Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
On 4 March 1992, after coming back to Manila, ISSUE: Whether AMEX is really liable for damages.
Pantaleon sent a letter through counsel to the respondent,
demanding an apology for the "inconvenience, humiliation
and embarrassment he and his family thereby suffered" for FINAL RULING: The Court reversed its earlier decision. The
respondents refusal to provide credit authorization for the
Court determined the following:
aforementioned purchases. In response, respondent sent a
letter dated 24 March 1992, stating among others that the
delay in authorizing the purchase from Coster was a. Pantaleons action was the proximate cause for his injury.
attributable to the circumstance that the charged purchase Pantaleon mainly anchors his claim for moral and
of US $13,826.00 "was out of the usual charge purchase exemplary damages on the embarrassment and
pattern established." Since respondent refused to accede humiliation that he felt when the European tour group had
to Pantaleons demand for an apology, the aggrieved to wait for him and his wife for approximately 35 minutes,
cardholder instituted an action for damages with the RTC of and eventually had to cancel the Amsterdam city tour. After
Makati City, Branch 145. Petitioner was awarded for thoroughly reviewing the records of this case, we have
damages by the RTC and the Motion for Reconsideration come to the conclusion that Pantaleon is the proximate
filed by Respondent was denied. Respondent filed an cause for this embarrassment and humiliation.
appeal with the CA. On 18 August 2006, the CA rendered a
decision reversing the award of damages in favor of b. AMEX acted with good faith. Thus far, we have already
Pantaleon, holding that respondent had not breached its established that: (a) AMEX had neither a contractual nor a
obligations to petitioner. legal obligation to act upon Pantaleons purchases within a
specific period of time; and (b) AMEX has a right to review
a cardholders credit card history. Our recognition of these The Supreme Court said that it is time to update the
entitlements, however, does not give AMEX an unlimited interpretation of the above law due to the changing times
right to put off action on cardholders purchase requests for where there is hardly a distinction between schools of arts
indefinite periods of time. In acting on cardholders
and trade and academic schools. That being said, the
purchase requests, AMEX must take care not to abuse its
rights and cause injury to its clients and/or third persons. Supreme Court ruled that ALL schools, academic or not,
We cite in this regard Article 19, in conjunction with Article may be held liable under the said provision of Article 2180.
21, of the Civil Code
The Supreme Court however clarified that the school,
c. Use of credit card a mere offer to enter into loan whether academic or not, should not be held directly liable.
agreements. Although we recognize the existence of a
Its liability is only subsidiary.
relationship between the credit card issuer and the credit
card holder upon the acceptance by the cardholder of the
terms of the card membership agreement (customarily For non-academic schools, it would be the principal or head
signified by the act of the cardholder in signing the back of of school who should be directly liable for the tortuous act
the credit card), we have to distinguish this contractual of its students. This is because historically, in non-
relationship from the creditor-debtor relationship which
academic schools, the head of school exercised a closer
only arises after the credit card issuer has approved the
cardholders purchase request. The first relates merely to administration over their students than heads of academic
an agreement providing for credit facility to the schools. In short, they are more hands on to their students.
cardholder. The latter involves the actual credit on loan
agreement involving three contracts, namely: the sales For academic schools, it would be the teacher-in-charge
contract between the credit card holder and the merchant who would be directly liable for the tortuous act of the
or the business establishment which accepted the credit
students and not the dean or the head of school.
card; the loan agreement between the credit card issuer
and the credit card holder; and the promise to pay between
the credit card issuer and the merchant or business The Supreme Court also ruled that such liability does not
establishment. cease when the school year ends or when the semester
ends. Liability applies whenever the student is in the
custody of the school authorities as long as he is under the
control and influence of the school and within its premises,
whether the semester has not yet begun or has already
AMADORA VS CA
ended at the time of the happening of the incident. As long
as it can be shown that the student is in the school
premises in pursuance of a legitimate student objective, in
the exercise of a legitimate student right, and even in the
Civil Law Torts and Damages Article 2180 Liability of enjoyment of a legitimate student right, and even in the
Schools of Arts and Trades and Academic Schools Liability enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege, the
of Teachers and Heads of School responsibility of the school authorities over the student
continues. Indeed, even if the student should be doing
In April 1972, while the high school students of Colegio de nothing more than relaxing in the campus in the company
San Jose-Recoletos were in the school auditorium, a certain of his classmates and friends and enjoying the ambience
Pablito Daffon fired a gun. The stray bullet hit Alfredo and atmosphere of the school, he is still within the custody
Amadora. Alfredo died. Daffon was convicted of reckless and subject to the discipline of the school authorities under
imprudence resulting in homicide. The parents of Alfredo the provisions of Article 2180.
sued the school for damages under Article 2180 of the Civil
Code because of the schools negligence. At any rate, the REMEDY of the teacher, to avoid direct
liability, and for the school, to avoid subsidiary liability, is
The trial court ruled in favor of Amadora. The trial court to show proof that he, the teacher, exercised the necessary
ruled that the principal, the dean of boys, as well as the precautions to prevent the injury complained of, and the
teacher-in-charge are all civilly liable. The school appealed school exercised the diligence of a bonus pater familias.
as it averred that when the incident happened, the school
year has already ended. Amadora argued that even though In this case however, the Physics teacher in charge was not
the semester has already ended, his son was there in properly named, and there was no sufficient evidence
school to complete a school requirement in his Physics presented to make the said teacher-in-charge liable. Absent
subject. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school. the direct liability of the teachers because of the foregoing
The CA ruled that under the last paragraph of Article 2180, reason, the school cannot be held subsidiarily liable too.
only schools of arts and trades (vocational schools) are
liable not academic schools like Colegio de San Jose- This case abandoned fully the cases of Exconde vs
Recoletos. Capuno and Mercado vs Court of Appeals.
FACTS:
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court made a re-examination of
the provision on the last paragraph of Article 2180 which On the Carlatan Bridge in La Union. Picart was
provides: riding on his pony over said bridge. Before he had gotten
half way across, Smith approached from the opposite
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and direction in an automobile. As the defendant neared the
bridge he saw a horseman on it and blew his horn to give
trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils
warning of his approach. He continued his course and after
and students or apprentices so long as they remain in their he had taken the bridge he gave two more successive
custody. blasts, as it appeared to him that the man on horseback
before him was not observing the rule of the road. Picart
saw the automobile coming and heard the warning signals.
However, being perturbed by the novelty of the apparition MANDARIN VILLA, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS
or the rapidity of the approach, he pulled the pony closely and CLODUALDO DE JESUS,respondents.
up against the railing on the right side of the bridge instead
of going to the left for the reason that he thought he did
not have sufficient time to get over to the other side. As Facts: In the evening of October 19, 1989, private
the automobile approached, Smith guided it toward his left, respondent, Clodualdo de Jesus, a practicing lawyer and
that being the proper side of the road for the machine. In businessman, hosted a dinner for his friends at the
so doing the defendant assumed that the horseman would petitioner's restaurant the Mandarin Villa Seafoods Village,
move to the other side. Seeing that the pony was Greenhills, Mandaluyong City. After dinner the waiter
apparently quiet, the defendant, instead of veering to the handed to him the bill in the amount of P2,658.50. Private
right while yet some distance away or slowing down,
respondent offered to pay the bill through his credit card
continued to approach directly toward the horse without
diminution of speed. When he had gotten quite near, there issued by Philippine Commercial Credit Card Inc.
being then no possibility of the horse getting across to the (BANKARD).This card was accepted by the waiter who
other side, the defendant quickly turned his car sufficiently immediately proceeded to the restaurant's cashier for card
to the right to escape hitting the horse; but in so doing the verification. Ten minutes later, however, the waiter
automobile passed in such close proximity to the animal returned and audibly informed private respondent that his
that it became frightened and turned its body across the credit card had expired. Private respondent remonstrated
bridge, got hit by the car and the limb was broken. The
that said credit card had yet to expire on September 1990,
horse fell and its rider was thrown off with some violence.
As a result of its injuries the horse died. The plaintiff as embossed on its face. They approached the cashier and
received contusions which caused temporary the same came out card expired. Private respondent and
unconsciousness and required medical attention for several his guests returned to their table and at this juncture,
days. From a judgment of the CFI of La Union absolving Professor Lirag, another guest, uttered the following
Smith from liability, Picart has appealed. remarks: "Clody [referring to Clodualdo de Jesus], may
problema ba? Baka kailangang maghugas na kami ng
ISSUE: WON Smith was guilty of negligence such as gives
rise to a civil obligation to repair the damage done pinggan? thereupon, private respondent left the
restaurant and got his BPI Express Credit Card from his car
HELD: YES. The test by which to determine the existence and offered it to pay their bill and it was recognize. The
of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows: incident triggered the filing of a suit for damages by private
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use respondent. Following a full-dress trial, judgment was
that person would have used in the same situation? If not, rendered directing the petitioner and BANKARD to pay
then he is guilty of negligence. The existence of negligence
jointly and severally and it was modified by CA that
in a given case is not determined by reference to the
personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. Mandarin is solely responsible. Mandarin interposes this
The law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or present petition.
negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence
and determines liability by that. Issue: Wether Mandarin is negligence.
The question as to what would constitute the
conduct of a prudent man in a given situation must of Ruling: YES. The test for determining the existence of
course be always determined in the light of human negligence in a particular case may be stated as
experience and in view of the facts involved in the follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent
particular case. Could a prudent man, in the case under act use the reasonable care and caution which an ordinary
consideration, foresee harm as a result of the course prudent person would have used in the same situation? If
actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of the actor to take
not, then he is guilty of negligence. The Point of Sale (POS)
precautions to guard against that harm. Reasonable
foresight of harm, followed by ignoring of the suggestion Guidelines which outlined the steps that petitioner must
born of this prevision, is always necessary before follow under the circumstances provides "CARD EXPIRED;
negligence can be held to exist. Stated in these terms, the a. Check expiry date on card; b. If unexpired, refer to CB;
proper criterion for determining the existence of negligence b.1. If valid, honor up to maximum of SPL only; b.2. If in CB
in a given case is this: Conduct is said to be negligent when as Lost, do procedures 2a to 2e; b.3. If in CB as
a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have Suspended/Cancelled, do not honor card; c. If expired, do
foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently
not honor card."
probable to warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding
against its consequences.
A cursory reading of said rule reveals that whenever the
Applying this test to the conduct of the defendant words CARD EXPIRED flashes on the screen of the
in the present case we think that negligence is clearly verification machine, petitioner should check the credit
established. A prudent man, placed in the position of the
card's expiry date embossed on the card itself. If
defendant, would in our opinion, have recognized that the
course which he was pursuing was fraught with risk, and unexpired, petitioner should honor the card provided it is
would therefore have foreseen harm to the horse and the not invalid, cancelled or otherwise suspended. But if
rider as reasonable consequence of that course. Under expired, petitioner should not honor the card. In this case,
these circumstances the law imposed on the Smith the private respondent's BANKARD credit card has an
duty to guard against the threatened harm. embossed expiry date of September 1990. Clearly, it has
not yet expired on October 19,1989, when the same was
It goes without saying that the plaintiff himself was
wrongfully dishonored by the petitioner. Hence, petitioner
not free from fault, for he was guilty of antecedent
negligence in planting himself on the wrong side of the did not use the reasonable care and caution which an
road. But as we have already stated, Smith was also ordinary prudent person would have used in the same
negligent; and in such case the problem always is to situation and as such petitioner is guilty of negligence.
discover which agent is immediately and directly
responsible. It will be noted that the negligent acts of the
two parties were not contemporaneous, since the
negligence of the defendant succeeded the negligence of
the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under these Pantranco North Express, Inc. V. Maricar Baesa (1989)
circumstances the law is that the person who has the last
fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so FACTS: Petitioner asks the court to review the descision of
is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the Court of Appeals.
the prior negligence of the other party. Spouses Baesa, their 4 children, the Ico spouses and
their son and 7 other people boarded a passenger jeep
driven by David Ico to go to a picnic in Malalam River, FACTS: It was the 8th of January in 1977, at around 9:00
Ilagan,Isabela, to celebrate the 5th wedding anniversary of or 10:00 in the morning, in Pulong Pulo Bridge along
the Baesa spouses. While they were proceeding towards MacArthur Highway, between Angeles City and San
Malalam River at a speed of about 20 kph, a speeding Fernando, Pampanga. Jose Koh was driving his daughter,
PANTRANCO bus from Aparri, on a route to Manila, Araceli Koh McKee, and her minor children, Christopher,
encroached on the jeepneys lane while negotiating a George, and Kim, as well as Kims babysitter, Loida
curve, and collided with it. Bondoc, from San Fernando, Pampanga in the direction of
As a result, the entire Baesa family, except for their Angeles City (northward) in a Ford Escort.
daughter Maricar Baesa, as well as David Ico, died, and the
rest suffered from injuries. After the accident the driver of Meanwhile, a cargo truck owned by Jaime Tayag
Pantranco boarded a car and proceeded to Isabela and and Rosalinda Manalo, driven by Ruben Galang, was
never been seen. headed in the opposite direction, from Angeles City to San
Maricar Baesa, through her guardian filed separate Fernando (southward), going to Manila. The cargo truck
actions for damages arising from quasi-delict against was considerable in size as it was carrying 200 hundred
PANTRANCO. cavans of rice, which weighed 10 metric tons.
PANTRANCOs Contention:
a David Ico's negligence as a proximate cause of the As the Escort approached one Pulong-Pulo Bridge
accident. from the southern portion, 2 boys suddenly ran from the
b The driver of the jeepney failed to apply the right side of the road into the Escorts lane. As the boys
doctrine of last clear chance. were going back and forth, unsure of whether to cross all
the way or turn back, Jose blew his horn. He was then
CA upheld RTC in favor of Baesa
forced to swerve left and into the lane Galang was driving
ISSUE: 1. Whether the last clear chance applies thereby.
in. Jose switched his headlights on, applied his brakes, and
2. Whether the jeepney drivers negligence is the attempted to return to his lane. Before he could do so, his
proximate cause of the accident. car collided with the truck. The collision occurred in the
HELD: lane of the truck, which was the opposite lane, on the said
1. NO. the doctrine of last clear chance finds no application bridge.
in this case.
Generally, the last clear change doctrine is invoked for The collision resulted in the deaths of the driver,
the purpose of making a defendant liable to a plaintiff who Jose, the one-year-old, Kim, and her babysitter, Loida, on
was guilty of prior or antecedent negligence, although it whose lap she was sitting. Loida was seated in the
may also be raised as a defense to defeat claim for passenger seat. Araceli, Christopher, and George, who
damages were sitting in the back of the Escort, received physical
For the last clear chance doctrine to apply, it is injuries from the collision.
necessary to show that the person who allegedly has the
last opportunity to avert the accident was aware of the An information was filed against Ruben Galang,
existence of the peril, or should, with exercise of due care, charging him for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple
have been aware of it. There is nothing to show that the homicide, physical injuries, and damage to property. He
jeepney driver David Ico knew of the impending was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges
danger.When he saw at a distance that the approaching in the information. The conviction was affirmed by the CA
bus was encroaching on his lane, he did not immediately and achieved finality after the denial by the CA of his MR
swerve the jeepney to the dirt shoulder on his right since and the denial by the SC of his Petition for Review.
he must have assumed that the bus driver will return the
bus to its own lane upon seeing the jeepney approaching Two civil cases were filed. The first one, by the wife
form the opposite direction. Even assuming that the and children of Jose Koh, and the second one by Araceli and
jeepney driver perceived the danger a few seconds before her husband for the death of Kim and injuries to Araceli
the actual collision, he had no opportunity to avoid it. and her other children. The respondents were impleaded
Last clear chance doctrine can never apply where the against as the employers of Ruben Galang Galang was
party charged is required to act instantaneously, and if not included. The cases here are based on quasi-delict.
the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all These cases were eventually consolidated.
means at hand after the peril is or should have been
discovered. The trial court dismissed the civil cases and awarded the
2. The Court finds that the negligence of petitioners driver respondents damages and attorneys fees.
in encroaching into the lane of the incoming jeepney and in
failing to return the bus to its own lane immediately upon On appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court, the
seeing the jeepney coming from the opposite direction was dismissal was reversed. This was based on its finding that it
the sole and proximate cause of the accident without which was Galangs inattentiveness or reckless imprudence that
the collision would not have occurred. There was no caused the accident. However, upon filing by the
supervening or intervening negligence on the part of the respondents of an MR, the IAC set aside its original decision
jeepney driver which would have made the prior and upheld that of the trial court because the fact that
negligence of petitioners driver a mere remote cause of Kohs car invaded the lane of the truck and the collision
the accident. occurred while still in Galangs lane gave rise to the
Petitioners contention that David Ico was negligent presumption that Koh was negligent.
in failing to observe Section 43 (c), Article III of Republic Act
ISSUE: Was the IAC correct in reversing their original
No. 4136 (* which provides that the driver of a vehicle
decision?
entering a through highway or a stop intersection shall
yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching in either
HELD: NO. The petition has merit.
direction on such through highway) law is readily apparent
in this case. The cited law itself provides that it applies only
(Procedural (not important): Given the circumstances, the
to vehicles entering a through highway or a stop
cases (civil and criminal) should have been consolidated to
intersection. At the time of the accident, the jeepney had
prevent separate appreciation of the evidence. To be fair,
already crossed the intersection and was on its way to
the petitioners did move to adopt the testimonies of the
Malalam River.
witnesses in the criminal case but the motion was denied.
The petition is DENIED, and the decision of The non-consolidation resulted in two conflicting decisions.
respondent Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with the In any case, the guilty verdict of Galang was deemed by
modification that the amount of compensatory damages the Court as irrelevant to the case at bar.)
for the death of Harold Jim Baesa and Marcelino Baesa are
increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) each. On the basis of this presumed negligence, the
appellate court immediately concluded that it was Jose
Kohs negligence that was the immediate and proximate
McKee v. Intermediate Appellate Court cause of the collision. This is an unwarranted deduction
as the evidence for the petitioners convincingly shows
that the car swerved into the trucks lane because as it situation would have tried to avoid the car instead of
approached the southern end of the bridge, two boys meeting it head-on.
darted across the road from the right sidewalk into the
lane of the car. The negligence of Galang is apparent in the
records. He himself said that his truck was running at 30
Aracelis testimony was pretty much what was miles (48 kilometers) per hour along the bridge while the
stated in the facts plus the fact that when Jose swerved to maximum speed allowed by law on a bridge is only 30
the left, the truck was immediately noticed. This is why he kilometers per hour. Under Article 2185 of the Civil Code,
switched his headlights on to warn the trucks driver to a person driving a vehicle is presumed negligent if at the
slow down and let the Escort return to its lane. When time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
asked as to how she could tell that the truck did not slow
down, Araceli said that the truck just kept on coming, b) Last Clear Chance Doctrine: A doctrine in the
indicating that it didnt reduce its speed. She posited that law of torts which states that the contributory negligence
if it did, there wouldnt have been a collision. Her of the party injured will not defeat the claim for damages if
testimony remained intact, even upon cross-examination it is shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of
that Joses entry into Galangs lane was necessary to avoid reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the
what was, in his mind at the time, a greater peril death consequences of the negligence of the injured party. In
or injury to the two idiots. This is hardly negligent such cases, the person who had the last clear chance to
behavior. avoid the mishap is considered in law solely responsible
for the consequences thereof. A person who has the last
Her testimony was corroborated by one Eugenio clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident,
Tanhueco, who was an impartial eyewitness. He said that notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent or that
the truck, moving at 50 to 60kph, only stopped upon of a third person imputed to the opponent is considered in
collision. Also, when the police investigated the scene of law solely responsible for the consequences of the
the collision, they found skidmarks under the truck accident. The doctrine applies only in a situation where the
instead of behind it. This indicated that Galang only plaintiff was guilty of prior or antecedent negligence but
applied the brakes moments before the collision. While the defendant, who had the last fair chance to avoid the
Galang claimed that he had stopped when the Escort impending harm and failed to do so, is made liable for all
was within 10 meters of the truck but this only served to the consequences of the accident notwithstanding the
substantiate Tanhuecos statement that he stopped only prior negligence of the plaintiff. Basically, the last clear
upon collision, considering the speed at which he was chance was with Galang, as can be gleaned from the
going. evidence presented.
On the basis of the definition and the test of Therefore, respondents are found, under
negligence, no negligence can be imputed to Koh. Any Article 2180, directly and primarily responsible for the
reasonable and ordinary prudent man would have tried to acts of their employee. Their negligence flows from
avoid running over the two boys by swerving the car away the negligence of their employee. Such presumption
from where they were even if this would mean entering is juris tantum (rebuttable) and not juris et de jure
the opposite lane. Avoiding such immediate peril would be (conclusive). They did not present evidence that
the natural course to take particularly where the vehicle in showed that the diligence of a good father of a family
the opposite lane would be several meters away and could in the selection and supervision of their employee,
very well slow down, move to the side of the road and give Galang.
way to the oncoming car.
The instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed
THE EMERGENCY RULE: one who suddenly finds Resolution of the respondent Court of 3 April 1984 is SET
himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without ASIDE while its Decision of 29 November 1983 in C.A.-G.R.
time to consider the best means that may be adopted to CV Nos. 69040-41 is REINSTATED.
avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if
he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection NENITA L. LEANO vs. HON. EUFEMIO C. DOMINGO
may appear to have been a better method, unless the
emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by Doctrine
his own negligence. Jose Koh adopted the best means Negligence is the omission to do something which a
possible in the given situation. This means he cannot be reasonable man, guided by those considerations which
considered negligent. ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do,
or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable
Assuming, arguendo, that Jose was negligent, the man would do.
collision still would not be imputed to him
Facts: Leano was designated Acting Cashier I of the Bureau
Because: a) Proximate Cause: that cause, which, in of Quarantine. The Cashier's Office was allegedly robbed of
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any its cash amounting to P12,500. Upon investigation it was
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and found out that (1) the unknown suspects got inside the
without which the result would not have occurred. Galangs Cashier's Office thru the teller's window and opened the
negligent act of not slowing down or stopping and allowing steel cabinet, possibly with the use of the original key
the Escort to return to the right lane was the sufficient which was left inside a small wooden box near the steel
intervening cause and the actual cause of the tragedy. He cabinet or with the use of false key or other similar
failed to take the necessary measures and the degree of instrument since no sign of force on the cabinet was
care necessary to avoid the collision. traced; and (2) the cash amounting to P12,500. 00 was
taken by the suspects in the pay envelopes, leaving several
The entry of the car into the lane of the truck would envelopes with cash. Upon receipt of the report of the
not have resulted in the collision had the latter heeded the incident and request of petitioner Leano, a cash count was
emergency signals given by the former to slow down and conducted, ordered relieve of the defaulting officer from
give the car an opportunity to go back into its proper lane. her duties as accountable officer due to negligence
Instead of slowing down and swerving to the far right of the
road, which was the proper precautionary measure under Petitioner filed with COA a request for relief from but the
the given circumstances, the truck driver continued at full was denied
speed towards the car. The truck drivers negligence
becomes more apparent in view of the fact that the road is Issue: Whether or not COA acted with grave abuse of
7.50 meters wide while the car measures 1.598 meters and discretion in denying petitioner's request for relief from
the truck, 2.286 meters, in width. This would mean that accountability
both car and truck could pass side by side with a clearance
of 3.661 meters to spare. Furthermore, the bridge has a Ruling No, it should be stated that the factual findings of
level sidewalk, which could have partially accommodated administrative tribunal must be respected as long as they
the truck. Any reasonable man finding himself in the given
are supported by substantial evidence, even if not left of the trucks side of said stripe.chanr It was
overwhelming or preponderant. unquestionably the jeep that rammed into the stopped
truck, it may also be deduced that it (the jeep) was at
The test by which to determine the existence of the time travelling beyond its own lane and intruding
negligence: Did the defendant in doing the alleged into the lane of the truck by at least the same 11-
negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which centimeter width of space.
an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same
situation? If not, he is guilty of negligence. Nor was the Appellate Court correct in finding that
Paulino Zacarias had acted negligently in applying his
Petitioner fell short of the demands inherent in her position. brakes instead of getting back inside his lane upon
An exercise of proper diligence expected of her position espying the approaching jeep. Being well within his own
would have compelled petitioner to request an immediate lane, he had no duty to swerve out of the jeeps way as
change of the combination of the safe. In addition, it was said Court would have had him do. And even supposing
found that the use of the steel cabinet was not a wise and that he was in fact partly inside the opposite lane,
prudent decision. The steel cabinet, even when locked, at coming to a full stop with the jeep still thirty (30) meters
times could be pulled open, thus it can be surmised that away cannot be considered an unsafe or imprudent
even without the use of a key, the robbery could be action, there also being uncontradicted evidence that
committed once the culprits succeed in entering the room the jeep was "zigzagging" and hence no way of telling in
which direction it would go as it approached the truck.
GLAN PEOPLES LUMBER AND HARDWARE ET AL VS.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL. The evidence not only acquits Zacarias of any
negligence in the matter; there are also quite a few
FACTS: The evidence showed that the jeep driven by Engr. significant indicators that it was rather Engineer Calibos
Calibo with Agripino Roranes, and Maximo Patos on board negligence that was the proximate cause of the
was zigzagging before colliding with the cargo truck ,driven accident. the jeep had been "zigzagging," which is to
by defendant Zacarias, that just crossed a bridge going to say that it was travelling or being driven erratically at
Davao City. At the time of collision, the truck was at full the time. There is moreover more than a suggestion
stop as the driver (Zacarias) saw the jeep negotiating a that Calibo had been drinking shortly before the
curve and the descending grade lane where the driver of accident.
the jeep did not reduce its speed. Evidence showed that at
about 150 meters, the drivers had a view of each other, 2 NO. Both drivers had a full view of each others vehicle
until the jeep plowed into the truck while the latter was at from a distance of one hundred fifty meters. Both
full stop. Engineer Calibo died while Roranes and Patos vehicles were travelling at a speed of approximately
sustained physical injuries. Zacarias was unhurt. thirty kilometers per hour. The private respondents have
admitted that the truck was already at a full stop while
A case for damages was filed by the surviving spouse the jeep was still thirty meters away until the jeep
and children of the late Engineer Calibo against the driver plowed into it. The driver of the jeep had what judicial
and owners of the cargo truck. doctrine has appropriately called the last clear chance
to avoid the accident, while still at that distance of thirty
RTC: dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence meters from the truck, by stopping in his turn or
swerving his jeep away from the truck, either of which
CA: reversed the decision of the Trial Court and he had sufficient time to do while running at a speed of
found Zacarias to be negligent on the basis of the following only thirty kilometers per hour. In those circumstances,
circumstances, among others, to wit:chanrob1es virtual his duty was to seize that opportunity of avoidance, not
1aw library merely rely on a supposed right to expect the truck to
swerve and leave him a clear path.
1) "the truck driven by defendant Zacarias occupied the
lane of the jeep when the collision occurred," and although The doctrine of the last clear chance provides as valid
Zacarias saw the jeep from a distance of about 150 meters, and complete a defense to accident liability. In the case
he "did not drive his truck back to his lane in order to avoid of Picart vs. Smith the supreme court ruled:
collision with the oncoming jeep " what is worse, "the truck
driver suddenly applied his brakes even as he knew that he "It goes without saying that the plaintiff himself was not
was still within the lane of the jeep;" had both vehicles free from fault, for he was guilty of antecedent
stayed in their respective lanes, the collision would never negligence in planting himself on the wrong side of the
have occurred, they would have passed "alongside each road. But as we have already stated, the defendant was
other safely;" also negligent; and in such case the problem always is
to discover which agent is immediately and directly
2) Zacarias had no license at the time; what he handed to responsible. It will be noted that the negligent acts of
Pfc. Esparcia, on the latters demand, was the "drivers the two parties were not contemporaneous, since the
license of his co-driver Leonardo Baricuatro;" negligence of the defendant succeeded the negligence
of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under these
The Appellate Court opined that Zacarias negligence "gave circumstances the law is that the person who has the
rise to the presumption of negligence on the part of his last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to
employer, and their liability is both primary and solidary." do so is chargeable with the consequences, without
reference to the prior negligence of the other
ISSUES: 1.WON the CA erred in finding the defendants party."cralaw virtua1aw library
liable.
Since said ruling clearly applies to exonerate petitioner
2. WON Zacarias is liable under the doctrine of last Zacarias and his employer (and co-petitioner) George
clear chance. Lim, an inquiry into whether or not the evidence support
the latters additional defense of due diligence in the
RULING: selection and supervision of said driver is no longer
necessary and will not be undertaken. The fact is that
1 Yes. The finding that "the truck driven by defendant Paul there is such evidence in the record which has not been
Zacarias occupied the lane of the jeep when the controverted.
collision occurred" is a loose one. The truck driven by WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the
Zacarias had edged over the painted center line of the Intermediate Appellate Court is hereby REVERSED.
road into the opposite lane by a width of twenty-five
(25) centimeters. It ignores the fact that by the PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION VS.
uncontradicted evidence, the actual center line of the COURT OF APPEALS, HON. REGINA ORDOEZ-BENITEZ,
road was not that indicated by the painted stripe but SEGUNDA R. BAUTISTA, and ARSENIA D. BAUTISTA,
one of the two officers who investigated the accident, February 4, 1992
correctly lay thirty-six (36) centimeters farther to the
FACTS: Carlitos Bautista was a third year student at the a re-investigation by the Fiscal. The Fiscal moved to dismiss
Philippine School of Business Administration. Assailants, the case on grounds of lack of interest of the complaining
who were not members of the schools academic witness to prosecute the case. The trial court did not
community, while in the premises of PSBA, stabbed resolve the motion to dismiss filed and rendered judgment
Bautista to death. This incident prompted his parents to file finding petitioner guilty. On appeal to the CA, Hedy Gan
a suit against PSBA and its corporate officers for damages was guilty of Homicide thru simple imprudence only with a
due to their alleged negligence, recklessness and lack of penalty of arresto mayor (3 mos., 11 days) and to pay the
security precautions, means and methods before, during heirs of Isodoro Casino of
and after the attack on the victim.
ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in adjudging Hedy Gan liable
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the to indemnify the deceased of P 12, 000.
compliant states no cause of action against them based on
quasi-delicts, as the said rule does not cover academic HELD: Hedy gan is not guilty of the crime Homicide thru
institutions. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. simple imprudence and no longer liable to pay for the P 12,
Their motion for reconsideration was likewise dismissed, 000.
and was affirmed by the appellate court. Hence, the case
was forwarded to the Supreme Court. A corollary rule is what is known as emergency
rule. Under the rule, one who suddenly finds himself in a
ISSUE: Whether or not PSBA is liable for the death of the place of danger, and is required to act without time to
student. consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid
impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to
RULING: Because the circumstances of the present case adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear
evince a contractual relation between the PSBA and to have been a better method, unless the emergency in
Carlitos Bautista, the rules on quasi-delict do not really which he finds himself is brought about by his own
govern. A perusal of Article 2176 shows that obligations negligence.
arising from quasi-delicts or tort, also known as extra-
contractual obligations, arise only between parties not The appellate court suggestion that Hedy Gan
otherwise bound by contract, whether express or implied. should have stepped on the brakes, tried to stop or to
However, this impression has not prevented this Court from lessen her speed would seem unreasonable. The suggested
determining the existence of a tort even when there action presupposes sufficient time to analyze the situation.
obtains a contract. The appellate court is asking too much from a mere mortal
who in the blink of an eye had to exercise her best
Article 2180, in conjunction with Article 2176 of the Civil judgment to extricate herself from a difficult and dangerous
Code, establishes the rule in in loco parentis. Article 2180 situation caused by the overtaking vehicle. Petitioner could
provides that the damage should have been caused or not be expected to act with all the coolness of a person
inflicted by pupils or students of the educational institution under normal conditions. The danger confronting petitioner
sought to be held liable for the acts of its pupils or students was real and imminent threatening her existence.
while in its custody. However, this material situation does
not exist in the present case for, as earlier indicated, the The emergency rule applies in full force to this case
assailants of Carlitos were not students of the PSBA, for absolving the petitioner from any criminal negligence.
whose acts the school could be made liable. But it does not
necessarily follow that PSBA is absolved form liability. M. H. RAKES VS. THE ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC
COMPANY (1907)
When an academic institution accepts students for FACTS: The plaintiff was one of eight laborers of the
enrollment, there is established a contract between them, defendant company. They were transporting iron rails from
resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties is bound a harbor to the company yard by hand car. Some laborers
to comply with. For its part, the school undertakes to would push the hand car while some would assist by
provide the student with an education that would pulling the hand car by a rope. The plaintiff was walking
presumably suffice to equip him with the necessary tools alongside the hand car. At a certain spot at or near the
and skills to pursue higher education or a profession. This water's edge, the track which guided the hand car had
includes ensuring the safety of the students while in the sagged, the tie broke, the car either canted or upset, the
school premises. On the other hand, the student covenants rails slid off and caught the plaintiff, breaking his leg, which
to abide by the school's academic requirements and was afterwards amputated at about the knee.
observe its rules and regulations.
The plaintiff sought for damages against the
Failing on its contractual and implied duty to ensure the defendant alleging that the accident happened through the
safety of their student, PSBA is therefore held liable for his negligence of the defendant.
death. The courts found the defendant liable; that implied
by the relation between the parties, the employer is bound
HEDY GAN y YU VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE to provide safe appliances for the use of the employee;
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES that it was the duty of the defendant to build and to
maintain its track in reasonably sound condition, so as to
FACTS: On July 4, 1972 at 8 oclock, Hedy Gan was driving a
protect its workingmen from unnecessary danger; that
Toyota Sedan along North Bay Boulevard. In front of house
defendant failed in its duty, otherwise the accident could
no. 694 of North Boulevard, a truck and a jeepney were
not have occurred and, consequently, the negligence of the
parked on the side of the road following each other about 2
defendant is established.
to 3 meters.
The most controverted question in the case was
As the car driven by Hedy Gan approached the whether the plaintiff committed contributed negligence on
place where the 2 vehicles were parked, there was a the grounds that (1) he noticed the depression in the track
vehicle coming from the opposite direction followed by he continued his work, and (2) he walked on the ends of
another who tried to overtake the one in front of it and the ties at the side of the car instead of along the boards,
encroached the lane of the car of Hedy Ga. To avoid either before or behind it.
collision, Hedy Gan swerved to the right and hit an old man
identified as Isidoro Casino who was about to cross the ISSUE: Whether there was contributed negligence by the
boulevard from south to north pinning him against the plaintiff.
parked jeepney. The parked jeepney moved forward hitting HELD: The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but deducted
the truck in front. Isidoro Casino was injured but was from the award the amount fairly attributable to the
pronounced dead on arrival at Jose Reyes Memorial plaintiffs negligence.
Hospital.
Difficulty seems to be apprehended in deciding
Homicide thru Reckless Imprudence was filed which acts of the injured party shall be considered
against Hedy Gan. She pleaded not guilty and was granted immediate causes of the accident. The test is simple.
Distinction must be between the accident and the injury, "(E)mancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession
between the event itself, without which there could have shall terminate parental authority over the child's person. It
been no accident, and those acts of the victim not entering shall enable the minor to administer his property as though
into it, independent of it, but contributing under review was he were of age, but he cannot borrow money or alienate or
the displacement of the crosspiece or the failure to replace encumber real property without the consent of his father or
it. This produced the event giving occasion for damages mother, or guardian. He can sue and be sued in court only
that is, the shinking of the track and the sliding of the iron with the assistance of his father, mother or guardian."
rails. To this event, the act of the plaintiff in walking by the
side of the car did not contribute, although it was an Article 2180, "(T)he obligation imposed by article 2176 is
element of the damage which came to himself. Had the demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but
crosspiece been out of place wholly or partly thorough his also for those of persons for whom one is responsible
act of omission of duty, the last would have been one of the marriage of a minor child does not relieve the parents
the determining causes of the event or accident, for which of the duty to see to it that the child, while still a minor,
he would have been responsible. Where he contributes to does not give answerable for the borrowings of money and
the principal occurrence, as one of its determining factors, alienation or encumbering of real property which cannot be
he cannot recover. Where, in conjunction with the done by their minor married child without their consent
occurrence, he contributes only to his own injury, he may Reginald is now of age, as a matter of equity, the liability of
recover the amount that the defendant responsible for the Atty. Hill has become milling, subsidiary to that of his son.
event should pay for such injury, less a sum deemed a
suitable equivalent for his own imprudence.
Dulay vs. Torzuela
Pedro Elcano, et al., v. Reginal Hill et al. (1977 FACTS: On December 7, 1988: Due to a heated
argument, Benigno Torzuela, the security guard on duty
Laws Applicable: ART. 2177,Article 397,article 1093,Article at Big Bang Sa Alabang carnival, shot and killed Atty.
2180 of the Civil Code Napoleon Dulay.
Lessons Applicable: Quasi-delict (Tort and Damages)
Maria Benita A. Dulay, widow of the deceased Napoleon
Dulay, in her own behalf and in behalf of her minor children
FACTS:
filed an action for damages against Benigno Torzuela
Reginald Hill, a minor, married but living with his father,
for wanton and reckless discharge of the firearm and
Atty. Marvin Hill with whom he was living and getting
Safeguard Investigation and Security Co., Inc., (Safeguard)
subsistence killed Agapito Elcano
and/or Superguard Security Corp. (Superguard) as
CFI Civil Case: dismissed on the ground that he was
employers for negligence having failed to exercise the
acquitted on the ground that his act was not criminal,
diligence of a good father of a family in the supervision and
because of "lack of intent to kill, coupled with mistake
control of its employee to avoid the injury.
Spouses Elcano appealed
Respondents Superguard defense:
ISSUES:
W/N the civil action should be barred by the acquittal of 1. Torzuelas act of shooting Dulay was beyond the scope of
criminal action - NO his duties, and was committed with deliberate intent (dolo),
W/N the Civil Code can be applied to Atty. Marvin Hill even the civil liability therefor is governed by Article 100 of the
though Reginald is already married -YES Revised Penal Code, which states:
HELD: order appealed from is reversed
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of a felony.
1. NO. Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
separate individuality of a cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana, liable.
under the Civil Code has been fully and clearly recognized,
even with regard to a negligent act for which the Civil liability under Article 2176 applies only to quasi-
wrongdoer could have been prosecuted and convicted in a offenses under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.
criminal case and for which, after such a conviction, he
could have been sued for this civil liability arising from his 2. Private respondent further avers that Article 33 NCC
crime. applies only to injury intentionally committed pursuant to
If we were to hold that articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil the ruling in Marcia vs. CA and that actions for damages
Code refer only to fault or negligence not punished by law, allowed therein are ex-delicto.
accordingly to the literal import of article 1093 of the Civil
Code, the legal institution of culpa aquiliana would have CA Affirmed RTC: dismising the case of Dulay
very little scope and application in actual life
to find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt ISSUE: W/N Superguard and Safeguard commited an
beyond reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil case, actionable breach and can be civilly liable even if Benigno
preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make the Torzuela is already being prosecuted for homicide.
defendant pay in damages. . Otherwise. there would be
many instances of unvindicated civil wrongs. "Ubi jus HELD: YES. Petition for Review is granted. The case is
Idemnified remedium." remanded to RTC for trial on the merits
ART. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the
preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the 1. Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. Sec. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. When a
But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery
same act or omission of the defendant. of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal
in reiteration of Garcia, that culpa aquiliana includes action, unless the offended party waives the civil action,
voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by reserves his right to institute it separately or institutes the
law civil action prior to the criminal action
It results, therefore, that the acquittal of Reginal Hill in the
criminal case has not extinguished his liability for quasi- Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the
delict, hence that acquittal is not a bar to the instant action Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33,
against him. 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising
2. YES from the same act or omission of the accused.
While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon
emancipation of the child (Article 327, Civil Code), and Contrary to the theory of private respondents, there is no
under Article 397, emancipation takes place "by the justification for limiting the scope of Article 2176 of the
marriage of the minor (child)", it is, however, also clear Civil Code to acts or omissions resulting from negligence.
that pursuant to Article 399, emancipation by marriage of Well-entrenched is the doctrine that article 2176 covers not
the minor is not really full or absolute. Thus
only acts committed with negligence, but also acts which person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of
are voluntary and intentional. avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of
his opponent or that of a third person imputed to the
Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or negligence," covers opponent is considered in law solely responsible for the
not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal consequences of the accident.
in character; whether intentional and voluntary or However, as held in the landmark case of Philippine
negligent. Consequently, a separate civil action against the Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. IAC, et al., G.R. No. 66102-04, 30
offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally August 1990, the principle of last clear chance applies in a
prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the suit between the owners and drivers of colliding vehicles. It
offended party is not allowed, if he is actually charged also does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility
criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. For it
be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the
the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver
was likewise guilty of negligence.
The extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Furthermore, as between defendants, the doctrine
Section 3, Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil liability cannot be extended into the field of joint tortfeasors as a
founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas test of whether only one of them should be held liable to
the civil liability for the same act considered as quasi-delict the injured person by reason of his discovery of the latters
only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a peril, and it cannot be invoked as between defendants
declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act concurrently negligent. As against third persons, a
charged has not happened or has not been committed by negligent actor cannot defend by pleading that another
the accused. had negligently failed to take action which could have
Under Article 2180 NCC, private respondents are primarily avoided the injury.
liable for their negligence either in the selection or Since the case at bar is not a suit between the
supervision of their employees. This liability is independent owners and the drivers of the colliding vehicles but a suit
of the employees own liability for fault or negligence and brought by the heirs of the deceased passengers against
is distinct from the subsidiary civil liability under Art. 103 both owners and driver of the cargo truck, the doctrine
RPC. The action against the employer may may therefore does not apply.
proceed independently of the criminal action pursuant to
RULE 111 Sec. 3.
Vergara v. CA
2. the term physical injury in Art. 33 NCC has already been
construed to include bodily injury causing death
( Carandang vs. Santiago). It is not the crimes of Physical
Injuries defined in the revised penal code. It includes not
only physical injuries but also consummated, frustrated, Facts:
and attempted homicide (Madeja vs. Caro). Therefore the
civil action based on article 33 NCC lies because Torzuela is
charged with homicide.
BUSTAMANTE, et al. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 89880, 6 A vehicular accident occurred on August 5, 1979, when
February 1991 Martin Belmonte, while driving a cargo truck belonging to
petitioner Vicente Vergara, rammed the store-residence of
FACTS: At about 6:30 AM if 20 April 1983, a collision
occurred between a gravel and sand truck and a Mazada private respondent Amadeo Azarcon, causing damage
passenger bus along the national road at Calibuyo, Tanza, assessed at P53,024.22. The trial court rendered decision
Cavite. The front left side portion of the body of the truck in favor of private respondent, ordering the petitioner to
sideswiped the left side wall of the passenger bus, ripping pay, jointly and severally with Travellers Insurance and
of said wall from the drivers seat to the last rear seat Surety Corporation, the following: (a) P53,024.22 as actual
throwing out and killing the heirs of the petitioners. In the
damages; (b) P10,000.00 as moral damages; (c)
trial courts up to the CA, it was maintained that the bus
driver saw the front wheels of the cargo vehicle wiggling P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) the sum of
and observed that the truck was heading towards his lane. P5,000.00 for attorney's fees and the costs. The insurance
Not minding such circumstance due to his belief that the company was sentenced to pay to the petitioner the
driver of the truck was merely joking, the bus driver shifted following: (a) P50,000.00 for third party liability under its
from 4th to 3rd gear in order to give more power and speed comprehensive accident insurance policy; and (b)
to the bus, which was ascending the inclined part of the P3,000.00 for and as attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals
road, in order to overtake a Kubota hand tractor being
affirmed the decision in toto; hence, this instant petition for
pushed by a person along the shoulder of the highway.
certiorari.
Ruling of the trial court: The defendants Magtibay (operator
of the bus), Serrado (operator of the bus), Susulin (bus
driver), Novelo (previous operator of the bus), del Pilar
(owner of the cargo truck), and Montesiano (truck driver)
were ordered to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiffs Issue:
damages.