Magboo v. Bernardo 7 SCRA 952

Facts: Urbano and Emilia Magboo are the parents of Cesar Magboo, a child of 8 years old, who livedwith them and was under their custody until his death on 24 October 1956 when he was killedin a motor vehicle accident, the fatal vehicle being a passenger jeepney owned by DelfinBernardo. At the time of the accident, said passenger jeepney was driven by Conrado Roque.The contract between Roque and Bernardo was that Roque was to pay to Bernardo the sum ofP8.00, which he paid to Bernardo, for privilege of driving the jeepney, it being theiragreement that whatever earnings Roque could make out of the use of the jeepney intransporting passengers from one point to another in the City of Manila would belong entirelyto Roque. As a consequence of the accident and as a result of the death of Cesar Magboo insaid accident, Roque was prosecuted for homicide thru reckless imprudence before the CFIManila. Roque was sentenced to 6 months of arresto mayor, with the accessory penalties ofthe law; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in, with subsidiary imprisonment in case ofinsolvency, and to pay the costs. Pursuant to said judgment Roque served his sentence but hewas not able to pay the indemnity because he was insolvent. An action was filed by thespouses Magboo against Bernardo is for enforcement of his subsidiary liability. The trial courtordered Bernardo to pay the. Bernardo appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified thecase to the Supreme Court on the ground that only questions of law are involved.

Issue: Whether or not an employer-employee relationship between the jeepney operator and thedriver? Held: An employer-employee relationship exists between a jeepney owner and a driver under aboundary system arrangement. The features which characterize the boundary system -namely the fact that the driver does not receive a fixed wage but gets only the excess of theamount of fares collected by him over the amount he pays to the jeep-owner, and thegasoline consumed by the jeep is for the amount of the driver - are not sufficient to withdrawthe relationship between them from that of employee and employer. Consequently, thejeepney owner is subsidiary liable as employer in accordance with Art.103, Revised PenalCode.

CharterA grant from the government of ownership rights in land to a person, a group of people, or anorganization such as a corporation.A basic document of law of a Municipal Corporation granted by the state, defining its rights,liabilities, and responsibilities of self-government.A document embodying a grant of authority from the legislature or the authority itself, such as a corporate charter. The leasing of a mode of transportation, such as a bus, ship, or plane. A charter-party is a contract formed to lease a ship to a merchant in order to facilitate the conveyance of goods.

Last Clear ChanceIn the law of torts, the doctrine that excuses or negates the effect of the plaintiff's contributory Negligence and permits him or her to recover, in particular instances, damages regardless of his or her own lack of ordinary care.The rule of last clear chance operates when the plaintiff negligently enters into an area of danger from which the person cannot extricate himself or herself.

The defendant has the final opportunity

to prevent the harm that the plaintiff otherwise will suffer. The doctrine was formulated to relieve theseverity of the application of the contributory negligence rule against the plaintiff, which completelybars any recovery if the person was at all negligent.There are as many variations and adaptations of this doctrine as there are jurisdictions that apply it.Four different categories have emerged, which are classified as helpless plaintiffs, inattentiveplaintiffs, observant defendants, and inattentive defendants.

2 KINDS Charter1 . c o n t r a c t o f affreightment2 . d e m i s e o r bareboat charter 1. Bareboat or demise means the whole vessel is lend to the charterer which transfers to himits entire command and possession and consequent control over its navigation, including themaster and crew who are his servants. The charterer is treated as owner pro hac vice of thevessel. In such case, a common carrier becomes a private carrier.

*Charterer means the vessel assumes all responsibilities of navigation and provides his ownpeople.*Shipowner is not liable to third person; it is the charterer who is liable to them.General Rule: The charterer is liable to the third person.

Exception: Shipowner may still be held liable if the injury was caused by unseaworthiness ornegligence of the shipowner beyond before the demise or bare boat took over.

2. Contract of affreightment involves that use of shipping space leased by the owner in part oras a whole, to carry goods for others.*The shipowner retains the possession,command and navigation of the ship,the charterermerely having use of the space in the vessel in return for his payment of the charter hired.*The shipowner is liable to third person

Res Ipsa Loquitur[Latin, The thing speaks for itself.] A rebuttable presumption or inference that the defendant wasnegligent, which arises upon proof that the instrumentality or condition causing the injury was in thedefendant's exclusive control and that the accident was one that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of Negligence.Res ipsa loquitur, or res ipsa, as it is commonly called, is really a rule of evidence, not a rule of Substantive Law.

Proximate CauseAn act from which an injury results as a natural, direct, uninterrupted consequence and without which the injury would not have occurred.

Proximate cause is the primary cause of an injury. It is not necessarily the closest cause in time or pace nor the first event that sets in motion a sequence of events leading to an injury.

Proximate cause produces particular, foreseeable consequences without the interven-tion of any independent or unforeseeable cause. It is also known as legal cause.To help determine the proximate cause of an injury in Negligence or other tort cases, courts have devised the "but for" or "sine qua non" rule, which considers whether the in-jury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligent act. A finding that an in-

jury would not have occurred but for a defendant's act establishes that the particu-lar act or omission is the proximate cause of the harm, but it does not necessarily establish li-ability since a variety of other factors can come into play in tort actions.Some jurisdictions apply the "substantial factor" formula to determine proximate cause. This rule considers whether the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in produc-ing the harm. If the act was a substantial factor in bringing about the damage, then the de-fendant will be held liable unless she can raise a sufficient defense to rebut the claims.

Article 831 of the Code of Commerce provides that: If a vessel should be forced by a thirdvessel to collide with another, the owner of the third vessel shall indemnify the losses anddamages caused, the captain thereof being civilly liable to said owner.*This is known as the Doctrine of Proximate Cause

Immediate CauseThe final act in a series of provocations leading to a particular result or event, directly producing such result without the intervention of any further provocation.For example, if an individual who was driving while intoxicated crashed his or her car and waskilled, the immediate cause of death was the crash. The proximate cause, however, was theindividual's state of intoxication.

Presumption of negligenceArticle 1735 of the New Civil Code provides that: In all cases other than those mentioned inNos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated,common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless theyprove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733.