Alain Marcellius S.

Lira
Torts and Damages Summer 2017 (Vice Dean Atty. Marciano Delson)
SBC-A School of Law

CUBAO-COGEO OPERATORS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION VS CA, LUNGSODSILANGAN TRANSPORT SERVICES INC.,

GR NO. 100727

3/18/1992

FACTS : Petitioner Cubao-Cogeo Association is a non-stock, non-profit organization registered with the SEC with
main purpose of representing the LungsodSilangan Transport Services Inc., for whatever contract and/or
agreement it will have regarding the ownership of units, and the like, of the members of the association. The
respondent, LungsodSilangan Transport Services Corp., Inc., is a holder of a certificate of public convenience to
operate a jeepney service plying the cogeo-cubao route sometime in 1983 on the justification of public necessity
and convenience.

Sometime in 1985, after adopting a bandera system wherein a member of the cooperative is permitted to queue
for passengers in exchange for the ticket worth 20 pesos, the proceeds of which shall be used for christmas
programs of the drivers and other benefits. The Petitioner led by Romeo Oliva formed a human barricade and
assumed the dispatching of passenger jeepneys. Thus the respondent claiming for damages.

The petitioner contends that the association was formed not to compete with the respondent corporations
operation as a common carrier, for it was organized for the common protection of drivers from abusive traffic
officers who extort money from them and elimination of practice of respondent corporation of requiring jeepney
owners to execute deed of sale in favor of the corporation to show that the latter is the owner of the jeeps under
its CPC. And that in organizing the association, the members were merely exercising their freedom or right to
redress their grievances.

The trial court rendered decision in favor of the respondent ordering the petitioner to pay 50,000 actual damages,
10,000 atorneys fees.It was elevated to the CA wherein the decision was affirmed but modified it to awarding
nominal damages to the petitioner amounting to 10,000.00

ISSUE: WON CAs award of nominal damages is proper

HELD: YES. THE court ruled that under the Public Service Law, a CPC is an authorization issued by the Public Service
Commission for the operation of public services for which no franchise is required by law. It was issued to
respondent corporation accordingly. A CPC is included in the term property in the broad sense of the term as it can
be sold by the holder for it has considerable material value and as valuable asset. It represents the right and
authority to operate its facilities for public service and CANNOT BE TAKE OR INTERFERED WITH WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW. In this case, the petitioner forcibly took over the operation of jeepney service rout without
authorization from the PSC and in violation of the right of respondent to operate its services in the said route.

The contention of the petitioners exercise of constitutional right to redress their grievances with respondent, the
manner by which exercised should not undermine public peace and order nor violate the legal rights of other
persons. Art 21 of NCC provides that any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, gc, or pp shall compensate the latter for the damage. However, it does not necessarily follow
that the plaintiff/appellee is entitled to actual damages and attys fees due to lack of concrete proof. In this case,
nominal damages may be granted under Art 2222 which states, the court may award nominal damages in every
obligation arising from any source under Art. 1157 or in every case where any property right has been invaded.
Hence, the nominal award for damages.
Alain Marcellius S. Lira
Torts and Damages Summer 2017 (Vice Dean Atty. Marciano Delson)
SBC-A School of Law

JULIAN DEL ROSARIO VS MANILA ELECTRIC CO.,

GR NO. 35283 NOVEMBER 5, 1932

FACTS: Petitioner Julian is the mother of Alberto (deceased). Whereas the respondent is a corporation organized
for distributing electricity for profit. On August 4, 1930 at around 2:00pm a wire along Dimas-Alang Street was
burning and its connections smoking. The people within the vicinity notified the Malabon station of the
respondent of the incident at around 2:25pm. The incident developed until the end of the wire was on the ground
after 3:00pm. At around 4:00pm the nieghborhood school was dismissed and the children went home. One of
which was petitioners son Alberto together with 2 school mates. The three neared the place where the wire was
down and One had cautioned Alberto not to touch it, despite warnings Alberto touched it and was electrocuted.
He was pronounced dead after taking him to the hospital.

ISSUE: WON the the respondent was negligent and the award of damages was proper

HELD: The court ruled that the respondent was negligent as when the notice was received, no dispatch was made
to the scene of trouble or no other measures were taken to guard the public from the danger. More than an hour
and a half has passed before anyone from the company appeared on the scene. It is doubtful that contributory
negligence can be properly imputed to the deceased owing to his immature years and natural curiosity and the
mere fact that the deceased ignored the caution of a companion does not alter the case. Even if so, it is not wholly
fatal to the right of action in this case, not having been the determining cause of the accident. The damages
recoverable is for expenses incurred with the death and burial (P250) and P1000 as general damages for loss of
service. DISSENTING : J ABAD SANTOS as to the amount of damages recoverable in this case; in criminal cases, the
court adopted the rule of allowing the sum of P1,000 as indemnity to the heirs. Following that rule, the court has
allowed to recover the sum of P1,000 as general damages for loss of service. The indemnity allowed in criminal
cases are merely incidental to the main object sought, which is punishment of the guilty party. In a civil action, the
principal object it the recovery of damages for wrongful death, where the defendant is a corporation is not subject
to criminal prosecution. The liability of a corporation for damage must be regarded as part of the risks which it
assume when it undertakes to promote its own business and just as it is entitled to earn profits, so it should be
made to compensate those who have suffered damages by its own negligence making the plaintiff recover 2,250
as damages
Alain Marcellius S. Lira
Torts and Damages Summer 2017 (Vice Dean Atty. Marciano Delson)
SBC-A School of Law

WASSMER VS VELEZ

GR NO. L-20089

DECEMBER 26, 1964

In 1954, Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer planned their marriage. They decided to schedule it on September 4,
1954. And so Wassmer made preparations such as: making and sending wedding invitations, bought her wedding
dress and other apparels, and other wedding necessities. But 2 days before the scheduled day of wedding, Velez
sent a letter to Wassmer advising her that he will not be able to attend the wedding because his mom was
opposed to said wedding. And one day before the wedding, he sent another message to Wassmer advising her that
nothing has changed and that he will be returning soon. However, he never returned.

This prompted Wassmer to file a civil case against Velez. Velez never filed an answer and eventually judgment was
made in favor of Wassmer. The court awarded exemplary and moral damages in favor of Wassmer.

On appeal, Velez argued that his failure to attend the scheduled wedding was because of fortuitous events. He
further argued that he cannot be held civilly liable for breaching his promise to marry Wassmer because there is no
law upon which such an action may be grounded. He also contested the award of exemplary and moral damages
against him.

ISSUE: Whether or not the award of damages is proper.

HELD: Yes. The defense of fortuitous events raised by Velez is not tenable and also unsubstantiated. It is true that a
breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. However, in this case, it was not a simple breach of
promise to marry. because of such promise, Wassmer made preparations for the wedding. Velezs unreasonable
withdrawal from the wedding is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. Wassmers cause of action is
supported under Article 21 of the Civil Code which provides in part any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the
damage.And under the law, any violation of Article 21 entitles the injured party to receive an award for moral
damages as properly awarded by the lower court in this case. Further, the award of exemplary damages is also
proper. Here, the circumstances of this case show that Velez, in breaching his promise to Wassmer, acted in
wanton, reckless, and oppressive manner this warrants the imposition of exemplary damages against him.

AREOLA VS CA & PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE INC.

GR NO. 95641

SEPTEMBER 22, 1994

FACTS: Petitioner Santos Areola is a policy holder of the respondent PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE
INC. a corporation engaged in insurance business. Petitioner contracted with respondent for a Personal Accident
Insurance Policy with its Baguio City Branch covering the period of November 28,1984- November 28, 1985. Terms
were P1609.85 which includes premium, documentary stamp and premium tax. Its statement of account had the
following stipulations 1.) The SOA must not be considered a receipt, an Official Receipt is to be issued upon
payment of this account 2.) If payment is for a representative, demand for provisional receipt. If our official receipt
Alain Marcellius S. Lira
Torts and Damages Summer 2017 (Vice Dean Atty. Marciano Delson)
SBC-A School of Law

is not received within 7 days please notify us 3.) if payment is made to our office, demand an official receipt. 7
months after its issuance, the policy was unilaterally cancelled for failure to pay of premiums.The insured
confronted Carlito Ang, agent of respondent and demanded the issuance of an official receipt wherein he replied
that there was a mistake in the cancellation and see its rectification. However, no official receipt was given.
Petitioner then demanded that he be insured under the same terms and that if it is not satisfied, will sue for
damages. An investigation was then made wherein the branch manager Malapithas misappropriated the
premiums and that the respondents AVP stated that since no official receipt was issued, there was reason to
believe that no payment has been made. Apologizing for the inconvenience, He informed petitioner that the
respondent is amenable to extending the policy up to December 17 1985 or one year from the date when payment
was received or December 17, 1984.However, on August 3, 1985 the Areola spouses had filed a complaint for
breach of contract with damages before the lower court. RTC ruled in favor of petitioner awarding 1,703.65 as
actual damages; 200,000 as moral damages; 50,000 as exemplary; attys fees 10,000.00 and costs. Upon appeal, the
decision was reversed.

ISSUE: 1.) DOES THE ERRONEOUS ACT OF CANCELLING THE POLICY ENTITLE PETITIONER INSURED OF DAMAGES 2.)
DOES THE SUBSEQUENT ACT OF REINSTATING THE WRONGFULLY CANCELLED POLICY OBLITERATE LIABILITY FOR
DAMAGES

HELD: 1.) YES. The court ruled that Malapits fraudulent act of misappropriating the premiums paid by petitioner is
beyond doubt directly imputable to respondent insurance company. A corporation acts solely through its
agents/employees and that the their acts are considered as its own for which it can be held to account. He was the
manager of its baguio branch and beyond doubt represented its interest and acted in its behalf in receiving the
premiums collected is within his authority. Art 1910 of the NCC provides that the principal must comply with all the
obligations which the agent may have contracted within the scope of his authority. As for any obligation wherein
the agent has exceeded his power, the principal is not bound except when he ratifies it expressly or tacitly. The
failure to remit the premiums received cannot be a defense for the respondent and does not free the same from
its obligation to the petitioner. A banking corporation is liable to innocent third persons where representation is
made in the course of its business by an agent acting within its scope. Even if the agent was secretly abusing his
authority and doing fraud upon his principal for his own benefit. The earlier act of reinstating can not obliterate
the injury inflicted on the petitioner. A contract of insurance creates reciprocal obligations for both parties as
reciprocal obligations arise from the same cause and in which each party is both a debtor creditor of the other
such that the obligation of one is dependent on the obligation of the other. 2nd par of Art 1191 provides that an
injured party is given a choice between fulfillment or rescission in case one of the obligors fails to comply with
what is incumbent upon him. It entitles the injured party to payment of damages in either case. Such
reinstatement being equivalent to fulfillment of an obligation divests petitioner of claim to damages and has no
basis or support on laws of obligations and contracts. An erroneous cancellation of the insurance policy constitutes
a breach of contract. However, the respondent within a reasonable time took steps to rectify the wrong
committed by reinstating the policy. Moreover, no actual or substantial damage or injury was inflicted at the time
policy was cancelled. Hence, Nominal damages are recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must
be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind or where there has been a
breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever was shown. The SC modified RTCs
ruling and modified the damages to nominal damages of 30,000.00 with legal rate of interest from date of filing.