Article1172_oblicon

8/10/2019 Article1172_oblicon

1/6

143 SCRA 657 Civil Law Torts and Damages Human Relations Article 19and 20 of the Civil Code Negligence

Petitioner was a domestic corporation engaged in the business of receiving andtransmitting messages. One of its employees had committed an error of sendinglibelous messages to a certain Loreto Dionela.

SA IYO WALANG PAKINABANG DUMATING KA DIYAN WALA KANG PADALADITO KAHIT BULBUL MO

The said portion of the telegram was not intended for Loreto

As a consequence, a case was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City.Loreto sued RCPI for damages based on Article 19 and 20 of the Civil Code whichprovides:

ART. 19.- Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance ofhis duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and goodfaith.

ART. 20.-Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage toanother, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

In its defense, RCPI averred that there was no intention to malign Loreto and that theattached message was an inside joke between RCPI employees which were notmeant to be attached. RCPI also disclaimed liability as it insisted it should be heldliable for the libelous acts of its employees.

Loreto however averred that the said message was read by his employees and itaffected greatly his business reputation

The decision was in favor of Dionela. When it was appealed to the Court of Appeals,the decision of the RTC was affirmed. RCPI then went to the Supreme Court, prayingthat it was not liable to the respondent since the criminal act from which the civilliability arouses was an act of its employee; there was no sufficient publication of thelibelous telegram; and that the liability of the petitioner arising from Articles 19 and 20of the Civil Code was erroneous

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code was violated by RCPI, asclaimed by the Court of Appeals.

2. Whether or not Dionela was entitled to have some indemnification from thepetitioner due to damages incurred by the latter.

RULING:

Respondent committed breach of contract through the negligence of itsemployees. It was still said to be liable since every time a person transmits amessage through the facilities of the petitioner, a contract is entered into. Incontracts, the negligence of the employee is the negligence of the employer.Libelous messages or matters were included in the message transmitted, without theknowledge or consent of the sender. Breach of contract was committed then. As acorporation, the petitioner can act only through its employees. Hence, the acts of itsemployees in receiving and transmitting messages are the acts of the petitioner. Tohold that the petitioner is not liable directly for the acts of its employees in the pursuitof petitioners business is to deprive the general public availing of the services of thepetitioner of an effective and adequate remedy. Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks

for itself) was the doctrine applied by considering the presence of facts orcircumstances surrounding the injury. The Court affirmed the assailed decision.


2/6

PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION VS. COURT OFAPPEALS, HON. REGINA ORDOEZ-BENITEZ, SEGUNDA R. BAUTISTA,and ARSENIA D. BAUTISTA,February 4, 1992

FACTS: Carlitos Bautista was a third year student at the Philippine School ofBusiness Administration. Assailants, who were not members of the schoolsacademic community, while in the premises of PSBA, stabbed Bautista to death.This incident prompted his parents to file a suit against PSBA and its corporateofficers for damages due to their alleged negligence, recklessness and lack ofsecurity precautions, means and methods before, during and after the attack onthe victim.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the compliant states nocause of action against them based on quasi-delicts, as the said rule does notcover academic institutions. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Theirmotion for reconsideration was likewise dismissed, and was affirmed by theappellate court. Hence, the case was forwarded to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not PSBA is liable for the death of the student.

RULING: Because the circumstances of the present case evince a contractualrelation between the PSBA and Carlitos Bautista, the rules on quasi-delict do notreally govern. A perusal of Article 2176 shows that obligations arising from quasi-delicts or tort, also known as extra-contractual obligations, arise only betweenparties not otherwise bound by contract, whether express or implied. However,this impression has not prevented this Court from determining the existence of atort even when there obtains a contract.

Article 2180, in conjunction with Article 2176 of the Civil Code, establishes therule in in loco parentis. Article 2180 provides that the damage should have beencaused or inflicted by pupils or students of the educational institution sought to beheld liable for the acts of its pupils or students while in its custody. However, thismaterial situation does not exist in the present case for, as earlier indicated, the

assailants of Carlitos were not students of the PSBA, for whose acts the schoolcould be made liable. But it does not necessarily follow that PSBA is absolvedform liability.

When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment, there isestablished a contract between them, resulting in bilateral obligations which bothparties is bound to comply with. For its part, the school undertakes to provide thestudent with an education that would presumably suffice to equip him with thenecessary tools and skills to pursue higher education or a profession. Thisincludes ensuring the safety of the students while in the school premises. On theother hand, the student covenants to abide by the school's academicrequirements and observe its rules and regulations.

Failing on its contractual and implied duty to ensure the safety of their student,PSBA is therefore held liable for his death.

Petition denied.


3/6

37 Phil 809 Civil Law Torts and Damages Doctrine of Last Clear Chance

FACTS:In December 1912, Amado Picart was riding his horse and while they were on a75 meter long bridge, he saw Frank Smith Jr.s car approaching. Smith blew hishorn thrice while he was still at a distance away because Picart and his horsewere on Smiths lane. But Picart did not move his horse to the other lane; insteadhe moved his horse closer to the railing. Smith continued driving towards Picart

without slowing down and when he was already so near the horse he swerved tothe other lane. But the horse got scared so it turned its body across the bridge;the horse struck the car and its limb got broken. Picart suffered injuries whichrequired several days of medical attention while the horse eventually died.

ISSUE: Whether or not Smith is negligent.

HELD:Yes. And so was Picart for planting himself on the wrong side of the road.But Smiths negligence succeeded that of Picart . Smith saw at a distance whenhe blew his horn that Picart and his horse did not move to the other lane so heshould have steered his car to the other lane at that point instead of swerving atthe last minute. He therefore had the last clear chance to avoid the unfortunateincident. When Smiths car has approached the horse at such proximity it left nochance for Picart extricate himself and vigilance on his part will not avert injury.Picart can therefore recover damages from Smith but such should beproportioned by reason of his contributory negligence.

TITLE: D.M. Consunji Inc. v Court of Appeals and Maria J. Juego

CITATION: GR No. 137873, April 20, 2001 | 357 SCRA 249

FACTS:

Around 1:30PM of November 2, 1990, Jose Juergo, a construction worker of D.M. ConsunjiInc. fell 14 floors from the Renaissance Tower, Pasig City. He was immediately rushed toRizal Medical Center in Pasig City. The attending physician, Dr. Errol de Yzo, pronounceJose dead on arrival (DOA) at around 2:15PM.

Jose Juergo, together with Jessie Jaluag and Delso Destajo, performing their work ascarpenter at the elevator core of the 14th floor of Tower D, Renaissance Tower Building wereon board a platform. Jose was crushed to death when the platform fell due to removal orlooseness of the pin, which was merely inserted to the connecting points of the chain blockand platform but without a safety lock. Luckily, Jessie and Delso jumped out of safety.

PO3 Rogelio Villanueva of the Eastern Police District investigated the tragedy and filed reportdated Nov. 25, 1990. Maria Juergo, Joses widow filed a complaint on May 9, 1991 fordamages in the RTC and was rendered a favorable decision to receive support from DMConsunji amounting to P644,000.

DM Consunji seeks reversal of the CA decision.

ISSUE: Whether Maria Juergo can still claim damages with D.M. Consunji apart from thedeath benefits she claimed in the State Insurance Fund.

HELD:

The respondent is not precluded from recovering damages under the civil code. MariaJuergo was unaware of petitioners negligence when she filed her claim for death benefitsfrom the State Insurance Fund. She filed the civil complaint for damages after she received acopy of the police investigation report and the Prosecutors Memorandum dismissing criminal complaint against petitioners personnel.

Supreme Court remanded to the RTC of Pasig City to determine whether the award decreedin its decision is more than that of the Employees Compensation Commission (ECC). Shouldthe award decreed by the trial court be greater than that awarded by the ECC, paymentsalready made to private respondent pursuant to the Labor Code shall be deducted therefrom.


4/6

G.R. No. 145804 February 6, 2003

Lessons Applicable: Actionable Document (transportation)

Laws Cited: Art. 1755,Art. 1756,Art. 1759,Art. 1763

FACTS:

October 14, 1993, 7:30 p.m. : Drunk Nicanor Navidad (Nicanor)entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a token.

While Nicanor was standing at the platform near the LRT tracks,the guard Junelito Escartin approached him.

Due to misunderstanding, they had a fist fight Nicanor fell on the tracks and killed instantaneously upon being hit

by a moving train operated by Rodolfo Roman December 8, 1994: The widow of Nicanor, along with her children,

filed a complaint for damages against Escartin, Roman, LRTA,Metro Transit Org. Inc. and Prudent (agency of security guards) forthe death of her husband.

LRTA and Roman filed a counter-claim against Nicanor and a cross-claim against Escartin and Prudent

Prudent: denied liability averred that it had exercised duediligence in the selection and surpervision of its security guards

LRTA and Roman: presented evidence Prudent and Escartin: demurrer contending that Navidad had failed

to prove that Escartin was negligent in his assigned task RTC: In favour of widow and against Prudent and Escartin,

complaint against LRT and Roman were dismissed for lack of merit

CA: reversed by exonerating Prudent and held LRTA and Romanliable

ISSUE: W/N LRTA and Roman should be liable according to the

contract of carriage

HELD: NO. Affirmed with Modification: (a) nominal damages isDELETED (CANNOT co-exist w/ compensatory damages) (b) Roman isabsolved.

Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from

the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, isburdened with the duty off exercising utmost diligence in ensuringthe safety of passengers

Civil Code: Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers

safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using theutmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for allthe circumstances

Art. 1756. In case of death or injuries to passengers,common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to haveacted negligently, unless they prove tha t they observed

extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755 Art. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries

to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the formeemployees, although such employees may have acted beyond the

scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of thecommoncarriers

This liability of the common carriers does NOT cease upon proofthat they

Exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family inthe selection and

supervision of their employees
http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/2013/05/jurisprudence-gr-no-145804-february-6.htmlhttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/2013/05/jurisprudence-gr-no-145804-february-6.htmlhttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/2013/05/jurisprudence-gr-no-145804-february-6.html


5/6

Art. 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered bya passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of otherpassengers or of strangers, if the common carriers employeesthrough the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a familycould have prevented or stopped the act or omission.

Carriers presumed to be at fault or been negligent and by simpleproof of injury, the passenger is relieaved of the duty to stillestablish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its employeesand the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury isdue to an unforeseen event or to force majeure

Where it hires its own employees or avail itself of the services of anoutsider or an independent firm to undertake the task, the commoncarrier is NOT relieved of its responsibilities under the contract ofcarriage

GR: Prudent can be liable only for tort under Art. 2176 and relatedprovisions in conjunction with Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. (Tort

may arise even under a contract, where tort [quasi-delict liability]is that which breaches the contract)

EX: if employers liability is negligence or fault on the part of theemployee, employer can be made liable on the basis of the

presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercisediligentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision of itsemployees.

EX to the EX: Upon showing due diligence in the selection andsupervision of the employee

Factual finding of the CA: NO link bet. Prudent and the death ofNicanor for the reason that the negligence of Escartin was NOTproven

NO showing that Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act

or omission, he must also be absolved from liability

Contractual tie bet. LRT and Nicanor is NOT itself a juridical relationbet. Nicanor and Roman

Roman can be liable only for his own fault or negligence Labels: 2003 , Actionable Document , Art. 1755 , Art. 1756 , Art. 1759 , Art. 1763 , Ca

Digest , February 6 ,G.R. No. 145804 , Juris Doctor , LRTA v.

Navidad , transportation , transportation case digest
http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/2003http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/2003http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/2003http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Actionable%20Documenthttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Actionable%20Documenthttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Actionable%20Documenthttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Art.%201755http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Art.%201755http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Art.%201755http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Art.%201756http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Art.%201756http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Art.%201756http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Art.%201759http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Art.%201759http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Art.%201759http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Art.%201763http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Art.%201763http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Art.%201763http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Case%20Digesthttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Case%20Digesthttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Case%20Digesthttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Case%20Digesthttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/February%206http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/February%206http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/G.R.%20No.%20145804http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/G.R.%20No.%20145804http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/G.R.%20No.%20145804http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Juris%20Doctorhttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Juris%20Doctorhttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Juris%20Doctorhttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/LRTA%20v.%20Navidadhttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/LRTA%20v.%20Navidadhttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/LRTA%20v.%20Navidadhttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/LRTA%20v.%20Navidadhttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/transportationhttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/transportationhttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/transportationhttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/transportation%20case%20digesthttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/transportation%20case%20digesthttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/transportation%20case%20digesthttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/transportation%20case%20digesthttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/transportationhttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/LRTA%20v.%20Navidadhttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/LRTA%20v.%20Navidadhttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Juris%20Doctorhttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/G.R.%20No.%20145804http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/February%206http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Case%20Digesthttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Case%20Digesthttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Art.%201763http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Art.%201759http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Art.%201756http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Art.%201755http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/Actionable%20Documenthttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/search/label/2003


6/6

Article1172_oblicon

Documents

Transcript of Article1172_oblicon