Torts and Damages Definition

8/13/2019 Torts and Damages Definition

1/38

TORTS AND DAMAGES Definition:Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another there beingfau!t or neg!igence is ob!iged to "ay for the damage doneSuch fau!tor neg!igence i f there is no "re#e$isting contractua! re!ation

bet%een the "arties is ca!!ed a &uasi#de!ict and is governed bythe" r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s ' h a " t e r ()Art( *+,- Ne% 'ivi! 'ode.E !ements:+(Acts or omission caused by fau!t or neg!igence(*(Damages resu!ts from the act or omission/(/('ausa! connection bet%een the acts or omission and the damages0and1(

1(No "re#e$isting contractua! re!ation bet%een the "arties(

Neg!igence2t consists in the omission of that di!igence %hich is re&uired bythe nature of the ob!igation and corres"onds %ith thecircumstancesof the "ersons of the time and of the "!ace(

The fau! t or neg! igence of the ob! igor consists in the omission of thatdi! igence %hich is re&uired by the nature of theob!iga tio n andcorres"onds % i th the c ir cumstances o f the "e rsons o f the

t ime and of the "!ace( When neg! igence s ho %s b adf a i t h t h e " r o v i s i o n s o f A r t i c ! e s + + , + a n d * * 3 + " a r a g r a " h * s h a ! ! a " " ! y ()Art( ++,/ Ne% 'ivi! 'ode.

T h e % a n t o f c a r e r e & u i r e d b y t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s ( )4ma!i vs( 5acani et( a!( -6 S'RA *-/.7acts:A storm %ith strong rain hit the A!ca!a 8angasinan from *:33o9c!oc in the afternoon and !asted u" to about midnight of thesame day( During the s torm the banana " !ants s tand ing on

an e !evated ground a !ong the road o f sa id munic i"a !i t y andne ar th e transmission !ine of the A!ca!a E!ectric 8!ant %ere b!o%ndo%n and fe!! on the e!ectric %ire( As a resu!t the !ive e!ectric %ire%as cut one end of %hich %as !e ft hanging on thee!ectr ic "ost and the other fe ! ! to the ground underthe fa !!en ba nana "!a nts( On the fo! !o%ing morning atabout 6:33 o9c!oc barrio ca"tain ;uciano 5ueno of San 8edro 2ii %ho%as "assing by sa% the broen e!ectric %ire and so he %arned the


2/38

"eo"!e in the "!ace not to go near the %ire for they might get hurt(ust on the o""osite side of the road %ent to the "!ace%here the broen ! ine %ire %as and got in contact %ith it( Theboy %as e!ectrocuted and he subse&uent!y died( 2t %as on!y after thee!ectrocution of Manue! Saynes that the br o e n %i re %a s f i $ e da t a bo ut + 3: 33 o 9c !o c o n t he s am e m or n in g b y t he! i n e m a n o f t h e e ! e c t r i c " ! a n t (2ssue:W h et he r o r n ot t h e E ! e c t r i c ' om "a ny c a n b e h e! d

! i a b ! e f o r t o r t ?


3/38

the "a ren ts 9 ne g!i ge nce in a!!o%ing a chi!d of tender age to go out

of the house a!one We cou!d readi !y see that because of the

aforementioned series of neg!igence on the "art of defendants9

em"!oyees resu!ting in a !ive %ire !ying on the "remises %ithout any

visib!e %arning of its !etha! character anybody even a res"onsib!e

gro%n u" or not necessari!y an innocent chi!d cou!d have met the

same fate that befe!! the victim( 2t may be true as the !o%er 'ourt

found out that the contributory neg!igence of

the victim9s "arents in not "ro"er!y taing care of the chi!d %hich

enab!ed him to !eave the house a!one on the morning of the incident

and go to a nearby "!ace cut %ire %as very near the house )%here

victim %as !iving. %here the fata! fa!!en %ire e!ectrocuted him might

mitigate r es"onden t9 s ! iab i! it y but % e c anno t ag re e % it h

"et i t ioner 9s theory that the

"arents 9 neg! i gence cons t itu ted the "ro$ imate cause of thevictim9s death because the rea! "ro$imate cause %as the fa!!en !ive

%ire %hich "osed a threat to !ife and "ro"erty on that morning due

to the ser ies of neg!igence adverted to above committed by

defendants9 em"!oyees and %hich cou!d have i!!ed any other "erson

%ho might by accident get into contact %ith it( Stated other%ise

even if the chi!d %as a!!o%ed to !eave the house unattended due to

the "arents9 neg!igence he %ou!d not have died that morning %here

it not for the cut !ive %ire he a c c i de n ta ! !y t o uc he d (

A r t ( * + , 6 o f t h e ' i v i ! ' o d e " r o v i d e s t h a t i f t h e

n eg ! i ge nc e o f t he " !a in t i f f ) "a re nt s o f t he v ic t i m i n

t h i s c a s e . %a s o n ! y contributory the immediate and "ro$imate

cause of the in>ury being the defendants9 !ac of due care the

"!ainti ff may recover damages but the courts sha!! mit igate

the damages to be a%arded( This !a% may be avai!ed of by the

"etit ioner but does not e$em"t him from ! iabi !i ty( 8etit ioner9s

! iabi !i ty for in>ury caused by his em"!oyees neg!igence is %e!!

defined in "ar( 1 of Artic!e*+=3 of the 'iv i! 'od e( The o%ner and

manager of an estab!ishment or enter"rise are !ie%ise

res"onsib!e for damages caused by their em"!oyees in t h e s e r v i c eo f t h e b r a n c he s i n % h i ch t h e ! a t t e r a r e e m " ! o ye d o r o n

t i ! e o c c a s i o n o f t h e i r f u n c t i o n s (

The neg! igence of the em"!oyee is "resumed tobe t he neg !i ge nc e o f t he e m" !oye r bec ause t he e m" !oye ri s su""osed to e$ercise su"ervision over the %or of the


4/38

em"!oyees( This ! iabi! ity of the em"!oyer is "rimary and directs)Standard Bacuum Oi!'o( vs( Tan and 'ou rt o f A" "ea !s +3, 8hi! (+36.( 2n fact the "ro"er defense for the em"!oyerto ra ise so that he may esca"e !iabi!ity is to "rove that hee$ercised the di!igence of the good father of the fami!y to "revent

damage not on!y in the se!ection of h is em"!oyees but a!soin ade&uate!y su"ervising them over their %or( This defense %asnot ade&uate!y "roven as found by th e t r i a ! 'o ur t a nd We don ot f i n d a ny s uf f i c i e n t r e a s on t o d ev ia te f ro m i t sf i n d i n g (Test for Determining Negligence:Did the defendant in doing the a!!eged neg!igent act use thatreasonab!e care and caution %hich an ordinari!y "rudent "erson% o u ! d h a v e u s e d i n t h e s a m e s i t u a t i o n? )8icart vs( Smith /, 8hi! =36.

Picart vs. Smith(March 15, 198183 Phil. 8!9"

#acts: Amando 8icart sees to recover from the defendant 7ranSmith the sum of 8h"/+ + 33 as damages a !! eged t o hav ebeen caused by an automobi !e dr iven by Smi th ( The inc identha""ened on Dec +* +6+* at the 'ar!atan 5ridgeSan 7ernando ;a 4nion( 8icart %as riding on his "ony aver the saidbridge( 5efore he had gotten ha!f %ay across Smith a""roachedfrom the o""osite direction driving his vehic!e at +3 to +* mi!es "erhour( Smith b!e% his horn to give %arning as he observed that the

man %as not observing ru!es of the road( Smith continued his courseand made t%o more b!asts( 8icart %as "erturbed by the r a " i d i t y o ft h e a " " r o a ch t h a t h e " u ! ! e d h i s " o n y t o t h e r i g h t s i d e o ft h e r a i ! i n g ( A s t he a ut o m o b i ! e a "" r o a ch ed S m i t hgu id ed th e automob i !e to i t s ! ef t that be ing the "ro"er s ideo f t he r oad f or t he m ac hi ne ( Smi th not ic ed t ha t t he "ony%as not f r ightened so he c o n t i n u e d % i t h o u t d i m i n u t i o no f s " e e d ( When he ! earned that the re %as no "oss ibi ! it y fo rthe "ony to go on the other s ide Smith drove his carto t he r igh t to a voi d hitting the "ony but in so doing the vehic!e"assed in a c!ose "ro$imity to the horse that it became frightened

and turned its be! !y across the bridge %ith its head to%ards ther ai !i ng ( The hor se % as s tr uc on t he hoc o f t he ! ef t h ind!eg b y the f!a nge of th e car and t he ! im b %as broen( The horsefe!! and its rider %as thro%n off %ith some vio!ence( 2t sho%ed thatthe free s"ace %here the "ony stood bet%een the automob i !eand the ra i !ing %as "robab!y !ess than one ha ! f meters ( Theh or se d ie d a nd 8 ic ar t r ec ei ve d c on tu si on s % hi ch c au se dt e m " o r a r y


5/38

u n c o n s c i o u s n e s s a n d r e & u i r e d m e d i c a ! a t t e n t i o n f o rs e v e r a ! d a y s ($ss%e:Whether or not Smith %as gui!ty of neg!igence that gives rise to acivi! ob!igation to re"air the damage done to 8icart and his "on y?

&el':Ces the court ru!ed that Smith that he is !iab!e to "ay 8icart theamount of 8*33( The sum is com"uted to inc!ude the va!ue of t h eh o r s e m e d i c a ! e $ " e n s e s o f t h e " ! a i n t i f f t h e ! o s s o rd a m a g e o c c a s i o n e d t o a r t i c ! e s o f h i s a " " a r e ! ( 2n the nature of things this change in situation occurred %hi!e theautomobi!e %as sti !! some distance a%ay( 7rom this moment i t% as n o ! on g er " os s ib !e f o r 8 ic a rt t o e sc a "e b e in g r und o % n b y g o i n g t o a " ! a c e f o r g r e a t e r s a f e t y (The contro! of the si tuat ion had then "assed ent ire !y to Smithand i t %as h i s duty to br ing h i s car to an immediate s to" or

seeing no other "ersons on the br idge to tae the other s ideand "ass suf f ic ient !y far a%ay from thehorse to avoid co! ! is ion( T h e r e % a s a n a " " r e c i a b ! e r i s t h a t a h o r s e n o t a c & u a i n t e d % i t h v e h i c ! e s % o u ! dr e a c t t h a t % a y (The Test to Determine the E$istence of Neg!igence in a "art icu!arcase may be stated as fo! !o%s: Did the defendant in doing thea ! !eged neg! igent ac t use that reasonab !e care and caut i on%hich an ordinar i !y "rudent "erson %ou!d have used the sames i t u a t i o n ? 2 f n o t t h e n h e i s g u i ! t y o f n e g ! i g e n c e (

The !a% in ef fect ado"ts the s tandard su""osed to besu""! ied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet"at erfa mi! ia s of the Roman ;a%( The e$istence of neg!igence ina given case is not determined by reference to the "ersona!>udgment of the actor in t h e s i t u a t i o n b e f o r e h i m ( T h e ! a %c on s i de rs % ha t % ou !d b e r e c !e ss b !a me %o rt hy o rn e g ! i g e n t i n t h e m a n o f o r d i n a ry i n t e ! ! i g e n c e a n d" r u d e n c e a n d d e t e r m i n e s ! i a b i ! i t y b y t h a t (A "rudent man " !aced in the "os i tion of Smi th in the 'ourt s

o" in ion %ou!d have recogni@ed that the course %hich he %as" u r s u i n g % a s f r a u g h t % i t h r i s a n d % o u ! d t h e r e f o r eh a v e f o r e s e e n h a r m t o t h e h o r s e a n d t h e r i d e r a s ar e a s o n a b ! e conse&uence o f that course( )DO'TR 2NE O7 ;AST';EAR '


6/38

#acts:;i!ius %ith his %ife and daughter %as on a sight#seeing tri" for8agsan>an via Daya"( 2t %as the first time that he made said tri"a ! t ho u g h h e h a d a ! re a d y b e e n t o m a n y " ! a ce s d r i v i n gh i s o % n c a r i n a n d o u t s i d e t h e 8 h i ! i " " i n e s( W h e re t h er oa d % a s c ! e a r an d unobs tr uc te d t he " !a in ti ff d rove a t t he

r a t e o f f r om + 6 t o * m i ! e s an hou r ( 8 r i o r t he r e t o he hadmade the t ri " as fa r as 'a !auan butnever f r om 'a !auan to8agsan>an via Daya"(


7/38

on t ime0 and the engineer for nothaving taen the necessary "recaut ions to avoid an acc ident i n v ie % o f t he absence o f sa id f !agm an and s%i tc hm an bys ! a c e n i n g h i s s " e e d a n d c o n t i n u o u s ! y r i n g i n g t h eb e ! ! a n d b ! o % i n g t h e % h i s t ! e b e f o r e a r r i v i n g a t t h e

c r o s s i n g (A!though i t is "robab!e that the defendant#a""e! !ant entityem"!oyed the di!igence of a good father of a fami!y in se!ecting itsaforesaid em"!oyees ho%ever it did not em"!oy such di! igencein su"ervising their %or and the discharge of their duties becauseother%ise it %ou!d have had a sema"hore or sign at the crossingand on "revious occasions as %e!! as on the night in& u e s t i o n t h e f ! a g m a n a n d s % i t c h m a n % o u ! d h a v e a ! % a y sb ee n a t h i s " os t a t t he c ro ss in g u "o n t he a r r iv a ! o fa t r a i n (The di!igence of a good father of a fami!y %hich the !a% re&uires in

order to avoid damage is not confined to the carefu! and "rudentse!ection of subordinates or em"!oyees but inc!udes ins"ection oftheir %or and su"ervision of the discharge of their d u t i e s (

/mali vs. 0acani().. No. -!5!2am%ar 3!, 194"

#acts:A storm %ith strong rain hit the A!ca!a 8angasinan from *:33

o9c!oc in the afternoon and !asted u" to about midnight of the

same day( During the s torm the banana " !ants s tand ing on

an e !evated ground a !ong the road o f sa id munic i"a !i t y and

ne ar th e transmission !ine of the A!ca!a E!ectric 8!ant %ere b!o%n

do%n and fe!! on the e!ectric %ire( As a resu!t the !ive e!ectric %ire

%as cut one end of %hich %as !e ft hanging on the

e!ectr ic "ost and the other fe ! ! to the ground under

the fa !!en ba nana "!a nts( On the fo ! !o%ing morning at

about 6:33 o9c!oc barrio ca"tain ;uciano 5ueno of San 8edro 2ii %ho

%as "assing by sa% the broen e!ectric %ire and so he %arned the

"eo"!e in the "!ace not to go near the %ire for they might get hurt(

ust on the o""osite side of the road %ent to the "!ace

%here the broen ! ine %ire %as and got in contact %ith it( The


8/38

boy %as e!ectrocuted and he subse&uent!y died( 2t %as on!y after the

e!ectrocution of Manue! Saynes that the br o e n %i re %a s f i $ e d

a t a bo ut + 3 :3 3 o 9c !o c o n t he s am e m o rn in g b y t he

! i n e m a n o f t h e e ! e c t r i c " ! a n t (

$ss%e:W h e t h e r o r n o t t h e E ! e c t r i c ' o m " a n y c a n b e h e ! d ! i a b ! ef o r t o r t ?

&el':A ! c a ! a E ! e c t r i c i s -$0-6under tor t (7irst by the very evidence of the defendant there %ere big and ta!!banana "!ants at the "!ace of the incident standing on an e!evatedground %hich %ere about /3 feet high and %hich %ere higher thanthe e!ectric "ost su""orting the e!ectric !ine and yet the em"!oyeesof the defendant %ho %i th ordinary foresight cou!d have

easi!y seen that even in case of moderate %inds th e e!e ct ric ! in e%ou!d be endangered by banana " !ants be ing b !o%n do%nd id not even tae the necessary "recaut ion to e ! im in at e th a ts o u r c e o f d a n g e r t o t h e e ! e c t r i c ! i n e (Second even after the em"!oyees of the A!ca!a E!ectric 8!ant %erea!ready a%are of the "ossib!e damage the storm of May +1+6,*cou!d have caused their e!ectric !ines thus becoming a"ossib!e threat to !ife and "ro"erty they did not cut off from the"!ant the f!o% of e!ectricity a!ong the !ines an act they cou!d haveeasi!y done "ending ins"ection of the %ires to see if they had b e e nc u t (

Third em"!oyee 'i"riano 5a!domero %as neg!igent on the morningof the incident because even if he %as a!ready made a%are o f th e! ive cut %i re he did not have the foresight to rea! i@e that thesame "osed a danger to ! i fe and "ro"erty and that he shou!dhave taen the necessary "recaution to "revent anybody froma""roaching the ! ive %ire0 instead 5a!domero !eft the "rem isesbecause %hat %as foremost in h i s mind %as the re"air o f the! ine obvious ! y fo rge tt i ng that i f ! e ft unat tended to i t co u ! de n d a n g e r ! i f e a n d " r o " e r t y (O n defendant s 9 a rgum ent t ha t t he " ro$i mate c ause o f t hevict im9s death cou!d be attr ibuted to

the "a ren ts 9 ne g!i ge nce in a!!o%ing a chi!d of tender age to go outof the house a!one We cou!d readi !y see that because of theaforementioned series of neg!igence on the "art of defendants9em"!oyees resu!ting in a !ive %ire !ying on the "remises %ithout anyvisib!e %arning of its !etha! character anybody even a res"onsib!egro%n u" or not necessari!y an innocent chi!d cou!d have met thesame fate that befe!! the victim( 2t may be true as the !o%er 'ourt


9/38

found out that the contributory neg!igence ofthe victim9s "arents in not "ro"er!y taing care of the chi!d %hichenab!ed him to !eave the house a!one on the morning of the incidentand go to a nearby "!ace cut %ire %as very near the house)%here victim %as !iving. %here the fata! fa!!en %ire

e!ectrocuted him might mit igate res"ond ent9s ! iabi ! i ty but %ecannot agree %ith "et i t ioner 9s theory that the"arents 9 neg! i gence cons t itu ted the "ro$ imate cause of thevictim9s death because the rea! "ro$imate cause %as the fa!!en!ive %ire %hich "osed a threat to !ife and "ro"erty on that morningdue to the series of neg!igence adverted to above committed bydefendants9 em"!oyees and %hich cou!d have i!!ed any other "erson%ho might by accident get into contact %ith it( Stated other%iseeven if the chi!d %as a!!o%ed to !eave the house unattended due tothe "arents9 neg!igence he %ou!d not have died that morning %hereit not for the cut !ive %ire he ac c i d en t a ! ! y t o u c h e d (

A r t ( * + , 6 o f t h e ' i v i ! ' o d e " r o v i d e s t h a t i f t h en eg ! i ge nc e o f t he " !a in t i f f ) "a re nt s o f t he v ic t i m i nt h i s c a s e . %a s o n ! y contributory the immediate and "ro$imatecause of the in>ury being the defendants9 !ac of due care the"!ainti ff may recover damages but the courts sha!! mit igatethe damages to be a%arded( This !a% may be avai!ed of by the"etitioner but does note$em"t him from !iabi!ity( 8etitioner9s !iabi!ity for in>ury caused byhis em"!oyeesneg!igence is %e!! defined in "ar( 1 of Artic!e*+=3 of the'iv i ! 'ode(

The o%ner and manager of an estab!ishment or enter"rise are!ie%ise res"onsib!e for damages caused by their em"!oyees in t h es e r v i c e o f t h e b r a n c h e s i n % h i c h t h e ! a t t e r a r e e m " ! o y e do r o n t i ! e o c c a s i o n o f t h e i r f u n c t i o n s (The neg! igence of the em"!oyee is "resumed tobe t he neg !i ge nc e o f t he e m" !oye r bec ause t he e m" !oye ri s su""osed to e$ercise su"ervision over the %or of theem"!oyees( This ! iabi! ity of the em"!oyer is "rimary and directs)Standard Bacuum Oi!'o( vs( Tan and 'ou rt o f A" "ea !s +3, 8hi! (+36.( 2n fact the "ro"er defense for the em"!oyerto ra ise so that he may esca"e !iabi!ity is to "rove that he

e$ercised the di!igence of the good father of the fami!y to "reventdamage not on!y in the se!ection of his em"!oyees but a !soin ade&uate!y su"ervising them over their %or( This defense %asnot ade&uate!y "roven as found by th e t r i a ! 'o ur t a nd We don o t f i n d a n y s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n t o d e v i a t e f r o m i t s f i n d i n g


10/38

)orliss et. al. vs. The Manila ailro' )om+an(.. No. -71791 March 78,19493 S) 4"

#acts:On the evening of 7eb *+ +6, at the rai!road crossing in5a!ibago Ange!es 8am"anga in front of the '!ar Air 7orce 5ase

the !ate Ra!"h W( 'or!iss the >ee" he %as driving co!!ided %ith a!ocomotive of defendant#a""e! !ee Mani!a Rai! road 'om"any(On December+6- "!aintif f +6 years of age marr ied Ra!"hW( 'or!iss r( *+ years of age that 'or!iss r( %as an air "o!ice of the'!ar Air 7orce 5ase0 that at the time of the accident he %as drivingthe fata! >ee"0 that he %as then returning in said >ee" together %itha 8('( so!dier to the 5ase0 and that 'or!iss r( died of serious burnsat the 5ase uries and b u r n s ( 8 ! a i n t i f f #a " " e ! ! a n t 8 r e c i o ! i t a t h e % i f e o f t h e d e c e a s e d f i ! e d f o r a c t i o n f o r d a m a g e s (


11/38

and re"eated it in com"!iance %ith the regu!ations unti! he sa% the>ee" sudden!y s"urt and that a!though the !ocomotive %as runningbet%een *3 and * i!ometers an hour and a!though he had a""!iedthe braes the >ee" %as caught in t h e mi d d !e o f th e t ra c s (The %eight of authorit ies is to the effect that a rai! road trac is in

itse!f a %arning or a signa! of danger to those %ho go u"on it an dthat those %ho for reasons of the i r o%n ignore such %arningdo so a t t he ir o%n r is and r es"ons ib i! it y( 'or !i ss r( % houndoubted!y had crossed the chec"oint fre&uent!y if not dai!ymust have no%n that !ocomotive engines and trains usua! !y" a s s a t t h a t " a r t i c u ! a r c r o s s i n g % h e r e t h e a c c i d e n th a d t a e n " ! a c e (

)%lion $ce, #ish an' 6lectronic )o.. $nc. vs. Phili++ine Motors )or+.(Novemer3, 193!55 Phil. 179"

#acts: ' rans ton % as t he r e" re se nt a ti ve o f t he " !a in ti ff i nMani ! a and " !ain ti f f %as the regi s te red o%ner o f the motorschooner G%endo!ine( 'ranston decided to have the engine on theG%endo!ine changed from a gaso!ine consumer to a crude oi! burner(ob %i th the understanding that "ayment shou!dbe made u"on com"!etion of the %or( The %or %as begunand conducted under the su"ervision of uest chief!y by a mechanic%hom uest too %ith him to the boat( uest had the assistance ofthe members of the cre% of the G%endo!ine %h o ha d b ee nd i r e c t e d b y ' r a n s t o n t o " ! a c e t h e m s e ! v e s u n d e r

u e s t 9 s d i r e c t i o n s ( 4"on "re! iminary ins"ect ion of theengine uest conc!uded that a ne% carburetor%as needed and thus ins ta! !ed a Henith carburetor( The engine%as tried %ith gaso!ine and the resu!t %as satisfactory( The ne$t"rob!em %as to introduce into the carburetor the baser fue!consisting of a !o% grade of oi! mi$ed %ith disti!!ate( A tem"orarytan to contain the mi$ture %as "!aced on dec above and at a shortdistance from the com"artment covering the engine( This tan %asconnected %ith the carburetor by a "iece of tubing %hich %asa""arent!y not %e!! fitted at the "oint %here it %as connected %iththe tan( The fue! mi$ture !eaed from the tan and dri""ed so%n

into the engine com"artment( The ne% fue! !ine and that a!ready inuse bet%een the gaso!ine tan and carburetor %ere so fi$ed that it%as "ossib!e to change from the gaso!ine fue! to the mi$ed fue!( Thisarrangement enab!es the o"erator to start the engine on gaso!inea n d t h e n a f t e r t h e e n g i n e h a d b e e n o " e r a t i n g f o r a f e %mo me nt s t o s% i t ch to th e n e% fu e ! su "" !y ( 2t %as observedthat the carburetor %as f!ooding and that the gaso!ine or otherfue! %as tric!ing free!y from the !o%er "art to the carburetor to the


12/38

f !oor( This fact %as ca!!ed to uest9s attention but he saidthat %hen the engine had gotten to running %e!! the f!ooding %ou!ddisa""ear( The boat %as taen out into the bay for a tria! run( Theengine sto""ed a fe% times during the first "art of the course o%ingto the use of an im"ro"er mi$ture of fue!( 2n the course of the tria!

uest remained outside of the engine com"artment andoccu"ied himse!f %ith maing disti!!ate %ith a vie% to ascertaining%hat "ro"ortion of the t%o e!ements %ou!d give best resu!ts in theengine( As the boat %as coming in from this run the enginesto""ed and connection again had to be made %ith thegaso!ine ! ine to get a ne% start( After this had been done themechanic or engineer s%itched to the tube connecting%ith the ne% mi$ture( A moment !ater a bac fire occurred in thecy! inder chamber( This caused a f!ame to shoot bac into thecarburetor and instant!y the carburetor and ad>acent "arts %erecovered %ith a mass of f!ames %hich the members of the cre% %ere

unab!e to subdue( The sa!vage from the %rec % henso!d brought on!y the sum of 8+3( The va !ue of theb oa t b ef or e t he a cc id en t o cc ur re d a s t he c ou rt f ou nd %as 8+3333( '72 gave >udgment in favor of the "!aintiff torecover of the defendant the sum of 86=3 %ith interest at - "ercentum "er a n nu m f ro m t h e d a te o f t he f i ! i n g o f t hec o m " ! a i n t u n t i ! s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e > u d g m e n t % i t h c o s t s ($ss%e:W h e t h e r o r n o t t h e ! o s s o f t h e b o a t i s c h a r g e a b ! e t ot h e n e g ! i g e n c e a n d ! a c o f s i ! ! o f u e s t ?

&el':es.W h e n a " e r s o n h o ! d s h i m s e ! f o u t a s b e i n g c o m " e t e n tt o d o t h i n g s r e & u i r i n g " ro f e s s i o n a ! s i ! ! h e % i ! ! b e h e ! d! i a b ! e f o r neg! igence i f he fa i !s toe$hibit the ca re and s i! ! of one ordinar i !y s i! !ed inthe "art icu!ar %or %hich he attem"ts to do(The tem"orary tan in %hich the mi$ture %as "re"ared %asa""arent!y at too great an e!evation from the carburetor so that%hen the fue! ! ine %as o"ened the hydrostatic "ressure in thecarburetor %as greater than the de!icate "arts of the carburetorcou!d sustain( This %as the cause of the f!ooding of the

carburetor0 and the resu!t %as that0 %hen the bac fire occurred thee$terna! "arts of the carburetor a!ready saturated %ith gaso!ineburst into f!ames %hence the fire %as &uic!y communicated to th ehigh!y inf !ammab!e mater ia ! near #by( The !ea a!ong the "i"e! ine and the f !ooding of the ca rburetor ha d crea ted adangerous situation %hich a "rudent mechanic versed in re"airs ofthis nature %ou!d have taen "recautions to avoid( The b a c f i r e


13/38

m a y h a v e b e e n d u e e i t h e r t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s " a r % a st o o a d v a n c e d o r t h e f u e ! i m " r o " e r ! y m i $ e d (8roof sho%s that uest had had am"!e e$"erience in fi$ing theengines of automobi!es and tractors but it does not a""ear that %ase$"erienced in the doing of simi!ar %or on boats( 8ossib!y the

dri""ing of the mi$ture form the tan on dec and the f!ooding ofthe carburetor did not convey to his mind an ade&uate im"ression ofthe danger of fire( uest did not use the si!! that %ou!d have beene$hibited by one ordinari!y e$"ert in re"airing gaso!ine engines onboats( There %as here on the "art of ue s t ab ! a m e %o r t h y a n t e c e d e nt i n a d v e rt e n c e t o " o s s i b ! e ha r m a nd t h i s c on s t i t u t es n eg ! i ge nc e ( T he b ur n i ng o f t heG%endo!ine may be said to have resu!ted from accident butthis accident %as in no sense an unavoidab!e accident( 2t %ou!d nothave occured but for uest9s care!essness or !ac of si!!( The test of! iabi! ity is not %hether the in>ury %as accidenta! in a sense b u t

% h e t h e r u e s t % a s f r e e f r o m b ! a m e (The t r ia ! >udge seems to have "roceeded on the idea that inasmuch as uest had contro! of the G%endo!ine du r i ng th ee$"erimenta! run the defendant cor"oration %as in the "osition of abai!ee and that as a conse&uence the burden of "roof %as on thedefendant to e$cu!"ate itse!f from res"onsibi!ity by "roving that theaccident %as not due to the fau!t of uest( As a ru!e %ormen %homae re"airs on a shi" in its o%ner9s yard or a mechanic %hore"airs a coach %ithout taing it to his sho" are not bai!ees andtheir rights and !iabi!ities are determined by the genera! ru!es of!a% under their contract( The true bai!ee ac&uires "ossession and

%hat is usua!!y s"oen of as s"ecia! "ro"erty in the chatte! bai!ed(As a conse&uence of such "ossession and s"ec ia ! "ro"er ty the ba i !ee i s g iven a ! i en for h i s com"ensat ion( These ideasseem to be incom"at ib !e %ith the s i tuat ion n o % u n d erc o n s i d e r a t i o n (This act ion %as insti tuted about t%o years after the accident hadoccured and after uest had ceased to be manager and hadgone bac to the 4S( 4"on these facts the de fendant basesthe content ion that the act ion shou!d be cons idered s ta !e( 2 tis sufficient re"!y to say that the action %as brought %ithin the"eriod !imited by the statute of !imitations and the situation is not

o n e % h e r e t h e d e f e n s e o f ! a c h e s c a n b e " r o " e r ! yi n v o e d ( u d g m e n t a " " e a ! e d f r o m a f f i r m e d (

)angco vs. The Manila ailroa' )om+an(*ctoer 1, 191839 Phil 48"

#acts: ose 'angco %as em"!oyed by Mani !aR ai !r oad 'om "any as c !e r ( < e ! iv ed i n San M at eo R i@ a!


14/38

!oca ted u "on the ! ine o f the defendant rai !road com"any0 and incoming dai!y by train to the com"any9s office in the city of Mani!a%here he %ored(


15/38

+6+ he instituted this "roceeding in the '72 Mani!a to recoverdamages of the defendant com"any founding his ac tio n u"on theneg! igence of the servants and em"!oyees of the defendant in"!ac ing the sacs of me!ons u"on the "!at form and in !eavingthem so "!aced as to be a menace to the security of "assenger

a!ighting from the com"any9s trains( At the hearing in the '72 thetria! >udge found the facts substantia! !y as above stated anda!though neg!igence %as attributab!e to the defendant by reason ofthe fact that the sacs of me!ons %ere so "!aced as toobstruct "assengers "assing to and from the cars neverthe!ess the"!aintiff himse!f had fai!ed to use due caution in a!ighting from thecoach and %as therefore "rec!uded from recovering( udgment %asaccording!y entered in f a v o r o f t h e d e f e n d a n tc o m " a n y a n d t h e " ! a i n t i f f a " " e a ! e d ($ss%e:

W h e t h e r o r n o t t h e r e % a s c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g ! i g e n c e o n t h e" a r t o f t h e " ! a i n t i f f ?&el':

No. 2n determining the &uestion ofcontributory neg!igence in "erforming such act # that is to say%hether the "assenger acted "rudent!y or rec!ess!y # the age se$and "hysica! condition of the "assenger are ci rcumstancesnecessari!y affecting the safety o f t h e " a s s e n g e r a n ds h o u ! d b e c o n s i d e r e d (The em"!oyees of the rai! road com"any %ere gui !ty of neg! igence in

"i! ing these sacs on the "!atform( Their "resence caused the"!aintiff to fa!! as he a!ighted from the train0 and thatthey constituted an effective !ega! cause of the in>uries sustained bythe " !a int i f f ( 2 t fo ! !o%s that the de fendant com"any i s ! i ab !efor the damage un!ess recovery is barred byt he "! ai nt if f9 s o% n c on t r i b u t o r y ne g ! i g e nc e (The foundat ion of the !ega! ! iabi ! i ty of the defendant is thecont rac t o f carr iage and that the ob !i gat i on to res"ond fo rthe damage %hich "!aintiff has suffered arises from the breach ofthat contract by reason of the fai!ure of defendant to e$ercise d u ec a r e i n i t s " e r f o r m a n c e (

2ts !iabi!ity is direct and immediate im"osed by artic!e +63/ of the'ivi! 'ode %hich can be rebutted by "roof of the e$ercise of duecare in their se!ection and su"ervision( Artic!e +63/ of the 'ivi! 'odeis not a""!icab!e to ob! igations arising e$ contractu b u t o n ! y t oe $ t r a # c o n t r a c t u a ! o b ! i g a t i o n s2n comment ing u"on ar t i c!e +36/ Manresa c !ear!y "o ints outthe d i f ference bet%een Fcu!"a substant ive and inde"endent%hich of i tse ! f const i tutes the source of an ob! igat ion bet%een


16/38

"ersons not fo rmer ! y connected by any ! ega ! t i eF and cu !"ac o n s i d e r e d a s a n F a c c i d e n t i n t h e " e r f o r m a n c e o f a no b ! i g a t i o n a ! r e a d y e $ i s t i n g F2n the Raes vs( At!antic Gu!f and 8acific 'o( the court %as made torest s&uare!y u"on the "ro"osit ion that art ic!e +63/ is not

a " "! i c a b ! e t o a c ts o f n eg ! i ge n ce % h i ch c o ns t i t u te t h eb r e a c h o f a c o n t r a c t (4nder the S"anish !a% in cases im"osed u"on em"!oyers %ithres"ect to damages due to the neg!igence of their em"!oyees to"ersons to %hom they are not bound by contract such is not basedu"on the "rinci"!e of res"ondent su"erior # but u"on the "rinci"!eannounced in artic!e +63* %hich im"oses u"on a!! "ersons %ho bytheir fau!t or neg!igence do in>ury to another the o b ! i g a t i o n o fm a i n g g o o d t h e d a m a g e c a u s e d (The !iabi! ity arising from e$tra#contractua! cu!"a is a!%ays basedu"on a vo!untary act or omission %hich %ithout %i!!fu! intent but by

mere neg!igence or inattention has caused damage to another( Amaster %ho e$ercises a!! "ossib!e care in the se!ect ion of hisserva nt ta ing into considera tion the &ua! i f icat ionsthey shou!d "ossess for the d i scharge of the dut ies %hich i tis his "ur"ose to confide to them and directs them %ith e&ua!di!igence thereby "erforms his duty to third "ersons to %hom he isbound by no contractua! ties and he incurs no!iabi!ity %hatever if by reason of the neg!igence of his servantseven %ithin the sco"e of the ir em"!oyment suchthi rd "ersons suf fer damage( Art ic !e +63/"resumes neg ! igence but that " resum"tion is r e f u t a b ! e (

2n 5ahia vs ( ; i ton >ua and ;eynes an ac ti on i s b rought u"onthe theory of the e$t ra#contractua ! !i ab i !i ty o f the de fendantto res"ond for the damage caused by the care !essness o f h i sem"!oyee %h i! e ac ti ng % ith in the sco"e o f h i s em"!oymentThe 'ourt after cit ing the !ast "aragra"h of artic !e +63/ of the 'ivi!'ode said: )+. That %hen an in>ury is caused by the neg!igence ofa servant or em"!oyee there instant !y ar ises a "resum"t ion of! a% that there %as neg! igence on the "art o f the maste r o rem"!oyer either in the se!ection of the servant or em"!oyee or insu"ervision over him after the se!ection or both0 and )*. that" re sum"ti on i s > ur is t an tum and not > ur is e t de > ur e and

conse&uent!y may be rebut ted( 2 t fo ! !o%s necessar i! y that i fth e em"!oyer sho%s to the satisfaction of the court that in se!ectionand su"ervision he has e$ercised the care and di!igence of a g o o df a t h e r o f a f a m i ! y t h e " r e s u m " t i o n i s o v e r c o m e a n dh e i s r e ! i e v e d f r o m ! i a b i ! i t y (Every !ega! ob!igation must of necessity be e$tra#contractua! orcontractua!( E$tra#contractua! ob! igation has its source in theb re ac h o r omi ss ion o f t hose m ut ua ! dut ie s % hi ch c iv i! i@ ed


17/38

soc iety im"oses u"on i ts members or %hich ar ise f rom thesere!ations other than contractua! of certain members of society toothers genera!!y embraced in the conce"t of status( The !ega! rightsof each member of society constitute the measure of thecorres"onding !ega! duties %hich the e$istence of those rights

im"oses u"on a!! other members of society( The breach of thesegenera! duties %hether due to %i!!fu! intent or to mere inat te nt ioni f "roduct ive of in >ury g ives r ise to a n ob! igat ion to indemni fythe in>ured "arty( The fundamenta! d ist inct ion bet%eenob!igations of this character and those %hich arise from contractrests u"on the fact that in cases of non#contractua! ob!igation it isthe %rongfu! or neg!igent act or omission itse!f %hich creates thevincu!um >uris %hereas in contractua! re!ations t h ev i n c u ! u m e $ i s t s i n d e " e n d e n t ! y o f t h e b r e a c h o ft h e v o ! u n t a r y d u t y a s s u m e d b y t h e" a r t i e s % h e n e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e c o n t r a c t u a ! r e ! a t i o n (

The rai!road com"any9s defense invo!ves the assum"tion that evengranting that the neg!igent conduct of its servants in "!acing anobstruction u"on the "!atform %as a breach of its contractua!ob! igation to maintain safe means of a""roaching and !eavingits trains the direct and "ro$imate cause of the in>ury suffered by"!aintiff %as his o%n contributory neg!igence in fai!ing to %ait unti!the train had come to a com"!ete sto" before a!ighting( 4nder thedoctrine of com"arative neg!igence announced in the Raes case ifthe accident %as caused by " !ain ti f f9 s o%n neg! i gence no! iab i! i ty i s im"osed u"on defendant %hereas i f the accident%as caused by defendant9s neg!igence and "!aintiff9s neg!igence

mere!y contributed to his in>ury the damages shou!d bea " " or t io n e d( 2 t i s t h er e f or e i m "o r t an t t o a s c er t a in i fd e f e n d a n t % a s i n f a c t g u i ! t y o f n e g ! i g e n c e (T h e ' o u r t i s o f t h e o " i n i o n t h a t t h e c o r r e c t d o c t r i n er e ! a t i n g t o t h i s s u b > e c t i s t h a t e $ " r e s s e d i nT h o m " s o n 9 s % o r o n Neg!igence: FThe test by %hichto determine %hether the "assenger has been gui!ty of neg!igence inattem"ting to a!ight from a moving rai!%ay train is that of ordinaryor reasonab!e care( 2t is to be considered %hether an ordinari!y"rudent "erson of the age se$ a nd condi t ion of the"assenger %ou!d have ac ted as the "assenger ac ted under

the circ umst anc es disc !ose d by the evidence( This care has beendefined to be not the care %hich may or shou!d be used by the"rudent man genera!!y but the c a re % h i ch a m a n o fo r d i n a r y " r u d e n c e % o u ! d u s e u n d e r s i m i ! a rc i r c u m s t a n c e s t o a v o i d i n > u r y ( F2 n c onsi de ri ng t he " robabi !i ty o f c on tr ibut or y neg !i ge nc eon the "art of the "!a int i f f the fo ! !o%ing c i rcumstances are tobe noted: The com"any9s "!atform %as constructed u"on a !eve!


18/38

higher than that of the roadbed and the surrounding ground( Thed is ta nc e f ro m t he s te "s o f t he c ar t o t he s "o t % he re t hea !i gh ti ng "assenge r % ou !d " !ace h is f ee t on t he " !a tf or m%as thus reduced thereby decreasing the ris incident toste""ing off( The cement "!atform a!so assured to the "assenger a

stab!e and even surface on %hich to a!ight( The "!aintif f %as"ossessed of the vigor and agi!ity of young manhood and it %as byno means so r i sy for h im to get o f f %hi !e the t ra in %as yetmo vin g a s th e s ame a ct % ou !d h ave b een i n a n a ged orfee b!e "er son( The "!ace %as "erfect!y fami!iar to the "!aintiff asit %as his dai!y custom to get on and off the train at thisstation( There cou!d beno uncertainty in his mind %ith regard eitherto the !ength of the ste" %hich he %as re&uired to tae orthe character of the "!atform %here he %as a!ighting( 2t is the'ourts conc!usion that the conduct of the "!aintiff in undertaing toa!ight %hi!e the t ra in % as y et s !i gh t! y under % ay % as not

characteri @ed by im"rudence and that there fore he %as notgu i ! t y o f c on t r i bu t o r y ne g ! i ge nc e (The decision of the !o%er court is reversed and >udgment ishereby rendered "!aintiff for the sum of 8/ *63(* and for thec o s t s o f b o t h i n s t a n c e s (

Dissenting *+inion:

MA;'O;M:With one sentence in the ma>ority decision %e are of fu!!accord name!y F2t may be admitted that had "!aintiff %aited unti!

th e tr ain h ad co me to a f u! ! st o" b ef ore a !ig ht i ng t he"art icu!ar in >ury suf fered by him cou!d nothav e occurre d(F Wit h the genera! ru!e re!ative to a "assenger9scontributory neg!igence %e are !ie%ise in fu!! accord name!y FAnattem"t to a !ight from a mov ing t ra in i s neg !igence "er se (FAdding these t%o "oints together %e have the !ogica! resu! t #the Mani !a Ra i ! road 'o( s h ou ! d b e a b so !v ed f ro m t h ec o m " ! a i n t a n d > u d g m e n t a f f i r m e d (

ergara vs. )..(.. No. 49 Se+temer 3!, 198"

#acts: On August +6,6 in Ga"an Nueva Eci>a Martin 5e!monte%hi!e driving a cargo truc be!onging to Bergara rammed Fhead#onF the store#residence of the Amadeo A@arcon causing damagesthereto %hich %ere inventoried and assessed at 8/ 3*1(**(Bergarafi!ed a third "arty com"!aint against Trave!!ers 2nsurance andSurety 'or"oration a!!eging that said cargo truc invo!vedin the vehicu!ar accident be!onging to the "etitioner %as insured bythe third "arty defendant insurance com"any and asing that he


19/38

"aid "aid %hatever t he c ou rt % ou !d o rd er h im t o " ay t oA@ ar con( The tria! court and the court of a""ea!s ordered Bergara>oint!y and severa!!y %ith Trave!!ers 2nsurance and Surety'or"oration to "ay to A@arcon )a. 8/3*1(** as actua! damages0 )b.8+3333(33 as mora! damages0 )c. 8+3333(33 as e$em"!ary

damages0 and )d. the sum of 8333(33 for attorney9s fees and thecosts( On the third "arty com"!aint the insurance com"any%as sentenced to "ay to the "etit ioner the fo! !o%ing: )a. 83333(33 for third "arty !iabi!ity under its com"rehensive accidentinsurance "o!icy0 and )b. 8/333(33 for a n d a s a t t o r n e y 9 sf e e s ($ss%e:W h e t h e r o r n o t B e r g a r a i s ! i a b ! e t o " a y d a m a g e s ?

&el':es h e i s ! i a b ! e (

The re&uisites )+. damages to the "!ainti ff 0 )*. neg!igence by actor omission of %hich defendant or some "erson for %hose ac ts hemust res"ond %as gu i! t y0 and )/ . the connect i on o f causeand ef fect bet%een such neg! igence and the damages(The acts %hich caused the damages to A@arcon can be att ributed toBergara( The fact that the vehicu!ar accident occurred %as %e! !es tab !i shed by the "o !i ce re"ort desc r ib ing the same ( Thecontent ion ofBergara that the acc ident occurred because of mechanica! fa i !ure o f the braes cannot be cons idered for tui tous and cou !dhave been "revented( A!so Bergara fa i !ed to a d d u c e

e v i d e n c e t o d i s " u t e t h e " r e s u m " t i o n o f n e g ! i g e n c ei n t h e s e ! e c t i o n o f h i s d r i v e r ()P$ vs. )..(.. No. 958 March 13, 1991"#acts:S"ouses Timan through R'82 sent a te!egram in order to e$"resstheir condo!ences for the death of the mother#in#!a% of their cou si nsMr ( and Mrs ( M idoranda( The te !egram ho%ever %as %r it tenin a I


20/38

W h e t h e r o r n o t R ' 8 2 s h o u ! d b e h e ! d ! i a b ! e ?

&el':es. We fu! !y agree %i th the a""e! !ate court 9s endorsement ofthe t r ia ! court 9s conc!us ion that R'82 a cor"orat ion dea! ing in

te!ecommunications and offering its services to the "ub!ic isengaged in a business affected %ith "ub!ic interest( As such it isb o u n d t o e $ e rc i s e t h a t d e g r e e o f d i ! i g e n ce e $ " e c te d o fi t i n t h e " e r f o r m a n c e o f i t s o b ! i g a t i o n (2n the "resent case it is se!f#evident that a te!egram of condo!enceis intended and meant to convey a message of sorro% andsym"athy( 8recise!y it is denominated Fte!egramof condo!enceF because it tenders sym"athy and offers to shareanother9s grie f ( 2 t seems out of th is %or !d therefore to " !acethat message of condo!ence in a birthday cardand de! iver the same in a 'hristmas enve!o"e for such acts of

care!essness and incom"etence not on!y render vio!ence to goodtaste and common sense they de"ict a bi@arre "resentation of thesender9s fee!ings( They ridicu!e the deceased9s !oved ones anddestroy the atmos"here o f g r i e f a n d r es " ec t f o r t h ed e " a r t e d (

Pantranco vs. 0aesa(.. Nos. 9!5!5 Novemer 1, 1989"

#acts: The s"ouses 5aesa their four chi!dren the 2co s"ouses the

!atters son and , other "eo"!e boarded a "assenger >ee" to go to a

"icnic in 2sabe!a to ce!ebrate the th %edding anniversary of the

5aesa s"ouses( The >ee" %as driven by David 2co( 4"on reaching the

h igh% ay t he > ee " t ur ne d r ight and " roce eded t o M a! a! am

River at a s"eed of about *3 "h( Whi !e they %ere "roceeding

to %a rd s M a ! a ! a m R i v e r a s " e e d i n g 8 A N T R A N ' O b u s f r o m

A "a r r i o n i t s r eg u !a r r ou t e t o M an i ! a e n cr oa c he d o n

t he > ee "n ey s ! a ne % h i ! e n eg ot ia t i ng a c ur ve a nd

c o ! ! i d e d % i t h i t ( As a resu! t the ent i re 5aesa

fami ! y e$ce"t fo r one daughte r as %e! ! as David 2 co d i ed

and the rest suf fered from in >ur ies( M a r i ca r 5 a e s a t h e

s u r v i v i n g d a u g h t e r t h r o u g h h e r g u a r d i a n f i ! e d s e " a r a t ea c t i on s f o r d a ma g es a r is i ng f ro m& u as i #d e ! i c t a g a i ns t

8 AN T R AN ' O 8ANTRAN'O aside from "oint ing to the !ate David

2cos )the driver.a!!eged neg!igence as a "ro$imate

cause of the accident invoed the defense of due di!igence in the

se!ection and su"ervision of its driver( The RT' ru!ed in favor of

5aesa %hich %as u"he!d by the 'A( The "etitioner no% contends


21/38

that the 'A erred in not a""!ying the doctrine of the I!ast c!ear

chanceJ against the >ee"ney dr iv er ( 8etitioner contends that under

the circumstances it %as the driver of the >ee" %ho had the !ast

c!ear chance to avoid the co!! ision and %a s there for e neg !ig ent in

f ai !i ng t o u ti !i @e % it h r ea so na b! e c ar e a nd c om "e te nc e

his then e$ ist ing o""ortuni ty to avoid the harm(

$ss%e:W he th er o r n ot t he I !a s t c !e ar c ha nc eJ d oc t r in e % i ! !a " " ! y ?&el':

No.The doctr ine a""! ies on!y in a s i tuat ion %here the "!a int i f f%as gui ! ty of a "r ior orantecedent neg! igence but the defendant % h oh a d t he ! a st f a i r c h an c e t o a vo id t h e i m" e nd in g h a rma n d f a i ! e d t o d o s o i s m a d e ! i a b ! e f o r a ! ! t h ec o n s e & u e n c e s (Genera!!y the !ast c!ear change doctrine is invoed for the "ur"oseof maing a defendant !iab!e to a "!aintiff %ho %asgui!ty of " r i o r o r a n t e c e d e n t n e g ! i g e n c e a ! t h o u g h i tm a y a ! s o b e r a i s e d a s a d e f e n s e t o d e f e a t c ! a i m f o rd a m a g e s (2t is the "etitioners "osition that even assuming arguendo thatthe bus encroached into the !ane of the >ee"ney the driver of the!at ter cou !d have s%erved the >ee"ney to%ards the s"ac iousd i rt shou !de r on h i s r igh t % i thout danger to h imse !f o r h i s" a s s e n g e r s ( T h i s i s u n t e n a b ! e (7or the !ast c !ear chance doctr ine to a""!y i t i s necessary tosho% that the "erson %ho a ! !eged!y has the !ast o""ortun i tyto avert the acc ident %as a%are of the e$istence ofthe "er i ! or shou!d %ith e$ercis e of due ca re havebeen a%are of i t ( One cannot be e$"ected to avoidan accident o r i n >u ry i f he does not no% or cou!d not haveno%n the e$ istence of the "er i ! (

2n th i s case there i s noth ing to sho% that the >ee"ney dr iverDavid 2 co ne% o f the im"ending danger( When he sa% at adistance that the a""roaching bus %as encroaching on his !ane hedid not immediate!y s%erve the >ee"ney to the dirt shou!der o n h i sr ig h t s i nc e h e m u st h a ve a s su m ed t ha t t h e b u s d r i ve r% i ! ! r e t u r n t h e b u s t o i t s o % n ! a n e u " o n s e e i n gt h e > e e " n e y a " " r o a c h i n g f o r m t h e o " " o s i t e d i r e c t i o n (


22/38

Even assuming that the >ee"ney driver "erceived the danger a fe%seconds before the actua! co!!ision he had no o""ortunity toa voi d i t ( T he 'o urt ha s h e!d t ha t t he !a st c !e ar ch an cedoctr ine Ican never a""!y %here the "artycharged is re&ui red to

act instant aneous !y and i f th e in>ury cannot b e avoid ed by thea""! ica tion of a !! mea ns at ha nd after the "er i ! is orshou!d haveb e e n d i s c o v e r e d ( JProof of NegligenceA "erson c!aiming damages for the neg!igence of another has theburden of "Lroving the e$istence of such fau!t or neg!igencec a u s a t i v e t h e r e o f ()8;DT vs( '(A( *,= S'RA 61.P-DT vs. )(.. No. -5!9 Se+temer 79, 1989"

#acts:A > e e " d r i v e n b y " r i v a t e r e s " o n d e n t E s t e b a n f e ! ! i n t o a no " e n t r e n c h t h e e $ c a v a t io n %a s d u e t o t h e i n s t a ! ! a t i o no f a n underground conduit system by 8;DT the said o"en trench%as %ithout cover and any %arning signs( As a resu!t the "rivateres"ondent a n d h i s % i f e s u s t a i n e d i n > u r i e s a n dt h e i r v e h i c ! e % a s a ! s o d a m a g e d ( 8;DT in its defenseim"utes the in>uries to the "rivate res"ondents o%n neg!igence(A!so it a!!eges that ;(R( 5arte and com"any acting asan inde"endent contractor shou!d be res"onsib!e for

the e$cavation %as "erformed by them( As for 5arte they a!!egedthat they have com"!ied %ith the due standards in "erformingtheir %or and that it %as not a%are of the accidentinvo!ving the Estebans( 'ourt of A""ea!s he!d that res"ondentEsteban s"ouses %ere neg!igent and conse&uent!yabso!ved "etit ioner 8;DT from the c!aim for damages( 4"onres"ondents second motion to reconsideration 'A reversed itsdecision fo!!o%ing he decision of Tria! 'ourt a n d h e ! d8 ; D T ! i a b ! e f o r d a m a g e s (

$ss%e:

W h e t h e r o r n o t 8 ; D T i s ! i a b ! e ?

&el':No( W e f i n d n o e r r o r i n t he f i n d in g s o f t h e r es " on d en tc ou r t i n i t s o r i g i n a ! d ec i s i on t ha t t he a c c i de n t % h i chb ef e ! ! " r i va te res"ondents %as due to the !ac of di !igence of


23/38

res"ondent Antonio Esteban and %as not im"utab!e toneg!igent omission on t he " a rt of "e t i t i on er 8; DT (The "resence of %arning signs cou!d not have com"!ete!y "revented

the accident0 the on!y "ur"ose of said signs %as to inform and %arn

the "ub!ic of the "resence of e$cavations on the site( The "rivate

res"ondents a!ready ne% of the "resence of said e$c av at ion s( 2t%as not the ! ac o f no%!edge o f these e$cavat i ons %h ich

caused the > ee" o f r es"ondents to fa !! i n to the e$cavation

but the une$"!ained sudden s%erving of the >ee" from the inside

!ane to%ards the accident mound( As o"ined in some &uarters the

omission to "erform a duty such as the "!acing of %arning signs on

the site of the e$cavation constitutes the "ro$imate cause

on!y %hen the doing of the sa id omitted act %ou!d

have "revented the in>ury( 2 t is basic that "r ivate res"ondents

cannot charge 8;DT for their in>uries %here their o%n fai!ure toe$ercise due and reasonab!e care %as the cause thereof( 2t is both

a societa! norm and necessity that one shou!d e$ercise a reasonab!e

degree of caution for his o%n "rotection( 7urthermore res"ondent

Antonio Esteban had the !ast c!ear chance or o""ortunity to avoid

the accident not%ithstanding the neg!igence he im"utes to

"etitioner 8;DT( As a resident of ;acson Street he "assed on that

street a!most everyday and had no%!edge of

th e " re se nce a nd ! oc at io n of th e e$c ava tio ns t here ( 2 t

%as his neg! igence that e$"os ed him a nd his %i fe to

d a n g e h e n c e h e i s s o ! e ! y r e s " o n s i b ! e f o r t h ec o n s e & u e n c e s o f h i s i m " r u d e n c e ( A "erson c!aiming

damages for the neg!igence of another has the burden of "roving the

e$istence of such fau!t or neg!igence causative thereof( The facts

constitutive of neg!igence must be affirmative!y estab!ished by

com"etent evidence( W h o s o e v e r re! ies on neg!igence for his

cause of action has the burden in the first instance of "roving the

e$istence of the same if contested o t h e r % i s e h i s a c t i o n

m u s t f a i ! (

Negligence as Pro;imate )a%seThe ade&uate and efficient cause %hich in the natura! order ofevents and under the "articu!ar circumstancessurrounding theca se % ou !d na tu ra ! ! y " ro du ce th e e ve nt


24/38

Phoeni; )onstr%ction, $nc. et. al. vs. $), et. al.(.. No. -45795 March 1!,19818 S) 353"#acts:E a r !y m o rn i n g o f N o v em b er + + 6 , a t a b o u t + : / 3 am ;e on ar do D io ni s io %a s o n his %ay home from a coctai!s #and#

dinner meeting %ith his boss( During the coctai!s "hase of theevening Dionisio had taen Fa shot or t%oF of ! i& uo r( Dio nis io %asdr iv ing his Bo!s%agen car and had >ust crossed theintersect ion of Genera! ;acuna and Genera! Santos Streets at5anga! Maat i not far f rom his home and%as "roceed ing do%n Genera ! ;acuna S t ree t %hen h i s carhead! igh ts ) in his a!!egation. sudden!y fai !ed( ur ies inc !uding some "ermanent fac ia ! scarsa Fnervous breado%nF and !oss o f t%o go !d br idge dentures (D i o n i s i o c o m m e n ce d a n a c t i o n f o r d a m a g e s i n t h e ' o u r to f 7 i r s t 2 n s ta nc e o f 8 a m" a ng a % h o d e c i d e d i n h i sf a v o r ( O n a " " e a ! t o 2 A ' t h e d e c i s i on %a s a f f i r m ed % i t hm o d i f ic a t i o n a s t o t h e a m ou n t o f d a ma g e s a % a r d e d (

$ss%e:Whether or not 8hoeni$ shou!d be he!d ! iab!e for the damageincurred by Dionisio not%ithstanding the a!!egation that the !atter

h a d n o c u r f e % " a s s a n d t h u s d r o v e s " e e d i ! y % i t h h i sh e a d ! i g h t s o f f ?

&el':6S( The co!!ision bet%een the dum" truc and the Dionisio9s car%ou!d in a!! "robabi!ity not have occurred had the dum" truc no tbeen "ared ase% % ithout any %arn ing ! i gh ts o r ref ! ec tordev ices ( The im"ro"er "ar ing of the dum" t ruc c reated an


25/38

unreasonab!e ris of in>ury for anyone driving do%n Genera! ;acunaStreet and for having so created this r is the truc driver m u s tb e h e ! d r e s " o n s i b ! e (Dionisio9s neg!igence %as not of an inde"endent andover"o%ering nature as to cut as it %ere the chain of causation in

fact b e t % e e n t h e i m " r o " e r " a r i n g o f t h e d u m " t r u c a n dt h e a c c i d e n t n o r t o s e v e r t h e > u r i s v i n c u ! u m o f ! i a b i ! i t y (We ho!d that Dionisio9s neg!igence %as Fon!y contributoryF that theFimmediate and "ro$imate causeF of the in>ury remained the trucdriver9s F!ac of due careF and that conse&uent!y res"ondentDionisio may recover damages though such damages ares u b > e c t t o m i t i g a t i o n b y t h e c o u r t s ) A r t ( * + , 6' i v i ! ' o d e o f t h e 8 h i ! i " " i n e s .8etitioner 'arbone!9s "roven neg!igence creates a "resum"tion ofneg!igence on the "art of his em"!oyer 8hoeni$ in su"ervising itsem"!oyees "ro"er!y and ade&uate!y( The res"ondent a""e!!ate court

in effect found correct!y in our o"inion that 8hoeni$% a s n o ta b ! e t o o v e r c o m e t h i s " r e s u m " t i o n o f n e g ! i g e n c e (Turning to the a%ard of damages and taing into account the

com"arative neg!igence of "rivate res"ondent Dionisio on one h and

and "e ti t ioners 'arbone ! and 8hoen i$ u"on the o the r hand

%e b e! i ev e t ha t t he d ema nd s o f su bs ta nt ia ! >u st ic e a re

satisfied by a!!ocating most of the damages on a *3#=3 ratio( Thus

*3 of the damages a%arded by the res"ondent a""e!!ate

court e$ce"t the a%ard of 8+3333(33 as e$em"!ary damages

and 8133(33 as attorney9s fees and costs sha! ! be borne by

"r ivate res"ondent Dionis io0 on!y the ba!ance of =3 needs tobe "a id by "et it ione rs 'ar bone ! and 8 hoen i$ % ho sha !! be

s o! i da ri t y ! ia b! e t here fo re t o th e f orme r( Th e a %a rd of

e$em"!ary damages and a t to rney 9s fees and cos t s sha! ! be

bo rn e e$c!usive!y by the "etitioners( 8hoeni$ is of course entit!ed to

reimbursement from 'arbone!( We see no sufficient reason for

d i s tu r b in g t h e r e d u c ed a % a rd o f d a m ag e s m a de b y t h e

r e s " o n d e n t a " " e ! ! a t e c o u r t ( That there %as a reasonab!e

r e! at ionshi " bet %e en "et it ione r 'ar bone ! s neg !i ge nc e on

t he one hand and t he acc iden t and r es"onde nt s i n> ur ie son the other hand is &uite c !ear( 8ut in a s ! ight !y

d i ffe rent manner the co !! is i on o f D ion i si o s car % i th du m"

t r u c % a s a n a t u r a ! a n d f o r e s e ea b ! e c o n s e & u e n c e o f t h e

t r u c d r i v e r s n e g ! i g e n c e (

NP*)* vs. )..( 1!375 Ma 71, 1993"#acts:


26/38

This is a conso! idated case com"rising of four se"arate com"!aintsfi!ed against N8' and a "articu!ar 'have@( 8!aintiffs fi!ed a com"!aintagainst res"ondent for the !ost of !ives and destruction of "ro"ertiesdue to the neg!igence of the !atter in re!easing %ater from Angatdam during the ty"hoon IadingJ 5en>amin 'have@ being the

su"ervisor at that time of a mu!ti#"ur"ose hydroe!ectric "!ant in theA n g at R i ve r a t < i ! ! t o " N o r @a g a ra y 5 u !a c a n f a i !e d t oe $ e r c i s e d u e d i ! i g en c e i n m o n i t o r i n g t h e % a t e r ! e v e ! a tt h e d a m (N 8 ' s a ! ! e g a t i o n s % e r e a s f o ! ! o % s :+ . t h e N 8 ' e $ e r c i s e d d u e c a r e d i ! i g e n ce a n d " r u d e n c ei n t h e o " e ra t io n a n d m a in t en a n ce o f t h e h y d ro e !e c t r i c" ! an t 0 * . the N8' e$erci sed the d i !i gence o f a good fa the r i nthe se !ect ion of i ts em"!oyees0 /. %r i t ten not ices %ere sent tothe di f ferent munic i"a! i t ies of 5u!acan %arning ther es iden ts t he re in about t he i m"endi ng r e! ease o f a ! ar ge

vo !u me o f %a ter % ith th e o ns et o f t y " h o o n F a d i n g F a n da d v is e t h em t o t a e t h e n e c es s a ry " r e ca u t io n s 0 1. the%ater re !eased dur ing the ty"hoon %as needed to "revent theco! !a"se of the dam and avoid greater damage to"eo"!e and"ro"erty0. in s"ite of the "recautions undertaen andthe di!igence e$ercised they cou!d sti!! not contain or contro! thef!ood that resu!ted and0-. the damages incurred b y the "r ivateres"ondents %ere caused by a for tuitous event orforce ma>eure and are in the nature and character of damnumabs&ue in >uria( 5y %ay of s"ecia! affirmative defense thedefendants averred that the N8' cannot be sued because i t

" e r f o r m s a " u r e ! y g o v e r n m e n t a ! f u n c t i o n ( The tria! courtdismissed the com"!aints as against the N8' on the ground that the"rovision of its charter a!!o%ing it to sue and be sued does notcontem"!ate act ions based on tort ( The decision on /3 A"ri !+663 dismissed the com"!aints Ffor !ac of sufficient and credib!eevidence(F 'ourt of A""ea!s reversed the a""ea!ed decision anda%arded damages in favor of the "rivate res"ondents( 5ased onthe findings that 7rom the mass of evidence e$tant in the record Weare convinced and so ho!d that the f!ash f!ood on October *,+6,=%as caused not by rain %aters )sic. but by stored %aters )sic.sudden!y and simu!taneous!y re!eased from the Angat Dam by

defendants#a""e! !ees "art icu!ar !y f rom midnight of October*- +6,= u" to the morning hours of October *, +6,=(

$ss%es:+ (W h e t h e r o r n o t r e s " o n d e n t i s n e g ! i g e n t ?*( W h e t h e r o r n o t t h e n o t i c e s o f % a r n i n g % e r ei n s u f f i c i e n t ?


27/38

3.W h e t h e r o r n o t t h e d a m a g e s s u f f e r e d % a s n o t D A M N 4 MA 5 S 4 E 2 N 4 R 2 A ?

&el':We dec!ared therein that the "ro$imate cause of the !oss and

damage sustained by the "!aintif fs therein %h o %e re s i m i !a r ! ysituated as the "rivate res"ondents herein %a s t h e n e g ! i g e n c eo f t h e " e t i t io n e r s a n d t h a t t h e * 1 O c t o b e r + 6 , = F e a r ! y%arning noticeF su""osed!y sent to the affected munici"a!ities thesame notice invo!ved in the case at bar %as insufficient(The "eti tioners %ere gui!ty of F"atent gross and evident !ac offoresight im"rudence and neg!igence in the management ando"eration of Angat DamF and that Fthe e$tent of the o"ening of thes"i!!%ays and the magnitude of the %ater re!eased are a!! b u t" r o d u c t s o f d e f e n d a n t s # a " " e ! ! e e s 9 h e a d ! e s s n e s s s ! o v e n ! i n e s s a n d c a r e ! e s s n e s s ( F

To e$em"t the ob!igor from !iabi !i ty under Artic!e ++,1 of the 'ivi !'ode for a breach of an ob!igation due to an Fact of GodF thefo!!o%ing must concur: )a. the cause of the breach of the ob!igationmust be inde"endent of the %i!! of the debtor0 )b. the event must beeither unforseeab!e or unavoidab!e0 )c. the event must be such as torender it im"ossib!e for the debtor to fu!fi!! his ob!igation in a mora!manner0 and )d. the debtor must be free from any "artici"ation inor aggravation of the in>ury to the creditor( )Bas&ue@ v( 'ourtof A""ea!s +/= S'RA /0 Estrada v( 'onso!acion ,+ S'RA 1*/0Austria v( 'ourt of A""ea!s /6 S'RA*,0 Re"ub! ic of the 8hi ! (v ( ;u@on Stevedor ing 'or"( *+ S'RA *,60 ;asam v( Smith 1

8hi ! ( -,.(According!y "etitioners cannot be heard to invoe the act of God orforce ma>eure to esca"e !iabi!ity for the !oss or damage su st ai ne dby " ri va te r es"onde nt s s ince t he y t he "et it ione rs % er egui !t y o f neg !i ge nc e( The e ve nt t he n % as not occ as ione de$c!usive!y by an act of God or force ma>eure0 a human factorneg!igence or im"rudence had intervened ( The effect then ofthe force ma>eure in &uestion may be deemed to have even ifon!y "art!y resu!ted from the "artici"ation of man( Thus the %ho!eo cc ur re nc e % as t he re by h um an i @ ed a s i t % er e a ndr e m o v e d f r o m t h e ! a % s a " " ! i c a b ! e t o a c t s o f G o d (

-0) ir )argo vs. )..(71 S) 419"

#acts:A certain Roge!io Montero!a %as riding his motorcyc!e a!ong adusty road %hen it co!!ided %ith a cargo van o%ned by ;5' Air'argodriven by aime Tano r( coming from an o""osite direction( On boardthe van %as manager of ;5' and his son( The van origina!!y gave%ay to t%o a!most#racing cars %hich c!ouded the %ay of Tano %ho


28/38

then not %aiting for the dustiness to subside turned sudden at theshar" curve caus ing the misha" % i th the motorcyc !e i ! ! ingM onte ro !a ( < ei rs o f t he ! at te r f i ! ed f or < om ic ide t hr oughrec !es s i m " r u d e n c e a n d d a m a g e s % e r e s o u g h t f r o m ; 5 ' t h e d r i v e r a n d t h e m a n a g e r (

2 s s u e : W he th e r ; 5 ' T a no a n d t he M a na ge r a re ! i ab !ef o r d a m a g e s ?

&el':es.5ut the manager is not there being no em"!oyer#em"!oyee re!ationshi" bet%een him and the driver( The "ro$imatecause of the incident %as Tanos neg!igence of not !etting thedustiness subside and sudden!y turn ing in the curve ( ;5' i s!i ab !e as em"!oyer to Tano( u r y % a s c a u s e d b y

an ag en cy o r instrumenta!ity under e$c!usive contro! andmanagement of defendant and that the occurrence %as such thatin the o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f t h i n g s % o u ! d n o t h a " " e n i fr e a s o n a b ! e c a r e h a d b e e n u s e d ();ayugan vs( 2A'.E ! e m e n t s :a(T h e t h i n g t h a t c a u s e d t h e i n > u r y i s u n d e r t h e e $ c ! u s i v ec o n t r o ! o f t h e d e f e n d a n t (b( T h e i n > u r y d o e s n o t h a " " e n i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o ft h i n g 0 a n d

c( T h e i n > u r y h a " " e n e d a n d n o s u f f i c i e n t e $ " ! a n a t i o n% a s g i v e n b y t h e d e f e n d a n t ( e (g ( : M ed i c a ! M a !" ra c t i ce' a s e s : a ( e $ " e r t t e s t i m o n y b ( ! a y m a n s t e s t i m o n y (

frica vs. )alte;(.. No. -17984 March 31, 1944 14 S) 8"

#acts: A fire broe out at the 'a!te$ service station in Mani!a( 2tstarted %hi!e gaso!ine %as be in g h os ed f ro m a t an t ru c in t o


29/38

t h e underground storage right at the o"ening of the receiving truc%here the no@@!e of the hose %as inserted( The fire then s"read t oa n d burned severa! neighboring houses inc!uding the "ersona!"ro"erties and effects inside them(The o%ners of the houses among them " e t i t i o n e r s h e r e

s u e d ' a ! t e $ ) o % n e r o f t h e s t a t i o n . a n d 5 o & u i r en ) a g e n ti n c h a r g e o f o " e r a t i o n . (Tr ia ! court and 'A found that "et i t ioners fa i !ed to"rove neg! igence and that re s " o n d e n t s h a d e $ e r c i s e dd u e c a r e i n t h e "remises and %ith res"ect to the su"ervision oftheir em"!oyees( 5oth courts refused to a""!y the doctrine of resi"sa !o&uitur on the grounds that Ias to its a""!icabi!ity $$$in the 8hi!i""ines there seems to be nothing definiteJ and that%hi!e the ru!es do not "rohibit it a d o " t i o n i n a " " r o " r i a t ec a s e s I i n t h e c a s e a t b a r h o % e v e r % e f i n d n o " r a c t i c a !use f o r su c h doct ri ne (J

$ss%e:

Whether or not %ithout "roof as to the cause and origin of the firethe doctrine of res i"sa !o&uitur shou!d a""!y as to "resumen e g ! i g e n c e o n t h e " a r t o f t h e a " " e ! ! e e s ?

< e ! d :The d o c t r i n e o f res i"sa !o&uitor a " " ! i e s ( ' a ! t e $ i s -iale( Resi"sa ;o&uitur is a ru! e to the eff ect tha t I%he re the thin g %hic hc ause d t he i n> ur y c om "! ai ne d o f i s sho%n t o be under t he

management of defendant or his servants and the accident is suchas in the ordinary course of things does not ha""en if those %hohave its management or contro! use "ro"er care it af fordsreasonab!e evidence in absence of e$"!anation of defendant t h a tt h e i n c i d e n t h a " " e n e d b e c a u s e o f % a n t o f c a r e (The aforesa id "rinci"!e enunciated in Es"iritu vs( 8hi!i""ine 8o%er andDeve!o"ment 'o(i s a""! i cab !e i n th is case ( The gaso! ine s tat i on % i th a ! ! i t sa""! iances e&ui"ment and em"!oyees%as under the contro! of a""e! !ees ( A f i reoccurred there in and s"read to mand burned the

n ei gh bo ri ng h ou se s( T he " er so n % ho ne % o r c ou !d h av eno%n ho% the f i re started %ere the a""e!!ees andtheir em"!oyees but they gave no e$"!anation thereof %hatsoever(2t is fair and reasonab!e inference that the i n c i d e n th a " " e n e d b e c a u s e o f % a n t o f c a r e (The re"ort by the "o!ice off icer regarding the fire as %e!! as thestatement of the driver of the gaso!ine tan%agon %ho %astransferr ing the contents thereof into the under


30/38

ground storage %hen the f i re broe out st rengthenthe "re sum"t ion of neg!igence( Beri!y )+. the station is in a verybusy district and "edestrians often "ass through ormi!! around the "remises0 )*. the area is used as a car barn foraround +3 ta$icabs o%ned by 5o&uiren0 )/. a store %here "eo"!e

hang out and "ossib!y smoe cigarettes is !ocated one meterfrom the ho!e of the underground tan0 and )1. the concrete %a!!sad>oining the neighborhood ar e on !y * ( me te rs h i gh at mo sta n d c a n no t " r ev e nt t h e f ! a me s f r om ! e a" i n g o v er i t i nc a s e o f f i r e (D e c i s i o n R E B E R S E D ( ' a ! t e $ ! i a b ! e (

#.#. )r%< vs. )..(.. No. -5737 %g%st 79, 1988758 S) 33"#acts:The furniture manufacturing sho" of 7(7( 'ru@ in 'a!oocan 'ity%as situated ad>acent to the residence of the Mab!es( Sometime inAugust+6,+ "rivate res"ondent Gregorio Mab!e first a""roached

Eric 'ru@ "etitioner9s "!ant manager to re&uest that a fire%a!! beconstructed bet%een the sho" and Mab!es residence( The re&uest%as re"eated severa ! times but they fe ! ! on deaf ears ( 2n theea r! y morn in g of Se"tember - +6,1 fire broe out in 'ru@s sh o" ('ru@s em"!oyees %ho s!e"t in the sho" "remis es tr ied to "uto ut th e f ir e bu t th ei re f f o r t s " r o v e d f u t i ! e ( T h e f i r e s " r e a dt o t h eM a b ! e s h ou s e ( 5 ot h t h e s h o" a n d t h e h o u s e %e r e r a @e dt o t h e g r o u n d ( Th e Ma b!e s c o! !ec ted 8/ 333( 33 on t heinsurance on their house and thecontents thereof ( The Mab!es f i !ed an act ion for

d a m a g e s a g a i n s t t h e ' r u @ s (T h e T ' r u ! e d i n f a v o r o f t h e M a b ! e s ( ' A a f f i r m e d b u tr e d u c e d t h e a % a r d o f d a m a g e s (

$ss%e:W h e t h e r o r n o t t h e d o c t r i ne o f res i"sa !o&uitor i sa " " ! i c a b ! e t o t h e c a s e ?

&el':es.( The doctrine of res i"sa !o&uitor is a""!icab!e to the case( The'A therefore had basis to find 'ru@ !iab!e for the !oss sustained by

t h e M a b ! e s (Where the thing %hich caused the in>ury com"!ained of is sho%n tobe under the management of the defendant or his servants and theaccident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not ha""enif those %ho have its management or contro! use "ro"er care itaffords reasonab!e evidence in the absence of e$"!anation by thedefendant that the accident arose from %ant of care( LAfrica v('a!te$ )8hi!(.2nc( G(R( No( ;#+*6=- March /+ +6-- +- S'RA 11=(


31/38

The facts of the case ! ie%ise ca! ! for the a""!ication of thedoctrine considering that in thenorma! course of o"erations of afurniture manufacturing sho" combustib!e materia! such as %ood chi"s sa%dust "aint varnishand fue ! and !ubricants for ma ch in er y ma y be fo u nd th er eo n(

2 t must a ! so be noted that neg!igence or %ant o f care on the"art of "et i t ioner or i ts em"!oyees %as not mere !y "resumed(' r u @ f a i ! e d t o c o n s t r u ct a f i r e % a! ! b e t % e e n i t s s h o " a n dt h e r e s id en ce o f t h e M a b! e s a s r e & u i r e d b y a c i t yo r d i n a n c e (T h a t t h e f i r e c o u ! d h a v e b e e n c a u s e d b y a h e a t e dm o t o r o r a ! i t c i g a r e t t e (T h a t g a s o ! i n e a n d a ! c o h o ! % e r e u s e d a n d s t o r e d i nt h e s h o " 0 a n d t h a t % o r e r s s o m e t i m e s s m o e di n s i d e t h e s h o " (Even %ithout a""!ying the doctrine of res i"sa !o&uitur 'ru@9s fai!ure

to construct a fire%a!! in accordance %ith city ordinances % o u ! ds u f f i c e t o s u " " o r t a f i n d i n g o f n e g ! i g e n c e (Even then the fire "ossib!y %ou!d not have s"read to the neighboringhouses %ere it not for another neg!igent omission on the "a rt ofdefendants name!y thei r fa i !ure to "rovide aco nc ret e %a !! h ig h e nou gh to " re ven t th e f !a mes f ro m!ea"ing over i t (Defendant9s neg!igence therefore %as not on!y %ith res"ect to the cause ofthe fire but a!so %ith res"ect tothe s"read thereof to the neighboring houses(2n the instant case %ith more reason shou!d "etitioner be foundgui!ty of neg!igence since it had fai !ed to construct a fire%a!!

bet%een its "ro"erty and "rivate res"ondents9 residence %hichsufficient!y com"!ies %ith the "ertinent city ordinances( The fai!ureto com"!y %ith an ordinance "roviding for safety regu!ations hadbeen ru!ed by the 'ourt as an act of neg!igence LTeaguev(7ernande@ G(R( No( ;# *6,1 une 1 +6,/ + S'RA +=+(

0ati=%in vs. )..(.. No. 118731 2%l 5, 1994> 758 S) 33"

#acts: On Se"t +6== 8etitioner Dr( 5ati&uin "erformed a sim"!ecaesarean section on Res"ondent Mrs( Bi!!egas %hen the !atter gavebirth( Soon after !eaving the hos"ita! res "ondent beg an to suf fe r

abdom ina ! "a ins and c om "! ai ne d o f bei ng f ev er ish( T h ea b d o m i n a ! "ains and fever e"t on recurring and this "rom"tedres"ondent to c onsu !t % it h ano ther doc to r D r( ho ) no t


32/38

R T ' h e ! d i n f a v o r o f " e t i t i on e r ( ' A r e v e r s e d r u ! i n g f o rt h e r e s " o n d e n t (

$ss%e:W h e t h e r o r n o t " e t i t i o n e r i s ! i a b ! e t o r e s " o n d e n t ?

&el':6S( 4 n d e r t h e r e s i " s a ! o & i u t o r ( D r ( 5 a t i & u i n i s -$0-6.Res i"sa !o&uitur ( The thing s"eas for i tse!f ( Rebuttab!e"resum"tion or inference that defendant %as neg!igent %hich arisesu"on "roof that the instrumenta!ity causing in>ury %as indefendant9s e$c!usive contro! and that the accident %as one %hichordinary does not ha""en in absence of neg!igence( Res i"sa!o&uitur is a ru!e of evidence %hereby neg!igence of the a!!eged% ro ng do er ma y b e i nf er re d f ro m t he m er e f ac t t ha t t heacc ident ha""ened "rov ided the character of the acc ident and

circumstances attending it !ead reasonab!y to be!ief that in theabsence of neg!igence it %ou!d not have occurred and that thing% h i ch c a us e d i n > u r y i s s h o% n t o h a ve b ee n u n de r t hem a n a g e m e n t a n d c o n t r o ! o f t h e a ! ! e g e d % r o n g d o e r (4nder this doctrine the ha""ening of an in>ury "ermits an inferenceof neg!igence %here "!aintiff "roduces substantia! evidence thatthe in>ury %as caused by an agency or instrumenta!ity under thee$c!usive contro! and management of defendant and that t h eo c c u r r e n c e % a s s u c h t h a t i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o ft h i n g s % o u ! d n o t h a " " e n i f r e a s o n a b ! e c a r eh a d b e e n u s e d (

The doctr ine of res i"sa !o&uitur as a ru !e of evidence is"ecu! iar to the !a% of neg! igence %hich recogni@es that "rimafacie neg!igence may be estab! ished %ithout direct "roof andfurnishes a substitute for s"ecific "roof ofneg!igence( The doctrine isnot a ru!e of substantive !a% but mere!ya mode of "roof or a mere "rocedura! convenience( The ru!e %hena""!icab!e to the facts and circumstances of a "articu!ar case is notintended to and does not dis"ense %ith the re&uirement of "roof ofcu!"ab!e neg!igence on the "arty charged( 2t mere!y determines andregu!ates %hat sha!! be

"rima facie evidence thereof and faci!itates the burden of "!aintiff of"roving a breach of the duty of due care( The doctrine can beinvoed %hen and on!y %hen under the c i r c u m s t a n c e si n v o ! v e d d i r e c t e v i d e n c e i s a b s e n t a n d n o t r e a d i ! ya v a i ! a b ! e (2 n t he i ns tant c ase a !! t he r e&ui si te s f or r ec ou rse t o t hedoctr ine are "resent ( 7 irs t theent ire "roceedings of the caesarean section %ere under the


33/38

e$c!usive contro! of Dr( 5ati&uin( 2n this !ight the "rivateres"ondents %ere bereft of direct evidence as to the actua!cu!"r i t or the e$act cause of the fore ign ob>ect f inding i ts %ayinto "r ivate res"onde nt Bi ! !egas 9s body %hich need!ess to saydoes not occur un!ess through the intersection of

neg!igence( Second since aside from the caesarean section "rivateres"ondent Bi! !egas under%ent no other o"eration %hich cou!dhave caused the offending "iece of rubber to a""ear in her uterus itstands to reason that such cou!d on!y have been a by#"roduct of thecaesarean section "erformed by Dr( 5ati&uin( The "etitioners in thisregard fai!ed to overcome the "resum"tion of neg!igence arisingfrom resort to the doctrine of res i"sa!o&uiturD r ( 5 a t i & u i n i s t h e r e f o r e ! i a b ! e f o rn e g ! i g e n t ! y ! e a v i n g b e h i n d a " i e c e o f r u b b e ri n " r i v a t e r e s " o n d e n t B i ! ! e g a s 9 s a b d o m e n a n d f o ra ! ! t h e a d v e r s e e f f e c t s t h e r e o f (

R e s " o n d e n t S u " e r i o r8 r e s u m" t i o n o f n e g ! i g en c e a g a i n s t t h e e m " ! o y e r f o r t h en e g ! i g e n c e o f t h e e m " ! o y e e s (Em"!oyers sha!! be !iab!e for damages caused by theirem"!oyees and househo!d he!"ers acting %ithin the sco"e of theirass igned tass even though the former are noteng ag ed in an y busin ess or ind us try ( )Art( *+=3 "ar Ne% 'ivi!'ode.When the in >ury caused by the neg!igence of the em"!oyeethere i nstant ! y a r ises a " resum"t ion o f ! a% that there %asneg!igence on the "art of the em"!oyer either in the se!ection of the

em"!oyee or in the su"ervision over him after such se!ection( The"resum"t ion ho%ever may be rebutted by a c !ear sho%ing onthe "ar t o f the em"!oyer that i s has e$erc i sed the care andd i !i gence o f a good fa the r o f a fami ! y i n the se !ec ti on andsu"erv is io n of h is em" !o ye es( )'hina Air!ines vs( '(A( G(R( No( 16=May += +663.8et i t ioner 'arbone! s "roven neg! igence createsa " re sum"ti on o f neg !i ge nc e on t he "ar t o f h is e m" !oye r8hoeni$ in s u" er v i s i ng i ts e m " !o y e e s " r o " er ! ya n d a d e &u a t e ! y ( ) 8 ho e n i$ ' o n st r uc t io n 2 n c ( e t ( a ! ( v s (2 A ' + 1 = S ' R A / / .

)hina irlines vs. )..(.. No. 5985 Ma 18, 199! 185 S) 9"

#acts: 8anganiban %as B ice 8resident and Genera! Manager ofRentoi ! 2nc( a !oca! insect ic ide com"any(


34/38

agent(


35/38

ascertain the e$ istence of an em"!oyer#em"!oyee re !at ionshi"be fore an em"!oye r may be v icari ous ! y ! i ab !e under A rt i c! e* += 3 o f t he ' iv i! 'ode( 8 A; i s ! iab! e f or neg !i ge nc e o f i tsem"!oyees even i f 8A; %as act ing as t icet ing agents of 'hinaA ir ! ines( There i s no &ues t ion that the cont rac tua ! r e !a t ion

bet%een both a ir ! ines is one of agency( 2nan act ion " re mi se d on t he e m" !oye e9 s neg !i ge nc e %hereby8agsibigan sees recovery for the resu!ting damages from both 8A;and Es"ir itu %ithout &ua!if ication %hat is sought t o b e i m " o s e di s t h e d i r e c t a n d " r i m a ry ! i a b i ! i t y o f 8 A ; a s a n e m " ! o ye ru n d e r s a i d A r t i c ! e * + = 3 (

Phoeni; )onstr%ction, $nc. et. al. vs. $), et. al.(.. No. -45795 March 1!,19818 S) 353"

#acts: Ear!y morning of November + +6, at about +:/3am

;eonardo Dionis io %as on h i s %a y ho me f r om a co c ta i ! s #a nd #d i n n e r meeting %ith his boss( During the coctai !s "hase of theevening Dionisio had taen Fa shot or t%oF of !i&uor( D i o n i s i o% a s d r i v i n g h i s Bo!s%agen car and had >ust crossed theintersection of Genera! ;acuna and Genera! Santos Streets at5anga! Maati not far from his home and %as "roceeding do%nGenera! ;acuna Street %hen his car head!ights )inh i s a ! ! e g a t i o n . s u d d e n ! y f a i ! e d ( < e s % i t c h e d h i sh ea d ! ig h t s o n F br ig ht F a nd t he re u" on h e s a% a 7 or dd um " t ru c ! oo m i n g s om e * # +K * m e t er s a %a y f r o mh i s c a r ( The dum" truc o%ned by and registered in the name of

"et it ioner 8hoeni$ 'o nstruct io n 2nc( %as "ared on the r ighthand side of Genera! ;acuna Street facing the oncoming traffic( Thedum" truc %as "ared ase% )not "ara!!e! to the s t re et c u r b .i n s u c h a manner as to stic out onto the street "art!y b!ocingthe %ay of oncoming t raf f ic ( There %ere ne i ther ! ights nor anyso# ca! ! ed Fea r!y %arningF ref!ector devices set any%here nearthe dum" truc f ront or rear( The dum" truc had ear! iert ha t e ve ni ng bee n d ri ve n hom e by "etitioner Armando 4('arbone! its regu!ardr iver %i th the "ermiss ion of h is em"!oyer8hoeni$ in v ie% of %or schedu! ed to be carr ied out ear!y thefo!!o%ing morning Dionisio c!aimed that he tried to avoid a co!!ision

by s%erving his car to the !eft but it %as too !ate and hiscar smashed into the dum" truc( As a resu!t of the co! !isionDionisio suffered some "hysica! in>uries inc! ud ing so me "e rman en tfacia! scars a Fnervous breado%nF and !oss of t%o go! bridgedentures( Dionisio commenced an act ion for damages in the'ourt of 7irst 2nstance of 8am"anga %hich rendered >udgmentin h is favor( On a""ea! to 2A' the decis ion %as


36/38

aff i rmed %ith modif ica tion as to the a m o u n t o f d a m a g e sa % a r d e d (

$ss%e:Whether or not 8hoeni$ shou!d be he!d ! iab!e for the damage

incurred by Dionisio not%ithstanding the a!!egation that the !atterh a d n o c u r f e % " a s s a n d t h u s d r o v e s " e e d i ! y % i t hh i s h e a d ! i g h t s o f f ?

&el':CES( The co!! is ion bet%een the dum" truc and the Dionisio9s car%ou!d in a!! "robabi!ity not have occurred had the dum" trucnot been "ared ase% %ithout any %arning !ightsor ref!ector devices( The im"ro"er "aring of the dum" truccreated an unreasonab!e ris of in>ury for anyone driving do%nGenera! ;acuna Street and for having so created this ris the truc

driver m u s t b e h e ! d r e s " o n s i b ! e (Dionisio9s neg!igence %as not of an inde"endent andover"o%ering nature as to cut as it %ere thechain of causation in fact be t % e e n t he i m " r o" e r "a r i n g o ft he d um " t ru c a nd t he a cc id en t n or t o s ev e r t he> u r i s v i n c u ! u m o f ! i a b i ! i t y (We ho!d that Dionisio9s neg!igence %as Fon!y contributoryF that theFimmediate and "ro$imate causeF of the in>ury remained the trucdriver9s F!ac of due careF and that conse&uent!y res"ondentDionisio may recover damages though such damages are s u b > e c tt o m i t i g a t i o n b y t h e c o u r t s ) A r t ( * + , 6 ' i v i ! 'o d e o f t h e

8 h i ! i " " i n e s .8etitioner 'arbone!9s "roven neg!igence creates a "resum"tion ofneg!igence on the "art of his em"!oyer 8hoeni$ in su"ervising itsem"!oyees "ro"er!y and ade&uate!y( The res"ondent a""e!!ate courtin effect found correct !y in our o"inion that 8hoeni$ % a s n o ta b ! e t o o v e r c o m e t h i s " r e s u m " t i o n o f n e g ! i g e n c e (Turning to the a%ard of damages and taing into account thecom"arative neg!igence of "rivate res"ondent Dionisio on one ha ndand "e ti t ioners 'arbone ! and 8hoen i$ u"on the o the r hand % e b e! ie ve t ha t t he d ema nd s o f s ub st an ti a! > us ti ce a resatisfied by a!!ocating most of the damages on a *3#=3 ratio( Thus

*3 of the damages a%arded by the res"ondent a""e!!atecourt e$ce"t the a%ard of 8+3 333(33 as e$em"!ary damagesand 8133(33 as attorney9s fees and costs sha! ! be borne by"r ivate res"ondent Dionis io0 on!y the ba!ance of =3 needs tobe "ai d by "et it ione rs 'ar bone ! and 8 hoen i$ % ho sha !! beso! idar i ty ! iab!e therefore to the former ( The a%ard ofe$em"!ary damages and attorney9s fees and costssha! ! be bo rne e$c!usive!y by the "etitioners( 8hoeni$ is of course


37/38

entit!ed to reimbursement from 'arbone!( We see no sufficientreason for d i s t u r b i n g t h e r e d u c e d a % a r d o f d a m a g e s m a d eb y t h e r e s " o n d e n t a " " e ! ! a t e c o u r t (

0onifacio vs. 0-T0((3 S) 418"

#acts:ovito 5oni facio Sr together %ith his %ife and Agustio Ange!es)february *, +6-1. used to bathe in 8anso!


38/38

is "roof to the contrary it is "resumed that a "erson driving amotor vehic!e has been neg!igent if at the t i m e o f th e mi s h a " h e % a s v i o ! a t i n g a n y t r a f f i c r e g u ! a t i o n ()Art *+= Ne% 'ivi! 'ode.

Documents

Torts and Damages Definition