Construction Development vs Estrella

The plaintiff Estrella, together with her granddaughter boarded a BLTB bus en route San Pablo City in Laguna. However, they encountered an accident, their bus being rammed from behind by a tractor truck of CDCP in NLEX. Upon collision, the seats of the BLTB bus pushed forward, pinning their knees between their seats and the seats in front. They regained consciousness only when the rescuers extricated them from the crash by boring a hole against the bus.

The plaintiff sued the CDCP (precursor of now PNNC), BLTB, and both the drivers of the collided vehicles for damages. The latter alleged that the drivers Payunan (CDCP) and Datinguinoo (BLTB) were negligent as they did not obey traffic regulations; that both CDCP and BLTB were negligent in the selection and supervision of their respective employees; that BLTB was negligent in allowing the undermaintained bus to operate.

The trial court, after trial, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that CDCP and BLTB and their respective drivers were negligent. The trial court held that BLTB is liable for damages on account of its breach of contract of carriage, failing to carry the passengers to their destination with outmost diligence.

The trial court also held that CDCP is liable for damages on account of its failure to diligently supervise its employees in the discharge of their duties, there being evidence that its driver was driving at excessive speed during the collision.

WORTHY TO NOTE that in the decision of the trial court, the 1st paragraph of the dispositive portion ordered CDCP and BLTB and their respective drivers to pay damages. In the 2nd paragraph thereof, the trial court ordered CDCP and its driver to pay damages anew for moral damages.

Upon the defendant’s appeal with the CA, the appellate court ruled to affirm the trial court decision with modification as to legal interest and the award of exemplary damages.

The defendant CDCP sought recourse with the SC, arguing that BLTB and its driver are solely liable for the damages sustained by the plaintiffs, and that it should not be held liable to pay damages twice arising from the same incident.

WON there was double recovery of damages executed against the defendant – petitioner

(1.) There was no double recovery. In the present case, the 1st award as per the trial court decision is for culpa acuillana (quasi delict). There exist a joint tortfeasor between CDCP and BLTB. Asdie from the fact that BLTB, the common carrier was found to be negligent, the driver of CDCP was also found to be negligent upon discovering that the later was driving at an excessive speed, as per the police report (there were skid marks on the road).

It is held under numerous jurisprudence that the owner of the other vehicle which collided with a common carrier is solidarily liable to the injured passenger. Joint tort feasors are jointly and severally liable for the tort which they commit.

Joint tort feasors are not liable pro rata. A payment in full for the damage done, by one of the joint tort feasors, of course satisfies any claim which might exist against the others. There can be but satisfaction. The release of one of the joint tort feasors by agreement generally operates to discharge all.

(2.) There is no double recovery. The 1st award for damages is grounded upon a joint torfeasr between CDCP and BLTB. The 2nd award is for damages against CDCP alone.

Exconde vs Capuno

The defendant Delfin Capuno was sued together with his son, Dante Capuno for damages in connection with a criminal case for homicide due to reckless imprudence filed against the son Capuno. In the criminal case, the plaintiff – private complainant alleged the following, to wit;

1. That the accused, a 15 year old minor, was a member of the Boy Scouts Org. and a student of Balintawak Elementary School; that the latter attended a Jose Rizal parade;2. That the accused, together with a group of student attendees boarded a jeepney en route to the parade grounds; that the driver of the jeepney at that time permitted the accused to drive the jeepney; that the jeepney turned turtle, causing the death of the deceased.

Initially, Dante Capuno was charged with the murder the deceased Caperina and Ticzon, where the mother of the deceased Caperina, herein plaintiff Exconde, reserved her right to institute a separate civil action against the accused.

After conviction of the accused Dante Capuno, the plaintiff filed an action for damages against the accused and his father, Delfin Capuno. The plaintiff alleged that the father Capuno is jointly liable with the accused on account of his failure to supervise his son.

As a defense, the father Capuno alleged that he cannot be held liable for damages on account that during the time of the incident, he had no control and supervision over his son, and that he is not even under his custody.

The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, hence the recourse of the plaintiff with the SC.

WON the father Capuno must be held liable for damages for the reckless imprudence of his son.

(1.) Yes, the father Capuno is liable for the negligence committed by his son. Under the civil code, the negligent acts committed by minors WHO LIVES WITH THEM, which caused damages to another must be borne by the father, or the mother in case of the former’s incapacity or death. The liability is a necessary consequence of parental authority.

The only way for the parents to deny liability is to prove that they exercised due diligence of a good father of a family; such was not proved in the present case.

(2.) Although the civil code provides that teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for the damages caused by their pupils or apprentices under their custody, such is not applicable in the present case on account that the accused is not a student or an apprentice in an institution of arts and trades.

Cuadra vs Monfort

The plaintiff Ulises Cuadra filed an action for damages against herein defendant Monfort. During trial, the plaintiff alleged that his daughter, Maria Teresa Cuadra (12 years old), together with the daughter of the defendant, Maria Teresa Monfort (13 years old), are grade 6 student of Mabini Elementary School.

At the day of the incident, the children’s teacher requested both to weed the grass around the school premises. Upon weeding the same, the Monfort found a plastic headband. Jokingly, she shouted that she found an earthworm, and suddenly threw the said ornament towards Cuadra and hit the latter on the right eye. Due to the pain, Cuadra rubbed powder onto her eyes, which caused the eye to be infected.

As a consequence of the incident, she underwent surgery twice which necessitated a sizable amount of money. Despite the medical procedures undertaken, Cuadra lost her sight on her right eye.

After trial, the father Monfort was ordered to pay the damages prayed for. Hence the recourse of Monfort with the SC, alleging that he is not liable for the damages sustained by the plaintiff’s daughter.

WON Monfort is liable for the damages sustained by the plaintiff’s daughter as a consequence of t6he horseplaying of their children.

(1.) No, Monfort is not liable for damages. Although it is provided under the civil code that the negligence of a minor child which caused damage to another must be borne by the father or mother, as the case may be, such liability may be denied by proof of the parent’s exercise of due diligence of a good father of the family.

In the present case, the father Monfort cannot be expected to exercise due diligence while the daughter was in school. The father has the right to expect that the teachers who had special parental authority over the children under their custody would exercise such diligence to prevent untoward incidents such as in the present case.

(2.) The parents of the minor child cannot be expected to exercise such diligence on account that the child is not even under their custody during the incident. Parents are not burdened by law to anticipate every untoward incident which may involve their children.

It is not proven by evidence that the child has a mischievous propensity which is imputable to the parents.

Dissenting: There is nothing in the record that would indicate that Alfonso Monfort had properly advised his daughter to behave properly and not to play dangerous jokes on her classmate and playmates. Without proof of such, he can be liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. There is nothing in the record to show that he had done anything at all to even try to minimize the damage caused upon by his child.

Gutierrez vs CA

The plaintiffs spouses Baloyo filed an action for damages against herein defendants Gutierrez and Balisalisa for their negligence which caused their daughter’s death. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that Gutierrez, a contractor, and Balisalia, a project engineer, were contracted by the Bureau of Public Works for the construction of a drainage system.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant Gutierrez, under the supervision Balisalisa, proceeded to excavate a hole near the Mabini Elementary School through means of a crane. The pile of dirt dug up was piled against adobe wall of the said school.

When the pile reached the height of the fence, the crane was used to flatten the same, causing immense stress against the wall of the school. Eventually, the wall collapsed inward the school, pinning down students who were playing within the school grounds. Consequently, the daughter of the plaintiffs was buried within the rubble, causing her death.

The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay moral and exemplary damages.

Upon appeal of the respondent with the SC, he alleged that the liability is without justification on account that there existed no employer – employee relationship between him and the crane operators.WON the defendant – petitioner is liable for damages.

(1.) Yes, Gutierrez is liable for damages. In the present case, the petitioner could have reasonably expected that the adobe wall will collapse if immense pressure is exerted against it. The petitioner ought to have known that piling of dirt and pressing it down against an otherwise weak wall is not the right thing to do.

The danger not only to the wall but also to the students on the other side of the wall could have been easily anticipated, and yet they did not desist from doing the negligent act, not exerted any precautionary measure to avoid any accident.

For such an omission, the plaintiffs are entitled to moral and exemplary damages. The petitioner Gutierrez, being a contractor for public works, must be more careful in the performance of their contracts. The award of such damages is a deterrent for other contractors to exercise a trifling degree of diligence.

(2.) The allegation that no employer – employee relationship exists between his and the crane operators is without merit. Under the contract and by overt actions of the defendants and his operators, it is readily apparent that the latter are his employees. Such an allegation is made for purposes of delay and evasion.

Phil. Rabbit Lines vs Phil. Am. Forwarders

The plaintiff Philippine Rabbit filed an action for damages against the defendant Phil. Am. Forwarders and its manager named Balingit for negligence based on culpa aquillana.

In its complaint, the plaintiff alleged that Pineda, the driver of the truck owned by Phil. Am. Forwarders, drove recklessly along a national highway in Pampangga.

The truck of the defendant collided with the bus of the plaintiff, driven by Pangalanan where the latter sustained injuries as a result. The bus also sustained major damage and was out of commission for 79 days, causing the plaintiff to lose profits.

As a defense, Balingit alleged that he is not the employer of Pineda, and that he is merely a manager of the corporation which employs Pineda as driver.

The trial court took credence of Balingit’s defense and dismissed the complaint against the latter. With such dismissal, the plaintiffs appealed with the CA, where the appellate court certified the case with the SC as a matter which involves pure questions of law.

The plaintiff – petitioner argued that the term “employer” under the civil code covers managers of corporations

WON Balingit is liable as an “employer” of the negligent driver.

(1.) No, Balingit is not liable. Under the civil code, the employers are liable for the negligent acts committed by its employees in the performance of the latter’s duties.

However, the term “employer” does not cover manager of the corporation which employs the negligent employee.

Hence, under the allegations of the complaint, no tortious or quasi-delictual liability can be fastened on Balingit as manager of Phil-American Forwarders, Inc., in connection with the vehicular accident already mentioned because he himself may be regarded as an employee or dependiente of his employer, Phil-American Forwarders, Inc.

Pilipinas Shell vs CA

The respondent Camacho operates a Shell Gasoline Station in Naguillian Road, Baguio. Subsequently, the defendant requested the petitioner Shell to conduct a hydro – pressure test on the underground storage tanks of the station to determine whether there is a leak in the tanks.

Shell accepted the request and contracted with Feliciano, through Shell’s Field Manager Mitra, to conduct the said test, by virtue of a job order. With this, Feliciano ordered that the tank be emptied and filled with water through a hose connected to the faucet of the water tank of Camacho. Feliciano, before leaving, ordered the men of Camacho to shut off the water when the tank is filled.

Around 2am, Camacho shut the water line when the water had already reached the lip of the storage tank. HOWEVER, the husband of Camacho started to sell gasoline around 5am in the morning, not knowing that the tank was filled with water, and not gasoline.

The customers returned to the station and informed that their car stalled on account that the gasoline which the respondent sold had water in it. Another customer had reported the incident to the police, and alleged that the respondent is selling adulterated gasoline.

After investigation conducted by Shell’s superintendent, it was discovered that the water which was inside the storage tank being tested seeped into the other tanks which contained the gasoline being dispensed. The respondents ordered an excavation to repair the corroded pipelines; the work was continued by a certain Padua who replaced Feliciano.

Subsequently, the respondents filed an action against Shell for damages due to the negligence of its employees in conducting the hydro – pressure test done to its storage tanks. Shell argued in turn that it is not liable for damages on account that the work was performed by an independent contractor, and not it employees.

The trial court dismissed the complaint, and ruled that Feliciano is neither an employee nor an agent of shell, and that the latter is an independent contractor to whom liability must be taken against.

Upon appeal with the CA, the appellate court reversed the trial court decision and held that Shell is liable. The petitioner Shell sought recourse with the SC, alleging that Feliciano is an independent contractor.

WON Shell is liable for the damages due to the negligence of Feliciano.

(1.) No, Shell is not liable for the negligence of Feliciano on account that the latter is not its employee, but an independent contractor. For vicarious liability of employers to apply, an employer – employee relationship must first be established. The 4 fold test under Labor Law must be utilized to determine the existence of an employer employee relationship. (control, select, dismiss, payment of wages)

In the present case, there is no power of control exercised by Shell over the means and methods to be used by Feliciano in performing the hydro – pressure test. THE FACT THAT MITRA HAD GIVEN THE JOB ORDER TO FELICIANO IS NOT AN EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF CONTROL. Although it is true that Shell was the one which contracted Feliciano, but the mere fact of hiring does not give rise to an employer – employee relationship.

Feliciano is independently maintaining a business under a duly registered business name, "JFS Repair and Maintenance Service," and is duly registered with the Bureau of Domestic Trade. He does not enjoy a fixed salary but instead charges a lump sum consideration for every piece of work he accomplishes.

Metro Manila Transit vs CA

The plaintiff Custodio (minor) boarded a passenger jeepney driven by defendant Calebag and owned by defendant Lamayo, en route to work around 6am. While the jeepney traversed through DBP Avenue in Bicutan, it collided with a fast approaching MMTC bus coming from Honeydew road, driven by defendant Leonardo.

As a result of the collision, the plaintiff was thrown out of the jeepney and landed on the pavement, causing her to lose consciousness. She was brought to Medical City where she regained consciousness after 1 week.

The plaintiff filed an action for damages against the defendants. During trial, all the defendants pointed the fault at each other, alleging that they exercised due diligence in the operation of their respective vehicles.

MMTC however presented numerous TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE to prove that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees.

It alleged and substantiated with evidence that it regularly conducts trainings and seminars for its drivers; that it imposes upon the applicant drivers to submit pertinent documents such as NBI clearances and proof of highest educational attainment to ascertain their qualifications; that if the applicant is found to be acceptable, the latter will still have to undergo an intensive training program; that it has a dispatcher which supervises the operations of the buses.

The trial court held that the drivers of both vehicles for not observing traffic rules and not undertaking necessary precautions when approaching an intersection. The owner of the jeepney was held liable for damages, while exonerating MMTC upon proving that it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.

The plaintiff appealed with the CA insofar as the exoneration of MMTC. The CA granted the appeal and held that MMTC did not manage to prove that it exercised due diligence in the supervision and selection of its employees. The plaintiff, herein petitioner, sought recourse with the SC.

WON MMTC’s evidence is sufficient to prove that it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.

(1.) No, the evidence presented by the petitioner is not sufficient to overturn its liability for the negligence of its employees. Although the petitioner managed to present a wide array of testimonial evidence to prove that it exercise the diligence required, IT DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE, NEITHER DOCUMENTARY NOR TESTIMONIAL, TO PROOVE THAT ITS DRIVER HAD AQUIRED ALL THE QUALIFICATION AND HAD UNDERWENT ALL THE TRAINING THAT THE PETITIONER BOLSTERS.

The mere formulation of various company policies on safety without showing that they were being complied with is not sufficient to exempt petitioner from liability arising from negligence of its employees. It is incumbent upon petitioner to show that in recruiting and employing the erring driver the recruitment procedures and company policies on efficiency and safety were followed.

(2.) With the employer’s failure to prove the exercise of the diligence required of employers, then vicarious liability caused by the negligence of its employees will apply.

Pleyto vs Lomboy

The plaintiff Lomboy filed an action against the defendant Pleyto and Philippine Rabbit for damages. It was alleged by the plaintiff that Pleyto is employed by Philippine Rabbit as a bus driver. The plaintiff alleged that her husband and daughter was onboard a Mitsubishi Lancer driven by his brother – in – law, en route towards Manila around 11:30 in a drizzly morning.

However, the car boarding her husband and daughter collided with the bus en route Vigan driven by the defendant when it overtook a tricycle and occupied the opposite lane at an excessive speed. As a result of the head – on collision, the plaintiff’s husband died, and her daughter sustained physical injuries which necessitated hospitalization.

Pleyto argued in turn that the bus was running slowly at the time of the incident, and that the cause of the collision was the fact that the bus skidded towards the opposite lane when he tried to avoid colliding with the tricycle which he tried to overtake when the same suddenly stopped in front of the bus.

After trial, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and held that Pleyto did not exercise due diligence by not being prudent in overtaking the tricycle, knowing for a fact that the road conditions were wet during that time. Philippine Rabbit was also held liable for its failure to exercise due diligence in the supervision and selection of its employees.

Upon appeal of the defendant with the CA, the CA affirmed the trial court ruling, and held that the negligence of Pleyto is palpable; the fact that the bus skidded upon apllying the breaks indicates that Pleyto was driving at an excessive speed. The Ca also affirmed the liability of Philippine Rabbit by virtue of Art. 2180, the vicarious liability of employers for the negligence of their employees.

The defendant, herein petitioner sought recourse with the SC.

WON the petitioner is vicariously liable for the negligence of its driver.

(1.) Yes, Philippine Rabbit is liable for the negligence of its driver, under the doctrine of vicarious liability. In the present case, Pleyto is undoubtedly negligent in driving the bus. It was discovered that he tried to overtake the tricycle despite the fact that the car carrying the deceased was nearly 50 meters away.

Such is a violation of traffic rules. As such, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove that he exercise due diligence. In the present case however, Pleyto failed to prove such exercise.

(2.) Philippine Rabbit is vicariously liable. Although it managed to present evidence to prove that it imposes a strict guideline in the selection of its employees, such is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence. There must be proof of actual supervision of employees.

There is no proof that that the petitioner employed persons who will supervise the operations of their drivers.

(3.) RE: computation of award of loss of earning capacity. In considering the earning capacity of the victim as an element of damages, the net earnings, which is computed by deducting necessary expenses from the gross earnings, and not the gross earnings, is to be utilized in the computation. BS?