1. Q: A driver of Pepsi-Cola is admittedly negligent in a vehicular collision.

Suit was
brought by the other car owner against both the driver and Pepsi-Cola. But Pep-Cola
was able to prove diligence in the selection and supervision of the driver. For instance,
it was proved that Pepsi-Cola had carefully previously examined the erring driver as to
his qualifications, record of service, and experience. Is the Pepsi-Cola still liable?
A: No, otherwise it would have been liable solidarily with the driver. In Philippine torts, we do not
follow the doctrine of respondeat superior (where the negligence of the servant is the negligence
of the master). Instead, we follow the rule of bonus pater familias (good father of a family). The
negligence of the employer indicated in the last paragraph of Art. 2180, is only presumptive; it can
therefore be rebutted, as in this case, where the company was able to prove that it had previously
carefully examined the erring driver as to his qualifications, record of service, and experience
(Ramos v. Pepsi- Cola, GR No. 22533, Feb. 9, 1967).
2. Q: A purchased a round trip ticket from Sarkies Tours Philippines for a tour to
Corregidor in an independence day. Part of the package is free transportation from and
to the place of destination. Sarkies engaged the services of M/V Edisco for the sea
transportation. While going back to Manila, the boat capsized leading to the death of
As daughter. In a civil suit, Sarkies was adjudged to be civilly liable finding that there is
negligence in the part of the operator of the motor boat, and paid the same. Can
Sarkies file a civil suit against the owner of M/V Edisco?
A: Yes, it can file a civil suit against the owner of M/V Edisco. As provided in the case of Sarkies
Tours Phil. v. IAC (GR 63723, Sep. 2, 1983): if as a result of an accident a tour operator and the
owner of the boat used for the tour are sued, the tour operator has a right of action against the
boat owner for reimbursement.
Art. 2181 provides that whoever pays for the damages caused by his dependents or
employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim.
The principle embodied in Art. 2181 of the Civil Code may be applied in favor of the tour
operator.
3. Q: What kind of diligence should be observed by the manufacturers and producers of
food stuffs?
A: Extraordinary diligence shall be observed by the manufactures or producers of foodstuffs
because the life or health of the consuming public is involved in the consumption of the foodstuffs
or processed products (Pineda).
4. Q: A building got burned. Its firewall collapsed resulting in the destruction of a tailoring
shop. The members of the family residing therein were injured. Defendant interposed
the defense of last clear chance doctrine that is, that the tenants could have left before
the collapse. Is the owner of the firewall liable for the damages caused to the injured?
A: Yes, the owner of the firewall is liable for the damages caused to the injured. The defense on the
doctrine of last clear chance is not tenable because according to the SC in one case, the said
doctrine is not applicable to instances where 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.
Further, the SC held that the role of the common law, last clear chance is merely to mitigate
the damage within the context of contributory negligence.
5. Q: ABC Corporation is a transportation company engaged in the business of carrying
passengers. XYZ Corporation is also engaged in the transportation business. While
their two buses were travelling along the South Superhighway, they collided, killing
passengers of both buses. State the nature of the liability of ABC Corp. and XYZ Corp.
Explain.
A: When there is a breach of the common carriers contractual obligation to bring the passengers
safely to their destination, the carriers liability is direct and immediate and not merely subsidiary
or secondary (Vda. De Medina vs. Cresencia, 99 Phil. 506).
A breach of contract of carriage cannot be excused upon the ground that the same was due to
the negligence of the carriers employees and that the carrier has exercised due diligence in the
selection and control of its employees (Art. 1759).

The only defense available to the common carrier, in case there is death or injuries occasioned
by the breach of the contract of carriage are:
a.) Force majeure; and
b.) Observance of extraordinary diligence.
Art. 1759 is an exception to the vicarious liability provided in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Art. 2180
(making an employer liable for acts of an employee) because the nature of diligence required in
common carrier is extraordinary diligence, while in vicarious liability, it is only the diligence of a
good father of a family.(pg. 421 Pineda)
Thus, applying the rules aforementioned, ABC Corp. and XYZ Corp., being common
carriers/employers, are liable directly and immediately to the heirs of their respective passengers
killed in the accident.