G.R. No.

L-2075

Margarita Afialda vs. Basilio Hisole and Francisco Hisole

November 29, 1949

Ponente: J. Reyes

Concept: Assumption of Risk Doctrine

FACTS: Loreto Afialda was a caretaker of the carabaos owned by Basilio Hisole. In March 1947,
without any fault from Afialda or any force majeure, one of the carabaos gored him thereby
causing his death. Afialda’s sister, Margarita Afialda, sued spouses Hisole arguing that under the
Civil Code, “The possessor of an animal, or the one who uses the same, is liable for any damages
it may cause, even if such animal should escape from him or stray away. This liability shall cease
only in case, the damage should arise from force majeure or from the fault of the person who
may have suffered it.” The lower court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action.

ISSUE: Whether or not spouses Hisole was liable as the owners of the carabao that killed
Afialda.

HELD: No. The law uses the term “possessor and user of the animal”. Afialda was the caretaker
of the animal and he was tasked and paid to tend for the carabaos. He, at the time of the
goring, is the possessor and the user of the carabao and therefore he is the one who had
custody and control of the animal and was in a position to prevent the animal from causing
damage. It would have been different had Afialda been a stranger. Obviously, it was the
caretaker’s business to try to prevent the animal from causing injury or damage to anyone,
including himself. And being injured by the animal under those circumstances was one of the
risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the
consequences.

This action could have been more appropriately raised in court under the provisions of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act as the risk involve was one of occupational hazards.
G.R. No. L-53401

The Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. CA, Lilian Juan Luis, Jane Juan Yabes, Virginia Juan Cid,
Gloria Juan Carag, and Purisima Juan

November 6, 1989

Ponente: J. Paras

Concept: Assumption of Risk Doctrine

FACTS: A strong typhoon engulfed the province of Ilocos Norte, bringing heavy rain and
flooding. The deceased Isabel Lao Juan, fondly called as Nana Belen, ventured out of the house
towards the direction of the Five Sisters Emporium, a commercial establishment. While wading
in waist-deep flood, Nana Belen, in an unfortunate accident, had suffered and died in a
circulatory shock electrocution. An action for damages was instituted by the heirs of the
deceased against The Ilocos Norte Electric Company. The electric company, on the
other hand, contended that the deceased could have died either by drowning or by
electrocution due to negligence attributable only to herself and not to the electric company.
And, that the deceased installed an electrical wire enclosing the iron gate and fence to deter
the area from burglars.

ISSUE: Whether or not the electric company was liable for the death of Nana Belen.

HELD: Yes. While it is true that typhoons and floods are considered Acts of God for which no
person may be held responsible, however, it was through the intervention of the electric
company’s negligence that death took place.

Under the circumstances, the electric company was negligent in seeing to it that no harm is
done to the general public “… considering that electricity is an agency, subtle and deadly, the
measure of care required of electric companies must be commensurate with or proportionate to
the danger. The duty of exercising this high degree of diligence and care extends to every place
where persons have a right to be.“ “The negligence of petitioner having been shown, it may not
now absolve itself from liability by arguing that the victim’s death was solely due to a fortuitous
event.” When an act of God combines or concurs with the negligence of the defendant to
produce an injury, the defendant is liable if the injury would not have resulted but for his own
negligent conduct or omission.

Hence, the heirs of Nana Belen, are not barred from recovering damages caused by the electric
company’s negligence.
G.R. No. 88582

People vs. Heinrich S. Ritter

March 5, 1991

Ponente: J. Gutierez Jr.

Concept: Procedural Aspect

FACTS: On or about October 10, 1986, Ritter brought Jessie Ramirez and Rosario Baluyot in a
hotel room in Olongapo. Ritter masturbated Jessie and fingered Rosario. Afterwards, he
inserted a foreign object to the vagina of Rosario. The next morning, Ritter gave Jessie 200, and
Rosario 300. Rosario told Jessie that Ritter inserted an object inside her vaginal canal.
Sometime on the following day, Rosario said that the object has already been removed from
her vaginal canal. On May 14, 1987, Gaspar Alcantara, a defense witness, saw Rosario with
bloody skirt, foul smelling. He then brought Rosario and confined her to Olongapo City General
Hospital. An OB-Gyne tried to remove the object inside her vagina using forceps but failed
because it was deeply embedded and covered by tissues. The OB-Gyne identified the foreign
object as a sexual vibrator. She was having peritonitis due to a massive infection in her
abdominal cavity. She told the attending physician that a Negro inserted the object to her
vagina 3 months ago. The following day, Rosario’s condition got serious, and she later on died.
Ritter was made liable for rape with homicide. RTC found him guilty of rape with homicide.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ritter was liable for rape and homicide.

HELD: No. The prosecution failed to prove that Rosario was only 12 years old when the incident
with Ritter happened. And, that Rosario prostituted herself even at the tender age. As
evidence, she received 300 from Ritter the following morning. A doctor/specialist also testified
that the inserted object in the vagina of Rosario Baluyot by Ritter was different from that which
caused her death. Rosario herself said to Jessie the following day that the object has been
removed already. She also told the doctor that a Negro inserted it to her vagina 3 months ago.
Ritter was a Caucasian.

However, it does not exempt him for the moral and exemplary damages he must award to the
victim’s heirs. It does not necessarily follow that the appellant is also free from civil liability
which is impliedly instituted with the criminal action. Ritter was deported.