7/25/2019 Torts Cases - repost

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/torts-cases-repost 1/13

CHAPTER 2 > QUASI-DELICTS

 Art. 2176. Whoever by at or o!"##"o$ a%#e# &a!a'e to a$other( there be"$' )a%*t or $e'*"'e$e( "# ob*"'e& to +ay )or the &a!a'e &o$e. S%h)a%*t or $e'*"'e$e( ") there "# $o +re-e,"#t"$' o$trat%a* re*at"o$ betee$ the +art"e#( "# a**e& a %a#"-&e*"t a$& "# 'over$e& by the

+rov"#"o$# o) th"# Cha+ter. /102a

 Art. 2177. Re#+o$#"b"*"ty )or )a%*t or $e'*"'e$e %$&er the +ree&"$' art"*e "# e$t"re*y #e+arate a$& &"#t"$t )ro! the "v"* *"ab"*"ty ar"#"$' )ro!

$e'*"'e$e %$&er the Pe$a* Co&e. 3%t the +*a"$t")) a$$ot reover &a!a'e# t"e )or the #a!e at or o!"##"o$ o) the &e)e$&a$t. /$

 Art. 2174. The +rov"#"o$# o) Art"*e# 1172 to 1175 are a*#o a++*"ab*e to a %a#"-&e*"t. /$

 Art. 2170. Whe$ the +*a"$t"))# o$ $e'*"'e$e a# the "!!e&"ate a$& +ro,"!ate a%#e o) h"# "$%ry( he a$$ot reover &a!a'e#. 3%t ") h"#

$e'*"'e$e a# o$*y o$tr"b%tory( the "!!e&"ate a$& +ro,"!ate a%#e o) the "$%ry be"$' the &e)e$&a$t# *a8 o) &%e are( the +*a"$t")) !ay

reover &a!a'e#( b%t the o%rt# #ha** !"t"'ate the &a!a'e# to be aar&e&. /$

 Art. 214. The ob*"'at"o$ "!+o#e& by Art"*e 2176 "# &e!a$&ab*e $ot o$*y )or o$e# o$ at# or o!"##"o$#( b%t a*#o )or tho#e o) +er#o$# )or

 ho! o$e "# re#+o$#"b*e.

The )ather a$&( "$ a#e o) h"# &eath or "$a+a"ty( the !other( are re#+o$#"b*e )or the &a!a'e# a%#e& by the !"$or h"*&re$ ho *"ve "$ the"r

o!+a$y.

9%ar&"a$# are *"ab*e )or &a!a'e# a%#e& by the !"$or# or "$a+a"tate& +er#o$# ho are %$&er the"r a%thor"ty a$& *"ve "$ the"r o!+a$y.

The o$er# a$& !a$a'er# o) a$ e#tab*"#h!e$t or e$ter+r"#e are *"8e"#e re#+o$#"b*e )or &a!a'e# a%#e& by the"r e!+*oyee# "$ the #erv"e o)

the bra$he# "$ h"h the *atter are e!+*oye& or o$ the oa#"o$ o) the"r )%$t"o$#.

E!+*oyer# #ha** be *"ab*e )or the &a!a'e# a%#e& by the"r e!+*oyee# a$& ho%#eho*& he*+er# at"$' "th"$ the #o+e o) the"r a##"'$e& ta#8#(

eve$ tho%'h the )or!er are $ot e$'a'e& "$ a$y b%#"$e## or "$&%#try.

The State "# re#+o$#"b*e "$ *"8e !a$$er he$ "t at# thro%'h a #+e"a* a'e$t: b%t $ot he$ the &a!a'e ha# bee$ a%#e& by the o))""a* to

 ho! the ta#8 &o$e +ro+er*y +erta"$#( "$ h"h a#e hat "# +rov"&e& "$ Art"*e 2176 #ha** be a++*"ab*e.

La#t*y( teaher# or hea&# o) e#tab*"#h!e$t# o) art# a$& tra&e# #ha** be *"ab*e )or &a!a'e# a%#e& by the"r +%+"*# a$& #t%&e$t# or a++re$t"e#(

#o *o$' a# they re!a"$ "$ the"r %#to&y.

The re#+o$#"b"*"ty treate& o) "$ th"# art"*e #ha** ea#e he$ the +er#o$# here"$ !e$t"o$e& +rove that they ob#erve& a** the &"*"'e$e o) a 'oo&

)ather o) a )a!"*y to +reve$t &a!a'e. /10;a

 Art. 2141. Whoever +ay# )or the &a!a'e a%#e& by h"# &e+e$&e$t# or e!+*oyee# !ay reover )ro! the *atter hat he ha# +a"& or &e*"vere& "$

#at"#)at"o$ o) the *a"!. /105

 Art. 2142. I) the !"$or or "$#a$e +er#o$ a%#"$' &a!a'e ha# $o +are$t# or '%ar&"a$( the !"$or or "$#a$e +er#o$ #ha** be a$#erab*e "th h"#

o$ +ro+erty "$ a$ at"o$ a'a"$#t h"! here a '%ar&"a$ a& *"te! #ha** be a++o"$te&. /$

7/25/2019 Torts Cases - repost

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/torts-cases-repost 2/13

 Art. 214;. The +o##e##or o) a$ a$"!a* or hoever !ay !a8e %#e o) the #a!e "# re#+o$#"b*e )or the &a!a'e h"h "t !ay a%#e( a*tho%'h "t

!ay e#a+e or be *o#t. Th"# re#+o$#"b"*"ty #ha** ea#e o$*y "$ a#e the &a!a'e #ho%*& o!e )ro! )ore !ae%re or )ro! the )a%*t o) the +er#o$

 ho ha# #%))ere& &a!a'e. /10<

 Art. 2145. I$ !otor veh"*e !"#ha+#( the o$er "# #o*"&ar"*y *"ab*e "th h"# &r"ver( ") the )or!er( ho a# "$ the veh"*e( o%*& have( by the %#e

o) the &%e &"*"'e$e( +reve$te& the !"#)ort%$e. It "# &"#+%tab*y +re#%!e& that a &r"ver a# $e'*"'e$t( ") he ha& bee$ )o%$& '%"*ty or re8*e##

&r"v"$' or v"o*at"$' tra))" re'%*at"o$# at *ea#t t"e "th"$ the $e,t +ree&"$' to !o$th#.

I) the o$er a# $ot "$ the !otor veh"*e( the +rov"#"o$# o) Art"*e 214 are a++*"ab*e. /$

 Art. 214<. U$*e## there "# +roo) to the o$trary( "t "# +re#%!e& that a +er#o$ &r"v"$' a !otor veh"*e ha# bee$ $e'*"'e$t ") at the t"!e o) the

!"#ha+( he a# v"o*at"$' a$y tra))" re'%*at"o$. /$

 Art. 2146. Every o$er o) a !otor veh"*e #ha** )"*e "th the +ro+er 'over$!e$t o))"e a bo$& e,e%te& by a 'over$!e$t-o$tro**e&

or+orat"o$ or o))"e( to a$#er )or &a!a'e# to th"r& +er#o$#. The a!o%$t o) the bo$& a$& other ter!# #ha** be )",e& by the o!+ete$t +%b*"

o))""a*. /$

 Art. 2147. =a$%)at%rer# a$& +roe##or# o) )oo&#t%))#( &r"$8#( to"*et art"*e# a$& #"!"*ar 'oo&# #ha** be *"ab*e )or &eath or "$%r"e# a%#e& bya$y $o,"o%# or har!)%* #%b#ta$e# %#e&( a*tho%'h $o o$trat%a* re*at"o$ e,"#t# betee$ the! a$& the o$#%!er#. /$

 Art. 2144. There "# +r"!a )a"e +re#%!+t"o$ o) $e'*"'e$e o$ the +art o) the &e)e$&a$t ") the &eath or "$%ry re#%*t# )ro! h"# +o##e##"o$ o)

&a$'ero%# ea+o$# or #%b#ta$e#( #%h a# )"rear!# a$& +o"#o$( e,e+t he$ the +o##e##"o$ or %#e thereo) "# "$&"#+e$#ab*e "$ h"# o%+at"o$

or b%#"$e##. /$

 Art. 2140. Prov"$e#( "t"e# a$& !%$""+a*"t"e# #ha** be *"ab*e )or &a!a'e# )or the &eath o)( or "$%r"e# #%))ere& by( a$y +er#o$ by rea#o$ o) the

&e)et"ve o$&"t"o$ o) roa&#( #treet#( br"&'e#( +%b*" b%"*&"$'#( a$& other +%b*" or8# %$&er the"r o$tro* or #%+erv"#"o$. /$

 Art. 210. The +ro+r"etor o) a b%"*&"$' or #tr%t%re "# re#+o$#"b*e )or the &a!a'e# re#%*t"$' )ro! "t# tota* or +art"a* o**a+#e( ") "t #ho%*& be

&%e to the *a8 o) $ee##ary re+a"r#. /107

 Art. 2101. Pro+r"etor# #ha** a*#o be re#+o$#"b*e )or &a!a'e# a%#e&

/1 3y the e,+*o#"o$ o) !ah"$ery h"h ha# $ot bee$ ta8e$ are o) "th &%e &" *"'e$e( a$& the "$)*a!!at"o$ o) e,+*o#"ve #%b#ta$e# h"h

have $ot bee$ 8e+t "$ a #a)e a$& a&e%ate +*ae:

/2 3y e,e##"ve #!o8e( h"h !ay be har!)%* to +er#o$# or +ro+erty:

/; 3y the )a**"$' o) tree# #"t%ate& at or $ear h"'hay# or *a$e#( ") $ot a%#e& by )ore !ae%re:

/5 3y e!a$at"o$# )ro! t%be#( a$a*#( #eer# or &e+o#"t# o) "$)et"o%# !atter( o$#tr%te& "tho%t +rea%t"o$# #%"tab*e to the +*ae. /104

 Art. 2102. I) &a!a'e re)erre& to "$ the to +ree&"$' art"*e# #ho%*& be the re#%*t o) a$y &e)et "$ the o$#tr%t"o$ !e$t"o$e& "$ Art"*e 172;(

the th"r& +er#o$ #%))er"$' &a!a'e# !ay +roee& o$*y a'a"$#t the e$'"$eer or arh"tet or o$trator "$ aor&a$e "th #a"& art"*e( "th"$

the +er"o& there"$ )",e&. /100

 Art. 210;. The hea& o) a )a!"*y that *"ve# "$ a b%"*&"$' or a +art thereo)( "# re#+o$#"b*e )or &a!a'e# a%#e& by th"$'# thro$ or )a**"$' )ro!

the #a!e. /101

 Art. 2105. The re#+o$#"b"*"ty o) to or !ore +er#o$# ho are *"ab*e )or %a#"-&e*"t "# #o*"&ary. /$

7/25/2019 Torts Cases - repost

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/torts-cases-repost 3/13

77 SCRA 100 – May 26, 1977

Torts and Damages – Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts vs Civil Liability from Crimes

Reginald Hill, a minor, caused the death o Aga!ito "son o #lcano$% #lcano iled a criminal case against

Reginald &ut Reginald 'as ac(uitted or )lac* o intent cou!led 'ith mista*e%+ #lcano then iled a ciil action

against Reginald and his dad "Marin Hill$ or damages &ased on Article 21-0 o the Ciil Code% Hill argued that

the ciil action is &arred &y his son.s ac(uittal in the criminal case/ and that i eer, his ciil lia&ility as a !arent

has &een etinguished &y the act that his son is already an emanci!ated minor &y reason o his marriage%

ISSUE: hether or not Marin Hill may &e held ciilly lia&le under Article 21-0%

HELD: es% 3he ac(uittal o Reginald in the criminal case does not &ar the iling o a se!arate ciil action% A

se!arate ciil action lies against the oender in a criminal act, 'hether or not he is criminally !rosecuted and

ound guilty or ac(uitted, !roided that the oended !arty is not allo'ed, i accused is actually charged also

criminally, to recoer damages on &oth scores, and 'ould &e entitled in such eentuality only to the &igger 

a'ard o the t'o, assuming the a'ards made in the t'o cases ary% 4n other 'ords, the etinction o ciil

lia&ility reerred to in 5ar% "e$ o Section , Rule 111, reers eclusiely to ciil lia&ility ounded on Article 100 o 

the Reised 5enal Code, 'hereas the ciil lia&ility or the same act considered as a quasi-delict  only and not as

a crime is not etinguished een &y a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has notha!!ened or has not &een committed &y the accused% riely stated, culpa aquiliana includes oluntary and

negligent acts 'hich may &e !unisha&le &y la'%

hile it is true that !arental authority is terminated u!on emanci!ation o the child "Article 27, Ciil Code$, and

under Article 97, emanci!ation ta*es !lace )&y the marriage o the minor child+, it is, ho'eer, also clear that

!ursuant to Article 99, emanci!ation &y marriage o the minor is not really ull or a&solute% 3hus )#manci!ation

&y marriage or &y oluntary concession shall terminate !arental authority oer the child.s !erson% 4t shall ena&le

the minor to administer his !ro!erty as though he 'ere o age, &ut he cannot &orro' money or alienate or 

encum&er real !ro!erty 'ithout the consent o his ather or mother, or guardian% He can sue and &e sued in

court only 'ith the assistance o his ather, mother or guardian%+ 3hereore, Article 21-0 is a!!lica&le to Marin

Hill – the SC ho'eer ruled since at the time o the decision, Reginald is already o age, Marin.s lia&ilityshould &e su&sidiary only – as a matter o e(uity%

 

Read full text 

7/25/2019 Torts Cases - repost

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/torts-cases-repost 4/13

Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. Court of Appeals (1 SC!A "# $

5ost under  case digests, Ciil 8a' at 3hursday, e&ruary 2, 2012 5osted &y Schi:o!hrenic Mind

%a&ts: Anacleto ;iana 'as a !assenger o M<; Antonia &ound or Manila 'hich 'as o'ned &y deendant

 A&oiti:% Ater the said essel has landed, the 5ioneer Steedoring Cor!%, as the arrastre o!erator, too* oer theeclusie control o the cargoes loaded on it% =ne hour ater the !assengers had disem&ar*ed, 5ioneer

Steedoring started o!eration &y unloading the cargoes using its crane% ;iana 'ho had already

disem&ar*ed remem&ered that some o his cargoes 'ere still inside the essel% hile !ointing to the cre' o

the essel the !lace 'here his cargoes 'ere, the crane hit him, !inning him &et'een the side o the essel and

the crane 'hich resulted to his death% ;iana.s 'ie iled a com!laint or damages against A&oiti: or &reach o

contract carriage% A&oiti:, ho'eer iled a third !arty com!laint against 5ioneer since it had

control com!letely oer the essel during the incident% urthermore, !etitioner contends that one hour has

already ela!sed rom the time ;iana disem&ar*ed, thus he has already ceased to &e a !assenger%

Issue: hether or not A&oiti: is lia&le or the death o ;iana%

Hel': 3he Su!reme Court held that the ailure o A&oiti: to eercise etraordinary diligence or the saety o its

!assengers ma*es A&oiti: lia&le% 4t has &een recogni:ed as a rule that the relation o the carrier and !assenger

does not cease the moment the !assenger alights rom the carrier.s ehicle, &ut continues until the !assenger

has had a reasona&le time or a reasona&le o!!ortunity to leae the carrier.s !remises% A reasona&le time or a

reasona&le delay 'ithin this rule is to &e determined rom all the circumstances% 3he !rimaryactor to &e

considered is the eistence o a reasona&le cause as 'ill >ustiy the !resence o the ictim on or near the

!etitioner.s essel% 4n the case at &ar, such >ustiia&le cause eists &ecause he had to come &ac* or his cargo% A&oiti: has ailed to saeguard its !assenger 'ith etraordinary diligence in re(uiring or seeing to it that

!recautionary measures 'ere strictly and actually enorced to su&sere their !ur!ose o !reenting entry into a

or&idden area%

Da$'a Tra$#o. Co. I$. v. CA 

Facts:

Pr"vate re#+o$&e$t# )"*e& a o!+*a"$t )or &a!a'e# a'a"$#t +et"t"o$er# )or the &eath o) Pe&r"to C%&"a!at. The &eea#e& a# atte!+t"$' to boar& a b%#( b%t "t #%&&e$*y ae*erate& )orar&. He )e** o)) a$& the b%# ra$ over h"!( re#%*t"$' to h"# &eath.

Issue:

 Whether the b%# "# *"ab*e a# a o!!o$ arr"er to the &eea#e& ho a# #t"** atte!+t"$'to boar&

7/25/2019 Torts Cases - repost

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/torts-cases-repost 5/13

Held:

It "# the &%ty o) o!!o$ arr"er# o) +a##e$'er# to #to+ the"r o$veya$e# a rea#o$ab*e*e$'th o) t"!e "$ or&er to a))or& +a##e$'er# a$ o++ort%$"ty to boar& a$& e$ter( a$& they are *"ab*e )or "$%r"e# #%))ere& by boar&"$' +a##e$'er# re#%*t"$' )ro! the #%&&e$ #tart"$'

%+ or er8"$' o) the"r o$veya$e# h"*e they are &o"$' #o.

CALALAS VS. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 122039 May 31, 2000

Facts: Private respondent Eliza Jujeurche G. Sunga took a passenger jeepney owned

and operated by petitioner Vicente alalas. !s the jeepney was already "ull# alalas

gave Sunga an stool at the back o" the door at the rear end o" the vehicle. !long the

way# the jeepney stopped to let a passenger o$. Sunga stepped down to give way

when an %suzu truck owned by &rancisco Salva and driven by %glecerio Verena

bu'ped the jeepney. !s a result# Sunga was injured. Sunga (led a co'plaint against

alalas "or violation o" contract o" carriage. alalas (led a third party co'plaint

against Salva. )he trial court held Salva liable and absolved alalas# taking

cognisance o" another civil case "or *uasi+delict wherein Salva and Verena were held

liable to alalas. )he ourt o" !ppeals reversed the decision and "ound alalas liable

to Sunga "or violation o" contract o" carriage.

Issus: ,- /hether the decision in the case "or *uasi delict between alalas on one

hand and Salva and Verena on the other hand# is res judicata to the issue in this

case,0 /hether alalas e1ercised the e1traordinary diligence re*uired in the contract o" 

carriage

,2 /hether 'oral da'ages should be awarded

Ru!"#$: ,- )he argu'ent that Sunga is bound by the ruling in ivil ase 3o. 2456

(nding the driver and the owner o" the truck liable "or *uasi+delict ignores the "act

that she was never a party to that case and# there"ore# the principle o" res judicata

does not apply. 3or are the issues in ivil ase 3o. 2456 and in the present case the

sa'e. )he issue in ivil ase 3o. 2456 was whether Salva and his driver Verena

were liable "or *uasi+delict "or the da'age caused to petitioner7s jeepney. 8n the

other hand# the issue in this case is whether petitioner is liable on his contract o"carriage. )he (rst# *uasi+delict# also known as culpa a*uiliana or culpa e1tra

contractual# has as its source the negligence o" the tort"easor. )he second# breach

o" contract or culpa contractual# is pre'ised upon the negligence in the

per"or'ance o" a contractual obligation. onse*uently# in *uasi+delict# the

negligence or "ault should be clearly established because it is the basis o" the

action# whereas in breach o" contract# the action can be prosecuted 'erely by

proving the e1istence o" the contract and the "act that the obligor# in this case the

7/25/2019 Torts Cases - repost

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/torts-cases-repost 6/13

co''on carrier# "ailed to transport his passenger sa"ely to his destination. %n case

o" death or injuries to passengers# !rt. -9; o" the ivil ode provides that co''on

carriers are presu'ed to have been at "ault or to have acted negligently unless they

prove that they observed e1traordinary diligence as de(ned in !rts. -922 and -9

o" the ode. )his provision necessarily shi"ts to the co''on carrier the burden o"

proo". %t is i''aterial that the pro1i'ate cause o" the collision between the jeepneyand the truck was the negligence o" the truck driver. )he doctrine o" pro1i'ate

cause is applicable only in actions "or *uasi+delict# not in actions involving breach o"

contract. )he doctrine is a device "or i'puting liability to a person where there is no

relation between hi' and another party. %n such a case# the obligation is created by

law itsel". <ut# where there is a pre+e1isting contractual relation between the parties#

it is the parties the'selves who create the obligation# and the "unction o" the law is

'erely to regulate the relation thus created.

,0 /e do not think so. &irst# the jeepney was not properly parked# its rear portion

being e1posed about two 'eters "ro' the broad shoulders o" the highway# and

"acing the 'iddle o" the highway in a diagonal angle. Second# it is undisputed that

petitioner7s driver took in 'ore passengers than the allowed seating capacity o" the

 jeepney. )he "act that Sunga was seated in an =e1tension seat> placed her in a peril

greater than that to which the other passengers were e1posed. )here"ore# not only

was petitioner unable to overco'e the presu'ption o" negligence i'posed on hi'

"or the injury sustained by Sunga# but also# the evidence shows he was actually

negligent in transporting passengers. /e (nd it hard to give serious thought to

petitioner7s contention that Sunga7s taking an =e1tension seat> a'ounted to an

i'plied assu'ption o" risk. %t is akin to arguing that the injuries to the 'any victi's

o" the tragedies in our seas should not be co'pensated 'erely because those

passengers assu'ed a greater risk o" drowning by boarding an overloaded "erry.

 )his is also true o" petitioner7s contention that the jeepney being bu'ped while itwas i'properly parked constitutes caso "ortuito. ! caso "ortuito is an event which

could not be "oreseen# or which# though "oreseen# was inevitable. )his re*uires that

the "ollowing re*uire'ents be present: ,a the cause o" the breach is independent o" 

the debtor7s will? ,b the event is un"oreseeable or unavoidable? ,c the event is such

as to render it i'possible "or the debtor to "ul(ll his obligation in a nor'al 'anner#

and ,d the debtor did not take part in causing the injury to the creditor. Petitioner

should have "oreseen the danger o" parking his jeepney with its body protruding two

'eters into the highway.

,2 !s a general rule# 'oral da'ages are not recoverable in actions "or da'ages

predicated on a breach o" contract "or it is not one o" the ite's enu'erated under!rt. 00-5 o" the ivil ode. !s an e1ception# such da'ages are recoverable: ,- in

cases in which the 'ishap results in the death o" a passenger# as provided in !rt.

-9;4# in relation to !rt. 006;,2 o" the ivil ode? and ,0 in the cases in which the

carrier is guilty o" "raud or bad "aith# as provided in !rt. 0006. %n this case# there is

no legal basis "or awarding 'oral da'ages since there was no "actual (nding by the

appellate court that petitioner acted in bad "aith in the per"or'ance o" the contract

o" carriage.

7/25/2019 Torts Cases - repost

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/torts-cases-repost 7/13

5hili!!ine School o usiness Administration s% CA ?20@ SCRA 729 R Bo% -69-%

e&ruary , 192D

5ost under case digests, Ciil 8a' at 3uesday, March 20, 2012 5osted &y Schi:o!hrenic Mind

%a&ts: Carlitos autista 'as sta&&ed 'hile on the secondloor !remises o the schools &y assailants 'ho 'ere notmem&ers o the schools academic community% 3his!rom!ted the !arents o the deceased to ile a suit in theR3C o Manila or damages against 5SA and itscor!orate oicers%

3he deendant schools "no' !etitioner$ sought to hae thesuit dismissed on the ground o no cause o action and not'ithin the sco!e o the !roision o Art 21-0 since it isan academic institution% 3he trial court oerruled the!etitioner.s contention and its decision 'as later airmed&y the a!!ellate court%

Issue: hether the decision o the a!!ellate court!rimarily anchored on the la' o (uasiEdelicts is alid%

Hel': Although the Su!reme Court agreed to the decisiono the Court o A!!eals to deny the !etition o motion todismiss &y the 5SA, they do not agree to the !remises o 

the a!!ellate court.s ruling%

 Art 21-0, in con>unction 'ith Art 2176 o the ciil codeesta&lishes the rule o in loco !arentis, they can not &e

7/25/2019 Torts Cases - repost

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/torts-cases-repost 8/13

held lia&le to the acts o Calito.s assailants 'hich 'ere notstudents o the 5SA and &ecause o the contractualrelationshi!%

3he school and the students, u!on registration esta&lisheda contract &et'een them, resulting in &ilateral o&ligations%3he institution o learning must !roide their students 'ithan atmos!here that !romotes or assists its !rimaryunderta*ing o im!arting *no'ledge, and maintain !eaceand order 'ithin its !remises%

3he SC dismissed the !etition and the case 'asremanded to the trail court to determine i the schoolneglected its o&ligation to !erorm &ased on thecontractual relation o them and the students%

Air France v Carrascoso (Torts)

!%@ &@!3E V !@@!S8S8 Septeber )* 1+,, AI! %!A-CE* petitioner# vs. !A%AEL CA!!ASCS an'the H-!A/LE CU!0 % AEALS* respondents.

%AC0S:Plainti$# a civil engineer# was a 'e'ber o" a group o" 4A &ilipino pilgri's that le"t Banila "or Courdes onBarch 26# -5A.8n Barch 0A# -5A# the de"endant# !ir &rance# through its authorized agent# Philippine !ir Cines# %nc.#issued to plainti$ a D(rst classD round trip airplane ticket "ro' Banila to @o'e. &ro' Banila to <angkok#plainti$ travelled in D(rst classD# but at <angkok# the Banager o" the de"endant airline "orced plainti$ tovacate the D(rst classD seat that he was occupying because# in the words o" the witness Ernesto G.uento# there was a Dwhite 'anD# who# the Banager alleged# had a Dbetter rightD to the seat. /henasked to vacate his D(rst classD seat# the plainti$# as was to be e1pected# re"used# and told de"endantsBanager that his seat would be taken over his dead body. !"ter so'e co''otion# plainti$ reluctantlygave his D(rst classD seat in the plane.

DECISI- % L2E! CU!0S:-. &% F Banila: sentenced petitioner to pay respondent @a"ael arrascoso P0#666.66 by way o" 'oralda'ages? P-6#666.66 as e1e'plary da'ages? P252.06 representing the di$erence in "are between(rst class and tourist class "or the portion o" the trip <angkok+ @o'e# these various a'ounts withinterest at the legal rate# "ro' the date o" the (ling o" the co'plaint until paid? plus P2#666.66 "orattorneys "ees? and the costs o" suit.0. !: slightly reduced the a'ount o" re"und on arrascosos plane ticket "ro' P252.06 to P2A2.-6#and voted to ar' the appealed decision Din all other respectsD# with costs against petitioner.

7/25/2019 Torts Cases - repost

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/torts-cases-repost 9/13

!ir &rance contends that respondent knew that he did not have con(r'ed reservations "or (rst class onany speci(c Hight# although he had tourist class protection? that# accordingly# the issuance o" a (rstclass ticket was no guarantee that he would have a (rst class ride# but that such would depend uponthe availability o" (rst class seats.

ISSUE:%s arrascoso entitled to da'agesI

!ULI-3: es. )he 'anager not only prevented arrascoso "ro' enjoying his right to a (rst class seat? worse# hei'posed his arbitrary will? he "orcibly ejected hi' "ro' his seat# 'ade hi' su$er the hu'iliation o"having to go to the tourist class co'part'ent + just to give way to another passenger whose rightthereto has not been established. ertainly# this is bad "aith. Knless# o" course# bad "aith has assu'eda 'eaning di$erent "ro' what is understood in law. &or# 4ba' faith4 &onteplates a 4state of in'affirativel5 operating 6ith furtive 'esign or 6ith soe otive of self7interest or 6ill or for ulterior purpose.4

%or the 6illful alevolent a&t of petitioner8s anager* petitioner* his eplo5er* ust ans6er. Arti&le )1 of theCivil Co'e sa5s:A!0. )1. An5 person 6ho 6illfull5 &auses loss or in9ur5 to another in a anner that is &ontrar5 to orals*goo' &ustos or publi& poli&5 shall &opensate the latter for the 'aage.

 )he contract o" air carriage# there"ore# generates a relation attended with a public duty. 3eglect or

'al"easance o" the carriers e'ployees# naturally# could give ground "or an action "or da'ages.Passengers do not contract 'erely "or transportation. )hey have a right to be treated by the carrierse'ployees with kindness# respect# courtesy and due consideration.

Although the relation of passenger an' &arrier is 4&ontra&tual both in origin an' nature4 nevertheless 4thea&t that breas the &ontra&t a5 be also a tort4. )he stress o" arrascosos action as we have said# isplaced upon his wrong"ul e1pulsion. 0his is a violation of publi& 'ut5 b5 the petitioner air &arrier ; a &aseof quasi-delict . Daages are proper.

8!+8C! <8))CE@S PL%C%PP%3ES# %3. vs. ! and BS. CM%! GE@83%B8

COCA%COLA &OTTLERS P'ILIPPINES, INC. (s. CA a#) MS. L*+IA GERONIMO

G.R. No. 11029 Octo- 1/, 1993

Petition for review on certiorari (under Rule45) the decision of the CA

DAVIDE, JR, J!

"AC#$: Private respondent was the proprietress o" Nindergarten /onderland

anteen in Magupan ity. %n !ugust -5A5# so'e parents o" the students co'plained

to her that the oke and Sprite so"t drinks sold by her contained (ber+like 'atter

and other "oreign substances. She brought the said bottles "or e1a'ination to M8Land it was "ound out that the so"t drinks =are adulterated.> !s a result# her per day

sales o" so"t drinks severely plu''eted that she had to close her shop on -0

Mece'ber -5A5 "or losses. She de'anded da'ages "ro' petitioner be"ore the @)

which dis'issed the sa'e on 'otion by petitioner based on the ground o"

Prescription. 8n appeal# the ! annulled the orders o" the @).

I$$%E! /83 the action "or da'ages by the proprietress against the so"t drinks

7/25/2019 Torts Cases - repost

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/torts-cases-repost 10/13

'anu"acturer should be treated as one "or breach o" i'plied warranty under article

-;- o" the which prescribes a"ter si1 'onths "ro' delivery o" the thing sold.

R%&I'! Petition Menied.

 )he S agrees with the !7s conclusion that the cause o" action in the case at bar is

"ound on *uasi+delict under !rticle --4; o" the which prescribes in "our yearsand not on breach o" warranty under article -;0 o" the sa'e code. )his is

supported by the allegations in the co'plaint which 'akes re"erence to the reckless

and negligent 'anu"acture o" Dadulterated "ood ite's intended to be sold "or public

consu'ption.D

LRT vs. NAVIDAD

G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 00!

FACT"#Navidad was drunk when he entered the boarding platform of the LRT. He got into an

altercation with the SG Escartin. The had a fistfight and Navidad fell onto the tracks andwas killed when a train came and ran over him.

The Heirs of Navidad filed a complaint for damages against Escartin! the train driver!

"Roman# the LRT$! the %etro Transit &rgani'ation and (rudent Securit $genc "(rudent#.

The trial court found (rudent and Escartin )ointl and severall liable for damages to theheirs. The *$ e+onerated (rudent and instead held the LRT$ and the train driver Romero

 )ointl and severall liable as well as removing the award for compensator damages andreplacing it with nominal damages.

The reasoning of the *$ was that a contract of carriage alread e+isted between Navidadand LRT$ "b virtue of his hav$ ing purchased train tickets and the liabilit was caused b

the mere fact of Navidad,s death after being hit b the train being managed b the LRT$and operated b Roman. The *$ also blamed LRT$ for not having presented e+pert evidence

showing that the emergenc brakes could not have stopped the train on time.

$""%&"#

"-# hether or not LRT$ and/or Roman is liable for the death.

"0# hether or not Escartin and/or (rudent are liable.

"1# hether or not nominal damages ma coe+ist with compensator damages.

'&#"-# 2es. The foundation of LRT$,s liabilit is the contract of carriage and its obligation to

indemnif the victim arising from the breach of that contract b reason of its failure toe+ercise the high diligence re3uired of a common carrier.

"0# 4ault was not established. Liabilit will be based on Tort under $rt. 0-56 of the New *ivil

*ode."1# No. 7t is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co8e+ist with compensatordamages.

RAT$*#

iabi+ity o RTA 9 Read $rts. -5::!-5:6! -5:; and -561 of the New *ivil *ode

$ common carrier is re3uired b these above statutor provisions to use utmost diligence in

carring passengers with due regard for all circumstances. This obligation e+ists not onl

7/25/2019 Torts Cases - repost

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/torts-cases-repost 11/13

during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises wherethe ought to be in pursuance to then contract of carriage.

$rt. -561 renders a common carrier liable for death of or in)ur to passengers "a# through

the negligence or wilful acts of its employees or (b) on account of willful acts or negligenceof other passengers or of strangers if the common carrier’s employees through theexercise

of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. 7n case of such deathor in)ur! a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been negligent! and b simple proof

of in)ur! the passenger is relieved of the dut to still establish the fault or negligence of thecarrier or of its emploees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the in)ur is

due to an unforeseen event or to force ma)eure.

iabi+ity o "ecurity A-ency 9 7f (rudent is to be held liable! it would be for a tort under$rt. 0-56 in con)unction with $rt. 0-<=. &nce the fault of the emploee Escartin is

established! the emploer! (rudent! would be held liable on the presumption that it did note+ercise the diligence of a good father of the famil in the selection and supervision of its

emploees.

Re+ationsi/ beteen contractua+ an non2contractua+ breac 9 How then must the

liabilit of the common carrier! on the one hand! and an independent contractor! on theother hand! be described> 7t would be solidar. $ contractual obligation can be breached b

tort and when the same act or omission causes the in)ur! one resulting in culpacontractual  and the other in culpa aquiliana! $rticle 0-;? of the *ivil *ode can well appl. 7n

fine! a liabilit for tort ma arise even under a contract! where tort is that which breachesthe contract. Stated differentl! when an act which constitutes a breach of ontract would

have itself constituted the source of a 3uasi8delictual liabilit had no contract e+istedbetween the parties! the contract can be said to have been breached b tort! thereb

allowing the rules on tort to appl.

No3ina+ a3a-es 2 The award of nominal damages in addition to actual damages

is untenable. Nominal damages are ad)udicated in order that a right of the plaintiff! whichhas been violated or invaded b the defendant! ma be vindicated or recogni'ed! and not

for the purpose of indemnifing the plaintiff for an loss suffered b him. 7t is an established

rule that nominal damages cannot co8e+ist with compensator damages. The award wasdeleted/@.

ose angco vs Banila

@ailroad o.!ugust -2# 06--

- co''ent

•

• &acebook

7/25/2019 Torts Cases - repost

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/torts-cases-repost 12/13

•  )witter

• Pinterest0

• Cinked%n0

• E'ail0

AD<E!0ISE=E-0S  

3 !"il #$% – Civil La& – Torts and Damages – Distinction of Liability of 'mployers (nder )rticle *+% and T"eir Liability for ,reac"

of Contract 

=n Fanuary 20, 191@, Cangco 'as riding the train o Manila Railroad Co "MRC$% He 'as an em!loyee o the latter and he 'as gien

a !ass so that he could ride the train or ree% hen he 'as nearing his destination at a&out 7!m, he arose rom his seat een

though the train 'as not at ull sto!% hen he 'as a&out to alight rom the train "'hich 'as still slightly moing$ he accidentally

ste!!ed on a sac* o 'atermelons 'hich he ailed to notice due to the act that it 'as dim% 3his caused him to lose his &alance at

the door and he ell and his arm 'as crushed &y the train and he suered other serious in>uries% He 'as dragged a e' meters more

as the train slo'ed do'n%

4t 'as esta&lished that the em!loyees o MRC 'ere negligent in !iling the sac*s o 'atermelons% MRC raised as a deense the act

that Cangco 'as also negligent as he ailed to eercise diligence in alighting rom the train as he did not 'ait or it to sto!%

ISSUE: hether or not Manila Railroad Co is lia&le or damages%

HELD: es% Alighting rom a moing train 'hile it is slo'ing do'n is a common !ractice and a lot o !eo!le are doing so eery day

'ithout suering in>ury% Cangco has the igor and agility o young manhood, and it 'as &y no means so ris*y or him to get o 'hile

the train 'as yet moing as the same act 'ould hae &een in an aged or ee&le !erson% He 'as also ignorant o the act that sac*s

o 'atermelons 'ere there as there 'ere no a!!ro!riate 'arnings and the !lace 'as dimly lit%

3he Court also elucidated on the distinction &et'een the lia&ility o em!loyers under Article 21-0 and their lia&ility or &reach o 

contract ?o carriageDG

7/25/2019 Torts Cases - repost

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/torts-cases-repost 13/13

-0ES: ut, i the master has not &een guilty o any negligence 'hateer in the selection and direction o the serant, he is not

lia&le or the acts o the latter, 'hateer done 'ithin the sco!e o his em!loyment or not, i the damage done &y the serant does not

amount to a &reach o the contract &et'een the master and the !erson in>ured%

3he lia&ility arising rom etraEcontractual cul!a is al'ays &ased u!on a oluntary act or omission 'hich, 'ithout 'illul intent, &ut &y

mere negligence or inattention, has caused damage to another%

3hese t'o ields, iguratiely s!ea*ing, concentric/ that is to say, the mere act that a !erson is &ound to another &y contract does

not reliee him rom etraEcontractual lia&ility to such !erson% hen such a contractual relation eists the o&ligor may &rea* the

contract under such conditions that the same act 'hich constitutes the source o an etraEcontractual o&ligation had no contract

eisted &et'een the !arties%

=anresa: hether negligence occurs an incident in the course o the !erormance o a contractual underta*ing or in itsel the

source o an etraEcontractual underta*ing o&ligation, its essential characteristics are identical%

<in&ulu >uris: "de$ 4t means )an o&ligation o la'+, or the right o the o&ligee to enorce a ciil matter in a court o la'%