7/25/2019 Case torts
1/40
1
G.R. No. L-65295 March 10, 1987
PHOENIX CONSTRCTION, INC. a!" #RM#N$O
. C#R%ONEL, petitioners,
vs.
THE INTERME$I#TE #PPELL#TE CORT a!"LEON#R$O $IONISIO, respondents.
&ELICI#NO, J:
In the early morning of 15 November 1975 at about
1:3 a.m. private respondent !eonardo "ionisio
#as on his #ay home he lived in 1$1%&' (amora
)treet, 'ang*al, +a*ati from a o*tails&and&dinner
meeting #ith his boss, the general manager of amar*eting orporation. "uring the o*tails phase of
the evening, "ionisio had ta*en -a shot or t#o- of
liuor. "ionisio #as driving his /ol*s#agen ar and
had 0ust rossed the intersetion of eneral !auna
and eneral )antos )treets at 'ang*al, +a*ati, not
far from his home, and #as proeeding do#n eneral
!auna )treet, #hen his ar headlights 2in his
allegation suddenly failed. 4e s#ithed his headlights
on -bright- and thereupon he sa# a ord dump tru*
looming some $&16$ meters a#ay from his ar. he
dump tru*, o#ned by and registered in the name ofpetitioner 8hoeni onstrution In. 2-8hoeni-, #as
par*ed on the right hand side of eneral !auna
)treet 2i.e., on the right hand side of a person faing
in the same diretion to#ard #hih "ionisio;s ar #as
proeeding, faing the onoming traffi. he dump
tru* #as par*ed as*e# 2not parallel to the street
urb in suh a manner as to sti* out onto the street,
partly blo*ing the #ay of onoming traffi. here
#ere no lights nor any so&alled -early #arning-
refletor devies set any#here near the dump tru*,
front or rear. he dump tru* had earlier that eveningbeen driven home by petitioner
7/25/2019 Case torts
2/40
2
plaintiff before the filing of this ase in
ourt for a smaller amount.
25 o pay the plaintiff 0ointly and
severally the sum of 8 %,5. due
as and for attorney;s fees> and
2? he ost of suit. 2@mphasis
supplied
8hoeni and arbonel appealed to the Intermediate
7/25/2019 Case torts
3/40
3
negligene #hih must bear upon the liability, or
etent of liability, of 8hoeni and arbonel.
here are four fatual issues that need to be loo*ed
into: 2a #hether or not private respondent "ionisio
had a urfe# pass valid and effetive for that eventful
night> 2b #hether "ionisio #as driving fast orspeeding 0ust before the ollision #ith the dump tru*>
2 #hether "ionisio had purposely turned off his ar;s
headlights before ontat #ith the dump tru* or
#hether those headlights aidentally malfuntioned
moments before the ollision> and 2d #hether
"ionisio #as intoiated at the time of the aident.
7/25/2019 Case torts
4/40
4
preise veloity at #inh "ionisio #as travelling 0ust
before impat #ith the 8hoeni dump tru*.
< third related issue is #hether "ionisio purposely
turned off his headlights, or #hether his headlights
aidentally malfuntioned, 0ust moments before the
aident. he Intermediate
7/25/2019 Case torts
5/40
5
invaria"ly the case, the latter are the
result of other active forces which
have gone "efore.he defendant #ho
spills gasoline about the premises
reates a -ondition,- but the at may
be ulpable beause of the danger of
fire. Bhen a spar* ignites thegasoline, the ondition has done uite
as muh to bring about the fire as the
spar*> and sine that is the very ris*
#hih the defendant has reated, the
defendant #ill not esape
responsibility. #ven the lapse of a
considera"le tie during which the
$condition$ reains static will not
necessarily affect lia"ility%one #ho
digs a trenh in the high#ay may still
be liable to another #ho fans into it amonth after#ard. $Cause$ and
$condition$ still find occasional
ention in the decisions% "ut the
distinction is now alost entirely
discredited.)o far as it has any
validity at all, it must refer to the type
of ase #here the fores set in
operation by the defendant have ome
to rest in a position of apparent safety,
and some ne# fore intervenes. But
even in such cases, it is not thedistinction "etween $cause$ and
$condition$ which is iportant "ut the
nature of the ris& and the character of
the intervening cause. 9
Be believe, seondly, that the tru* driver;s
negligene far from being a -passive and stati
ondition- #as rather an indispensable and effiient
ause. he ollision bet#een the dump tru* and the
private respondent;s ar #ould in an probability not
have ourred had the dump tru* not been par*edas*e# #ithout any #arning lights or refletor devies.
he improper par*ing of the dump tru* reated an
unreasonable ris* of in0ury for anyone driving do#n
eneral !auna )treet and for having so reated this
ris*, the tru* driver must be held responsible. In our
vie#, "ionisio;s negligene, although later in point of
time than the tru* driver;s negligene and therefore
loser to the aident, #as not an effiient intervening
or independent ause. Bhat the 8etitioners desribe
as an -intervening ause- #as no more than a
foreseeable onseuent manner #hih the tru*
driver had par*ed the dump tru*. In other #ords, the
petitioner tru* driver o#ed a duty to private
respondent "ionisio and others similarly situated not
to impose upon them the very ris* the tru* driver had
reated. "ionisio;s negligene #as not of an
independent and overpo#ering nature as to ut, as it#ere, the hain of ausation in fat bet#een the
improper par*ing of the dump tru* and the aident
nor to sever the 0uris vinulum of liability. It is helpfu
to uote one more from 8rofessor and Eeeton:
'oreseea"le (ntervening Causes. (
the intervening cause is one which in
ordinary huan e)perience is
reasona"ly to "e anticipated or one
which the defendant has reason to
anticipate under the particularcircustances, the defendant ay "e
negligence aong other reasons,
"ecause of failure to guard against it%
or the defendant ay "e negligent
only for that reason.hus one #ho
sets a fire may be reuired to foresee
that an ordinary, usual and ustomary
#ind arising later #ig spread it beyond
the defendant;s o#n property, and
therefore to ta*e preautions to
prevent that event. he person #holeaves the ombustible or eplosive
material eposed in a publi plae
may foresee the ris* of fire from some
independent soure. ... (n all of these
cases there is an intervening cause
co"ining with the defendant*s
conduct to produce the result and in
each case the defendant*s negligence
consists in failure to protect the
plaintiff against that very ris&.
+"viously the defendant cannot "e
relieved fro lia"ility "y the fact that
the ris& or a su"stantial and iportant
part of the ris&, to which the defendant
has su"ected the plaintiff has indeed
coe to pass. 'oreseea"le
intervening forces are within the
scope original ris&, and hence of the
defendant*s negligence. he ourts
are uite generally agreed tha
7/25/2019 Case torts
6/40
6
intervening auses #hih fall fairly in
this ategory #ill not supersede the
defendant;s responsibility.
-hus it has "een heldthat a defendant
#ill be reuired to antiipate the usual
#eather of the viinity, inluding allordinary fores of nature suh as
usual #ind or rain, or sno# or frost or
fog or even lightning>that one who
leaves an o"struction on the road or a
railroad trac& should foresee that a
vehicle or a train will run into it%...
-he ris& created "y the defendant
ay include the intervention of the
foreseea"le negligence of others. ...
-he standard of reasona"le conductay re!uire the defendant to protect
the plaintiff against *that occasional
negligence which is one of the
ordinary incidents of huan life, and
therefore to "e anticipated.* hus, a
defendant #ho blo*s the side#al*
and fores the plaintiff to #al* in a
street #here the plaintiff #ill be
eposed to the ris*s of heavy traffi
beomes liable #hen the plaintiff is
run do#n by a ar, even though thear is negligently driven>and one who
par&s an autoo"ile on the highway
without lights at night is not relieved of
responsi"ility when another
negligently drives into it. /// 10
Be hold that private respondent "ionisio;s negligene
#as -only ontributory,- that the -immediate and
proimate ause- of the in0ury remained the tru*
driver;s -la* of due are- and that onseuently
respondent "ionisio may reover damages thoughsuh damages are sub0et to mitigation by the ourts
2
7/25/2019 Case torts
7/40
7
fundamental priniple of la# that a man must respond
for the forseeable onseuenes of his o#n negligent
at or omission. Cur la# on uasi&delits see*s to
redue the ris*s and burdens of living in soiety and
to alloate them among the members of soiety. o
aept the petitioners; pro&position must tend to
#ea*en the very bonds of soiety.
8etitioner arbonel;s proven negligene reates a
presumption of negligene on the part of his employer
8hoeni16in supervising its employees properly and
adeuately. he respondent appellate ourt in effet
found, orretly in our opinion, that 8hoeni #as not
able to overome this presumption of negligene. he
irumstane that 8hoeni had allo#ed its tru* driver
to bring the dump tru* to his home #henever there
#as #or* to be done early the follo#ing morning,
#hen oupled #ith the failure to sho# any effort onthe part of 8hoeni to supervise the manner in #hih
the dump tru* is par*ed #hen a#ay from ompany
premises, is an affirmative sho#ing of culpa in
vigilandoon the part of 8hoeni.
urning to the a#ard of damages and ta*ing into
aount the omparative negligene of private
respondent "ionisio on one hand and petitioners
arbonel and 8hoeni upon the other hand, 17#e
believe that the demands of substantial 0ustie are
satisfied by alloating most of the damages on a $&G ratio. hus, $H of the damages a#arded by the
respondent appellate ourt, eept the a#ard of
81,. as eemplary damages and 8%,5. as
attorney;s fees and osts, shall be borne by private
respondent "ionisio> only the balane of GH needs
to be paid by petitioners arbonel and 8hoeni #ho
shall be solidarity liable therefor to the former. he
a#ard of eemplary damages and attorney;s fees and
osts shall be borne elusively by the petitioners.
8hoeni is of ourse entitled to reimbursement from
arbonel. 18Be see no suffiient reason fordisturbing the redued a#ard of damages made by
the respondent appellate ourt.
B4@A@CA@, the deision of the respondent
appellate ourt is modified by reduing the aggregate
amount of ompensatory damages, loss of epeted
inome and moral damages private respondent
"ionisio is entitled to by $H of suh amount. osts
against the petitioners.
)C CA"@A@".
G.R. No). 10'((2-(5 Ma* 21, 199'
N#TION#L PO+ER CORPOR#TION, ET
#L., petitioners,vs.
THE CORT O& #PPE#LS, G#$ENCIO C. R#O,
ET #L., respondents.
-he olicitor eneral for plaintiff/appellee.
Ponciano . 2ernande3 for private respondents.
$#I$E, R., J.:
his is a petition for revie# on certiorariunder Aule %5
of the Aevised Aules of ourt urging this ourt to set
aside the 19 $
defendant 'en0amin haveD #as the plant supervisor
at the time of the inident in uestion> 3 despite the
defendants; *no#ledge, as early as $% Ctober 197G,
of the impending entry of typhoon -Eading,- they
failed to eerise due diligene in monitoring the
7/25/2019 Case torts
8/40
8
#ater level at the dam> % #hen the said #ater level
#ent beyond the maimum allo#able limit at the
height of the typhoon, the defendants suddenly,
negligently and re*lessly opened three 23 of the
dam;s spill#ays, thereby releasing a large amount of
#ater #hih inundated the ban*s of the
and 5 as a onseuene, members of the householdof the plaintiffs, together #ith their animals, dro#ned,
and their properties #ere #ashed a#ay in the evening
of $? Ctober and the early hours of $7 Ctober
197G.'
In their $ the N8 eerised the
diligene of a good father in the seletion of its
employees> 3 #ritten noties #ere sent to thedifferent muniipalities of 'ulaan #arning the
residents therein about the impending release of a
large volume of #ater #ith the onset of typhoon
-Eading- and advise them to ta*e the neessary
preautions> % the #ater released during the typhoon
#as needed to prevent the ollapse of the dam and
avoid greater damage to people and property> 5 in
spite of the preautions underta*en and the diligene
eerised, they ould still not ontain or ontrol the
flood that resulted and> ? the damages inurred by
the private respondents #ere aused by a fortuitousevent orforce aeureand are in the nature and
harater of danu a"s!ue inuria. 'y #ay of
speial affirmative defense, the defendants averred
that the N8 annot be sued beause it performs a
purely governmental funtion.(
=pon motion of the defendants, a preliminary hearing
on the speial defense #as onduted. .
5 'ernardino ruD,
Cne 4undred orty
7/25/2019 Case torts
9/40
9
hree housand ive
4undred ifty #o
8esos and ifty
entavos
281%3,55$.5>
? Jose 8alad, ifty)even housand ive
4undred 8esos
2857,5.>
7 +ariano ). ruD,
orty housand 8esos
28%,.>
G !uio a0ardo,
#enty nine housand
@ighty 8esos28$9,G.> and
'. !itigation epenses of en
housand 8esos 281,.>
$. In ivil ase No. )+&951, ordering
defendants&appellees to pay 0ointly
and severally, plaintiff&appellant, #ith
legal interest from the date #hen this
deision shall have beome final and
eeutory, the follo#ing :
. 8laintiff&appellant Aodelio Joauin:
1
$ +oral damages of
Cne 4undred
housand 8esos
281,.> and
". 8laintifsf&appellants litigation
epenses of en housand 8esos
281,.>
%. In ivil ase No. )+&1$%7, ordering
defendants&appellees to pay, 0ointly
and severally, #ith legal interest from
the date #hen this deision shall have
beome final and eeutory :
7/25/2019 Case torts
10/40
10
$ +oral damages of
ifty housand 8esos
285,.>
'. 8laintiff&appellant onsolaion
uDman :
1
$ +oral damages of
ifty housand 8esos
285,.>
. 8laintiff&appellant /irginia uDman :
1
and
". 8laintiffs&appellants litigation
epenses of en housand 8esos
21,..
In addition, in all the four 2% instantases, ordering defendants&appellees
to pay, 0ointly and severally, plaintiffs&
appellants attorney fees in an amount
euivalent to 15H of the total amount
a#arded.
No pronounement as to osts.7
he foregoing 0udgment is based on the publi
respondent;s onlusion that the petitioners #ere
guilty of:
. . . a patent gross and evident la* of
foresight, imprudene and
negligene . . . in the management
and operation of
7/25/2019 Case torts
11/40
11
#ill inevitably be brought by the
oming typhoon.
Cn Ctober $%, 197G, before typhoon
-Eading- entered the 8hilippine area
of responsibility, #ater elevation
ranged from $17.?1 to $17.53, #ithvery little opening of the spill#ays,
ranging from 16$ to 1 meter. Cn
Ctober $5, 197G, #hen typhoon
-Eading- entered the 8hilippine area
of responsibility, and publi storm
signal number one #as hoisted over
'ulaan at 1:%5 a.m., later raised to
number t#o at %:%5 p.m., and then to
number three at 1:%5 p.m., #ater
elevation ranged from $17.%7 to
$17.57, #ith very little opening of thespill#ays, ranging from 16$ to 1 meter.
Cn Ctober $?, 197G, #hen publi
storm signal number three remained
hoisted over 'ulaan, the #ater
elevation still remained at its
maimum level of $17. to $1G.
#ith very little opening of the spill#ays
ranging from 16$ to $ meters, until at
or about midnight, the spill#ays #ere
suddenly opened at 5 meters, then
inreasing s#iftly to G, 1, 1$, 1$.5,13, 13.5, 1%, 1%.5 in the early morning
hours of Ctober $7, 197G, releasing
#ater at the rate of %,5 ubi meters
per seond, more or less. Cn Ctober
$7, 197G, #ater elevation remained at
a range of $1G.3 to $17.5 2ivil
ase No. )+&95, @hibits -"- and
series, -!-, -+-, -N-, and -C- and
@hibits -3- and -%-> ivil ase No.
)+&951, @hibits -4- and -4&1-> ivil
ase No. )+&953, @hibits -I- and -I&1-> ivil ase No. )+ 1$%7, @hibits
-- and -&1-.
rom the mass of evidene etant in
the reord, Be are onvined, and so
hold that the flash flood on Ctober
$7, 197G, #as aused not by rain
#aters 2sic, but by stored #aters 2sic
suddenly and simultaneously released
from the
19G5, pp. 1&1$.
)aid notie is ineffetual, insuffiient
and inadeuate for purposes of the
opening of the spill#ay gates at
midnight of Ctober $?, 197G and on
Ctober $7, 197G. It did not prepare or
#arn the persons so served, for the
volume of #ater to be released, #hih
7/25/2019 Case torts
12/40
12
turned out to be of suh magnitude,
that residents near or along the to a polieman 2ivil ase No. )+&95, pp. 1&1$ and @hibit -$&
IN
8@IICN@A) B@A@IN)=II@N.
III. 4@ C=A C @AA@" IN 4C!"IN 4
resulted in the loss of lives and the destrution to
property in both ases, but also beause of the fatthat on the basis of its metiulous analysis and
evaluation of the evidene addued by the parties in
the ases sub0et of
7/25/2019 Case torts
13/40
13
headlessness, slovenliness, and arelessness.-18Its
findings and onlusions are biding upon =s, there
being no sho#ing of the eistene of any of the
eeptions to the general rule that findings of fat of
the ourt of
7/25/2019 Case torts
14/40
14
G.R. No. 10168' &/rar* 2', 1995
L%C #IR C#RGO, INC. &ERN#N$O M. a!"
#IME T#NO, petitioners,
vs.
HON. CORT O& #PPE#LS, &orh $343)3o!,
SHER+IN MONTEROL# * OON-OON,r/r/)/!/" * P#TROCENI# GRON$I#NO *
MONTEROL#, a!" P#TROCENI# GRON$I#NO *
MONTEROL#, respondents.
ITG, J.:
In this petition for revie#, the appliation of the
dotrines of -proimate ause- and -last lear hane-
is, one again, being put to test. he petitionuestions the deision of the ourt of
7/25/2019 Case torts
15/40
15
1. he ourt of
7/25/2019 Case torts
16/40
16
stopping or turning from a diret l ine,
is alled upon to first see that suh
movement an be made in safety, and
#henever the operation of any other
vehile approahing may be affeted
by suh movement, shall give a signal
plainly visible to the driver of suhother vehiles of the intention to ma*e
suh movement 2)e. %%, A.
7/25/2019 Case torts
17/40
17
as a result of the aident, Aogelio
+onterola;s motoryle #as damaged,
the repair ost of #hih amounted to
87,3?1. 2@h. @&1, for
hospitaliDation, #a*e and burial
epenses, plaintiff spent 815,..
here is li*e#ise no uestion that byreason of Aogelio +onterola;s
untimely death, his only hild 1% years
old )her#in +onterola, suffered
mental anguish, fright, serious aniety,
#ounded feelings and moral sho*
that entitles him to moral damages
#hih #e hereby fi at 8$,..
'eause of defendants; refusal to
indemnify the plaintiff for his father;s
death, the latter #as ompelled to
litigate and engage the servies ofounsel. 4e is therefore entitled to an
additional amount of 81,. for
attorney;s fees and epenses of
litigation.
onsidering, ho#ever, the ontributory
negligene of Aogelio +onterola in
driving at a fast lip despite the fat
that the road #as dusty, #e redue the
aggregate amount of damages to
#hih the plaintiff is entitled by t#entyper ent 28hoeni onstrution In.
vs. Intermediate lan
8eople;s !umber and 4ard#are vs. Intermediate
that ould have afforded the
vitim a last lear opportunity to avoid the ollision.
It is true ho#ever, that the deeased #as not all that
free from negligene in evidently speeding too losely
behind the vehile he #as follo#ing. Be, therefore,
agree #ith the appellate ourt that there indeed #asontributory negligene on the vitim;s part that ould
#arrant a mitigation of petitioners liability for
damages.
B4@A@CA@, the appealed deision is
7/25/2019 Case torts
18/40
18
M##LINT#L., J.:
his ase is before us on a petition for revie# of the
deision of the ourt of
7/25/2019 Case torts
19/40
19
ounsel for eah of respondents on the ground that
they #ere hearsay and that they #ere -irrelevant,
immaterial and impertinent.- Indeed, in the ourt;s
resolution only @hibits J, E, E&5 and K&? #ere
admitted without o"ection> the admission of the
others, inluding the disputed ones, arried no suh
eplanation.
Cn the seond point, although "etetive apaillo did
ta*e the #itness stand, he #as not eamined and he
did not testify as to the fats mentioned in his alleged
report 2signed by "etetive (apanta. and the ontents of the
report, as to #hih he did not testify, did not therebybeome ompetent evidene. 2b that it #as made by the publi
offier in the performane of his duties, or by suh
other person in the performane of a duty speially
en0oined by la#> and 2 that the publi offier or other
person had suffiient *no#ledge of the fats by himstated, #hih must have been auired by him
personally or through offiial information 2+oran,
omments on the Aules of ourt, /ol. 3 1957O p.
39G.
Cf the three reuisites 0ust stated, only the last need
be onsidered here. Cbviously the material fats
reited in the reports as to the ause and
irumstanes of the fire #ere not #ithin the personal
*no#ledge of the offiers #ho onduted the
investigation. Bas *no#ledge of suh fats, ho#ever,
auired by them through offiial informationF to !eandro lores, driver of the tan*
tru* from #hih gasoline #as being transferred at thetime to the underground tan* of the station> and to
respondent +ateo 'ouiren, #ho ould not, aording
to @hibit /& the fats stated therein #ere not
auired by the reporting offiers through offiial
information, not having been given by the informants
pursuant to any duty to do so.
he net uestion is #hether or not, #ithout proof as
to the ause and origin of the fire, the dotrine of res
ipsa lo!uitur should apply so as to presume
negligene on the part of appellees. 'oth the trial
ourt and the appellate ourt refused to apply the
dotrine in the instant ase on the grounds that -as to2its appliability ... in the 8hilippines, there seems to
he nothing definite,- and that #hile the rules do not
prohibit its adoption in appropriate ases, -in the ase
at bar, ho#ever, #e find no pratial use for suh
dotrine.- he uestion deserves more than suh
summary dismissal. he dotrine has atually been
applied in this 0urisdition, in the ase of #spiritu vs.
Philippine Power and =evelopent Co. 2
7/25/2019 Case torts
20/40
20
installed and maintained by the defendant
8hilippine 8o#er and "evelopment o., In.
alongside the road, suddenly parted, and one
of the bro*en ends hit the head of the plaintiff
as he #as about to board the tru*.
159 @ng. Aeprint $99, the leading ase that
established that rule. onseuently, in the
absene of ontributory negligene 2#hih is
admittedly not present, the fat that the #ire
snapped suffies to raise a reasonable
presumption of negligene in its installation,
are and maintenane. hereafter, as
observed by hief 'aron 8ollo*, -if there are
any fats inonsistent #ith negligene, it is forthe defendant to prove.-
It is true of ourse that deisions of the ourt of
7/25/2019 Case torts
21/40
21
0udgment, on the ground the testimony failed
to sho# #ith reasonable ertainty any
negligene on the part of the )hell 8etroleum
orporation or any of its agents or employees.
8laintiff applied to this ourt for a Brit of
Aevie# #hih #as granted, and the ase is
no# before us for [email protected]
In resolving the issue of negligene, the )upreme
ourt of !ouisiana held:
8laintiff;s petition ontains t#o distint harges
of negligene one relating to the ause of
the fire and the other relating to the spreading
of the gasoline about the filling station.
Cther than an epert to assess the damages
aused plaintiff;s building by the fire, no#itnesses #ere plaed on the stand by the
defendant.
a*ing up plaintiff;s harge of negligene
relating to the ause of the fire, #e find it
established by the reord that the filling
station and the tan* tru* #ere under the
ontrol of the defendant and operated by its
agents or employees. Be further find from the
unontradited testimony of plaintiff;s
#itnesses that fire started in the undergroundtan* attahed to the filling station #hile it #as
being filled from the tan* tru* and #hile both
the tan* and the tru* #ere in harge of and
being operated by the agents or employees of
the defendant, etended to the hose and tan*
tru*, and #as ommuniated from the
burning hose, tan* tru*, and esaping
gasoline to the building o#ned by the plaintiff.
8rediated on these irumstanes and the
further irumstane of defendant;s failure toeplain the ause of the fire or to sho# its la*
of *no#ledge of the ause, plaintiff has
evo*ed the dotrine of res ipsa lo!uitur. here
are many ases in #hih the dotrine may be
suessfully invo*ed and this, #e thin*, is one
of them.
Bhere the thing #hih aused the in0ury
omplained of is sho#n to be under the
management of defendant or his servants and
the aident is suh as in the ordinary ourse
of things does not happen if those #ho have
its management or ontrol use proper are, it
affords reasonable evidene, in absene of
eplanation by defendant, that the aident
arose from #ant of are. 2%5 .J. Q7?G, p.
1193.
his statement of the rule of res ipsa
lo!uitur has been #idely approved and
adopted by the ourts of last resort. )ome of
the ases in this 0urisdition in #hih the
dotrine has been applied are the
follo#ing, vi3.: +aus v. 'roderi*, 51 !a. 4ebert v. !a*e harles Ie,
et., o., 111 !a. 5$$, 35 )o. 731, ?% !.A. 'ents v.8age, 115 !a. 5?, 39 )o. 599.
he priniple enuniated in the aforeuoted ase
applies #ith eual fore here. he gasoline station,
#ith all its applianes, euipment and employees,
#as under the ontrol of appellees. < fire ourred
therein and spread to and burned the neighboring
houses. he persons #ho *ne# or ould have *no#n
ho# the fire started #ere appellees and their
employees, but they gave no eplanation thereof
#hatsoever. It is a fair and reasonable inferene thatthe inident happened beause of #ant of are.
In the report submitted by aptain !eonio +ariano of
the +anila 8olie "epartment 2@h. K&1
7/25/2019 Case torts
22/40
22
tever be theBat0vities of these peopleor
lighting a igarette annot be eluded and
this onstitute a seondary haDard to its
operation #hih in turn endangers the entire
neighborhood to onflagration.
urthermore, aside from preautions alreadyta*en by its operator the onrete #alls south
and #est ad0oining the neighborhood are only
$&16$ meters high at most and annot avoid
the flames from leaping over it in ase of fire.
Aeords sho# that there have been t#o ases
of fire #hih aused not only material
damages but desperation and also pani in
the neighborhood.
7/25/2019 Case torts
23/40
23
negligene. < deision of the )upreme ourt of eas,
upon fats analogous to those of the present ase,
states the rule #hih #e find aeptable here. -It is
the rule that those #ho distribute a dangerous artile
or agent, o#e a degree of protetion to the publi
proportionate to and ommensurate #ith a danger
involved ... #e thin* it is the generally aepted ruleas applied to torts that ;if the effets of the ator;s
negligent ondut atively and ontinuously operate
to bring about harm to another, the fat that the ative
and substantially simultaneous operation of the
effets of a third person;s innoent, tortious or riminal
at is also a substantial fator in bringing about the
harm, does not protet the ator from liability.;
2Aestatement of the !a# of orts, vol. $, p. 11G%,
Q%39. )tated in another #ay, -he intention of an
unforeseen and unepeted ause, is not suffiient to
relieve a #rongdoer from onseuenes ofnegligene, if suh negligene diretly and
proimately ooperates #ith the independent ause in
the resulting in0ury.- 2+a 2$ at the time of the fire alte o#ned the
gasoline station and all the euipment therein> 23
alte eerised ontrol over 'ouiren in the
management of the state> 2% the delivery tru* used
in delivering gasoline to the station had the name of
and 25 the liense to store
gasoline at the station #as in the name of alte,
#hih paid the liense fees. 2@hibit & @hibit
=& @hibit K&5 @hibit K&? @hibit&
7/25/2019 Case torts
24/40
24
ondut the business #ith due diligene, in the
0udgment of alte. ermination of the ontrat #as
therefore a right granted only to alte but not to
'ouiren. hese provisions of the ontrat sho# the
etent of the ontrol of alte over 'ouiren. he
ontrol #as suh that the latter #as virtually an
employee of the former.
a*ing into onsideration the fat that the
operator o#ed his position to the ompany
and the latter ould remove him or terminate
his servies at #ill> that the servie station
belonged to the ompany and bore its
tradename and the operator sold only the
produts of the ompany> that the euipment
used by the operator belonged to the
ompany and #ere 0ust loaned to the operator
and the ompany too* harge of their repairand maintenane> that an employee of the
ompany supervised the operator and
onduted periodi inspetion of the
ompany;s gasoline and servie station> that
the prie of the produts sold by the operator
#as fied by the ompany and not by the
operator> and that the reeipts signed by the
operator indiated that he #as a mere agent,
the finding of the ourt of but the ompany #as not satisfied to
allo# suh relationship to eist. he evidene
sho#s that it immediately assumed ontrol,
and proeeded to diret the method by #hih
the #or* ontrated for should be performed.
'y reserving the right to terminate the ontratat #ill, it retained the means of ompelling
submission to its orders. 4aving eleted to
assume ontrol and to diret the means and
methods by #hih the #or* has to be
performed, it must be held liable for the
negligene of those performing servie under
its diretion. Be thin* the evidene #as
suffiient to sustain the verdit of the 0ury.
2ulf Aefining ompany v. Aogers, 57 ).B.
$d, 1G3.
alte further argues that the gasoline stored in the
station belonged to 'ouiren. 'ut no ash invoies
#ere presented to sho# that 'ouiren had bought
said gasoline from alte. Neither #as there a sales
ontrat to prove the same.
7/25/2019 Case torts
25/40
25
appellants, and ordered to pay them the aforesaid
sum of 89,5.G and 81,., respetively, #ith
interest from the filing of the omplaint, and osts.
G.R. No. L-527'2 #:) 29, 1988
&.&. CR; a!" CO., INC., petitioner,vs.
THE CORT O& #PPE#LS, GREGORIO M#%LE a)
))3/" * h3) auricio >. >onta for respondents.
CORTES, J.:
his petition to revie# the deision of the ourt of
$. Crdering the defendant to pay to
the plaintiffs the sum of 85,. for
the loss of plaintiffs; furnitures,
religious images, silver#ares,
hina#ares, 0e#elries, boo*s, *ithen
utensils, lothing and other valuables,
#ith interest of ?H from date of the
filing of the omplaint on January $3,
1975, until fully paid>
3. Crdering the defendant to pay to
the plaintiffs the sum of 85,. as
moral damages, 8$,. as
eemplary damages, and 85,.
as and by #ay of attorney;s fees>
%. Bith osts against the defendant>
5. ounterlaim is ordered dismissed,
for la* of merit. < "eision, pp. 1&$Aollo, pp. $9&3.O
Cn appeal, the ourt of
7/25/2019 Case torts
26/40
26
should be redued to 87,. for
the house and 85,. for the
furniture and other fitures #ith legal
interest from the date of the filing of
the omplaint until full payment
thereof. < "eision, p. 7> Aollo, p.
35.O
< motion for reonsideration #as filed on "eember
3, 1979 but #as denied in a resolution dated ebruary
1G, 19G. 4ene, petitioner filed the instant petition for
revie# on ebruary $$, 19G.
7/25/2019 Case torts
27/40
27
sub0eted to intense heat. =efendant*s
negligence, therefore, was not only
with respect to the cause of the fire
"ut also with respect to the spread
thereof to the neigh"oring
houses. @mphasis supplied.O
In the instant ase, #ith more reason should petitioner
be found guilty of negligene sine it had failed to
onstrut a fire#all bet#een its property and private
respondents; residene #hih suffiiently omplies
#ith the pertinent ity ordinanes. he failure to
omply #ith an ordinane providing for safety
regulations had been ruled by the ourt as an at of
negligene eague v. ernandeD, .A. No. !&$97%5,
June %, 1973, 51 )A< 1G1.O
he ourt of
7/25/2019 Case torts
28/40
28
his right to reimbursement of the 835,. paid to
the insured.
B4@A@CA@, in vie# of the foregoing, the deision
of the ourt of
7/25/2019 Case torts
29/40
29
seretary, the amount of 81,5. as
-professional fee-. . . .
)oon after leaving the 4ospital +rs.
/illegas began to suffer abdominal
pains and omplained of being
feverish. )he also gradually lost herappetite, so she onsulted "r. 'atiuin
at the latter;s polylini #ho presribed
for her ertain mediines. . . #hih she
had been ta*ing up to "eember,
19GG.
In the meantime, +rs. /illegas #as
given a +edial ertifiate by "r.
'atiuin on Ctober 31, 19GG. . .
ertifying to her physial fitness to
return to her #or* on November 7,19GG. )o, on the seond #ee* of
November, 19GG +rs. /illegas
returned to her #or* at the Aural 'an*
of
7/25/2019 Case torts
30/40
30
hand *no#ledge- thereof,16as ould be gleaned from
her statement, thus:
< . . . I have heard
somebody that sicO
says sicO there is sicO
a foreign body thatgoes #ith the tissues
but unlu*ily I don;t
*no# #here the rubber
#as.17
he trial ourt deemed vital "r. /itoria 'atiuin;s
testimony that #hen she onfronted "r. Eho regarding
the piee of rubber, -"r. Eho ans#ered that there #as
rubber indeed but that she thre# it a#ay.-18his
statement, the trial ourt noted, #as never denied nor
disputed by "r. Eho, leading it to onlude:
here are no# t#o different versions
on the #hereabouts of that offending
-rubber- 21 that it #as sent to the
8athologist in ebu as testified to in
ourt by "r. Eho and 2$ that "r. Eho
thre# it a#ay as told by her to
"efendant. he failure of the 8laintiffs
to reonile these t#o different
versions serve only to #ea*en their
laim against "efendant 'atiuin.19
that she eamined the
portion she operated on before losing
the same. . . 4ad she eerised due
diligene, appellee "r. 'atiuin #ould
have found the rubber and removed it
before losing the operating area.20
he appellate ourt then ruled:
7/25/2019 Case torts
31/40
31
B4@A@CA@, the appealed
0udgment, dismissing the omplaint for
damages is A@/@A)@" and )@
7/25/2019 Case torts
32/40
32
uterus it #as very dirty,
it #as full of pus.
7/25/2019 Case torts
33/40
33
7/25/2019 Case torts
34/40
34
intended to and does
not dispense #ith the
reuirement of proof of
ulpable negligene on
the party harged. It
merely determines and
regulates #hat shallbepria
facieevidene thereof
and failitates the
burden of plaintiff of
proving a breah of the
duty of due are. he
dotrine an be
invo*ed #hen and only
#hen, under the
irumstanes
involved, diretevidene is absent and
not readily available.'6
In the instant ase, all the reuisites for reourse to
the dotrine are present. irst, the entire proeedings
of the aesarean setion #ere under the elusive
ontrol of "r. 'atiuin. In this light, the private
respondents #ere bereft of diret evidene as to the
atual ulprit or the eat ause of the foreign ob0et
finding its #ay into private respondent /illegas;s body,
#hih, needless to say, does not our unless throughthe intersetion of negligene. )eond, sine aside
from the aesarean setion, private respondent
/illegas under#ent no other operation #hih ould
have aused the offending piee of rubber to appear
in her uterus, it stands to reason that suh ould only
have been a by&produt of the aesarean setion
performed by "r. 'atiuin. he petitioners, in this
regard, failed to overome the presumption of
negligene arising from resort to the dotrine of res
ipsa lo!uitur. "r. 'atiuin is therefore liable for
negligently leaving behind a piee of rubber in privaterespondent /illegas;s abdomen and for all the
adverse effets thereof.
7/25/2019 Case torts
35/40
35
$40%/05.% ith intere!t from the filing ofthe complaint.
Said Ci&il Ca!e '5 a! filed pur!uant to are!er&ation made b the plaintiff! to file a ci&ilaction !eparatel from the criminal ca!ein!tituted again!t the +. ,. -. +. bu! dri&erSergio de ,una in the Court of ir!t "n!tance of,aguna% for homicide and multiple ph!icalinjurie! and damage to propert throughrec1le!! imprudence% in connection ith the!ame &ehicular accident. -he ,aguna Court hadcon&icted de ,una of the criminal charge% butthe judgment% a! appealed and i! pending inthe Court of Appeal!.
2f the detailed finding! of fact! of the trialcourt% e affirm the folloing a! either non*contro&erted or preponderantl e!tabli!hed bthe e&idence3jgc3chanroble!.com.ph
+efore ebruar % /64% 7o&ito +onifacio%Sr.% together ith hi! ife (plaintiff Ro!arioSanto! de +onifacio) and neighbor Agu!tinAngele!% u!ed to bathe in the $an!ol hot!pring! at ,o! +a8o!% ,aguna% tice a ee1.-he made !uch trip! in hi! /6 9ercede!+en# car ith plaintiff Alberto Concepcion a!hi! dri&er% a dul licen!ed dri&er !ince /46.
About 4300 o:cloc1 in the morning of ebruar% /64% the four of them left +arrioSumilang% $a!ig% bound for the $an!ol hot!pring! in ,o! +a8o!% ,aguna. 7o&ito% Sr. a!!eated be!ide hi! dri&er Alberto Concepcion;hile Agu!tin Angele! a! !eated on the left!ide of the rear !eat ith plaintiff Ro!arioSanto!
7/25/2019 Case torts
36/40
36
the court belo correctl held that theproBimate cau!e of the accident a! thenegligence of the ,.-.+. bu! dri&er% de ,una%ho failed to ta1e the nece!!ar precaution!demanded b the circum!tance!. @e admittedthat hen the mi!hap occurred% it a! !tilldar1% and a! it a! raining% reGui!ite prudencereGuired that de ,una !hould be more carefulthan u!ual% and !lac1en hi! pace% for the ethigha could be eBpected to be !lipper. &ena!!uming that the pre!ence of the par1edcargo truc1 did con!titute an emergenc%although it a! in plain &ie% !till% if de ,unahad not been dri&ing unrea!onabl fa!t% hi!bu! ould not ha&e !1idded to the left andin&aded the lane of the oncoming car hen heapplied hi! bra1e!. @i! ha&ing failed to !ee thepar1ed cargo truc1 until he a! onl 50 meter!from it al!o ju!tifie! the inference that he a!inattenti&e to hi! re!pon!ibilit a! a dri&er. -hathe did not 1no that anone el!e a! u!ingthe road i! no defen!e to hi! negligentoperation of hi! &ehicle% !ince he !hould bee!peciall atchful in anticipation of other!ho ma be u!ing the higha; and hi! failureto 1eep a proper loo1out for per!on! andobject! in the line to be tra&er!ed con!titute!negligence ( Am. 7ur. d /0). urthermore%in intruding into the lane re!er&ed for &ehicle!coming from the oppo!ite direction% it a!incumbent upon the bu! dri&er to ma1e !urethat be could do !o ithout danger.
Confirmator of the foregoing con!ideration! i!the fact that de ,una him!elf admitted% in the!tatement% Bhibit A% ta1en b the chief ofpolice% and !ub!cribed and !orn to before the9aor of San $edro% ,aguna% at '300 o:cloc1 inthe !ame morning of the accident% and hilethe fact! ere fre!h in hi! mind% that hen he(de ,una) noticed the par1ed cargo truc1 he!lammed on hi! bra1e! and becau!e of thi!%the bu! !1idded to the left and hit the9ercede! +en# car (. . . ang ginaa 1o po anagpreno a1o ng a1ing !a!a1angminamaneho at dahil po dito a umi!lad anga1ing tra1 na papuntang 1alia% !ubalit !ia ponamang pagdaan ng i!ang atong 9ercede!+en# na a1ing nabunggo . . .)
-he &er!ion at the trial of defendant*appellantSergio de ,una% and hi! itne!!e!% i! thathen the former !a the par1ed cargo truc1he !loed don% !er&ed a little to the left%
then completel !topped hi! &ehicle; that rightthen% the 9ercede! +en# car hit hi! bu!% ith!uch force that the bu! turned to the directionhere it came from. Not onl i! thi! &er!ionbelied b de ,una:! original and !pontaneou!!tatement to the San $edro $olice% but it a!infirmed b ph!ical fact!.
"t i! incredible% and contrar to commoneBperience and ob!er&ation% that the bu!%admittedl three (=) time! bigger than the car%and loaded ith about fort(40) pa!!enger!%could be turned around hile !tanding !till bthe impact of the much !maller car. Nor a!hi! !er&ing to the left ju!tifiable if he ere incontrol of hi! &ehicle% !ince he had a clear &ieof the left lane and the oncoming 9ercede!+en# from the dri&er:! !eat of the bu!.&idence% to be belie&ed% mu!t not onlproceed from the mouth of a credible itne!!%but it mu!t be credible in it!elf ($eople &.+aGuiran% ,*05=% / 7une /6% 0 SCRA45).
-here a! no negligence on the part of thedri&er of the 9ercede! car% Alberto Concepcion.
A motori!t ho i! properl proceeding on hi!on !ide of the higha% e&en after he !ee! anapproaching motori!t coming toard him onthe rong !ide% i! generall entitled to a!!umethat the other motori!t ill return to hi! properlane of traffic% . . . (' Am. 7ur. d =/)
-hat the ,.-.+. bu! a! damaged near thefront right heel and fender pro&e! that the9ercede! a! alread &er clo!e to the placeof colli!ion hen it occurred% !o that the cardri&er had no chance to e&ade it. Nor did !aiddri&er% Concepcion% po!!e!! an mean! of1noing that the bu! intruding into hi! line oftra&el a! !1idding out of control% and couldnot dra bac1 to it! proper lane.
Appellant! pretend that the 9ercede! car a!proceeding at rec1le!! !peed% but thi! chargere!t! on nothing more !ub!tantial than analleged !tatement b 9r!. +onifacio at theho!pital that her dri&er a! dri&ing fa!t. -hecourt belo% in our opinion% correctldi!credited thi! e&idence% for at the time it a!!uppo!edl made% 9r!. +onifacio a! !till in a!tate of !hoc1% ith &i!itor! barred b doctor:!order!; and% moreo&er% defen!e itne!!% eB*
7/25/2019 Case torts
37/40
37
Cpl. Ca!antu!an% did not e&en ta1e don orreport the pretended !tatement%notith!tanding it! patent importance; therea! no corroboration thereof% and it a!contradicted b the car dri&er and b 9r!.+onifacio her!elf. -he rule% too ell*1non toreGuire citation of authoritie!% i! that in theab!ence of clear error (and none i! !hon inthe pre!ent in!tance) a trial court:! e!timateon the credibilit of itne!!e!% ho!edemeanor it had unparalleled opportunit toob!er&e% ill not be di!turbed on appeal.
At an rate% !o long a! the 9ercede! carremained in it! proper lane% it! !peed could notha&e been the proBimate cau!e of the mi!hap.
2n the !econd i!!ue po!ed% the rule underArticle '0 of the Ci&il Code of the $hilippine!ma1e! an emploer liable for damage cau!edb hi! emploee in the di!charge of hi! dutie!%unle!! the former adeGuatel pro&e! ha&ingeBerci!ed due care in the !election and!uper&i!ion of the emploee.
Appellant compan defend! that it hadob!er&ed all the diligence of a good father of afamil to pre&ent damage% conformabl to thela!t paragraph of !aid Article '0. "t adducede&idence to !ho that in hiring dri&er de ,una%the latter a! te!ted on hi! proficienc a! adri&er; that he pa!!ed the te!t gi&en b thecompan:! board of eBaminer!% compo!ed ofthe office manager% the medical director% thechief of the legal department and the job!uperintendent% a!ide from the orientation te!tgi&en b eBperienced dri&er! along thedifferent line! of the compan; that thecompan i!!ued !er&ice manual! to it!emploee!% a!ide from memorandum circular!and dut order! to go&ern the conduct of it!dri&er!; that it a!!ign! in!pector! interlin1edith one another along the different line! ofthe compan to !ee to it that the rule! andregulation! are complied ith b all thedri&er!; that it mete! out penaltie!% !uch a!fine!% to erring dri&er!; that it maintain! !hop!at different !tation! here !e&eral mechanic!are a!!igned to !ee to it that no truc1 lea&e!on the line ithout being thoroughl chec1ed;that it 1eep! a !ummar of !er&ice record! ofit! dri&er! to help in determining theirefficienc and fitne!!; that it conduct!!eminar! on !afe*dri&ing and pre&ention of
accident!; that it had recei&ed an aard ofappreciation in /6= b the National -rafficSafet Committee; that it u!ed the be!ta&ailable bra1e lining on +u! No. =6 and that!aid bu! a! completel chec1ed for roadorthine!! the da before the accident.
Het the e&idence of appellant compan al!oe!tabli!hed fact! that demoli!hed it! &erdefen!e of diligence of a good father of afamil% for it plainl !ho! ineBcu!able laBitin the !uper&i!ion of it! dri&er and in themaintenance of it! &ehicle!. Salient amongthe!e fact! are the folloing3chanrobe!&irtual a librar
(a) Defen!e itne!! Cue&a! a!!erted that thebra1e lining of the bu! a! changed on 07anuar /64% o&er a month prior to theaccident% although bra1e lining! la!t about =0da! onl. -he change in lining a! o&erduebut the appellant bu! compan tried to hidethi! fact. Said the trialcourt3jgc3chanroble!.com.ph
. . . -he job !heet for the change of bra1elining appear! dated 7an. 0% /64% in in1.-here a! an attempt to change it b cro!!ingout 7an. and !uper*impo!ing the ord eb.in pencil (!ee page 5/'% rec.). -here a! anattempt to ma1e eb. 0% /64 a! alteredappear a! the correct date I in!tead of7anuar 0% /64 I b not arrangingchronologicall the &ariou! order! andJor job!heet! for !aid bu! No. =6 in !aid folder% Bh.% and b placing the !aid !mall job !heet a!page of the !aid folder% Bhibit % hichha! for it! fir!t page an order for bu! No. =6dated ebruar =% /64 (p. of Bhibit orBh. 5*+% p. /0% rec.). (Rec. on Appeal% p.=.)
+ re!orting to the!e documentar alteration!%the compan indicated it! aarene!! that it!ca!e i! ea1 or unfounded and from that mabe inferred that it! ca!e of appellant lac1! truthand merit. -he claim on appeal that thealteration in the riting a! innocent% or thatthe compan !hould ha&e been gi&en anopportunit to eBplain becau!e it a! caughtunaare that the court belo ould ta1e theincident again!t them a! it did% i! untenable.-he rule reGuire! that a part% producing ariting a! genuine but hich a! found altered
7/25/2019 Case torts
38/40
38
after it! eBecution% in a part material to theGue!tion in di!pute% !hould account for thealteration% and if he do that% he ma gi&e theriting in e&idence% but not otheri!e.(Section =% Rule =% Re&i!ed Rule! of Court.)"n other ord!% the compan !hould ha&eaccounted for the alteration hen it introducedthe job !heet in e&idence% and not endea&or toeBplain the alteration afterard!.
(b) -he record of dri&er de ,una !ho! that% onthe a&erage% he a! at the heel and on theroad for ele&en () hour! and thirt*fi&e (=5)minute! per da% from $aete to 9anila andbac1% and $aete to San Antonio and bac1%!tarting before dan until the e&ening. @e ha!been in the $aete*9anila route for four (4)ear! (-.!.n.% No&ember /65% page! ='*=/). @e a! paid b the hour% !o that the moretime he dro&e% the greater compen!ation herecei&ed. -hat emploer compan thu!abetted% ob&iou!l for the !a1e of greaterprofit% the gruelling !chedule% unmindful of theharmful con!eGuence that eBce!!i&e or1ingtime ould regi!ter upon the dri&er:! health%and% particularl% on hi! refleBe!. -he pa*offcame hen dri&er de ,una% becau!e of hi!accumulated fatigue and inattenti&ene!! failedto notice !ea!onabl the pre!ence of thepar1ed cargo truc1 upon hi! lane of traffic%impelling him to bra1e !uddenl in an effort toa&oid hitting it% -he bra1ing made the bu! !lideand encroach upon the other lane% re!ulting init! colli!ion ith the oncoming automobile.
(c) Sergio de ,una had repeatedl &iolatedcompan rule!. De!pite hi! numerou!infraction!% = in all !ince /5% and includinga colli!ion ith a carretela% the compan too1no more dra!tic action again!t him other thanrepeated arning! and impo!ing to1en fine!%hich on the hole amount! to tolerance ofthe &iolation! or laBit or negligence in theenforcement of the compan rule!.
(d) 2n it! bu! in&ol&ed in the accident (No.=6)% the appellant compan a! al!onegligent. -he bu! a! la!t o&erhauled on 67anuar /6= but a! u!uall o&erhaulede&er !iB month!; it! o&erhauling therefore%a! o&erdue b !iB month!. "n addition% a!heretofore ob!er&ed% it! bra1e lining! ere la!tchanged on 0 7anuar /64% but ere u!uallchanged e&er =0 da!; the changing a!
therefore% o&erdue b one () month and!e&enteen () da! at the time of the mi!hap%and mu!t ha&e contributed to the dri&er:!inabilit to control the !1idding that led to thecolli!ion.
"n the face of the!e plain in!tance! of laB!uper&i!ion% the trial court ha! aptlremar1ed3jgc3chanroble!.com.ph
-he mere i!!uance of numerou! rule! andregulation!% ithout the corre!ponding periodicchec1! a! to hether !uch rule! andregulation! are being complied ith% i! not!ufficient to eBempt the defendant bu! firmfrom liabilit ari!ing from the negligence of it!emploee!. Neither the e!tabli!hment ofmaintenance and repair !hop!% hich do notregularl !er&ice it! bu!e!% ould !uffice todemon!trate the diligence of the emploer inthe !election and !uper&i!ion of it! emploee!and in !er&icing and maintaining the bu!e! ingood running condition.crala &irtuaalibrar
-he minor error! charged again!t the appealeddeci!ion do not !uffice to o&errule the finding!of negligence of both the dri&er and thecompan% mea!ured b the reGuirement! ofordinar diligence. Appellant!: complaint intheir brief% that the loer court applied the lareGuiring carrier! to ob!er&e eBtraordinardiligence ith re!pect to pa!!enger!% and notordinar diligence ith re!pect to third partie!a! in the pre!ent ca!e% i! ithout ba!i!.
2n the Gue!tion of damage!% the trial courtproperl too1 into account that the late 7o&ito+onifacio% Sr.% a! alread a !ucce!!fulbu!ine!!man hen hi! life a! cut !hort% at theage of 4/% b the higha accident. @e a!trea!urer of +onifacio +ro!.% "nc.% a firm onedb him!elf and hi! brother% and hich i!engaged in the bu!ine!! of repairing motor&ehicle!. -he a!!et! of !aid firm in /6 ereorth $%05/%54.5=; it had 0 emploee!recei&ing a !alar of $%'00.00 or more% perannum; in /6=% it! a!!et! ere orth$//5%''5.' (Bhibit! * K *=). "nApril% /6=% the decea!ed founded 7. +onifacio+ro!.% "nc.% hich al!o engaged in the !ameline of bu!ine!!% ith principal office at 6 $.Ca!al% 9anila% and of hich he a! pre!ident a%the time of hi! demi!e. -he decea!ed had a
7/25/2019 Case torts
39/40
39
net income of $==%='.6 and $4%000.00 in/6 and /6=% re!pecti&el. -he loercourt% therefore% fairl a!!e!!ed that% had heli&ed to the age of 55% he ould ha&e earned atotal net income of $44%000.00. -he !iB*earlife eBpectanc alloed b the trial court i!!horter than that !hon b in!urance mortalittable!% but the aard a! not appealed.
+onifacio:! famil incurred eBpen!e! of$=%64.05% a! follo!; coffin I $600.00;burial lot I $/0.00; co!t of publication ofdeath notice! I $0.00; tomb I $4%'50.00;food and ga!oline during &igil I $%'.00;other eBpen!e! I $500.00; compen!ation to apri&ate in&e!tigator to loo1 into the record ofdefendant dri&er Sergio de ,una I $.05;and damage to 9ercede! +en# car% not co&eredb in!urance I $5%000.00.
Defendant!*appellant! Gue!tion the actual andlitigation eBpen!e! becau!e the ere paid bthe firm 7. +onifacio +ro!.% "nc.% arguing that!aid firm% not the plaintiff!% ha! the right toclaim the damage! b &irtue of !ubrogation%per Article! =0 and =0= of the Ci&il Code.-hi! i! a defen!e that% e&en if true (hich eneed not rule upon) !hould ha&e been in&o1edin the court belo% and it! interpo!ition come!too late on appeal. 9oreo&er% !uch a technicaldefen!e de!er&e! !cant con!ideration% becau!ethe firm i! a famil corporation and a!ubrogation of partie! ill neither dimini!h theeBpen!e! nor eBculpate defendant!*appellant!from liabilit therefor.
$laintiff*appellee Ro!ario Santo!
7/25/2019 Case torts
40/40
40
aarded% de!pite the lac1 of praer for intere!tin the plaintiff!: complaint. -he grant ofintere!t i! not nece!!aril error% for under theCi&il Code I
AR-. . "n crime! and Gua!i*delict!%intere!t a! a part of the damage! ma% in aproper ca!e% be adjudicated in the di!cretion ofthe court.crala &irtuaa librar
-he finding! and conclu!ion! of negligence onthe part of the defendant!*appellant!% and noton the part of the plaintiff!*appellee!% !ho thelac1 of merit of the la!t a!!ignment of errorabout the denial of appellant!: counterclaim forthe fee! of their on coun!el.
Appellant! !tre!! that the trial court !hould beheld di!Gualified becau!e the coun!el forplaintiff!*appellee! had been a cla!!mate ofthe trial judge. Admittedl% thi! i! not a legal
ground for di!Gualification. -o allo it ouldunnece!!aril burden other trial judge! tohom the ca!e ould be tran!ferred.?ltimatel% confu!ion ould re!ult% for underthe rule ad&ocated% a judge ould be barredfrom !itting in a ca!e hene&er one of hi!former cla!!mate! (and he could ha&e man)appeared. Nor ha&e the appellant! !ucce!!full!hon here that bia! di!torted the judgment orconduct of the challenged trier of the ca!e.-hat he !hould Gue!tion defen!e itne!!e!more clo!el than tho!e of the plaintiff! i! butnatural% !ince defendant!: e&idence &arie! fromproof alread on record. A de!ire to get at thetruth i! no proof of bia! or prejudice.
"ND"NM N2 R
Top Related