Jesus F. Morante Torts and Damages Blk.

1. Naguiat V NLRC (G.R. No. 116123. March 13, 1997)

Amount of Separation Pay:

When the closure of the business is not due to financial loss, employers are obliged to pay their employees a
separation pay of at least one month per year of service or one half month per year of service.

Represent Another (NOWM):

Petitioner should have raised the issue on the first instance during the trial / labor arbiter and not when a decision
from the arbiter have already been made.

Liability:

A company though related to the owner of another company may not be held liable when they do not actually
take part of managing / overseeing the employee of the sister company.

Though a corporation, its president may be held liable if proven that he actively managed the company

2. Albenson Enterprises v CA (G.R. No. 88694. January 11, 1993)

Abuse of rights:

“There is no abuse of right when one is only availing what was rightfully belong to them (Payment). Doing
nothing to avoid being sued is like making it your mistake.”

Mistaken Identity:

“The adverse result of an action does not per se make the act wrongful and subject the actor to the payment of
moral damages. The law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate, such right is so
precious that moral damages may not be charged on those who may even exercise it erroneously. And an
adverse decision does not ipso facto justify the award of attorney's fees to the winning party.”

3. Elcano v Hill (G.R. No. L-24803. May 26, 1977)

Criminal and Civil:

“Filing of a criminal case will not bar the other party of filing a separate civil case to the same person. It will not
hold the civil case during the trial of criminal case. What is being address in the civil case is the negligence of the
person. The evidence needed for the civil case is only preponderance of evidence; that the acquittal of the person
in the criminal case has not extinguished his / her liability for quasi-delict, hence that acquittal is not a bar to the
instant action against him / her.”

Emancipation of Minor thru marriage:

“While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child (Article 327, Civil Code), and
under Article 397, emancipation takes place "by the marriage of the minor (child)", it is, however, also clear that
pursuant to Article 399, emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really full or absolute. Thus
"(E)mancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession shall terminate parental authority over the child's
person. It shall enable the minor to administer his property as though he were of age, but he cannot borrow

Jesus F. Morante
money or alienate or encumber real property without the consent of his father or mother, or guardian. He can
sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his father, mother or guardian.

Now under Article 2180, "(T)he 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. 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."

4. Virata v Ochoa (G.R. No. L-46179. January 31, 1978)

Action for the damages based on quasi-delict:

“It is settled that in negligence cases the aggrieved parties may choose between an action under the Revised
Penal Code or of quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. What is prohibited by Article
2177 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is to recover twice for the same negligent act; to prevail in the action for
damages, the party have only to establish their cause of action by preponderance of the evidence.”

5. Andamo v IAC (G.R. No. 74761. November 6, 1990)

Criminal Case and Civil Case:

“Section 3 (a), Rule III of the Rules of Court which provides that "criminal and civil actions arising from the same
offense may be instituted separately, but after the criminal action has been commenced the civil action cannot
be instituted until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action."

“But if the civil action is one under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts, the civil case may
prosper and continue the same with the criminal case; the party have only to establish their cause of action by
preponderance of the evidence.”

6. Wylie v Rarang (G.R. No. 74135. May 28, 1992)

Immunity from suit:

“A person working under a foreign government whose performing an official duty is usually immune from suit.
The rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to
satisfy the same, such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages awarded against them,
the suit must be regarded as against the state itself although it has not been formally impleaded. In such a
situation, the state may move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has been filed without its consent.
The doctrine is sometimes derisively called "the royal prerogative of dishonesty" because of the privilege it
grants the state to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invoking its non-suability.”

BUT. “Immunity from suit cannot institutionalize irresponsibility and non-accountability nor grant a privileged
status not claimed by any other official of the Republic, thus any action similar to this aside from the criminal act,
the person may be suit and will not be covered by the immunity.”

“Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission, causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence is obliged to
pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

"Fault" or "negligence" in this Article covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in
character, whether intentional or voluntary or negligence.”

Jesus F. Morante
7. Phoenix Construction v IAC (G.R. No. L-65295. March 10, 1987)
Both at Fault (Intervening Cause & Contributory Negligence):

“Foreseeable Intervening Causes. If the intervening cause is one which in ordinary human experience is
reasonably to be anticipated or one which the defendant has reason to anticipate under the particular
circumstances, the defendant may be negligence among other reasons, because of failure to guard against it; or
the defendant may be negligent only for that reason. Thus one who sets a fire may be required to foresee that
an ordinary, usual and customary wind arising later will spread it beyond the defendant's own property, and
therefore to take precautions to prevent that event. The person who leaves the combustible or explosive
material exposed in a public place may foresee the risk of fire from some independent source. ... In all of these
cases there is an intervening cause combining with the defendant's conduct to produce the result and in each
case the defendant's negligence consists in failure to protect the plaintiff against that very risk.”

THUS. “negligence was "only contributory," on the part of the petitioner that the "immediate and proximate
cause" of the injury remained to the respondent.”

Last clear chance doctrine:

“A negligent plaintiff can nonetheless recover if he is able to show that the defendant had the last opportunity
to avoid the accident. The underlying idea is to mitigate the harshness of the contributory negligence rule. The
defendant can also use this doctrine as a defense. If the plaintiff has the last clear chance to avoid the accident,
the defendant will not be liable. Accordingly, it is difficult to see what role, if any, the common law last clear
chance doctrine has to play in a jurisdiction where the common law concept of contributory negligence as an
absolute bar to recovery by the plaintiff, has itself been rejected, as it has been in Article 2179 of the Civil Code
of the Philippines.”

Employer’s liability:

“Employee’s proven liability creates a presumption of negligence on the part of his /her employer supervising its
employees properly and adequately (if employer cannot overcome the presumption of negligence - culpa in
vigilando).”

8. CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v Estrella

Culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict:

“Under Article 2176 of the Civil Code.13 In this regard, Article 2180 provides that the obligation imposed by Article
2176 is demandable for the acts or omissions of those persons for whom one is responsible. Consequently, an
action based on quasi-delict may be instituted against the employer for an employee's act or omission. The
liability for the negligent conduct of the subordinate is direct and primary but is subject to the defense of due
diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.”

The law is clear and leaves no room for interpretation (Insurance Claims).

“Any person having any claim upon the policy issued pursuant to this chapter shall, without any unnecessary
delay, present to the insurance company concerned a written notice of claim setting forth the nature, extent
and duration of the injuries sustained as certified by a duly licensed physician. Notice of claim must be filed within
six months from date of the accident, otherwise, the claim shall be deemed waived. Action or suit for recovery
of damage due to loss or injury must be brought in proper cases, with the Commissioner or Courts within one
year from denial of the claim, otherwise, the claimant's right of action shall prescribe. (As amended by PD 1814,
BP 874.” When the law is clear, it should be followed, and no other interpretation should subsist or exist.

Jesus F. Morante
Joint Obligation (Universal Doctrine)

“That each joint tort feasor is not only individually liable for the tort in which he participates but is also jointly
liable with his tort feasors. It may be stated as a general rule that joint tort feasors 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. They are each liable as principals, to the same
extent and in the same manner as if they had performed the wrongful act themselves. Joint tort feasors are
jointly and severally liable for the tort which they commit.”

9. BLT bus Company v IAC (G.R. Nos. 74387-90. November 14, 1988)
Diligence:

“Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if
at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. (Art. 2165, Civil Code).”

Employer’s liability:

“Employee’s proven liability creates a presumption of negligence on the part of his /her employer supervising its
employees properly and adequately (if employer cannot overcome the presumption of negligence - culpa in
vigilando).”

Common Carrier

“It’s liability for the death of or injuries to its passengers is based on its contractual obligation to carry its
passengers safely to their destination. That obligation is so serious that the Civil Code requires "utmost diligence
of very cautious person (Article 1755, Civil Code). They are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently unless they prove that they have observed extraordinary diligence"

10. Gutierez v Gutierez (G.R. No. 34840 September 23, 1931)

Authority given:

“The head of a house, the owner of an automobile, who maintains it for the general use of his family is liable for
its negligent operation by one of his children, whom he designates or permits to run it, where the car is occupied
and being used at the time of the injury for the pleasure of other members of the owner's family than the child
driving it. The theory of the law is that the running of the machine by a child to carry other members of the family
is within the scope of the owner's business, so that he is liable for the negligence of the child because of the
relationship of master and servant.”

11. Joseph v Bautista (G.R. No. L-41423 February 23, 1989)

Cause of action

“It is understood to be the delict or wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of the
primary rights of the plaintiff. The singleness of a cause of action lies in the singleness of the- delict or wrong
violating the rights of one person. Nevertheless, if only one injury resulted from several wrongful acts, only one
cause of action arises.”

Jesus F. Morante
12. FIRST PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL BANK v CA (G.R. No. 115849. January 24, 1996)
Doctrine of Ostensible Authority
“That if a corporation knowingly permits one of its officers, or any other agent, to do acts within the scope of an
apparent authority, and thus holds him out to the public as possessing power to do those acts, the corporation
will, as against any one who has in good faith dealt with the corporation through such agent, he estopped from
denying his authority.”

Doctrine of Apparent Authority

“An employer is liable for wrongful acts of its officers done in the interests of the company or in the course of
dealings of the officers in their representative capacity but not for acts outside the scope of their authority. An
employer holding out its officers and agents as worthy of confidence will not be permitted to profit by the frauds
they may thus be enabled to perpetrate in the apparent scope of their employment; nor will it be permitted to
shirk its responsibility for such frauds even though no benefit may accrue to the company therefrom.”

Doctrine of Implied Authority

“Authority that is not express or written into a contract, but it is authority an agent is assumed
to have in order to transact the business for a principal. Implied authority is incidental to
express authority since not every single detail of an agent's authority can be spelled out in the
written contract.”

13. VIRGILIO D. IMSON VS CA (G.R. No. 106436. December 3, 1994)

DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL AND LACHES

“Denying relief to a claimant who has unreasonably delayed or been negligent in asserting a claim. A person
invoking laches should assert that an opposing party has slept on his/her rights and that the party is no longer
entitled to his/her original claim. Laches is a form of estoppel for delay.”

Common Cause of Action

where all the defendants are indispensable parties, the court's power to act is integral and cannot be split, such
that it cannot relieve any of them and at the same time render judgment against the rest.

14. Fabre Jr. et. al v CA (G.R. No. 111127. July 26, 1996)
Due Diligence:

Due diligence in selection of employees is not satisfied by finding that the applicant possessed a professional
driver’s license. The employer should also examine the applicant for his qualifications, experience and record of
service. Due diligence in supervision, on the other hand, requires the formulation of rules and regulations for the
guidance of employees and the issuance of proper instructions as well as actual implementation and monitoring
of consistent compliance with the rules

Contract of Carriage

Extraordinary diligence for the safe transportation of the passengers to their destination

Jesus F. Morante
15. Medina v Crescencia
Franchise

“Requires the approval of the Public Service Commission in order that a franchise, or any privilege pertaining
thereto, may be sold or leased without infringing the certificate issued to the grantee; and that if property
covered by the franchise is transferred or leased without this requisite approval, the transfer is not binding
against the public or the Service Commission; and in contemplation of law, the grantee of record continues to
be responsible under the franchise in relation to the Commission and to the public.”

Culpa Contractual

“Plaintiffs' action for damages is independent of the criminal case filed against Brigido Avorque, and based, not
on the employer's subsidiary liability under the Revised Penal Code, but on a breach of the carrier's contractual
obligation to carry his passengers safely to their destination.”

16. Aboitiz Shipping Company v CA (G.R. No. L-8194. July 11, 1956.)
Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction.

Holds that if a case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of
an administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort to the courts
is had even if the matter may well be within their proper jurisdiction. It applies where a claim is originally
cognizable in the courts and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues
which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative agency.

Common Carrier

“It’s liability for the death of or injuries or loss to its passengers / goods is based on its contractual obligation to
carry its passengers / goods safely to their destination. That obligation is so serious that the Civil Code requires
"utmost diligence of very cautious person (Article 1755, Civil Code). They are presumed to have been at fault or
to have acted negligently unless they prove that they have observed extraordinary diligence"

“From the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is bound to observe extraordinary diligence in
the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by it according to all the
circumstances of each case. While the goods are in the possession of the carrier, it is but fair that it exercised
extra ordinary diligence in protecting them from loss or damage, and if its occurs the law presumes that it was
due to the carrier's fault or negligence; that is necessary to protect the interest of the shipper which is at the
mercy of the carrier.”

Carrier Limitation of Liability

“A carrier cannot limit its liability for injury or loss of goods shipped where such injury or loss was caused by its
own negligence.”

“Any stipulation, limiting the common carrier's liability to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading,
unless the shipper or owner declares a greater value is valid. (Civil Code, Art. 1749) Such stipulation, however,
must be reasonable and just under the circumstances and must have been fairly and freely agreed upon.”

Jesus F. Morante
17. Calalas v CA (G.R. No. 122039. May 31, 2000)
Common Carrier

“In case of death or injuries to passengers, Art. 1756 of the Civil Code provides that common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently unless they prove that they observed extraordinary
diligence as defined in Arts. 1733 and 1755 of the Code.”

Proximate Cause

An act from which an injury results as a natural, direct, uninterrupted consequence and without which the injury
would not have occurred. Proximate cause is the primary cause of an injury. It is not necessarily the closest cause
in time or space nor the first event that sets in motion a sequence of events leading to an injury. Proximate cause
produces particular, foreseeable consequences without the intervention of any independent or unforeseeable
cause. It is also known as legal cause.

Jesus F. Morante