TORTS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

 


1. Q: Robert Downey shipped a box of cigarettes to a dealer in Angeles City

through Big Bus Company (BBC). When the bus reached San Fernando City, the

bus developed engine trouble. The driver brought the bus to a repair shop in San

Fernando where he was informed by the mechanic that an extensive repair was

necessary, which would take at least 2 days. While the bus was in the repair shop,

Typhoon Angela lashed Pampanga. The cargoes inside the bus, including

Downey’s cigarettes, got wet and were totally spoiled. Downey sued BBC for

damage to his cargoes. Decide.


A: The BBC is liable for damages to the cargoes lost by Downey. A natural disaster

would relieve liability if it is the proximate and only cause of the damage. The carrier

itself, in this case, had been negligent. The presumption of negligence in culpa

contractual is not overcome by engine trouble which does not preclude its having been

due to the fault of the common carrier. The fact that an extensive repair work was

necessary which, in fact, took 2 days to complete somehow justifies an impression that

the engine trouble could have been detected, if not already known, well before the

actual breakdown.


2. Angel Trucking, a small company, operates 2 trucks for hire on selective basis.

It caters to only a few customers, and its trucks do not make regular or scheduled

trips. It does not even have a certificate of public convenience.

On one occasion, Mark contracted Angel to transport, for a fee, 100 sacks of rice

from Manila to Laguna. However, Angel failed to deliver the cargo, because its

truck was hijacked when the driver stopped in Cavite to visit his girlfriend. May

Angel set up the hijacking as a defense to defeat Mark’s claim?


A: Angel may not set up the hijacking as a defense to defeat Mark’s claim as the facts

given do not indicate that the same was attended by the use of grave or irresistible

threat, violence or force. It would appear that the truck was left unattended by its driver

and was taken while he was visiting his girlfriend.


3. Bobby so hailed a taxicab owned and operated by Stephen Yung and driven by

Randy Orton. Bobby asked Orton to take him to his office in Makati. On the way to

Makati, the taxicab collided with a passenger jeepney, as a result of which Bobby

was injured i.e. he fractured his right leg. Bobby sued Stephen for damages,

based upon a contract of carriage, and Bobby won. Stephen wanted to challenge

the decision before the SC on the ground that the trial court erred in not making

an express finding as to whether or not Stephen was responsible for the collision

and, hence, civilly liable to Bobby. He went to see you for advice. What will you

tell him. Explain


A: I will advise Stephen to desist from challenging the decision. The action of Bobby

being based in culpa contractual, the carrier’s negligence is presumed upon the breach

of contract. The burden of proof instead would lie in Stephen to establish that despite an

exercise of utmost diligence the collision could not have been avoided.

 

 

4. Q: Juan Tanggero (Juan) was on his way home at about 2:00 a.m. from a

cocktails and dinner meeting with his boss. During the cocktails phase of

the evening, Juan had taken “a shot or two” of liquor. Juan was driving his

Toyota Vios car and crossing the 12th Street and 13th street intersection in

Bonifacio Global City at 80km per hour by beating the red light. Another car,

an Isuzu dump truck owned by ABC Corporation which was being driven by

Cardo Dalisay was also heading to the opposite lane by overtaking a red

Mitsubishi Montero along 12th Street and 13th Street Intersection. Thereafter,

an unsuspecting civilian, Bryan Dimla, crossed the said intersection and was

hit by Toyota Vios driven by Juan Tanggero. As a result of the said impact,

Bryan’s body was thrown 15 meters away from the Vios and was thereafter

crushed by an Isuzu dump truck driven by Cardo Dalisay. A case was filed

by the heirs of Bryan Dimla against Juan and Cardo for damages and loss of

income. Based on the facts of the case, decide who is/are negligent/s and

liable to the death of Bryan Dimla?


A: Both drivers, Juan Tanggero and Cardo Dalisay were negligent when they failed

to observe basic traffic rules designed for the safety of their fellow motorists,

civilians, and passengers. In the case of Caminos vs. People, the Court held that

“the right of a person using public streets and highways for travel in relation to

other motorists is mutual, coordinate and reciprocal. He is bound to anticipate the

presence of other persons whose rights on the street or highway are equal to his

own. Although he is not an insurer against injury to persons or property, it is

nevertheless his duty to operate his motor vehicle with due and reasonable care

and caution under the circumstances for the safety of others as well as for his

own.” Further, under Article 2194 of the New Civil Code, liability of two or more

persons is solidary in quasi-delicts. In the case at bar, the proximate cause of the

death of Bryan Dimla was the impact of the over speeding Toyota Vios that resulted

to the body of Bryan to thrown away at 15 meters from the Vios. Speeding,

moreover, is indicative of imprudent behavior because a motorist is bound to

exercise such ordinary care and drive at a reasonable rate of speed commensurate

with the conditions encountered on the road. The overtaking Isuzu dump truck also

contributed to the death of Bryan when it run over its body. Hence, Juan Tanggero

and Cardo Dalisay act or omission caused the death of Brayn, they were joint-tortfeasors

and must be solidarily liable to the heirs of deceased Bryan Dimla.


5. Q: Leni Duterte and his driver, Rody Robredo were on board a mini cooper

travelling the northbound section of Ortigas Avenue. On their way to Makati

City Hall, they figured in a vehicular accident with an owner type jeepney

driven by Manny Marcos. As a result of the said accident, Leni Duterte died

instantaneously. The heirs of Leni Duterte filed a complaint for damages and

compensation for the loss income due to the death of their breadwinner

father. Manny Marcos countered that the case should be dismissed as he is

not the one who is negligent. Marcos argued that he was travelling along the

southbound section of Ortigas Avenue at a reasonable limit of 40 kilometers

per hours and stop when he is crossing the intersection. Rody Robredo

alleged that he was not negligent as he was making a left turn and that he

has a right of way which Manny should yield. Given the facts of the case,

decide who is negligent?


A: Manny Marcos is negligent. Under Sec. 42. (a) of R. A 4136, when two vehicles

approach or enter an intersection at approximately the same time, the driver of the

vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the vehicle on the right, except as

otherwise hereinafter provided. The driver of any vehicle traveling at an unlawful

speed shall forfeit any right of way which he might otherwise have hereunder. It is

settled jurisprudence that when a vehicle is making a turn to the left, he has the

duty to yield to the vehicle approaching from the opposite lane on the right side.

Here, Manny, although travelling at a reasonable speed should yield to the

approaching vehicle of Leni and Rody as they have the right of way. Hence, Manny

is negligent when he failed to yield to right of way of Leni and Rody from the

opposite lane on the right side.


6. Q: Mona Lito was on board a Toyota Fortuner traversing Espana Boulevard on

the way to University of Santo Tomas (UST) to attend to his Torts and

Damages class. Mona Lito was already 15 minutes late to his 12:30pm class

in UST, as such he drove the car at 80 kilometers per hour. On the other

hand, Martin Cato, a jeepney driver who was flagged by a traffic enforcer for

traffic violation for beating the red light drove his jeepney at 80 kilometers

per hour to escape the traffic enforcer. Thereafter, along the intersection in

Espana Boulevard, Mona and Martin bumped to each other and destroyed

the food stall of Anna Carenina. Martin, Anna, and Mona suffered serious

physical injuries. Thereafter, Anna filed a case against Mona and Martin

Given the facts of the case, decide who is/are negligent/s and liable to Anna?


A: Mona and Martin were both negligent in the case at bar. In the case of Chan Jr.,

vs. Iglesia Ni Cristo, the Court held that “tort-feasors are jointly and severally liable

for the tort which they commit. The persons injured may sue all of them or any

number less than all. Each is liable for the whole damages caused by all, and all

together are jointly liable for the whole damage. It is no defense for one sued alone,

that the others who participated in the wrongful act are not joined with him as

defendants; nor is it any excuse for him that his participation in the tort was

insignificant as compared to that of the others.” Article 2194 of the New Civil Code

provides that, liability of two or more persons is solidary in quasi-delicts. Here, both

drivers were over speeding before they bumped to each other. The proximate

cause of the injuries sustained by Anna, Mona and martin was due to their over

speeding and traffic violations of the two drivers. Hence, Mona and Martin as joint

tort-feasors should be liable to the destroyed food stall of Anna and the injuries

she sustained.

 

 

7. Q: Randy was driving his boss, Mr. Bean, home after a long day’s work. Mr. Bean was

hurriedly going home so he will not miss the basketball game showing on TV that night

and told Randy that they should be home in 10 minutes. On their way home, Randy,

driving at a speed of 120 km/h, did not heed any warning brought about by road signs of

the slippery road and the incoming intersection. As they approached the intersection, one

of the tires burst which caused the car to form donuts and eventually turn turtle as it hit

Mr. X while he was enjoying a burger inside his car. Who is liable in this case?


A: Both Mr. Bean and Randy are liable in this case. It is established that where the

concurrent or successive negligent acts or omissions of two or more persons, although

acting independently, are in combination the direct and proximate cause of a single injury

to a third person, it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the

injury and either of them is responsible for the whole injury. Clearly Randy and Mr. Bean

were negligent in this case, Randy should have exercised proper diligence in driving the

car, and Mr. Bean should have known the perils of having a car driven in excess of the

speed limit. Being joint tortfeasors, Randy and Mr. Bean are liable solidarily to Mr. X for

the damages he sustained.


8. Q: Digging Co. was a digging specialist hired by the top Law Firms of the Philippines. Mr. X

procured the services of Digging Co. and the two entered into a contract to dig on his

backyard an Olympic sized swimming pool because he felt hot one rainy afternoon. Mr.

X kept shouting at Digging Co. to make a bigger pool since he was not satisfied. After

digging, it was discovered that Digging Co. dug too far and hit one of the waterpipes of

Mr. X’s neighbor, Joe. Mr. X alleged that only Digging Co. is liable for damages to Joe. Is

Mr. X correct?


A: No. According to the Civil Code, all requisites of a quasi-delict are present in this case.

The tortious act was the digging performed by Digging Co. leading to the destruction of

the waterpipes of Joe due to his negligence. As a rule, joint tortfeasors are all the persons

who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or

abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit.

In this case, Digging Co. and Mr. X cooperated in committing the tort. Being joint

tortfeasors, Digging Co and Mr. X are liable solidarily for damages against Joe.


9. Q: Sheldon hired the services of Mr. Rex to construct a basketball hoop on his property. Mr.

Rex found out that the concrete where the basketball hoop was to stand was only a cheap

mixture of cement and had a high risk of getting destroyed. Sheldon paid no mind to such

warning and told Mr. Rex to complete the basketball hoop since he was getting bored,

and offered to pay 50% more than the standard fee. A week after completing the

Basketball hoop, it fell on Joe’s roof, Sheldon’s next door neighbor. Are Sheldon and Mr.

Rex joint tortfeasors? To whom should Joe file a complaint for damages against?


A: Yes. A joint tortfeasor is defined as those who command, instigate, promote, encourage,

advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or approve of it

after it is done, if done for their benefit. They are also referred to as those who act together

in committing wrong or whose acts, if independent of each other, unite in causing a single

injury. In this case, the negligence caused by Mr. Rex and Sheldon is constructing a

basketball hoop on a weak portion of the property caused the destruction of Joe’s roof.

As joint tortfeasors, Sheldon and Mr. Rex are held to be solidarily liable under Article 2194

of the Civil Code, which states that the responsibility of two or more persons who are

liable for a quasi-delict is solidary. Therefore, Joe should file a complaint for damages

against Mr. Rex and Sheldon.

 

 

10. Q: Paolo and Freda Lopez were the parents of Jenny, a 9-year-old girl. Jenny enjoys

playing cooking games because she idolizes her father who is a professional chef.

One day, Jenny took a knife from their kitchen, to play a cooking game with her

friends at their garage. Jenny took the knife and played with her friends Sam and

Kelly. Jenny started to cut leaves which she pretends to be vegetables when she

accidentally wounded Sam on her hand when the latter was allegedly forcing her

to borrow the knife. As a result of the argument, Sam suffered lacerations on her

right palm which required stitches. The Spouses Cruz, as parents of Sam

demanded the Spouses Lopez pay for the medical expenses for the treatment of

Sam because of the incident. The Spouses Lopez refused to pay for the medical

expenses of Sam alleging that it was an accident and Jenny did not intentionally

harm or cause the injury suffered by Sam. Are the Spouses Lopez civilly liable to

the Spouses Cruz?


A: Yes, the Spouses Lopez are primarily and solidarily liable to the Spouses Cruz for

the medical expenses incurred for the treatment of Sam. The Article 2180 of the

New Civil Code provides that the obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable

to those persons for whom one is responsible, the father and in case of his death

or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for damages caused by the minor

children who lived in their company. In the case at bar, the failure of the Spouses

Lopez to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in supervising their

daughter Jenny, a minor, led to the latter taking a dangerous object - a knife, took

the same to her playmates which caused the injury of Sam. Hence, the Spouses

Lopez should pay for the medical expenses incurred by the Spouses Cruz for the

treatment of their daughter Sam.


11. Q: Gino and Carl were soccer players. Both 17 years old and were good friends.

Both fell in love with Shane, their childhood friend. Gino and Carl courted Shane,

and since then their friendship turned sour. Shane accepted the love of Carl and

the two became lovers. Gino - heartbroken and cannot accept defeat, called Carl

and provoked him to a duel. Upon arrival at the field, the two started fighting,

punching and kicking each other. When Gino was pinned to the ground by Carl,

the former then took out a knife which he carried with him and stabbed Carl in his

lower left stomach. The former then passed out because of too much alcohol, while

Carl continued bleeding and eventually died. Are the parents of Gino liable?


A: Yes, the parents of Gino are liable. The law provides that parents are and should

be held primarily liable for the civil liability arising from criminal offenses committed

by their minor children under their legal authority or control, or who live in their

company, unless it is proven that the former acted with the diligence of a good

father of a family to prevent such damages. In the case at bar, the parents of Gino

failed to exercise due diligence in monitoring the activities of their son who is a

minor which led to the latter getting drunk and stabbing another person. Hence,

the parents of Gino are civilly liable for damages to the parents of Carl for the death

of the latter caused by their son Gino.


12. Q: John was a 19-year-old suffering from depression. His parents noticed that John

was barely eating and was always sleeping. They would often hear him cry in his

room and would see scars on his wrist. This all started when Sarah, his long-time

girlfriend broke up with him. John remained the same for 3 months when he

decided to take his life by jumping of a river. When he was about to jump, Ronald

- a passerby, tried to stop him. However, Ronald lost his balance and was the one

who fell on the river and died. Bereaved over Ronald’s death, his parents are now

claiming for damages against the parents of John. Is the claim for damages

proper? Are the parents of John civilly liable?


A: Yes, the claim for damages is proper and the parents of John are civilly liable to

the parents of Ronald. The law provides that parents are and should be held

primarily liable for the civil liability arising from criminal offenses committed by their

minor children under their legal authority or control, or who live in their company,

unless it is proven that the former acted with the diligence of a good father of a

family to prevent such damages. In the case at bar, the parents of John failed to

take the adequate and necessary steps to help their son seek professional help

despite signs that show the latter’s need therefrom. The failure of John’s parents

led to aggravating state of mind of their son which caused him to think of taking his

own life and would not result to Ronald saving him and falling on his behalf instead.

Hence, the parents of John are civilly liable.

 

 

 

13. Q: Eobard Thawne was an up and coming scientist known for his work on the

particle accelerator which he dubbed to be the key to discovering the secrets of

the universe. While working on said machine, he had a vision that Barry Allen,

his protégé, was going to kill him and steal his life’s work and claim it as his

own. So one night, when the two were working late in the lab figuring out specs

for the machine, Eobard put a lethal dose of oxycodone into Barry’s coffee. A

few seconds after Barry’s big gulp from his coffee, he started convulsing on the

ground and foam started coming out of his mouth. A few minutes later he was

dead. Eobard was prosecuted for the murder of Barry but in an unlikely turn of

events, he was found not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court cited the

exempting circumstance of insanity. Heartbroken, the wife of Barry, Iris West-

Allen pursued a claim for damages against Eobard Thawne in the RTC of Manila.

Eobard filed a motion to dismiss claiming that his acquittal in the criminal case

filed against him bars the filing of a separate civil case for damages against him.

Is his contention correct?


A: No. The contention of Eobard Thawne is incorrect. In the case of Elcano v. Hill, the

Supreme Court held that a civil action for quasi-delict is not precluded by the acquittal of

the accused. Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or negligence," covers not only acts

"not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and

voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the offender in a

criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted,

provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he is actually charged also criminally,

to recover damages on both scores. In the case at bar, although Eobard was acquitted in

the criminal case filed against him, it does not bar the heirs of Barry to file a civil case

based on a quasi-delict against him for such intentional criminal act that he did.


14. Q: Jackson West is a 13 year old boy whose father is Percy West, the deputy

commander in chief of the Philippine National Police. For his thirteenth birthday,

Jackson was gifted by his dad with a mint condition gold encrusted throwing

star. Jackson liked the gift very much and brought it everywhere he went. One

day they both went to the zoo to bond. There, while his father was buying both

of them a corndog, Jackson threw the throwing star at a capuchin monkey

mocking him from afar. The throwing star hit the monkey in its left eye, blinding

it. Wesley Evers, the owner of the monkey, is now suing Jackson and his father

for damages. What is the extent of the liability of Percy West, Jackson’s father?


A: Percy West is considered primarily liable for the damages incurred by the owner of the

monkey. Article 2180 provides: “The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable

not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is

responsible. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother are responsible

for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company”. Said provision

holds the father of a minor who commits a quasi-delict primarily liable for damages caused

by the latter. In the case at bar, since Jackson was a minor who lives with his father Percy

West, the latter is primarily liable for the injury caused by his son while in his care. In

addition, the fact that it was his father who supplied him with such dangerous and

inappropriate weapon as a gift and the fact that his father was supposed to be watching

him when the incident occurred only further shows the negligence of Percy West of which

he must be made liable.


15. Q: Mike Ross is an associate of the law firm Paulsen, McGraw, and Hill. It was his

first day on the job and he woke up late. He got up and breezed through his

morning routine. He got on his motorcycle and raced to the office which was

usually a 30-minute drive. He needed to be there by 7:30. It was already 7:12 in

his watch. At 7:25, as he was about to make a left in Carissa Street where the

parking area was, a little boy suddenly ran to cross the street out of nowhere.

Since he was 20m/h above the speed limit in that area, he was unable to slow

down. He was unable to change direction as well since he was locked from both

sides and as mentioned he was driving too fast. He hit the kid who sustained

severe blunt force trauma to the head and abdomen. Mike was charged with

reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries. During trial, he was

able to prove his innocence, hence he was acquitted. The mom of the little boy,

dissatisfied with the ruling and desperate for financial aid for her son’s

recovery, filed a civil case based on a quasi-delict against Mike. Mike on the

other hand claims that the court already found him not guilty or innocent of the

charges against him for reckless imprudence. He contends that the mom of the

little boy cannot now claim damages for an act done by him since he was found

not guilty. Is the contention of Mike correct?


A: No, the contention of Mike Ross is not correct. In the case of Elcano v. Hill, the

Supreme Court held that: In Article 2176 of the New Civil Code, where it refers to "fault

or negligence," covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in

character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a separate civil

action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted

and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he is

actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores. In the case at bar,

although Mike Ross was acquitted in the criminal case filed against him, it does not bar

the mother of the boy to file a civil case based on a quasi-delict against him for such

intentional criminal act that he did.

 

  

16. Q: 16-year-old Dante and his parents went to Rizal Park to enjoy different sceneries.

While the parents asked Dante to take their picture in the bridge of the Japanese

Garden, Efren, also 16 years old, was playing tag with his friends and bumped into

Dante causing him to fall into the pond. Besmirched, Dante hurled a rock from the

pond to Efren’s head causing hemorrhage and eventually, lead to his death.

Subsequently, Dante was accused and convicted of homicide.

The heirs of Efren brought an action to recover Php50,000.00 with legal interest

against the parents of Dante by virtue of Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. Dante’s parents

raised a defense that the civil liability of their son arose from his criminal liability

and therefore, the subsidiary liability of their son must be determined by the Art.

101 of the Revised Penal Code. Will the action prosper?


A: Yes. Under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, the law provides that: "The father and, in case of

his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for damages caused by the minor

children who lived in their company."

As a necessary consequence of parental authority, the parents have “the duty to

supporting them, keeping them in their company, educating them in proportion to their

means". The parents failed to exercise over Dante all the diligence of a good father of a

family to prevent Dante from hurling a rock at Efren.

Thus, the civil liability which the law imposes upon the father and, in case of his death or

incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may be caused by the minor children who

live with them, is present and therefore, the action based on Art. 2180 of the Civil Code

will prosper.


17. Q: 17-year-old Rico was charged and convicted of theft for stealing an emerald in a

jewelry store owned by Virgilio in BBM Mall. After the conviction, Virgilio filed an

action to recover Php250,000.00 with legal interest against Rico’s parents by virtue

of Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. The parents invoked the diligence of a good father of

a family as a defense contending that when they were shopping in BBM Mall, Rico

requested permission that he wants to go to the restroom and they agreed to

accompany him and waited at the entrance of the restroom. As seen from the mall’s

CCTV, Rico stealthily snuck past his parents to go to the jewelry store. Will the

action prosper?


A: No. Pursuant to Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, parents and other persons exercising parental

authority can escape liability by proving that they observed all the diligence of a good

father of a family to prevent damage.

The diligence of a good father of a family required by law in a parent and child relationship

consists, to a large extent, of instruction and supervision of the child. This includes the

duty and responsibility in monitoring an knowing the activities of the child (Libi v. IAC,

G.R. No. 70890, September 8, 1992).

In this case, the parents were certain that Rico was in the restroom thereby having

supervision over their child. Thus, the parents cannot be held liable because they are not

remiss in failing to foresee the damage or the act which caused it.


18. 16-year-old Leni was on an educational fieldtrip to Subic. While she was

shopping for souvenirs, her classmate, Bong took her wallet, ran-off, and made her

play “monkey in the middle” with their other classmates. When Leni lost her

temper, she placed keys between her fingers and punched Bong in the face. One

of the keys punctured Bong’s left eye and was confined in the hospital. Leni was

charged and convicted of serious physical injuries.

Bong filed an action to recover Php150,000.00 against Leni’s parents by virtue of

Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Leni’s parents raised a defense that they will not be

held liable because they are not in the educational fieldtrip to supervise their child.

Is the defense tenable?


A: Yes. Pursuant to Article 221 of the Family Code, parents and other persons exercising

parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts

or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company and under their

parental authority.

In the case at bar, Leni was not living in her parent’s company. Thus, liability is present

only if the child is living in the parent’s company consistent with the basis of liability of

persons exercising parental authority under Article 2180 of the Civil Code and Article 221

of the Family Code. Therefore, their defense is tenable.

 

 

 

19. Q: Xavier, a 5th grade student in QC Elementary School always walk going home

after school with Charles, a 6th grade student in the same school. Since their houses

are a 15 minute walk from the school, they usually play games with each other to kill

boredom. One day, Charles thought of pranking Xavier by pushing him repeatedly on

the side of the road as a joke to scare Xavier of the incoming cars. However, when

Charles pushed Xavier, the latter got out of balanced, fell and accidentally hit his head

first on the concrete floor. Xavier was rushed to the hospital but unfortunately declared

brain dead. Xavier’s parents filed a civil suit for damages against the parents of Charles.

Will it prosper?


A: No. The case for damages against the parents of Charles would not prosper. In

applying the doctrine laid down in the case of Cuadra v. Monfort, “when the act or

omission is that of one person for whom another is responsible, the latter then

becomes himself liable under Article 2180, in the different cases enumerated

therein, such as that of the father or the mother. The basis of this vicarious,

although primary, liability is, as in Article 2176, fault or negligence, which is

presumed from that which accompanied the causative act or omission. The

presumption is merely prima facie and may therefore be rebutted. This is the clear

and logical inference that may be drawn from the last paragraph of Article 2180,

which states "that the responsibility treated of in this Article shall cease when the

persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good

father of a family to prevent damage."

In the case at bar, nothing may be inferred that the Defendant parents could

have prevented the said damage by the exercise and observance of due diligence

or that they were in any way remiss in their exercise of their parental authority in

failing to foresee such damage. As far as the act is concerned, it was an innocent

prank normal to children at that age at play and which no parent, however careful,

would have any special reason to anticipate much less guard against it. Therefore,

considering the foregoing facts, the civil action for damages against Charles’s

parents would not prosper.


20. Q: 7 year olds Meredith and Cristina, who are neighbors, were left with their

babysitter one morning since their parents were bound to work; during their playtime,

Meredith opened her parents’ cabinet and found her father’s gun, unbeknownst to the

toddler, the gun was loaded, while playing cops, she aimed at Cristina and fired the gun,

Cristina was shot in the chest. She was rushed to the nearest hospital but was not able

to make it. Cristina’s parents are now suing Meredith’s parents for the negligent act of

their daughter. Would the case prosper?


A: Yes. The case against Meredith’s Parents would prosper. Under the law, “when the

act or omission is that of one person for whom another is responsible, the latter then

becomes liable himself under Article 2180 x x x such as that of the father or the

mother x x x”

In the abovementioned case, there was a clear manifestation of the negligence of

the Meredith’s parents when they consciously did not exert efforts in keeping the

gun away from the toddlers let alone leave the gun loaded. Hence, Meredith’s

parents are liable.


21. Q: Aljur and Kylie are known to be a popular couple in their high school. However,

on their 2nd year, Aljur decided to break up with Kylie, saying that he wanted to enjoy his

remaining school years to the fullest. Kylie had no choice but to let Aljur go. Halfway

through the year, Kylie saw Aljur and AJ holding hands while walking and swaying from

time to time. Kylie was enraged and quickly grabbed the fork from her lunch, walked

towards AJ and stabbed her in the chest. AJ was brought to the clinic and later rushed

to the hospital. AJ was treated and got stitches for her wound. Her parents incurred

20,000 for her injuries and were advised a follow up check-up. AJ's parents asked you

as a lawyer whether they can recover their expenses from the parents of Kylie. What

will you tell them?


A: Yes, they can recover from the parents of Kylie. In a Decision laid down by the

Supreme Court in the case of Cuadra v. Monfort,

“The underlying basis of the liability imposed by Article 2176 is the fault or

negligence accompanying the act or the omission, there being no willfulness or

intent to cause damage thereby. When the act or omission is that of one person

for whom another is responsible, the latter then becomes himself liable under

Article 2180, in the different cases enumerated therein, such as that of the father

or the mother under the circumstances above quoted. The basis of this vicarious,

although primary, liability is, as in Article 2176, fault or negligence, which is

presumed from that which accompanied the causative act or omission.”

In the given case, it was clear that the Parents of Kylie was in remiss of their

parental authority over her. This is not a case of children accidentally hurting or

injuring their friends while playing; Kylie deliberately inflicted pain and caused

injuries to another. Had her parents been diligent enough to exercise due care and

authority over Kylie, no damages would have been done. Hence, Kylie’s parents,

under the doctrine of vicarious liability, should be ordered to pay damages to AJ’s

parents for the damages caused by their daughter.

 

 

22. Q: George, 10 years of age, was playing darts with his neighbor Alex, who was also

10 years of age. While playing, they had a misunderstanding; consequently,

George fatally stabbed Alex with a dart pin. Dante, the father of Alex, filed an action

against Juan and his son George asking for damages for the death of his son. In

his Answer, Juan contended that he was not with his son at the time of the incident,

nor did he know that his son came to George’s house to play with him. Is Juan

civilly liable for damages resulting from the death of George caused by the

negligent act of his son Alex, a minor?


A: Yes, Juan is civilly liable for damages. Under Article 2180 of

the Civil Code in relation to Article 2176 is that the obligation imposed is demandable not

only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is

responsible. Further, parents are primarily responsible for the damage caused by the

minor children who live in their company, which gives rise to the concept of parental

authority wherein the duties and responsibilities of parents, their parental authority, which

includes the instructing, controlling and disciplining of the child. In the case at bar, the

only way by which Juan can be relieved with the liability brought about by his son’s act is

if he proves that he exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the

damage. Therefore, since Juan has not proven the diligence that was required of him,

then he is civilly liable.


23. Q: On December 21, 1982, spouses Felix and Alicia Cruz filed a petition to adopt

Sarah Rosario, 11 years of age. While the petition for adoption was still pending,

Sarah has been living with Sonny Rosario, her natural father. Sarah’s mother died

when Sarah was born. On December 31, 1982, Sarah’s neighbor and friend Betty, 9

years of age, invited her over to their house to celebrate New Year’s Eve. While

playing, Sarah and Betty saw a pile of firecrackers. Sarah lighted one of the

firecrackers and threw it to Betty. Consequently, Betty suffered serious injuries

which eventually caused her death. Thereafter, spouses Robert and Judy Soriano,

Betty’s natural parents, filed an action for damages against Sonny Rosario. While

the action for damages was pending, the adoption court granted the petition for

adoption on January 15, 1983. On January 20, 1983, Sonny filed his Answer,

claiming that not him but rather spouses Cruz, the adopting parents of Sarah, were

indispensable parties to action since the petition for adoption has already been

granted by the adoption court. Are spouses Cruz indispensable parties in an action

for damages caused by their adopted child Sarah?


A: No, the spouses Cruz are not indispensable parties in the

action for damages. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the law imposes civil liability

upon the parents for any damages that may be caused by a minor child who lives with

them. In the instant case, the incident happened when parental authority was still lodged

in Sonny Rosario, Sarah’s natural father, and no presumption of parental dereliction on

the part of spouses Cruz, the adopting parents, could have arisen since Sarah was not in

fact subject to their control at the time the tort was committed. Therefore, spouses Cruz

are not liable.


24. Q: Will your answer be the same if the incident happened during the period of

supervised trial custody?


A: Yes, my answer will still be the same. Under Article 35 of the

Child and Youth Welfare Act, no petition for adoption shall be finally granted unless and

until the adopting parents are given by the courts a supervised trial custody period of at

least six months to assess their adjustment and emotional readiness for the legal union;

consequently, parental authority is provisionally vested in the adopting parents during the

period of trial custody, which is before the issuance of a decree of adoption, precisely

because the adopting parents are given actual custody of the child during such trial

period. In the case at bar, the trial custody was not yet completed at the time of the

incident. As such, the custody of Sarah was still with his natural father, and not her

adopting parents.

 

 

 

25. Q: Payable Tubero, is a plumbing company. Alice engaged the services of Payable

Tubero, to fix her drainage in her condominium unit. Payable Tubero, thereafter,

assigned Roger one of their employees, to fix Alice’s drainage. Roger noticed that

Alice’s phone is the new iPhone 13. Roger kept the iPhone in his bag. When Roger,

was already at the exit of the condominium building, Alice shouted,

Magnanakaw!”,Roger then ran and the iPhone fell and got broken, thereafter the guard

arrested Roger. Roger was then charged and convicted of theft. It was established that

Roger is insolvent and cannot pay his civil liability arising from the delict. Alice then

asked for your opinion, if she can demand payment from Payable Tubero of the civil

liability. What is your advice?


A: My advice is that Alice can demand payment from Payable Tubero, since Payable

Tubero is subsidiary liable for the civil liability ex delicto of its employee Roger. Article

103 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the employer is liable for the subsidiary

liability of its employee’s civil liability ex delicto provided the following elements are met.

1. The employer, teacher, person or corporation is engaged in any kind of industry

2. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices or employees commits a felony

while in the discharge of his duties.

3. The said employee is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil liability.

In this case, all the requisites are met, the employer. First, Payable Tubero, is

engaged in a specific industry, particularly the plumbing business. Second, Roger, the

employee of Payable Tubero, committed the felony of theft, while discharging his duties

as a plumber. Third, the employee is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil liability.

Therefore, Alice can demand payment of civil liability ex delicto from Payable Tubero.


26. Q: Charles, has a gardener for his house, particularly, Barkley. While Barkley was

buying seeds for Charles’ garden, Barkley got a heated confrontation with Shaquille, the

seller of the said seeds. Because of this, Barkley, punched Shaquille, Shaquille landed

on a hard pot, thus he suffered a concussion and a bruised forehead. Shaquille, filed a

case of serious physical injuries against Barkley. Barkley was then convicted of the said

charge. Barkley was thereafter found to be insolvent. Is Charles, subsidiary liable in this

case?


A: Charles is not subsidiary liable for the civil liability from the delict committed by Barkley

as Charles is not engaged in any industry. Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code

provides that the employer is liable for the subsidiary liability of its employee’s civil

liability ex delicto provided the following elements are met.

1. The employer, teacher, person or corporation is engaged in any kind of industry

2. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices or employees commits a felony

while in the discharge of his duties.

3. The said employee is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil liability.

Industry, as defined in Telleria vs Garcia, is any department or branch of art, occupation

or business, especially, one which employs so much labor and capital and is a distinct

branch of trade. In this case, Charles, while being the employer of Barkley, is not

engaged in any form of industry with regards to the employment of Barkley, since

Barkley is a home gardener of Charles. Therefore, since Charles’ and Barkley’s

employer-employee relationship does not evolve around a certain industry. Charles is

not subsidiary liable for the civil liability ex delicto for

the felony committed by Barkley.


27. Q: Dave is a, driver for Padala, a Logistics Corporation. Dave uses the corporate van to

deliver the goods he is assigned to deliver. After his duty of delivering from 8 am to 4

pm, Dave must return the corporate van to Padala’s parking lot. While, Dave is on his

way back to Padala’s parking slot. Dave while driving rapidly, hit a pedestrian, named

Peter. Peter suffered a broken shoulder and 2 broken legs, because of the said injury.

Dave is sued of violation of Article 365 and was convicted of the said charge. It is later

found out that Dave, is insolvent, Peter then filed a writ of subsidiary attachment against

Padala, on the ground that Padala is subsidiary liable for Dave’s civil liability. Padala

argued, that Dave is no longer in the discharge of his duties, when Dave is no longer

delivering items, at the time of the incident, thus Padala cannot be subsidiary liable.

Rule on Padala’s argument.


A: Padala’s argument is unmeritorious, Dave was still in the exercise of his duty when the

felony was committed. Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the

employer is liable for the subsidiary liability of its employee’s civil liability ex delicto

provided the following elements are met.

1. The employer, teacher, person or corporation is engaged in any kind of industry

2. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices or employees commits a felony

while in the discharge of his duties.

3. The said employee is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil liability.

In this case, the contention of Padala, is that the second element is not present. Such

argument, does not hold water, as driving the van back to the parking lot of Padala is a

part of his duty, as it is also Dave’s duty to return the van after all the parcels have been

delivered.

Therefore, Padala’s argument does not hold water, Dave was in the discharge of his

duties as a driver when he committed the felony.

 

 

 

28. Q: A 15-year-old high school student, Edward brings a knife to school premises. He

then stabs his classmate, Jacob, who is his rival for a girl, Bella, while they were

going out of the classroom after their last class. Who may be held liable?


A: Under Article 218 of the Family Code, the school, its administrators and teachers, or the

individual, entity or institution engaged in child care shall have special parental authority

and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or

custody. Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside

or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution. When a student enrolls, a

contract is entered into between him and the school. Under this contract, the school is

supposed to ensure that adequate steps are taken to provide an atmosphere conducive

to study and ensure the safety of the student while inside its premises (Saludaga v. FEU,

G.R. No. 179337, April 30, 2008). Thus, any quasi-delict committed by the school’s

employee against the student is also actionable under breach of contractual obligations.


29. Q: John was employed as a professional driver of MM Transit bus owned by Mr.

Wick. In the course of his work, John hit a pedestrian who was seriously injured

and later died in the hospital as a result of the accident. The victim’s heirs sued the

driver and the owner of the bus for damages. Is there a presumption in this case,

that Mr. Wick, the owner, had been negligent? If so, is the presumption absolute or

not?


A: YES. There is a presumption of negligence on the part of the employer. However, such

presumption is rebuttable. The liability of the employer shall cease when they prove that

they observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage (Art. 2180).

When the employee causes damage due to his own negligence while performing his own

duties, there arises the juris tantum presumption that the employer is negligent, rebuttable

only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a family (Delsan Transport

Lines v. C & A Construction, G.R. No. 156034, October 1, 2003). Likewise, if the driver is

charged and convicted in a criminal case for criminal negligence, Mr. Wick is subsidiarily

liable for the damages arising from the criminal act.


30. Q: In a school setting. If during class hours, while the teacher was chatting with

other teachers in the school corridor, a 7 year old male pupil stabs the eye of

another boy with a ball pen during a fight, causing permanent blindness to the

victim, who could be liable for damages for the boy’s injury: the teacher, the school

authorities, or the guilty boy’s parents? Explain.


A: The school, its administrators, and teachers have special parental authority and

responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody

(Art.218, FC). They are principally and solidarily liable for the damages caused by the

acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor unless they exercised the proper diligence

required under the circumstances (Art. 219, FC). In the problem, the TEACHER and the

SCHOOL AUTHORITIES are liable for the blindness of the victim, because the student

who causes it was under their special parental authority and they were negligent. They

were negligent because they were chatting in the corridor during the class period when

the stabbing incident occurred. The incident could have been prevented had the teacher

been inside the classroom at that time. The guilty boy’s PARENTS are subsidiarily liable

under Article 219 of the Family Code.

 

 

 

31. Q: Suppose that A was working in B’s security agency. B later entered a labor contract

with C where A would be sent to be the security guard of C’s establishment. A provision

in the said of contract stated that C shall reserve the right to impose disciplinary actions,

such as dismissal, against A.

As A was working in C’s establishment, A accidentally shot D. The latter filed a suit

against C as he argues that C is solidarily liable to A. C argues that he is not the

employer since he is not the one who pays A. The issue is whether C’s argument was

proper.


A: No. C is the employer of A. The Court has consistently applied the "four-fold test" to

determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship: the employer (a) selects

and engages the employee; (b) pays his wages; (c) has power to dismiss him; and (d)

has control over his work. Even though A was initially hired by B, C ultimately has the

power to control and dismiss A. This makes C the true employer of A, which therefore

makes C solidarliy liable for A’s actions by virtue of Art. 2180 of the Civil Code.


32. Q: Suppose that A was a bus driver of B’s bus company. A’s pay was based on the

schedule put in place by B as well as the route A should take. As A was driving, he got

into an accident with C. The victim filed a case against B arguing that he is solidarily

liable with A. The issue is whether C can properly file a case against B.


A: B is solidarily liable with A. The law provides that employers are solidarily liable with their

employees due to the latter’s negligence. However, it must be shown that there is an

employee-employer relationship between the two. To show such relationship, the courts

use the control test where it must be shown that the employer controls the means and

output of the employee’s work. In the case at bar, B has control over A’s work as a bus

driver. Hence B is an employer of A which makes him solidarily liable.


33. Q: A has a vulcanizing shop. In the said shop, B can be found welding. Every now and

then A would acquire the services of B but there was no official employment contract

established between the two. A would tell B the specifics of what needs to be weld, but

he normally leaves B alone to his work.

One day, C went by to visit the shop and saw B alone. B, due to his negligence, left his

tools and an accident occurred which resulted to C getting injured. C filed a case against

A arguing that A was the employer of B. The issue is whether the case would prosper.


A: No, the case would not prosper. A is not the employer of B. The Court has consistently

applied the "four-fold test" to determine the existence of an employer-employee

relationship: the employer (a) selects and engages the employee; (b) pays his wages;

(c) has power to dismiss him; and (d) has control over his work.

In the case at bar, B is not paid by A by wages. Even though A would acquire the

services of B, payment for these services cannot be classified as wages. A also does

not exercise control over B. He only allows B to work in the shop but there is no

evidence of A controlling the means and methods of B’s work. Hence, A is no the

employer of B which would make solidarily liable.

 

 

34. Q: A mountain ultra-marathon was organized by Intergames along the

northwest mountainous region of the Philippines. Intergames did not

postpone the marathon despite the extreme weather warnings of the Early

Warning Information center which attracted 172 runners. On the day of the

event, temperatures plunged to as low as -24 degree Celsius and the wind

was too strong that some of the runners repeatedly fell over. The runners

limbs went frozen and it slowly lost control of their body. There were others

who did not survive this ordeal. Thus, the bereaved families sued intergames

for Tort Liability. Is Intergames liable for torts in this case?


A: Yes, Intergames is liable for torts in this case because Intergames’ negligence

is the proximate cause of the death of the runners.

Under our torts law, Proximate cause is "that which, in natural and continuous

sequence, unbroken by any new cause, produces an event, and without which the

event would not have occurred."

In this case, records show that negligence of Intergames is the proximate cause

of death of runners. Intergames negligence in not postponing the event amidst the

extreme weather warning is the proximate cause of the injuries and death of

participants.

Freezing is an event known and forseeable to Intergames and could have been

prevented if it acted with due diligence by undertaking the race in fairer weather

conditions and adhering to the early warning of the information center.

Thus, Intergames is liable for torts in this case.


35. Q: An old lady was wounded while cooking a meal and was rushed to the

hospital by her son. On the way to the hospital, a truck collided with them

and caused their death. What is the proximate cause of the death of the old

lady?


A: The proximate cause of the death of the old lady is the collision with the truck.

Proximate cause is "that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by

any new cause, produces an event, and without which the event would not have

occurred."

Here, the death of the old lady was due to the collision with the truck which is a

natural consequence of the wrong done. The connection between the negligence

and the injury is direct and natural sequence of events, unbroken by intervening

efficient causes. The wound of the old lady would not have caused her death.

Timely medical intervention would be sufficient for the wound to heal. However,

because of the collision and the negligence of the truck, the old lady was not able

to reach the hospital and collision caused her instantaneous death.

Thus, the proximate cause if the negligence of the truck driver of the truck which

collided with the car driven by the son of the old lady.


36. Q: Urbano had an altercation with a neighbor. The neighbor drew a bolo and

was about to cut him when Urbano blocked it with his hand which caused an

injury on his hand. The fight was pacified by the other neighbors. Urbano

was brought to the hospital to mend his wounds but after a few days, Urbano

died. The cause of the death was tetanus infection. The heirs of Urbano sued

the neighbor who brought the wound to Urbano alleging that this is the

proximate cause of the death of Urbano. Is the proximate cause of the death

of Urbano the cut from the neighbor?


A: No. It is not the wound afflicted by the neighbor which is the proximate cause of

the death of Urbano.

Proximate cause has been defined as “that cause, which, in natural and continuous

sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and

without which the result would not have occurred.” The rule is that the death of the

victim must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted

upon him by the accused.

In this case, medical findings lead us to a distinct possibility that the infection of

the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between the time

Urbano was wounded to the time of his death. The infection was, therefore, distinct

and foreign to the crime. The wound in his hand was already healing. When he got

a tetanus infection due to working in the fields.

Therefore, it is not the wound which is the proximate cause of the death of Urbano

as it was distinct and foreign breaking the natural and logical consequence of the

wound inflicted by his neighbor.

 

 

37. Q: University of Baguio hired Mr. X as security guard for the front gate of the

school. One day, Tom, a student of University of Baguio, entered the front gate

carrying his project for Arts class. His art project consisted of bloody-looking

body parts wherein he wanted to present the human anatomy in a creative way

of his own. Mr. X, thinking those were real body parts, shot Tom in the chest and

died. The parents of Tom file a petition for damages against Mr. X and the school.

The school argues that they had nothing to do with the actions of Mr. X. Will the

petition prosper?


A: Yes, the petition will prosper. According to jurisprudence,

the school is obliged to provide a safe learning environment and the institutions of

learning must also meet the implicit or “built-in” obligation of providing their students

with an atmosphere that promotes or assists in attaining its primary undertaking of

imparting knowledge. In the case at bar, Mr. X, who was hired as a security guard by

the University of Baguio, has the duty to protect the school and its students. However,

Mr. X committed a wrong when Tom was in the process of learning within the school,

who had the duty of providing a safe learning environment. Therefore, the University

of Baguio should be liable for the death of Tom.


38. Q:Professor X, the adviser of Grade 10 Section A of X-Men University

organized an unauthorized class field trip. The students gave Php 1,000.00 each

as per the instruction given by Professor X through an unauthorized “reply-slip”

which the parents unaware of the situation agreed to. On the date of the trip,

Professor X used and drived his coaster bus that carried his 20 students. While

the class was almost on their way to the first destination, Professor X suddenly

thought of doing a stunt with his bus by hitting the accelerator speeding the said

vehicle to 140 km/hr by running off a cliff and envisioning to land it on a road

below them. While the bus was in the air, Professor X realized that the vehicle

wouldn’t land as he expected it to, so he managed to jump in a bush which is

almost 50 meters below the falling bus. The bus then went spiralling until it

exploded and the students died instantly. Afraid of what happened, Professor X

called one of the parents of his advisory class and he informed that parent of the

unfortunate mishap. A week later, all the parents of the class filed a class suit

against X-Men University and Professor X for damages. Is the school and the

teacher liable?


A: Yes, X-Men University and Professor X are both liable. Under Article 218 of the Family

Code, schools and teachers are vested with special parental authority over their

unemancipated students. Also, in relation to Article 2180, the obligations under 2176

of the same Code are not only for one’s own act or omission but, also for those persons

whom one is responsible. In the case at bar, first, X-Men University has the duty to

monitor all the activities of its teachers, making sure that it abides with its own declared

policies and exercise the corresponding diligence required from it. As to Professor X,

he is liable clearly because he should accordingly as he is also vested with special

parental authority to his unemancipated advisory class, he is expected to inform the

school of his planned activities and make sure to get the proper approval or consent

from the school as well as to the parents. Therefore, since for the school’s omission

and the act of the professor conducting an unauthorized trip and consent forms, they

are both liable for the death of the students.


39. Q: Mikey was a 4th year student of Law School X. When he finally finished

the law school curriculum, the administrator of the Dean's Office of Law School

X listed Mikey as a tentative list of candidates for graduation. Mikey attended the

investiture ceremonies, during the program of which he even was called to stage,

assisted by his parents, and placed the Hood and Tassel and thereafter handed

by the Dean of School of Law, a rolled white sheet of paper symbolic of the Law

Diploma. In the evening, Mikey even threw parties to celebrate his graduation.

After few weeks, while he was reviewing for BAR, he was informed by the school

that he cannot graduate for failing some of the subjects. Consequently, Mikey

filed for damages alleging that he suffered mental anguish and that his

reputation is tainted. The school, although admitting that it was delayed in

updating Mikey, the former denied liability arguing that it never led the latter to

believe that he completed the requirements to graduate. Is the Administrator or

School who failed to promptly inform Mikey liable for damages?


A: Yes, When a student is enrolled in school, a contract is

entered into between the school and the student. Under the jurisprudence, the school

has the obligation to timely inform and give sufficient notice and information to every

student as to whether the student graduates or not. In the case at the bar, Mikey

attended investiture ceremonies, which is not an ordinary ceremony since it serves as

a formal announcement to the whole world that the student has graduated. The School

or Administrator who informed Mikey only after a few weeks when he was already in

the middle of BAR review shows negligence. Therefore, the School or Administrator is

liable.


40. Q: Mr. Dimagalaw, a 33 year old construction worker, took a Rural Transit bus in

going home from his work. Before the bus came to a full stop, he already stood

up and started heading for the exit. When he was about to alight from the bus

while it was still moving, he accidentally stepped on a sack of coconut fruit along

the aisle which he did not see due to the dim lighted interior of the bus. He then

lost his balance at the door when it opened and fell, hitting his head on the

pavement which required stitches. It was later found out that the conductor was

negligent for allowing the sacks of coconut to be placed in the aisle. Issue now is

whether or not the provisions of quasi-delict can apply on the case herein.


A: YES, although there is want of the fourth requirement for the provisions of

Art. 2176 of the NCC may apply, that there being no pre-existing

contractual relation between the parties, it is now well-settled that an

action based on quasi-delict can be maintained, even if there is an existing

contractual relation between the parties. Existence of a contract must,

however, be merely incidental. When the act which constitutes a breach of

contract would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual

liability, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort, allowing

the rules on tort to apply. Because it was the negligence of the employees

of Rural Transit Co. that caused the accident, thereby violating the implied

contract of carriage, Rural Transit Co. may still be held liable for damages

based on quasi-delict.


41. Q: Sixto Covido was a law student of the SBCD. While it is one of the school’s rules

for the students to have a proper haircut, Sixto continued to attend classes with

his tied long hair. This was noticed by Quadrado, an SBCD security guard. Sixto

was then reprimanded to have his haircut, otherwise, have his school id

confiscated and be marked with a school violation. The next day, Quadrado saw

Sixto, still with his long hair. When they were arguing for the confiscation of his

school id, Quadrado pulled out his gun and shot Sixto on his shoulder. It was

later found out that no qualifications as a security guard for the school was ever

submitted by Quadrado to SBCD and that he was only employed through

personal connections. Issue now is whether or not there is a cause of action for

Covido to file an action against SBCD, as Quadrado’s employer.


A: YES, SBCD can be held liable for tort even with the presence of a contract

due to their violation of their obligations arising thereof. For their bilateral

obligations, the school is to provide the student with education sufficient

for him to pursue higher education or a profession. It is also obligated to

provide an atmosphere that assists in attaining this goal. The student then

must abide the school’s academic rules and regulations. Under culpa

contractual, the existence of a contract and proof of its noncompliance

alone, justifies a right of relief. Because the school failed to prove that they

exercised due diligence in providing a safe learning environment for their

students, they may be held liable pursuant to Art. 1170 of the NCC which

provides that, those who are negligent in the performance of their

obligations are liable for damages. Therefore, the SBCD may be held

liable based on their contract with Covido.


42. Q: The students of San Lorenzo High School invited their class adviser to a picnic in

a private beach resort. Once this was known to the principal, the students also

invited her, but to no avail. The students then together with their teacher went to

the said picnic. Unfortunately, in the course of their enjoyment, one of the

students drowned. A case was then filed by the parents of the deceased against

the teacher and the school. The issue now is whether or not their case will

prosper, despite the fact that the unfortunate event took place outside of school

premises.


A: YES, the case shall prosper. Under the Doctrine of in loco parentis, the

school and its teachers have a legal responsibility to take on some of the

functions and responsibilities of a parent. This was enunciated by Art.

2180 of the NCC. Although the scope of the said provision is limited only

to in-school premises injuries, this was expanded by the provisions of Art.

218 of the Family Code which encompasses all authorized school

activities, inside or outside school premises. The picnic was considered as

an ‘authorized activity’ because this was known to the principal, thus, her

silence must then be construed as an implied consent thereof. Therefore,

the teacher and the principal must be held liable pursuant to Art. 219 of

the Family Code, which makes them solidarily liable.

 

 

43. Q: X was driving the pick-up truck registered under the name of ABC Company, a

company engaged in transportation for hire, on the way to deliver cargo from

Manila to Ilocos Sur. Sometime during the trip, the pick-up truck accidentally hit

Y, a senior citizen, who was then crossing the street. The intensity of the

collision sent Marvin some fifty (50) meters away from the point of impact, a

clear indication that Lozano was driving at a very high speed at the time of the

accident. Marvin sustained severe head injuries with subdural hematoma and

diffused cerebral contusion, and eventually died from said injuries.

Pending the criminal action against X, the Heirs of Y instituted a separate civil

action against ABC Company on the basis of its vicarious liability under Art.

2180. Petitioner alleges that ABC Company required nothing more than the

presentation of driver’s license and the completed application form. In addition

to this, the petitioner likewise alleges that ABC Company has been denied

application Certificate of Public Convenience.

ABC Company, for its part, denied said claims and moved to suspend the

proceedings on the ground that the Rules of Court provide that "a criminal

action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from

the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless

the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it

separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action”; the

company argues that absent the reservation on the part of the petitioners, the

civil action herein cannot continue to prosper.

a. Will the separate civil action prosper independently of the criminal action?

b. Is ABC Company liable for damages to the Heirs of Y?


A: a. YES. While the Rule invoked by the company is true, by way of exception, the civil

action referred to in Articles 31, 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the New Civil Code shall

"proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a

preponderance of evidence" (Rule 111, Sec. 3). Furthermore, it is explicitly stated

in Article 2177 of the Civil Code that responsibility arising from quasi-delict "is

entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under

the Penal Code."

The civil case in question is an action for the enforcement of an obligation arising

from quasi-delict on the basis of Art. 2180 in relation to Art. 2176, and as such

separate and distinct from the civil liability ex-delicto. Hence, falls under the

exception and may proceed independently of the criminal action against X.

b. YES. Jurisprudence in Heirs ofMendoza v. ES Trucking and Forwarders proved

that in the selection of its prospective employees, the employer is required to

examine them as to their qualifications, experience, and service records. Mere

presentation of the driver’s license and submission of an accomplished application

form is not sufficient to establish qualifications, experience, and service records as

required.

Insofar as the supervision is concerned, jurisprudence established that allowing the

driver to continue the performance of his duties as such driver for a common carrier

despite the want of Certificate of Public Convenience.


44. Q: Despite the pandemic, XYZ Company, a trucking company, was desperately

looking for workers to employ to keep its business afloat. The company caused

the publication of the job opening for “driver” in the Classified Ads of Bombo

News Paper, bearing the following requirements: (1) experience being employed

as a drive for at least one (1) year, (2) duly issued driver’s license, (3) NBI and

Barangay Clearance, (4) Personal Data Sheet, (5) Curriculum Vitae and (6)

accomplished Application Form. A, desperate to find a job after graduating from

online class, immediately applied, bringing only his CV, PDS, Official Receipt

from the LTO for his license, accomplished application form. He compensated

his lack of documentary requirements with his stellar performance in the

interview. He was hired, subject to the undertaking that he will subsequently

submit the missing requirements as soon as possible and that he cannot

perform his duties without their immediate supervisor acting as a pahinante.

During his first trip, which was on the third day after having been hired, A

encountered a vehicular accident wherein one of the tires of the van burst,

causing A to lose control of the vehicle and hitting an innocent bystander. The

bystander sustained permanent injuries due to the accident. Will XYZ Company

be liable?


A: YES, XYZ Company will be liable. Jurisprudence in Heirs of Mendoza v. ES Trucking and

Forwarders proved that “in the selection of its prospective employees, the employer is

required to examine them as to their qualifications, experience, and service records.”

In this scenario, the company reneged on its duty to observe proper diligence in the

selection of its employees when they accepted the application of A despite the same not

having met the qualifications for said job and to the compromise of said qualifications

previously upheld in the classified ads. The mere undertaking of A to subsequently submit

said documents and to not perform his duties without supervision, as well as their stellar

performance during the interview, is not sufficient to cure the lack of proper diligence on

the part of XYZ Company in their selection of A. Hence, XYZ Company cannot set up the

defense of observance of the diligence expected of a good father of a family in the

selection and supervision of its employees to avoid the claim for damages.


45. Q: R is a jeepney driver under the boundary system with J as the operator/common

carrier. During one of their trips, R accidentally bumped a child who was

hurriedly crossing the street to run after its puppy; the child eventually died due

to the severity of the wounds it sustained from the accident. R admitted that

despite having seen the child cross the street, they failed to promptly halt the

vehicle on time because the suddenness of the child’s crossing said road left

then little time to react.

The grieving parents of the child instituted two separate actions: (1) a criminal

case charging R of Reckless Imprudence resulting to homicide, with a prayer

for damages, and (2) a civil action against J for damages on the basis of

vicarious liability under Article 2180 in relation to Art. 2176 of the Civil Code.

J alleges the following contends that it cannot be held liable for damages

through vicarious liability because it is not the employer of R. J also alleges

thatt eh civil case will not prosper because otherwise, there would be double

recovery, considering that their civil liability is deemed instituted with the

criminal action against R, and absent reservation on the part of the parents of

the child, the separate action cannot prosper. Are the contentions of J tenable?


A: No, both contentions are not tenable.

As to the contention on the applicability of the rule on vicarious liability to the case at bar,

jurisprudence has consistently ruled that the operator and the driver of public utility who

entered in to a Boundary System are considered employer and employee, respectively

(Villa maria v CA, Paguio Transport Group v NLRC); as such, J Is an employer as

contemplated by Article 2180.

As to the contention on double recovery, there is no such double recovery. Civil

responsibility arising from quasi-delict is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability

arising from negligence under the Penal Code (Article 2177). There can be no double

recovery because the civil liability deemed instituted in the criminal action is civil liability

ex-delict or arising from the criminal act of R, as distinguished from the civil liability in the

separate action is one arising from quasi-delict (i.e. vicarious liability of J for the acts of

R).

There is also no need for the a reservation of right to institute a separate civil action, and

the pendency of the criminal action against R cannot be cause for suspension of the civil

action because the civil action referred to in Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the New Civil

Code shall "proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a

preponderance of evidence (Rule 111, Sec. 3); the case at bar falls within such exception

given that it is a civil action based on Article 2180 in relation to Art. 2176 of the Civil Code.

 

 

46. Q: If the facts were different, such that Abad did not go to a “place known as haven

for prostitutes” but to a fast food chain instead to eat after his overtime work,

would the decision of the Supreme Court change?


A: No, The change of venue is not the controlling issue that would overturn the

Court’s ruling. Under Art. 2180 so long as they were acting within the scope of

their assigned task, even though committed neither in the service of the

branches nor on the occasion of their functions. The essence of the employer’s

liability rests on whether an employee is operating the company-owned vehicle

within the course or scope of his employment. In this case, Abad’s working day

and overtime work already ended and eating in a fast food chain thereafter had

no connection to the employer’s business or his scope of duties. Thus, The

Supreme court’s decision would not change even if there is a change in venue.


47. Q: If Abad’s boss were with him inside the company-owned car and the two went to

the same place of the incident dubbed as “haven for prostitutes and addicts” in

order to talk some more about work-related issues at 2AM when they met the

same car accident, would the boss incur vicarious liability?


A: Yes. The Court held that there is absolutely no hard and fast rule that will

answer the problem of whether at a given moment. An employee is engaged in

his employer's business in the operation of a motor vehicle, so as to fix liability

upon the employer because of the employee's action or inaction. In this case,

Abad may argue that he and his boss were talking work-related problems, the

defense will then show that he exercised the diligence of a good father of a

family in providing Abad the company-owned vehicle. Thus, the boss would incur

liability.


48. Q: Give the differences between paragraphs four and five of Art. 2180 regarding an

employer’s liability and apply them with the facts of the case at bar.


A:The provision in paragraph 4 of article 2180 which provides that “The owners

and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages

caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are

employed or on the occasion of their functions” and paragraph 5 of article 2180 which

provides that “Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and

household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the

former are not engaged in any business or industry” both applies to employers.

The fourth paragraph are to owners and managers of an enterprise which covers

negligent acts of employees committed either in the service of the branches or on the

occasion of their functions while the fifth paragraph are to employers in general,

regardless if they engaged in any industry which encompasses negligent acts of

employees acting within the scope of their assigned task. The fifth paragraph is an

expansion of the fourth paragraph in both employer’s coverage and acts included.

The negligent acts of employees, whether or not the employer is engaged in a business

or industry, are covered, so long as they are acting within the scope of their branches

nor on the occasion of their functions. After all, employees oftentimes wear different hats

and do perform functions that are beyond their office, title, or designation but which,

nevertheless, are still within their call of duty.

In order for paragraph 4 to apply and Abad’s employers to be held liable, Abad must be

caught in the car accident on the occasion of his function as Castilex’s manager such as

he went to that place of incident in order to meet a client or supplier. Meanwhile, for

paragraph five to apply, regardless if Castilex Industrial Corp. was engaged in the

furniture industry or not, it could be held liable if Abad could show that there was an

employer-employee relationship between them and he was performing managerial

functions at the time of the car accident.

 

 

49. Q: Lightning Corporation, the registered owner of a Toyota Hiace Van. On a Sunday

night, the said van, which was driven by Cooper, project manager of the Lightning

corporation assigned in Bulacan, collided with a private SUV owned and driven by

Alfred. The incident occurred in Laguna. Alfred and his passenger friend sustained

minor injuries while the colliding vehicles sustained considerable damages. Alfred

then filed a complaint against Lightning Corporation and Cooper to recover

damages due to negligence. He further claimed that Cooper’s act of swerving and

occupying the opposite lane was the proximate cause of the collision and

Lightning Corporation, as the registered owner of the said van and employer of

Cooper, are liable for damages. Lightning Corporation defended that it was not

negligent in the selection and supervision of its employees and that during the

accident, Cooper was not in the performance of his duty or within the scope of his

assigned tasks as it was on a Sunday which is a rest day. Furthermore, Cooper

merely used the van for personal purposes as he used the van in a camping trip to

Laguna. Is Lightning Corporation liable for damages?


A: No, Lightning Corporation is not liable. In the case of Caravan

Travel and Tours International v. Abejar, the Court held that in cases where both the

registered-owner rule and Article 2180 apply, the plaintiff must first establish that the

employer is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. Once the plaintiff successfully

proves ownership, there arises a disputable presumption that the requirements of Article

2180 have been proven; the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show that no liability

under Article 2180 has arisen. In this case, it has been established that during the day of

the accident, Lightning Corporation was the registered owner of the van, however it was

also established that Cooper was not performing his work, it was unauthorized as it was

outside the scope of his assigned tasks as the production manager assigned in Bulacan

and has no business in Laguna. Hence, Lightning Corporation, overcoming the

presumption of negligence, is not liable under Article 2180 of the NCC.


50. Q: A Toyota Vios, registered in the name of Kimchi Foods Inc. and driven by its

logistics manager Tak Gu, hit Ma Joon, a pedestrian that resulted to his death. Ma

Joon’s mother Sook filed a case for damages against Tak Gu and Kimchi Food Inc.

In the complaint it claimed that Tak Gu was negligently driving the said car, and

Kimchi Foods, is solidarily liable with Tak Gu as the registered owner of the car.

Kimchi Foods defended that Ma Joon did not provide any evidence to prove that

Tak Gu, its employee, acted within the scope of his assigned tasks, as a logistics

manager, when the accident occurred. This is pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil

Code where it required the plaintiff to prove that at the time of accident, the

employee was within the scope of his or her assigned tasks. Is Kimchi Foods Inc.,

correct?


A: No, Kimchi Foods is not correct as the burden of proof shifts to

the Kimchi foods to prove that it incurred no liability under Article 2180. According to case

law, in cases where both the registered-owner rule and Article 2180 apply, the plaintiff

must first establish that the employer is the registered owner of the vehicle in question;

once the plaintiff successfully proves ownership, there arises a disputable presumption

that the requirements of Article 2180 have been proven. In this case, it was already

established that the registered owner is Kimchi Foods. As between the owner and the

victim, it is the registered owner, Kimchi Foods, that must prove that its employee, Tak

Gu acted outside the scope of his assigned tasks.


51. Q: A jeep, registered in the name Tony Red, driven by Perez collided with a private

AUV driven by Lee. Lee sustained minor injuries and his AUV sustained serious

damage due to the rear-end collision. Lee then filed a complaint for damages

against Perez and Tony Red, the registered owner. Tony Red contested that it has

no liability pursuant to Article 2180 of the NCC as Perez is not his employee. Tony

Red claimed that he is merely an operator/owner of the jeep registered in his name.

Is Tony Red correct?


A: No, Tony Red is not correct. Where both the registered-owner

rule and Article 2180 apply, the plaintiff must first establish that the employer is the

registered owner of the vehicle in question; once the plaintiff successfully proves

ownership, there arises a disputable presumption that the requirements of Article 2180

have been proven. Also, case law provides that being the owner of record he is the

employer of the driver. In this case it is sufficient to establish that Tony Red being the

registered owner of the jeep may be held vicariously liable under Article 2180 for the

existence of employee-employer relation between him and Perez, the driver of the jeep

during the incident of collision. Hence, he can be held liable for damages.

 

 

52. Q: A, employee, did some overtime work at his employer’s office, B. Thereafter, at

around 3 AM, he went to a restaurant which was located 10 kilometers away from

the business office using his employer’s service vehicle. Can B be held liable in

case A figure out in an accident using the former’s company car?


A: No. It was consistently held that an employer who loans his motor vehicle to an

employee for the latter’s personal use outside of regular working hours is

generally not liable for the employees’ negligent operation of the vehicle during

the period of permissive use, even where the employer contemplates that a

regularly assigned motor vehicle will be used by the employee for personal as

well as business purposes and there is some incidental benefit to the employer.

Even where the employee's personal purpose in using the vehicle has been

accomplished and he has started the return trip to his house where the vehicle

is normally kept, it has been held that he has not resumed his employment, and

the employer is not liable for the employee’s negligent operation of the vehicle

during the return trip.

A was engaged in affairs of his own or was carrying out a personal purpose not

in line with his duties at the time he figured in a vehicular accident. It was then

about 3:00 AM, way beyond the normal working hours; his overtime work had

already been completed; him being in the restaurant at such hour has no

connection to his employer’s business.

Since there is paucity of evidence that A was acting within the scope of the

functions entrusted to him, B had no duty to show that it exercised the diligence

of a good father of a family in providing A with a service vehicle. Thus, justice

and equity require that petitioner be relieved of vicarious liability for the

consequences of the negligence of A in driving its vehicle.


53. Q: A, a company driver of B, was assigned to deliver a package. Because of the traffic

in Manila, A was able to deliver the said package at 6 PM, beyond the usual

business hours. On the way back to warehouse of the company to return the

delivery van, A hit a bystander causing serious injuries. The bystander filed for

damages against B, the employer. On the other hand, C contends that it should

not be held liable with A, because the latter was negligent on its own by driving in

an over speeding manner and also because said accident happened beyond

working hours. Is B correct?


A; No. B, the employer, cannot escape liability. Under Article 2180, "employers

shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household

helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former

is not engaged in any business or industry. "In other words, for the employer to

be liable for the damages caused by his employee, the latter must have caused

the damage in the course of doing his assigned tasks or in the performance of

his duties." In the case at hand, there clearly exists an employer-employee

relationship between A and B. also, it was clearly established that A was going

back to the warehouse in order to return the delivery vehicle after fulfilling his

work and duty in delivering the parcel. Hence, he was using the vehicle at the

time of the injurious incident is sufficient to charge his employer for the

negligent operation of said vehicle since A was operating the same within the

course or scope of his employment.


54. Q: A owned a carabao which he tied near the highway. B, who was then driving his

sportscar in a fast manner, hit the carabao causing its death. Can A recover from

the death of his carabao even if he was negligent in tying said carabao in the

highway?


A: Yes. Under the doctrine of last clear chance, it provides that where both parties

are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time

than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or

negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the

last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is

chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom. Stated differently, the

rule is that the antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude recovery

of damages caused by the supervening negligence of the latter, who had the

last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.

In the case at hand, although the owner was negligent in leaving his carabao

out there, knowing that there are speeding vehicles passing by, he is entitled

to recovery because B was then driving his car negligently. Had B driven his

car with caution, he would have not hit and killed the carabao considering as

well than it can easily be seen from a far. B had the last clear chance to avoid

the accident had he not acted negligently in driving his car which an ordinary

prudent man would have done given the same circumstances.

 

 

55. Q: Mr. and Mrs. R own a burned-out building, the firewall of which collapsed and

destroyed the shop occupied by the family of Mr. and Mrs. S, which resulted in

injuries to said couple and the death of their daughter. Mr. and Mrs. S had been

warned by Mr. & Mrs. R to vacate the shop in view of its proximity to the weakened

wall but the former failed to do so. Mr. & Mrs. S filed against Mr, and Mrs. R an

action for recovery of damages the former suffered as a result of the collapse of

the firewall. In their defense, Mr. and Mrs. R relied on the doctrine of last clear

chance, alleging that Mr. and Mrs. S had the last clear chance of avoiding the

accident, had they heeded the former’s warning to vacate the shop, and therefore

Mr. and Mrs. R’s prior negligence should be disregarded. If you were the judge,

how would you decide the case?


A: I would decide in favor of Mr. & Mrs. S. The proprietor of a building or structure

is responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should

be due to the lack of necessary repairs (NCC, Art. 2190). With respect to the

defense of last clear chance, the same is not tenable as enunciated by the

Supreme Court in De Roy v. CA (L-80718, January 29, 1988), where it held that

the doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable in instances covered by Art 2190

of the Civil Code. Further, in Phoenix Construction, Inc. v. IAC (G.R. L-65295,

March 10, 1987) the Supreme Court held that the role of the common law "last

clear chance" doctrine in relation to Art. 2179 of the Civil Code is merely to mitigate

damages within the context of contributory negligence.


56. Q: Teodorico Florenciano, Meralco’s motorman, was driving the company’s street car

along Hidalgo Street. Plaintiff Ignacio Del Prado ran across the street to catch the

car. The motorman eased up but did not put the car into complete stop. Plaintiff

was able to get hold of the rail and step his left foot when the car accelerated. As

a result, plaintiff slipped off and fell to the ground. His foot was crushed by the

wheel of the car. He filed a complaint for culpa contractual. Is there contributory

negligence on the part of the plaintiff?


A: It is obvious that the plaintiff's negligence in attempting to board the moving car

was not the proximate cause of the injury. The direct and proximate cause of the

injury was the act of appellant's motorman in putting on the power prematurely.

Again, the situation before us is one where the negligent act of the company's

servant succeeded the negligent act of the plaintiff, and the negligence of the

company must be considered the proximate cause of the injury. The rule here

applicable seems to be analogous to, if not identical with that which is sometimes

referred to as the doctrine of "the last clear chance." In accordance with this

doctrine, the contributory negligence of the party injured will not defeat the action

if it be shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and

prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured party.

The negligence of the plaintiff was, however, contributory to the accident and must

be considered as a mitigating circumstance.


57. Q: Rogelio Monterola was traveling on board his Suzuki motorcycle towards

Mangaggoy on the right lane along a dusty road in Bislig, Surigao del Sur. At about

the same time, a cargo van of LBC, driven by petitioner herein, Tano, Jr., was

coming from the opposite direction on its way to Bislig Airport. When Tano was

approaching the airport entrance on his left, he saw two vehicles racing against

each other from the opposite direction. Tano stopped the van and waited for the 2

vehicles to pass by. The dust made the visibility extremely bad. Instead of waiting

Tano started to make a sharp left turn and when he was about to reach the center

of the right lane, the motorcycle driven by Monterola suddenly emerged from the

dust and smashed head-on against the LBC van. Monterola died. Is there

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased?


A: The proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of petitioner Tano,

who, despite poor visibility, hastily executed a left turn w/o waiting for the dust to

settle.

In the case at bench, the victim was traveling along the lane where he was rightly

supposed to be. The incident occurred in an instant. No appreciable time had

elapsed, from the moment Tano swerved to his left to the actual impact, that could

have afforded the victim a last clear opportunity to avoid the collision.

It is true, however, that the deceased was not all that free from negligence in

evidently speeding too closely behind the vehicle he was following. We, therefore,

agree with the appellate court that there indeed was contributory negligence on

the victim's part that could warrant a mitigation of petitioners' liability for damages.

 

 

58. Q: ABC Bus. Corporation and XYZ Transit entered into an agreement to sell whereby

the latter bought several bus units from the former. They agreed that ABC Bus

Corp. would retain ownership of the buses until certain conditions were met, but in

the meantime XYZ Transit could operate the buses. One of the buses acquired by

XYZ Transit from ABC Bus Corp. hit and damaged a motorcycle. XYZ Transit is

sued for damages. ABC Bus Corp. denied liability averring that although it retained

ownership of the bus, the actual operator and employer of the bus driver was XYZ

Transit. Who should be held liable, the registered owner or the actual owner of the

bus?


A: ABC Bus Corporation is liable. Under the Registered Owner Rule, the

registered owner of a motor vehicle is directly and primarily responsible for the

consequences of its operation regardless of who the actual vehicle owner might

be. In this case, it was stipulated that ABC Bus Corp. will retain ownership pending

the fulfillment of certain conditions, hence still the registered owner. Therefore,

ABC Bus Corp. should be primarily liable.


59. Q: Ms. Y sustained physical injuries after a hit and run encounter by a Toyota Vios

driven by Mr. B. Upon investigation, it was found that Mr. A was the registered

owner of the said vehicle. In a complaint for damages against Mr. A, he alleged

that Mr. B should be liable since the latter is the driver of the vehicle. Is Mr. A

correct?


A: No. The Registered Owner Rule lays down the principle that the

registered owner of a motor vehicle is directly and primarily responsible for the

consequences of its operation. Its rationale is to fix liability on the owner of a motor

vehicle involved in an accident by clear identification through registration. Here,

although it is undisputed that Mr. B was the one driving the vehicle at the time of

the accident, such fact does not negate Mr. A’s liability. Since it is clear from the

rule that the registered owner should be directly and primarily responsible for

damages arising thereto, then Mr. A is primarily liable.


60. Q: A tractor registered in the name of AHA Leasing Corporation figured in an accident,

killing and causing serious physical injuries to several persons. A complaint for

damages was filed against AHA. In its defense, AHA claimed that the tractor was

initially leased to Mr. Duh under a Finance Lease Agreement. Such agreement

was then overtaken by a Deed of Absolute Sale with WOW Corporation. AHA

argued that it cannot be held liable for damages as the tractor had already been

sold to WOW at the time of the accident and the negligent driver was not its

employee but that of WOW. Decide.


A: I would rule against AHA Corporation. Following the Registered Owner

Rule, the registered owner of a motor vehicle is directly and primarily responsible

for the consequences of its operation regardless of who the actual vehicle owner

might be. In this case, although a sale has been made in favor of WOW, such fact

is immaterial so far as the public and third persons are concerned. The law

considers the registered owner as directly and primarily responsible for the

consequences of its operation. Thus, as the registered owner of the tractor, AHA

Corporation should be made liable for the damages.

 

 

61. Q: Teddy Failon, a junior researcher in one of the offices under the Department of

Tourism (DOT), pretended to be Bayaniboy Agbayani (a director in the DOT),

was able to sign a contract with XYZ private tourism company, on behalf of the

DOT for the tourism projects (such as the establishment of tourism booths in

malls and in amusement parks) in the province of Bohol. During the subsistence

of the contract, Failon took over the tourism projects and, without authority,

appropriated for himself the funds allocated for the tourism project, thereby failing

to pay XYZ private tourism company. XYZ filed a complaint against DOT because

of the alleged breach of contract. Whether or not XYZ has a cause of action to

file a case against the DOT itself.


A: No. In this case, XYZ cannot proceed against DOT because the acts of Teddy

Failon, in taking over the project, was without authority and thereby acted beyond

the scope of his duties. Pursuant to Articles 2176 and 2180, the State in the

performance of its governmental functions is liable only for the tortuous acts of its

special agents. On the other hand, the State becomes liable as an ordinary

employer when performing its proprietary functions. Hence, XYZ’s remedy lies

against Teddy Failon only as he must not be considered a special agent during

his commission of the fraudulent act of signing the contract wherein he had no

authority and power to do so. It must be emphasized in this case that Teddy

Failon, is a mere junior researcher in the DOT and had no authority to sign any

contracts. Therefore, XYZ’s cause of action must be against DOT.


62. Q: Marinara Sanches, a civilian employee/typist working in the Philippine Army

Headquarters, bought about 100 pieces of guns and ammunitions from ABC

Ammunition Co., and represented therein that the money to be paid will be

sourced out from the funds of the Philippine Army as such guns will be

distributed to the newly commissioned junior officers of the Army. By the fake

letter allegedly granting her an authority to purchase the guns, she successfully

purchased the same by representing that she was tasked by her office

(Procurement Office-Philippine Army). They agreed that ABC will be paid upon

delivery of the guns to the headquarters. However, after such delivery was made

and after several demands by ABC to Sanchez to deliver to them the promised

voucher for the purchased items, Sanchez failed to pay them the value of said

items. ABC then filed a complaint for a sum of money against the Philippine

Army. Whether or not ABC can proceed against the Philippine Army.


A: No. In this case, ABC can only proceed against Sanchez because she was not

in the performance of her official functions as a civilian employee/typist. Such

false and fraudulent representations she made were done beyond the scope of

her duties. Hence, by applying the test of liability under Articles 2178 and 2180,

the State in the performance of its governmental functions is liable only for the

tortuous acts of its special agents. On the other hand, the State becomes liable

as an ordinary employer when performing its proprietary functions. In this case,

Sanchez, committing such fraudulent acts cannot be considered as a special

agent of the State.


63. Q: James Basi, a Director of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), took over a

private property of Cody Botante, and constructed thereon an artificial body of

water, and further constructed therein a bridge. During that time, Cody was

abroad and hence had no knowledge of the on-going construction made by

James. Upon returning home to the Philippines, Cody made a demand to James

to stop the said construction works but such demand fell on deaf ears. Cody then

went to the court and filed a complaint against DPWH. Whether or not Cody can

proceed against the DPWH.


A: No. In this case, it can be said that Cody can only proceed against James as the

acts of James were clearly beyond his authority as a Director of DPWH. As ruled

by the Supreme Court in the case of Festejo v. Fernando, where a public officer

acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, any injury or damage caused by such

acts is his or her own personal liability and cannot be imputed to the State. It

must be emphasized in this case that James lacked authority in making such

constructions. Hence, Cody’s case against DPWH must be dismissed and he

must instead file a case against James making him personally liable for his acts.

 

 

64. Q: X is a German national residing in the Philippines. He married a Filipina and their

love eventually produced 2 children. He then applied for permanent resident visa which

was granted by virtue of Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 and denounced his German

citizenship, having no intention to go back. After years of residing in the Philippines, he

was hired as a resident agent in a Germany-based company, Y. While working there, Y

company dismissed X, saying that he was too ugly to be an agent and might not attract

customers and potential investors. X filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the

NLRC. Does NLRC have jurisdiction in the case at bar?


A: YES. Moral damages are awarded to compensate an

employee for mental distress that has been caused by the bad faith manner by which

they were treated by their employer in relation to their labor claims. Under Article 2217

of the Civil Code, the award of moral damages is anchored on the employee’s actual

experiences of physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched

reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. X being

a permanent resident and even denouncing his citizenship, the Philippine courts are

obliged to protect him and his interest.

Under the connecting factors doctrine, the factors to be considered in determining

who has jurisdiction is the domicile, nationality, the seat of CMI, the place where the

employment contract was made, the place where the act is intended to come into effect,

the intention of the contracting parties as to the law and the place where the judicial or

administrative proceedings are instituted. In this case NLRC has jurisdiction over the

said case because it is where the proceedings were instituted and the complainant is

domiciled in the Philippines.

Y company cannot also set the defense that it being a foreign country, the Philippine

courts having no jurisdiction over it, having registered and complying with the

requirements to set-up a corporation with a local office in the country, it subjects itself to

our policy and may be subject to litigation under our courts.

Therefore, NLRC should have jurisdiction over the said case.


65.  Q: MV POLL, a ship registered under German laws, is in transit to the Philippines and

was already in Philippine waters, specifically within the jurisdiction of Pasay CIty, when

it hit MV REAL,a Philippine based passenger boat. The collision caused severe damage

to the ship and injured most of its passengers. MV REAL wants to claim damages from

MV POLL. Can MV REAL claim damages from MV POLL using Philippine laws?


A: YES. MV REAL can claim damages from MV POLL using

Philippine laws as the incident happened within the Philippine territory. The Territorial

principle recognizes the power of the state in adopting criminal laws to crimes that are

physically committed within its territorial jurisdiction. MV POLL is liable for actual

,exemplary and moral damages to the injured parties as well as MV REAL. The

Supreme Court has already held in Mendoza vs Gomez, Actual or compensatory

damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury

sustained. They simply make good or replace the loss caused by the wrong while

Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or

amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone, by reason

of the defendant’s culpable action.

We can therefore conclude that Philippine laws can be used because MV POLL

although a German registered ship will be liable under Philippine Laws. Therefore

Philippine laws should be applied in claiming damages.


66. Q: X, a Filipino, entered into a contract of lease of a condominium unit in Makati with Y,

an American wherein Y will lease the property to X for 5 years. The contract of lease

was executed in California. Now, Y made overpayments to X. X refused to return saying

that the excess are tips under American law. Y the filed a small claims case before the

MTC of Makati against X. Will it prosper?


A: YES. Y’s action should prosper. Under the connecting factor doctrine, the domicile,

place of performance of duties and the place of judicial proceedings should be taken

into consideration in determining the proper forum. In this case, it would serve the best

interest of the parties to follow Philippine laws considering that the same has the most

significant effects to the problem. The concept of “unjust enrichment” is enshrined in

Article 22 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which provides that “every person who

through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into

possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall

return the same to him.”There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a

benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another

against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Landlords

cannot increase the rent by more than what the Rental Law allows, even if the landlord

turns out to be an alien. The Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council is

the government agency that regulates residential leases in the Philippines

Thus, under the civil Code, X is bound to return the overpayments made by Y following

the prohibition on unjust enrichment.

 

67. Q: Mr. X loved Ms. Y. After several months of dating, Mr. X promised Ms. Y to marry

her if Ms. Y were to perform sexual intercourse with him. Ms. Y is a virgin but

since she loved Mr. X very much, she gave herself to him. After that night, Mr. X

disappeared and was nowhere to be found. After several months, Ms. Y was

diagnosed with depression and anxiety that she would never fall in love again

and eventually became insane. Can the family of Ms. Y file an independent civil

action for damages against Mr. X?


A: Yes, the family of Ms. Y may an independent civil action for damages against Mr. X

pursuant to Article 21 of the Civil Code. Under Article 21 of the Civil Code, any person

who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner which is contrary to morals

shall compensate the latter for the damage. In this case, Mr. X seduced Ms. Y into

falling in love with him as well as tricking her into having sexual intercourse due to the

promise of marriage. Therefore, Mr. X is liable for damages for committing an injury

against Ms. Y that is contrary to morals.


68. Q: Lanverge is the internet provider for Mica. Mica works from home and has been

diligently paying the monthly fees for her internet. One day, Lanverge cut her

fiber connection without notice. That one day turned into several weeks and then

months of no connection. Everyday, Mica has been trying to contact Lanverge

about her lost internet, yet Lanverge never replied to her. Mica now struggles with

her work from home setup and lost her job due to the lost internet connection

which resulted in great stress and anxiety for several weeks. Can Mica file an

independent civil case for damages against Lanverge?


A:Yes, Mica can file an independent civil case for damages. Under Article 21 of the Civil

Code, any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner which is

contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the

damage. In this case, Lanverge committed a wrong against Mica by unjustifiably cutting

her internet connection without reason which deprived her of the right to the property

causing Mica distress and to lose her job. Furthermore, Lanverge deliberately refused to

fix Mica’s internet by ignoring her calls for help for the past weeks. Therefore, Lanverge

is liable for damages due to injury committed by reason of an act contrary to morals,

good customs, and public policy.


69. Q: Mocah works in a sportswear company with Thea and Mikki. Jolina, the owner of

the sportswear company, asked Mocah, Thea and Mikki to deliver 100 pieces of

yoga pants to their Makati branch. The yoga pants were kept in brown boxes.

When they reached the Makati branch and opened the boxes, only 50 pieces were

accounted for. The company, represented by Jolina dismissed the three (3)

employees and filed a case against them for qualified theft but did not prosper

due to lack of evidence. Jolina reinstated Thea and Mikki but not Mocah. Jolina’s

basis for not reinstating Mocah was her argument that Mocah stole and took

home the rest of the yoga pants. Mocah claims that she did not take home the

yoga pants and has no fault in the loss of the products. Several months later, it

was found that the packaging team of the company made a mistake in the

quantity of yoga pants to be delivered to the branch and Mocah was without a

job, thus struggling to pay for her necessities causing anxiety and depression.

Can Mocah file an independent civil case for moral injuries she suffered against

the sportswear company and Jolina?


A: Yes, Mocah can file an independent civil case for damages against the sportswear

company and Jolina. Under Article 21 of the Civil Code, any person who willfully causes

loss or injury to another in a manner which is contrary to morals, good customs or public

policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. In this case, Jolina, the employer,

made false imputations to justify Mocah’s dismissal without even making an

investigation into the issue. Due to her dismissal, Mocah was without a job causing her

anxiety and depression. Therefore, the sportswear company and Jolina are liable for

damages under Article 21 for committing a wrong contrary to morals, good customs and

public policy.

 

 

70. Q: X and Y are high school sweethearts. After graduating high school, they went to

different colleges, but X promised Y that they will get married after their college

graduation. On their 4th year, X had an intimate relationship with his classmate Z.

Y sued X for breach of promise to marry. Will the action prosper?


A: No, the action will not prosper. According to article 21 of the

Civil Code, any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in manner that

is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for

the damage. It is essential, however, that such injury should have been committed

in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. Here, the promise

of X to Y was not against any of the foregoing; it was a promise but there was no

actual damage that Y incurred. Therefore, Y cannot sue X for breach of promise

to marry because there was no actionable wrong.


71. Q: X and Z are in a relationship on their 4th year of college. Z was a virgin, saving

herself for marriage. One night while Z was in X’s car, X due to his desire to have

sexual intercourse with Z, told her that it would not matter if they would have sex

right then and there because he promises that they would get married either way.

X even promised Z that after passing the engineering board exams, he would build

a mansion for her. Thus, they had sex. Z told her parents that they are engaged

and about to get married. The whole family planned the wedding and sent out

RSVPs for their guests. After hearing the plans X and Z had a fight because X did

not like that she immediately told her family, wherein Z sustained injuries. X then

ghosted Z and went to Siargao for some soul searching. Z filed an action for

damages against X for breach of promise to marry. Will the action prosper?


A: Yes, the action will prosper. As stated in the case of Baksh v.

CA, where a man's promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the

acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise

thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a

sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that

the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her

to accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award

of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such promise to marry but

because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and

reputation which followed thereafter. In this case, the promise of X that he will

marry Z was only because he wanted to have sexual intercourse despite the fact

that he knows that Z is saving herself for marriage, and Z only agreed because

she trusted the promise of X not knowing that it was fraudulent. Therefore, Z shall

be held liable for damages.


72. Q: Would your answer be the same if X invokes that he should not be held liable

because Z is of equal fault because she gave her consent before they had sex,

and he did not force himself to her?


A: Yes, X should still be held liable. Pari delicto means "in equal

fault; in a similar offense or crime; equal in guilt or in legal fault. The case of Baksh

v. CA provides that, the pari delicto rule does not apply in this case for while indeed,

the private respondent may not have been impelled by the purest of intentions, she

eventually submitted to the petitioner in sexual congress not out of lust, but

because of moral seduction. In this case, Z was already saving herself for marriage

but she only gave her consent to X because of the promise, not knowing that this

promise was only made out of moral seduction and lust without actual desire to

fulfill such promise. Therefore, the action should still prosper.

 

 

73. Q: Paolo, a rich man, was staying in the Marriott Hotel. When he was on the way to

the hotel’s restaurant for dinner, Restaurant Manager Fonso said he could not

assist and let Paolo in because he was not wearing the proper attire as he was

wearing slippers and shorts. Without Fonso knowing, a waiter let Paolo in and led

him to his table. While Paolo was enjoying his food, Fonso loudy asked him to leave

because he wasn't allowed to enter the restaurant and even ridiculed his attire. To

make matters worse, he called security to escort Paolo out of the restaurant. Paolo

was humiliated and filed for damages against Fonso and Marriott Hotel. Can Fonso

and Marriott Hotel be held liable?


A: Yes, Fonso and Marriott Hotel are liable. Under Article 21 of

the Civil Code, the provision speaks of acts contra bonos mores and such acts are subject

to the following elements: (1) There is an act which is legal; (2) but which is contrary to

morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; and (3) it is done with intent to injure.

In this case, the act that Fonso committed was legal since he was following the rules

about proper dress code in the restaurant, however, it was contrary to morals, good

custom, public order, or public policy because he humiliated Paolo when he loudly kicked

him out, ridiculed his attire, and had security escort him out of the venue. Hence, Fonso

is liable, and Marriott Hotel, being its employer, is also held solidarily liable.


74. Q: Bella, a 19 year old girl, and her family lived beside Edward and his wife. Over

some time, Bella and Edward got close and fell in love when the former would come

over for piano lessons. Bella’s family trusted Edward and treated him like family.

When the wife found out that Bella was pregnant, she told the whole town that it

was Bella who came on to her husband. Due to this, Bella filed for damages against

the wife. Can Bella claim damages against Edward’s wife?


A: Yes, Bella can claim damages against Edward’s wife. Under

the Civil Code, Article 21 is an independent civil action that refers to acts contra bonos

mores and such acts are subject to the following elements: (1) There is an act which is

legal; (2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; and

(3) it is done with intent to injure. In this case, Bella was humiliated by Edward’s wife when

she told everyone that it was Bella’s fault for seducing Edward and getting pregnant; what

the wife did was an act contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy

which injured Bella’s reputation. Thus, Bella can claim damages against the wife.


75. Q: Liam and Karla are set to be married. They paid for a big church wedding in

Manila Cathedral with the reception in Manila Peninsula. They invited over a 100

guests and spent a lot on the decorations and clothing. On the day of the wedding,

when the Priest asked “if there is anyone who thinks that these two should not get

married, please say a word or forever hold your peace”, Andrew stood up and

professed his love for Karla. Karla ran out of the church with Andrew and left Liam

at the altar. Liam filed for an independent civil action for damages against Karla.

Will his case prosper?


A: Yes, his independent civil action would prosper. Under the Civil

Code, Article 21, an independent civil action that refers to acts contra bonos mores and

such acts are subject to the following elements: (1) There is an act which is legal; (2) but

which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; and (3) it is done

with intent to injure. In this case, Liam was humiliated in front of all their guests when

Karla chose to run away with Andrew in the middle of the ceremony; he also incurred a

lot of expenses for the wedding which did not happen. Thus, Liam can sue Karla for

damages.

 

 

76. Q: ABC restaurant owned by Mark was registered as a juridical entity with its

own personality. Joe had a previous altercation with Mark and followed him

to the restaurant. After closing time, he took videos of Mark being in the

restaurant meeting some people. Joe sent this to their circle of friends stating

that these were meetings for a drug related agenda. Mark sued Joe for

violating his right to privacy on account of his right not to be pried into his

residence. Joe argues that it does not apply in this case since he filmed the

video when he was in his restaurant which is not a residence. Is Joe correct?


A: No. According to the civil code, business offices are entitled to the same

privacy when the public is excluded therefrom and only such individuals are

allowed to come in. The words “similar acts” is indicated in the Civil Code therefore

this means that is not constrained only for residence as in literally homes.

Furthermore, they have the right to privacy if it is a situation where it appears that

there is an expectation of privacy. Since the store was already closed, it can be

said that they were not expecting any one else other than those invited to be given

access to the area.


77. Q: Mae owned a salon which was frequented by many young female clients. John

owned a store in front and in one instance, he was caught peeping in the store for

the female clients. Mae called his attention and he admitted that he was curious

with all the pretty girls coming in. Although he promised to stop, Mae noticed that

John had installed a surveillance camera in his shop that directly pointed to window

of her shop. A customer noticed and it instantly spread in Mae’s clientele affecting

her business. Mae filed a complaint for relief and damages for the violation of her

right to privacy but John argued that it was not applicable in their case as they were

not residences and that it was installed for the benefit of the safety of John’s shop.

Will the complaint prosper?


A: Yes. According to the civil code, offices are entitled to the same privacy

when the public is excluded therefrom and only such individuals are allowed to

come in. In Hing vs. Choachuy, the court held that the right to privacy should not

be limited only for residences and it is also granted to business establishments.

Although it is common to install surveillance cameras, the reasonable expectation

of privacy of Mae and her customers was violated because the camera was

installed in a manner that would directly peep into the shop and not even have

reasonable and lawful benefit for the owner.


78. Q: Mary owned a pet store and some of her employees had a practice of tying the pets

in an awfully secured way to tame them before grooming. Jerry and James brought

Jerry’s pet and it was injured when they came back. The employees claimed that

this was the fault of the dog. James came back and pretended to avail further of

their services and said he was taking videos of the store to show to his friends but

he actually tried to gather video recordings of the stores improper practice. Jerry

and James filed a complaint for damages and preliminary injunction for the store’s

practices. Mary argues that the evidence obtained for the complaint cannot be

used because it was unconsented and it a violation to the store’s right to privacy.

Will the complaint prosper?


A: Yes. Although the court has held that expectation and the right to privacy

is also guaranteed for business establishments, this should also be subject to an

expectation of privacy acceptable to society. In the case at bar, the practice of the

pet store was not acceptable as the owners deem it injures their pets. Mary cannot

argue that their rights were violated as this matter cannot be protected by the

constitution and the civil code such that it was improper and an unacceptable

practice.

 

 

79. Q: A, the owner of the apartment being rented by B which is subject to be

demolished, won a case in a final and executory judgment. In having the

judgment executed, A did not give B sufficient time to remove his personal

belonging. Is B entitled to damages?


A: Yes. B is entitled to damages.

According to Article 19 of the Civil Code, which is about the abuse of rights

principle, a person must, in the exercise of legal right or duty, act in good faith;

and he would be liable if he instead acted in bad faith, with intent to prejudice

another.

In the case at bar, there was no reasonable time given by A to B, in which it

resulted to B’s belongings getting damaged. The demolition of the apartment is

said to have carried out in a manner that is not consistent with justice and good

faith required by in Article 19.

Thus, damages may be awarded in view of this abuse of right.


80. Q: Jason, a restaurant employee, was paying his utilities regularly before the

pandemic. A month after the government’s implementation of lockdown, the

restaurant where he worked before closed down indefinitely because of the

effects of the pandemic. Without receiving any income or salary, he failed to pay

the utilities bill, particularly, the electric bill. Zamcelco, the electric company, cut

his electric supply without prior notice. Is Zamcelco liable for damages?


A: Yes. Zamcelco is liable for damages.

The law requires that there must be a 48-hour notice before the electric supply

service of disconnection is made to a delinquent customer, and any contrary act

is an abuse of rights as per Article 19 of the Civil Code.

Thus, Zamcelco’s failure to prove said prior written notice amounts to tort and

thus it is liable for damages.


81. Q: Carlos was in Hotel California when he bumped into Leonard who was on his

way to a wedding reception being held in the hotel. Carlos alleged that he was

invited by Leonard to join him at the wedding reception, while at the reception,

the wedding coordinator of the hotel noticed Carlos and asked him in a loud

voice to leave the venue since he is not in the guest list. Carlos claims that he

had been invited by Leonard, who however denied doing so. Being deeply

embarrassed by the incident, Carlos filed for damages against the Hotel. Is the

hotel liable for damages?


A: No. Hotel California will not be held liable for damages.

The elements of the Abuse of Rights principle under Art. 19 of the Civil Code are:

(1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole

intent of prejudicing or injuring another.

In the case at bar, the wedding coordinator did not abuse Carlos’ right when he

asked him to leave the wedding reception because he was not in the guest list.

Hotel California could not be held liable for damages as its liability springs from

the liability of its employees.

Thus, Hotel California will not be held liable for damages.

 

 

82. Q: Andok while driving his car going to Mendioka Street Maynila had a car

collision with Bakyo, another car owner who is a law student from CEU. Andok filed a

civil injury lawsuit. However, Bakyo filed his counterclaim contending that Andok is at

fault. What is the difference between permissive and compulsory counterclaim suit for

damages? 


A: The compulsory counterclaim arises from the same

transaction or occurrence that forms the basis of the plaintiff's suit. The defendant

asserts in a compulsory counterclaim that the plaintiff actually owes him damages for

injuries. A compulsory counterclaim generally must be part of the initial answer to the

plaintiff's action and cannot be made later in the suit or in a separate lawsuit.By

contrast, the permissive counterclaim arises from an event unrelated to the matter on

which the plaintiff's suit is based.


83. Q: Scotty obtained a loan of Php 10,000,000 from her friend Jane. The latter

demanded the payment of the same but Scotty had no sufficient funds to cover her

obligation. Five years later, they accidentally met in a restaurant and Jane invited

Scotty to have dinner. While having dinner, they have a heated argument regarding

her bad debt. Jane accidentally without intention breaks Scotty’s legs. Hence Scotty

sues Jane, alleging that she negligently. Will the action prosper? 


A:Yes, counterclaims are usually valid only if it is possible to make the same

claim by starting a lawsuit. If both claims are permitted to proceed, the two parties'

respective allegations of NEGLIGENCE and a bad debt. In this case, Jane can only

make her permissive counterclaim if the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS on collection of

the debt has not expired. Permissive counterclaims need not be made in the initial

PLEADING; they can be made at a later time or even in another lawsuit. This

flexibility may help the defendant's legal strategy: she can wait and sue in a different

court, in order to have another judge hear the case or to avoid arguing the merits of

separate claims before the same jury.


84. Q: Andy, a landowner/lessor, filed a collection suit with damages against the

Bady tenant/lessee for unpaid rent of 5 years. Andy demolished all improvements

introduced and built by Bady. Bady filed a counterclaim suit for reimbursement with

damages claiming that Andy has no right to demolish without his consent. Decide.


A: This case involves compulsory counterclaim. As provided in

Section 4 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, a counterclaim is compulsory if (a) it arises

out of, or is necessarily connected with, the transaction or occurrence which is the

subject matter of the opposing party’s claim; (b) it does not require for its adjudication

the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction; and (c)

the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

In this case all the requisites of a compulsory counterclaim are present. The

counterclaims, as this term is now broadly defined, are logically related to the

complaint. Private respondent’s complaint was for rescission of the contract of lease

due to Bady’s breach of her obligations under the said contract. On the other hand,

Bady’s counterclaims were for damages for unlawful demolition of the improvements

she introduced pursuant to his leasehold occupancy of the premises, as well as for

the filing of that civil suit which is contended to be clearly unfounded.cha

Both the claims therein of petitioners and private respondent arose from the same

contract of lease. The rights and obligations of the parties, as well as their potential

liability for damages, emanated from the same contractual relation. Petitioners’ right

to claim damages for the unlawful demolition of the improvements they introduced on

the land was based on their right of possession under the contract of lease which is

precisely the very same contract sought to be rescinded by private respondent in her

complaint. The two actions are but the consequences of the reciprocal obligations

imposed by law upon and assumed by the parties under their aforesaid lease

contract. That contract of lease pleaded by private respondent constitutes the

foundation and basis relied on by both parties for recovery of their respective claims.

The relationship between petitioners’ counterclaims and private respondent’s

complaint is substantially the same as that which exists between a complaint for

recovery of land by the owner and the claim for improvements introduced therein by

the possessor. As we have ruled, in actions for ejectment or for recovery of

possession of real property, it is well settled that the defendant’s claims for the value

of the improvements on the property or necessary expenses for its preservation are

required to be interposed in the same action as compulsory counterclaims. In such

cases, it is the refusal of the defendant to vacate or surrender possession of the

premises that serves as the vital link in the chain of facts and events, and which

constitutes the transaction upon which the plaintiff bases his cause of action. It is

likewise an "important part of the transaction constituting the subject matter of the

counterclaim" of the defendant for the value of the improvements or the necessary

expenses incurred for the preservation of the property. They are offshoots of the

same basic controversy between the parties, that is, the right of either to the

possession of the property.

 

85. Q: Miguel is a Youtube vlogger who constantly posts his daily activities,

routines, food, and all interesting contents based on social media trends and

sometimes through his audiences’ suggestions via his inbox or comment

sections. Further, vlogging is the only means of Miguel in earning income

with his 100 million followers. One night, Miguel came to his friend’s party

wherein he started a live stream showing the place, food, drinks and the

guests that were in it. Miguel who got a little drunk, read a comment of one

of his viewers of his live stream that dared him to kiss one of the girls in the

said party. Without any hesitations, Miguel approached one of the girls who

he just met at that party and smacked that girl’s lips. The girl who was caught

by surprise, has shoved Miguel and suddenly slaps him in the face. The

incident caught the attention of his viewers. Unknown to Miguel, a

prosecutor who is a fan of his vlog witnessed the happening, leading him to

save a copy of the video. The prosecutor then sought for the girl in the video

and convinced the latter to file a complaint for a criminal offense unjust

vexation. Miguel did not participate in the preliminary investigation leading

the prosecutor and subsequently filed an information before the MTC. On the

other hand, while the criminal case is pending, Miguel applied with the

Regional Trial Court (RTC) a Writ of Habeas Data, contending that his

constitutional right of privacy has been violated and such video cannot be

used as evidence against him. The question now arises, should the RTC

issue a Writ of Habeas Data in favor of Miguel since he stresses that his

constitutional right of privacy has been violated?


A: No, the RTC should deny the application of Miguel for a Writ of Habeas Data. In

the case of Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, the Supreme Court ruled that a

person’s desire for privacy is not absolute and he must balance his desire for

privacy with the desire for disclosure and communication of himself to others

varying from the environmental conditions and social norms that he lives in. Also,

it was pronounced by the Supreme Court that in social media sites, the user can

opt to select his intended viewers, this is what governs the desire of a person to

the privacy of the content he or she discloses to the public. In the case at bar,

Miguel as a vlogger who is earning by engaging himself on a day-to-day vlogging

caravan showcasing all his activities and behavior to the public, should be prudent

enough to limit his actions. Since Miguel produced a livestream showing his

actions in the party shown to the Youtube’s public audiences that includes his

million subscribers has already known the consequences of any unlawful acts or

omissions that he may do in front of the camera. Thus, Miguel’s privacy was not

violated when he already waived it by exposing and desiring to let the public see

his actions during the party via livestream. Therefore, the RTC must deny Miguel’s

application for a Writ of Habeas Data.


86. Q: Mr. Dimatulac is a new high school teacher in Rizal High School. Due to the

pandemic, online learning is enforced to all schools in the Philippines,

paving the way for teachers to use Zoom as their platform in teaching their

students. On a Monday, Mr. Dimatulac created a Zoom link to meet his

Sophomore advisory class, he was having a hard time since he is not techsavvy

so to speak. Mr. Dimatulac asked for the assistance of his best friend

Mr. Enriquez who is an IT expert. In order to assist Mr. Dimatulac, Mr.

Enriquez received the copy of the Zoom link from the former, with this if any

technical difficulties that would arise, the latter would fix it right away. During

the meeting proper, while Mr. Dimatulac is orienting his advisory class, Mr.

Enriquez took screenshots of the faces of all the girls in the class and

subsequently uploaded them to an illegal website wherein minor girls are

uploaded for child-pornography. After the class, Mr. Dimatulac was

surprised when one of the parents of his students called him out since the

latter’s daughter is seen in the said website. Other parents also discovered

the incident and one of the students reported that one of the participants in

the Zoom class is an outsider, pointing at Mr. Enriquez. The parents of Mr.

Dimatulac’s students demanded that their children’s right to privacy were

violated. Are the parents correct?


A: Yes, the parents are correct. In the case of Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, it can

be inferred that the only time that there can be a violation of a person’s privacy is

when there is a desire on his part to limit what information to disclose with the

society that he lives in. In the case at bar, the Sophomore students and particularly

their parents have a trust in the school that their children will be protected, which

includes their privacy. Further, teachers have a special parental authority over their

students pursuant to Article 218 of the Family Code. Hence, Mr. Dimatulac has

been negligent for not being prudent to think that letting outsiders participate in the

conduct of his class even if Mr. Enriquez is his best friend in his personal life. In

addition, the students of Mr. Dimatulac did not consent to the fact that their privacy

is exposed to a third-party during a class that is mandated by the school to be a

close-room invitation wherein only the authorized teacher and his students are

allowed to be inside. Therefore, when Mr. Dimatulac shared the Zoom link and

upon Mr. Enriquez’s entry in said room, there was already a violation of the

students’ privacy.


87. Q: Ceasar is an employee of SSS Plaridel Bulacan Branch. Upon receiving his

13th month pay before the Christmas break, he bought a new iPhone 13.

Unknown to his supervisor, Ceasar has been intimate with one of his

officemates, Sam. During the branch’s Christmas party, Ceasar and Sam

sneaked into the restroom one floor below the reception of the party. Inside

the restroom, Ceasar brought out his new phone and bragged it to Sam.

Further, Sam opened the video application of Ceasar’s phone and started to

video herself while stripping until she went full naked. Ceasar was aware that

Sam was recording their intimate actions with one another. After an hour,

they both left the restroom and Sam went up to the reception of the party so

that their other office mates would not be suspicious about their moment of

disappearance from the party. On the other hand, Ceasar went back to his

desk and for his safety since he is already married, afraid of being caught by

his wife, he transferred all the video clips into his office computer containing

everything that transpired between him and Sam inside the restroom. Days

after during the Christmas break, the Civil Service Commission issued a

memorandum for a mandatory computer inspection of all the employees of

SSS Plaridel Bulacan Branch. Ceasar’s computer was taken out since the IT

person who inspected the branch found the intimate video clips stored in the

former’s internal hard drive. The CSC ordered the dismissal of Ceasar and

Sam, and the two invoked that the CSC had no right to look into the files

since they have their right to privacy. The question is, whether Ceasar and

Sam’s contentions are correct?


A: No, Ceasar and Sam’s contentions are incorrect. In the case of Vivares v. St.

Theresa’s College, the Supreme Court held that privacy is not absolute and an

individual must balance his desire for privacy with the desire for disclosure and

communication of himself to others, which varies as well with the environmental

conditions that the said person is living in. Also, in the case of Pollo v. Constantino-

David, the Supreme Court held that government employees have no reasonable

expectation of privacy when the Civil Service Commission (CSC) orders an

express computer policy wherein all the files created, stored, sent or received on

the office computers are subject to the supervision by the Commission. In the case

at bar, since Ceasar transferred his intimate video clips taken during the Christmas

party inside his office computer which is a government property, there is no

expectation of privacy on his part. The mere fact that Ceasar transferred his

intimate video clips in his office computer, he has already waived his right to

privacy by essentially putting those obscene clips on a public storage. Therefore,

no right to privacy can be invoked in this scenario when the storage used is

considered as a public property on the onset.

 

88. Q: Suppose that Mr. A is being accused of being a drug manufacturer in 2018

where the peak of the war on drugs was in effect. Two of his close friends

already died because of unidentified gunmen and has heard from the mayor’s

secretary that he will be the next one to be visited because there was an order

by the mayor to execute him. May he file for a valid writ of amparo?


A. Yes. A writ of amparo is issued by the Courts as an exercise of its power to

promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of a person’s

constitutional right to life, liberty, and security. In the case at bar, the testimony

of the mayor’s secretary will be sufficient substantial evidence to prove that

there is indeed a threat to his life by a government official. Thus, the writ of

amparo should be valid.


89. Q: Mr. B, a well known entrepreneur, fears for his life because, at a party, Lenny,

while getting in his car, told him: “take extra care and I will see you soon.” Due to the

intonation of Duterte’s voice, he became paranoid and took extra precautions for

everyday life. The next week, he could not bear the burden anymore and filed for a

writ of amparo. Will it prosper?


A. No, the writ of amparo should not prosper. A writ of amparo is issued by the

Courts as an exercise of its power to promulgate rules concerning the

protection and enforcement of a person’s constitutional right to life, liberty, and

security. In the case at bar, it could be deduced that the paranoia of the

petitioner, Mr. B, is not at all warranted and his accusations against Lenny for

threatening his life was based on assumptions and hearsay. Thus, the writ of

amparo should not prosper.


90. Q: Ms. C, the secretary of Governor D, filed for a writ of amparo against the latter

alleging that the governor offered her a promotion in exchange for sexual favors. Ms.

C declined and threatened to file a harassment suit against him. Governor D

subsequently angrily shouted at her: “Ipapapatay nalang kita para wala nang

ebidensya!!!” There were a few employees who heard the altercation. Ms. C hurried

home and within the next couple of days, she noticed that there were military

personnel knocking at her door everyday, but she did not answer. One night, while

the coast was clear, she escaped her house and filed for a writ of amparo. Will the

case prosper?


A. Yes, the writ of amparo should prosper. A writ of amparo is an equitable and

extraordinary remedy primarily meant to address concerns such as, but not

limited to, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, or threats

thereof. In the case at bar, it could be easily proven by the testimonies of the

other employees who heard the altercation that there is a threat to the life of

Ms. C brought about the advances made by Governor D to her. Thus, the

case should prosper.

 

 

91. Q: Legaspi Group, a multinational corporation with diversified investments in

49 countries, registered in the Philippines under its laws, put up a bidding

project to construct its new corporate headquarters in Cavite. It was sued

by Tokong, an architect, for allegedly favoring the bid proposal of Mokong,

a rival architect, despite being substantially inferior in value. Tokong

alleges that Mokong’s bid was selected only because he is a distant

relative of Legaspi Group’s Chairman, Joseph Legaspi. Legaspi Group was

sued by Tokong and Legaspi Group argued that it suffered a dent in its

reputation as a result of the scandal and had to make a series of external

audits and investigations which yielded no irregularity in the bidding

process, losing some investors and valuable time. Legaspi Group, in its

response, sought moral and exemplary damages from the resulting

allegation.


A: Tokong, the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or

compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether

or not exemplary damages should be awarded, as provided. under Article 2234

of the Civil Code. Legaspi Group is entitled to moral damages, in this case as the

corporation has a good reputation that is debased, resulting in its social

humiliation because of the allegations levelled against it.


92. Q: Lhong, a first-time gambler, filed a complaint for moral damages alleging

that City of Nightmares has defrauded him and its slot machines are rigged

not to provide a payout. He scandalously yelled at the casino that the slot

machines are programmed not to yield a 7-7-7 jackpot worth P100 million,

which prompted the security to escort him out of the casino, which spurred

him to file a complaint. An investigation by PAGCOR ensued which found

no irregularities and rendered Lhong’s allegations untrue. Lhong filed for a

complaint for moral damages because he avers that he was humiliated

when he was thrown out of the casino by its security.


A: Lhong is not entitled to moral damages because he failed to establish that the

slot machines were rigged, there was no proof of the existence of the factual

basis of the damage and its causal relation to the defendant's acts. This is so

because moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are in the

category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury

suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. Lhong must show that he

is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may

consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded.


93. Q: Suppose City of Nightmares file a reply against Lhong with respect to

problem #2, that it suffered damages as a result of his scandalous

behavior, putting off some high-roller gamblers in a high-stakes poker

game. It avers that it sustained moral and reputational damages.


A:City of Nightmares will not be awarded moral damages as it is very much

implausible and inconceivable how the rabblerousing of a single, unknown,

amateur gambler can even slightly affect the reputation of one of the leading

casinos in the country.

 

 

94. Q: A is a graduating student in BB University. BB University told A, that the requirement

needed to graduate has changed and that he does not need to make an Undergraduate

Paper anymore to graduate. Later on, A found through his friends that what the University

told him was not actually true and that the University lied about the change. Later on A

found out the intent of BB University is because A is the son of a politician who BB

University is not in favor with. By the time A found out about all of this, the deadline is

already near and there is not enough time to prepare. A filed a case against BB University

for being in bad faith and abuse of right, leading to liability of damages. Is A correct?


A: Yes, A is correct. According to the Civil Code there is abuse of right when: 1)

There is a legal right or duty; (2) The legal right or duty is exercised in bad faith; and (3)

The exercise if for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. Additionally, the

requisites for bad faith are: (1) If a person willfully adopts wrongful means, or (2) If he or

she acts for wrongful ends. In this case there was an Abuse of Right by BB University,

since they have a duty to ensure that they uphold the standards expected from them as

an educational institution, but instead intentionally deceived a student to not graduate

because of political affiliations in bad faith, and intentionally prejudiced and injured them

so that A may not graduate. Therefore, BB University was in bad faith and abused the

right they had as an educational institution, which makes them liable for damages.


95. Q: B assigned A to be his agent in the selling of his Properties in Laguna to C who is a

real estate developer, since B would have to be out of the country for a couple of months.

A met up with C, but instead of faithfully selling the properties as he was assigned to do,

told C that they should change the agreements on the deal where the properties will be

sold in a cheaper price, if A can also have a partnership with C and get a cut in the

business that will be developed. When B came back to the Philippines, he eventually

found out about what happened and filed a case against A for damages, and that he was

in bad faith, and abused his right as an agent. Is B correct?


A: Yes, B is correct. According to the Civil Code there is abuse of right when: 1)

There is a legal right or duty; (2) The legal right or duty is exercised in bad faith; and (3)

The exercise if for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. Additionally, to prove

they were in bad faith the requisites to be met are: (1) If a person willfully adopts wrongful

means, or (2) If he or she acts for wrongful ends. In this case it can be seen that as an

Agent, A had a legal duty to properly represent B in the transaction of this sale of

properties with C. Instead, A went beyond his rights, and willfully adopted wrongful means

to have a backhanded deal with C for their own selfish gain, which leads to the injury of

B. Therefore, A is liable for damages for abusing their right as an agent, and also being

in bad faith.


96. Q: A is a domestic worker and is employed under B. Later on B found out that for the

upcoming elections, A will be voting for candidate Pink, even though B has expressly

stated to everybody he will be voting and promoting as well for Candidate Red. B was not

able to convince A to vote for candidate Pink, so B started giving A more intense tasks to

do, and also said that her breaks will not be weekly rests and it would be B who will decide

their breaks, and that A wont be able to go home for more than 3 months. Later on A

overheard that B was giving A unfair labor because of political opinion on who to vote and

was hoping that the unfair standards would make A leave out of her own volition. A filed

a case that B should be liable for damages. Is a correct A?


A: Yes, A is correct. According to the Civil Code there is abuse of right when: 1)

There is a legal right or duty; (2) The legal right or duty is exercised in bad faith; and (3)

The exercise if for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. Additionally, to prove

they were in bad faith the requisites to be met are: (1) If a person willfully adopts wrongful

means, or (2) If he or she acts for wrongful ends. B abused his right as an employer and

was obviously in bad faith for he intentionally committed wrongful acts, since he wants A

to quit just because of political affiliation. B abused his rights by giving tasks more than

what A can handle, and at the same time by prejudicing A’s rights to weekly rests and

also restricting A to be able to go home by stating they cannot go home for more than 3

months. Therefore, B is liable for damages for bad faith and abuse of rights.

 

97. Q: Robert was a head instructor in a private school together with John, during

a faculty meeting headed by Robert, he spoked unpleasant remarks regarding John’s

physical appearance and relating it on how John performs in his work as an instructor.

John being upset and embarrassed file a case for defamation and reserve an action

separated and distinct in the criminal case against Robert. The court held that Robert

was not guilty of defamation which resulted to John instituting an action for damages

in relation to Art. 33 of the Civil Code. During the preliminary stages of the Civil

Proceeding Robert raised that the action is barred by res juridicata is his contention

correct?


A: No. Article 33 of the Civil Code expressly provides that in cases of

defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely

separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured

party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution,

and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In the case at bar Robert’s

action constitutes as defamation hence an action for separate and distinct from

the criminal action may be brought by the injured party.


98. Q: Robert was traversing EDSA on his way to work on a Monday morning,

John a commuter was waiting in a waiting shed along EDSA. While Robert was

driving, he loses control of the vehicle and crashed in the waiting shed where John

was waiting which resulted to the instantaneous death of John. The heirs of John file

a case of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide and reserved a right to an action

separated and distinct in the criminal case against Robert. The RTC of Makati

dismissed the case, unsatisfied with the result the Heirs of John file an action for

damages in the court of RTC. During the preliminary stages of the Civil Proceeding

Robert raised that the action is barred by res juridicata is his contention correct?


A: No. Article 33 of the Civil Code expressly provides that In cases of

defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely

separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured

party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution,

and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In the case at bar Robert’s

action constitutes as physical injuries resulting to a death, hence an action for

separate and distinct from the criminal action may be brought by the injured

party or the heirs.


99. Q: Jean was a branch manager in a bank together with John a teller in the

said bank, during the annual Christmas Party, Jean spoked unpleasant remarks

regarding John’s physical appearance and relating it on how John performs in his work

as a teller. John being upset and embarrassed file a case for defamation and reserve

an action separated and distinct in the criminal case against Jean. The court held that

Jean was not guilty of defamation which resulted to John instituting an action for

damages in relation to Art. 33 of the Civil Code. During the preliminary stages of the

Civil Proceeding Robert raised that the action is barred by res juridicata is his

contention correct?


A: No. Article 33 of the Civil Code expressly provides that in cases of

defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely

separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured

party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution,

and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In the case at bar Robert’s

action constitutes as defamation hence an action for separate and distinct from

the criminal action may be brought by the injured party.

 

100. Q: Patrick, Ken and Ian formed a partnership for the business of selling face

shields and face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. They did not however

agree on the term of the partnership. Their business was doing very well and was

the main source of income especially for Ken who was laid off from his corporate

job. On the 6th month of the partnership, Ian asked for the immediate termination

of the partnership as an act of revenge and to vex Ken whom he learned was also

courting the girl he is courting. Ken and Patrick filed a case for damages against

Ian for wrongful termination of the partnership. Ian countered that he cannot be

held liable for damages as it is his right to ask for the dissolution of the

partnership at any time. Can Ian be made liable for damages?


A: Yes, Ian can be made liable for damages. Under the law, a

partnership at will may be dissolved at any time by any partner provided that the said

partner acts in good faith; the attendance of bad faith cannot prevent the dissolution of

the partnership but can result in a liability for damages. In the case at bar, while it is true

that under the law Ian, as a partner, has the power and right to ask for the dissolution of

the partnership at any time, such right was however not exercised with good faith but

rather was attended by bad faith as his sole purpose for the asking of the dissolution is

to take revenge and to vex Ken whom he knows relies solely on the income of the

partnership business for his daily needs. Hence, such dissolution is considered as

wrongful and he can be made liable for damages for acting with bad faith or abusing his

right.


101. Q: Jeorge, a call center agent, installed in the garage of the home he owned

several outdoor speakers. One night, at around 3am, Jorge and his co-workers

Christian, Tino and Sevy decided to celebrate after their office shift. They drank

beer and randomly decided to have fun by waking up the people in the

neighborhood. They used the newly installed outdoor speakers to play loud

music which evidently caused disturbance to Jorge’s neighbors during the wee

hours of the night. The neighbors of Jorge filed a complaint against him. In his

answer, Jorge countered that as the owner of the property, he had the right to use

and enjoy the same, at any time, and for any purpose he wants. Does Jorge’s

neighbors have a cause of action against him?


A: Yes, the neighbors have a cause of action against Jorge.

While it is true that under the law, owners have the right to make use and enjoy their

property at any time, such right must, however, be exercised in good faith and in

consideration of the rights of his/her neighbors as well; further, Article 19 of the NCC

provides that every person must, in the exercise of his rights, act with justice, give

everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. In the case at bar, Jorge’s right

as a property owner was not exercised with good faith but rather was exercised with

bad faith, with utter disregard for the rights of his neighbors and with intent to cause

annoyance to his neighbours. Hence, Jeorge can be made liable for damages for acting

with bad faith or abusing his right as a property owner.


102. Q: Brice, a consistent Grade 12 honor student at San Beda College Alabang, was

set to graduate with his friends in April 2021. Mr. Takata, his physics teacher, who

was previously dating Brice's mother, Kelly, whom the latter recently dumped;

deliberately, intentionally, and without basis decided to fail Brice as an act of

revenge towards Kelly, thus making Brice ineligible to graduate. Can Mr. Takata

be made liable?


A: Yes, Mr. Takata can be held liable for abusing his right as a

teacher. A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such,

may nevertheless become the source of some illegality when such right is not exercised

in good faith or when the exercise of such right fails to conform with the standards set

by Article 19 of the NCC; and when such is the case, the wrongdoer must be held

responsible. In the case at bar, while Mr. Takata, as a teacher, has the right with regard

to grading his students, he must however act with justice, give his students what is due

to them and observe honesty and good faith in evaluating his students; such was not

the case since Mr. Takata decided to fail Brice without basis and was done solely to

prejudice Brice as an act of revenge to his mother. Hence, Mr. Takata can be made

liable for such act.

 

 ***

103. Anthony is a law student of Saint Lapaz University. Due to the heavy workloads from

school and severe stress from his terror professors, he experienced severe depression

and decided to commit suicide by jumping off from the bridge. Upon jumping on the

bridge, Anthony was not aware that his classmate Louisse was reading under the bridge.

Anthony fell down on Louisse which cause the death of Louisse. Hence, Anthony is liable

for damages against Louisse. Although committing suicide is not a criminal act per se and

it was not the intention of Anthony to kill Louisse, he is still liable for causing damage

against the latter. Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the New Civil Code provide for the general

concepts that make persons liable for every conceivable wrongful act. There is general

duty owed to every person not to cause harm either wilfully or negligently.


104. Diane, Hannah and Lejan are law students of Toronto University. Lejan is a

freshman student while Diane and Hannah are 2nd and 3rd year students respectively.

Diane recruited Lejan to join a sorority. Diane told Lejan that it would be beneficial for the

latter because she could gain access to different study materials and even exam

questions of the professors. Hence, Lejan was convinced to join the sorority. During the

hazing, Lejan died due to heart attack when the final blow was given by Diane. Hannah

and Diane are now liable under Articles 19, 20, and 21 which intended to expand the

concept of torts by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs

which is impossible for human foresight to specifically provide in the statutes.


105.  Naruto and Sakura are law classmates. Naruto had a crush on Sakura and asked her

to be his study buddy and later on he asked Sakura to be his girlfriend. Naruto also offered

Sakura to live with him to his condo so that they have more time to study and Sakura

would not need to pay for her transportation. Sakura agreed to be his girlfriend and live

with him not knowing that Naruto is already married with Hinata. Naruto is guilty of fraud

and also liable under Articles 19, 20, and 21 which afford relief against novel forms of

misconduct when necessary and appropriate.

 

 ***


106. Q: Manuelito was enrolled at the Perpetual Help College of Rizal for BS

Criminology. He was elected Public Relations Officer of the Supreme Student

Council. In line with this, he received an invitation to attend with PHCR officials.

He was asked by the VP for Academic Affairs to sign Resolution No. 105 that

would implement a 20% tuition fee increase for the school year 1991-1992.

However, he refused to sign the resolution; instead he asked for a 2-week period

to take the matter up with fellow officers. Since, the administration assured that

the request of the student council would be considered favorably, the petitioner

finally signed Resolution No. 105.Then, PHCR announced that it will increase

tuition fees in all levels. The student council filed with the DECS a motion for

reconsideration. DECS held the advised that the "collection of the increase

should be held in abeyance pending the resolution of the matter."The

administration dropped Manuelito from PHCR's list of students because of the

following reasons: Non-compliance of CMT requirement as per DECS Order No.

9, S. 1990 and DECS Memorandum No. 80, S. 1991 and PHCR Internal Memo.

No. 891-007; No NCEE during the admission in the BS Criminology course;

Official Admission Credential not yet submitted; Void declaration of CMT subjects

He took special training during the semestral break, and he was able to pass it,

but PHCR still refused to give him that accreditation, insisting that he by then had

ceased to be a student of PHCR.Manuelito wrote to DECS, which in turn sent

their letter to PHCR ordering that students should be allowed to continue their

classes pending the resolution. PHCR did not comply with the directive.

Manuelito: Real reason PHCR has voided his enrollment is his active

participation in opposing PHCR's application for tuition fee increase with the

DECS. PHCR: invokes "academic freedom" in dropping the petitioner from its

roll of students. He has been allowed to enroll "conditionally" pending the

completion of his remedial classes in CMT, in which he failed. Whether or not the

PHCR may drop Manuelito from the list of students on the basis of academic

freedom?


A: No, the admission to an institution of higher learning is discretionary upon the

school and that such an admission is a mere privilege, rather than a right, on the part of

the student. The enrollment of a student is a semester-to-semester contract, and the

school may not be compelled to renew the contract by recognizing instead the right of a

student to be enrolled for the entire period in order to complete his course. Furthermore,

the contract between the school and the student, imbued, as it is, with public interest, is

not an ordinary contract. Expulsion is disproportionate to his deficiencies in his CMT

course. The circumstances show that the PHCR has strongly been influenced by his

participation in questioning PHCR's application for tuition fee increase.


107. Q: Petitioner has been barred from being allowed re-admission into the Faculty

Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology, which is a seminary for the

priesthood in collaboration with the Ateneo de Manila University. Petitioner was

taking her studies leading to an M.A in theology at the time, but was no longer

allowed to enroll in the Academic Year of 1975-1976. According to petitioner, the

reason behind the respondent’s refusal to re-admit her, which is due to the fact

that her frequent questions and difficulties that were slowing down the progress

of the class, does not constitute valid legal ground for expulsion for they neither

present any violation of any of the school’s regulation, nor are they indicative of

gross misconduct. Whether or not the Faculty Admission Committee had to

authority to bar the petitioner from continuing her studies in their institution?


A: Yes, Admission to an institution of higher learning does not rest on the sole

and uncontrolled discretion of the applicant. On the contrary, there are standards that

must be met. There are policies to be pursued. Discretion appears to be of the essence.

The internal conditions for academic freedom in a University are that the academic staff

should have de facto control of the following functions: the admission and examination

of students; the curricula for courses of study; the appointment and tenure of office of

academic staff; and the allocation of income among the different categories of

expenditure. It would be a poor prospect for academic freedom if universities had to rely

on the literal interpretation of their constitutions in order to acquire for their academic

members control of these four functions, for in one constitution or another most of these

functions are laid on the shoulders of the law governing body.


108. Q: A fraternity Law School named conducted its initiation rites upon neophytes.

Unfortunately, one neophyte died as a result thereof and one was hospitalized

due to serious physical injuries. In a resolution, the Disciplinary Board formed by

the law school found seven students guilty of violating Rule 3 of the Rules on

Discipline. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, then president of School, on the basis of the

findings, ordered the expulsion of the seven students. However, Judge Ignacio

Capulong of the Makati RTC, upon the students’ petition for certiorari, prohibition,

and mandamus, ordered the school to reverse its decision and reinstate the said

students. Whether or not the Law School has competence to issue an order

dismissing such students pursuant to its rules?


A: Yes, the Law school has the competence and the power to dismiss its

erring students and therefore it had validly exercised such power. The students do

not deserve to claim a venerable institution as their own a minute longer for they

may foreseeably cast a malevolent influence on students currently enrolled as well

as those who come after them. This is academic freedom on the part of the school

which includes: freedom to determine who may teach; freedom to determine what

may be taught; freedom to determine how it shall be taught; freedom to determine

who may be admitted to study.

 

 

109. Q: A was charged with the crime of Estafa. The Regional Trial Court acquitted A, on

the ground that the elements of Estafa, particularly, employment of false

pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means were absent. However civil liability

was imposed as the RTC found that there were damages as A delayed in the

payment of his contractual obligation to pay a sum of money that was the basis of

the complaint of Estafa. Can Civil liability still arise despite acquittal of A?


Yes, since the basis of the acquittal is only failure to proof guilt beyond

reasonable doubt, A can still be imposed of civil liability.

In Dy vs People, the Supreme Court ruled that, in cases where the acquittal of

the accused is based on the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond

reasonable doubt, the accused can still be held civilly liable, if there is

preponderance of evidence showing that the accused has a civil liability.

In this case, A, while not guilty of Estafa, still faulted in his contractual obligation

to pay a sum of money to his creditor. There is still a preponderance of evidence

showing that A has a civil obligation.

Therefore, A, despite his acquittal can still be held civilly liable as the basis

of his acquittal was the failure of the prosecution to show guilt beyond reasonable

doubt of committing Estafa.


110.  Q: A was charged of Murder of B. The Regional Trial Court acquitted A, on the

grounds that the prosecution failed to prove that it was A who killed B. The RTC

however, still imposed civil liability against A. Is the RTC Judge’s decision

proper?


A: The decision is improper, A should not be found to be civilly liable.

In Dy vs People, the Supreme Court ruled that in case of acquittal based on the

fact that the prosecution failed to prove that it was the accused who committed

the offense, no civil liability should be imposed.

In this case, A was acquitted on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove

that it was A who killed the victim B.

Therefore, it is improper, to find A civilly liable for an offense he did not commit.


111. Q: In estafa through conversion or malversation, what instance bars the court from

holding accused liable for damages after a judgment of acquittal?


A: When the court finds that the source of obligation is in fact, a contract, as in a contract

of loan, it takes a position completely inconsistent with the presence of estafa. In estafa,

a person parts with his money because of abuse of confidence or deceit. In a contract, a

person willingly binds himself or herself to give something or to render some service. In

estafa, the accused's failure to account for the property received amounts to criminal

fraud. In a contract, a party's failure to comply with his obligation is only a contractual

breach. Thus, any finding that the source of obligation is a contract negates estafa. The

finding, in turn, means that there is no civil liability ex delicto. Thus, the rulings in the

foregoing cases are consistent with the concept of fused civil and criminal actions, and

the different sources of obligations under our laws.

 

 

112. Q: Lana, herein defendant, was charged with serious oral defamation. Aurora, the

offended party, did not waive the civil action or reserve her right to institute it, but

intervened through counsel in the prosecution of the offense. After trial, the court

rendered a decision finding Lana guilty of slight slander and sentencing her to pay a

fine. A month later, Aurora filed an action for damages in the same court, against Lana,

to recover moral and exemplary damages. The cause of action was based on the

defamatory remarks which were the subject matter of the criminal action.

Whether the present action for damages will prosper.


A: No. The present action for damages will not prosper. Under Rule 110 Section

16 of the Rules of Court, an offended party in a criminal case may intervene, personally

or by attorney, in the prosecution of the offense, however, under Rule 111, this is

allowed only if he has not waived the civil action or expressly reserved his right to

institute it, subject, always, to the direction and control of the prosecuting fiscal. In the

instant case, it is not disputed that Aurora, upon whose initiative the criminal action for

defamation against Lana was filed, did not reserve her right to institute an independent

civil action. Instead, she chose to intervene in the criminal proceedings as private

prosecutor through counsel employed by her. Such intervention, could only be for the

purpose of claiming damages or indemnity, and not to secure the conviction and

punishment of Lana. Aurora, having elected to claim damages arising from the offense

charged in the criminal case through her appearance or intervention as private

prosecutor, the final judgment rendered therein constitutes a bar to the present civil

action for damages based upon the same cause.


113. Q: Elio filed for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against Oliver before the Office of

the City Prosecutor of Quezon City who found probable cause. An Information was filed

with the MeTC of Quezon City. The MeTC found Oliver guilty of violating BP 22. Thus,

Oliver filed an appeal to the RTC. The RTC reversed the ruling of the MeTC. It acquitted

Oliver and dismissed the civil aspect of the case for failure of Elio to prove the requisite

quantum of evidence preponderance of evidence. Elio filed a motion for reconsideration

but it was denied by the RTC. Thus, Elio filed a Petition for Review under Rule 42 with

the CA. The CA dismissed the Petition for Review and stated that only the Office of the

Solicitor General has authority to represent the State in criminal actions before the CA

and SC. Whether Elio may file the Petition for Review with the CA.


A: No. The CA dismissed the petition because Elio was not the proper party to

appeal in a criminal case. Under Section 35(1) of Executive Order No. 292, only the

Solicitor General may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the

Philippines, or represent the people or the State. However, it also provides for 2

exceptions: (1) when there is denial of due process of law to the prosecution and the

State or its agents refuse to act on the case to the prejudice of the State and the private

offended party (2) when the private offended party questions the civil aspect of a

decision of a lower court. The fact that Elio filed a petition for review under Rule 42, or

ordinary appeal with the CA, is already an indication that what he was seeking was the

reversal of the entire decision of the RTC, in both its criminal and civil aspects. He could

have filed a special civil action for certiorari if he intended to preserve his interest in the

civil aspect.


114. Q: Paul was charged with the crime of estafa through falsification of public documents

before the RTC of Manila. Allegedly, Paul executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication of a

parcel of land when she knew that there were other surviving heirs. The offended party

did not reserve the right to file a separate civil action. Thus, it was tried together with the

criminal case. The RTC acquitted Paul on the ground of reasonable doubt, but on the

civil aspect, it ordered the return of the parcel of land to the surviving heirs. The CA

upheld the decision of the RTC.

Paul appealed contending that the CA erred in finding that the trial court had jurisdiction

to render judgment on the civil aspect of the criminal case. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to render judgment on the civil aspect

of the criminal case.


A: Yes. The action for recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted in the criminal

action unless reserved by the offended party. Under Rule 111 (a) of the Rules of Court,

when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising

from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the

offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or

institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. In the instant case, the offended

party did not reserve the civil action and the civil action was deemed instituted in the

criminal action. Although the trial court acquitted Paul of the crime charged, the

acquittal, grounded on reasonable doubt, did not extinguish the civil liability.

 

115. Q: Vamoose, a cargo boat, was traveling in Pajuda bay. While traveling, the boat operator noticed

that the boat was having an engine problem. Upon checking, he discovered that the electric oil pump of

the engine was damaged. Hence, the oil pump released oil to the part of Pajuda Bay. Ramon, the owner of

Vamoose, is now being prosecuted under Republic Act 9483. The owner contended that he cannot be

liable since his negligence or fault was not clearly shown by evidence. Is the Ramon’s contention correct?


A: No. Under Section 6 of RA 9483, the owner of the ship shall be strictly liable for any pollution

damage caused by the ship. Strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally

responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal

intent on the part of the defendant. In the case, Ramon’s negligence need not be proven since the mere

fact that his ship has released oil in the Pajuda bay and caused damage already makes him liable under the

strict liability rule. Thus, Ramon is liable and therefore his contention is not correct.


116. Q: Vamoose and Wildcat, both cargo boats, were traveling in Manila Bay at night. In the course of

travel, both boats collided with each other resulting the damage of both boats thus tons of oil were

released in the bay. It was proven later on in the trial that Wildcat was traversing the bay too fast thus

Vamoose was unable to maneuver to move away from it. It was also proven that despite Vamoose

signaling way before the incident, Wildcat kept coming without slowing down. Both the owners of the

boats are being prosecuted under RA 9483. Will the case prosper against both of the owners?


A: No, only the case against Wildcat will prosper. Under Section 7 of RA 9483, no liability shall

attach to the owner of the ship if it is proven that the damage was wholly caused by an act or omission

done with intent to cause damage by third party. In the case, it was proven that Wildcat collided with

Vamoose with intent to cause damage since it was shown that despite the signaling of Vamoose and the

fact that they were traveling the bay at night, Wildcat did not falter to reduce its speed but instead

proceeded in a haste thereby causing damage to Vamoose. Hence, Vamoose is exempted from the strict

liability except for Wildcat and therefore the case cannot prosper against both of the owners.


117. Q: Vamoose, a cargo boat, was traveling in Pajuda bay. A strong earthquake occurred while the boat

was in the course of traveling. Due to the strong earthquake, huge waves formed in the bay. The waves hit

the boat causing it to tip over and damaging the oil bunker of the boat. The oil of the boat spilled through

the huge area of the bay. Ramon, the owner of the ship, is being prosecuted under RA 9483. Will the case

against him prosper?


A: No. Under Section 7 of RA 9483, no liability shall attach to the owner of the ship if it is proven

that the damage has resulted from a natural phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable and irresistible

character.

 

 

118. Q: On April 2019, farmers Jesse and James bought animal feeds from Peppa Feeds Corp.

on credit to be delivered on three various dates and which were to be paid and covered

by three separate checks due a week after each delivery date. On April 2019, the first

batch of sacks of animal feeds was delivered and were fed to the animals. Suddenly,

Jesse and James were informed by a worker that their chickens were dying at rapid

intervals. On May 2019, the second batch was delivered and was also fed to the animals.

By then, all the chickens have died and some of the remaining hogs were now suffering

from disease. The check for the second batch was dishonored, but Jesse and James

pleaded that the third batch be still delivered as their inability to pay was caused by the

ongoing pestilence occurring on their farm. On June 2019, the third batch was delivered

but were not returned. And on September 2019, Jesse and James sent a sample in a

sealed plastic bag to a laboratory for examination.

The check for the third batch was also dishonored and despite several demands to pay

for the second and third batch of animal feeds, Jesse and James refused to pay the

remaining balance. Peppa Feeds thus filed a complaint for collection of money. Jesse

and James admitted the unpaid obligation but disclaimed liability, claiming that their

nonpayment was due to the deaths of their animals caused by the contaminated animal

feeds sold to them by Peppa Feeds as according to the laboratory that conducted the

examination, the sample was found to have rat poison in them. However, Peppa Feeds

theorized that it was Jesse and James who added the poison to the animal feeds to make

it appear that it was contaminated. Should Peppa Feeds be held liable?


A: No. Peppa Feeds should not be held liable.

To be able to prove liability on the basis of breach of implied warranty, three things

must be established: first, is that they sustained injury because of the product; second, is

that the injury occurred because the product was defective or unreasonably unsafe; and

finally, the defect existed when the product left the hands of the petitioner. The defect

must be present upon the delivery or manufacture of the product; or when the product left

the seller's or manufacturer's control; or when the product was sold to the purchaser; or

the product must have reached the user or consumer without substantial change in the

condition it was sold.

Here, the delivered animal feeds which allegedly contained rat poison were

delivered on April 2019 to June 2019; but it is surprising that the Jesse and James only

had the animal feeds examined on September 2019 or months after their livestock had

died. In a span of three months, the feeds could have already been contaminated by

outside factors and subjected to many conditions unquestionably beyond the control of

Peppa Feeds. Further, there is no evidence to show that the feeds given to the animals

were identical to those submitted to the laboratory for examination as the sample given

was in a sealed plastic bag, whereas the delivered animal feeds were in packed in sacks.

Thus, Peppa Feeds should not be held liable.


119. Q: Aling Nena owns a sari-sari store where she sold, among other things, beverages

manufactured by Cocamelon Brewery. On February 2018, she was convinced by a

distributor of Cocamelon to purchase a small cooler for the beverages. Two weeks later,

the cooler arrived as well as a new supply of Cocamelon drinks. Thereafter, Aling Nena

placed 20 bottles of beer inside the cooler, standing, and some other softdrinks from

Cocamelon beside several packs of ice. At lunchtime that same day, a customer ordered

an iced dessert, and when she opened the cooler to get some ice, one of the beer bottles

spontaneously burst, causing the glass fragments to scatter and some landed in her left

eye. Aling Nena was taken to the hospital as the eye still continued to bleed despite

attempts to clean her eye and remove the fragments in their home. Despite medical

treatment, she eventually lost her sight on her left eye.

Aling Nena asked for compensation from Cocamelon for the hospital fees; however the

latter gave no compensation, stating that the bursting of the bottle was due to a fortuitous

event that is the internal pressure in the bottle caused by the sudden change in

temperature of the cooler when it was opened and that the pressure was the effect of the

way the elements were mixed in the factory. Rule on Cocamelon’s defense.


A: Cocamelon’s defense is untenable.

Before a manufacturer or seller may be held liable for any damage caused by their

product, the following must be present: first, proof that the product in question was

defective; second, the defect must be present upon delivery or manufacture of the

product, or when the product was sold to the purchaser; and third, the product must have

reached the consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold.

Here, as soon as they were delivered, the bottles of beer were immediately placed

and arranged right side up. The change in temperature should not be considered as the

substantial change contemplated by law as if such were to be accepted, more than one

bottle should have exploded as soon as the cooler was opened. However, in this case,

only one bottle exploded. It is inconceivable that a bottle of beer would spontaneously

burst without defect. As there was no substantial change in the condition of the beer

bottles when it reached Aling Nena’s sari-sari store, Cocamelon should be held liable.


120. Q: Bahay Malusog is an organization created to ensure the healthy development of minors

living below the poverty line in Tondo, Manila. This year, it planned to conduct a polio

vaccination drive. Bahay Malusog entered into an agreement with Bounty McBee Foods,

Inc., a corporation that mainly sells poultry products, in which the latter is to deliver 300

pieces of whole raw chicken for a discounted price. The day before the event, Bahay

Malusog received all 300 pieces of chicken and decided to cook half of the stock on that

day and cook the remaining stock the next day, storing both the cooked and uncooked

chicken in a small cold storage room. The chicken were served during the vaccination

drive as lunch for the staff, volunteers, as well as the minors present at the event. A few

hours later, some of the staff, volunteers and children complained of stomach ache and

nausea. When the symptoms persisted despite receiving medicines, they were rushed to

the nearby hospital. Majority of those affected recovered, however, some unfortunately

died from food poisoning. Bahay Malusog suddenly faced an influx of complaints both

from those that recovered and the families of those who died from food poisoning.

Bahay Malusog filed a complaint against Bounty McBee, claiming that the latter was

malicious in the chicken delivered as they bought them at a discounted price; that the

injuries could not have been their fault since the cooks hired as well as the recipe used

were utilized since they started operating and there had been no problems on the food

until this incident. Bounty McBee denies liability stating that the delivered chicken were in

the same batch as those delivered to their long-time customers of small grocery stores

and local restaurants around the area but received no complaints from the latter. Rule on

the case.


A: Bounty McBee is not liable.

Before a manufacturer or seller may be held liable for any damage caused by their

product, the following must be present: first, proof that the product in question was

defective; second, the defect must be present upon delivery or manufacture of the

product, or when the product was sold to the purchaser; and third, the product must have

reached the consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold.

Here, Bahay Malusog should be held liable for the injuries as they were negligent

in handling the chicken delivered by storing both cooked and uncooked meat within the

same storage room causing cross-contamination and the spread of bacteria such as

salmonella and e-coli which could lead to fatal food poisoning. The chicken delivered

could not have been defective at the time it was delivered to Bahay Malusog as it was

only from them did Bounty McBee receive a complaint. Since, it was the improper storage

of the chicken by Bahay Malusog that caused the injuries, Bounty McBee should not be

held liable.

 

121. Q: Mr. Z bought two (2) bottles of tiger energy drink which is manufactured by Tiger

Drink Co. at 999 convenience store. Mr. Z then went home and drank one of the

energy drinks. A few hours later, he felt abdominal pain and vomited. He was then

brought to the hospital, it was later found out that he had an acute gastroenteritis and

possible food poisoning. He then asked to examine the remaining energy drink he

drank and an unopened energy drink to a licensed chemist and found out that the

drink contains a harmful substance both the remaining drink that Mr. Z had and the

unopened bottle of energy drink which caused the food poisoning to Mr. Z. As a

result, Mr. Z filed a complaint against Tiger Drink Co. and prayed for a relief of

damages. Can Mr. Z claim damages against Tiger Drink Co.?


A: Yes. Mr. Z may claim damages against Tiger Drink Co. To establish a liability for

death or injury under Art. 2187 of the New Civil Code the following must be present:

(a) Defendant is a manufacturer and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles

and similar goods; (b) He used noxious or harmful substances in the manufacture of

the or processing of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods consumed or

used by the plaintiff; (c) plaintiff’s death or injury was caused by the products so

consumed or used; and (d) the damages sustained and claimed by the plaintiff and

the amount thereof.

Based on the provision mentioned, Tiger Drink Co. is liable to the injury sustained by

Mr. Z although no contractual relations exist between them, in this case it was clearly

established and proven that the injury sustained by Mr. Z was due to the product of

Tiger Drink Co. that Mr. Z consumed. Thus, Mr. Z may claim damages against Tiger

Drink Co. the manufacturer of the energy drink.


122. Q: Ms. J bought a new electric hair straightener from the Y mall, a product which is

manufactured by Company G. The following day, J used the new electric hair

straightener and while using the product it suddenly exploded which caused a

serious injury on the face of Ms. J. Plaintiff then sued Company G, claiming that the

defendant was negligent in selling their product. It was later found out by an expert

on such products that the unit she bought was defective because it was missing

some parts. Ms. J filed a complaint against Company G and prayed for a relief of

damages. Is Company G liable for damages?


A: Yes. Company G shall be liable for damages. Art. 2187 of the New Civil Code

provides that manufacturers or processors of foodstuff, drinks, toilet articles and

similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful

substances used, although no contractual relation exists between them and the

consumers. In this case, it was clearly established and proven that the product was

defective and unsafe as such Ms. J was injured while using the product of Company

G. Thus, Company G as the manufacturer of the defective electric hair straightener

is liable for damages.


123. Q: Ms. X bought a canned tuna which is manufactured by Plain Food Co. at 999

convenience store, Mr. Z then went home and ate the canned tuna as her dinner

together with the leftover sisig from her lunch. A few hours later, she felt abdominal

pain and vomited. She was then brought to the hospital, it was later found out that he

had an acute gastroenteritis and possible food poisoning. She then filed a complaint

against Plain Food Co. the manufacturer of the canned tuna she ate, she argued that

it is impossible that she got her food poisoning from the leftover sisig since she ate it

for lunch and nothing happened to her. Thus, implicating Plain Food Co. for her food

poisoning. Can Ms. X claim damages against Plain Food Co.?


A: No. Ms. X is not entitled to damages. The only ground which could sustain an award

of damages in favor of Ms. X was Art. 2187 of the New Civil Code which states that

manufacturers of foodstuff among others shall be liable for death or injuries caused

by any noxious or harmful substances used, although no contractual relation exists

between them and the consumers. Unfortunately, Ms. X has not presented any

competent, credible and preponderance of evidence that proved that she suffered

injuries because of the canned tuna manufactured by Plain Food Co.

A manufacturer or seller of a product cannot be held liable for injury allegedly caused

in the absence of proof that the product was defective when it left the defendant’s

possession or control and that the injury was proximately caused by the product.

Thus, Plain Food Co. cannot be held liable for damages for the injury sustained by

Ms. X.

 

 

124. Q: Alaskon Company has over 50,000 employees, not counting the part-timers,

contractuals and the personal secretaries of each of the executives. Dairy Milky,

competitor marketing of the former, who also produces fresh cow milk that is

similar to what Alaskon is marketing to the public, has been noticing that their

sales are going down the past couple of months. They found out the public

would rather purchase Alaskon products. Dairy Milky, in an attempt to improve

their sales, bribed Alaskon productions team to transfer to their company instead

and to practice their production in the same. Alaskon, upon knowing why his

employers suddenly started resigning, has known of this scheme and failed with

the RTC of Manila for damages against respondent Dairy Milky. Was Dairy Milky

liable for damages?


A: Yes. The act of poaching or pirating employees is an actionable wrong and can be

remedied. Under Art 1314 of the New Civil Code,any third person who induces another

to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party. The

interference is penalized because it violates the property rights of a party in a contract

to reap the benefits that should result therefrom [Lagon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

119107, 18 March 2005].

The Supreme Court laid down the requisites in the case of So Ping Bun vs Court of

Appeals (GR 120554, 21 September 1999), before a civil action for tortious

interference of contract may prosper:

(1) the employee had a valid contractual relationship;

(2) new employer had knowledge of the contractual relationship;

(3) new employer intended to induce employee to breach contract

(4) the contract was in fact breached; and the employer was damaged.

In this case, it is clear that there is pirating of the employees when Dairy Milky practiced

the production of Alaskon and the employers of Alaskon started to resign so they can

work for Dairy Milky. Therefore, Dairy Milky is liable for damages for inducing the

employees to violate their contract.


125. Q: Manny and Panny are next door neighbors and good friends. Manny’s girlfriend,

Tanny, is in the business of selling lasagna like Panny and his family. In order to

make a good impression and to profess his love for her, Manny suggested to

Panny to purchase lasagna ingredients to Danny, who, without Panny’s

knowledge, has been recently been convicted of estafa involving the same

goods. Panny agreed, and upon purchase, has acquired massive damage to the

business due to faulty materials and products.Panny sued both Manny and

Tanny, actual damages. The RTC held in favor of Tanny but not Manny and

dissolved her at any cost. Was the RTC correct?


A: Yes. The RTC was correct in absolving Tanny absent the proof or evidence that she

forced or conspired with Manny to damage Panny’s Lasagna business. Under Article

1314 of the New Civil Code, or the law against tortious interference, states that any

third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to

According to the Highest Court, there is inducement where a person persuades or

intimidates another into choosing one course of conduct. (Go vs. Cordero, G.R. No.

164703, May 4, 2010) Hence, the party-claimant must prove that the party who

breached their contract did so not by his own volition but because the intruder

persuaded or intimidated him into doing it. However, where no malice is present in the

interference of a contract, and the impulse behind one’s conduct lies in a proper

business interest rather than in wrongful motives, a party cannot be considered and

punished as a malicious interferer.

In this case, there was no evidence that Tanny did not do so by his own volition but

because she was intimidated into doing it. There was no malice on the part of Tanny

because she just followed what Manny said to help Panny with her business. Manny on

the other hand had malice since he knew that both of them were in the same business

and wanting to impress Tanny, he recommended Danny who was convicted of estafa.

Therefore, the RTC was correct in absolving Tanny and not Manny.


126. Q: Abacada is engaged in the business of buying and selling used cars in his

community, Sin city. It is only Abacada and Vic Ganda who are competitors in the

said city. Enraged by the number of sales Vic Ganda has for the month, Abacada

has started a rumor that Vic Ganda’s automobiles for sale are actually products

of carnapping or robbery items. This has caused a number of his customers and

customer-to-be, to back out. Vic Ganda sued Abacada damages arising from the

wrongful doing as well as a separate criminal action. Will the damages case

prosper?


A: Yes. Wrongful or illegal conduct done by the defendant, by defaming a product or a

sellers’ services with false negative characteristics, must be shown to win a claim for

tortious interference cases. Under Art 1314 of the New Civil Code, the duty which the

law of torts is concerned with is respect for the property of others, and cause of action

ex delicto may be predicated by an unlawful interference by any person of the

enjoyment, use of the other of his private property. This pertains to similar situations

where a third persons not a party to a contract induces a person to renege on or violate

his undertaking such contract.

Interference can be appreciated when the defendant is motivated to protect a

substantial interest based on an objectively reasonable and good faith belief that the

defendant's interest will be harmed by performance of the contract and the defendant

does not employ improper, is deceptive or other even just plain unjust means to

interfere. There also has to be actual malice. It is a positive desire or intent to injure

another, and in the context of a charge of tortious interference, the plaintiff must show in

his complaint or action to obtain damages that the desire to harm was unrelated to the

interests of the corporation.

In this case, the damages will prosper against Abacada because there was intent to

injure another and that the products of Vic Ganda was defamed with false negative

characteristics which has caused a number of customers to back out. Therefore, Vic

Ganda is entitled to damages.

 

 

127. Q: S and B talked with each other. B asked S to sell the latter’s car to the former. S did

not respond. The following day, S sold his car to C. B, now filed a case against C for

damages alleging that he violated their contract of sale (S and B) applying Article 1314

of the Civil Code. Can B’s case prosper?


A: No. B cannot apply Article 1314. For it to be applicable, there must be an

existence of a valid contract. Also, one of the essential elements of a contract is

consent. In this case, S did not give his consent to the supposed contract of sale. There

being no consent, there is no valid contract between S and B. Therefore, B’s case

cannot prosper.


128. Q: S, a restaurant owner, hired B and C as waiters. Each of them agreed to a 2-year

employment contract. However, after only 3 months, C became absent without any

notice to S. Thereafter, S discovered that C is working as a waiter as well for A, a

competitor of S who fully knew of the contracts of B and C. S then filed a case for

damages against A using Article 1314 of the Civil Code as basis. Will the case prosper?


A: Yes. Article 1314 applies since A had knowledge of the existence of C’s contract

with S. The acceptance of C as a waiter despite such knowledge of his contract

indicates a contractual interference. Therefore, the case will prosper.


129. Q: Suppose in the preceding problem, what if A does not have any knowledge of the

existence of the contract between S and C?


A: S will have to prove that his rival was aware of such contract and despite it,

interfered in his contract with C by inducing the latter to work for him and that his

conduct lies in a proper business interest rather than in wrongful motives.

 

130. Q: SEA Apple has an existing contract with Apple Co., with the sole distributorship

of apple products in the Asia. Beyond the Box Corp. is the domestic distributor

of SEA Apple in the Philippines, the former has ordered Apple products from

the Apple Co. even knowing that there is an existing contract of sole

distributorship between Apple Co. and Sea Apple. Beyond the Box Corp. has

induced Apple Co., making believe the latter that the products will be given as

a gift for it’s employees. Meanwhile, Beyond the Box Corp. ha sold the said

products in the market. Is Beyond the Box Corp. liable to Sea Apple?


A: Yes, Sea Apple is liable for unfair competition.

Art. 1314 of the NCC states that, any third person who induces another to violate his

contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party.

Hence, Beyond the Box Corp. interference and inducement is considered tortious

because it violates the rights of the contracting parties to fulfill the contract. The act of

inducing Apple Co. in making believe that the items were not to be sold is in contrary with

Art. 1314 of the Civil Code.


131. Q: Carmela is an employee of MFR Corp., she has a non-competition clause in

her contract of employment. Rebesco Company, the direct competitor of MFR

Corp. tried to persuade Carmela to transfer to its company by offering her a

higher salary and additional benefits even knowing that there is an existing

contract between Carmela and MFR Corp.. Is Rebesco company liable for Art.

1314 of the civil code?


A: Yes, MFR together with Carmela are liable for damages to MFR Corp.

Rebesco knowing that there is an existing contract between Carmela and MFR Corp.,

has interfered with their contracts is liable for Art. 1314 of the Civil Code.

All the elements are present which are 1.) Existence of a valid contract, 2.) Knowledge

on the part of the third person of the existence of the contract, and 3.) Interference of the

third person without legal justification or excure.

Hence, Rebesco is liable for damages.


132. Q: ABC corp. has entered into a contract with DVD corp. being the manufacturer

of Perfect alcohol for the sole distributorship of its products in the Philippines.

XYZ has sent a letter to DVD corp. giving its intention to buy its products and

sell it to Malaysia. DVD Corp. acting in good faith has sent its products to XYZ

Corp.. ABC Corp. filed a suit for unfair competition and violation of Art. 1314 of

the Civil Code. Later on, it was found out that the contract between ABC Corp.

and DVD corp. is void. Will the suit prosper?


A: No, the suit will not prosper.

The existence of a contract is necessary. No tort is committed if the contract between

DVD corp. and ABC Corp. has already been broken or void. Hence, there can be no

action for inducing to breach an illegal contract or one that is contrary to public policy.

 

133. Q: 8/18, a small-scale store owner, has been operating in the university belt area of

Baguio City, and was known for serving the best carbonara, using a recipe which

was crafted by the owner’s mom. Pedro, a regular customer, befriended the

kitchen staff of 8/18, eventually obtaining information on their pasta recipe.

Sometime later, Pedro decided to put up a store in front of 8/18, named 7/17, with

the same color scheme, same concept, almost the same menu, and most

especially, offering carbonara identical to that of 8/18’s, and sold it cheaper than

the selling price of 8/18. This prompted the customers of 8/18 to move to 7/17,

given the cheaper alternative and the store’s modern design. Whether or not 7/17 is liable under Art. 28 of the Civil Code


A: Yes. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises

or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other

unjust, oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the

person who thereby sutlers damage. In this case, 7/17 employed deceit in

obtaining the recipe of 8/18, and, in addition, copied almost everything about 8/18,

causing 8/18 to lose customers. As such, 7/17 shall be liable for damages under

Art. 28 of the Civil Code.


134. Q: In the barrio of Cabarroguis, Quirino, Lepado family has been raising poultry and

distributing such to almost all barangays. This has been the system for several

years now, because Marocs, the head of the family threatens anyone who would

try to sell in Cabarroguis, telling them that their family is powerful and has a lot of

connections to other authorities. Abner dela Cruz, who wishes to start his small

poultry business with the small amount of money that he has saved throughout his

years as an OFW, talked to Lepado and informed him that he wishes to supply

eggs to small stores, leaving the chicken, beef, and pork sales to Lepada.

However, Marcos got mad and threatened Abner that he would lose everything if

he makes a single move in starting his poultry farm.

Whether or not Marcos Lepada is liable under Art. 28 of the Civil Code


A: Yes. Article 28 provides that unfair competition in agricultural, commercial

or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force shall give rise to a right

of action. In this case, Marcos employs threat and intimidation in preventing

competitors in the area where his family operates. As such, he shall be liable for

damages and other causes under Art. 28 of the Civil Code.


135. Q: Krazy Kreme, a doughnut store, entered into an agreement with StarVaks, stating

therein that StarVaks would serve the doughnuts made by Krazy Kreme in its

coffee shop. Their contract stipulated that the distribution shall be exclusive in the

area of UP Diliman, for a period of 3 years. After a year, Manny, the brother of

Isko, the owner of Krazy Kreme, decided to open a coffee shop inside UP Diliman,

co-owned by them as brothers, and as such, asked Isko if he could sell the

doughnuts of Krazy Kreme. Being siblings, Isko agreed, and even gave Manny a

lower selling price. Customers then accused StarVaks for overpricing, eventually

losing their customers who are students inside Diliman campus.

ISSUE: Whether or not Krazy Kreme is liable under Art. 28 of the Civil Code


A: Yes. Article 28 of the Civil Code provides that unfair competition in

agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of

force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or

highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby

sutlers damage. What Krazy Kreme did was to directly sell its products to at a price

lower than those imposed on its contract with StarVaks, notwithstanding the

contract stipulation of exclusivity between them. In addition, Isko was the co-owner

of the new coffee shop, and with people having that information, that Manny and

Isko are brothers, they would easily choose to buy from the new coffee shop which

sells cheaper doughnuts and more choices. Krazy Kreme is then liable for

damages.

 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment