JOHN KAM BIAK Y. CHAN, JR., petitioner, vs. IGLESIA NI CRISTO, INC., respondent petitioners property line.

tioners property line. Thus, the MOA, instead of exculpating petitioner from liability, is
(Quebal) the very noose that insures that he be so declared as liable. Besides, petitioner cannot claim
that he did not know that the excavation traversed the respondents property. In fact, he had
1. The Aringay Shell Gasoline Station is owned by the petitioner. It is located in Sta. two (2) of his employees actually observe the diggings, his security guard and his engineer
Rita East, Aringay, La Union, and bounded on the south by a chapel of the Teofilo Oller
respondent.
2. The gasoline station supposedly needed additional sewerage and septic tanks for its The elements of Quasi-delict are:
washrooms.
3. In view of this, the services of Dioscoro Ely Yoro (Yoro), a retired general of the a) there must be an act or omission;
Armed Forces of the Philippines, was procured by petitioner, as the former was b) such act or omission causes damage to another;
allegedly a construction contractor in the locality. c) such act or commission is caused by fault or negligence;
4. Petitioner and Yoro executed a Memorandum of Agreement. Under the agreement, d) and there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties.
Any damage within or outside the property of the petitioner incurred during the
All the requisites are attendant in the instant case. The tortious act was the excavation which
digging shall be borne by Yoro.
caused damage to the respondent because it was done surreptitiously within its premises and it
5. The Digging commenced. After some time, petitioner was informed by the members
may have affected the foundation of the chapel. The excavation on respondents premises was
of the respondent that the digging traversed and penetrated a portion of the land
caused by fault. Finally, there was no pre-existing contractual relation between the petitioner
belonging to the latter.
and Yoro on the one hand, and the respondent on the other. For the damage caused to
6. The foundation of the chapel was affected as a tunnel was dug directly under it to
respondent, petitioner and
the damage and prejudice of the respondent.
7. Hence, a Complaint against petitioner was filed by respondent before the RTC 2. Surreptitiously digging under the respondents chapel which may weaken the foundation
8. The trial court promulgated its Decision holding that the diggings were not intended thereof, thereby endangering the lives and limbs of the people in worship, unquestionably
for the construction of sewerage and septic tanks but were made to construct tunnels amounts to gross negligence. Not to mention the damage that may be caused to the structure
to find hidden treasure. The trial court adjudged the petitioner and Yoro solidarily itself. The respondent may indeed be awarded exemplary damages. The 50k awarded by the
liable to the respondent on a 35%-65% basis (the petitioner liable for the 35%). CA is hereby increased to 100k
9. The RTC awarded 10M as exemplary damages, among others
10. On appeal before the CA, the court affirmed the judgement but reduced the
exemplary damages awarded by the RTC from 10M to 50k, among others.
11. Hence, this petition for review

Issue:

1. WON a person may be held solidarily liable for tort despite the presence of a prior
MOA exonerating him from liability - YES
2. WON the surreptitious digging within the premises of a chapel amounts to gross
negligence, which would warrant the award of exemplary damages - YES

Held:

1. Yoro are jointly liable as they are joint tortfeasors. Verily, the responsibility of two or more
persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary.

The heavy reliance of petitioner in paragraph 4 of the MOA cited earlier cannot steer him clear
of any liability. As a general 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.

Indubitably, petitioner and Yoro cooperated in committing the tort. They even had provisions
in their MOA as to how they would divide the treasure if any is found within or outside