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.
