Lil's Notes |Torts | 22 Nov 2011Aquino pp. 1-11 Tort : French torquere, to twist Common Law o Unlawful violation of a private right, not created by contract, and which gives rise to an action for damages o It is an act or omission producing an injury to another, w/o any previous existing lawful relation of which the said act or omission may be said to be a natural outgrowth or incident o Private or civil wrong or injury, other than breach of contract o Black's Law Dictionary: There must always be violation of some duty that must arise from operation of law and not by mere agreement of the parties. o There is no universal formula for tort liability. o Includes: Intentional torts : assault, battery, etc. Negligence : Voluntary acts or omissions w/c result in injury to others, w/o intending to cause the same Strict Liability : person liable independent of fault or negligence upon submission of proof of certain facts Philippine Tort Law o Art 1157 (quasi-delict as a source of obligation),Art. 2176 to 2194 Provisions on Tort in NCC influenced by law and decisions in different countries Spain Roman Law US pol & eco relations b/w US & PH, common law Concept of right and wrong essentially the same throughout world. Roman Law (Institutes) main source Liability of judge misconduct s case, gives wrong decision Liability of occupier of bldg for 2x damage for anything thrown or forced out of the bldg. no matter by whom, on a public place (Art 2193) Liability of occupier if thing he suspended on a bldg falls and damages something if it fell Liability of inn keepers, shop keepers, stables for theft or damage caused by slaves or employees (Art 2000) Code Commission's general plan was for the NCC to cover unintentional acts and intentional acts to be governed by RPC, thus "tort" does not appear in NCC However, other statutes and jurisprudence by SC deviated from general plan and included intentional acts in torts. (Broader Definition) SC: Tort breach of legal duty SC: Tort the violation of a right given or omission of statutory duty imposed by law (Naguiat v. NLRC) Catch-All Provision: Arts 19-21 embody Anglo-Amer concept of tort. (include malice) PH Torts include: o Defamation o Fraud o Physical Injuries o Violation of Constitutional Rights o Negligence o Interference w/ contractual relations o Violation of Privacy o Malicious Prosecution o Product Liability o Strict liability for possession of animals o Abuse of right (CC Art 19) o Acts w/c violate good morals & custom (NCC Art 21) o Civil liability arising from criminal liability Torts adopted by SC even before NCC o Art 1902. Any person who by any act or omission causes damage to another by his fault or negligence shall be liable for the damage so done. Art 2176 included intentional acts. (Elcano v. Hill) Justice Bocobo: remove phrase " not punishable by law" may lead to following the letter but not spirit of law, so phrase removed from NCC. Civil Negligence : culpa aquiliana : quasi-delict : culpa extra-contractual : cuasi-delito Art 2177: acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action, not for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, but for damages due to quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana Purpose of Tort Law o Peaceful means of adjusting rights of parties o Deter wrongful conduct o Encourage socially responsible behavior o Restore injured parties to their original condition, as much as law can do this through compensation for injury. o Reduce the risks and burden of living in the society and to allocate them among the members of society (Phoenix v. IAC)

-

o

-

-

-

-

-

o

-

Report of the Code Commission (1948) pp. 161-163 Solutio Indebiti : Art 2175 : payment by mistake Quasi-Delict: obligations that do not arise from law, contracts, quasicontracts or criminal offenses. Quasi-Delict closest to ancient law of Lex Aquilia. Art 2199 : blending of American and Spanish Philippine law. (proximate cause, contributory negligence) Special Provisions for motor vehicle mishaps (2204-2206) Sergio Naguiat doing business under the name of Sergio F. Naguiat Ent. Inc. & Clark Field Taxi Inc. (CFTI) v. NLRC, Nat'l Org of Workingman and its members, Leonardo Galang etal (13 Mar 1997, Panganiban)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Labor Case Clark Air Base closed, ending CFTI's concessionaire's contract with Army Air Force Exchange Services (AAFES) and causing employees of CFTI to be separated from service. Some employees asking for more separation pay. Boundary fee $26.50-27.00. Minimum earning $15/day for 3-4 days a week. Driver's union agreed to sep. pay of P500/year of service, other union members would not accept this agreement, filed case. Naguiat: great financial losses and lost business opportunity Naguiat: Sergio F Naguiat Ent separate entity, should not be solidarily liable with CFTI Naguiat: Sergio and Antonin only officers and stockholders of CFTI, should not be personally accountable for corporate debts. NLRC: o First decided to give P1200/year of service: humanitarian consideration o After appeal by union, separation pay $120 for every year of service o Sergio Naguiat Ent. Inc., Sergio & Antonin Naguiat jointly and severally liable with CFTI. Issue: Are officers of corporations ipso facto liable jointly and severally with the companies they represent for the payment of separation pay? SC: Closure of business does not mean company suffered great financial loss. Closure due to phaseout of bases, not business losses. SC: NLRC gave decided on correct amount based on Art 283 of Labor Code. (1/2 month pay for every year of service) SC: Naguiat Enterprises not liable bec. Union members employees of CFTI and not Naguiat. No evidence that Naguiat indirect employer. SC: Sergio supervising employees as President of CFTI. Naguiat not involved in taxi business, but in trading SC: Sergio, as company president of CFTI, solidarily liable with CFTI in the

-

-

-

-

broader sense of justice. Sergio actively managed the business. SC: Corpo Code: Closed Family Corp. stockholder who manage business personally liable for corporate tort unless the corporation has obtained reasonably adequate liability insurance. (Sec 100, p5) No tort liability insurance, determine if there was "Corporate Tort" Essentially, "tort" consists in the violation of a right given or the omission of a duty imposed by law" Tort is a breach of legal duty. SC: Art 283 of Labor Code requires employer to give separation pay upon closure of business law imposed duty or obligation. SC: Antonin not liable, did not really manage business.

-

-

Liwayway Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune Tobacco Corp (19 Jun 2007, Ynares-Santiago) Chato : Comm of BIR 10 Jun 1993: RA 7654 effective 3 July 1993. Prior to RA7654, Champion, Hope & More cigarettes considered local brands subject to ad valorem tax of 20-45% 1 Jul 1993: RMC 37-93 reclassified Champion, Hope and More as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand subject to 55% tax, subjecting cigarette brands to Sec 142(c)(1) which applies to locally manufactured cigarettes currently classifled and taxed at 55% 2 July 1993, 5:50pm : RMC 37-93 faxed to Fortune, addressed to no one in particular. 30 July 1993,: after MR's, Fortune assessed tax deficiency of ~Php9.6M CTA, CA and SC ruled RMC 37-93 invalid and unenforceable. (short of req'm for valid admin issuance) 10 Apr 1997: Fortune sues Chato for damages in her private capacity under Art 32 of NCC (RMC 37-93 violated Fortune's constitutional right against deprivation of property w/o due process of law and the right to equal protection of the laws. Chato files motion to dismiss: Issued RMC in the performance of her official function, no cause of action for lack of

-

-

-

-

-

allegation of malice and bad faith, cert against forum-shopping. RTC: can't dismiss, premature since parties have not presented evidence CA: Art 32 of NCC: Liability may arise even if defendant did not act with malice of bad faith. Admin Code (Sec 38 Bk 1) general law on civil liability while Art 32 of NCC special law that governs this case. Admin Code: liability only attaches if there is clear showing of bad faith, malice or gross negligence where public officer violated a constitutional right of plaintiff. (Superior Officer) o Subordinate Officer: civilly liable for willful or negligent acts done by him which are contrary to law, morals public policy and good customs even if he acts under orders of superior. Art 32: Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates, or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages. (to end official abuse) Issue: WON Administrative Code or NCC should be applied? NCC SC: Art 32 of NCC controlling. SC: The special law must prevail since it evinces legislative intent more clearly than that of a general statue and must not be taken as intended to affect the more particular and specific provisions of the earlier act, unless it is absolutely necessary so to construe it in order to give its words any meaning at all. SC: Special Law exception SC: Art 32 patterned after tort in American Law.(commission or omission of an act by one, w/o right, whereby another receives some injury, directly or indirectly, in person, property, or reputation.) No need for evil intent. SC: intent of leg. To create a distinct cause of action in nature of tort for violation of constitutional rights, irrespective of motive. Admin Code: deal in particular with liability of gov't officials BUT subject is

-

-

general. ("Acts" done in performance of official duties, no specific act or omission) Art 32 specifies "act" tort for impairment of rights & liberties. Subject is particular or specific provision. SC Dispositive: motion to dismiss denied, continue proceedings in RTC Marikina.

Prosser v. Keeton pp. 1-7 No definition, civil wrong, pervades entire law. Harm/justification, difficult to tell Characteristics of Tort o Harm results or about to result o Capable of being compensated in action of law for damages, though other remedies available o Breach of duties fixed and imposed upon parties by law itself, even w/o their consent (ex driving responsibly) Liability in tort is based upon relations of persons with others, may arise with large groups or classes of persons or singly/individually Liability based on conduct which is socially unacceptable. Reasonable standards, reasonable balance b/w plaintiff's claim to protection and defendant's claim to freedom of action. Accounting? Act may be reasonable logically, but be regarded as socially unreasonable (ex trespassing thinking on own land, protect scope of property rights) Torts Under the Spanish Law "Tort" as understood in common law not found in Spanish law. Nearest translation "culpa extracontractual" But tort exists in Spanish legal system under different name and condition Ex Art 1902. Any person who by an act or omission causes damage to another when there is fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the damage so done" Classification of Tort o Arising out of crimes or

Lil's Notes |Torts | 22 Nov 2011misdemeanors (RPC) *Acts or omissions not punished by law. (CC 1093) Acts & omissions w/c are illicit (Art 1089) refers to penal acts, Acts & omissions in which any kind o fault or negligence intervenes (Art 1089) refers to tort (1093) Culpa or negligence o Substantive an incident in the performance of an obligation w/c already exists. o Independent obligation b/w persons nto formerly bound by any other obligation Art 1089: Obligations are created by law, by contracts, by quasi-contracts, by illicit acts and omissions or by those in which any kind of fault or negligence occurs. Art 1092: Civil obligations, arising from crimes or misdemeanors, shall be governed by the provisions of the Penal Code Art 1093: Those arising from acts and omissions in which faults or negligence, not punished by law, occur, shall be subject to the provisions of chapter second of title sixteen of this book. 1092 and 1093 show Spanish codifiers' intention to classify private wrongs. Private wrongs arising from crimes or misdemeanors o How to enforce? o (1) merging civil action in criminal prosecution o (2) bringing separate civil action in special cases only (adultery, etc) o (3) independent civil action in all cases irrespective of whether the civil liability arie from private or public wrongs. o 1882 case in Spain, dog bit plaintiff : party injured in criminal case may institute penal and civil action jointly or o separately, but only in the case in which the civil action is renounced or expressly reserved. If civil action conducted jointly with criminal action, cannot bring another civil action and plaintiff must content herself with adjudication in criminal case. o 1902: While criminal case pending, no separate civil action may be instituted until final judgment of penal action. Provisional acquittal does not give the right to institute separate civil suit. o (Fernandez v . Perez) Spanish law, additional penalty/indemnity (intangible damage) only granted if defendant guilty in criminal proceeding. o Crimes of public action (involuntary), Crimes of individual action (voluntary) 2 remedies in Art 1092 of CC. (1) Public Prosecutor to join civil and criminal actions, (2) Instituting separate civil action independent of criminal action w/o waiting for institution of criminal action. No conviction necessary (Art 116) (Art 114) if criminal action instituted subsequently, civil action suspended. Act 277 of Philippine Commission: The pendency of a criminal appeal does not suspend prosecution of the civil suit, and a judgment in one is no bar to the prosecution of the other. Civil action can be instituted independently. Civil liability was not intended to be merged in the criminal nor even to be suspended thereby, except as expressly provide in the law. (1093) Acts & Omissions not punished by Law o Lex Aquilia. Reparation for injuries corpora corpori (injuries done by wrongdoer on property of plaintiff and corpora sed non corpora (injuries caused indirectly by the fault of the defendant, either to the owner of the property injured, or to any one having an interest in it) o Fault of positive character : 2x damages, fault of omission insufficient o Injury to person or reputation o Practicing when unqualified Injuries real or verbal Quasi-Delict: an incident by which damage is done to the obligee (even w/o negligence or intention), and for which damage the obligor is bound to make satisfaction (Austin) Quasi-ex-delicto: damage by employee, etc, owner liable. Noxas dare: owner frees himself from liability by abandoning slave or animal. Repair injury Nature and character of damages recoverable in an exclusively civil action arising from such acts and omissions Should damages be material and capable of exact valuation? (BUT this limitation not in Civil Code) Civil Code uses broad language, does not limit damage. Manresa on Damage o Loss suffered o Profits which a person may have failed to realize. (future suffering?) Death, mental state, etc. SC of Spain and PH, no recovery for pain and mental suffering. Common law does not redress private wrongs at public expense. existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a) Barredo vs Garcia: Fausto Barredo : owner of Malate Taxicab Faustino Garcia: 16-yr old boy killed in accident Pedro Fontanilla: driver of taxi, many traffic violations, driving on wrong side of road at high speed. Pedro Dimapalis: driver of carretela Fontanilla convicted in criminal action Parents of Faustino ask for right to bring separate civil action against Barredo, granted by court. CFI: awards 2K damages, CA: reduced to 1K damages Defense: Barredo's liability is subsidiary CA: liability sought not arising from felony or misdemeanor, but obligation impored in Art 1903 of CC by reason of negligence in selection or supervision of his servant or employee. Issue: May plaintiffs bring separate civil action against Fausto Barredo, thus making him primarily and directly, responsible under Art 1903 of CC as employer of Pedro Fontanilla. (YES) RPC 100: Every person criminally liable also civilly liable. Confusion arises from overlapping of penal crimes (negligence) and negligence under CC. (phrase no t punishable by law) Difference b/w crimes under RPC and Culpa aquiliana o Crimes are public interest, cuasi-delitos are private concern o RPC punishes criminal act, CC repairs damage by indemnification o Delicts not as broad as quasi-delicts. Rakes vs Atlantic: ruling wrong. Exercise the case of a good father (defense vs quasi-delict) Presumption of negligence of employer when there is negligence by employee, but may be rebutted.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-

-

Criminal case: proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, Civil case: preponderance of evidence sufficient. SC: Affirms CA decision.

Porfiro Cinco v. Hon Mateo Canoy (CFI Cebu, Judge Barria, City Judge Mandaue City, Romeo Hilot, Valeriana Pepito and Carlos Pepito (31 May 1979, Melencio-Herrera) Petition for review on certiorari of CFI decision Romeo Hilot, driver of jeepney operated by Pepitos was involved in vehicular accident with Cinco. While criminal case was filed against Hilot, respondents filed for suspension of civil action pending final determinations of criminal suit (Rule 111, Sec 3(b) City Court ordered suspension of civil case and CFI found no grave abuse of discretion for suspending case. Issue: WON trial of civil case should be suspended until after final judgment of criminal case. (WON an there can be an independent civil action for damage to property during the pendency of the criminal action? SC: Action based on quasi-delict based on Art 2176 and 2180 of NCC> SC: Liability predicated on quasidelict, civil case may proceed as separate and independent civil action (Art 2177) Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.(n) Rule 111 Sec 2 Rules of Court justifies separate civil action (inc Art 2177) Supported by Art 31 Article 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter. SC: No distinction b/w damage to persons and damage to property. SC: Judge Canonoy gravely abused discretion in upholding City Court's decision to suspend civil action. Gashem Shookat Baksh v. CA and Marilou T. Gonzales (19 Feb 1993, Davide) -

Pedro Elcano and Patricia Elcano in their capacity as Ascendants of Agapito Elcano, deceased v. Reginald Hill, minor and Marvin Hill, as father and Natural Guardian of minor. (26 May 1977, Barredo) Appeal from CFI Quezon City Reginald Hill killed Agapito Elcano, but was acquitted of criminal liability because of lack of intent. Parents of Agapito seek to recover damages from Marvin Hill. Issue: Is the present civil action for damages barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case wherein the action for civil liability was not reserved? NO (Barredo v. Garcia) May Art 2180 of NCC be applied against Marvin, given that Reginald though a minor was married even though he was being financially supported by his father? SC: Barreda vs Garcia covers not only negligence, but extends to fault or culpa. SC: Justice Bocobo: follow spirit and not just letter of the law. Art. 2177. Allowed to institute separate actions, but not allowed to recover damages twice. SC: Acquittal in criminal case has not extinguished his liability for quasidelict, and thus acquittal not a bar to instant action against him. SC: Marvin Hill not free from responsibility despite emancipation of Reginald thru marriage. Emancipation of minor by marriage is not absolute (Art 399 CC) He can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his father, mother or guardian. Art 2180: the obligation imposed by Art 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. Marvin is responsible for Reginald. SC: But since Reginald is now of age, liability of Marvin is only subsidiary, as a matter of equity. SC: reverses CFI decision dismissing case

-

-

-

-

-

Appeal by certiorari to review and set aside decision of CA. Setting: Dagupan City, Pangasinan Marilou G: pretty, lass of good moral character, 22years old, HS grad, employed at Mabuhay Luncheonette. Baksh: Iranian citizen, exchange student, medical course at Lyceum. Engaged before 20 Aug 1987, visited parents Lived with Baksh on 20 Aug 1987, slept with him, maltreated her one week before scheduled Oct wedding. Baksh wanted to split up with her after a fight and said he was already married to someone in Bacolod. Gonzales asking for damages of 45K, reimbursement for actual expenses. AF Baksh: did not propose, asks for 25K moral damages. Not familiar with Filipino customs (Muslim, foreigner) RTC: awards 20K moral damages to Gonzales. Good moral character, expenses for preparation of wedding, non-fulfillment of promise. CA: affirms RTC ruling. (Barrio lass) Fraud and deception, conduct against morals, good customs, etc. Issue: WONN damages may be recovered for breach of promise to marry on the basis of Art 21 of NCC Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. SC: Breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong per se.(abuse by designing women) BUT Art 21 was designed to grant adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs w/c is impossible for human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in statute books. SC: Baksh cannot be held criminally liable under Art 337/338 of RPC bec Gonzales over 18. BUT is liable under Art 21 for moral seduction (deceit, abuse of power) SC: mutual lust not included in moral damages. SC: affirms CA decision, but scold parents of Marilou for allowing them to stay in the same room in their house when visiting.

Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils, Inc. v. CA, Cesar Bautista and heirs of Paciano Bautista (27 Jan 1994, Romero) Petition for review on certiorari of CA decision Cesar & Paciano owners of land in Malabon Coca-Cola leased lot Bautista's land (thru sales supervisor Manoloto) for 10years 1982-1992. Coca-Cola dumped lot with filling materials, but ground of sales office/warehouse was still sinking (rainy season May 1983). Cost or corrective measures too expensive (900K++). Coca-Cola terminates lease, but Bautista's refuse and file complaint for specific performance and damages RTC: orders Coca-Cola to pay back rentals plus interest. If Coca-Cola does not comply with the terms of the lease contract, must pay 789,606.64, representing unrealized rental income for duration of lease contract. CA: no duty by Bautista's to fill up lot so Coca Cola could properly use it. Affirms RTC's ruling. CCBPI : they had been denied rights to the enjoyment or use of thing leased under Art 1643 of NCC. Bautista's in bad faith because did not reveal that lot was originally a fishpond. Issue: WON Bautista's entitled to damages? YES Issue: WON CCBPI justified in preterminating the contract of lease. SC: CCBPI (Jose Palma) was aware that lot was under water, advised not set high price for lease. CCBPI fully aware of nature and condition of land. Ocular inspections conducted. SC: Bautista have not committed any actionable wrong. SC: Affirms CA, RTC ruling., reduces AF.

ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICT and TORT Natividad Andamo and Emmanuel Andamo v. IAC and Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette Inc. (6 Nov 1990, Fernan) Andamos owner of land in Silang,

Lil's Notes |Torts | 22 Nov 2011Cavite adjacent to that of Missionaries. In Missionaries land, waterpaths including an artificial lake was constructed such that it flooded Andamo's land causing a young man to drown, damage crops and plants, washed away costly fences, exposed them to danger during rainy season. Jul 1982: Andamos file criminal action under Art 324 of RPC against officers of corporation. 22 Feb 1983: Andamos file civil action for damages against corporation. Apr 1984: RTC suspends hearing until judgment to criminal case finalized and later dismisses civil case for lack of jurisdiction bec. criminal case still unresolved (sec 3(a) Rule 3 Rules of Court) IAC affirms RTC's ruling. Issue: WON a corporation, w/c has built through its agents, waterpaths, water conductor and contrivances within its land, therby causing inundation and damage to an adjacent land, can be held civilly liable for damages under Art 2176 and 2177 of NCC on quasi-delicts such that the resulting civil case can proceed independently of the criminal case. (YES, if proven to be negligence or at fault) Issue: WON civil case should have been dismissed? (NO) SC: Elements of Quasi-Delicts: o Damages suffered by plaintiff o Fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose acts he must respond was guilty o The connection of cause and effect b/w fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by plaintiff. SC: Causal connection alleged by Andamos. Proof of fault or negligence may be the basis of recovery for damages. SC: Limitations on property: Art 431 (Sic Utero Tuo Ut Alienum Non Laedas) SC: Art 2176 covers not only acts "not punishable by law", but also criminal acts whether intentional, voluntary or negligent. Therefore, A separate civil action lies against offender in criminal act, WON he is found guilty or acquitted. SC: reverses IAC decision. RTC ordered to reinstate civil case and proceed with hearing of case. PNR v. Ethel Brunty and Juan Manuel Garcia (2 Nov 2006, Callejo) Petition for review on certiorari of CA decision. Rhonda Brunty, daughter of Ethel, going on a trip to Baguio was killed when the Mercedes Benz she was riding with Garcia collided with a PNR train on 25 Jan 1980 in Brgy Rizal, Moncada, Tarlac. Driver instantly killed, Rhonda died 10minutes after arriving at hospital, Garcia still in Makati Med for further treatment. Ethel sues PNR for actual, compensatory and moral damages. o Death and injuries direct and proximate result of gross and reckless negligence of PNR in not providing necessary equipment for railroad crossing. No Flag Bar. Flagman equipped only with flashlight. Failed to supervise its employees in the performance of their respective tasks and duties. (Asks for 4M+++, 200K actual and compensatory damages to Ethel, 2.8M unearned income of Rhonda, moral and exemplary damages, 64K++ medical expenses as actual damages and 1M unearned income of Garcia, 72K++ for actual damages to car, attorneys fees,etc) PNR: driver guilty of contributory negligence (overtaking at 70kph 50yrds from tracks, disregarded warning signs and they had right of way immediate and proximate cause of accident was driver's negligence).Mercidita (driver) had Last Clear Chance to avoid accident. No law that requires it to put up flagbars or safety railroad bars. RTC: rules in favor of Brunty.30K for death of Rhonda, 1M for moral and actual damages to heirs, 72,760.00 damages to car, 50K for AF. CA: Affirms RTC with modifications: 30K to 50K for death, deleting damages for car. Issue:WON Last clear chance rule applies? Issue: WON PNR is liable due to quasi-delict, negligence? Issue: WON Mercedita's contributory negligence clears PNR of liability? SC: Negligence is want of care required by circumstances Test of whether there was negligence o Did defendant use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? Pater familias SC: affirms RTC and CA's findings that PNR was negligent bec. of its failure to provide necessary safety device and is liable under Art 2176 of NCC. SC: Elements of Quasi-Delict. Applying elements, CA came to correct conclusion that PNR is liable (curve of road conceals by cockpit arena, lack of safety equipment by PNR) SC: Railroad companies ow to the public a duty of exercising a reasonable degree of care to avoid injury to persons and property of railroad crossings, which duties pertain both in the operation of trains and in the maintenance of crossings. Such failure is evidence of negligence even if there is no law or ordinance requiring it because public safety demands that said device or equipment be installed. Contributory negligence: conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection. To prove contributory negligence, it is necessary to establish a causal link, although not proximate, between the negligence of the party and the succeeding injury. SC: Last Clear Chance: where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the loss. SC: award of 1M for actual/compensatory damages not proven. Temperate damages of 25K only. Sustain award of moral damages to heirs (50K), 500K moral damages to heirs of Rhonda, and AF 50K,

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

BPI v. Lifetime Marketing Corporation (25 Jun 2008, Tinga) Appeal from decision of CA ordering BPI to pay 2M++ actual damages to Lifetime for gross negligence in handling LMC's account. Alice Laurel, agent of LMC would deposit checks in various BPI branches then cancel the deposits. However, BPI tellers did not retrieve (against banking policies) from Laurel the machine-validated deposit slips which she then presented to LMC proving that she had deposited sales in the amount of 2.767M. LMC then gave Laurel 560++K as promotional discounts prizes. Laurel could no longer be found for prosecution, so LMC sues BPI to recover damages because of its negligence RTC: awards 1M actual damages and 100K AF. CA increased award to 2,075M and deleted AF BPI: no proof of actual damages, actual delivery of books, payment of promo prizes, amount of checks. BPI: machine-validated deposit slips not evidence of proximate cause of its loss. LMC violated original arrangement in Greenhills branch (3 deposit slips) and did not check

-

-

-

-

monthly statements. Issue: WON BPI exercise the highest degree of care in handling LMC's account SC: Banking industry impressed with public interest. Highest degree f diligence expected. Fiduciary nature of Banking. SC: Negligence in this case lies in tellers' disregard of the validation procedures in place and BPI's utter failure to supervise its employees. SC: even if LMC did not scrutinize its monthly statements, loss would still have occurred. SC: BPI's negligence is the proximate cause of the loss. Proximate: Cause: cause which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and w/o which the result would not have occurred. SC: LMC guilty of contributory negligence. SC: affirms decision but modifies damages to 1M. (same as RTC), LMC did not appeal RTC's amount.

-

-

-

Orlanda Garcia Jr, doing business under Community Diagnostic Center and BU Castro v. Ranida Salvador and Ramon Salvador. (20 Mar 2007, Ynares-Santiago) Petition for review of CA decision finding Garcia grossly negligent Ranida Salvador as part of her employment requirements with Limay Bulk Handling Terminal Inc, underwent medical exam conducted by CDC. CDC issued test result : Rhonda positive for Hepa B. Ranida was terminated and upon telling her father Ramon that she had Hepa B, Ramon suffered a heart attack and had to be hospitalized. Ranida underwent the test again and was found to be negative for Hepa B. Ranida and Ramon sue Garcia, a medtech who conducted the exam because she lost her job, suffered mental anxiety, trauma and sleepless nights, while Ramon was hospitalized and lost business opportunities. Castro pathologist, rubber stamp, did not conduct examination on Ranida. RTC: dismissed complaint for lack of sufficient evident to prove liability of

-

-

-

Garcia and Castro. Should have presented Dt. Sto Domingo who interpreted test result. CA: reversed RTC Ruling, awards 50K moral damages and 50K exemplary damages, 25K AF Degree of care required for Health Care providers : did the health care provider wiher fail to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent health care provider would not have done, and that failure or action caused injury to the patient. SC: Elements of actionable conduct: o Duty o Breach o Injury o Proximate Causation. SC: all element present in the case at bar. SC: Clinical labs' business impressed with public interest and high standards of performance are expected of them. SC: RA 4688 Clinical Laboratory Law. (licenses, pathologist, medtech, etc) SC: RA 5527: The Philippine Medical Technology Act of 1969. SC: Medical technologist should be supervised by registered pathologist and licensed physician. Results to be release only to requesting physician or rep upon direction of lab pathologist. SC: Castro: pathologist, infrequently visits clinic. No supervision of medtechs. Garcia conducted test w/o supervision of Castro, released w/o authorization of Castro. SC: Garcia breached his duty to provide standard of care. SC: Art. 20 SC: Affirms CA decision.

-

-

-

-

-

DISTINGUISHING TORT, QUASI-DELICT FROM BREACH OF CONTRACT Jose Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co. (14 Oct 1918, Fisher) Jose Cangco works for Manila Railroad as a copy clerk. He gets to ride on the company's train free of charge. He was riding a train on his

-

way home to San Mateo. At about 78pm on a dark night, as the train was approaching San Mateo station, Cangco positioned himself upon the steps of the coach. Before the train fully stopped, he stepped off onto the platform. The station was dimly lit, and his foot stepped on a sack of melons which were piled on the edge of the platform. He slipped, lost his balance, fell violently on the platform, rolled and was drawn under the moving coach. The train moved about 6m before it came to a full stop. Cangco's arm was crushed and badly lacerated, necessitating amputation up to the shoulder. His medical expenses amounted to 790.25. Cangco sues Manila Railroad at CFI Manila to recover damages, founding his action based on negligence of employees of Manila Railroad for placing sacks of melons upon the platform. CFI: Rules in favor of Manila Railroad. Although negligence was attributable to Manila Railroad, Cangco himself had failed to use due caution in alighting from the coach and was therefore precluded from recovering. Cangco appeals SC: The foundation of the legal liability of Manila Railroad is the CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE. Damage which Cangco suffered arises from breach of contract by reason of the failure of Manila Railroad to exercise due care in its performance. Its liability is direct and immediate. SC: This differs from the presumptive responsibility for the negligence of servants, imposed by Art 1903, which can be rebutted by proof of the exercise of due care in the selection and supervision of its employees. SC: Art 1903 not applicable to contractual obligations, only to culpa aquiliana. Fault is attributable to master personally. SC: Liability of employers for negligent acts/omissions which cause damage that amount to a breach of contract, is not based on mere presumption of employer's negligence in their selection or control, and proof of exercise of the utmost diligence

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

and care in this regard does not relieve employer of his liability for breach of contract. Extra-contractual Obligation arise from relations of society's members embraced in the concept of status. The legal rights of each member constitute the measure of the corresponding legal duties, mainly negative in character, which the existence of those rights impose upon all members of society. In contractual obligations, the vinculum exists independently of the breach of voluntary duty assumed by the parties when entering into the contractual relation. Breach of Contract: Proof of existence of contract and nonperformance is sufficient to prima facie to warrant a recovery. Negligence : quasi-delict: Burden of proof rests upon plaintiff to prove the negligence. In breach of contract: negligence of employees not a defense. Field of non-contractual obligation is much broader than that of contractual obligations. These 2 fields are concentric. The mere fact that a person is bound to another by contract does not relieve him from extra-contractual liability to such person. SCL Contract of Manila Railroad to transport Cangco carried with it the duty to carry him in safety and to provide safe means of entering and leaving its trains (CC 1258). The duty, being contractual was direct and immediate, and its non-performance cannot be excused by proof that the fault was morally imputable to Manila Railroad's servants. SC: Cangco not guilty of contributory negligence because the train was barely moving when Cangco alighted. Test is that of ordinary and reasonable care. Cangco had the right to assume that the platform was clear. SC: In determining contributory negligence, the age, sex, physical condition of the passenger should be considered. SC: Cangco earned 25/month. Life expectancy of 33 years and

Lil's Notes |Torts | 22 Nov 2011permanently disabled. Entitled to compensation of 2500 + recovery of 790.25 expenses (3,290.25) Malcolm Dissenting: Cangco guilty of contributory negligence. Manila Railroad not liable for damages. SC: No Contract b/w driver and FGU, therefore, action can only be based on culpa aquiliana. But no evidence showing accident due exclusively to driver's negligence. SC: GPS ordered to pay FGU 204,450.00 caused by lack of supervision by Erlinda) CA: affirms RTC decision. ISSUE: WON Batals liable? (YES) SC: Batals, in carrying out their contractual obligations, failed to exercise the requisite diligence. Guily of BREACH of CONTRACT, liable for damages suffered by L&K. SC: Actual damages 300K reasonable, no moral or exemplary damages. faith. FACTS: Eliza, a Phys. Ed student at Silliman University took a passenger jeepney owned and operated by Calalas. The jeepney was full so Eliza was given an extension seat (wooden stool at the back of the jeepney). The jeepney stopped to let a passenger off. As Eliza stood to let the passenger pass, the jeepney was hit from behind by an Isuzu truck driven by Iglecerio Verene and owned by Salva. As a result, Eliza was severely injured (fractured tibia-fibula with severe necrosis). She was confined for 2 wks and had to use crutches for 3 months. Eliza sued Calalas for damages due to violation of the CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE. Calalas sued Salva for quasi-delict. RTC absolved Calalas from liability bec in another case, Salva was found to be negligent. CA: Reversed RTC ruling on the ground that Eliza's action was based on Contract of Carriage and not quasi-delict, awarded her 50K actual damages, 50K moral damages, etc. ISSUE: Is Calalas liable for damage to Eliza? (YES) ISSUE: Did Calalas exercise extraordinary diligence? (NO) SC: Calalas: Not proximate cause of accident, bumping was caso fortuito. SC: Being a common carrier, damage based on breach of contract. When the accident happened, the presumption of negligence at once arose, and burden of proof on Calalas that he observed extraordinary diligence. SC: Calalas violated the traffic code by obstructing traffic (he improperly parked diagonally on the highway, with the rear of the jeepney exposed about 2mtrs from the shoulders of the highway. Furthermore, he also overloaded his jeepney (cap 24 passengers only.) SC: However, no evidence of Calalas being in bad faith, so moral damages should be deleted. SC: Affirms CA ruling, but deletes moral damages.

-

-

-

FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION v. GP SARMIENTO TRUCKING CORP. and LAMBERT EROLES. (6 Aug 2002, Vitug) GPS undertook to deliver 30 units of Condura Refs from plant site of Concepcion Indrustries in Alabang to Central Luzon Appliances in Dagupan City. Along MacArthur Highway in Tarlac, it collided with an unidentified truck, causing it to fall in a deep canal, resulting in damage to the cargoes. The shipment was insured with FGU insurance. FGU paid to Concepcion 204,450.00, the value of the cargo. Being the subrogee of Concepcion, it sought reimbursement of this amount from GPS FGU filed a complaint for damages and breach of contract of carriage against GPS and its driver Lambert Eroles. GPS replied that it was not a common carrier bec. it hauls exclusively for Concepcion Industries. Moreover, it claims that the cause of damage if purely accidental RTC and CA dismissed the case for failure of FGU to prove the GPS was a common carrier. (Art 1735 re damages applies to common carriers) SC: GPS not a common carrier BUT GPS cannot escape from liability. SC: In culpa contractual, upon which FGU rests as being the subrogee of Concepcion Industries, the mere proof of the existence of the contract and the failure of its compliance justify, prima facie, the corresponding right of relief. A breach upon the contract confers upon the injured party a valid cause for recovering that was lost or suffered. "Expectation Interest", "Reliance Interest", Restitution Interes"

SPS ERLINDA BATAL & FRANK BATAL v. SPS LUZ SAN PEDRO & KENICHIRO TOMINAGA (27 Sep 2006, Austria-Martinez) LD: Culpa (Negligence) o Culpa Aquiliana: wrongful or negligent act or omission which CREATES vinculum juris and gives rise to an obligation b/w 2 persons not formally bound by any other obligation. (governed by Art 2176) o Culpa Contractual: fault or negligence incident in the performance of an obligation which already existed, and w/c increases the liability from such already existing obligation. (Governed by Art 11701174) Luz & Kenichiro contracted the services of Frank, who represented himself as a surveyor, to survey their lot for 6.5K. They again hired Frank to determine the exact boundaries of their lot as they wanted to enclose it. Frank then placed concrete monuments on the 4 corners of the lot which the lot owners used as guide to build their concrete fence (Cost 250K). However, they had to demolish part of the fence bec of a complaint from the brgy that their fence encroached on a designated right of way on the adjacent lot. It turns out that Frank's wife Erlinda is the licensed geodetic engineer. Frank admitted his mistake and offered to share in the expenses in the demolition and reconstruction of the fence, but he never delivered on his promise. L & K then file suit. RTC: refund 6500 to L&K, actual damages of 300K, AF (Mistake

-

VICENTE CALALAS v. CA, ELIZA JUJERCHE SUNGA & FRANCISCO SALVA (31 May 2000, Mendoza) LD: Quasi-Delict: negligence or fault should be clearly established bec it is the basis of the action. LD: Breach of Contract: Prove existence of contract and that the obligor failed to perform his part (For common carriers: to transport his passenger safety to his destination) LD: For common carriers: Burden of Proof on common carrier that he exercised extraordinary diligence. ( LD: Extraordinary diligence: As far as human care and foresight could provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious person, with due regard for all the circumstances. LD: Doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasidelicts, not actions for breach of contract. Caso Fortuito: event that could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen is inevitable. o Cause of the breach independent of the debtor's will o Event is unforeseeable or unavoidable o Event is such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in the normal manner o The debtor did not take part in causing the injury to the creditor LD: Moral damages for breach of contract only awarded when passenger dies or evidence of bad

-

-

-

-

-

PAZ FORES v. IRENEO MIRANDA (4 Mar 1959, Reyes) LD: An action for breach of contract imposes on the carrier a presumption of liability upon mere proof of injury of the passenger; passenger does not have to establish the fault of the carrier or of his employees, and the burden is placed on the carrier to prove that it was due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure. Miranda (Painter, Prof of Fine Arts) was a passenger on jeepney whose registered owner is Fores. Jeepney was speeding as it descended the Sta Mesa bridge when driver lost control, swerved and hit the bridge wall. 5 passengers were injured. Miranda fractured his right arm and has not recovered its use. The driver was found guilty of serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence. Fores: Sold the vehicle the day before the accident. CFI: 10K damages CA: 2K damages SC: Must have authority from the Public Service Commission to sell Public Utility vehicle. Until authority is released, seller still responsible for whatever happens to it. SC: Moral damages recoverable in contract of transportation (no bad faith) SC: The difference in conditions, defenses and proof, as well as codal concept of quasi-delict and breach of contract, prevent us from viewing the action for breach of contract as simultaneously embodying action for tort. SC: Affirms CA decision but deletes moral damages. AIR FRANCE v. RAFAEL CARRASCOSO and CA (27 Sep 1966, Sanchez) LD: In breach of contract, moral damages may be awarded if there is bad faith on the part of the obligor. FACT: Carrascoso was a passenger on an Air France flight in Bangkok which was a stopover to the Rome leg of his trip to Lourdes. He had bought first-class tickets for all his flights. He was already seated in the first class

-

-

-

section when the manager of Air France ousted him from his seat to accommodate a white man, and relegated Carrascoso to tourist class. CFI awards 25K, MD, 10K ED, diff in price b/w first class and tourist class, AF, costs. CA: Affirms CFI ruling ISSUE: WON Carrascoso was entitled to Moral Damages given that action is based on breach of contract? (YES) Air France claims that no moral damages should be awarded bec. action based on breach of contract. SC: Evidence shows that Carrascoso had confirmed first-class tickets. SC: Racism is bad faith. A white man does not have a better right to a first class seat. SC: Art 21. Responsibility of employer for tortious act of employees. SC: Contract to transport passengers attended with a Public Duty. (not just transport safety, but passengers have a right to be treated with courtesy, etc.) SC: The act that breaks the contract may also be a tort. SC: The stress of Carrascoso's action is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This is a violation of public duty by the air carrier a case of quasi-delict. Can apply principles of Tort even in breach of contract. Damages are proper. SC: Affirms CA decision.

-

-

FAR EAST BANK & TRUST CO v. CA, LUIS LUNA and CLARITA LUNA. (23 Feb 1995) LD: Bad faith, includes gross, but not simple, negligence. Malice or bad faith implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity. (Negligence: negative idea, no ill will.) LD: Art 21 only applicable when there is bad faith. LD: A quasi-delict can be the cause for breaching a contract that might thereby permit the application of applicable principles on tort even where there is a pre-existing contract b/w plaintiff and defendant. LD: The test whether a quasi-delict can be deemed to underlie the breach of a contract : Where, without a pre-

existing contract b/w 2 parties, an act or omission can nonetheless amount to an actionable tort by itself, the fact that parties are contractually bound is NO BAR to the application of quasidelict provisions to the case. FACTS: Luis Luna a credit cardholder of FEBTC. He issued an extension card to Clarita, who lost the card and reported it to FEBTC. As a result, FEBTC placed the card under a "hotlist" Luis treated a friend to a despedida lunch at Bahia, Intercontinental Hotel. His card was rejected and he had to pay cash, causing him great embarrassment. After complaining to FEBTC and asking for damages, FEBTC apologized to him and sent a letter to Bahia that Luis was a valued cardholder. Bahia said that Luis' reputation was never in question. Nevertheless, Luis sued FEBTC for damages. RTC Pasig: 300K MD, 50K ED, 20K AF CA: Affirms RTC decision. FEBTC appeals. ISSUE: WON Luis entitled to moral damages? (NO) SC: Moral damages can only be awarded if breach of contracted made with bad faith. While FEBTC was negligent in personally informing Luis of his card's cancellation, no evidence of deliberate intent on FEBTC's part. SC: Luis not entitled to MD or ED. Nominal damages of 5K only.

-

-

-

-

Commerce student at PSBA when he was stabbed to death w/in the premises of PSBA by assailants who were NOT members of the school community. Carlitos' parents sue PSBA for its lack of security measure, negligence during attack PSBA moves to dismiss case, because no cause of action. PSBA being an academic institution not covered by 2180. RTC & CA: deny motion to dismiss. (Quasi-delicts) ISSUE: WON quasi-delict applies? (NO) ISSUE: WON parents entitled to damages (DEPENDS on TRIAL FINDINGS) SC: Case should NOT be dismissed, but ground of lower courts wrong. SC: Art 2180 only applicable if damage caused by pupils of the school. SC: However, there is a contractual relationship b/w student enrolled and academic institution. See Legal Doctrine. SC: School may avoid liability for violent trespass upon their premises by proving that breach of its contractual obligations to the students not due to its negligence. (circumstances of persons, time, and place.) SC: Proceed with Case.

PSBA v. CA, Judge Donez Benitez and Sps Bautista (4 Feb 1992, Padilla) LD: Art 2180 provides that damage should have been caused by students of the educational institution (loco parentis). But in this case, Carlitos' killers not students of PSBA. LD: However, an academic institution enters into a contract when it accepts students for enrollment. This contract is imbued with public interest. There is a built-in obligation to provide students with atmosphere conducive to learning. (means no distractions/dangers like grenades and bullets) There is a contractual relation b/w school and student. Carlitos Bautista was a 3rd yr

JUAN SYQUIA etal v. CA, MANILA MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY (27 Jan 1993, Campos) LD: When terms of the contract are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, then literal meaning of the stipulation shall control. Juan Syquia et al sued Manila Memorial for breach of contract/ or quasi-delict alleging that Manila Memorial was negligent for boring a hole in the concrete vault and not making the vault waterproof. When they were about to transfer the remains of their deceased relatives, they discovered the bodies, coffin etc covered in filth and waterlogged, causing them emotional distress, etc. Manila Memorial claims it did not promise "waterproof" vaults, but only

Lil's Notes |Torts | 22 Nov 2011to seal it. Furthermore, they bore a hole so that the vault wouldnt float RTC & CA: dismissed case. ISSUE: WON Manila Memorial was negligent? (NO) ISSUE: WON Manila Memorial guilty of culpa aquiliana for boring a hole in the concrete vault? (NO) SC: Use the dictionary to get meaning of "sealed" Sealed does not mean waterproof. Stipulations of contract very clear. Manila Memorial not negligent. Manila Memorial exercised care of a good father of the family. SC: Negligence: def. Omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time, and of the place. SC: In the absence of stipulation or legal provision providing the contrary, the diligence to be observed in the performance of an obligation is that which is expected of a good father of a family. SC: Affirms RTC & CA ruling. existed b/w the parties, the contract can be said to have breached by toer, therby allowing the rules on tort to apply. Nicanor Navidad (drunk), husband of Marjorie, bought a token and was waiting for the train of LRT in EDSA station when Junelito Escartin, the security guard assigned approached him. A fistfight ensued. Nicanor fell on the rails as the train (operated by Roman) arrived. He was killed instantly. His widow and heirs sue LRT, Roman, Escartin and Prudent Security Agency. RTC: Finds Prudent and Escartin negligent and awards damages to Navidads. CA: Finds LRTA and Roman in breach of contract. Exonerates Prudent and Escartin. ISSUE: WON LRTA was liable? (YES) ISSUE: WON Prudent was liable? (NO) ISSUE: WON Roman and Escartin are liable (NO) SC:LRT liable because contract of carriage created at the moment Nicanor paid for the fair and entered the premises. LRT liable even if employees from agency. SC: Prudent only liable for tort or quasi-delict, if ever. However, currently, not liable because negligence of its employee Escartin not proven. SC: Roman also absolved from liability because no evidence that he was negligent. LRTA liable because of the contractual tie b/w LRT and Navidad. No contractual tie b/w Roman and Navidad. SC: LRTA only liable. Deletes nominal damages. on plaintiff that defendant was negligent. LD: Banks have fiduciary relationship with depositor which require higher standards than those b/w parties with contract of simple loan. LC Diaz is a depositor of Solidbank. Calapre, a messenger of LC Diaz, deposited money into LC Diaz's account and left the passbook with Teller #6 bec of the long wait and he had to deposit funds at Allied Bank. When he returned, the teller gave him the deposit slips, but told him that someone else (she could not recall the name) picked up the savings passbook. Calapre and Macaraya (cashier) were able to make subsequent deposits without the passbook. However, Solidbank's teller informed them that a check for 90K had been deposited in their account, but had bounced (this check was from an account they had closed in PBC). The same day, they also discovered that 300K had been withdrawn from their Solidbank savings account. The teller was able to show them withdrawal slips signed by the authorized signatories (verified with signature cards). Noel Tamayo was the person who received the cash. LC Diaz charged its messenger, Ilagan and one Roscon Verdazola with estafa through falsification of commercial doc. RTC dismissed this case. LC Diaz sues Solidbank for the return of its money. RTC: dismissed LC Diaz's case. Savings Passbook contain the stipulations that govern the rights and obligations of bank and depositor. (depositor should keep passbook under lock and key) contractual relationship, no breach by Solidbank. CA: reverses RTC based on culpa aquiliana. Solidbank's negligence the proximate cause of damage to LC Diaz. 3 elements of quasi-delict present. Degree of diligence required from Solidbank more than that of a good father of the family. ISSUE: WON Solidbank liable? (YES, in part) SC: Solidbank liable for breach of contract due to negligence (culpa contractual) SC: Art 1980, but law imposes higher standards on the bank. *but savings not trust relationship* SC: Proximate cause and last clear chance not applicable to breach of contract. SC: Despite provisions on saving passbook, higher degree of diligence required when passbook in possession of bank. They should not have given it out to just anyone. SC: Burden of proof on Solidbank that it was not negligent. Solidbank failed to prove this. SC: But under Art 1172, liability for culpa contractual may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances. LC Diaz guilty of contributory negligence in allowing the withdrawal slip signed by authorized signatories to fall into hands of impostor. Liability of Solidbank should be reduced. LC Diaz to shoulder 40% of actual damages.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

LRT Authority & RODOLFO ROMAN, v. MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of NICANOR NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY AGENCY. (6 Feb 2003, Vitug) LD: Contract of Carriage begins from the moment passenger pays for fare and enters the premises of common carrier. LD: Extraordinary diligence required from common carriers. LD: Common carrier liable for death of passengers o Negligent or willful acts of its employees. o Willful or negligent acts of other passengers or of strangers if common carrier's employees through the exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. LD: When an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have itself constituted the source of a quasidelictual liability had no contract

-

-

-

-

-

THE CONSOLIDATED BANK & TRUST CORP (SOLIDBANK) v. CA & LC DIAZ& CO, CPA's (11 Sep 2003, Carpio) LD: Culpa Contractual: Burden of Proof on defendant that he was not at fault or negligent LD: Culpa Aquiliana: Burden of Proof

-

CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE

-

Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.

-

Negligence (always unintentional) v. Neglect (can be intentional or unintentional) Having the power not the same as having the duty. Need to specify what a party is required to do, as well as the extent of his obligation

Article 2178. The provisions of articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict. (n)

SANGCO 5-7 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. Negligence is a conduct, not a state of mind (or used of sound judgment). Determined by behavior in situation and not personal judgment. Negligence is want of care required by the circumstances Common Law: Negligence classified as passive or active Negligence: the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinary regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, ot doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. No desire to bring about consequences (damage) or know/believe for certain that consequences will occur. Matter of risk. Reckless, Wanton, willful, between intent and negligence. External standard of risk at the time or situation the actor was in and based on what society demands.

-

-

PNR & VIRGILIO BORJA v. CA, CORAZON AMORES and 6 children. ( LD: Defines Negligence: the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstance justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. No hard and fast rule whereby degree and care and vigilance is calibrated. Dependent on circumstances in which person finds himself. Jose Amores crosses the railroad tracks in Pandacan (car). He gets hit by the train operated by Borja, car is dragged 10m and Amores is killed. His widow and children sue. Amores: defective speedometer and negligent because failed to provide precautions (flagman, semaphore, sign) proximate cause of accident PNR: Amores negligent, last clear chance RTC: Amores reckless. Absolves PNR from liability CA: reverses RTC. PNR negligent. ISSUE: WON PNR Negligent (YES) SC: Art 2176. Definition of Negligence. SC: PNR v Brunty..Railroad companies have public duty of exercising reasonable degree of care to avoid injury to persons and property to railroad crossings. (applies to both maintenance of train and crossings) SC: Circumstances beyond control of Amores. PNR negligent for failure to install semaphore or post flagman to warn the public. PROSSER & KEETON (169-173) Risk-Benefit ratio. Balance risks, benefits, expedience in setting standard for negligence. DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE

SANGCO 10-12 Amount of care demanded proportionate to the apparent risk. Slight: more careless than extraordinarily prudent people Gross: more careless than a careless person Wilful, Wanton, Reckless: QuasiIntent. Justifies award of punitive damages, extended liability. Conscious indifference. Statutory standard of care: violator liable irrespective of how careful or prudent he had been in other respects. Does not depend on surrounding circumstances. (Negligence by law or per se) ELENA AMEDO v. RIO OLABARRIETA (24 May 1954, Concepcion) LD: Notorious negligence is tantamount to gross negligence or want of even slight care and diligence" LD: Jumping into the sea, 1-1/2 miles from the sea, to recover a fallen P2 bill is an open and reckless disregard of one's safety and the resulting death is undoubtedly caused by notorious negligence FACTS: Filomeno Managuit is a seaman on board the Pilar II. He drowned when he jumped off the boat to retrieve a 2 peso bill blown by the wind. His mother sues to collect compensation for the death of her son. ISSUE: WON Filomeno was notoriously negligent? (YES see doctrine) SC: Employer not liable for accidental death of FILOMENO. (accident not arising from his employment and Filomeno's notorious negligence.

-

-

-

employer from stealing rides had nothing to do with safety, so only possible negligence and no negligence per se. FACTS: Mamador rode a truck owned by Marinduque on the way to a mine driven by Macunat. Macunat was trying to overtake another vehicle which resulted in the truck overturning and killing Mamador. ISSUE: WON Mamador's conduct in violating the prohibition to steal rides constitutes notorious negligence? (NO) SC: There was no apparent risk in accepting the ride despite the prohibition by the employer to do so. Therefore, there was no notorious negligence and Mamador entitled to compensation.

-

-

-

-

MARINDUQUE IRON MINES AGENTS, INC. v WORKMEN's COMPENSATION COMMISSION, HEIRS OF PEDRO MAMADOR and GERONIMO COLL (30 Jun 1956, Bengzon) LD: Stealing a ride on a haulage truck is not negligence because transportation by truck is not dangerous per se. Prohibition of

CONCEPCION ILAO-ORETA v. SPS EVA MARIE and BENEDICTO NOEL RONQUILLO (11 Oct 2007, Carpio Morales) LD: Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. Thoughtless disregard for the consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them. FACTS: DRA ILAO-ORETA scheduled a laparoscopic procedure on Mrs. Ronquillo to determine the cause of her infertility. She scheduled it for 2pm, 5 Apr 1999. However, she did not show up and only arrived from her honeymoon in Hawaii at 10pm 5 Apr 1999. She said she forgot about the time difference in calculating if she could make it to the procedure in time. Spouses sued Dr. ILAO-ORETA for loss of income due to her negligence. RTC: awards damages of 9K++ CA: Finds Dr. ILAO-ORETA grossly negligent. Awards 50K MD and 25K ED and AF ISSUE: WON DRA ILAO-ORETA was GROSSLY NEGLIGENT? (NO) SC: Given the circumstances, the doctor was not negligent o Honeymoon o Elective Surgery o Showed care and intention in performing the procedure at appointed time.

Lil's Notes | Torts |01 Feb 2012o Spouses did not talk with Dr. Ilao-Oreta before suing her. When Smith was near the pony, he swerved to the right to avoid hitting the pony. However, the car frightened the pony so it turned suddenly and its hind leg was hit and broken by the car. The pony fell and Picart was thrown off. The horse died and Picart sustained injuries and lost consciousness. Picart sues for 31K damages CFI: Smith not liable. ISSUE: WON Smith was guilty of negligence in maneuvering his car as described above? (YES) SC: Even if Picart was on the wrong side of the road, Smith, as he moved towards the center of the bridge should have perceived that it was too late for the horse to change lanes. The control of the situation passed entirely to Smith, and it was his duty to bring the car to a stop or change lanes after checking that their was no oncoming traffic. Given the known nature of horses, there was an appreciable risk that if the horse was unfamiliar with cars, it might get excited and jump. Smith exposed the horse and rider to this danger, and so is negligent under the law. SC: Smith liable for P200. from any participation in the aggravation of the injury or loss. LD: In order for a fortuitous to exempt one from liability, it is necessary that one has committed no negligence or misconduct that may have occasioned the loss. When the effect is found to be partly the result of a person's participation the whole occurrence is humanized and removed from the rules applicable to acts of God. LD: Robbery per se, just like carnapping, is not a fortuitous event. LD: The diligence with which the law requires the individual at all times to govern his conduct varies with the nature of the situation in which he is placed and the importance of the act which he is to perform (to rebut cases cited where loss was excused. (Austria, etc. Times are different now.) FACTS: Lulu Jorge pawned several pieces of jewelry with Agencia de RC Sicam for P59,500.00. 19 Oct 1987: 2 armed men entered the pawnshop and took away cash and pawned items. Lulu Jorge refuses to believe that her jewelry was lost in the robbery (given that she was informed that they were to be kept in a vault at FEBTC) and demands the return of her jewelry by 6 Nov 1987. Since Sicam failed to return the jewelry, Jorje sues for indemnity and moral, exemplary damages. Sicam: Robbery Fortuitous event o Had a security guard, but armed robbers pretended to be customers, so they were let in. o No insurance, bec no insurance company would insure against burglary in pawn shops o Vault in Pawnshop kept open. Did not get fault in FEBTC because Central Bank required all pawnshops to have a vault in the premises. o Exercised due care and diligence RTC: Sicam not liable. Robbery is a fortuitous event. CA: Reverse RTC. Robberies and hold-ups are foreseeable risk in that those engaged in the pawnshop business are expected to foresee. Should have insured pawned items ISSUE: WON Sican was negligent and liable for the loss of the jewerlry (YES) SC:Art 1174: o Except in cases expressly specified by law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen or which, though foreseen, were inevitable. SC: Robbery was not a fortuitous event (see elements) SC: Act of God cannot be invoked to protect a person who has failed to take steps to forestall the possible adverse consequences of such a loss. One's negligence may have concurred with an act of God in producing damage and injury to another. SC: The very measures that Sicam allegedly adopted show that to them the possibility of robbery was not only foreseeable, but actually foreseen and anticipated. SC: The review of the records shows that Sicam failed to exercise reasonable care and caution that an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation. Sicam guilty of negligence in the operation of their pawnshop business. (No security measures) SC: Sicam not negligent for no insuring the pawned items (Central bank removed the req. of insuring the items against burglary)

-

STANDARD OF CONDUCT IN GENERAL Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply. If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required. (1104a) AMADO PICART v. FRANK SMITH, JR. (15 Mar 1918, Street) LD: How to determine Negligence? o Would a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued. LD: Contributory Negligence: o Where both parties are guilty of negligence, but the negligent act of one succeeds that of the other by an appreciable interval of time, the one who has the last reasonable opportunity to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the other party (LAST CLEAR CHANCE) FACTS: Picart was riding a pony on the wrong side of the Carlatan Bridge (75m long, 4.8m wide). Smith was driving his car at 10/12 miles an hour. Smith saw the pony, honked his horn a few times, but did not change lanes or slow down. The pony also did not transfer to the correct lane, but instead moved closer to the railing.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

ROBERT SICAM and AGENCIA de RC SICAM v. LULU JORGE and CESAR JORGE (8 Aug 2007, Austria Martinez) LD: Elements of Fortuitous Event o The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence or of the failure of the debtor to comply with obligations must be independent of the human will o It must be impossible to foresee the event that constitutes the caso fortuito or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid o The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill obligations in a normal manner o The obligor must be free

-

-

-

-

-

CORINTHIAN GARDENS ASSN v. SP S REYNALDO and MARIA TANJANGCO, SPS FRANK and TERESITA CUASO (27 Jun 2008, Nachura) LD:A negligent act is an inadvertent act; it may be merely carelessly done from a lack of ordinary prudence and may be one which creates a situation involving an unreasonable risk to another because of the expectable action of the other, a third person, an animal, or a force of nature. LD: It is not just or equitable to relieve a subdivision assn of any liability arising from the erection of a perimeter fence w/c encroached upon another person's lot, when by its very own Manual of Rules and Regulations, it imposes its authority over all its members to the end that "no new construction can be started unless the plans are approved by the Assn and the proper cash bond and pre-construction fees are paid. (Would render Rules, inoperative) Tanjangcos own lots 68 & 69 which is adjacent to Cuaso's lot (Lot 65) Cuasos hire Geodetic Engr de Dios to survey their lot (De Dios recommended by Corinthian) Cuasos hire CB Paraz to build their house and perimeter fence. Corinthian conducted periodic ocular inspections in order to determine compliance with Approved plans pursuant to Manula of Rules and Regulation of Corinthian Gardens. Unfortunately, it was later found out that the Cuasos had encroached on the lot of the Tanjangco's by 87 aqm Tanjangco's sue Cuasos. They want Cuasos to demolish the perimeter fence. RTC: There was encroachment. But Cuasos builders in good faith. Tanjangco to give Cuasos option to buy. In case of no agreement, Cuasos to demolish wall at own expense. Meanwhile 2K/rent. CB Paraz grossly negligent. CB Paraz to pay MD and ED to Tanjangcos and Cuasos. Corinthian and Engr de dios exonerated. CA: Reversed and set aside RTC decision o Cuasos in Bad Faith o Cuasos to pay monthly

-

-

rental 10K 100K MD and 50K ED, 150K AF to the Tanjangcos o Corinthian, CB Paraz, & Engr de Dios negligent. Shoulder 5% each of damages Cuasos have to pay Corinthian: Not negligent because: o Table inspections only. Not site measurement o Only approved architectural, structural and sanitary plans. ISSUE: WON Corinthian Gardens was negligent? (YES) SC: Approval tainted with negligence. SC: Acceptance of the cash bond, etc created certain obligations on the part of Corinthian Gardens. SC: Corinthian's failure to prevent the encroachment of the Cuasos' perimeter wall into the Tanjangco's property, despite the inspection conducted, constitutes negligence and, at the very least, contributed to the injury suffered by the Tanjangcos. o

-

-

-

-

8th and 11th Avenue of Villamor Airbase. Albayda was hit in the knee (fracture). Had to be put in traction, several surgeries. (7months) Mental suffering, social humiliation (?) His wife left him, etc. Completo: Albayda hit him. Property damage, rear right door of taxi dented. Albayda proximate cause of his own injury, negligent. Unjust enrichment. RTC: Albayda wins with damages CA: Affirms RTC, reduces damages ISSUE: WON Completo was negligent and WON Abiad, his employer was liable? (YES) SC: When employee proven to be negligent, legal presumption that employer was negligent in selection and supervision of employee. (burden of proof on employer) SC: Completo negligent: Affirms CA ruling and increases damages 100K, 500K.

-

-

was acquitted due to exempting circumstance of accident 1998: RTC : Morales negligent: ~300K damages (2180) 2005: CA: Reverses RTC decision. (no employer-employee relationship. Salesmen independent contractor : commission basis only, not negligent anyway) ISSUE: Was Morales negligent? (YES) SC: Mentions Picart v. Smith. (standard: would a prudent man.) SC: Since guns are dangerous, higher degree of diligence required. (exceptional precautions) SC: Guns accepted for repair should be unloaded of ammunition and placed in a vault. SC: Morales negligent and did not even exercise diligence of a good father of a family. SC: Reinstate RTC decision.

HEIRS of REDENTOR COMPLETO & ELPIDIO ABIAD v. SGT AMANDO ALBAYDA JR, (6 Jul 2010) LD: In negligence suits, it is the plaintiff that has the burden of proving by a preponderence of evidence that defendant (motorist) was negligent in failing to exercise the diligence required to avoid injury to the plaintiff, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury suffered. (question of fact) LD: More care is required from the motorist ro fully discharge the duty than from the bicyclist (right of way) LD: With respect to supervision of employees, employers should formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary measures for breaches thereof (can't just use testimonial evidence to prove diligence) 1997: While Sgt Albayda was on the way to work, he was hit by a taxicab driven by Completo (allegedly speeding) while in the intersection of

ALFREDO PACIS & CLEOPATRA PACIS v. JEROME JOVANNE MORALES (25 Feb 2010) LD: A higher degree of care is required of someone who has in his possession or under his control an instrumentality extremely dangerous in character such as dangerous weapons or substances. 17 Jan 1995: Parents of Alfred Dennis Pacis (17yrs) sue Morales for his death. 19 Jan 1991: Alfred (17) died from a gunshot wound to the head. He had gone to Top Gun Firearms in Baguio City. He had picked up a gun from the counter (the loaded gun a customer had left with the shop for repairRimfire Magnum). As Alfred returned the gun to the salesman, the gun accidentally went off and killed Alfred. Top Gun owned by Jerome Morales. He was in Manila at the time. His store manager was also away and the store was being manned by two salesmen (Matibag & Herbolario) Morales had locked the gun in his drawer, but left the keys with personnel who then opened the drawer and left the loaded gun on the counter. Matibag charged with homicide but

DAVID TAYLOR v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT CO. (1910) LD: The care and caution required of a child is according to his maturity and capacity only, and this is to be determined in each case by the circumstances of the case. LD: When the immediate cause of an accident resulting in an injury is the plaintiff's own act, which contributed to the principal occurrence as one of its determining factors, he cannot recover damages for the injury. David Taylor is a minor (15) of above average intelligence and physical maturity (worked as cabin boy for 4 months when he was 13, worked in his father's business with mechanical eng'g skills and knows how to draft. Manuel (12) & little girl Jessie (9) 30 Sep 1905: David and Manuel go to Isla de Provisor on a Sunday afternoon (where Meralco had its power plant) looking for Murphy. They didnt find him, but wandered around until they came to where cinders and ash were being dumped. There, they found fulminating caps (detonators used for blasting dynamite) and picked up about 20-30 of them. David wanted to see the caps explode. They put the wires in the electrical socket (nothing). Tried to

Lil's Notes | Torts |01 Feb 2012find a hammer/stone to break it open (didn't work). Got a knife and pried the caps open (success!) David and Manuel put a match to the yellow substance inside and an explosion occurred, causing injury to the 3 kids. (Jessie, ran away, cut to the neck, Manuel, burns to the hand, David, shards in his right eye, which lead to its loss after surgery.) ISSUE: WON MERALCO was negligent? (YES) ISSUE: WON MERALCO was the proximate cause of David's injury? (NO) ISSUE: WON David, being a minor, is exempted from contributory negligence? (NO) SC: Based on many US decisions (Torpedos and Turntables) Railroad v. Stout, a company is generally liable for leaving about dangerous instrumentalities that children of tender years may take a fancy to, causing injury to themselves. SC: In this case, Meralco willfully(?) threw the fulminating caps on the ground, and made no effort to remove them from the public even though they knew that people trespassed in the Isla de Provisor all the time. (Though caps were used by builders, no proof that builders were not independent contractors, so assume that they were employees of Meralco under their control and supervision) SC: The conduct of an infant of tender years is not to be judged by the same rule which governs that of an adult: BUT case to case basis in determining whether child was negligent. SC: In this case, the negligence of MERALCO in leaving caps exposed on the premises not the proximate cause of David's injury. SC: David is mentally and physically mature for his age based on the evidence. He should have known/anticipated that it was dangerous to set fire to the contents of the cap.(even 9-year old Jessie knew of the risk) Furthermore, he is able to earn P2.50 a day as a draftsman 30days after the injury occurred. SC: Dismiss complaint JARCO MKTG CORP, LEONARDO KONG, JOSE TIOPE, ELISA PANELO v. CA, CONRADO & CRISELDA AGUILAR (21 Dec 1999) DOCTINE OF ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE: One who maintains in his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the premises. LD: Accident (unforeseen event) and negligence are intrinsically contradictory. One cannot be present if the other is also present. LD: Children below 9 years of age are conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence. Zhieneth (6 yrs old) dies 2 weeks after sustaining injuries when the giftwrapping counter fell on her (allegedly because she clung to it) and pinned her on the ground while her mother was signing the charge slip for her credit card purchases at Syvel's Department store in Makati. Department store refuses to reimburse parents for medical and funeral expenses. Parents sue. RTC: Absolves Jarco from liability. Counter not an attractive nuisance since it was put in a corner and was higher than the child, was safe and well-balanced. Zhieneth should not have climbed and clung to it. CA: Reverses RTC. Jarco negligent in maintaining a structurally dangerous counter (top-heavy, shaky, not nailed on the floor). Child below 9 yrs incapable of negligence or tort., can't even be held liable for an intentional wrong. Awards damages of about 270K ISSUE: WON Zhieneth's death was caused by accident or negligence? ISSUE: WON JARCO was negligent? (YES) SC: Criselda (mother) not negligent. Can't be expected to hold child's hand while signing charge slips. Anyway, child not loitering, only a few feet away from her. Give credence to testimony that Zhieneth did not climb and cling to counter, but that counter just fell on her. SC: JARCO negligent for maintain dangerous counter. Frail child should not have been able to cause it to fall, even if they had climbed on it. SC: Affirms CA ruling. Alcantara and Ylardo jump back in the hole playfully. Abaga jumps on the stone, causing it to slide into the hole. Alonso and Alcantara were able to get out of the hole, but Ylarda was pinned by the block in a standing position, sustaining injuries in the public region and died 3 days later. Parents sue Aquino and Soriano Lower Court: Dismissed complaint. (Work Education, Aquino exercised diligence of cautious person, Ylarde recklessly imprudent, caused his own death) CA: Affirms lower court decision ISSUE: WON Ylardo recklessly imprudent? (NO) ISSUE: WON Aquino negligent and liable? (YES) SC: Principal cannot be held liable based on Art 2180. SC: Even though parents based alleged liability of Aquino on Art 2176 an and not Art 2180, Aquino negligent. His acts and omissions amounting to negligence had a causal relation to the death of his pupil. SC: Should have gotten adult manual labor, left the kids in the hole, excavation an attractive nuisance. Ylardo not alone In jumping in the hole, 3 of them jumped, showing that any other ten-year old child would have done the same. Ylarde not imprudent, just acting his age. SC: Aquino grossly negligent. Pay parents 60K.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

FEDERICO YLARDE and ADELAIDA DORONIO v. EDGARDO AQUINO (teacher), MAURO SORIANO (principal) and CA. LD: It is only teachers and not the principal or head of an academic school who should be answerable for torts committed by their students. (In a school of arts and trades, it is only the head of the school who can be held liable). Under Art 2180 of NCC, the teacher-in-charge of school children should be held liable for negligence in his supervision over the children and his failure to take the necessary precautions to prevent any injury to their persons (in loco parentis) LD: A minor should not be held to the same degree of care as an adult, but his conduct should be judged according to the average conduct of persons of his age and experience. 1963: Gabaldon Primary School: Public school located in Pangasinan. Several large concrete blocks littered the school. Since these were hazards to the schoolchildren, a couple of teachers thought it would be best to bury them. Edgardo Aquino was a teacher in this school. He gather 18 of his male pupils (10-11 yr olds) and had the dig beside a 1-ton concrete block in order to make a hole where the block could be buried. Kids did not finish that day. The next day, after classes, Aquino called 4 of the 18 to dig again (Alonso, Alcantara, Abaga, and Novelito Ylarde) When the hold was 1.4m deep, Aquino continued digging, while the boys threw the loose dirt out. Aquino leaves the kids alone while goes to get the key to the workshop to get some rope. He tells the kids not to touch the stone. While Aquino was away, Alonso,

-

-

-

EXPERTS IN GENERAL CULION ICE, FISH & ELECTRIC CO, INC. v. PHIL MOTORS CORP. (1930) LD: A person who holds himself out as being competent to do woek requiring special skill is guilty of negligence if he fails to exhibit the care of a prudent person would exhibilt who is reasonable well skilled in the particular work undertaker. (LACK of SKILL = NEGLIGENCE, if you hold yourself out to be skillful, same expectations as if you really were skillful/expert) HD Cranston, rep of Culion w/c owned a schooner (Gwendoline) used in the fishing trade. Cranston wanted to change the engine of the

-

-

-

Gwendoline from gasoline to crude oil burner to save on running costs. He went to Phil. Motors Corp. (PMC). Quest was the manager of PMC and supervised the work on the engine after selling Cranston a Zenith carburetor. It worked well when the gasoline engine was used. However, when the tank for the mixed oil was used, it leaked (placed too high, diff in pressure, etc) and the carburetor was flooding. Quest didnt think this was a serious matter that needed fixing, Anyway, after test run, a backfire resulted. The Gwendoline burnt and was unrepairable. Value of boat (10K), salvage value (150) ISSUE: Was Quest negligent (YES) SC: See legal doctrine. SC: Quest had ample experience fixing engines of cars and tractors, but not experienced with boats. Perhaps this is why the dripping fuel and flooding carburetor did not convey to him the danger of fire. Quest did not use the skill that would have been exhibited by one ordinarily expert in repairing gasoline engines in boats SC: PMC liable for Quest's negligence. (9850)

-

-

-

-

US v. SANTIAGO PINEDA (22 Jan 1918) LD: Druggists Responsibility: The profession of pharmacy is one demanding care and skill. The responsibility of the druggist to use care can be qualified as the highest degree of care known to practical men. The care required must be commensurate with the danger involved, and the skill employed must correspond with the superior knowledge of the business w/c the law demands LD: The rule of caveat emptor cannot be applied to the purchase and sale of drugs. The nature of drugs is such that examination will not avail the purchaser anything. Consequently it must be that the druggist warrants that he will deliver the drug called for. Liability not from contract but out of the duty which the law imposes on him to avoid acts in their nature dangerous to the live of others. Pharmacy Law : Fraudulent construed (?) what is made unlawful is the giving

-

-

-

-

of a false name to the drug asked for. Feliciano Santos, upon prescription by Dr, Richardson wanted to purchase potassium Chlorate for his sick horses. Santiago Pineda, a registered pharmacist (or his employee) gave him instead barium chlorate (packaged and labeled as potassium chlorate). As a result 2 of his horses died. Santos sent a couple of chemists to buy potassium chlorate from Pineda. Upon testing, it was discovered the Pineda again dispensed barium chlorate, a poison. ISSUE: WON Santiago was Negligent? (YES- based on standard for pharmacists & Pharmacy Law) SC; Rs inter alios acta: exception: evidence of other offenses can be used to prove negligence. No better evidence than the frequency of accidents. SC: a pharmacist is responsible for the quality of all drugs and poisons that he sells. It is unlawful for him to sell any drug or poison under any "fraudulent name" SC: Question of negligence or ignorance is irrelevant. The druggist is responsible as an absolute guarantor of what he sells. Druggist warrants that he will deliver the drug called for. No caveat emptor, instead caveat venditor. (sellers beware(?)) SC: Pharmacist's mistake, inder the most favorable aspect for himself, was negligence. Mistake is negligence and care is no defense (for druggist) How the misfortune occurs is not important, if under all the circumstances the fact of occurrence is attributed to the druggist as a legal fault. SC: In view of the tremendous and imminent danger to the public from the careless sale of poisons and medicines, not to rigid a rule to hole that the law penalizes any druggist who shall sell one drug for another whether it be through negligence or mistake. SC: CFI decision affirmed (100) with subsidiary imprisonment is case of insolvency. w/o prejudice to civil action.

MERCURY DRUG CORP and AURMELA GANZON v . JUDGE RAUL DE LEON. LD: High degree of care required of druggists. Judge Raul de Leon, RTC Judge in Paranaque had reddish eyes and had difficulty reading