Lozada, Dennise Endri D.

Torts and Damages

Atty. Caronan Wednesday 7:30-9:30

1. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines vs. People of the Philippines

G. R. No. 147703; April 14, 2004

Facts: Napoleon Roman Macadangdang, an employee of petitioner Philippine Rabbit Bus

Lines, was found guilty and convicted, by the RTC, of the crime of reckless imprudence
resulting to triple homicide, multiple physical injuries and damage to property, and was
sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment with payment for damages done against the
offended party. The court further ruled that in the event of the insolvency of the accused, the
petitioner would be held civilly liable. The accused, however, jumped bail and remained-at-
large. The judgment became final and executory and the court dismissed the appeal set forth
by the petitioner under Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner filed an appeal
on the trial courts order which was then dismissed by the Court of Appeals stating that to
allow the employer to dispute independently the civil liability fixed in a criminal case against
one of their employees would be to amend, nullify, and defeat a final judgment. Hence, the
petitioner escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.
Issue: 1. Whether or not the petitioner employer has subsidiary liability over the civil
liabilities incurred by convicted employee.

Held: Yes, the court held that petitioner shall be liable for the civil liabilities incurred by
Napoleon through his conviction. Under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, the
employee has subsidiary liability over their employees for felonies committed by the latter in
the discharge of their duties. It is needed, however, to have adequate evidence to establish
that (1) they are indeed the employers of the convicted employees; (2) that the former is
engaged in some kind of industry; (3) that the crime was committed by the employees in the
discharge of their duties; and (4) that the execution against the latter has not been satisfied
due to insolvency. In instituting a criminal action, a civil action is deemed to have been
impliedly instituted with it unless the offended party decides to waive the civil action,
reserves the right to institute it separately, or institutes it prior to the criminal action.
Therefore, once the judgment is final and executory, the civil liability shall also be executory.
In this case, the convicted employee has already absconded his bail and following Section 8
of Rule 124, he has been deemed to have waived his right to appeal and his judgment has
become final and executory; to allow the employer to appeal independently will enable them
to amend, nullify, or defeat a final judgment rendered by a competent court. The decision
convicting an employee in a criminal case is binding and conclusive upon the employer not
only with regard to the formers’ civil liability, but also with regard to its amount. The liability
of an employer cannot be separated from that of the employee.
2. Alfedo Pacis and Cleopatra Pacis vs. Jerome Jovanne Morales
G. R. No. 169467; February 25, 2010

Facts: Respondent Morales was the owner of the Top Gun Firearms and Ammunitions Store
in Baguio City where Alfred Pacis, son of the petitioners, died as a result of a shooting
incident. At the time of the incident, respondent was in Manila and his employees, Matibag
and Herbolario, were the ones accompanying Alfred and were entrusted with the keys to the
drawers in the gun store. In one of the drawers, a loaded gun was kept. It was brought in by a
customer to the gun store for repair and respondent left it in the said drawer. It appeared then
that the employees brought out the gun from the drawer and placed it on top of the table.
Alfred got hold of the same but was asked to return the gun. He followed suit but the gun
suddenly went off, the bullet hitting Alfred in the head. As a result, the petitioners filed a case
for homicide against one of the employees and a civil case for damages against respondent.
The trial court dismissed the homicide case but held the respondent civilly liable under
Article 2180 in relation to Article 2176 of the civil code. On appeal, the Court of Appeals
reversed the decision, stating that there was no employer-employee relationship between
respondent employees as the element of control was absent. Even in the of such relationship
present, no negligence could be attributed to him as he observed the diligence of a good
father of a family as he put the gun in one of his drawers and locked it for the said gun not to
be accessible to anyone. Hence the petition.

Issue: Whether or not respondent is liable for tort under Article 2176 of the Civil Code.

Held: Yes, the court found for the petitioners. It is noted that the case filed by petitioners is
grounded on Article 2176 of the Civil Code and not in the civil liability arising out of the
criminal action. The former, being more primary and direct, is based on the persons- in this
case the respondent- negligence. Respondent kept a loaded weapon inside his drawers. As a
gun store owner, respondent is presumed to be knowledgeable about firearms safety and
should have known never to keep a loaded weapon inside his store to avoid injury or harm to
others. Furthermore, he should have made sure that the gun that has been brought in for repair
is not loaded precisely because it is defective and should have been stored in a vault to avoid
any accidents. For failing to do so, respondent is guilty of negligence.
3. Air France vs. Rafael Carrascoso and the Honorable Court of Appeals
G. R. No. L-21438; September 28, 1966

Facts: This case revolved on the incident that happened to respondent Carrascoso in his flight
from Manila to Rome. Petitioners, through their agent, issued a “first class” round trip
airplane ticket from Manila to Rome. From Manila to Bangkok, respondent travelled in “first
class” but at Bangkok, he was asked by the manager of the airline forced to vacate his “first
class” seat for a white man who had a better right over the seat. Respondent refused and the
two of them got into a commotion subdued only by the other Filipino passengers who urged
respondent to give up his “first class” seat. Respondent then filed an action for damages
before the Court of First Instance of Manila which was granted and included moral,
exemplary, and a difference in the fare between the “first class” ticket and the tourist ticket he
was transferred to afterwards. Respondents appealed before the Court of Appeals for the
award of moral damages as there was no finding of bad faith on their part. The Court
affirmed the decision of the trial court, only changing the amount of the ticket prices. Hence,
the petition before the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not respondent was deserving of moral damages.

Held: Yes, the court ruled that the moral damages, and other damages, on that note was
proper. Petitioner is an airline involved in the transportation system. A contract to transport
passengers is different from any other contractual relation as the former is impressed with
public interest. Hence, any neglect or malfeasance if the carrier’s employees can be a ground
for action for damages. In this case, respondent had been wrongfully expelled from his “first
class” seat which he had paid for and the petitioners had issued for him. It is undoubtful that
what transpired is humiliating for the respondent when he has to give up his seat and transfer
to a tourist class for a man whose right has not been established. Therefore, the award for
damages are proper.
4. Rogelio E. Ramos and Erlinda Ramos, in their own behalf and as natural guardians of the
minors, Rommel Ramos, Roy Roderick Ramos and Ron Raymond Ramos vs. Court of
Appeals, Delos Santos Medical Center, Dr. Orlindo Hosaka and Dra. Perfecta Gutierrez
G. R. No. 124354; December 29, 1999

Facts: Erlinda Ramos was scheduled to have a cholecystectomy, an operation involving the
removal of a stone in her gall bladder, after being examined by one of the
respondents, Dr. Hosaka. Rogelio Ramos, husband of Erlinda, asked Dr. Hosaka to
find a good anesthesiologist who would turn out to be the other respondent, Dra.
Gutierrez. On the day of the surgery the patient was accompanied by Herminda Cruz
inside the operating room. The patient and her company waited for three hours for the
arrival of Dr. Hosaka. Upon his arrival, the patient was prepared for surgery and Dra.
Gutierrez began intubating Erlinda. The doctor remarked that it was difficult to
intubate the patient and that may be the tube was wrongly inserted. The patients’
nailbed began to turn blue, as noticed by Herminda, and was placed in a
Trendelenburg position, an indication that there was a decrease in the supply of blood
to the patients’ brain. Dr. Hosaka then called another doctor to intubate the patient.
Petitioners were then informed, later on, by Dr. Hosaka that something went wrong
with the intubation. Erlinda suffered brain damage as a result of the absence of
oxygen in her brain for four to five minutes and left her in a comatose condition.
Petitioners then filed for an action for damages against respondents for negligence and
the trial court decided on their favor. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals
reversed the decision. Hence, the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue(s): 1. Whether or not the Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable to the case.
2. Whether or not the hospital could be held solidarily liable with the respondents.

Held: 1. The Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applied in the case. The doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur speaks of the rule that in the occurrence of an injury, which happened under
the management of the defendant or any of his servants and it could not have
happened during the course of ordinary things and with the use of proper care, it
affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of any explanation by the defendant, that
the accident arose from or was caused by the defendants want of care, or of his
negligence. It is based on human experience and common knowledge that the
negligence itself may be deduced from the mere occurrence of the accident itself. In
this case, the patient was scheduled to have a cholecystectomy and expected a routine
general surgery to be performed on her gall bladder. The outcome, however, was
brain damage which would normally not happen absent any negligence on the part of
the defendants. Normally, a patient being put in anesthesia would not result to him
being decerebrate if the proper procedure was followed. Furthermore, all the
instruments used in the intubation was all under the exclusive control of the
defendant. The presumption of negligence was ot broken nor defeated by the
defendants.

2. The hospital was held solidarily liable with the respondents under Article 2180 of
the Civil Code which considered an employer accountable for the acts of his
employees under the relationship of patria potestas. The hospital failed to prove that it
exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the hiring and supervision of
the defendant.
5. Castillex Industrial Corporation vs Vicente Vasquez, Jr. and Luisa So Vasquez, and Cebu
Doctors Hospital, Inc.
G. R. No. 132266; December 21, 1999

Facts: This case stemmed from the incident that happened with one of the managerial
employees of petitioner named Benjamin Abad. Abad, while driving a Toyota Hi-Lux Pick-
up registered under the name of the petitioner, collided with a certain Romeo Vasquez, who
was then driving a motorcycle, and resulted to the latter’s death. Vasquez’s parents then filed
an action for damages against Abad and petitioner. The trial court decided in favor of private
respondents and ordered them jointly and solidarily liable for the payment of damages. On
appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed and modified the decision, insisting that petitioner was
only vicariously liable and should not be considered solidarily liable with Abad. This
prompted petitioner to file a petition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the fourth
paragraph under Article 2180 of the Civil Code should be considered and not the fifth, that
Abad was not acting within the scope of his assigned task when the incident happened, and
that they should not be burdened in proving that the employee was not acting within his
assigned task when the incident happened.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner was vicariously liable with their employee.

Held: No, the court held that petitioner should be free from any liability for any damages
caused by its employee Abad. First, the court cleared the distinction between the fourth and
the fifth paragraph under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Both provisions applied the liability
of the employers over acts of their employees. While paragraph fourth paragraph talked about
actions committed either in the service of the branches or on the occasion of their functions,
the fifth paragraph talked about the actions committed by employees within their assigned
tasks. Therefore, whether the actions of these employees were committed outside of the
branches or occasion of their functions, as long as they were committed within their assigned
tasks or within the calls of duty, their employers should be held vicariously liable. There were
no hard and fast rule to determine whether an employee had acted within their assigned task
or within the scope of their duties. In this case, Abad was driving from his place of work after
he did his overtime work to the Goldies Restaurant in Fuente Osmea where he stayed to eat
and chat with friends. When he left the restaurant, somebody even called out to him endearly.
Clearly Abad was engaged in his own affairs and was not acting within his assigned tasks
when he used the company car. Therefore, petitioner was relived from any vicarious liability
for the consequences of Abad.