Case Digest in Torts and Damages

Assignment #1
1. Picart vs Smith (37 Phil. 809/813)
FACTS: In December 1912, Amado Picart was riding his horse and while they
were on a 75 meter long bridge, he saw Frank Smith Jr.s car approaching. Smith blew
his horn thrice while he was still at a distance away because Picart and his horse were
on Smiths lane. But Picart did not move his horse to the other lane, instead he moved
his horse closer to the railing. Smith continued driving towards Picart without slowing
down and when he was already so near the horse he swerved to the other lane. But the
horse got scared so it turned its body across the bridge; the horse struck the car and its
limb got broken. Picart suffered injuries which required several days of medical attention
while the horse eventually died.
ISSUE: Whether or not Smith is negligent.
RULING: Yes. And so was Picart for planting himself on the wrong side of the
road. But Smiths negligence succeeded that of Picart. Smith saw at a distance when he
blew his horn that Picart and his horse did not move to the other lane so he should have
steered his car to the other lane at that point instead of swerving at the last minute. He
therefore had the last clear chance to avoid the unfortunate incident. When Smiths car
has approached the horse at such proximity it left no chance for Picart extricate himself
and vigilance on his part will not avert injury. Picart can therefore recover damages from
Smith but such should be proportioned by reason of his contributory negligence.
2. Bustamante et. al. vs CA (GR No. 89880, February 6, 1991)
FACTS: On April 20, 1983, a collision occurred between a 1947 model gravel
and sand truck driven by Montesiano and owned by Del Pilar and a Mazda passenger
bus driven by Susulin along the national road at Calibuyo, Tanza, Cavite. The front left
side portion (barandilla) of the body of the truck sideswiped the left side wall of the
passenger bus, ripping off the wall from the driver's seat to the last rear seat. Several
passengers of the bus were thrown out and died as a result of the injuries they
sustained. Before the collision, the cargo truck and the passenger bus were
approaching each other, coming from the opposite directions of the highway. While the
truck was still about 30 meters away, Susulin, the bus driver, saw the front wheels of the
vehicle wiggling. He also observed that the truck was heading towards his lane. Not
minding this circumstance due to his belief that the driver of the truck was merely joking,
Susulin shifted from fourth to third gear in order to give more power and speed to the
bus, which was ascending the inclined part of the road, in order to overtake or pass a
Kubota hand tractor being pushed by a person along the shoulder of the highway.
ISSUE: W/N the last clear chance can apply making the bus negligent in failing
to avoid the collision and his act in proceeding to overtake the hand tractor was the
proximate cause of the collision making him solely liable.

RULING: NO. The doctrine of last clear chance means that even though a
person's own acts may have placed him in a position of peril, and an injury results, the
injured person is entitled to recovery. A person who has the last clear chance or
opportunity of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent
or that of a third person imputed to the opponent is considered in law solely responsible
for the consequences of the accident. Since the case at bar is not a suit between the
owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles but a suit brought by the heirs of the
deceased passengers against both owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles the court
erred in absolving the owner and driver of the cargo truck from liability.
3. Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. CA (GR No. 53401, November 6, 1989)
FACTS: Nana Belen ventured out in flood waters to check on the status of her
grocery store after the storm. On her way to her grocery she was electrocuted.
ISSUE: WON Ilocos Norte Electric Corporation was liable
RULING: Yes. The finding of the lower court, was based on what the defendant's
employees were supposed to do, not on what they actually did or failed to do on.
4. Air France vs Carrascoso; L-21438; September 28, 1996
FACTS: In March 1958, Rafael Carrascoso and several other Filipinos were
tourists en route to Rome from Manila. Carrascoso was issued a first class round trip
ticket by Air France. But during a stop-over in Bangkok, he was asked by the plane
manager of Air France to vacate his seat because a white man allegedly has a better
right than him. Carrascoso protested but when things got heated and upon advise of
other Filipinos on board, Carrascoso gave up his seat and was transferred to the
planes tourist class.
ISSUE: Whether or not Air France is liable for damages and on what basis.
RULING: Yes. It appears that Air Frances liability is based on culpa-contractual
and on culpa aquiliana.
Culpa Contractual
There exists a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso. There was a
contract to furnish Carrasocoso a first class passage; Second, That said contract was
breached when Air France failed to furnish first class transportation at Bangkok; and
Third, that there was bad faith when Air Frances employee compelled Carrascoso to
leave his first class accommodation berth after he was already, seated and to take a
seat in the tourist class, by reason of which he suffered inconvenience,
embarrassments and humiliations, thereby causing him mental anguish, serious anxiety,
wounded feelings and social humiliation, resulting in moral damages.

The Supreme Court did not give credence to Air Frances claim that the issuance of a
first class ticket to a passenger is not an assurance that he will be given a first class
seat. Such claim is simply incredible.
Culpa Aquiliana
Here, the SC ruled, even though there is a contract of carriage between Air France and
Carrascoso, there is also a tortuous act based on culpa aquiliana. Passengers do not
contract merely for transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carriers
employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to
be protected against personal misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses
from such employees. So it is, that any rule or discourteous conduct on the part of
employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the
carrier. Air Frances contract with Carrascoso is one attended with public duty. The
stress of Carrascosos action is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This is a violation of
public duty by the Air France a case of quasi-delict. Damages are proper.
5. Julian Singson and Ramona Castillo vs IAC (GR No. 65295, March 10, 1987)
FACTS: Singson, was one of the defendants in a civil case, in which judgment
had been rendered sentencing him and his co-defendants therein Lobregat and VillaAbrille & Co., to pay a sum of money to the plaintiff therein. Said judgment became final
and executory as only against Ville-Abrille for its failure to file an appeal. A writ of
garnishment was subsequently served upon BPI in which the Singsons had a current
account insofar as Villa-Abrilles credits against the Bank were concerned.
Upon receipt of the said Writ of Garnishment, a clerk of the bank, upon reading
the name of the Singson in the title of the Writ of Garnishment as a party defendants,
without further reading the body and informing himself that said garnishment was
merely intended for the deposits of defendant Villa-Abrille & Co., et al, prepared a letter
informing Singson of the garnishment of his deposits by the plaintiff in that case.
Subsequently, two checks issued by the Julian C. Singson, one in favor of B. M.
Glass Service and another in favor of the Lega Corporation, were dishonored by the
bank. B. M. Glass Service then wrote to Singson that the check was not honored by BPI
because his account therein had already been garnished and that they are now
constrained to close his credit account with them.
Singson wrote to BPI, claiming that his name was not included in the Writ of
Execution and Notice of Garnishment, which was served upon the bank. The
defendants lost no time to rectify the mistake that had been inadvertently committed.
ISSUE: WON the existence of a contract between the parties bars a plaintiffs
claim for damages based on torts?

RULING: The existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the
commission of a tort by the one against the order and the consequent recovery of
damages therefore. In view, however, of the facts obtaining in the case at bar, and
considering, particularly, the circumstance, that the wrong done to the plaintiff was
remedied as soon as the President of the bank realized the mistake he and his
subordinate employee had committed, the Court finds that an award of nominal
damages the amount of which need not be proven would suffice to vindicate
plaintiffs rights.