Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving FGU Insurance Corp
descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall o The registered owner of a vehicle is liable for damages
belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take suffered by third persons although the vehicle is leased to
place upon termination of the cohabitation. another.
Art. 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Issue:
Article, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through For damages suffered by a third party, may an action based on
their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall quasi-delict prosper against a rent-a-car company and,
be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective consequently, its insurer for fault or negligence of the car lessee in
contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their driving the rented vehicle? NO
contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal.
The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of Ruling + RVP:
money and evidences of credit. To sustain a claim based on quasi-delict, the following requisites
must concur: (a) damage suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or
If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share negligence of the defendant; and, (c) connection of cause and
in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community or effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the
conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party damage incurred by the plaintiff.
who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or
her shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last Petitioner failed to prove the existence of the second requisite,
paragraph of the preceding Article. i.e., fault or negligence of FILCAR, because only the fault or
negligence of Dahl-Jensen was sufficiently established, not that of
The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both FILCAR. The damage caused on the vehicle of Soriano was brought
parties are in bad faith. about by the circumstance that Dahl-Jensen swerved to the right
while the vehicle that he was driving was at the center lane. It is
Assuming that the governing law was already the Family Code, plain that the negligence was solely attributable to Dahl-Jensen
Article 148 may still not be applied because both Articles 147 and thus making the damage suffered by the other vehicle his personal
148 are rules of equity. It would be totally unfair to deprive the liability.
other one of his/her legitimate share in the gains of the
cohabitation or of the partnership. When you impose the rule of Article 2180 of the same Code which deals also with quasi-delict
equity, it is designed really to benefit the party. So, it will not make provides: The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable
sense to impose it in cases of imposing liability to a particular not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of
individual. persons for whom one is responsible. The responsibility treated of
in this article shall cease when the persons therein mentioned
prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a
FGU INSURANCE CORP VS. CA family to prevent damage. The liability arises by virtue of a
presumption juris tantum of negligence on the part of the persons
Facts: made responsible thereunder, derived from their failure to
There was a 2-car collision at around 3am. One car was owned by exercise due care and vigilance over the acts of subordinates to
Soriano and was being driven at the outer lane of the highway by prevent them from causing damage. However, in this case,
Jacildone. The other one was owned by FILCAR Transport, Inc. FILCAR, being engaged in a rent-a-car business, was only the
(FILCAR), being driven by Dahl-Jensen as lessee, at the center lane. owner of the car leased to Dahl-Jensen. As such, there was no
Upon approaching the corner of Pioneer Street, the car owned by vinculum juris between them as ER and EE. FILCAR cannot in any
FILCAR swerved to the right hitting the left side of the car of way be responsible for the negligent act of Dahl-Jensen, the
Soriano. At that time Dahl-Jensen, a Danish tourist, did not former not being an employer of the latter.
possess a Philippine driver's license. As a consequence, FGU
Insurance Corporation, in view of its insurance contract with We now correlate par. 5 of Art. 2180 with Art. 2184 of the same
Soriano, paid the latter. By way of subrogation, it sued Dahl- Code which provides: "In motor vehicle mishap, the owner is
Jensen and FILCAR as well as Fortune Insurance Corporation solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the
(FORTUNE) as insurer of FILCAR for quasi-delict. Unfortunately, vehicle, could have by the use of due diligence, prevented the
summons was not served on Dahl-Jensen since he was no longer misfortune . . . If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the
staying at his given address; in fact, upon motion of petitioner, he provisions of article 2180 are applicable." Obviously, this provision
was dropped from the complaint. of Art. 2184 is neither applicable because of the absence of
master-driver relationship between FILCAR and Dahl-Jensen.
Trial court Clearly, petitioner has no cause of action against respondent
ü dismissed the case for failure of petitioner to substantiate its FILCAR on the basis of quasi-delict; logically, its claim against
claim of subrogation. respondent FORTUNE can neither prosper.
ALIANZA | DOLIENTE | GAYANES | LIMPANGUG | MAC MAC | PAJAO | REYES | TABADA U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | PAGE 2 OF 19
TORTS & DAMAGES (2019) FINALS REVIEWER ATTY. RASHID VEDRA PANDI
Facts:
Eyewitness Palero testified that at about 4pm at an intersection, a REPUBLIC VS. PALACIO
15-year old high school student Macas was standing on the
shoulder of the road. She was about 2.5 meters away from him Facts:
when he was bumped and run over by a Ford Fiera, driven by The Irrigation Service Unit (ISU) was sued by Ortiz for allegedly
Cimafranca. Cimafranca rushed the boy to a medical center. In invading a portion of its land. The lower court ruled in favor of
order to save his life, the surgeon had to amputate both legs up to Ortiz, being the owner of the land, and declared the Republic to
the groins. Cimafranca had since absconded and disappeared. be in default for failure to answer the complaint. In the decision
Records showed that the car was registered in the name of Atty. of lower court, it allowed the garnishment of the funds of the said
Cadiente. The victim's father filed a complaint for torts and Irrigation Service Unit, particularly the Pump Irrigation Trust Fund.
damages against Cimafranca and Cadiente. Macas argued that
when he was hit by the vehicle, he was standing on the Ortiz
uncemented portion of the highway, which was exactly where o The State can be sued and be subsequently held liable because
pedestrians were supposed to be. it engages in a proprietary activity.
ALIANZA | DOLIENTE | GAYANES | LIMPANGUG | MAC MAC | PAJAO | REYES | TABADA U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | PAGE 3 OF 19
TORTS & DAMAGES (2019) FINALS REVIEWER ATTY. RASHID VEDRA PANDI
its consent. In 1915 however, the Republic enacted Act No. 2457. Issue:
Section 1 of this particular act states that Meritt is authorized to WON the father of Dante would be liable?
file a suit against the Republic in order to fix and determine the
responsibilities of the parties. The lower court rendered a decision Ruling + RVP:
where the amount of damages was less than what was prayed for The mother had a claim because Dante was under the supervision
by the plaintiff. Meritt assailed the same upon appeal. of the father. The teachers and the directors of the school cannot
be held liable because the law makes teachers and directors liable
Issue: only if the school is one of trade and arts. In this case, Balintawak
WON the State is liable? NO school was an academic institution.
Ruling + RVP:
The Supreme Court construed RA 2457 to determine whether or PALISOC VS. BRILLANTES
not the State had in fact waived its immunity, and in the course of
waiving immunity, is the State conceding to liability. As to the Facts:
matter of the State waiving its immunity, the State had in fact This case involves 3 students in Manila Technical Institute. These
waived its immunity by enacting said law; however, there was no 3 students are automotive students where Dominador Palisoc was
suggestion in the same law which suggests that the State was the deceased. His classmates were Cruz and Daffon. MTI was
conceding to liability against Meritt. To determine the matter of incorporated sometime in 1962 from a single proprietorship. And
WON the State is conceding to liability (TN: This is an old case, sometime in 1966, during recess time, Cruz and Daffon was
there is already a settled rule on the matter), the SC referred to working on a machine and Palisoc was just watching the 2. In fact,
American Jurisprudence, and decided that the person responsible in the text of the SC, he was acting like a foreman. So, the 2
was the chauffer, or the person who drove the ambulance. students who were working on the machine felt insulted and told
However, the Court could not say in certain that indeed the State the deceased that he was acting like a foreman. The Palisoc
has made itself liable to that particular collision. slapped Daffon, which resulted to a fight and eventually led to the
death of the former as he fell on a machine which fractured his
But the more important ruling, I think, is on the matter of WON it ribs due to a fist blow. The parents of Palisoc filed a case against
could make the chauffer liable. Here, the SC distinguished special Brillantes (member of the board), the president, and the
agents vis-a-vis executive agents. An executive is one who instructor.
performs governmental acts on behalf of an active administration;
whereas, a special agent is someone who performs an act that is RTC
determinable or fixed, ordered, or commissioned, or if it is a public ü It only held Mr. Daffon liable and not the parents as he was
official, they perform an act which is foreign or outside of their already of age. It also absolved the director, instructor and
governmental functions. In this case, the SC held that the State president, basing the ruling on Mercado v. CA: For these
can only be liable for the acts of its special agents. However, in this teachers, in accordance with Art. 2180 to be held liable, it is
case, the SC could not determine with certainty WON the chauffer necessary that the students must live and board together
who drove the ambulance was a special agent, so the State could within the school or with the teacher. Hence, there was proof
not be held liable. that Mr. Daffon, in this case, was going home after dismissal.
Thus, the case of Mercado does not apply.
Settled naman na nga rule nga suability does not equate to ü It also quoted the older case of Exconde that liability of
liability. IOW, there has to be a separate waiver of liability. The teachers under Article 2180 does not apply to any school, but
basis of the State’s immunity from suit is the doctrine of “royal it can only apply to school of arts and trades.
prerogative of dishonesty” – it basically means that no right can
be taken against the very entity that created such right. Ruling + RVP:
Since this is a non-technical school, the SC in this case upon appeal
said that the doctrines in Mercado and Exconde must be set aside,
Teachers saying that what we mean by loco parentis is not living together
or boarding with the teacher. But rather, protective custody over
EXCONDE VS. CAPUNO the student. In this case, it was proved that the instructor was
negligent because as held in many cases, even during recess time,
Facts: the teacher must still supervise the workings of the student.
The accused was charged with homicide. One of the deceased’s
mother filed a separate civil action under Article 1902 of the Brillantes was not held liable in this case because he was
Spanish Civil Code which provides that the father shall be liable to improperly impleaded. There was no showing that he was
the acts or torts committed by the minor living with them. The negligent. In fact, the reason why he was impleaded was because
father said that the minor was not under his supervision at the he was held to be the single proprietor. Palisoc’s parents wanted
time of the accident. The minor, Dante, was a student of the school to be liable but the SC said that they wrongly impleaded
Balintawak National High School and was a member of the boy Brillantes because there was a separate personality between the
scout. The students were required to attend a parade to BOD and the corporation itself which is MTI.
commemorate the death of Dr. Rizal. Dante boarded a jeep along
with his classmates and then the jeep turned turtle. The However, take note of those instances where you can pierce the
classmates died. veil of the corporate fiction. (Review RCC)
ALIANZA | DOLIENTE | GAYANES | LIMPANGUG | MAC MAC | PAJAO | REYES | TABADA U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | PAGE 4 OF 19
TORTS & DAMAGES (2019) FINALS REVIEWER ATTY. RASHID VEDRA PANDI
ALIANZA | DOLIENTE | GAYANES | LIMPANGUG | MAC MAC | PAJAO | REYES | TABADA U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | PAGE 5 OF 19
TORTS & DAMAGES (2019) FINALS REVIEWER ATTY. RASHID VEDRA PANDI
ALIANZA | DOLIENTE | GAYANES | LIMPANGUG | MAC MAC | PAJAO | REYES | TABADA U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | PAGE 6 OF 19
TORTS & DAMAGES (2019) FINALS REVIEWER ATTY. RASHID VEDRA PANDI
As to the territorial jurisdiction, it is RA 409 that is above the Civil DE ROY VS. CA
Code because it is a special law. The Civil Code is only a general
legislation. But as to the subject matter, it is the Civil Code that Facts:
supersedes RA 409 because the latter merely establishes the There was a firewall of the building that collapsed and injured the
general liability of the city. Art 2189 is very specific as to the family adjacent to that firewall. Prior to the collapse of the
liability of a city in cases of injury, death, defective roads, streets firewall, the owner of the firewall already warned the family to
and highways. It was Art 2189 that made the City of Manila liable vacate. However, the family did not heed the warning so
because like in the case of Jimenez, it is not also the ownership or unfortunately the firewall collapsed, eventually the spouses were
as to the ownership of the city that prevails but it is as to the injured and their daughter died. One of the defenses of the
control and supervision of such city that makes them liable. proprietor of the firewall is that there was already a prior warning
so the spouses had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. Any
prior negligence of the proprietor of the firewall was already
GUILATCO VS. CITY OF DAGUPAN dispensed with the subsequent negligence of the spouses.
Facts: Issue:
Guilatco was about to board a motorcycle in Perez Blvd., a WON the doctrine of last clear chance is applicable? NO
national highway and under the control and custody of the City of
Dagupan. Gelato fell into a manhole and she was hospitalized and Ruling + RVP:
operated on. She was not able to report to her work as a court Article 2190 of the Civil Code:
interpreter and then she filed a complaint for damages against the "The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the
City of Dagupan. The RTC rendered the decision in her favor but damage resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be
the CA reversed the decision on the ground that the petitioner due to the lack of necessary repairs."
failed to present evidence that the highway was under the control
and custody of the City of Dagupan. The doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable in this case since
it is applicable only to vehicular accidents. We should not apply
Issue: that doctrine of last clear chance in this specific case because then,
WON the City of Dagupan has control and custody of this national it's very easy for them to evade liability by saying "I informed you."
highway? YES So the responsibility really is on the very first day of the process of
WON it is liable for the damages to the petitioner? YES creating or making the building itself. You cannot dispense with
the responsibility by subsequent notices and warnings to whoever
Ruling + RVP: might be affected by your defective construction of the building in
Under Art. 2189 of the Civil Code, it does not require that the itself. Always, always again ask what's the reason for the law and
province or LGU has the ownership of the road. It must at least the law is generally logical.
have the control or custody. The City Charter of Dagupan provided
that the City Engineer has jurisdiction to construct and maintain
these roads. So, there is no question that the City of Dagupan has Collateral Source Rule
control and custody.
This rule is applied in American jurisprudence and applied in Torts
The City of Dagupan is not liable for damages for failure of an where the defendant is prevented from benefiting from the
officer to enforce the provision of the City Charter. However, the plaintiff's receipt of money from other sources. So, it means that
SC addressed this that the provision of the City Charter is general the injured party can receive any indemnification from other
as to its subject matter for the liability, while the provision of the sources as long as it is wholly independent from the tortfeasor and
Civil Code is more particular where it provides that the city is liable the tortfeasor cannot use as a defense that this injured party has
for the defective roads, public works under its custody and already been paid by other parties.
control.
Why is it that ownership should not be the proper standard? Why MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILIPPINES SALARIED EMPLOYEES
should it be supervision and control? UNION (MMPSEU) VS. MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILIPPINES
When we speak of proximity and we speak of maximizing CORPORATION
responsibility and accountability, you want to be able to point
liability on the local government units (LGUs); OW, they can just
Facts:
find a way out on saying "oi this is owned by the national
This case arises from the dispute between the labor union group
government" so makahugas kamay sila ba. What we want is for
of the Mitsubishi and the corporation of Mitsubishi itself. In the
maximum accountability and responsibility on the part of the
CBA, they adopted that the employees have insurance wherein if
LGUs.
they are hospitalized or their dependents are hospitalized, they
are alloted P40,000 and P300 for the doctor fees. After the
expiration of that CBA, they signed another agreement adopting
the same and they increased it to P50,000 and P475.
ALIANZA | DOLIENTE | GAYANES | LIMPANGUG | MAC MAC | PAJAO | REYES | TABADA U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | PAGE 7 OF 19
TORTS & DAMAGES (2019) FINALS REVIEWER ATTY. RASHID VEDRA PANDI
Mitsubishi but Mitsubishi denied their reimbursement saying that "vomiting of saliva." The following day, the child died. The cause
it will amount to double insurance. The employees argued that of death was certified as broncho-pneumonia.
they have the right to be reimbursed for the expenses. Citing the
CBA that they had, they should exercise the right to be reimbursed 7 months later, the Uys sued for damages, alleging that the Vestils
by the expenses. were liable to them as the possessors of "Andoy," the dog that bit
and eventually killed their daughter. The Vestils rejected the
Both parties wrote a letter to the Insurance Commission to ask for charge, insisting that the dog belonged to the deceased Miranda,
opinion. The IC only replied to the labor union saying that they that it was a tame animal, and that in any case no one had
have the right to receive for both sources – the insurance itself witnessed it bite Theness.
and the company.
The possession of the defendants was proven by a testimony by
These 3 employees who claimed reimbursement and their one of the boarders. Apparently, there were boarders who paid
dependents also have independent insurance outside from the the Vestils for the rentals. So, they were the ones administering
insurance of the company. the property because they were the only heirs of Miranda in Cebu
and they only lived 6 km away from the said property. There were
Voluntary Arbitrator also other testimonies which proved that they go there once or
ü favored the labor union employees and it based its decision twice a week and they in fact hired a helper. There was also a
on the opinion given by Atty. Funk from the Insurance testimony by the mother of Miranda which also supplanted the
Commission fact that the Vestils were indeed administering the house.
ü The EEs have the right, applying the jurisprudence in America
Samsel vs Allstate. RTC: dismissed the complaint.
CA: CA:
ü reversed the decision of the VA, emphasizing that the ü Vestils were in possession of the house and the dog and so
American jurisprudence does not apply in this case because in should be responsible under Article 2183 of the Civil Code for
the very first place, the American case does not have any the injuries caused by the dog
limitations on their contract. ü The child had died as a result of the dog bites and not for
causes independent thereof.
Ruling + RVP:
It was actually stated in the American case cited by the VA that the Vestil
Allstate will give directly to the insured persons the money. o She is not the owner of the house or of the dog left by her
However, in this case, the CBA agreement with Mitsubishi clearly father as his estate has not yet been partitioned and there are
had a limitation that was provided in one of its provisions which other heirs to the property.
states that the Mitsubishi as a corporation, if their employees or o Pursuing the logic of the Uys, she claims, even her sister living
their dependents are hospitalized, they will give it directly to the in Canada would be held responsible for the acts of the dog
hospital or the doctor. That’s why the collateral source rule was simply because she is one of Miranda's heirs.
not applied in this case.
Issue:
Additional Note: WON the defendants are liable? YES
There's another collateral source rule but that's in legal ethics. But
that's in relation to whether a judge is partial or the judge has Ruling + RVP:
been partial in giving out the judgment or whether the judge Possession is all you need. You don’t need ownership to be able to
properly inhibited himself/herself from the proceedings. So, the ensure that the animal does not go wild. It does not necessary for
bias that must be proved is bias coming from the outside. I think you to own the animal in order for you to exercise dominion or
that's important because that's a new principle that is embraced control over the animal.
under legal ethics in the same way that it is embraced in the civil
law context. This strict liability torts on animals kay naay very interesting
question sa Bar. Kadtong iguana na nakabuhi sa iyang cage
because of a storm. So, the iguana was just roaming around the
STRICT LIABILITY TORTS streets, and here comes the victim. He threw a stone and so the
iguana was frightened, gi-attack syas iguana. Who shall be
Possessor of Animals responsible for the injuries? Was there sufficient provocation on
the part of the victim? Was it because of his own contributory
VESTIL VS. CA negligence?
(Way sure si atty sa answer. Check nalang daw sa Suggested
Facts: Answer sa internet)
Theness (3 y.o.) was bitten by a dog while she was playing with a
child of the petitioners in the house of the late Miranda, the father
of Vestil. She was rushed to the Cebu General Hospital, where she
was treated for "multiple lacerated wounds on the forehead" and
administered an anti-rabies vaccine by Dr. Tautjo. She was
discharged after 9 days but was re-admitted 1 week later due to
ALIANZA | DOLIENTE | GAYANES | LIMPANGUG | MAC MAC | PAJAO | REYES | TABADA U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | PAGE 8 OF 19
TORTS & DAMAGES (2019) FINALS REVIEWER ATTY. RASHID VEDRA PANDI
Manufacturers and Processors or Foodstuffs that due to prolonged exposure with the pesticides called
dibromochloropropane (DBCP), they suffered serious and
PASCUAL VS. FORD MOTOR permanent injuries to their reproductive systems. It was dismissed
in the US on the ground of forum non conveniens. So, they were
Facts: just asked to file cases within their respective countries. So, a civil
Pascual bought a second-hand Ford E-150 vehicle. One day, her case was filed in the Philippines by the Filipino workers concerned.
driver was driving at a moderate speed with passengers. During While the case was pending, there was a worldwide settlement
the drive, the right axle of the car suddenly broke thereby injuring which was executed by the corporations and the representatives
the passengers. She filed a case for quasi-delict against the of all the workers involved. The Filipino workers were represented
manufacturer and the seller of Ford because of the defect of the by Atty. Callanta, so there was settlement already, that’s why the
right axle which caused the accident. civil case in the Philippines was dismissed. The case was filed first
in 1993, while the civil case in the Philippines was filed in 1996 in
Ford argued that they are not liable. They presented an expert Davao Del Norte, where the banana plantation was located. There
witness who showed that a leaf spring was actually altered by non- was supposed to be a compromise agreement, but the
Ford manufacturers to enable the car to carry more weight and Corporation opposed because according to such agreement, all
this caused the right axle to break. they had to do was to put the settlement amounts in escrow
accounts, and then there would be a mediator. and such mediator
RTC: Ford was liable because of the inherent defect of the product will get on the condition that they will have the release signed by
the claimants. They upheld the Compromise Agreement which
CA: reversed the decision; gave credence to the testimony of the actually allowed the claimants to claim from the mediator.
expert witness
The fact that they were able to enforce the Compromise
Issue: Agreement, and the fact that there was global settlement actually
WON the strict liability in tort is applicable against FMCI and FGPI? goes to show that indeed these corporations can be held
NO accountable for the damage they may have caused either in their
operation, production or in the manufacture of their products. So
Ruling + RVP: that’s the reason why it was assigned under Strict Liability Torts –
For a product to be defective, there must first be a defect on the because of the opportunity that it shows that it is possible to file
part of the product, the defect must have been there when the a claim even against multinational corporations like DOLE for
seller parted ways with the product, and there must be no example, and bring their cases here in our own domestic courts
substantial alteration in the product when it was on the hands of for you to enforce your rights under the strict liability torts.
the buyer. It gave credence to the testimony of the expert and to
the other corroborative evidence (documents) showing that there
was really an alteration that caused the accident. Head of Family
Strict liability torts – the manufacturers of food, products, DINGCONG VS. KAANAN
toiletries, are responsible for the damages from harmful and
noxious substances in their products even though there was no Facts:
contractual relationship between the buyers and the end users. It There were 2 brothers, one owned the building and the other was
is called as Strict Liability because you do not have to prove the the manager of the hotel. They rented out the lower floor to 3
negligence of manufacturer because it is strictly liable as a matter businessmen who have general merchandise, the American
of natural equity, because of the inherent risk that a certain Bazaar. At the same time, there was this guy, Echavaria, who was
enterprise or product has to have in order for it to be sold into the renting room number 2 of the 4th floor. He had a leak in his pipe.
public. Strict liability does not apply in this case because the The manager knew there was a leak but he only gave him a basin
weight that the car was supposed to have was exactly what Ford to put under the leak. Overnight, the basin spilled and the spillage
held it out to be. And it was because of the alteration of Olivia went into the shop which destroyed the merchandise. So, the
Pascual that the car broke. owners of the shop sued the brothers for the damage on their
merchandise.
Strict liability torts is a huge thing in the US. Remember the
McDonald case? You remember also the wife who successfully Ruling + RVP:
sued a tobacco company for the death of the husband because of SC did not hold liable the brother who was the manager but they
the advertisement daw? So she was actually able to generate held liable the brother who was the owner as he lived on the top
millions of dollars because of that. That’s not so much about our floor and he should have known that he could have fixed the pipe.
torts practice here because we are so in love with medical The SC also said that he could have given some drainage and then
malpractice. a basin after.
This case was assigned under head of the family because the
CHIQUITA BRANDS, INC. VS. HON. OMELIO owner should have exercised the diligence of a good father of the
family. But in the provisions, the head of the family is usually liable
Facts: for damages happening when there is a thing falling off a building.
This case involves class suit, filed by banana plantation workers So, in this case, the water came from the ceiling of the building
from over 14 countries. They filed it in the US under the Alien Tort and the owner should have known and prevented the thing from
Act. It’s against 11 foreign corporations, one is DOLE. They alleged happening.
ALIANZA | DOLIENTE | GAYANES | LIMPANGUG | MAC MAC | PAJAO | REYES | TABADA U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | PAGE 9 OF 19
TORTS & DAMAGES (2019) FINALS REVIEWER ATTY. RASHID VEDRA PANDI
Regardless of the characteristics of the thing falling off the QUEZON CITY GOVERNMENT ET AL. VS. DACARA
building, the emphasis of the law is the responsibility of the owner
for whatever emanates from the structure itself. It may be solid, Facts:
liquid, or flying saucers, so long as there is a definite thing under There was a person who was driving along Matahimik St. He
which you can claim liability for anything that is within or coming rammed into a pile of earth/street diggings. His car turned turtle
from your structure. Because again, the policy of the law is to and resulted to his physical injuries. The father of the injured filed
optimize accountability on the part of those in control or in a complaint for damages against the Quezon City Government and
possession of a certain instrument. in defense, they said that they had exercised due diligence and
employed precautionary measures like the gasera.
NATURE AND ENFORCEMENT OF LIABILITY It was ruled by the RTC and by the CA that the gasera was actually
not there according to the testimony of the police officer who
Tortfeasors – solidary as long as you can prove that there is a responded to the incident.
contributing negligence on either of them
Ruling + RVP:
§ Special torts was not applied.
No double recovery for same act or omission § With respect to negligence, there was negligence on the part
of Quezon City, although the SC cannot review the facts and
COCA-COLA VS. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION evidence presented, the decisions of the lower and appellate
courts were already sufficient.
There is no double recovery in this case because the SC have § Article 2219 specifically mentions 'quasi-delicts causing
discussed, in relation to forum shopping and in the choice of physical injuries,' as an instance when moral damages may be
remedy aspect, that in the choice of remedy, when an act or allowed, thereby implying that all other quasi-delicts not
omission may resort to civil action arising out of the delict or an resulting in physical injuries are excluded, excepting of course,
independent civil action from the quasi-delict, the litigant is the special torts referred to in Art. 309 (par. 9, Art. 2219) and
actually shopping for a forum. But the SC said that we have the in Arts. 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35 on the chapter on
rule precluding double recovery which addresses the issue that human relations (par. 10, Art. 2219).
the litigant in that case is actually shopping for a forum. The SC § For quasi-delicts, for there to be moral damages, there must
also said that just because an action, demand, or reliefs arises be physical injuries.
from a same act or omission, it does not necessarily mean that the § There was an allegation of physical injuries in this case but it
litigant is actually shopping for a forum because the nature of the was not proven. They only relied on the claimant’s testimony
demand for the reliefs arising from the same act or omission may and no corroborative evidence sufficient to support the same
be different. was adduced.
In this case, the case was filed before the NLRC and another case
was filed before the Social Securities Commission. Although the 2 DBP VS. CA
cases filed before the courts arises out from the same retainer
agreement between the retainer physician and the Coca Cola Inc., Facts:
the SC said that they are not actually the same relief because in This case involves a loan contracted by the spouses Gotangco with
the NLRC case, the doctor sought for recognition as a regular DBP and the 7 parcels of land of the spouses were executed as
employee and he was demanding for the 13th month pay bonus collateral. Later on, the spouses entered a contract to sell with
and other benefits as a regular employee. On the other hand, he Cucio and agreed that Cucio will pay DBP P50,000 for 2
was seeking compulsory coverage for SSS before the SSC. IOW, installments. Upon full payment, DBP will return the titles of the
there is no litis pendencia and res judicata in relation to forum spouses, and in turn, the spouses will execute a deed of absolute
shopping because the element that ‘it was the same act or sale in favor of Cucio. When the spouses failed to comply with
omission’ is absent. The same act or omission does not only cover their obligation, DBP informed them by sending demand letters,
the contract, delict, or act which gave rise to the action but also but the spouses did not heed to such demands. Also, instead of
the demands and reliefs sought for. complying with the demands, they filed for a writ of preliminary
injunction which supported the extrajudicial foreclosure.
Manner of Enforcement
o Culpa-criminal – Exhaust first all the properties and show that Ruling + RVP:
the EE is actually no longer able to pay before reliefs can be § Abuse of right (acts contra bonus mores) means that a person
sought for from the employer because subsidiary ra sila. has a right and his exercise of such in bad faith injures another
o Culpa-contractual – just prove existence of the contract and person. It is anchored on Article 19 – on human relations.
breach of the contract § Art. 19. “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in
the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone
his due and observe honesty and good faith.”
SPECIAL TORTS § Elements for the abuse of right principle:
1) There is an existence of the legal right or duty
They are called special torts because they relate to human 2) Which is exercised in bad faith
relations. That's why you have to always prove malice or bad faith. 3) It is for the sole intent of injuring or prejudicing another
ALIANZA | DOLIENTE | GAYANES | LIMPANGUG | MAC MAC | PAJAO | REYES | TABADA U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | PAGE 10 OF 19
TORTS & DAMAGES (2019) FINALS REVIEWER ATTY. RASHID VEDRA PANDI
§ This principle is not present in this case. DBP has the legal right LAGON VS. CA, ET AL.
but it was not exercised in bad faith because DBP has the right
to extrajudicially foreclose the mortgage. Facts:
§ As to the moral damages, SC did not award because they were This case is about tortuous interference. Lagon bought a parcel of
not able to prove malice on the part of DBP. The wife did not land from the estate of Bai Sepi. A case was then filed after a few
even testify. months that there was interference in the contract of lease with
§ The writ of preliminary injunction was also deleted by the SC. Lapuz. In 1964, a lease contract was entered into and part of such
§ Remember your abuse of rights principle because in practice, is that Lapuz can build commercial building and whatever he earns
sometimes you're at wit’s end and there's nothing you can from those commercial buildings, he will use it to pay his rental to
plead na especially if wala na jud pag-asa imo client so your Sepi. In 1974, the lease contract ended but since the construction
catch-basin or final default argument is the abuse of rights of the commercial buildings had yet to be completed, the lease
principle. But remember it sets a very high threshold because contract was allegedly renewed. Eventually, the building was
there's the phrase "for the sole intent of prejudicing the transferred to somebody else. Lagon bought the land, and then
other." So it must be impelled by malice or bad faith. Lapuz still paid or remitted to the administrator when Septi died
but then he was told by the administrator to stop collecting rentals
from those people in the building and he then discovered that this
MVRS PUBLICATIONS, ET AL. VS. ISLAMIC DA’WAH COUNCIL OF Lagon is the one claiming ownership of the land and the building
THE PHIL as well and then he is the one collecting rental from them. So
basically, in the answer to the complaint to Lapuz, Lagon said that
Facts: he actually did not interfere to the contract of the previous renter.
There was an article that was released by the Bulgar at a tabloid. Before he bought it, he went to the lawyer who notarized the
It stated that Muslims do not eat pork for the reason that they contract and the lawyer told him that there is actually a contract
claim it as their God. The Islamic Dawah then filed a case for but it was not signed. When registry of records was checked, there
slander (oral) and libel (written) against the tabloid. The RTC said is no registered contract there. He also said that he denied that
that there was no specific individual affected by the statement. CA he induced the heirs of Sepi because he said that when he bought
reversed the decision and ruled that it was a general insult to the the land, he was never told that there was a contract of lease.
Muslims of the Philippines.
Elements of tortuous interference
Ruling + RVP: In this case, SC got reference from the old case of Supunding. The
SC discussed the freedom of speech. It said that when you speak case said that there are three elements.
of defamation, it must affect a certain individual for you to have a 1. Valid contract – there is prima facie validity of the notarized
cause of action. If it does affect a group of individuals, they must document; although with respect to its delivery and due
be so similarly situated that each one of them must be affected execution, naa syay value.
such that you can have a class suit. Aside from the fact that the 2. Knowledge – In this case, they were not able to pinpoint if
statement can be taken out of context, the statement can be an there is knowledge. However, the SC said even if there is
opportunity to educate individuals on why Muslims do not eat knowledge, then they go to the 3rd element.
pork. The statement cannot pinpoint to a specific individual on 3. It must be proven that there is bad motive to contract or
whether it indeed insulted him/her. The relational test provides interfere – Even if they completed the 2 elements, the 3rd one
that the statement should be made to incite hatred or change the cannot be proven, because there is no proof of malice in
perception of a certain group of individuals. However, in this case, interfering. But he has a particular business interest over the
it was not proven that the statement caused the harm or would property, right? Lagon has a particular business interest over
change the view of individuals on Muslims. the property. The reason why we bought it is because it will
give him yields.
The SC did not take cognizance of the case since there was no
specific harm. The class of individuals being attacked should What makes malice malice? The fact that there is financial benefit,
respond to this kind of speech by just having to toughen it out financial interest or anything economic that induced the 3rd
because we live in a pluralistic society. If the SC would take person to interfere with the contract will not amount to tortuous
cognizance of this case, they will encourage all suits of interference because there has to be a specific intent to harm the
fundamentalists from all walks of life because each faith has its person. You wanted to harm the person, therefore you interfere
own fundamental groups in interpreting descriptions in such a with their contract. Absent that, measures of self-preservation,
way to preclude outside religions. SC didn’t want that and said self-protection, self-benefit will not amount to tortuous
that you just have to acknowledge the differences and toughen it interference in the absence of a specific intent to harm the person.
because if we take this suit, what will stop other fundamentalists And that is what is missing in this case..
from attacking other class of religion so as to file a case. And also,
the freedom of speech – while they may be offensive, it has to
pass a certain test like the Ohio test so as to be able to incite U-BIX VS. MILLIKAN
individuals’ outrage. Before you can file a tort of outrage, you have
to prove severe emotional or psychological suffering and associate There was no tortuous interference in this case because the
it with having to consult a professional who will testify as to the petitioner here failed to establish that there was a valid contract
severity of the suffering you went through. that was entered into by CMB with U-BIX. U-BIX merely presented
arguments that they’re entitled to the dealership agreement as to
the furnishing of CMB because they failed to satisfy to present a
valid contract. SC ruled that there could be no tortuous
ALIANZA | DOLIENTE | GAYANES | LIMPANGUG | MAC MAC | PAJAO | REYES | TABADA U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | PAGE 11 OF 19
TORTS & DAMAGES (2019) FINALS REVIEWER ATTY. RASHID VEDRA PANDI
interference because one of the requisites for malicious area is common. The 2nd witness also testified that although
interference is the existence of valid contract. There was no valid the widal test is no longer in use, he said that it can still be
contract because there was no agreement that was entered used in some cases
between CMB with U-BIX since the contract was awarded to § There was a consensus that there was wrong diagnosis. There
Projexx because they failed to impress the interior designer as was wrong administration of medicine. However, there was
well. This was not mentioned in the case but that is the no medical malpractice because I think if we follow res ipsa
implication. loquitor, there is a second argument that there is no need of
expert witness especially unto the observation. This will be on
There was also an argument that was given by petitioner here the subsequent case, under Ramos that you can be observed
wherein Projexx poached Eser, who was part of the team of especially under the intubation. However, res ipsa loquitor
Carmen Wang and who was employed by the petitioner. (Anti- couldn’t find application in this case because the death of
poaching in labor/poaching covenant: piracy, but valid na siya pag Reyes was just in the normal circumstances of the situation.
limited by time and place). After the contract was awarded, Eser § In determining WON there is a medical malpractice, the
moved to the respondent corporation. The petitioner alleged that standard we use is what would a reasonably prudent doctor
there was a malicious interference on the part of Projexx because have done under the circumstances
they interfered in the perfection of the contract between CMD § It’s not unlikely that there should be diagnosis of typhoid
and the petitioner. fever, because no. 1, it was prevalent in the area at that time.
No. 2, under normal circumstances, any other doctor would
have made the same conclusion.
KINDRED TORTS: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE § Doctors are not supposed to make perfect diagnosis, so long
as they are consistent with, again remember the locality rule
REYES ET AL. VS. SISTERS OF MERCY HOSPITAL, ET AL. – what would doctor facing the same circumstances have
done under the same patient brought before his
Facts: consideration.
Reyes already had a recurring fever with chills at least 5 days § In this case, admittedly, dili kayo perfect ang diagnosis but that
before his death. Since the home medication is not working, his was reasonable under the circumstances because of the
wife told him to go to the Mercy Community Clinic in Cebu City. factual predicate of the case. Maski kinsa dawn a doctor imo
The Doctor concluded that he has a typhoid fever. He was pangutanon. In fact, the witnesses actually acknowledged that
recommended to another doctor, and there was a skin test as to they would have done the same thing, although other things
the drug that was to be given to him. Knowing that there was no could have been done. But under the regular course of thing,
adverse effect as to the drug, he was given 2 dozes. The first doze, reasonable ang gibuhat sa doctor in this case.
500mg of that drug, was during 9pm and the second doze was at § So ang test actually, I know that whenever I ask you what
midnight. However, during 1am the next day, he was suddenly constitute medical malpractice you’ll give me the four
shaking and eventually died at 2am. The cause of his death was elements right? But in this case, giingon that there is medical
high fever. malpractice when a doctor has done something which he
should not be doing under or you failed to do something which
The surviving spouse and children filed a case for medical a reasonably prudent doctor would have done under the same
malpractice alleging that the cause of his death was due to the circumstances.
wrongful administration of the chloromycetin and the § IOW, it’s doing something which should not have been done,
administration of widal test should not have been immediately or failing to do something which should have been done by a
conducted. For the case of the wife, they had one expert witness. reasonably prudent doctor under the circumstances. That’s
However the defense had 2 expert witnesses. The RTC ruled in another test for medical malpractice, aside from the 4
favor of the clinic and so did the CA. elements you usually gave me in your recitation.
Issues:
WON the death was caused by the negligence, imprudence or lack JARCIA, JR. VS. PEOPLE
of foresight on the part of the doctors?
WON the case was under res ipsa loquitor? Facts:
WON they committed medical malpractice? NO Belinda Santiago logged a complaint with the NBI complaining
about the defendant in this case, Dr. Jarcia and Dr. Bastar. She
Ruling + RVP: contended that the said doctors prolonged the suffering of her son
§ As to the expert witness, the expert witness that was given by Roy Jr., who was hit by the taxi cab and was brought to Manila
the wife and the child, although he had the experience, was Doctors Hospital. And then upon arrival in the ER, the son was
only able to administer in terms of typhoid fever involving only attended to by the defendant doctors in this case. What happened
one patient. His experience as to the autopsy of cadavers of was the doctors ordered only an x-ray of the victim’s ankles
typhoid fever victim only involved one cadaver when he was because when they were interviewing the mother and the son,
still training back in UP. they said it was only the ankle that was swollen. The result of the
§ In medical malpractice, there are 4 requisites: duty, breach, x-ray showed no fracture so the doctors assured the mother that
injury and proximate causation. As to this case there was no everything was gonna be ok and sent Roy Jr. home. 11 days after,
problem as to any of it. the son developed fever and swelling of the whole leg. The mother
§ The main contention was that the widal test was incorrectly brought him back to Manila Doctor’s hospital. And upon x-ray of
used. However, the 1st witness of the defense said that they the entire leg that was administered by a different doctor, (the
usually use the widal test especially in cases where the typhoid witness for the plaintiff), he found a fracture of the smaller bone.
ALIANZA | DOLIENTE | GAYANES | LIMPANGUG | MAC MAC | PAJAO | REYES | TABADA U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | PAGE 12 OF 19
TORTS & DAMAGES (2019) FINALS REVIEWER ATTY. RASHID VEDRA PANDI
The mother went to the NBI and logged a complaint against the CRUZ VS. AGAS
doctors. NBI filed a case of reckless imprudence resulting to
serious physical injury. Facts:
This case was filed by a doctor against another for serious physical
RTC and CA ruled against the doctors, holding that they were injuries through reckless imprudence as well as medical
guilty not of reckless imprudence but of simple imprudence malpractice. One Dr. Cruz engaged the services of St. Luke’s
resulting to serious physical injury. They discussed that the Medical Center for a medical check-up testing his blood, urine,
standard for reckless imprudence has not been met in this case. and other fluids. The following day, he was scheduled for a
This standard is the ‘inexcusable lack of precaution’ standard and colonoscopy test. The result was given to a female
that’s more than mere negligence. That is negligence that is so anesthesiologist because the specialist was not around. After that,
wanton and no regard for the possible consequences. Since the the gastroscopy was then conducted to him but afterwards, he did
criminal case did not prosper, they only convicted the doctors with not feel well. He experienced pain in his abdomen and one time
simple negligence resulting to serious physical injuries. The when he went to the comfort room, he collapsed. He then
doctors appealed all the way to the SC. consulted another doctor, a cardiologist, who advised him to get
another check-up so an exploratory laparotomy (opening of
Issues: abdomen) was conducted on him. After the laparotomy, he
WON the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is applicable? NO actually had a hemorrhage on his colon. Because of the
WON they were guilty of the criminal offense? NO hemorrhage, the doctor sought to file a case against the doctor
who conducted the gastroscopy procedure who was Dr. Agas.
Ruling + RVP:
Res ipsa loquitor is not applicable because they only based it on Dr. Cruz filed a case before the City Prosecutor but the latter
the testimony of the mother which the SC said that basing on the dismissed the case. He then went to the DOJ but again, the DOJ
facts of the case, an expert witness should have testified WON in dismissed the case also, thus to the CA. He appealed the case then
that specific circumstance, the injury would have incurred to the SC.
because of the negligence that the doctors imputed.
Issue:
SC also absolved them of the criminal charge. The defense of the WON Dr. Agas was guilty of medical malpractice and reckless
doctors were first, there was no physician-patient relationship and imprudence? NO
second, they passed the liability to the taxi driver because the
prosecution was trying to prove the failure of the doctor to Ruling + RVP:
diagnose immediately, which prolonged the suffering of the § SC relied on the doctrine of non-interference of executive
patient. Third, they were just residents which in that specific functions on the findings of the Prosecutor and the DOJ.
circumstance, when they examined the ankle, they assured the § On the issue of medical malpractice and negligence, the SC
mother that it was going to be okay. In the first defense, they also discussed the 4 elements which are: duty, breach, injury,
cannot just merely deny physician-patient relationship. There is a and proximate causation, all of which were not established in
physician-patient relationship the moment that you entertain the this case.
patient coming to you merely for advice or consultation for § Dr. Agas’ defense was that the colonoscopy was conducted on
professional purposes. On the second defense, they cannot the inner part of the colon but the hemorrhage happened on
merely pass the liability to the taxi driver because the facts of the the outer part which could not be discovered by prior X-ray or
case clearly shows that they failed to properly endorse the case of CT-scan.
the son, which was clearly outside their expertise. And it doesn’t § The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor does not apply in this case
make sense, people going to hospitals for refuge and the hospitals because applying the 4 elements (injury, immediate control,
would say, “We’re not primary, because we’re only here to help. and the thing would not have happened, and absence of
That’s all we can give.” That’s not consistent with public policy, negligence) were not present in this case because in the first
logic and human experience that when you fail to deliver, you just place, it will not be apparent to a layman that the procedures
blame it to another. That’s not the functions of hospitals. Where’s done by Dr. Agas were not inconsistent with what was
your Hippocratic oath now? As to the third defense, they were not required of him as a doctor.
criminally liable but they were civilly liable because of their failure
to exercise the requisite diligence that they should have observed.
If they were mere residents and the concern was beyond their PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. VS. AGANA
expertise already, they should have endorsed it to the proper
doctor or orthopedic surgeon to really examine the foot of the
Facts:
child. You should not overpromise in the same way that lawyers
The wife complained of pain in her reproductive system. Because
should not overstate or understate the cause of their clients. For
of difficulty of bowel movement and bloody anal discharge, she
doctors, if it is beyond your capacity, skill-set, you should be
went to Medical General Hospital which is owned by Professional
endorsing it to the proper department. In this case, it should be
Services Incorporated. She was diagnosed to be suffering cancer
with the orthopedic department because they are merely general
in the sigmoid area. During the surgery, Dr. Ampil said that the
surgeons who merely passed by. And that fact will not negate the
cancer had already spread to the left ovary, necessitating for a
fact that they administered professional help to the patient which
removal of certain parts.
gave rise to the physician-patient relationship.
Issue:
WON PSI has vicarious liability or direct liability to the spouses?
WON Dr. Ampil is liable? YES
ALIANZA | DOLIENTE | GAYANES | LIMPANGUG | MAC MAC | PAJAO | REYES | TABADA U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | PAGE 13 OF 19
TORTS & DAMAGES (2019) FINALS REVIEWER ATTY. RASHID VEDRA PANDI
Issue:
WON this is in the nature of a medical malpractice case?
WON Dr. Gutierrez, Osaka and the De Los Santos Medical Center
are liable?
ALIANZA | DOLIENTE | GAYANES | LIMPANGUG | MAC MAC | PAJAO | REYES | TABADA U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | PAGE 14 OF 19
TORTS & DAMAGES (2019) FINALS REVIEWER ATTY. RASHID VEDRA PANDI
Ruling + RVP: actually the doctor who tells what the patient must go through.
There was in fact medical malpractice. SC cited the res ipsa The only obligation of the hospital is to provide the room,
loquitur. It said that there are 3 requisites that have to be facilities, etc. Hence, the hospital is not solidarily liable with the
complied with in order for the res ipsa loquitur to apply: doctors.
1. The accident must be of a kind which does not ordinarily occur
in the absence of the negligence of anyone. TN: Careful ta aning solidary liability sa hospital ha kay there are
- This is complied with because normally, a person who other cases where in the SC said that the fact that the hospital
undergoes anesthesia is not expected to come out provides the nurses, anesthesiologist, and the equipment itself is
decerebrum. The only procedure that Erlinda underwent in enough to create the nexus or the link which will make them liable
the OR was the administering of anesthesia to her and the under the doctrine of apparent authority. Just look very carefully
expected result is not wherein she would be in comatose. along these lines in the exams if ever it will be asked.
Hence, there was an accident which does not ordinarily
occur.
2. It is caused by an instrumentality with in the exclusive control SPS. FLORES VS. SPS. PINEDA
of the defendant.
- This is complied with. Everything that happened in the OR Facts:
was under the control of the doctors. Teresita Pineda is a 31-yo woman who consulted with her town
3. The possibility of contributing conduct on the part of the of mate Dr. Flores for her medical condition because she was
the plaintiff is eliminated. experiencing general body weakness, loss of appetite, frequent
- This is complied with. When Erlinda was there in the OR, she urination and thirst, and on-and-off vaginal bleeding. Dr. Flores
was actually just lying down, she didn’t do anything, and she advised her to return the next day but she failed to do so. 11 days
was just waiting for the doctors to administer on her. And later, her medical condition worsened so she was brought to
because of that, it is really impossible for her to contribute United Doctor's Medical Center (UDMC) by her sister and she was
anything because she was under the control of the admitted. Urine and blood samples were taken from her for the
physician. She was under a procedure where she was conduction of certain lab tests. The next day, she underwent a
restrained to do anything. DNC operation, an operation usually for profuse vaginal bleeding
(raspa). The procedure lasted for about 10-15 minutes by the wife
The arguments of the doctors was that lisod man gud kaayo ka of Dr Flores (Dr. Felisima Flores). A few days later, her conditioned
tauran ug tube. That was the contirbutory negligence on the part worsened and eventually died. The family of Teresita filed this
of the patient daw. Short neck nya dili daw kaayu danlog iyang case for medical negligence. Petitioners contended that they
internal organ so lisod kaayu. SC said she was just there, you’re exercised due diligence as medical professionals.
supposed to administer everything. Just because naglisod mo
doesn’t mean iyaha tong sala because of the specific There was a resort to 2 expert witnesses because in a civil case,
configurations of her body. for medical negligence, the burden of proof falls to the plaintiff
who will allege that there was medical negligence. 2 expert
Dr. Osaka’s Liability witnesses were presented in this case. Both expert witnesses said
He was held liable pursuant to the captain of the ship doctrine. He that the high blood sugar level of Teresita should have been taken
was the surgeon in this case and was the one who chose Dr. into consideration.
Gutierrez. By choosing Dr. Gutierrez, it was implied that he
vouched for his skills. They presented an expert witness that said Issue:
that it was not because of the anesthesia but because of the WON the spouses doctors and the hospital should be held solidary
allergic reaction of what was administered to her. But SC said that liable? YES
the witness cannot be an expert witness on allergic mediated
processes because he is not an anesthesiologist, pulmonologist Ruling + RVP:
and not an allergecologist. There were 3 errors on the part of spouses Flores:
(1) They said that there was no indication of high sugar levels
Erminda's credibility to testify but the first time that Teresita was brought to them, Dr.
SC upheld her credibility. She is a clinical nurse and she has been Flores already suspected that there was high blood sugar
appointed as dean because of her credibility. Ordinarily, only level. The results of the urine and blood tests indicated that
physicians and surgeons are allowed to testify whether a patient there was indeed a high blood sugar level. She was later on
has been treated on with a reasonable degree of care. However, diagnosed with diabetes.
if it is a testimony as to the statements or acts of the surgeon, (2) The mere fact that there was general body weakness,
appearances, conditions in the OR, even a non-expert witness frequent urination and thirst – those were already
such as Erminda can testify. symptoms of high sugar level and they failed to take that
into consideration and that should have alerted the spouses.
Liability of the hospital (3) They said that their principal concern was the vaginal
SC gave credence to the defense of the hospital because they were bleeding that's why they immediately conducted a DNC
convinced that there was no EE-ER relationship that existed in the operation. The expert witnesses, taken into consideration
case. It was found out that whenever a physician is admitted to by the SC, correctly said that reasonable prudence would
the hospital, it undergoes through a process wherein it is not have shown that these signs would have been considered
solely the hospital who selects the doctor who goes there. It goes before, during, and after the DNC operation and that the
thru a credential committee who then would recommend to the DNC operation is merely an elective procedure and not an
director of the hospital for the acceptance or rejection of the emergency case. They should have taken into consideration
doctor. Whenever a patient is admitted to the hospital, it is
ALIANZA | DOLIENTE | GAYANES | LIMPANGUG | MAC MAC | PAJAO | REYES | TABADA U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | PAGE 15 OF 19
TORTS & DAMAGES (2019) FINALS REVIEWER ATTY. RASHID VEDRA PANDI
the high blood sugar level and that they should have first required is that there be a reasonable notice. The parents in this
addressed the hyperglycemic state immediately before they case argued that they were not informed but the court said that
conducted the DNC procedure. the parents could not be said unaware and that the specialists or
doctors that they presented were not anthologist or that they are
That was the causal connection so the spouses were liable and the just from DOH. Remember this doctrine of informed consent does
hospital was made jointly and severally liable. not require the doctor to disclose everything to the patient. What
must be disclosed are the material information that would affect
the decision-making process of the patient or possible
DR. RUBI LI VS. SPOUSES SOLIMAN consequence that are reasonable from the operation. And that
the disclosure must be in the language that the patient
Facts: understands because remember, the rationale for this doctrine is
11-year old Angelica was diagnosed with a high-grade (highly to allow the patient to have enough informed decision on his body
malignant) cancer of the bone. Her right leg was amputated. (self-determination).
However, the orthopedic surgeon in performing the amputation
told the parents that it was not enough to cut off the part where
the cancer cells originated and that the child must undergo MENDOZA VS. CASUMPANG, ET AL.
chemotherapy in order to completely eliminate the cancer cells
and to prevent such from spreading throughout the rest of her Facts:
body. Hence, Dr. Rubi Li entered into the picture. She is a medical The wife in this case have died leaving the husband and her
oncologist, a doctor specializing in cancer treatment. children due to medical negligence of the surgeon attending her.
On Feb 13 1990, Josephine went to Dr Mendoza for a surgery for
The very issue in this case was the consultation between the hysterectomy and myomectomy. 3 months after the surgery, she
parents and the doctor because according to the parents, they continued experiencing recurring fever, nausea, and vomiting.
were misled into allowing or consenting to the chemotherapy When she was taking a bath, she noticed that something is
session as they were told that the child has 95% chance of survival protruding in her genital. After that, she tried to call Dr. Mendoza.
if she undergoes chemotherapy. When asked regarding the side Unfortunately, the doctor was unavailable so she went to another
effects, the Doctor mentioned only slight vomiting, hair loss and doctor and that doctor extracted a partially foul-smelling rolled
weakness. On the part of the doctor, she said that she did not only gauze from her cervix. This prompted her to file a damage suit
inform the parents of the three possible side effects, but she also against Dr Mendoza. Unfortunately, while the case was ongoing,
told them of the possible skin discoloration, sterility, damage to she died so she was substituted by her husband and children.
the heart, lungs and kidney as well as low white and red blood
cells, and platelet counts due to the administration of Issue:
chemotherapy session. Nonetheless, the parents consented to the WON Dr. Mendoza who operated her was negligent? YES
chemotherapy despite financial constraint and the child only lived
until the first session. On the day of the scheduled chemotherapy Ruling + RVP:
session, Angelica was administered with 3 chemo drugs with the In the case of Professional Services vs. Agana, a surgical operation
assistance of Dr. D and 3 other doctors. However, on the second is not complete until all the materials or sponges are removed and
day, the child was experiencing skin discoloration and had a hard totally accounted for and it is settled that leaving foreign materials
time breathing. There was blood in the child’s urine and she was after a session is a prima facie negligence. In this case, there was
also suffering from convulsion. The parents asked to stop the no evidence that Josephine had undergone any other surgical
chemotherapy because the child was in pain. The child was operation and it is highly unlikely for her or for any woman to
admitted to the ICU. On the 11th day, the child expired. A damage insert a roll of gauze into her cervix.
suit was filed by the parents against Dr. D and St. Lukes Medical
Center because they were not informed about the possible effect
of chemotherapy. CASUMPANG VS. CORTEJO
The issue is the extent of the information which the doctor must Facts:
relay to the patient or the parents. One morning, Mrs. Cortejo brought her 11-year old son, Edmer, to
the ER of San Juan De Dios Hospital (SJDH) because of difficulty in
Ruling + RVP: breathing, chest pain, stomach pain and fever. In the hospital,
The responsibility of the doctor is not only to treat the patient with they were referred to Dr. Casumpang whose diagnosis states that
due diligence and care but also to inform the patient about the the sickness of the boy is “bronchopneumonia”. However, Mrs.
possible extent and effect if the patient undergoes the chemo. The Cortejo was hesitant on the findings of the Doctor because Edmer
court called it the doctrine of implied consent and cited 3 foreign had a high fever, and had no colds or cough. But Dr. Casumpang
jurisprudence. First, the right of the patient to determine the kind merely told her that her son’s “blood pressure is just being active,”
of treatment and not for the doctor to treat the patient without and remarked that “that’s the usual bronchopneumonia, no colds,
consent. It is very important to inform them because they are no phlegm”. The next day, still suspicious about her son’s illness,
presumed not to have knowledge on medicine so the doctor Mrs. Cortejo again alerted Dr. Casumpang and stated that Edmer
needs to tell the patient the danger, consequence or risk etc. in had a fever, throat irritation, chest and stomach pain, and that
layman’s term or in a language that the patient understands. there are traces of blood in Edmer’s sputum. Despite these, the
Second, in this case, there was no negligence such that the doctor Doctor merely nodded and reassured Mrs. Cortejo that Edmer’s
failed to disclose the important things. There is no legal illness is bronchopneumonia. Later in the morning, Edmer
requirement to disclose the statistical chance of survival. What is vomited “phlegm with blood streak”. This prompted Mr. Cortejo
ALIANZA | DOLIENTE | GAYANES | LIMPANGUG | MAC MAC | PAJAO | REYES | TABADA U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | PAGE 16 OF 19
TORTS & DAMAGES (2019) FINALS REVIEWER ATTY. RASHID VEDRA PANDI
to request for a doctor at the nurses’ station. Dr. Miranda, one of symptoms that the attending physicians should have noticed and
the resident physicians of SJDH, then arrived. Dr. Miranda considered.
conducted a physical check-up of Edmer and found that Edmer
had a low-grade non-continuing fever, and rashes that were not Both the RTC and the CA relied largely on Dr. Jaudian’s expert
typical of dengue fever. At 3pm, Edmer once again vomited blood testimony on dengue diagnosis and management to support their
and upon seeing Dr. Miranda, Mr. Cortejo showed her Edmer’s finding that the petitioning doctors were guilty of breach of duty
blood specimen and reported that Edmer had complained of of care. Dr. Jaudian testified that Edmer's rapid breathing, chest
severe stomach pain and difficulty in moving his right leg. Dr. and stomach pain, fever, and the presence of blood in his saliva
Miranda then examined Edmer’s “sputum with blood” and noted are classic symptoms of dengue fever. According to him, if the
that he was bleeding. Suspecting that the boy could be afflicted patient was admitted for chest pain, abdominal pain, and difficulty
with dengue, he conducted some procedures and informed Dr. in breathing coupled with fever, dengue fever should definitely be
Casumpang, the attending physician of Edmer, about the latter’s considered. Furthermore, the standard of care according to him is
condition. Upon being informed, Dr. Casumpang ordered several to administer oxygen inhalation, analgesic, and fluid infusion or
procedures and the blood test results showed that Edmer was dextrose. If the patient had twice vomited fresh blood and
suffering from “Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever”. The spouses Cortejo thrombocytopenia has already occurred, the doctor should order
then decided to admit Edmer to the Makati Medical Center, and it blood transfusion, monitoring of the patient every 30 minutes,
was there when it was found out that Edmer had “Dengue hemostatic to stop bleeding, and oxygen if there is difficulty in
Hemorrhagic Fever IV” which was already in its irreversible stage. breathing.
Edmer died the next day in the morning. Believing that Edmer’s
death was caused by the negligent and erroneous diagnosis of his The Court finds that Dr. Casumpang, as Edmer's attending
doctors, Mr. Cortejo instituted an action for damages against physician, did not act according to these standards. It will be
SJDH, and the attending physicians: Dr. Casumpang and Dr. recalled that during Dr. Casumpang's first and second visits to
Miranda. Edmer, he already had knowledge of Edmer's laboratory test
result (CBC), medical history, and symptoms (i.e., fever, rashes,
Issues: rapid breathing, chest and stomach pain, throat irritation,
WON Dr. Miranda is liable? NO difficulty in breathing, and traces of blood in the sputum).
WON Dr. Casumpang is liable? YES However, these information did not lead Dr. Casumpang to the
WON SJDH is liable? YES possibility that Edmer could be suffering from either dengue fever
or dengue hemorrhagic fever, as he clung to his diagnosis of
Ruling + RVP: bronchopneumonia.
Although there was physician-patient relationship between Dr.
Miranda and Edmer (as there was an implied consent by Dr. All these manifestations were present and known to Dr.
Miranda when he administered some treatments and diagnosis on Casumpang at the time of his first and second visits to Edmer.
Edmer), and although there was a finding of negligence on the While he noted some of these symptoms in confirming
doctor’s part, the negligence made still does not tantamount to bronchopneumonia, he did not seem to have considered the
medical malpractice. This is because of the fact that Dr. Miranda patient's other manifestations in ruling out dengue fever or
was on his first year of residency and he has no authority to dengue hemorrhagic fever. To our mind, Dr. Casumpang
administer further medical tests because again, they recognize selectively appreciated some, and not all of the symptoms; worse,
that the authority belongs to Dr. Casumpang. Even if he could have he casually ignored the pieces of information that could have been
conducted other diagnosis and could have treated the boy in material in detecting dengue fever.
another way, he could not have imposed such over Dr.
Casumpang’s authority, because in the end, the call was on Dr. Even assuming that Edmer's symptoms completely coincided with
Casumpang. the diagnosis of bronchopneumonia (so that this diagnosis could
not be considered "wrong", we still find Dr. Casumpang guilty of
The consultants actually determine what to do and after the initial negligence.
diagnosis, they refer them to the residents; and the residents just
follow and obey the initial diagnosis made by the consultants. In First, we emphasize that we do not decide the correctness of a
this case, Dr. Miranda cannot go beyond the authority of Dr. doctor's diagnosis, or the accuracy of the medical findings and
Casumpang. Although we have some inclinations na murag sayup treatment. Our duty in medical malpractice cases is to decide –
gyud ni siya, but yet again, he is limited to the authority vested on based on the evidence adduced and expert opinion presented –
him by the Consultant (Dr. Casumpang). whether a breach of duty took place.
The following are the elements of Medical Malpractice: (1) duty, Second, we clarify that a wrong diagnosis is not by itself medical
(2) breach, (3) injury, and (4) proximate causation. Basically, malpractice. Physicians are generally not liable for damages
Breach of duty is both factual and legal issues and as a factual resulting from a bona fide error of judgment. Nonetheless, when
issue, it requires a presentation of an expert witness on what the physician's erroneous diagnosis was the result of negligent
actually is the proper standard that should be followed by the conduct (e.g., neglect of medical history, failure to order the
doctor. appropriate tests, failure to recognize symptoms), it becomes an
evidence of medical malpractice.
In the present case, expert testimony is crucial in determining, (1)
the standard medical examinations, tests, and procedures that the Third, we also note that medicine is not an exact science; and
attending physicians should have undertaken in the diagnosis and doctors, or even specialists, are not expected to give a 100%
treatment of dengue fever; and (2) the dengue fever signs and accurate diagnosis in treating patients who come to their clinic for
consultations. Error is possible as the exercise of judgment is
ALIANZA | DOLIENTE | GAYANES | LIMPANGUG | MAC MAC | PAJAO | REYES | TABADA U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | PAGE 17 OF 19
TORTS & DAMAGES (2019) FINALS REVIEWER ATTY. RASHID VEDRA PANDI
called for in considering and reading the exhibited symptoms, the ALANO VS. MAGUD-LOGMAO
results of tests, and in arriving at definitive conclusions. But in
doing all these, the doctor must have acted according to Facts:
acceptable medical practice standards. Arnelito Logmao was brought to the East Avenue Medical Center
by sidewalk vendors who allegedly saw him fall from the overpass.
In the present case, evidence on record established that in There, his patient’s data sheet identified him as Angelito Lugmoso.
confirming the diagnosis of bronchopneumonia, Dr. Casumpang Considering that his deterioration progressively deteriorated, and
selectively appreciated some and not all of the symptoms no vacancy was available at the ICU of East Avenue Medical
presented, and failed to promptly conduct the appropriate tests Center, and upon recommendation by a resident physician of the
to confirm his findings. In sum, Dr. Casumpang failed to timely National Kidney Institute (NKI) who also does the rounds at EAMC,
detect dengue fever, which failure, especially when reasonable Logmao/Lugmoso was transferred to NKI. His name was recorded
prudence would have shown that indications of dengue were as Angelito Lugmoso at the NKI. Since there being no relatives
evident and/or foreseeable, constitutes negligence. around, Jennifer Misa, the transplant coordinator, was instructed
to locate his family by enlisting the assistance of the police and the
Wrong diagnosis per se does not amount to medical malpractice. media. Dr. Ona, requested the Laboratory Section to conduct
However, if the wrong diagnosis is the result of negligence, it cross-matching and tissue typing, so that if the patient expires
becomes an evidence of medical malpractice. In this case, the despite the necessary medical care and management, and found
negligence was the selective consideration of symptoms which a suitable organ donor, provided his family would consent to it, his
caused the erroneous diagnosis of Elmer. Apart from failing to organs could be detached and transplanted promptly to a
promptly detect dengue fever, Dr. Casumpang also failed to compatible beneficiary. Jennifer secured the patient data of
promptly undertake the proper medical management needed for Angelito from EAMC and contacted several television and radio
this disease. Dr. Casumpang failed to measure up to the standards stations for the purpose of locating the family of Lugmoso. She
as testified by Dr. Jaudian. The evidence strongly suggests that he also sought the assistance of the PNP to locate the whereabouts
ordered a transfusion of platelet concentrate instead of blood of Angelito’s family. Angelito was eventually pronounced dead,
transfusion. The tourniquet test was only conducted after Edmer's hence, Dr. Ona set in motion the removal of organs of Angelito for
second episode of bleeding, and the medical management (as organ transplantation. He sought permission from the Executive
reflected in the records) did not include antibiotic therapy and Director, Dr. Alano, who issued a Memorandum approving the
complete physical examination. transplant as long as all the requisite requirements had been
complied with and the NBI had been informed of the planned
Athough there is no ER-EE relationship between SJDH and the transplant. The NBI thru Dr. Reyes gave verbal approval to the
petitioning doctors, SJDH is still solidarily liable based on the planned transplant. One kidney and the pancreas were
Doctrine of Apparent Authority. As a rule, hospitals are not liable transplanted to other patients. A doctor then made arrangements
for the negligence of its independent contractors. However, it may with Funerario Oro for the embalmment of the remains of
be found liable if the physician or independent contractor acts as Angelito for a period of 15 days to afford more time for the relative
an ostensible agent of the hospital. This exception is also known of Angelito to locate his remains. When the NKI issued a press
as the "doctrine of apparent authority”. Under this doctrine, a release announcing the successful organ transplant, a cousin of
hospital can be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of a Angelito heard it on the radio. Sensing a vague resemblance to
physician (or an independent contractor) if the plaintiff can prove Angelito Logmao’s name, she reported it to his mother. When
these two factors: first, the hospital's manifestations; and second, they went to Funeraria Oro to see the remains, it was there that
the patient's reliance. As regards the first factor, the hospital need they discovered the remains of Angelito in a cheap casket.
not make express representations to the patient that the Previously, Arnelito’s sister reported that her brother did not
physician or independent contractor is an employee of the return home after seeing a movie in Cubao. Because of this
hospital; representation may be general and implied. As regards discovery, the mother filed a complaint for damages. Plaintiff
the second factor, the important consideration in determining the alleged that defendants conspired to remove the organs of
patient's reliance is: whether the plaintiff is seeking care from the Arnelito while the latter was still alive and that they concealed his
hospital itself or whether the plaintiff is looking to the hospital true identity.
merely as a place for his/her personal physician to provide medical
care. Ruling + RVP:
A careful reading of the above shows that petitioner instructed his
In the case, SJDH impliedly clothed Dr. Casumpang with apparent subordinates to "make certain" that "all reasonable efforts" are
authority leading the respondent to believe that he is an exerted to locate the patient's next of kin, even enumerating ways
employee or agent of the hospital. Based on the records, the in which to ensure that notices of the death of the patient would
respondent relied on SJDH rather than upon Dr. Casumpang, to reach said relatives. It also clearly stated that permission or
care and treat his son Edmer. His testimony during trial showed authorization to retrieve and remove the internal organs of the
that he and his wife did not know any doctors at SJDH. They deceased was being given ONLY IF the provisions of the applicable
brought their son to SJDH for diagnosis because of their family law had been complied with. Such instructions reveal that
doctor's referral which did not specifically point to Dr. Casumpang petitioner acted prudently by directing his subordinates to
or even to Dr. Miranda, but to SJDH. Significantly, the respondent exhaust all reasonable means of locating the relatives of the
had relied on SJDH's representation of Dr. Casumpang's authority. deceased. He could not have made his directives any clearer. He
By referring Dr. Casumpang to care and treat for Edmer, SJDH even specifically mentioned that permission is only being granted
impliedly held out Dr. Casumpang as a member of its medical staff. IF the Department of Surgery has complied with all the
SJDH also failed to advise Mrs. Cortejo that Dr. Casumpang is just requirements of the law. Verily, petitioner could not have been
an independent contractor. faulted for having full confidence in the ability of the doctors in
ALIANZA | DOLIENTE | GAYANES | LIMPANGUG | MAC MAC | PAJAO | REYES | TABADA U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | PAGE 18 OF 19
TORTS & DAMAGES (2019) FINALS REVIEWER ATTY. RASHID VEDRA PANDI
ALIANZA | DOLIENTE | GAYANES | LIMPANGUG | MAC MAC | PAJAO | REYES | TABADA U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | PAGE 19 OF 19