1. RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., v.

CA
G.R. No. 79578, March 13, 1991
Facts:

Spouses Minerva Timan and Flores Timan sent a telegram of condolence to their
cousins, Mr. and Mrs. Hilario Midoranda, through petitioner Radio
Communications of the Philippines, Inc. to convey their deepest sympathy for the
recent death of the mother-in-law of Hilario. However, the condolence message
as communicated and delivered to the addressees was typewritten on a "Happy
Birthday" card and placed inside a "Christmasgram" envelope. Hence, spouses
Timans filed a complaint for damages.
Issue: won the petitioner is liable for damages.
Held:

“Yes, acts of its employees in receiving and transmitting messages are the acts of
the petitioner. “

Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of receiving and

transmitting messages. Everytime a person transmits a message through the
facilities of the petitioner, a contract is entered into. Upon receipt of the rate or
fee fixed, the petitioner undertakes to transmit the message accurately . . . As a
corporation, the petitioner can act only through its employees. Hence the acts of
its employees in receiving and transmitting messages are the acts of the
petitioner. To hold that the petitioner is not liable directly for the acts of its
employees in the pursuit of petitioner's business is to deprive the general public
availing of the services of the petitioner of an effective and adequate remedy.
2. Gan vs. CA
Facts:

Hedy Gan was driving her car nung may nagovertake sa mula sa kabilang lane
at wala syang nagawa kundi kabigin sa right ang sasakyan nya at biglang may
tatawid sana kaya nabangga nya yung tao at naipit sa nakapark na jeep na sya
namang nabangga ang truck na nasa harap. A case of RIR in Homicide was filed
pero may aff of desistance pero it wss never resolved kaya tuloy pa rin ang case.
Trial court rendered a guilty as charged decision.. CA modified it to homicide thru
simple emprudence.
Issue: W/N Gan is liable.

Ruling: No. Emergency Rule: one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger,
and is required to act w/out time to consider the best means that may be
adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to
adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a
better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about
by his own negligence.

3. Cuadra vs. Monfort

Facts:
Eto yung case ng dalawang minors na nasa school tapos nautusan silang maglinis
ng weeds sa bakuran. Si monfort girl eh nakapulot ng headband na jinoke nya at
hinagis na earrhworm daw sakto lumingon si cuadra girl at natamaan right eye
nya. Kinabukasan nairitate mata nya at nagswell. Pinadoctor at nagundergo sya
ng 2 surgeries pero nabulag pa rin right eye nya. Nagfile ng case ang parents ni
Cuadra against sa tatay ni monfort based on 2176 and 2180 kasi nga minor yung
anak nya kaya responsible daw sya sa acts ng anak nya...
Issue: W/N the father is liable for damages

Ruling: No. In this case, there is nothing from which it may be inferred that the
defendant could have prevented the damage by the observance of due care,
or that he was in any way remiss in the exercise of his parental authority in failing
to foresee such damage, or the act which caused it. Kaya nga nasa school yung
bata kasi nga obligation nya yun as a parent na ipadala ang chikd nya sa
school.. The oblugation has no legal sanction enforceable in court, but only
MORAL COMPULSION OF GOOD CONSCIENCE.
4. Palafox vs PGIN

Facts: Torralba, driver ng provincial gov't of ilocos norte, was on his way sa office
ng district engineer nung nabangga niya si proceto palafox which
instantaneously resulted to his death. Both performing their respective duties.
Yung heirs ni palafox ng file ng case against the province, district engineer,
provincial treasurer at kay sobas torralba. dinismiss ung case against them except
ung case ni sabas torralba. inexplain ng judge kung bakit di sila liable on the basis
of article 103 of RPC. ininsist naman ng heirs na ung basis ng claim nila is under
art.1902 of CC.
ISSUE:Whether PGIN may be held liable?
RULING: No, to attach liablity to the state for the negligence of torralba a
declaration must be made that he was a special agent(Article 2180). Municipality
is not liable for acts of its officers or agents in the performance of governmental
functions. The negligent employee was engaged in the performace of
governmental function as distinguished from proprietary function. The
construction of roads on which the truck and the driver worked at the time of the
accident are governmental functions. PGIN is not liable for the payment of
monetary compensation for the death of Palafox. Government does not
undertake to guarantee to any person the fidelity of officers or agents whom it
employs, since that would involve in all its operations endless embarrassments,
difficulties and loses which would be subversive of the public interest.

5. Phoenix Construction vs. IAC

Facts:

Si Leonardo Dionisio umuwi sa bahay ng beyond curfew hours. Noon need nila
ng curfew pass. So dahil eala siyang curfew pass pinatay nya yung headlights
nya para di sya maapprehend ng mga pulis kasi may police station malapit sa
bahay nila. Dahil don sa pagpatay sa headlight at pagmamadali nya
bumangga sya sa dump truck ni Phoenix. Take note na medyo nakainom si
Leonardo. Ngayon sinisisi ni Leonardo yung dump truck. Kasi iniuwi ni Armando
Carbonell sa bahay nya ung truck kasi maaga daw sya kinabukasan. Ruling:
Negligent si Phoenix. Since negligent di driver armando carbonell iy creates a
presumption na negligent si Phoenox kasi hindi sinupervise yung manner of
parking whenever away from company premises. Pero may contributory
negligence si Leonardo. Kaya ang award e 80% kay Phoenix at 20% kay Leonardo

6. Elcano v. Hill, G.R. No. L-24803, May 26, 1977

Facts: Sps. Elcano filed a complaint for damages against Reginald Hill for the
death of their son Agapito. However, CFI of QC acquitted Hill on the ground that
the act was not criminal because of ―lack of intent to kill, coupled with mistake.‖
Sps. Elcano wish to continue to hold Hill civilly liable for culpa aquiliana.

Issue: Is the civil action for quasi delict barred by the acquittal of Hill in the criminal
case?

Held: Civil action for quasi delict can proceed. The concept of culpa aquiliana
includes acts which are criminal in character, whether voluntary or negligent.
Acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable
doubt not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action, not for civil liability
arising from the crime, but for damages due to quasi delict. Double recovery,
however, is prohibited.

7. Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809 (1918)

Facts: Picart was riding his pony over the Carlatan bridge in La Union (75 m x 4.8m).
However, he was on the wrong side. Before he had gotten half way across, the
Smith approached from the opposite direction in an automobile, going at the
rate of about 10-12 MPH. As Smith approached the bridge, he blew his horn when
he saw Picart. Observing that Picart was not observing the rules of the road, Smith
gave 2 more successive blasts. Perturbed by the novelty of the apparition or
rapidity of the approach, Picart moved his horse closer to the railing instead of
going to the correct side of the road (which is the left side). Picart did this as he
thought he had no more time to reach the left side. Smith also guided his car
toward the same side where Picart‘s horse was. At this point, Smith and Picart are
in a direct collision course. In so doing, Smith assumed that the horseman would
move to the other side. However, since the Pony had not exhibited fright and the
fact that Picart made no motion to stop, instead of veering away, Smith
continued to approach directly towards Picart without diminution of speed. As he
got closer, the possibility of the horse moving to the other side also grew slim. As
a result, Smith guided his car to the right to avoid hitting the horse. However, as
the car passed, the pony became frightened and turned its body. Consequently,
the car struck the left hind leg of the horse. As the horse fell, the rider was thrown
off. The horse died as a result and Picart suffered some contusions and temporary
unconsciousness. It was seen that the space between the horse and the car at
the time of the incident was less than 1.5 meters.
Issue: Whether or not Smith (driver) is guilty of negligence.
Held: YES. While Smith had the right to assume that Picart would pass over the
proper side of the bridge, when this eventuality had become an impossibility, it
became Smith‘s duty to either bring his car to an immediate stop or, seeing there
were no other people on the bridge, take the other side and pass sufficiently far
away from the horseman. Instead, Smith ran straight on until he was almost upon
the horse. He did not take into consideration the fact that there was an
appreciable risk with regard to the fact that the pony might get excited and/or
frightened. The test by which to determine the existence of negligence: Did the
defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and
caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same
situation? If not, he is guilty of negligence.

The question as to what would constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a given
situation must of course be always determined in the light of human experience
and in view of the facts involved in the particular case. Reasonable men govern
their conduct by the circumstances which are before them or known to them.
They are not, and are not supposed to be, omniscient of the future. Hence they
can be expected to take care only when there is something before them to
suggest or warn of danger. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the
ignoring of the suggestion born of this prevision, is always necessary before
negligence can be held to exist. In the present case, having recognized that the
course he was pursuing was fraught with risk and would, therefore, have foreseen
harm to Picart as a reasonable consequence of that course. Under said
circumstances, the imposed on Smith the duty to guard against the threatened
harm. While Picart was also not free from fault for being on the wrong side of the
road, the negligent acts of the two parties were not contemporaneous, since the
negligence of the Smith succeeded the negligence of the Picart by an
appreciable interval. Under these circumstances, the law is that the person who
has the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is
chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of
the other party.

8. Professional Services Inc. Vs. CA

Facts: Inoperahan ni Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes si Natividad Agana. Nakalimutan
nila ung dalawang gauze sa loob ng body ni Natividad) di naman minention
kung anong klaseng operation ang isinagawa). PSI was impleaded kasi sila may
ari ng hospital.

Ruling : PSI is not liable under respondeat superior but under principle of ostensible
agency. Even if there is no employment relationship, but it is shoen the hospital
holds out to patient that thedoctor is its agent, then hospital is liable under Art.
2176. Walang employer-employee relationship between the doctors and the
hospital in this case kasi consultants lang sila sa hospital parang in the capacity
of independent Contractors.

9. AFRICA VS CALTEX
FACTS: Nagkaroon ng sunog sa Caltex in the course of transferring gasoline sa
underground storage. neighboring houses were burned. nagfile sila ngayon ng
damages against sa owner ng caltex and the manager of caltex. both rtc and
ca sinabing walang negligence sa part ng caltex
ISSUE: whether res ipsa loquitor is applicable in the case?

RULING: YES, Res ipsa loquitur literally means “the thing or transaction speaks for
itself.” The doctrine may be invoked when and only when, under the
circumstances involved, direct evidence is absent and not readily available. It is
a rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding
circumstances, may permit an inference of negligence, or make out a plaintiff's
prima facie case and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an
explanation. The persons who knew or could have known how the fire started
were respondents and their employees, but they gave no explanation thereof
whatsoever. It is a fair and reasonable inference that the incident happened
because of want of care. The negligence of the employees was the proximate
cause of the fire, which in the ordinary course of things does not happen.
Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the award for damages.

10. Air France v. Carrascoso

Facts: A first class ticket passenger (Carrascoso) was FORCED to transfer to a

tourist class allegedly because a "white man" has a better right according to the
manager. So yung manner ng pag-approach sa passenger eh humiliating,
threatening, etc.

Issue: can there be damages based on quasi-delict even if there is contractual

relation between the parties?

Held: yes. Petitioner's contract with Carrascoso is one attended with public duty
(common carrier). The stress of Carrascoso's action is placed upon his wrongful
expulsion not on the breach of contract. This is a violation of public duty by the
petitioner air carrier — a case of quasi-delict. Hence, damages are proper.
11. St. Francis HS v. CA
Facts:

May school picnic sa isang beach, not approved by the principal but aware and
invited yung principal. Si Ferdinand nalunod habang nirerescue niya yung
teacher na nalulunod. In the end, si Ferdinand ang na tsugi. So nagfile ng
damages yung parents against the school, teachers, principal.
Issue: WON the school/teachers/principal are liable.

Held: No to all. The teachers were not in the actual performance of their assigned
tasks. The incident happened outside the school premises, not on a school day
and most importantly while the teachers and students were holding a purely
private affair, a picnic. This picnic had no permit from the school head or its
principal, because this picnic is not a school-sanctioned activity or an extra-
curricular activity. Mere knowledge by the principal of the planning of the picnic
by the students and teachers does not in any way show acquiescence or consent
to the holding of the same. More importantly, they were able to prove that they
had exercised the required diligence. May PE teachers na present during the
picnic na nagfirst aid kay Ferdinand; meron din lifesavers na dala yung teachers;
and the PE teachers did all what is humanly possible to save the child (CPR, etc).
So yung presumption of negligence was overturned by proof of exercise of due
diligence.

12. Doctrine: Proximate Cause Vda de Bataclan vs. Medina

Facts: A bus carrying 18 passengers w/ the driver and conductor was heading to
Pasay shortly after midnight when one of its front tires burst. It began to zigzag until
it fell to a canal and turned turtle. Some passengers managed to get out of the
bus but four passengers, one is Bataclan, were trapped. After half an hour, ten
men, with one carrying a lighted torch, came. As they approached to the bus,
almost immediately, a fierce started burning the bus including those trapped and
died. Because of Bataclan’s death, his widow filed a complaint for damages.

Issue: What is the proximate cause - is it the overturning of the bus or the fire that
burned it and Bataclan?

Ruling: The proximate cause was the overturning of the bus. Because of the
overturning, the gasoline from the bus tank leaked w/c was unnatural and
unexpected. The coming of the man w/ a lighted torch was only in response to
the call for help. Hence, the coming of the rescuers was expected and was a
natural sequence of the overturning of the bus, the trapping of the 4 passengers
and the call for the outside help. The burning can also be attributed to the
negligence of Medina through its driver and conductor because they should
have known that an overturned bus would cause the gasoline to leak. Neither of
them warned the rescuers not to bring the lighted torch too near the bus.

13. CHINA AIRLINES LTD. VS. CA

facts: Jose Pagsibigan purchased a plane ticket bound for Mla-Taipei-HK-Mla

flight from Transaire Travel Agency. The said agency contacted PAL which was
the sales and ticketing agent of China Airlines (CAL). Roberto Espiritu, ticketing
agent of PAL issued to Pagsibigan plane ticket booked at June 10,1968 5:20 PM
flight of China Airlines departing from MLA to TAIPEI..
Naiwan sa byahe si Pagsibigan!
Shempre, nagreklamo for moral damages and attys fees against PAL.
Sbi nya, may gross negligence kay Espiritu.
PAL's defense naman: kasalanan ni CAL kasi the departure time was furnished
and confirmed by CAL and CAL did not inform them of the revised timetable of
CAL flights..
Nag file ng cross-claim si PAL against CAL.
The trial court found PAL and Espiritu jointly and severally liable by way of
exemplary damages and did not award moral damages..CAL was exonerated.
CA ruled out claim for moral and exemplary damages and instead awarded
nominal damages.
Issue: Sino ba tlaga ang liable?

Held:
CAL absolved from liability;
PAL and Espiritu jointly and severally liable to pay 10k nominal damages..
Espiritu primarily liable under Art.2176 of the CC
PAL primarily liable under Art. 2180 for failure to rebut the legal presumption of
negligence
14.GUILATCO VS. CITY OF DAGUPAN

Florentina Guilatco, court interpreter was about to board a tricycle at a sidewalk

located at Perez Blvd. when she accidentally fell into a manhole located in said
sidewalk causing her right leg to be fractured. Shempre nahospital, and as a result
may loss of income and moral damages.. inihabla nya City of Dagupan. CITY
replied that Perez Blvd where the deadly manhole was located is a national road
not under the control and supervision of Dagupan.
Issue: WON city of dagupan is liable

Held: OO..the liability of public corp for damages arising from injuries suffered by
pedestrians fro the defective condition of roads is expresssed in Art. 2189 CC

15. Dr.Cantre vs Go

Facts: After manganak ni Nora Go, nagundergo siya ng medical procedures para
magstop yung bleeding sa loob ng tiyan niya and para maging normal yung BP
niya. Dr. Cantre used a droplight to warm Nora and her baby. So nung nasa
recovery room na si Nora, napansin ng husband niya na may sugat si Nora sa left
arm malapit sa armpit niya. Ang sabi ng mga nurses eh ang cause daw ng sugat
was due to a burn. Sabi naman ni Dr. Cantre eh ang cause daw was due to the
blood pressure cuff. So pinainvestigate ito ng asawa Ni Nora sa NBI. According to
the NBI, ang cause daw ng sugat was due to a droplight at hindi raw
bloodpressure cuff. Dahil nagsuffer si Nora ng scar at yung movements niya eh
restricted na dahil sa surgery, nagfile sila ng complaint for damages against Dr.
Cantre, yung director ng hospital at yung hospital.
Issue: WON Dr. Cantre is liable for the injury of Nora Go.

Ruling: (imemorize niyo lang dito yung doctrine of res ipsa loquitur at yung
requisites niya) Yes. Liable si Dr. Cantre pursuant to doctrine of res ipsa loquitor.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor allows the mere existence of an injury to justify a
presumption of negligence on the part of the person who controls the instrent
causing the injury, provided that the ff. requisites concur: 1. The accident is of a
kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence. 2.
It is causes by an instrumentality within the defendant's exclusive control. 3. The
possibility of contributing conduct which would make plaintiff responsible is
eliminated. In this case, present yung mga requisites na yun. Sa first requisite, yung
wound ni Nora sa arm niya is not an ordinary occurrence in the act of delivering
a baby. Sa second req, it doesn't matter whether yung injuru was caused by the
droplight or yung bloodpressure cuff, since both are within the exclusive control
of Dr. Cantre. Sa third req, Nora could not have contributed to her own injury kc
she was unconscious while in hypovolemic shock. Yung defense ni Dr Cantre na
it was caused by the bloodpressure cuff does not absolved her liability. Bec if such
wound was caused by the blood pressure cuff, then taking of Nora's BP must have
been done so negligently as to have inflicted a gaping wound on her arm.
16. Municipality of San Fernando (dito sa SFC to mga bes) vs Firme

Facts: Nagbanggaan ang isang jeep, isang gravel and sand truck at isang dump
truck ng Municipality of San Fernando na drinidrive ni Aflredo Bislig. Namatay
yung ilang pasahero ng jeep, at isa sa mga namatay ay si Laureano Banina Sr.
Dahil dito, nagfile ang heirs ni Laureano ng complaint for damages against sa
owner at driver ng jeep. Pero yung owner at driver ng jeep eh nagfile ng third
party complaint against sa Municipality ng San Fernando at yung driver na si Bislig.
Defense ni Mun. of SF: 1. lack of cause of action 2. non-suability of the state 3.
prescription of cause of action 4. the negligence of the owner and driver of the
jeepney is the proximate cause of the collision. The trial court ruled in favor of the
owner and the driver of the jeepney and ordered Mun. of SF and Bislig to pay
jointly and severally to the heirs of Laureano.

Issue: WON the Mun. of SF shall be liable to the torts committed by its dump truck
driver (Bislig).

Ruling: No. The test of liability of the municipality depends on WON the driver,
acting in behalf of the municipality, is performing governmental or proprietary
functions. GR: If the employee was committing a governmental function, the
municipality are not liable for torts committed by its employee. Exception: If the
employee was acting in a proprietary capacity, the municipality shall be liable
for the torts committed by its employee. It has been held in diff. case that the
construction or maintenance of roads is considered as governmental activities. In
this case, the driver was on his way to get a load of sand and gravel for the repair
of the municipality street, hence, the driver is exercising a governmental function.
Thus, the Municipality of SF cannot be held liable by the torts committed by its
driver.