their minor son who is under their custody and supervision by ST.
Mary’s Academy.

HELD:

"In order that there may be a recovery for an injury, however, it must be
shown that the ‘injury for which recovery is sought must be the legitimate
consequence of the wrong done; the connection between the negligence and the
injury must be a direct and natural sequence of events, unbroken by intervening
efficient causes.’ In other words, the negligence must be the proximate cause of
the injury. For, ‘negligence, no matter in what it consists, cannot create a right of
action unless it is the proximate cause of the injury complained of.’ And ‘the
proximate cause of an injury is that cause, which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and
without which the result would not have occurred.’"12

In this case, the respondents failed to show that the negligence of petitioner was
the proximate cause of the death of the victim.

Respondents Daniel spouses and Villanueva admitted that the immediate cause
of the accident was not the negligence of petitioner or the reckless driving of
James Daniel II, but the detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep.

Significantly, respondents did not present any evidence to show that the
proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the school authorities, or
the reckless driving of James Daniel II. Hence, the respondents’ reliance on
Article 219 of the Family Code that "those given the authority and responsibility
under the preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages
caused by acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor" was unfounded.

Hence, liability for the accident, whether caused by the negligence of the minor
driver or mechanical detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep, must be
pinned on the minor’s parents primarily. The negligence of petitioner St. Mary’s
Academy was only a remote cause of the accident. Between the remote cause
and the injury, there intervened the negligence of the minor’s parents or the
detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep.
"The proximate cause of an injury is that cause, which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and
without which the result would not have occurred

VI. PRIMARY LIABILITY

1. Possessor/user of animals
2. owner of motor vehicles
Aquilar v. Commercial Bank GR NO 128705, june 29 2000

3.Manufacturer and Processors.
Coca-Cola vs CA gr no. 110295
 facts:
-owner of school canteen who had to close down as a consequence
of the big drop in its sales of soft drinks triggered by the discovery of foreign
substances. Fabric like substances in its soft drinks.
-Kindergarten Wonderland Canteen in Dagupan city.
-Lydia Geronimo filed complaint for damages against petitioner with
rtc dagupan city.
-petitioner contends that the grounds to exhaust administratice
remedies and prescription was not made. And that the complaint is for breach of
warranty under article 1561 of the code.
-private respondent contention: the complaint is one for
damages which does not involve an administrative action because its cause of
action if based on the injury to plaintiffs right which can be brought within four
years under article 1146 of the civil code.
Trial court rules that the exhaustion of adminstratie remedies
does not apply. The complaint is based on a contract and not quasi delict.
Hence, the complaint should be filed within 6 onths from the delivery of the
thing sold.
CA: questioned the decision of rtc. Petitioners complaint is for quasi
delict and not breach of warranty as respondent contends. 4 yrs prescriptive
period. Because the complaint is from respondent’s act of recklessly and
negligently manufacturing adulterated food items sold or public consumption.
Second, the existence of contractual relations between the parties does not
absolutely preclude an action by one against the other for quasi delict arising
from negligence in the performance of a contract.
 Issue:
-W/N the existence of a contractual relation between the parties
bars the application of the law on quasi-delict?

 HELD:
 NO, it does not bar the application of the law on quasi delict.
 Under the law and existing jurisprudence, as a general rule, the
existence of a contract bars the applicability of quasi delict.
However, in singson vs BPI, it was held that the existence of
contract between the parties does not bar the commission of a tort
by one against the other and the consequent recovery of damages.
The act that breaks the contract may also be tort.
 In this case, the liability for quasi delict may still exist despite
the presence of contractual relations.

4. Municipal Corporation (RA No. 7160, section 24)

CITY OF MANILA VS GENARO TEOTICO AND CA

GR NO. L -23052, JANUARY 29, 1968

FACTS:

Genero Teotico was at the corner of the old luneta and p burgos avenue,
manila, within a loading and unloading zone waiting for a jeepney to take him
down town. A jeepney came and stopped. As he stepped down from the curb to
board the jeepney and took a few steps, he fell inside an uncovered and
unlighted catch basin or manhole. Due to the fall his head hit the rim on manhole
breaking his eyeglasses and broken pieces pierced his eye. He was treated and
taken home.

The plaintiff is a practicing accountant, businessman and a professor in

UE. He was prevented from his customary occupation for 20 days. Paid
expenses for attorney’s fees.

Defense presented evidence proving that the manhole was covered and
that the cover was reported missing on January 30, 1958 but was replaced the
next day. The Office of the engineer did not receive any report of missing
cathcbasin.
CA sustained the RTC decision sentencing to pay damages of 6,750. Hence, this
petition by the city of manila.

2189 of the civil code – provinces, cities and mun shall be liable for damages for
the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of defective conditions
of road, streets, bridges public bldgs., and other public works under their control
or supervision.

ISSUE:

W/N the city of manila is liable for the damages and injuries arising from
negligence.

HELD:

The cities and streets where under the control and supervision of the
city of manila regardless if it is a national highway. It is provide that the
construction, maintenance and improvement of national primary, national
secondary and national aid provincial and city roads shall be accomplished
by the highway district engineers and city engineers under the supervision
and control.

FLORENTINA GUILATCO VS CITY OF DAGUPAN AND CA

GR NO 61516, MARCH 21, 1989

FACTS:

Civil Action for recovery of damages filed by petitioner against the

judgment of dagupan city.

Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff actual, moral, exemplary, attys

fees, litigation expenses.

Court interpreter about to board a motorized tricycle at a sidewalk a

national road, under the control and supervision of dagupan city
accidentally fell into a manhole located on sidewalk causing fracture in her
right leg.

On patrolman, confirmed the existence of the manhole on sidewalk at

the time of the incident which was partially covered by a concrete flower
pot by leaving gaping hole about 2ft long.

The city contends that the perez blvd. is a national road and not under the
control or supervision of the city of dagupan and no liability should
attached to the city. The ministry of public highways has the control or
supervision.

ISSUE:

W/N CONTROL OR SUPERVISION OVER A NATIONAL ROAD BY THE

CITY OF DAGUPAN EXISTS.

HELD:

YES, the city of dagupan has the control or supervision under its
charter and is excersied thru the city engineer.

There is, therefore, no doubt that the City Engineer exercises control or
supervision over the public works in question. Hence, the liability of the city to the
petitioner under article 2198 of the Civil Code is clear.

5. BUILDINGS PROPRIETORS

G.R. No. L-87584 June 16, 1992

GOTESCO INVESTMENT CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs.
GLORIA E. CHATTO and LINA DELZA CHATTO, respondents.

FACTS:

Plaintiff Gloria and her 15 yr old daughter line went to see a movie mother
dear at superama I theater, owned by defendant gotesco investment corp. after
10 mins after entering the ceiling collapse. They suffered injuries.
 Due to continuing pain in the neck, headache and dizziness, plaintiff went
Illonois for further treatment.

Defendant tried to avoid liability by alleging that the collapsed ceiling was
done due to force majeure, maintaining that there were no structural or
construction defect.

ISSUE: W/N THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF PETITIONER IN

NOT EXERCISING DUE DILIGENCE IN THE MAINTENANCE AND CARE OF
THE BUILDING.

HELD:

The owner or proprietor of a place of public amusement impliedly warrants

that the premises, appliances and amusement devices are safe for the purpose
for which they are designed, the doctrine being subject to no other exception or
qualification than that he does not contract against unknown defects not
discoverable by ordinary or reasonable means. 

This implied warranty has given rise to the rule that:

Where a patron of a theater or other place of public amusement is

injured, and the thing that caused the injury is wholly and
exclusively under the control and management of the
defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of
events would not have happened if proper care had been
exercised, its occurrence raises a presumption or permits of an
inference of negligence on the part of the defendant. 15

That presumption or inference was not overcome by the petitioner.