SINGSON VS.

BPI
Facts:
Singson was one of the defendants in a civil case filed before the CFI Manila.
Judgment was rendered sentencing him and his co-defendants Celso
Lobregat and Villa-Abrille & Co. to pay the sum of P105,539.56 to Philippine
Milling Co. Singson and Lobregat appealed, while the decision became final
and executory as to Villa-Abrille. A writ of garnishment was issued to BPI
against the Villa-Abrilles account.
The clerk of BPI who received the writ saw the petitioners name and, without
reading the full text, wrote a letter for the signature of the bank President,
informing Singson of the garnishment. Subsequently, Singson issued two
checks. The one issued in favor of B.M. Glass Service was dishonoured, and
so petitioners account with the latter was closed. Singson wrote a letter to
the bank, claiming that his account is not included in the writ of garnishment.
Having confirmed so, the bank President Santiago Friexas apologized to
Singson and rectified the mistake. Singson filed a claim for damages. The
lower court ruled that damages for quasi-delict cannot be sustained because
the relationship between the parties is contractual. Petitioner and his wife
appealed the case.
Issue:
Whether damages based on torts can be awarded based on a contract
Held:
The existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the commission
of a tort by the one against the order and the consequent recovery of
damages therefor. The act that breaks the contract may also be a tort.

LRTA vs. NAVIDAD

G.R. No. 145804 February 6, 2003

Lessons Applicable: Actionable Document (transportation)
Laws Cited: Art. 1755,Art. 1756,Art. 1759,Art. 1763
FACTS:

October 14, 1993, 7:30 p.m. : Drunk Nicanor Navidad (Nicanor)

entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a token.

While Nicanor was standing at the platform near the LRT

tracks, the guard Junelito Escartin approached him.

Due to misunderstanding, they had a fist fight

Nicanor fell on the tracks and killed instantaneously

upon being hit by a moving train operated by Rodolfo Roman

December 8, 1994: The widow of Nicanor, along with her children,

filed a complaint for damages against Escartin, Roman, LRTA, Metro
Transit Org. Inc. and Prudent (agency of security guards) for the death of
her husband.

LRTA and Roman filed a counter-claim against Nicanor and

a cross-claim against Escartin and Prudent

Prudent: denied liability averred that it had

exercised due diligence in the selection and surpervision of its security
guards

LRTA and Roman: presented evidence

Prudent and Escartin: demurrer contending that

Navidad had failed to prove that Escartin was negligent in his assigned
task

RTC: In favour of widow and against Prudent and Escartin, complaint

against LRT and Roman were dismissed for lack of merit

CA: reversed by exonerating Prudent and held LRTA and Roman

liable

This liability of the common carriers does NOT cease upon proof that
they
Exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and
supervision of their employees
o

ISSUE: W/N LRTA and Roman should be liable according to the contract of
carriage
HELD: NO. Affirmed with Modification: (a) nominal damages is DELETED
(CANNOT co-exist w/ compensatory damages) (b) Roman is absolved.

Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the
nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is burdened with
the duty off exercising utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of
passengers

Civil Code:

Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the

passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using

the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all
the circumstances
Art. 1756. In case of death or injuries to passengers,
common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence
as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755
Art. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or
injuries to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the
formers employees, although such employees may have acted beyond
the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common
carriers

Art. 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries

suffered by a passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of
other passengers or of strangers, if the common carriers employees
through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could
have prevented or stopped the act or omission.
Carriers presumed to be at fault or been negligent and by simple
proof of injury, the passenger is relieaved of the duty to still establish the
fault or negligence of the carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts
upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or
to force majeure
Where it hires its own employees or avail itself of the services of an
outsider or an independent firm to undertake the task, the common
carrier is NOT relieved of its responsibilities under the contract of
carriage
GR: Prudent can be liable only for tort under Art. 2176 and related
provisions in conjunction with Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. (Tort may arise
even under a contract, where tort [quasi-delict liability] is that which
breaches the contract)
EX: if employers liability is negligence or fault on the part of
the employee, employer can be made liable on the basis of the
presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise
diligentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision of its
employees.
EX to the EX: Upon showing due diligence in the selection
and supervision of the employee
Factual finding of the CA: NO link bet. Prudent and the death of
Nicanor for the reason that the negligence of Escartin was NOT proven

NO showing that Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act or

omission, he must also be absolved from liability
Contractual tie bet. LRT and Nicanor is NOT itself a juridical
relation bet. Nicanor and Roman
Roman can be liable only for his own fault or
negligence

CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST vs. CA

138569. September 11, 2003
Lessons Applicable: Corp. negligence depending on culpa contractual or
culpa aquiliana (Corporate Law)
FACTS:

Solidbank is a domestic banking corporation organized and existing

under Philippine laws.
Private respondent L.C. Diaz and Company, CPAs (L.C. Diaz), is a
professional partnership engaged in the practice of accounting.
March 1976: L.C. Diaz, professional partnership engaged in the
practice of accounting, opened a savings account with Solidbank,
designated as Savings Account No. S/A 200-16872-6.
August 14 1991:
L.C. Diaz through its cashier, Mercedes Macaraya
(Macaraya), filled up a savings (cash) deposit slip for P990 and a
savings (checks) deposit slip for P50.
Macaraya instructed the messenger of L.C. Diaz, Ismael
Calapre (Calapre), to deposit the money with Solidbank.
Macaraya also gave Calapre the Solidbank
passbook
Calapre went to Solidbank and presented to
Teller No. 6 the 2 deposit slips and the passbook.
The teller acknowledged receipt of the
deposit by returning to Calapre the duplicate copies of the two deposit
slips.
Teller No. 6 stamped the deposit slips with
the words DUPLICATE and SAVING TELLER 6 SOLIDBANK HEAD
OFFICE.
Since the transaction took time and Calapre
had to make another deposit for L.C. Diaz with Allied Bank, he left the
passbook with Solidbank.

Calapre then went to Allied Bank.

When Calapre returned to Solidbank to retrieve the passbook, Teller
No. 6 informed him that somebody got the passbook.

Calapre went back to L.C. Diaz and reported the incident to

Macaraya.

Macaraya immediately prepared a deposit slip in duplicate

copies with a check of P200,000

When Macaraya asked for the passbook, Teller No. 6 told

Macaraya that someone got the passbook but she could not remember
to whom she gave the passbook.

When Macaraya asked Teller No. 6 if Calapre got the

passbook, Teller No. 6 answered that someone shorter than Calapre got
the passbook. Calapre was then standing beside Macaraya.

August 15 1991, L.C. Diaz through its CEO, Luis C. Diaz (Diaz)
called up Solidbank to stop any transaction using the same passbook
until L.C. Diaz could open a new account

Diaz formally wrote Solidbank to make the same request

L.C. Diaz learned of the unauthorized withdrawal the day

before, August 14 1991, of P300,000 from its savings account.

The withdrawal slip for the P300,000 bore the

signatures of the authorized signatories of L.C. Diaz, namely Diaz and
Rustico L. Murillo.

The signatories, however, denied signing the

withdrawal slip.

A certain Noel Tamayo received

theP300,000.

September 5 1991: , L.C. Diaz charged its messenger, Emerano

Ilagan (Ilagan) and one Roscon Verdazola with Estafa through
Falsification of Commercial Document

RTC: dismissed the criminal case after the City Prosecutor

August 24 1992: Solidbank refused the demand from L.C. Diaz'

counsel

August 25 1992: L.C. Diaz filed a Complaint for Recovery of a Sum

of Money against Solidbank with the RTC.

December 28 1994, RTC: a decision absolving Solidbank and

dismissing the complaint

October 27 1998: CA reversed the decision of RTC

ISSUE: W/N Solidbank should be liable for the recovery of the sum of money

HELD: YES. CA AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Solidbank

Corporation shall pay private L.C. Diaz and Company, CPAs only 60% of the
actual damages awarded by the CA. The remaining 40% of the actual
damages shall be borne by private respondent L.C. Diaz and Company,
CPAs

Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due to negligence, or culpa

contractual
contract between the bank and its depositor is governed by the
provisions of the Civil Code on simple loan
Section 2 of RA 8791 effected on June 13 2000, declares that the
State recognizes the fiduciary nature of banking that requires high
standards of integrity and performance
Solidbanks tellers must exercise a high degree of diligence
in insuring that they return the passbook only to the depositor or his
authorized representative
Solidbank is bound by the negligence of its employees under the
principle of respondeat superioror command responsibility
The defense of exercising the required diligence in the
selection and supervision of employees is not a complete defense
in culpa contractual, unlike in culpa aquiliana
The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are
negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the
other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence
caused the loss, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the
loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the loss - not applicable
This is a case of culpa contractual, where neither the
contributory negligence of the plaintiff nor his last clear chance to avoid
the loss, would exonerate the defendant from liability
In this case, L.C. Diaz was guilty of contributory negligence in
allowing a withdrawal slip signed by its authorized signatories to fall into
the hands of an impostor. Thus, the liability of Solidbank should be
reduced.

CRISOSTOMO VS. CA, 409 SCRA 528 (2003)

Menor went to her aunts residence on a Wednesday to deliver petitioners

travel documents and plane tickets. Estela, in turn, gave Menor the full
payment for the package tour. Menor then told her to be at the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport (NAIA) on Saturday, two hours before her flight on board
British Airways.

Without checking her travel documents, Estela went to NAIA on Saturday, to

take the flight for the first leg of her journey from Manila to Hongkong. She
discovered that the flight she was supposed to take had already departed the
previous day. She learned that her plane ticket was for the flight scheduled
on June 14, 1991. She thus called up Menor to complain.
Subsequently, Menor prevailed upon Estela to take another tour the "British
Pageant, which cost P20, 881.00. She gave caravan travel and tours P7,
980.00 as partial payment and commenced the trip in July 1991.

Upon petitioners return from Europe, she demanded from respondent the
reimbursement of P61, 421.70, representing the difference between the sum
she paid for "Jewels of Europe" and the amount she owed respondent for the
"British Pageant" tour. Despite several demands, respondent company
refused to reimburse the amount, contending that the same was nonrefundable.

Estela filed a complaint against Caravan travel and Tours for breach of
contract of carriage and damages.

Problem:

Estela L. Crisostomo contracted the services of Caravan Travel and Tours

International, Inc. to arrange and facilitate her booking, ticketing and
accommodation in a tour dubbed "Jewels of Europe". The package tour cost
her P74, 322.70. She was given a 5% discount on the amount, which
included airfare, and the booking fee was also waived because petitioners
niece, Meriam Menor, was formers companys ticketing manager.

A) Will the action prosper?

B) Will she be entitled to damages?

Answer:

B) No.
No, for there was no contract of carriage.

By definition, a contract of carriage or transportation is one whereby a certain

person or association of persons obligate themselves to transport persons,
things, or news from one place to another for a fixed price.

From the above definition, Caravan Travel and Tours is not an entity engaged
in the business of transporting either passengers or goods and is therefore,
neither a private nor a common carrier. Caravan Travel and Tours did not
undertake to transport Estela from one place to another since its covenant
with its customers is simply to make travel arrangements in their behalf.
Caravan travel and tours services as a travel agency include procuring
tickets and facilitating travel permits or visas as well as booking customers
for tours.

While Estela concededly bought her plane ticket through the efforts of
respondent company, this does not mean that the latter ipso facto is a
common carrier. At most, Caravan Travel and Tours acted merely as an
agent of the airline, with whom the former ultimately contracted for her
carriage to Europe.

The negligence of the obligor in the performance of the obligation renders

him liable for damages for the resulting loss suffered by the obligee. Fault or
negligence of the obligor consists in his failure to exercise due care and
prudence in the performance of the obligation as the nature of the obligation
so demands.

In the case at bar, Caravan Travel and Tours exercised due diligence in
performing its obligations under the contract and followed standard
procedure in rendering its services to Estela. The plane ticket issued to
petitioner clearly reflected the departure date and time, contrary to Estelas
contention. The travel documents, consisting of the tour itinerary, vouchers
and instructions, were likewise delivered to her two days prior to the trip. The
Caravan Travel and Tours also properly booked Estela for the tour, prepared
the necessary documents and procured the plane tickets. It arranged Estelas
hotel accommodation as well as food, land transfers and sightseeing
excursions, in accordance with its avowed undertaking.

From the foregoing, it is clear that the Caravan Travel and Tours performed
its prestation under the contract as well as everything else that was essential
to book Estela for the tour.
Hence, Estela cannot recover and must bear her own damage.