7

BLTB

Facts
● A bus operated by BLTB was driven by Armando Pon
● It overtook a Ford Fiera leading the BLTB bus to collide with a Superlines bus from the opposite direction
● This caused the death of Rosales, Pamfilo and Neri and injuries to several other passangers of BLTB
● A complaint for damages was filed against the two companies. BLTB was held to be solely liable by the lower
courts
Issue:
● WON the action of the private respondent is based on culpa contractual
Held
● YES. It is based on culpa contractual
● A common carrier’s liability for injuries and death to passengers is based on the contractual obligation to
carry its passengers safely to their destination with the utmost diligent of a very cautious person
● The presumption of fault was confirmed by the fact that the proximate cause of the injuries and death was
the negligence of the BLTB driver in overtaking the Ford Fiera

7 ABOITIZ

Facts
● Anacleto Viana was a passenger of M/V Antonia bound for Manila. It was owned by Aboitiz.
● When M/V Antonia reached Manila, Pioneer Stevedoring as arrastre operator took exclusive control of the
cargoes inside of it.
● Viana who had already disembarked realized he left his cargo
● He went back to tell the crew where his cargo was but was hit by a crane pinning him. He died.
● A complaint was filed against Aboitiz who filed a third party complaint against Pioneer as the latter had
exclusive control of the ship
Issue
● WON Aboitiz is liable for the death of Viana
Held
● YES. Aboitiz is liable
● Relation between a carrier and a passenger does not cease the moment the passenger alights from the
vehicle but continuous for a reasonable time or opportunity to leave the carrier’s premises
● Reasonable cause will justify the presence of Viana as he had to come back for his cargo.
● Common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence

7 DANGWA

Facts
● Pedrito Cudiamat was boarding a passenger bus owned by Dangwa and driven by Lardizabal
● While he was on the platform os the bus and closing his umbrella, the driver stepped on the accelerator
causing Cudiamat to fall, the bus running over him
● The bus driver bought the passengers to their destination before bringing Cudiamat to the hospital. He died.
Issue
● WON Dangwa and its bus driver are liable
Held
● YES.
● When a bus is not in motion, there is a continuous offer to bus riders to ride.
● There is a duty to stop their conveyances for a reasonable length of time in order to allow passengers to
board
● When Cudiamat was already a passenger by stepping onto the platform. There was already a duty of the
driver and conductor not to act in a manner increasing peril
● Even if the bus was slowly moving, Cudiamat’s act of boarding a slow moving bus would not be negligent

7 IMSON

Facts
● Imson was driving a Toyota Corolla when he bumped a Hino Truck causing injury and wreckage to his car

1
 ● He filed a case against the driver, the owner of the truck and the insurance company
● The insurance company and Imson entered into a compromise leading to the dimissal of the case as to the
insurance company
● Driver and owner allege that the dismissal as to the insurance company should apply to them as well
because of a common cause of action
Issue
1. WON there is a common cause of action among the three
2. WON the insurance company is an indispensable party

Held
1. NO.
a. The liability of the insurance company is based on contract
b. The liability of the the driver (Art. 2178) and the owner (Art. 2180) are based on quasi-delict
2. NO.
a. It is true that all of the petitioners' claims are premised on the wrong committed by the defendant
truck driver. Concededly, the truck driver is an indispensable party to the suit. The other
defendants cannot be as indispensable parties, they are merely proper parties to the case.
b. Thus, if petitioners did not sue the Insurance company, the omission would not cause the dismissal
of the suit against the other defendants. Even without the insurer, the trial court would not lose its
competency to act completely and validly on the damage suit.

7 VERGARA

Facts
● Cora Vergara and her husband borrowed 2k pesos from Sps. Barreto. This was evidenced by a promissory
note.
● The husband died without paying the loan.
● On the due date of the laon Cora Vergara executed another promissory note undertaking to pay the loan
● Despite demands, Sps. Barreto filed a complaint for recovery
● An MTD was filed on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action
Issue
● WON the complaint states a cause of action
Held
● YES. The complaint has a cause of action
○ Right in favor of the plaintiff
○ Obligation on the part of the defendant to respect that right
○ Act or omission on the part of the defendant violative of that right

7 ANDAMO

Facts
● Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette (MOLS) had waterpaths and contivances and an artificial lake built on
a parcel of land that it owned
● It inundated an adjacent land belonging to Andamo
● Andamo filed
○ Criminal case for destruction of property by means of inundation
○ Civil action for damages
Issue
● WON MOLS can be held liable for damages under the provision on quasi-delict such that the resulting civil
case can be pursued independently
Held
● YES. The civil case is based on quasi-delict and may proceed independently from the criminal case
● Art. 2176 imposes a civil liability on a person for damages caused by his act or omission that constitutes the
fault or negligence
● A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted
and found guilty or acquitted
● However an offender party may not be allowed to recover damages on both actions

7 FGU

2

Facts
● Dahl-Jensen, a Danish tourist rented and drove a car owned by FILCAR Transport. He did not possess a
Philippine driver’s license
● He swerved right and hit the car of Soriano
● FGU Insurance, insurer of Soriano’s car paid Soriano
● FGU sued FILCAR, Dahl-Jensen and Fortune Insurance, insurer of FILCAR
Issue
● WON an action based on quasi-delict will prosper against a rent-a-car company and, consequently, its
insurer for fault or negligence of the car lessee in driving the rented vehicle
Held
● NO.
● Art. 2176 has three elements
○ Damage on the part of the plaintiff
○ Fault or negligence of the defendant
○ Causal connection between the fault or negligence and the damage
● There was no negligence on the part of FILCAR. The negligence was solely attributed to Dahl-Jensen.
● FILCAR has not participation in the act that caused damage to Soriano’s car

7 EQUITABLE

Facts
● Equitable Leasing Corp. sold to Lim a Fuso truck. The sale was not registered with the LTO
● Lim’s employee, Raul Tutor rammed the truck into the house-store of Tamayo, killing his son and an certain
Oledan’s daughter
● Tutor was found guilty of reckless imprudence
● Respondents filed a case based on quasi-delict against Equitable
● Equitable alleges that it had already sold the truck to Lim. Tutor not being their employee, the y should not
have any liability
Issue
● WON Equitable should be held liable for damages in an action based on quasi-delict for the negligent acts of
a driver who was not its employee
Held
● YES.
● It was the registered owner at the time of the accident. The registered owner is the lawful operator insofar
as the public and third persons are concerned

7 VIRATA

Facts
● Borilla was driving a jeep when he hit Virata, causing his death
● A case for homicide through reckless imprudence was filed.
● Heirs of Virata reserved the right to file a separate civil action
● Borilla was acquitted
● Heirs of Virata then filed an action based on quasi-delict against Borilla and Ochoa (owner of the jeep)
Issue
● WON the heirs of Virata may file a separate civil suit?
Held
● YES.
● According to Art. 2177, acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or
not shall not be a bat to a subsequent civil action, not for civil liability arising from the criminal negligence
but for damages due to a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana
● But said article forestalls a double recovery

7 JARANTILLA

Facts
● Kuan Sing was side-swiped by a vehicle driven by Jarantilla
● A criminal case for reckless imprudence was filed against Jarantilla but Kuan Sing did not reserve the right

3
 to institute a separate civil action
● Kuan Sing was acquitted on reasonable doubt
● Kuan SIng now files an action based on quasi-delict but Jarantill alleges bar by prior judgement
Issue
● WON Kuan Sing could file a separate civil action arising from the criminal complaint filed against Jarantilla
when Jarantilla has been acquitted for reasonable doubt
Held
● YES. The same act or omission can create two kinds of liability
○ Civil liability ex delicto
○ Civil liability ex quasi delicto
● Since the action is based on a quasi-delict, the failure of the respondent to reserve his rights to file a
separate civil case and his intervention in the criminal case did not bar him from filing such separate civil
action for damages. This only requires preponderance of evidence

7 ATLANTIC

Facts
● Atlantic Gulf (AG) commenced construction of a steel fabrication plant adjacent to the real property of
Castillo.
● According to Castillo:
○ AG personnel and heavy equipment trespassed into his land
○ Damaged big portions of his property
○ Used as a depot or parking lot his land without paying or with his consent
○ Sea silt and water overflowed and were deposited in his land
● RTC and CA awarded Castillos damages for the destruction of the land and for unpaid rentals (from the
parking).
● AG claims this is double recovery
Issue
● WON the Castillos recovered twice for the same act or omission, for being awarded for (1) trespassing and
(2) damage to property
Held
● NO. It is clearly apparent that AG was guilty of culpable transgressions on the property rights of the
Castillos:
○ For the ruination of the agricultural fertility or utility of the soil of the property
○ For the unauthorized use of said property as a dump rile or depot of AG’s heavy equipment and
trucks

7 CANCIO

Facts
● Cancio filed three cases of violation of BP22 and three cases of Estafa against Isip for issuing three (2)
Interbank checks without sufficient funds
● The BP22 cases were dismissed as the checks were deposited only 90 days after
● The prosecution moved to dismiss the estafa case while reserving its right to file a separate civil action
Issue
● WON the dismissal of the estafa case against respondent bars the institution of a civil action for collection of
the value of the checks subject of the estafa case
Held
● NO.
● An act or omission may give rise to two separate civil liabilities
○ Civil liability ex delicto (Art. 100 RPC)
○ Independent civil liabilities
● In this case, the cause of action is based on culpa contractual, an independent civil action
● Cancio’s cause of action is the respondent’s breach of the contractual obligation

12 PICART VS SMITH (1918)

FACTS:

4
 ● Picart was riding his pony over Carlatan Bridge in La Union
● Halfway across, Smith approach from the opposite direction in an automobile going at the rate of 10-12
miles per hour
● Smith blew his horn many times to signal his approach but Picart and the horse just wavered to the side
● The horse was hit at the left hind leg and threw off Picart
● the horse died and Picart suffered contusions which caused temporary unconsciousness and required
medical attention for seven days

ISSUE:
W/N the defendant in maneuvering his car in the manner above described was guilty of negligence

HELD:
● YES
● In the nature of things this change of situation occurred while the automobile was yet some distance away;
and from this moment it was no longer within the power of the plaintiff to escape being run down by going
to a place of greater safety
● the control of the situation has then passed entirely to the defendant, and it was his duty either to being his
car to an immediate stop or, to take the other side.
● Instead of doing this, the defendant ran straight on until he was almost upon the horse.
● Test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case: Did the defendant in doing the
alleged negligent act use that person would have used the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of
negligence.
●

12 CITYTRUST BANKING VS IAC (1994)

FACTS:
● Herrero filed a complaint for damages against city trust
● She is a business woman, who made regular deposits with the bank
● She deposited 31,500 in cash to cover 6 postdated checks she issues
● upon encashment of the checks, they were dishonored due to “insufficient funds”
● City trust asserted that it was Herrero’s fault that her checks were dishonored because she stated the wrong
account number

ISSUE:
● W/N the bank is negligent

HELD:
● YES
● Even if there was an error on the part of Herrero, but the fact the the correct name was written on the
deposit slip
● the name is controlling in determining in whose account the deposit is made or should be posted
● the bank is engaged in business impressed with public interest, and it is its duty to protect in return its
many clients and depositors who interact business with it
● it entails the obligation to see to it that all funds invested with it are property accounted for and duly
deposited in its ledgers

12 METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO VS CA (1994)

FACTS:

5
 ● Katigbak is the president and director of Rural Bank of Padre Garcia which maintains an account with
Metrobank
● Metrobank received from Central Bank a credit memo for 304 K to be credited to RBPG’s account but due to
negligence of the bank’s messenger, it was not promptly credited
● Without the knowledge of Katigbak of the crediting, she issues a check to Roque for 25k.
● checks were encased with Metrobank but was dishonored twice
● RBPG then paid roque 50k to replace such checks
● Katigbak was ten berated about other checks issued to Mr. Dungo which also bounced
● Katigbak had to cut short her HK trip and repeatedly berated by Dungo
● RTC awarded Katigbak 50k for temperate damages and 500k for moral damages
● CA reduced Moral damages to 50k and deleted the temperate damages

ISSUE:
● W/N Katigbak is entitled to moral damages even if the bank’s negligence is not attended with malice and
bad faith

HELD:
● YES
● Bank remiss in its duty and obligation to treat the account with high degrees of care considering the
fiduciary nature of their relationship
● it must bear blame for failing to discover the mistake of its employee despite the established procedure
requiring bank papers to pass through bank personnel whose duty it is to check and counter check them for
errors
● Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is demandable.
● while the bank’s negligence may not have been attended with malice and bad faith, nevertheless, it cause
serious anxiety and humiliation to private respondents for which they are entitled to recover reasonable
moral damages

12 FAR EAST BANK &TRUST CO VS QUERIMIT

FACTS:
● Querimit worked as an internal auditor of the Philippine Savings Bank
● while an employee there she opened a dollar savings account in Far east for which she was issued four
certificates of deposit - a bearer instrument
● after the respondent accompanied her husband to the US for medical reasons. she used her savings in the
BPI to pay for everything
● her husband died so she returned
● she went to far east to withdraw her deposit but was informed that her husband had withdrawn the money
● She sent a demand letter to far east
● but far east refused and alleged that her husband was allowed through “accommodation” to withdraw

ISSUE:
● W/N Far East was negligent and liable for the amount in the deposit

HELD:
● YES
● the certificate of deposit were clearly marked payable to “bearer” which means to the person in possession
thereof
● Far east should not have paid respondent’s husband or any third party without requiring the surrender of
the certificates of deposit
● Far eat did not demand the surrender of the certificates

6
 ● the accommodation given by the bank was make in violation of the bank policies and procedure
●

12 REYES VS IAC (2001)

FACTS:
● Asian Racing Conference in Sydney, Reyes is one of the delegates of PRCI
● Reyes applies to Far East for a demand draft payable to conference secretariat
● FEBTC denied the application bec they don't have an Australian dollar account but they accommodated
Reyes through a roundabout remittance to sydney
● FEBTC would draw a demand draft to West-pac Sydney and have it reimbursed from the US dollar account
of FEBTC in westpac-NY
● the foreign exchange demand draft was dishonored twice sec Westpac sydney said that they don't have an
account with them
● FEBTC reached with Westpac NY and they said it was okay but it was still denied in sydney
● PRCI delegates were refused registration and suffered humiliation and embarrassment

ISSUE:
W/N the bank failed to exercise due diligence required of it

HELD:
● NO
● it was shown that FEBTC did not cause an erroneous transmittal of its swift cable message to Westpac
sydney
● it was the erroneous encoding of Westpac sydney employee that it was a letter of credit and not a demand
draft
● FEBTC exercised tat degree of diligence expected of an ordinary prudent person under the circumstances
● However, the respondent is not required to exercise more than the diligence of a good father of a family in
regard to the sale and issuance of foreign exchange demand draft
● It is only when there is handling of deposits that banks are in a fiduciary relationship with a depositor that
extraordinary diligence is needed
● in this case they are in a buyer-seller relationship

12 ADZUARA VS CA (1999)

FACTS:
● Adzuara driving at approx 40kph along q.Ave collided with a Toyota Corona driven by Martinez
● Martinez was executing a U-turn at the speed of 5kph

ISSUE:
● W/N adzuara is guilty of negligence

HELD:
● YES
● the negligence was readily established by the admission that they saw the car of Martinez making a U-turn
and it could not be avoided by the mere application of the breaks
● Negligence is a want of care dependent upon the circumstances of the situation
● the degree of care and vigilance that these circumstances require at 1am along the road is ordinary case and
vigilance
●

7
12 BAYNE ADJUSTORS & SURVEYORS INC VS CA (2000)

FACTS:

● Colgate Palmolive pH imported ally benzene from Japan.
● said liquid cargo was insured with insurance Company of North America against all risk
● Bayne on the other hand was contracted by the consignee to supervise the proper handling and discharge of
the cargo to the chemical tanker to a receiving barge until the cargo is pumped into collage’s shore tank
● When the cargo arrived, Bayne supervised the transfer to the receiving barge
● during the transfer there were many mechanical problems
● the surveyor left the premises leaving no instructions so the valves ere left unsealed
● then a cargo surveyor nor liquid bulk surveyor, came and informed them of the resumption of the transfer
● Other bargemen then resumed the pumping operation without instructions
● the following morning they found that an undetermined amount of alkyl benzene was lost due to overflow
● private respondent instituted action for collection of sum of money as subrogee of the consignee

ISSUE:
● W/N Bayne’s failure to supervise is the proximate cause of the loss, thus making them liable for damages

HELD:
● YES
● Negligence of the obligor in the performance of their obligation renders him liable for damages for the
resulting loss suffered by obligee
● Bane did not deny that when pumping operations were suspended due to mechanical problems with the
barge pump, that the assigned surveyor left the premises without closing the valves and manifolds and
worse, failed to instruct the barge men to resume discharge only at a specified time when the surveyor was
present
● it was during the unsupervised discharge of the cargo that the spillage occurred

12 SAMSON VS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (2003)

FACTS:
● Samson deposited to BPI
● he instructed his daughter to withdraw 2K from said account
● Withdrawal was declined twice as the express teller transaction record showed “sorry insufficient funds”
● Samson then suffered embarrassment because he failed to pay the creditor who waited at his house
● Subsequently, Samson deposited 5,500
● he then discovered that his balanced remaining was only 342.38 and the earlier deposit of 3,500 was not
credited
● BPI confirmed that the deposited check could not be accounted for
● upon investigation, it was found that one of the deposit enveloped was missing and the BPI guard had
encashed such check
● despite knowing the irregularity, BPI did not inform Samson
● the manager displayed arrogance and discourtesy to Samson
● Samson now filed an action for damages
● BPI contends that there was contributory negligence on the part of Samson as he reported the missing check
3 weeks after the deposit

ISSUE:
W/N BPI was negligent

8

HELD:
● YES
● Petitioner’s delayed report did not contribute as contributory negligence
● injury resulted from the denial of his withdrawal due to insufficient funds, an injury before he learned it was
lost
● the respondent already knew of the loss of the deposit envelop yet it did nothing to solve the problem
●

12 UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK VS RAMOS (2003)

FACTS:
● UCPB granted a loan or 2.8M to Zamaboanga Dev Corp
● Additional loan was again granted with he same sureties
● ZDC failed to pay its account despite demands
● UCPB filed a complaint RTC ordered ZDC and sureties to pay
● a writ of execution was issue with name of one of the sureties, Teofilo Ramos, Sr
● Reniva, appraiser ascertained the leviable properties and personal properties
● Reniva went to the property to inspect, and found by the workers and neighbors that the property was
owned by Sps. Ramos even without talking to the owners
● Sheriff sent a notice of levy on the property
● Ramindustrial Corporation applied for a loan with UCPB using the property as collateral
● UCPB informed upon verification that a notice of levy was annotated and bec of such the loan application
was denied

ISSUE:
● W/N UCPB was negligent in causing the annotation on the title of Teofilo Ramos when he is not even party
to the loan entered by ZDC with Teofilo Ramos Sr. as surety

HELD:
● YES
● UCPB failed to act with reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would gave used in
the same situation
● UCPB has access to more facilities in confirming the identity of their judgment creditor. It should have acted
more cautiously, especially since more uncertainty had been reported by the appraiser whom the petitioner
had tasked to make verifications
● it placed more importance on the information regarding the marketability and market value of the property,
utterly disregarding the identity if the registered owner thereof

12 PACIS VS MORALES

FACTS:
● Petitioner Pacis filed a case for damages to Morales
● Petitioners are parents of Alfred Dennis Pacis a 17-year old student who died in a shooting incident inside
the Top Gun Firearms and Ammunitions Gunstore in Baguio City
● Jarnague, employee was not around so he requested sales agents Matibag and Herbolario to look after the
store
● They brought out a gun from the drawer and put it atop the table
● Alfred Dennis saw it and got hold of the same
● Matibag Asked Dennis to return the gun
● when Dennis handed the gun back, it went off and hit Alfred in the head

9
 ● Trial Court held that the accidental shooting was partly due to the Matibag and Herbolario even if they were
both paid by commission
● CA overturned the Trial Court and said that there was no employer-employee

ISSUE:
● W/N Morales is civilly liable for the death of Alfred Pacis

HELD:
● YES
● Under Art 1161, petitioners may enforce their claim for damages based on civil liability arising from the
crime under art 100 of roc or file a separate civil action
● PNP Circular “a person who is in the business of purchasing and selling firearms and ammunitions must
maintain basic security and safety requirements of a gun dealer, otherwise his License to Operate
Dealership will be suspended or canceled
● A higher degree of care is required of someone who has in his possession or under his control an
instrumentality extremely dangerous in character. Such person in possession or control of dangerous
instrumentalities has the duty to take exceptional precautions to prevent an injury being done thereby.
● Respondent clearly negligent when he accepted the gun for repair and placed it inside the drawer without
ensuring first that it was not loaded.
● the defective gun must have been stored in a vault
● being a defective gun the respondent should have made sure that it was not loaded to prevent any untoward
accident
● Respondent did not exercise the degree of care and diligence required of a good father of a family, much less
the degree of care required of someone dealing with dangerous weapons, as would exempt him from
liability in this case

12 SABIDO VS CUSTUDIO (1966)

FACTS:
● Collision of a truck and a bus
● Truck was driven by Aser Laguda and owned by Sabido
● Bus owned by Laguna-Tayabas Bus Company was driven by Nicasio Mudales
● Agripino Custudio, passenger of the Bus was sideswiped by the truck and was injured and died
● To avoid liability, Laguda and Mudales placed Blame on Mudales
● But wife of Custudio’s widow, we can deduce that Laguda and Mudales are both equally negligent

ISSUE:
● W/N although the death of Custudio was due exclusively to the negligence of the carrier and its driver

HELD:
● NO
● Although the negligence of the carrier and its driver is independent, in its execution, of the negligence of the
truck driver and its owner, both acts of negligence are the proximate cause of the death of Custudio
● negligence of the two would not have produced this result without the negligence of the petitioner

12 RIDJO TAPE & CHEMICAL CORP AND RIDJO PAPER CORP VS CA ET AL (1998)

FACTS:
● Petitioners received a letter from MERALCO demanding payment allegedly representing unregistered
electric consumption for certain periods

10
 ● Meralco said that its demand was on the ground that unregistered electric consumption was due to the
defects of the electric meter located in the premises of the petitioner
● Petitioners refused to pay
● Meralco then notified them of of disconnection

ISSUE:
● W/N Petitioners should pay the amounts demanded by Meralco despite the defective meter installed by the
latter

HELD:
● YES
● the liability of the petitioners for consumed but unrecorded electricity must be limited by reason of
Meralco’s negligence
● Petitioner must pay only the estimated consumption on a three-month average before the period in
controversy
● the production and distribution of electricity is highly technical business undertaking, and in conducting its
operation, it is only logical for public utilities, to employ mechanical devises and equipment for the orderly
pursuit of business
● it is expected that the parties were consciously aware that these devises or equipment are susceptible to
defects and mechanical failure
● it must also be underscored that meralco has the imperative duty to make a reasonable and proper
inspection of its apparatus and equipment to ensure that they do not malfunction and the due diligence to
discover and prepare defects therein. Failure to perform such duties constitutes negligence

12 EDNA RAYNERA VS FREDDIE HICESTAS (1999)

FACTS:
● Reynaldo Raynera was on his way home traveling southbound in Muntinlupa.
● Isuzu truck was traveling ahead of him at 20-30kph
● truck was loaded with metal sheets extended on both sides
● there are 2 pairs of red lights about 35 watts each on both sides of the plates
● the asphalt was not well lighted
● Reynera crashed his motorcycle into the left rear portion o the truck trailer which was without tail lights
● due to the collision, reynera sustained head injuries and truck helper rushed him to the hospra
● Raynera was dead on arrival

ISSUE:
● W/N respondents were negligent, and if so, whether such negligence was the proximate cause of the death
of Reynaldo Reynera

HELD:
● No
● during trial, it was established that the truck had no tail lights
● the photographs showed that there were no tail lights or license plates installed on the Isuzu truck
● despite the absence of the lights and license plate, respondents truck was visible in the highway
● it was traveling at moderate speed, used the service road and used the two lights in the cargoes
● the direct cause of the accident was negligence of the victim
● travelling behind the truck, he had the responsibility of avoiding bumping vehicle in front of him
● his motorcycle was equipped with headlights to enable him to see what is in front of him
● drivers of vehicle who bump the rear of another vehicle are presumed to be the cause of the accident unless
contradicted by other evidence

11
12 ERMITANO VS CA (1999)

FACTS:
● Ermitano applied for credit card from BPI express card corp with his wife as extension card holder
● spouses were given credit cards with credit limit of 10M. they often exceeded this without protest from BPI
● Manuelita’s bag was snatched from her as she was shopping in greenbelt
● in that bag was the credit card
● that same night she informed by telephone BPI for the loss through a certain Gina Banzon
● and she also sent a letter the following day
● She surrendered her husband’s card and requested for a replacement
● Luis received his monthly billing and the charges included amounts purchased after the loss of manuelita

ISSUE:
● W/N Manuela was negligent in not informing of the loss of her card

HELD:
● NO
● for the cardholder to be absolved from liability for unauthorized purchases made through his lost or stolen
card, two steps must be followed (1) the cardholder must give written notice to BPI and (2)BPI must notify
its member establishments of such loss or theft which naturally it may only do upon receipt of notice from
the cardholder
● Cardholder, manuelita as complied with her responsibility as to the contract, she immediately notified BPI
of the loss
● it was reasonable for the spouses to expect that BPI would perform its part of the procedure to inform its
member establishments
● BPI failed to notify them promptly

12 BPI EXPRESS CARD CORPORATION VS EDDIE OLALIA (2001)

FACTS:
● BPI operates credit card system
● Olalia applied for and was granted membership and credit accommodation with credit limit of 5k
● Olalia’s card expired and renewal card was issued
● BPI also issued a card in the name of Cristina Olalia, ex-wife of respondent
● The second credit card was an extension card delivered and received by Olalia at the same time as the
renewal card
● Olalia denied having applied for that extension card
● evidence showed that the extension card was used in the province of Iloilo and Bacolod
● BPI sent a demand letter to Olalia to which the latter denied liability saying that the purchases were not
made under his own credit card and that he did not apply for nor receive the extension card in the name of
his wife
● he was divorced with his wife
● neither of them were in Bacolod or Iloilo

ISSUE:
● W/N an extension card in the name of Christina Olalia was validly issued and in fact received respondent
Olalia
● W/N Olalia can be held liable for the purchases made using the extension card

HELD:

12
 ● NO
● there are 2 requirements for the issuance of an extension (1) payment of necessary fee and (2) submission
of application
● None of the requirements were implied with
● BPI supports its allegation that Olalia received the extension card in the name of his wife, by presenting the
Renewal Card Acknowledgement Receipt wherein Olalia affixed his signature. Such will not suffice to prove
that requirements were complied with
● contracts of this nature are contracts of adhesion because terms are prepared by only by one party while the
other merely affixes his signature signifying adhesion thereto
● Their terms are construed strictly against the party who drafted
● In this case, BPI is tasked show vigilance for its compliance
● BPI failed to explain why a card was issued without the accomplishment of the requirements
● BPI did not even secure a specimen signature of the purported extension cardholder, such that it cannot
now counter Olalia’s contention that the signature appearing on the charge slips were not of his ex-wife
● BPI absolves Olalia of his liability
●

12 BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE VS CA (1999)

FACTS:
● Jose Bernardo was a meat vendor in Baguio City
● He was electrocuted when we approached the jeepney carrying the meat to be sold that day
● the jeepney’s antenna got entangled to an open wire on the top of the roof of a meat shop
● Bernardo held the handlebars of the jeepney so he was electrocuted
● His spouse and children filed a claim against BENECO, who in turned filed a third party complaint against
the owner of the jeepney who according to BENECO was the proximate, if not, sole cause of the death

ISSUE:
● W/N BENECO was negligent

HELD:
● YES
● An electric cooperative holding the executive franchise in supplying electric power to the towns of BEnguet
Province, its primordial concern is not only to distribute electricity to its subscribers but also to ensure the
safety of the public by the proper maintenance and upkeep of its facilities
● BENECO was grossly negligent in leaving unprotected and uninsulated the splicing point between the
service drop line and the service entrance conductor
● By leaving an open live wire unattended for years, BENECO demonstrated its utter disregard for the safety
of the public

1 ST. MARYS

FACTS:
● St. Mary’s Academy conducted an enrollment drive for SY 95-96
● During which, a jeep driven in a reckless manner by James Daniel, then 15 yrs old, turned upside down
which caused the death of Sherwin Capitranos
ISSUE:
● WON St Marys should be liable for the death of a student as a result of a car accident in an authorized school
activity
HELD:
● No, the CA mistakenly held St Marys liable under the Family Code

13
 ● For petitioner to be liable, there must be a finding that the act or omission considered as negligent was the
proximate cause of the injury.
● In this case, respondents failed to show that the negligence of petitioner was the proximate cause of the
death of the victim
● The cause was the mechanical defect in the jeep
● Further, there was no evidence that petitioner allowed the minor to drive the jeep

2 ADRIANO

FACTS:
● Guillermo Adriano entrusted the original copy of his TCT to Angelina Salvador, a distant relative, for the
purpose of securing a loan.
● Without his knowledge and consent, Angelina mortgaged the property to respondent Romulo Pangilinan.
● Upon verification of the status of his title with the RD, Adriano was surprised to discover the annotation of a
real estate mortgage on his TCT in favor of respondent.

● Defense of Pangilinan:
- He was a businessman engaged in buying, selling and mortgage of properties
- Salvador and Adriano himself went to his house inquiring how to secure a loan over a parcel of land
- There is a principal-agent relationship between Salvador and Adriano because the latter voluntarily
entrusted the TCT to the former

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was negligent in entrusting and delivering his TCT to a relative who was supposed
to help him find a money lender; and if so, was such negligence sufficient to deprive him of his property

HELD: NO
● It was proven that the signature of the mortgagor has been forged and that an impostor had pretended to be
the former when the mortgagee made an ocular inspection of the subject property.
● Respondent Pangilinan was not an “innocent purchaser for value”. He failed to observe the diligence of a
person engaged in the real estate business: he is expected to ascertain the status and condition of the
properties offered to him as collateral as well as to verify the identities of the persons he transacts business
with.
● Petitioner Adriano’s act of entrusting and delivering his TCT to Salvador was only for the purpose of helping
him find a money lender. Not having executed a power of attorney in her favor, he clearly did not authorize
her to be his agent in procuring the mortgage.
● Assuming both parties are negligent, respondent should still bear the loss since his superior knowledge of
the matter should have made him more cautious with regard to the loan and the mortgage. Respondent’s
own negligence was the primary, immediate and overriding reason of his predicament

3 ACHEVERA

FACTS:
● Valdez was driving a passenger jeep in a reckless manner heading north on the National Highway in Candon,
Ilocos Sur.
● He tried to overtake a motorcycle, encroaching the opposite lane and consequently bumped the oncoming
vehicle of Arnulfo Ramos. As a result, Arnulfo died.
● Respondents allege that Achevara exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of Valdez as
driver.

ISSUE:
● W/N petitioners are liable for damages

HELD:
● NO. Valdez was made aware of the danger if he met the jeep on the road, yet he failed take precaution by
immediately veering to the rightmost portion of the road or stopping the car. Valdez was guilty of
inexcusable negligence.
● However, it is Ramos’ own negligence in knowingly driving a mechanically defective vehicle which was the
immediate and proximate cause of his death.

14
 ● The doctrine of last clear chance does not apply. Gross negligence is the absence of care or diligence as to
amount to a reckless disregard of safety of persons or property.

4 PLDT

FACTS:
● In this case, PLDT denies liability for the accident involving respondent spouses which was caused by the
construction of the manhole and the conduit system.
● It claims that it was L.R. Barte and Company, the independent contractor which undertook the
construction.
● · PLDT says that it complied with the contract by installing the appropriate standard signs in the vicinity
of the work side with barricades at both ends of the excavation and with red lights at night along the
excavated area to warn the traveling public.

ISSUE:
● W/N PLDT is liable

HELD:

● No. Respondent knew the perils of the of the road so he could have avoided the injuries by exercising
reasonable care and prudence.
● He who claims damages for the negligence of another has the burden of proving the existence of such
fault or negligence causative thereof.

5 FOOD TERMINAL
FACTS:
● Basic Food is engaged in the manufacture of yeast
● The yeast is required to be stored in a refrigerated space
● Basic Food deposited 1770 cartons of yeast with Food Terminal Inc.
● Due to petitioner’s negligence, P161,112 worth of yeast was spoiled
ISUUE
● WON plaintiff can collect damages from respondent
HELD
● YES. Food Terminal admitted that it failed to maintain the temperature of the cold storage between 2-4
degrees
● This is the immediate cause of the deterioration of the yeast
● Since negligence has been established, petitioner’s liability is inescapable

6 GERMAN MARINE AGENCIES v.. NLRC

Facts:
● De Lara works as a radio officer on board the M/V T.A. Voyager.
● In June 1995, while the vessel was docked in New Zealand, De Lara got ill.
● Instead of disembarking him in New Zealand, the ship’s master proceeded to Manila.
● The trip lasted for 10 days, during which De Lara’s health got worse.
● After arriving Manila, De Lara was made to wait for several hours until the vessel could dock.
● De Lara was confined in a hospital for 1 month.
● De Lara demanded disability benefits, and unpaid sick wages.
● German made him wait for 1 year before paying only the sick wages.
Issue:
● w/n German is liable for negligence?
Held:
● YES. De Lara took ill causing him to lose his memory and rendering him incapable of performing his work as
a radio officer.
● Whilst knowing the worsening condition of De Lara, German deprived him of immediate medical attention
and proceeded in total disregard of the urgency of De Lara’s condition.
● It is clear that the failure of respondent’s to provide De Lara with necessary medical care caused the rapid
deterioration and inevitable worsening of the latter’s condition which eventually resulted in his sustaining a

15
 permanent disability.
● German is liable for moral damages for the physical suffering and mental anguish caused to De Lara.

8 TAN v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES

Facts:
- Priscilla and Connie Tan boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 29 in Chicago USA bound for the Philippines. They
arrived on June 1, 1994 but their baggages arrived only on June 3, 1994 discovering that some of its contents were
destroyed and soiled.
- Claiming that they suffered mental anguish and sleepless nights because of Northwest’s failure to inform them
in advance that their baggage would not be loaded on the same flight, they demanded compensation.
Issue:
- WON Northwest Airlines is liable for willful misconduct and breach of contract of air carriage.
Held:
- NO. For willful misconduct to exist there must be a showing that the acts complained of were impelled by an
intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of one’s right.
- No evidence of malice or bad faith in the act of Northwest to load the baggage on a different flight due to weight
and balance restriction, as a safety measure.
Yes Northwest failed to deliver the luggage on time, but since there was no showing of malice in such failure, liability
for damage is limited to the natural and probable consequence of the breach of obligation. No ground to the award of
moral damage.

9 COLLIN Morris v CA

Facts:
● Petitioner Collin Morris and Thomas Whitter are American citizens requested their travel agent to book
them as first-class passengers in Respondent Scandinavian Airline Services (SAS)
● On the day of the flight, their names were crossed-out because they checked-in at 3:10 PM when their flight
is scheduled to leave at 3:50 PM when they were advised to be at airport 1 hour before departure time.
Issue:
● W/N SAS is liable for damages for breach of contract of carriage
Held:
● NO. In awarding moral damages for breach of contract of carriage, the breach must be wanton and
deliberately injurious, or acted in bad faith or fraudulently.
● In this case, no respondent airline did not act in such a way that moral damages could be awarded.
● Facts show that petitioner failed to check-in on time.

10 CRISOSTOMO

11 AFRICA

FACTS
● Gasoline was being hosed from a tank truck into the underground storage
● Fire broke out at the Caltex service station and burned several neighboring houses
● Owners of the houses (petitioners) sued Caltex and Boquiren [alleged owner of the station] (respondents)
● Negligence on the part of them was attributed as the cause of fire

ISSUE:
WON respondents are liable for being negligent under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur

HELD:
● YES.
● The gasoline station was under the control of the respondents
● They gave no explanation why the fire broke out
● There have been 2 cases already of fire
● The driver of the gasoline tank stated that he was alone and without assistance, was transferring the
contents thereof.
● Also, the fire would not have spread out but the respondents, because of their want of care, did not provide

16
 a firewall

13 F.F. CRUZ

FACTS:
● Petitioner’s furniture manufacturing shop was located beside respondent’s house
● Respondent repeatedly requested petitioner to construct a firewall between the two buildings
● City ordinances also required that a firewall be constructed for safety
● Still no firewall constructed!
● Fire razed the shop and spread to the house

ISSUE: Was petitioner liable for being negligent?

HELD:
● YES.
● The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur:
○ Where the thing which caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of
the defendant or his servants, and
○ the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have its
management or control use proper care
○ → it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident
arose from WANT OF CARE.
● Failure to comply with an ordinance providing for safety regulations = an act of negligence

14 MA-AO

FACTS:
● Famoso was riding with a co-employee in a cargo train when it derailed.
● They jumped off to escape injury, but the train fell to its side and caught Famoso’s legs by the wheels,
pinning him down. He was dead on the spot.

ISSUE: Was Ma-ao Sugar Central laible for being guilty of negligence.

HELD:
● YES.
● The maintenance of rails to prevent derailment was the responsibility of ma-ao, but was not discharged.
● Their witness (Treyes: in charge or control and supervision) said that derailment were frequent and
sometimes reported every hour.
● Therefore, they should have taken steps to prevent such accidents rather than waiting till life was lost
because of their negligence.
● Proof of negligence: absence of fish plates (ito yung screw na nagcoconnect ng railings)
● Res ipsa loquitor doctrine applies.

15 BATIQUIN
● Mrs. Villegas underwent caesarian operation performed by Dr. Batiquin
● Mrs. Villegas began to suffer abdominal pains and complained of being feverish after she was discharged
from the hospital
● She consulted Dr. Batiquin so the latter prescribed medicines
● Pains still recurred
● Mrs. Villegas consulted another doctor and eventually submitted herself to a surgery.
● The doctor found that a piece of rubber from a rubber glove was left inside the body of Mrs. Villegas
● Issue: W/N Dr. Batiquin is liable under the doctrine res ipsa loquitur
● Yes!
● Res ipsa loquitur: Recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof and
furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence
● All requisites for recourse to the doctrine are present.
● First - the entire proceedings of the c-section were under exclusive control of Dr. Batiquin
● Second - Mrs. Villegas did not undergo any other operation which could have caused the piece of rubber to

17
 appear in her uterus so it was a by-product of the caesarian section
● Dr. Batiquin is therefor liable for negligently leaving behind a piece of rubber inside.

1 REYES
FACTS
● Reyes had been suffering from a recurring fever for 5 days
● The doctors in the hospital suspected that Reyes could be suffering from typhoid fever which was prevalent
at that time
● A dose of antibiotic was administered to Reyes
● Reyes died thereafter
ISSUE
● WON respondents are liable on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
HELD
● NO
● The doctrine is generally restricted to situations in malpractice cases where a layman is able to say, as a
matter of common knowledge and observation, that the consequences of professional care were not as such
as would ordinarily have followed if due care had been exercised. A distinction must be made between the
failure to secure results, and the occurrence of something more unusual and not ordinarily found if the
service or treatment rendered followed the usual procedure of those skilled in that particular practice. It
must be conceded that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can have no application in a suit against a physician
or a surgeon which involves the merits of a diagnosis or of a scientific treatment. The physician or surgeon
is not required at his peril to explain why any particular diagnosis was not correct, or why any particular
scientific treatment did not produce the desired result.

2 CITY OF MANILA

FACTS:
● The burial lot of Vivencio Sto. Domingo, Lot No. 159 in North Cemetery, was leased by the City of Manila to
Vivencio’s spouse, Irene, for a period of 50 years.
● By virtue of Administrative order No. 5, the City of Manila prescribed a uniform procedure for the use and
disposition of burial lots within North Cemetery.
● The said order allowed the exhumation and removal from the burial lot of Vivencio’s remains. The said lot
was rented out to another lessee
● Irene only discovered that Vivencio’s remains were no longer in the said burial lot when she visited the
grave on All Soul’s Day. She was, instead, told to find the remains of his husband from the piles of bones in
the cemetery’s warehouse
● Irene filed a complaint for damages against the City of Manila

● City of Manila’s defense: immune from tort liability because it is a political subdivision
● Irene’s argument: City of Manila entered into a contract of lease, an exercise of proprietary function. Thus, it
can be sued for violation of contract

ISSUE: Whether or not the City of Manila is liable for the acts committed by its agent

HELD: YES
● Settled is the rule that with respect to proprietary functions, a municipal corporation may be held liable to
third persons ex contractu.
● The AO which prescribes a 5-year period for lease contracts only covers new leases. The lease contract for
50 years between Irene and the City of Manila was still in full force and effect when the remains of Vivencio
were exhumed.
● Therefore, the City of Manila is liable for its agent’s failure to verify and check the duration of the contract of
lease.

3 CALALAS

Facts:
● Sunga took a passenger jeep owned and operated by Calalas.
● Since the jeep was already filled to its capacity of 24 passengers, Sunga was given by the conductor an

18
 extension seat, a wooden stool at the back of the door of the vehicle’s end.
● On the way to Poblacion Sibulan, Negros Occidental, the jeep stopped to let a passenger off. Sunga gave way
to the passenger.
● Just as she was doing so, an Isuzu truck driven by Verena and owned by Salva bumped the left rear of the
jeep.
● Sunga was injured for fifteen days; her doctor certified that she would remain on a cast for three months.
● In a separate case, one of quasi-delict filed by Calalas against Salva and Verena; Salva and Verena were held
solidarily liable
Issue:
● W/N Sunga is bound by the ruling in the separate case to negate Calalas’ liability
Held:
● No. Res judicata does not apply since Sunga was not a party.
● The issue in this case is one arising from a contract of carriage, unlike that of a quasi-delict in the separate
case.
● Quasi-delict has its source in the negligence of tortfeasor; while a breach of contract is premised upon
negligence in the performance of a contractual obligation.
● The law requires that a common carrier transport the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight
can provide using utmost diligence of very cautious persons.
● It is the duty of Calalas to prove that he observed extraordinarily diligence.
● The jeep was not properly parked, its rear portion was exposed from the broad shoulder of the highway and
facing the highway in a diagonal angle.
● The driver of Calalas also took in more passengers
● The fact that Sunga was seated on an extension seat place her in a peril. Calalas was therefore negligent.

4 PESTANO

FACTS:

● Sumayang and Romagos was riding a motorcycle when a bus, which tried to overtake them, sent them
hurtling upon the pavement.
● The bus was driven by Pestano and owned by Metro Cebu.
● Sumayang was declared dead on arrival and his heirs instituted criminal charges as well as an action for
damages against Pestano, Metro Cebu, and Perla Compagnia de Seguros as the insurer of Metro Cebu.

ISSUE:

W/N Metro Cebu is liable with Pestano

HELD:

● Yes. Under Article 2180 and 2176 of the Civil Code, owners and managers are responsible for damages
caused by their employees.
● The master or employer is presumed to be negligent either in the selection of or the supervision of that
employee.
● Since Metro Cebu allowed Pestano to ply with a defective speedometer, Metro Cebu is lax in the operation of
its business and the supervision of its employees.

5 SPOUSES SUMAYANG
FACTS
● Sumayang was riding a motorcycle when she was hit by a passenger bus driven by petitioner Gregorio
Pestano owned by Metrobus Cebu
● Sumayang was declared dead on arrival
● When the heirs of Sumayang instituted criminal and civil charges, petitioner averred that the accident is
attributable to the faulty speedometer of the bus
ISSUE
● WON Metro Cebu is liable with Pastrano
HELD
● YES. under Art 2180 and 2176, managers are responsible for damages caused by the negligence of a servant

19
 or employee, the employer is presumed to be negligent either in (1) the selection or (2) the supervision of
the employee
● The presumption may only be overcome by satisfactorily showing that the employer exercised the care and
diligence of good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees
● Allowing Pastano to ply his route with a defective speedometer showed laxity on the part of Metro Cebu.
They were remiss in their supervision over Pastano and in the care of its vehicles.

6 RAMOS vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:
● In 1985, Erlinda Ramos was advised to have an operation to remove a stone in her gall bladder.
● She was referred to Dr. Hosaka, a surgeon.
● Dr. Hosaka recommended the services of Dr. Gutierrez as anesthesiologist.
● Despite being scheduled at 9am in the morning of June 17, Dr. Hosaka arrived at 12 noon.
● During this time, Dr. Gutierrez was trying to intubate Erlinda.
● Erlinda developed bluish discolorations in her nailbeds.
● At 3pm, Erlinda was taken to the ICU for a month because of Bronchospasm.
● She died on August 3, 1999 after being on comatose since the operation.
Issue:
● WON Dr. Hosaka is liable for negligence? - YES
● WON Dr. Gutierrez is liable for negligence? - YES
● WON the Hospital is liable for negligence? - NO
Held:
● Dr. Hosaka violated his duty as a physician to “serve the interest of his patients with the greatest solicitude,
giving them always his best talent and skill”, and also art. 19 of the Civil Code.
● The unreasonable delay in Erlinda’s scheduled operation subjected her to continued starvation, and added
anxiety which adversely affected the administration of anesthesia on her.

● Dr. Guttierez failed to exercise the standards of care in the administration of anesthesia on the patient.
● The conduct of pre-operative evaluation prior to an operation cannot be dispensed with.
● It is necessary to create a plan of anesthesia care suited for the needs of the patient concerned.
● Gutierrez omitted to perform a thorough preoperative evaluation on the patient because she did not
examine the patient’s airways.
● Had she done so, she would not have had trouble intubating the patient.

● There is no employer-employee relationship between the hospital and the doctors.
● Further, no evidence was produced to show that the equipment of the hospital malfunctioned nor that the
hospital was not staffed for treatment.

8 MALLARI v. CA and BULLETIN

Facts:
- The passenger jeepney driven by Mallari Jr. and owned by Mallari Sr. collided with the delivery van of Bulletin
driven by Angeles which resulted to death of Reyes, one of the passengers of the jeepney.
- The collusion occurred when Mallari Jr. overtook a Fiera car while negotiating a curve.
Issue:
- WON Mallari Jr. and Sr. are liable for the death of Reyes.
Held:
- YES. Under Art. 2185 of the CC, 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 a traffic regulation.
- A driver abandoning his proper lane to overtake another has the duty to see to it that the road is clear before
proceeding to overtake. It is likewise prohibited by traffic rules to overtake in curved lanes.
- Mallari Jr. was negligent when he overtook 2 vehicles in front of him even when he already saw the van of the
bulletin coming from the opposite direction failing to consider the latter’s speed.
His negligence is binding to the jeepney’s owner Mallari Sr.

9 BATANGAS Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. and Pon v IAC

20
 Facts;
● BLTB Bus driven by Armando Pon and Superline Bus driven by Ruben Dasco collided.
● BLTB Bus tried to overtake a Ford Fiera car in a bend of a highway. In doing so it collided with the Superline
Bus coming from the opposite direction resulting to death of passengers of BLTB
Issue:
● W/N BLTB is liable.
Held:
● YES. Proximate cause of the collision was the sole negligence of the BLTB Bus.
● Such driver operated recklessly and drove said bus in a lane where overtaking is not allowed by Traffic
Rules.
● Under the contract of carriage, BLTB assumed express obligation to transport passengers to their
destination safely and to observe extraordinary diligence.

10 INTERMEDIATE

11 MANUEL

FACTS:
● Private Respondents were passengers of the Scout car owned by respondent Ramon
● While heading for Camarines Norte, there was a drizzle in the afternoon when the Scout Car [Abcede was
the driver], which was then in the zigzag road, was hit on its left side by a bus owned by Superline
Transportation and Emiliano Manues as the bus driver
● Passengers of the Scout Car were injured
● Manuel was prosecuted for multiple physical injuries but he could no be found after the incident
● Petitioners content that it was Abcede who was at fault since he was only 19 with no license

ISSUE:
WON petitioner should be exempted from liability

HELD
● NO.
● Manuel was the party at fault for encroaching on the Scout Car’s lane
● The physical evidence shows that the Scout Car was found at rest against the guard railing which proves
that it must have been thrown backwards by the bus

13 AGUILAR

FACTS:
● At 11pm, AGUILAR and friends were crossing the road when a car driven by BORJA overtook a jeepney
● In doing so, the car hit AGUILAR and another companion = both died
● Complaint for damages now filed against the driver BORJA, and the registered owner—the bank

ISSUE: Is the bank, as registered owner, liable for damages?

HELD: YES.
● Main aim of motor vehicle registration:
○ to identify the owner,
○ so that if ay accident happens, or any damage/injury is caused by the vehicle on public highways,
○ RESPONSIBILITY can be fixed on the REGISTERED OWNER
● If a registered owner were allowed to evade responsibility by proving who the supposed transferee/owner
is → then it would be easy for him to collude with others by transferring the responsibility to:
➢ an INDEFINITE PERSON, or
➢ one who POSSESSES NO PROPERTY with which to respond financially for the damage/injury done

14 DSR
FACTS:
● Berde Plants delivered 632 units of artificial trees to C.F. Sharp (General Ship agent of DSR-Senator lines)
● The goods were to be transport and delivered to consignee, Al-Mohr intl group, in Riyadh Saudi Arabia.

21
 ● Cargo was loaded in M/S Arabian Senator.
● Federal Phoenix insured the cargo against all risks.
● The cargo was reloaded on board M/V Kapitan Shakharov
● While in transit, the vessel and all its cargo caught fire.
● Federal Phoenix paid Berde Plants insurance, and the latter executed subrogation receipt.
● Federal Phoenix demanded payment from C.F. Sharp, who in turn denied liability on the ground that such
liability was extinguished when the vessel caught fire.

ISSUE: WON DSR-Senator lines and CF Sharp are liable for damages caused by fire

HELD:
● YES.
● Art 1734 CC: Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods.
○ There are exceptions, but fire wasn’t one of them.
● Thus, carrier presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently unless extraordinary diligence is
otherwise proven
● EVEN IF considered an exception under Art 1734, A1739 says that natural disaster --
a. Must have been the proximate cause of the loss
b. Carrier exercised extraordinary due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss, before, during or
after the occurrence of the disaster.

15 DELSAN
● Delsan Express, a ship, anchored at the Navotas Fish Port
● At 12 mn, Captain Demetrio Jusep received a report that a typhoon was going to hit Manila in 8 hours
● At 8:35 am, Captain Jusep tried to seek shelter at North Harbor but could not enter because it was already
congested.
● At 10 am, Capt. Jusep decided to drop anchor 4 miles away from a NAPOCOR power barge
● Waves were already reaching 8-10 ft.
● The ship was dragging towards the NAPOCOR barge.
● To avoid collision, Capt. Jusep ordered full stop of the ship.
● He succeeded in avoiding the power barge but when the engine was restarted the ship was maneuvered full
astern and hit the deflector wall of C&A Construction
● C&A demanded payment
● Issue: W/N Capt. Jusep was negligent, thus liable.
● Yes!
● Capt. Jusep was negligent because he waited until 8 am before transferring the vessel to North Harbor even
though he already knew of the weather report earlier.
● He failed to take immediate and appropriate action under the circumstances.
● Emergency rule cannot be applied because the danger where Capt. Jusep found himself was caused by his
own negligence.

1 SINGAPORE
FACTS:
● Fernandez, an acclaimed soprano, was invited to sing before the King and Queen of Malaysia.
● She purchased an airline passage ticket from Singapore Airlines (SAL) (route would be
Germany>Singapore>Manila>Malaysia)
● Her flight from Germany arrived 2 hours late. By then the flight going to Manila had already left, leaving her
stranded in Singapore
● SAL’s employees were also unaccomodating when Fernandez asked for help.
● Her mother also had to travel from PH to MY to bring her wardrobe and personal things needed for the
performance
ISSUE
● WON SAL exercised extraordinary diligence
HELD
● No
● SAL did not transport Fernandez as covenanted by it, SAL clearly breached its contract of carriage
● Furthermore, the inattentiveness and rudeness of SAL’s personnel to Fernandez; plight was gross enough
amounting to bad faith

22
2 SMITH BELL

FACTS:
● Smith Bell filed a written request with the Bureau of Customs for the attendance of the latter’s inspection
team on vessel M/T King Family upon its arrival in Manila.
● Catalino Borja was instructed to perform the inspector duties.
● The vessel contained 750 metric tons of alkyl benzene and methyl methacrylate monomer.
● While the vessel was unloading chemicals unto 2 barges owned by ITTC, a sudden explosion occurred
setting the vessel on fire. Borja went outside his cabin to check what happened. Another explosion was
heard.
● Borja hurriedly jumped over board to save himself but the water was also on fire because of the spilled
chemicals. He was only rescued after he swam his way for 1 hour
● Borja was diagnosed to be permanently disabled due to the incident. He demanded against Smith Bell and
ITTC for the damages caused by the explosion

ISSUE: Whether or not Smith Bell should be held liable for Borja’s injuries

HELD: YES
● Smith was negligent. While knowing that their vessel as carrying dangerous inflammable chemicals, Smith
Bell’s officers and crew failed to take all necessary precautions to prevent an accident.
● The owner or the person in possession and control of a vessel are liable for all natural and proximate
damage caused to persons and property by reason of negligent management and navigation.

3 M.H. RAKES

FACTS:
● Rakes was at work transporting iron rails from the harbor in Manila.
● At one point, the track sagged, the tile broke, the car canted and the rails slid off and caught Rakes who was
walking by the car’s side, breaking his leg, which later was amputated at the knee.
● The noticeable depression in the track had appeared after a typhoon. This was reported by the foreman
Mckeena but it had not proven that Atlantic inspected the track or had any proper system of inspection
● There were no side guards on the car to keep the rails from slipping off.

ISSUE:
● W/N Rakes was guilty of contributory negligence

HELD:
● Yes. While Atlantic was negligent in failing to repair the bed of the track, Rakes was guilty of contributory
negligence in walking at the side instead of being in front or behind.
● Rakes’ negligence contributed only to his own injury and not to the principal occurrence.
● Law has no scales to determine in such cases whose wrongdoing weighed most in the compound that
occasioned the mischief.

4 TAYLOR

FACTS:

● Taylor, 15 years old, and his friend Manuel came to the office of Manila Electric to visit Murphy, one of
its employees, who promised to make them a cylinder for the miniature engine project.
● Since Murphy was not around, they wandered around the open spaces where the company dumps cinders
and ashes from its furnaces.
● They each took fulminating caps which were intended for explosion of blasting charges of dynamite.
● While crossing a footbridge, they met Jesse, a 9 year old girl, and they all went to Manuel house where they
applied a lighted match to the contents of the fulminating caps.
● An explosion followed causing injuries to all of them.

ISSUE:

23
 W/N Meralco negligence was the proximate cause of Taylor’s injuries

HELD:

● No. It is equally clear that Taylor would not have been injured had he not, for his own pleasure and
convenience, entered upon the Manila Electric’s premises, and strolled around thereon without Manila
Electric’s express permission, and had he not picked up and carried away Manila Electric’s property which
he found on its premises, and had he not thereafter deliberately cut open one of the caps and applied a
match to its contents.

5 PHOENIX
FACTS
● Dionisio was driving home from a cocktail dinner with his boss. He was driving without headlights
● He hit a dumptruck owned by Phoenix Construction. The dumptruck was parked askew in such a manner
that it partly blocked oncoming traffic. The dumptruck also did not have any early warning reflector devices
● Dionisio alleges that the proximate cause of his injuries was the negligent manner in which the truck was
parked
ISSUE
● WON the dumptruck driver’s negligence is the proximate cause of Dionisio’s injuries
HELD
● NO. Dionisio has contributory negligence. He was driving faster than he should’ve been and extinguished his
headlights and thus did not see the truck.
● But the “immediate and proximate cause” of the injury was caused by the truck driver’s lack of due care.
● Dionisio mya recover damages although subject to mitigation by the courts

6 LBC Air Cargo v. Court of Appeals

Fact:
● Rogelio Monterola, a licensed driver, was driving on the right line along a dusty national road on his
motorcycle.
● At the same time, a cargo van of LBC cargo, driven by Jaime Tano Jr. was coming from the opposite direction.
● Tano was headed left, but two vehicles raced toward him from the opposite direction and stirred up a cloud
of dust.
● Instead of waiting for the dust to settle he turned sharply left.
● He braved the dusty road and suddenly Monterola emerged from the dust.
● Monterola smashed head on against the right side of the LBC van and died from several injuries.
● Please see my police sketch (RED = Monterola, BLUE = LBC, GREEN = racers, Brown = Dust)
Issue:
● WON the proximate cause of the accident was Monterola?
Held:
● No. the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of Tano who, despite poor visibility, hastily
executed a left turn without first waiting for the dust to settle.
● No appreciable time elapsed from the left turn to the impact.
● However, the deceased was not at all without fault since he was speeding.

24


8 JARCO MARKETING CORP v CA

Facts:
- Jarco is the owner of Syvel’s Dept Store.
- In 1983, Criselda and her 6 yr old daughter Zhieneth were at the Dept Store when Criselda momentarily let go of
her daughter’s hand to sign her credit card slip.
- Suddenly, Zhieneth was pinned on the ground by the gift-wrapping counter which caused her death days later.
Issue:
- WON there is contributory negligence on the part of Criselda. - NO
- WON the death of Zhieneth is attributable to the negligence of Jarco (Dept Store) – YES
Held:
- Evidence provide that the counter was neither durable nor stable. Zhieneth was even able to tell her doctor that
she did not do anything, that the counter just fell on her.
- No contributory negligence can be attributed to Criselda since it is reasonable and usual for her to let go of her
daughter’s hand when she was about to sign her credit card slip. She was just a foot away from her daughter when
the incident happened.
- Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory; one cannot exist with the other. Accident occurs when
the person concerned is exercising ordinary care, which is not caused by fault of any person and which could not
have been prevented by any means suggested by common prudence.
Under our jurisdiction, a child under nine years of age is conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence.

9 ILUSORIO v CA

Facts:
● Ilusorio is a businessman and a depositor in Manila Banking Corporation (MBC).
● He entrusted to his secretary Eugenio his credit cards and his checkbook with blank checks.
● Eugenio was able to encash and deposit to her personal account checks drawn against Ilusorio’s account.
Issue:
● W/N Ilusorio has a cause of action against MBC
Held:
● NO. It was Ilusorio who was negligent, not the bank.
● MBC employees exercised due diligence in cashing the checks. Eugenio’s modus operandi was not noticed
because she was designated by Ilusorio himself to transact in his behalf.
● Ilusorio failed to examine his bank statements appears to be proximate cause of damage.

10 GAN

11 ESTACION

25
 FACTS
● Respondent was one of the passengers of a Ford Fiera jeepney, he offered his extension seat to an old
woman, and he hung on its left rear
● When the Feria slowed down to pick up other passengers, an Isuzu Truck owned by petitioner hit the
latter’s rear end
● This collision crush respondent’s legs which resulted in the amputation of his left leg
● Respondent, through his guardian, alleged the the proximate cause of his injuries was Gerosano’s [truck
driver] reckless imprudence and Estacion’s negligence in the selection of a driver

ISSUE
WON the proximate cause was Gerosano’s and Estacion’s

HELD:
● YES.
● Gerosano had been driving the truck at a fast speed and with faulty brakes
● Respondent, however, is guilty of contributory negligence when he has stood on the rear part of the Feria.
● Respondent showed the lack of ordinary care and foresight that this could cause him harm or put his life in
danger
● The driver of the jeepney was likewise negligent for taking in more passengers than what the vehicle could
accommodate
● Estacion [truck owner] claims that he has required Gerosano to submit his diligence, but failed to show to
the court certified true copies of it

13 CADIENTE

FACTS: (in pink: not imptnt to resolve issue)
● RESPONDENT was standing on the shoulder of the road (yes, lol shoulder: an uncemented part of the road
where pedestrians should be)
● He was bumped by a car à both his legs, amputated!
● DRIVER absconded and disappeared
● Records show: registered owner was a certain CADIENTE
● CADIENTE said he already sold the car to another person, and it was agreed that CADIENTE would register
it in the buyer’s name
● Complaint for torts and damages against the DRIVER and CADIENTE!
● Third party complaint against BUYER!
o But BUYER says he already sold it to A SECOND BUYER!
● Fourth party complaint against SECOND BUYER!
● CADIENTE alleges: RESPONDENT’S NEGLIGENCE contributed to his own mishap

ISSUE: Is there contributory negligence on the part of the RESPONDENT?

HELD: NO!
● RULE: Underlying precept of contributory negligence: that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his
own injury:
○ should not be entitled to recover damages in full,
○ but must proportionately bear the consequences of his own negligence.
○ Defendant only liable for the damages actually caused by his negligence.
● In this case, RESPONDENT not contributorily negligent by standing on the uncemented portion
○ This part was intended for pediastrian use alone.
○ Only stationary vehicles (e.g., those loading/unloading), not running vehicles, may use it.

14 NPC

FACTS:
● Casionan, a pocket, was walking along a trail, carrying a bamboo pole.
● When he was turning, the tip of the bamboo touched one of the dangling high tension wires previously
installed by NPC.
● He died.
● Note that before the incident, there have been requests to NOC to immediately and appropriately repair said

26
 wires as these sagging wires posed dangers to small-scale miners.

ISSUE: WON Casionan’s death should be attributed to his negligence instead

HELD:
● NO.
● To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that he has performed an act which
has brought about the injuries in disregard of warnings or signs or an impending danger to health and body.
● In this case, casionan should not be faulted for going down the trail as it was regularly used by members of
the community.
● There were also no warning signs to inform passers-by of the impending danger should they accidentally
touch the wires.
● NPC can’t claim that casionan be faulted for pocket mining since the DENR prohibits it.
○ Violation of statute not sufficient to hold it as proximate cause of injury, UNLESS very injury is
precisely what has been intended to be prevented by the statute.

15 SPOUSES VERGARA
● Sps Vergara and Sps Sonkin are adjoining landowners in Bulacan
● Sonkin property is slightly lower in elevation
● Sps. Sonkin raised the height of the partition wall when they bought their property
● Sps. Vergara filled the uneven portion of their property with gravel, earth and soil making it higher than the
Sonkin property
● Sps. Sonkin began to complain that water from the Vergara property was leaking into their room through
the partition wall causing damage to their property
● Sps. Sonkin demanded Sps. Vergara to build a retaining wall, but to no avail.
● Issue: W/N Sps. Sonkin are guilty of contributory negligence
● Yes!
● Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm
he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection
● Since the Sonkin property is lower in elevation, it is legally obliged to receive waters flowing from the latter
pursuant to the Civil Code
● Sps. Sonkin are guilty of contributory negligence for failing to observe 2 meter setback rule and for
disregarding the legal easement constituted over their property
● They must bear their own loss.

1 AFIALDA

FACTS:
● Spouses Hisole employed Afialda as caretaker of their carabaos
● While tending them, however, Afialda was gored by one of them and later died as a consequence of his
injuries
ISSUE:
● WON the owner of the animal is liable when damage is caused to its caretaker
HELD
● NO, it was the caretaker’s business to try to prevent the animal from causing injury to anyone, including
himself
● Being injured by the animal under those circumstances was one of the risks of the obligation which he had
voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the consequences

2 ONG

FACTS:
● Defendant Metropolitan Water District (MWD) owns and operates three recreational swimming pools.
● The care and supervision of the pools and the users is entrusted to a recreational section composed of a
chief, nurse and lifeguards who have taken life-saving course.
● For the safety of its patrons, MWD has provided the pools with a ring buoy, toy roof, towing line, saving kit
and a resuscitator. There is also a sanitary inspector in charge of a clinic. The list of rules and regulations are
displayed in conspicuous places.

27
 ● Dominador Ong, the son of the plaintiff spouses, swam with his brothers. Dominador later told his brothers
that he will go to the locker room to drink Coke. The brothers did not notice Dominador actually go to the
locker room.
● The lifeguard on duty received a report that someone was swimming in the bigger pool for quite a long time.
When the lifeguard went there, he retrieved the dead body of Dominador.
● Plaintiff spouses filed a petition for damages against MWD

ISSUE: Whether or not Dominador’s death can be attributed to the negligence of MWD and/or its employees so as to
entitle the plaintiff spouses to recover damages

HELD: NO
● The owners of resorts to which people generally are expressive or by implication invited are legally bound
to exercise ordinary care and prudence in the management and maintenance of such resorts, to the end of
making then reasonably safe for visitors.
● Proprietor of a natatorium is liable for injuries resulting from lack of ordinary care in providing safety; but it
is not an insurer of the patrons’ safety.
● Evidence sufficiently proves that MWD has taken necessary measures to avoid danger to the lives of its
patrons.
● The doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable where the party charged is required to act instantaneously
and if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand, as in this case.

3 ERQUIAGA

FACTS:
● Bal is a businesswoman whom a certain Dayandante and Sevilla have persuaded to purchase cans of a
marine preservative. In turn, they would buy these cans at a higher price than in ordinary market.
● Petitioner Orocsco introduced himself to Bal as an agent selling the cans.
● Eriquiago introduced himself as someone who could ascertain the genuineness of the marine preservative.
● Bal borrowed money and bought a large number of the said cans. Dayandante and the petitioners vanished
after this transaction.

ISSUE:
● W/N damages should be awarded in favor of Bal

HELD:
● YES. A basic premise of the doctrine of let the buyer beware is that there be no false representation by the
seller.
● In this instance, petitioners’ scheme involved a well-planned scenario to entice the buyer to pay for the
bogus marine preservative.
● The initial transaction involving one and then five cans were intended for confidence building.
● Petitioners are guilty of estafa.

4 PICART

FACTS:

● Picart was riding a pony on a bridge where defendant Smith was driving from the opposite direction
and blew his horn as a warning.
● As the automobile approached, Smith geared it toward his left, that being the proper side of the road for
him.
● Seeing that the pony remained quiet, Smith continued to approach directly, without slowing down and when
he gotten quite near, there being no possibility of the horse going to the other side, Smith quickly turned his
car sufficiently to the right to escape hitting the horse and this frightened the horse.
● The horse died, while Picart received contusions which caused his temporary unconsciousness.

ISSUE:

W/N Smith was guilty of negligence

28

HELD:

● Yes. In the nature of things, the change of situation occurred while the automobile was yet some
distance away.
● From this moment, it was no longer within Picart’s power to escape being run down by going to a place of
greater safety.
● Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen
that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding
against its consequences.
● Smith would have recognized that the course which he was pursuing was fraught with risk.
● Picart was not free from fault for he was guilty of antecedent negligence in planting himself on the wrong
side of the road.

5 BUSTAMANTE
FACTS:
● A gravel truck collided with a passenger bus resulting in the death of it passengers, some of whom are
petitioners’ relatives
● Before the collision, the bus driver saw that the truck’s front wheels wiggling and heading towards the bus
lane. Nonetheless, the bus increased its speed in order to overtake a tractor.
● In the process of overtaking, the bus sideswipped and hit a tree.
● Petitioners are seeking damages from the bus driver. The CA ruled that the bus had the “last clear chance” to
avoid the collision
ISSUE
● WON the doctrine was properly applied in this case
HELD
● NO. The doctrine of last clear chance only applies in a suit between owners and drivers of colliding vehicles.
● As in the instant case, the doctrine does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the
carrier to enforce contractual obligations. It would be inequitable to exempt the negligent jeepney driver
and its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise negligent
● It also cannot be extended to joint tortfeasors as a test whether only one of them should be held liable to the
injured person by reason of his discovery of the latter’s peril.
● It also cannot apply between defendants concurrently negligent

6 MCKEE v. Intermediate Appellate Court

Facts:
● While driving, two boys jumped in front of a Ford Escort car.
● The driver blew his horn and swerved to the left, into the cargo truck’s lane.
● He switched the headlights, applied the brakes, and tried to return to his lane.
● A Loadstar Cargo truck collided with a Ford Escort car.
● The petitioner suffered injuries and his relative in the car died.
Issue:
● WON negligence should be imputed to the ford escort?
Held:
● NO. any reasonable person would have tried to avoid running over the two boys by swerving the car and
entering the opposite lane. Avoiding such immediate peril would be a natural reaction. Especially when the
vehicle in the opposite lane can still slow down.
● Under the emergency rule, one who is in a place of danger and is required to act without time to consider
the best means that may be adopted to avoid impending danger is not guilty of negligence.
● In any case, the proximate cause of the death was not the entry into the lane of the truck but the truck’s
failure to slow down and give the Ford time to return to its lane.
● The truck had the last clear chance i.e. contributory negligence of the party injured will not defeat a claim
for damages if it is shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have
avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured party.

29
8 CANLAS v. CA

Facts:
- Canlas executed a SPA authorizing Manosca to mortgage his two parcels of land.
- Manosca was able to obtain a loan from Asian Savings Bank with the help of impostors who misrepresented
themselves as the spouses Canlas.
- When the loan remained unpaid, ASB extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage.
- Canlas filed a case for annulment of the deed of real estate mortgage alleging that he did not consent to the
procurement of loan and mortgage.
Issue:
- WON Canlas is entitled to relief.
Held:
- YES. The degree of diligence required of banks is more than that of a good father of a family. The business of a
ban is affected with public interest, holding in trust the money of the depositors.
- ASB not exercise the requisite diligence in ascertaining the real identities of the impostors who misrepresented
themselves as the owner of the land.
- Under the doctrine of last clear chance, 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
impeding harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequence as arising therefrom.
Canlas is negligent in giving Manosca the opportunity to perpetrate fraud but ASB had the last clear chance to
prevent the fraud by simply ascertaining the identity of persons transacting with them.

9 GREGORIO Anuran, et al. v Pepito Buno et al.

Facts:
● A jeepney driven by defendant Pepito and owned by spouses Gahol and Alcantara was parked to allow one
passenger to go out.
● It was parked in a manner that half of its width was on the road while the other half is on the road’s right
shoulder.
● Before it could start the engine, it collided with a water truck resulting to a death of passengers.
Issue:
● W/N the driver and owner of the jeepney should be solidarily liable with the truck driver and owner.
Held:
● YES. NCC requires “utmost diligence” from the carriers who are “presumed to have been at fault or to have
acted negligently, unless they have observed extraordinary diligence.” CA found the driver of jeepney to be
at fault in parking the jeepney improperly.
● The principle of last clear chance would call for application in a suit between the owners and drivers of the
two colliding vehicles.
● It does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce contractual
obligations. It would be inequitable to exempt the negligent jeepney driver and its owners on the ground
that the other driver was likewise negligent.

10 GLAN

11 PANTRANCO
FACTS: (sad nito huhu, namatay during their wedding anniv)
● Sps Baesa and their children, together with David were on their way to a picnic at Isabela to celebrate the
wedding anniversary of Sps Baesa
● They rode a passenger jeep driven by Ico
● A speeding PANTRANCO bus from Aparri encroached on the jeepney’s lane and collided with it
● As a result, Ico, the Sps Baesa and their children died, while the other passengers suffered injuries
● The PANTRANCO driver had never been seen.

ISSUE:
WON it was Ico that had the last clear chance to avoid the collision

30

HELD
● NO.
● The doctrine of last clear chance finds no application in this case
● In this case, there is nothing to show that Ico knew of the impending danger
● There was nothing to indicate to Ico that the bus could not return to its own lane of was prevented from
returning to the proper lane by anything beyond the control of the driver
● Petitioner PANTRANCO failed to show that the rules and regulations and various company policies were
being complied with as well as with the recruitment procedures.

13 EDNA RAYNERA

FACTS:
● RAYNERA: in a motorcycle travelling on the southbound lane
● A truck (DRIVEN by Orpilla, OWNED by Hiceta) was travelling ahead of him at 20-30 kph
● Truck:
● loaded with 2 metal sheets
● each metal sheet having 2 pairs of red lights on top (in compliance with the Traffic Code)
● Road was not well lit, and the truck had no tail lights and licence plate
● PLAINTIFF crashed his motorcycle into the truck à RAYNERA died!

ISSUE: Were the TRUCK DRIVER AND OWNER negligent? Was this negligence the PROXIMATE CAUSE OF
RAYNERA’S DEATH?

HELD: NO!
● Negligence:
○ Omission to do something that a reasonable man,
○ guided by those considerations,
○ which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs
○ would do.
● Proximate cause:
○ That cause
○ Which in natural and continuous sequence,
○ Unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
○ Produces injury,
○ And without which, the result would not have occurred.
● In this case:
○ Even if no tail lights and license plate, truck was still visible in the highway
○ And travelling at a moderate speed (20-30kph)
○ Used the service road also (because the cargo load posed danger to other motorists)
○ Installed lights on top of the cargo (in compliance with the Traffic Code)
● Direct cause of the accident: Victim’s negligence! Responsibility to avoid the collision lies with the
driver of the rear vehicle. (Last clear chance)
○ Travelling behind the truck, he had the responsibility to avoid bumping the behicle on front of him.
○ He was in control of the situation: He had headlights
○ He was traversing the service road where the prescribed speed was less than that in the highway
○ He had the last clear chance of avoiding the accident.

14 LAPANDAY

FACTS:
● A Datsun crew cab (owned by LADECO) bumped into a chevy pick-up.
○ Crew cab driver: deocampo
○ Chevy pick up driver: borres
● Borres alleges that he was slowing down 5-10kph and making a left turn when the crew cab running at 60-
70kph bumped him from behind
● Deocampo alleges that both of them were driving at 40kph. The pick-up was at the outer lane and 10m away
when it made a u-turn. He said he was unable to avoid the collision as there was no signal from the pick up.

31
 He also admitted that collision being inevitable, he stepped on the brakes only after the impact.

ISSUES:
1. Does Section 45(b) of RA4135 and Art 2185 CC apply?
2. WON respondent is entitled to damages

HELD:
1. YES. Following the provision, borres should have stayed at the inner lane. However, Deocampo was equally
negligent because he should have slowed down seeing that the pick up was slowing down in preparation to
execute a u-turn.

● Both parties being at fault, doctrine of last clear chance applies, and it was deocampo who had the last clear
chance to avoid the collision.
● LADECO is solidarily liable with deocampo.

2. YES. Moral damages are awarded to allow plaintiff to obtain means, diversion or amusement that will serve to
alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone.

● Respondent suffered shock, serious anxiety, and fright when the crew cab bumped his pick-up.

15 ALBERTO
● Alberto Austria was driving his Ford Fiera with 10 passengers onboard, bound for Bataan
● While cruising, one of the tires suddenly hit a stone lying on the road
● Alberto Austria lost control and collided with the rear of an improperly parked cargo truck trailer driven by
Flores
● 5 passengers suffered injuries
● Trial court found Alberto guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries
● CA affirmed
● Issues: W/N truck driver should be held solely liable and Alberto exempt from liability; W/N award
of damages to the victims was proper
● No. Alberto cannot be exempt from liability.
● He admitted that he saw the trailer at a distance of about 6 meters but stated that the distance of the focus
of the vehicle’s headlight in dim position was 20 meters
● They are inconsistent statements! >:(
● The circumstances show that Alberto was driving at more than 30 kph.
● Alberto did not exercise necessary precaution.
● His negligence as driver of the Ford Fiera is the immediate and proximate cause of the collision
● Award of damages was proper because the expenses for hospitalization and treatments were incurred as a
direct result of the collision caused by Alberto’s negligence.

1 CONSOLIDATED (now known as Solidbank)

FACTS
● LC Diaz opened a savings account with Solidbank
● The messenger of LC Diaz went to Solidbank to deposit cash.
● Two deposit slips and a passbook were presented to the teller at Solidbank.
● Since the transaction with Solidbank took time and the messenger had to make another deposit for LC Diaz,
he left the passbook with Solidbank.
● When the messenger returned to Solidbank to retrieve the passbook, the teller informed him that somebody
got the passbook.
● Thereafter, LC Diaz learned of unauthorized withdrawals from its savings account
ISSUE
● WON Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due to negligence or culpa contractual
HELD
● Yes
● When the passbook is in the possession of Solidbank’s tellers during withdrawals, the law imposes on
Solidbank and its tellers an even higher degree of diligence in safeguarding the passbook
● LC Diaz has established that Solidbank breached its contractual obligation to return the passbook only to an
authorized representative.
● There is thus a presumption that Solidbank is at fault, and Solidbank failed to rebut this presumption

32
 ● 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.
● 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. Such contributory negligence or
last clear chance by the plaintiff merely serves to reduce the recovery of damages by the plaintiff but does
not exculpate the defendant from his breach of contract

2 PHILIPPINE

FACTS:
● At about 3AM, Reynaldo Vizcara was driving a jeep towards Bicol to deliver onion crops with 5 other
companions.
● While crossing the railroad track in Quezon, a PNR train, operated by respondent Estranas, suddenly
rammed the jeepney causing the death of Reynaldo and 3 of his companions. The other two named
Dominador and Joel sustained serious physical injuries.
● At the time of the accident:
- No level crossing installed
- Stop, Look and Listen signage was poorly maintained
- Stop signage was faded
- Listen signage was partly blocked by another signboard

● The 2 survivors and the heirs of the deceased instituted an action for damages against PNR, Estranas and
Ben Saga, the alternate driver of the train.

ISSUE: Whether or not the doctrine of last clear chance applies in this case (maybe the doctrine was invoked by the
petitioners)

HELD: NO
● The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one
is appreciably later in point of time than 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.
● The proximate cause of the collision was the petitioner’s negligence in ensuring that motorists and
pedestrians alike may safely cross the railroad track.
● The unsuspecting driver and passengers did not have no participation in the occurrence of the unfortunate
event; no overt act manifesting disregard for their own safety.

3 VIRGILIO

FACTS:
● Callanta was employed by Carnation as a salesman in the Agusan del Sur area.
● Five years later, Carnation filed an application for clearance to terminate the employment of Callanta with
the Regional Office of the Ministry of Labor and Employment on the ground of serious misconduct and
misappropriation of company funds amounting to PHP 12,000.
● Callanta was terminated from employment effective June 1, 1979.
● On July 5, 1982, Callanta filed with the MOLE Regional office for a complaint for illegal dismissal.

ISSUE:
● W/N an action for illegal dismissal prescribes in three years

HELD:
● NO. Unlike in cases of commission of any of the prohibited activities during strikes or lockouts, unfair labor
practices, and illegal recruitment, which the Code itself declares to be unlawful, termination of an
employment without just or valid cause is not categorized as unlawful practice.
● One’s employment is a property right and the wrongful interference is an actionable wrong, protected by
the due process clause of the Constitution
● When one is arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of his job or means of livelihood, the action instituted to
contest the legality of one’s dismissal is predicted upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff which must be

33
 brought within four years.
● The action for illegal dismissal filed by the petitioners was within the prescriptive period.

4 ALLIED

FACTS:

● Yujuico obtained a loan from GENBANK and as an evidence of which, a promissory note was issued.
● However, GENBANK was subsequently forbidden by the Monetary Board to conduct business in the
Philippines.
● Allied Bank acquired all the assets and assumed the liabilities of GENBANK including the receivable due
from Yujuico.
● Allied Bank then filed a complain against private respondent for the collection of a sum of monedy.

ISSUE:

W/N the cause of action under a third-party complaint, assuming there is, has prescribed

HELD:

● Yes. The action for damages instituted by private respondent arising from the quasi-delict or alleged
tortious interference should be filed within four years from the day the cause of action accrued.
● The cause of action accrued on 25 March 1980 when the Monetary Board order the closure of GENBANK’s
business but the third party complaint was filed only on 17 June 1987.

5 ARSENIO
FACTS
● Through a series of sales, Sps. Caina acquired a parcel of land through a “Deed of Exchange”
● Upon the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title, the sps Caina have been exercising full ownership and
possession over the property.
● Subsequently, petitioners herein, heirs of the original owner, filed an action for reconveyance of a portion of
the property claiming that it was invalidly included in the titling of the property
ISSUE
● WON an action for reconveyance over real property filed after more than 30 years may prosper against the
holder for value
HELD
● NO. the cause of action arises at the moment such right is violated. In this case, it was at the moment when
the sps Pena (one of the parties included in the series of exchanges) registered the entire 13,405 sqm
property instead of only 10,000 sqm
● The law states that a party may bring reinvindicatory actions within 30 years after he has been deprived of
his property.
● In this case, the party brought the action 36 years after the accrual of the cause of action

6 SPS ROMERO Ferrer v. Vicente G. Ericta (remedial issue nasa digest ni sir)
Facts:
● Francis owns and operates a ford pick up truck.
● His son Dennis, 16 years old, drove the car without proper official authority and without regard to traffic
rules.
● Dennis caused injury to Annette Ferrer.
● Mr. Dennis raised the defense of due diligence and utmost care in driving the vehicle and further alleged
that they were not passengers but were joyriders.
● He never raised the defense of prescription.
● The Respondent judge ruled that the case had already prescribed because it was filed more than 4 years
after the accident.
Issue:
● WON the action has already prescribed?
● WON the defense of prescription is waived on account of failure to allege the same.
Held:

34
 ● YES. the accident occured on December 31, 1971 and the action for damages was only filed on January 6,
1975 or more than 4 years after.
● NO. the defense of prescription is not waived even if it not alleged in the answer.
● It is true that the defense of prescription can only be considered if the same is invoked as such in the answer
but such rule does not obtain when the evidence shows that the cause of action upon which the complaint is
based is already barred by the statute of limitations.
● The evidence presented clearly removes this case from the rule regarding waiver of defense by failure to
plead the same.

8 ERNESTO KRAMER v. CA
Facts:
- The fishing boat “Marjolea” owned by Sps. Kramer figured into a collision with M/V Asia Philippines owned by
Trans-Asia Shipping Lines. The former sank as a result of the collision.
- Separate marine protests were filed by both captains with the Board of Marine Inquiry of the Philippine Coast
Guard which ruled that the loss of Marjolea was attributable to the negligence of the employees of Trans-Asia.
- Thereafter, 10 years after the collision, Sps. Kramer filed a complaint for damages before the RTC.
- Trans-Asia raised the defense of prescription.
Issue:
- WON the complaint for damages arising from the marine collision is already barred by statute of limitations.
Held:
- YES. An action based on quasi-delict must be instituted within 4 years and it begins from the day the right of
action accrues.
The aggrieved party need not wait for a determination by an administrative body before he can file an action for
damages.

9 SATURNINO Bayasen v CA

Facts:
● Saturnino is driving a jeepney on his way to another barrio. 2 Nurses requested to ride with him to pick up
flowers on a certain place on the way.
● The jeep went over a precipice resulting to death of one of the nurse via skull fracture.
● It was raised in evidence that Saturnino was driving in a moderate speed and that one of the passengers
testified that she did not know what caused the jeepney to fall into the precipice.
Issue:
● W/N Saturnino is guilty of negligence
Held:
● NO. There was no statement of the passenger that accused was driving at unreasonable speed and there was
a finding that the jeep examined was at second gear.
● The proximate cause of the accident was the skidding of the rear wheels of the jeep due to greasy or slippery
roads and not the driving of Saturnino.

10 NATIONAL

11 PHILIPPINE

FACTS
● Respondent boarded a plane in Manila and disembarked in Cebu where he was supposed to take his
connecting flight to Surigao City
● However, due to the typhoon Osang, the connecting flight was cancelled
● PAL initially gave out cash assistance, but respondent requested that he be billeted in a hotel at PAL’s
expense
● PAL refused, so respondent Pantejo was forced to seek and accept the generosity of another passenger and
he shared a room with the latter
● However, R came to know that the hotel expenses of other passengers were reimbursed by PAL

ISSUE:
WON PAL is liable for damages

35

HELD:
● YES
● PAL is liable for damages for its blatant refusal to accord the so-called amenities equally to all its stranded
passengers who were bound for Surigao
● No compelling or justifying reason was advanced for such discriminatory and prejudicial conduct
● PAL acted in bad faith in disregarding its duties as a common carrier to its passengers and in discriminating
against herein respondent
*Respondent Pantejo was at that time the City Prosecutor of Surigao, a member of PH Jaycee Senate, past Lt Gov of
the Kiwanis Club of Surigao, past Master of the Mt Diwata Lodge of Free Masons of the PH, member of PNRC, and
past chairman of Boy Scouts PH

13 ELIAS

FACTS:
● Petitoner = owner of a company engaged in the rustproofing of vehicles
● A customer engaged its services
● This customer’s car was rustproof and ready for pickup 6hrs after it was taken to the shop, but the customer
did not pick it up
● Fire broke out at the restaurant adjoining the rustproofing shop → shop destoyed, car destroyed!
● Claim for reimbursement sought = petitioner denied liability since the fire was a fortuitous event
● Court action for value of vehicle brought, alleging that petitoner was negligent because he failed to register
the business with the DTI under PD 1572, and to insure it as required in the IRR of said PD

ISSUE: Is liable for the loss of the vehicle?

HELD: Yes!
● The fact that the loss occasioned was due to a FORTUITOUS EVENT was immaterial in this case
○ It was the negligence of Elias in not insuring against the risk which was the proximate cause of the
loss
● Violation of a statutory duty = negligence per se
● Existence of a contract = not a bar to a finding of negligence under the principle of quasi-delict
○ Negligence is the source of the obligation in the latter
○ He is not being liable for breach of contract, but for negligence in not complying with a duty
imposed by law

14 ALBERTO

FACTS:
● Spouses Tumboy and their minor children boarded Yobido Liner Bus.
● During the trip, the left front tire of the bus exploded and the bus fell into a ravine 3ft from the road and
struck a tree.
● Tito Tuboy died, and other passengers suffered physical injuries.
● Leny Tumboy and children filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damages, alleging that the
bus traversed a road which was not cemented and wet due to the rain,
● She also alleged that the bus was running fast so she cautioned the driver to slow down but she was ignored.
● Yobidos claim fortuitous event.

ISSUE: WON tire-blowout is a fortuitous event, which absolves the Yobidos from liability?

HELD:
● NO.
● Fortuitous event characteristics:
a. Cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurence, or the failure to comply with obligations
b. Impossible to foresee event
c. Occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debto to full his obligations in a normal
manner
d. Obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury
● There are human factors involved because the fact that the tire was new does not imply that it was free from

36
 manufacturing defects.

15 JAPAN
● Jose Miranda et al. boarded a Japan Airlines flight from San Francisco to Manila
● As an incentive for traveling on the airline, the flight was to make an overnight stopover at Narita
● On the final leg of the journey, Mt. Pinatubo erupted
● NAIA became inaccessible
● To accommodate needs of stranded passengers, JAL rebooked all Manila bound passengers and paid for
their hotel expenses for their overnight stay in Japan
● Flight was cancelled again
● This time JAL no longer defrayed hotel and accommodation expenses
● Passengers were forced to pay for accommodations for a few days
● Issue: W/N JAL is liable for damages
● No!
● Common carriers are not absolutely responsible for all injuries or damages if the same were caused by
fortuitous event
● JAL was prevented from resuming its flight to Manila due to effects of eruption
● Whatever losses passengers incurred cannot be charged to JAL
● Passengers’ predicament was not due to the fault or negligence of JAL but to the closure of NAIA
● JAL however was supposed to make the necessary arrangements to transport the passengers on the first
available connecting flight to Manila. JAL did not do this obligation.
● Passengers then needed to make the necessary arrangements for themselves.

1 GOTESCO
FACTS
● Gloria Chatto and her daughter went to see the movie “Mother Dear” at Superama.
● The ceiling of the balcony collapsed, injuring both Chatto and her daughter
● Chatto filed a complaint against Gotesco but the latter attempted to avoid liability claiming that the collapse
of the ceiling was due to force majeure
ISSUE:
● WON the collapse of the balcony was a fortuitous event
HELD
● No
● Force majeure is any accident due to natural cause, directly exclusively without human intervention, such as
could not have been prevented by any kind of oversight, pains and care reasonably to have been expected.
● It was not shown that any of the causes denominated as force majeure obtained immediately before or at
the time of the collapse of the ceiling
● Such defects could have been easily discovered if only petitioner exercised due diligence and care in keeping
and maintaining the premises
● But as disclosed by Mr. Ong, there was no adequate inspection of the premises before the date of the
accident

2 WALTER

FACTS:
● In the course of its maneuvers to moor, the steamer belonging to Cadwallader Gibson struck Walter Smith’s
wharf partially demolishing it and throwing the timber piled thereon to the water.
● Smith instituted an action to recover damages against Cadwallader
● Trial court held that Cadwallader is not liable. Partial demolition of wharf was due to excessive weight of
timber piled.
● Smith’s contention: negligence on the part of the captain of the ship/steamer

ISSUE: Whether or not Cadwallader is liable for damages

HELD: NO
● In case of extra-contractual liability, as in this case, some fault personally imputable to the defendant must
exist. When an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee, there instantly arises a
presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer whether in the
selection of the servant or employee or in the supervision over him after selection.

37
 ● This presumption, however, is juris tatum and not juris et de jure, and consequently may be rebutted. If the
employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in the selection and supervision he has exercised the
care and diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from liablility.
● The presumption is rebutted in this case since defendant presented evidence to the effect that the captain
and all the officers of the steamer were duly licensed and authorized to hold their positions. Moreover, they
were chosen for their reputed skill in directing and navigating the steamer, safely, carefully and efficiently.

3 SPOUSES ONG

FACTS:
● Manila Water District owns and operates three recreational pools at its Balara filters.
● Dominador Ong together with his brothers went to the swimming pools. At 4:35, after a few hours of
swimming with his brothers, he informed them that he will go to the locker room to drink coke.
● That afternoon, there were two lifeguards on duty.
● Between 4:40 to 4:45 PM, some boys who were in the pool area informed a bather Hagad that somebody
was swimming under water for quite a long time.
● Another boy informed lifeguard Abaño of the happening and he immediately jumped into the big swimming
pool and retrieved the apparently lifeless body.
● The body was placed at the edge of the pool and Abaño immediately applied manual artificial respiration.
● The staff applied the resuscitator until the two oxygen tanks were exhausted.
● They also fetched Dr. Ayuyao who pronounced the boy dead.

ISSUE:
● W/N Manila Water District is liable for the death of the boy

HELD:
● NO. MWD is not liable for the death. Since the present action is one for damages founded on culpable
negligence, the principle to observed is that the person claiming damages has the burden of proof in
establishing negligence.
● Defendant has done what is humanly possible under the circumstances to restore life to Dominador

4 FABRE

FACTS:

● On 2 November 1984, private respondent Word for the World Christian Fellowship Inc. arranged with
petitioners (Fabre and his wife) who were owners of a minibus for the transportation of 33 members to
Caba, La Union which can be reached through Carmen, Pangasinan.
● The bridge at Carmen was under repair so Cabil was forced to take a detour.
● Cabil came upon a sharp curve on the highway and the bus hit the left traffic steel brace and sign along the
road and rammed the fence of one Jesus Escano, then turned over and landed on its left side, coming to a full
stop only after a series of impacts.
● A coconut tree also fell on it and several passengers were injured.

ISSUE:

Were the Spouses Fabre negligent

HELD:

● Yes. Pursuant to Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code, Cabil’s negligence gave rise to the presumption
that his employers, the Fabres, were themselves negligent in the selection and supervision of their
employees.
● In the case at bar, the Fabres did not consider that Cabil had been driving for school children only.
● Furthermore, Cabil was hired only after a two-week apprenticeship.

5 REYES

38
 FACTS:
● The Philippine Racing Club International were to send their delegates to Australia. Thus Gregorio Reyes sent
their chief cashier Godofredo Reyes to Far East Bank to apply for a foreign exchange demand draft
● When their application was denied, Far East Bank suggested a roundabout way to which PRCI agreed to.
● Upon arriving in Australia, Gregorio was not allowed to register because the foreign exchange demand draft
has been dishonored
● Gregorio filed a complaint for damages claiming that he was exposed to unnecessary shock and humiliation
ISSUE
● WON Far East Bank is liable for damages
HELD
● NO. FEB had every reason to believe that the transaction went smoothly considering its US account has been
debited
● The means of communication, SWIFT, is known to be the most reliable mode of communication
● The root cause of the miscommunication of FEB’s message was the erroneous decoding on the part of
Westpac-Sydney. Thus it was Westpac-Sydney who is liable for the dishonor and not FEB

6 PHILIPPINE Bank of Commerce v. Court of Appeals

Facts:
● Rommel’s Marketing Corporation (RMC) maintained two separate current accounts with PBC.
● RMC’s general manager entrusted his secretary, Irene Yabut with P300,000 for the purpose of depositing it
in RMC’s account with PBC.
● Yabut deposited it in her husband’s account instead of RMC’s
● RMC’s manager never checked the monthly statement of accounts furnished by PBC.
● Yabut continued this for more than a year.
ISSUE:
● WON RMC Manager, in not checking his monthly statements or the bank’s negligence through its teller in
validating the deposit slips is the proximate cause of the loss?
● WON it is sufficient that the bank observe ordinary diligence in the conduct of its business?
Held:
● [sorry super labo nito, sabi niya sa first line si RMC manager may kasalanan pero discussion niya bank teller
may negligence]
● The bank teller was negligent.
● In the ordinary and usual course of banking operations, current account deposits are accepted by the bank
on the basis of deposit slips prepared and signed by the depositor, or the latter's agent or representative,
who indicates therein the current account number to which the deposit is to be credited, the name of the
depositor or current account holder, the date of the deposit, and the amount of the deposit either in cash or
checks. The deposit slip has an upper portion or stub, which is detached and given to the depositor or his
agent; the lower portion is retained by the bank. In some instances, however, the deposit slips are prepared
in duplicate by the depositor. The original of the deposit slip is retained by the bank, while the duplicate
copy is returned or given to the depositor. [taken from full text since malabo ang case kapag wala to]
● Irene Yabut's modus operandi is far from complicated. She would accomplish two (2) copies of the deposit
slip, an original and a duplicate. The original showed the name of her husband as depositor and his current
account number. On the duplicate copy was written the account number of her husband but the name of the
account holder was left blank. PBC's teller, Azucena Mabayad, would, however, validate and stamp both the
original and the duplicate of these deposit slips retaining only the original copy despite the lack of
information on the duplicate slip. The second copy was kept by Irene Yabut allegedly for record purposes.
After validation, Yabut would then fill up the name of RMC in the space left blank in the duplicate copy and
change the account number written thereon, which is that of her husband's, and make it appear to be RMC's
account number, i.e., C.A. No. 53-01980-3. With the daily remittance records also prepared by Ms. Yabut and
submitted to private respondent RMC together with the validated duplicate slips with the latter's name and
account number, she made her company believe that all the while the amounts she deposited were being
credited to its account when, in truth and in fact, they were being deposited by her and credited by the
petitioner bank in the account of Cotas. This went on in a span of more than one (1) year without private
respondent's knowledge. [also taken from full text]
● Since the duplicate copy was not completely accomplished, which was a requirement set by the bank for
proper validation of deposit slips, the bank should not have validated the deposit slips.
● The bank teller’s negligence, and the bank’s negligence is selecting the teller was the proximate cause of the
loss to the RMC corporation.
● Even if Yabut had the fraudulent intention to misappropriate the funds, she would not have been able to

39
 deposit the funds to her husband’s account were it not for the negligence of the teller.
● Considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship with their depositors, banks are duty bound to treat
the accounts of their clients with the highest degree of care. The degree of diligence is more than that of a
good father of a family.

8 CRISOSTOMO v. CA
FACTS:
- Atty Crisostomo contracted the service of Caravan Travel and Tours to arrange her a tour to Europe dubbed as
“Jewels of Europe” through her niece.
- Her niece informed her that the flight was on a Saturday. Without checking the travel documents, she went to
the airport on a Saturday only to find out that the flight has already left the day before.
- She just took another tour called “British Pageant” and later demanded the difference of the price she paid for
“Jewels of Europe” tour.
ISSUE:
- WON a travel agency is bound under law to observe extraordinary diligence in the performance of its obligation.
HELD:
- A travel agency is not an entity engaged in the business of transporting either passengers or goods. Its services
include procuring tickets and facilitating travel permits or visas.
It is not bound under the law to observe extraordinary diligence in the performance of its obligation.

9 SPOUSES THEIS v CA

Facts:
● Calsons Development Co. owned three lots in Tagaytay. Parcels no. 1,2 and 3. Calson built a house in no.3.
Adjacent to parcel no. 3 is parcel no. 4 not owned by Calsons.
● A subsequent survey was made. Parcel no. 1 was erroneously indicated as parcel no. 3 while Parcel no.2 and
3 were indicated as parcel no. 4.
● Unaware of the mistake, Calsons sold Parcel no. 2 and 3 to spouses Theis believing it was parcel no.4. After
several years, spouses learned that other person owned parcel no. 4.
Issue:
● W/N there was a mistake under Article 1930 which warrants the annulment of sale.
Held:
● YES. There is a lack of full and correct knowledge about the thing.
● The mistake committed by the Calsons is of the second type (mistake, which is a wrong conception about
said thing, or a belief in the existence of some fact, circumstance or event, which in reality does not exist.
● Such mistake invalidated consent so annulment of the deed of sale is proper.
● Good faith is shown by Calsons by offering two other vacant lots immediately or reimbursement of double
the amount paid by the spouses..

10 GATCHALIAN

11 PHILIPPINE CARPET

FACTS
● Petitioner herein is the Union, while respondent is the Company
● Barquin is a union member who was hired by the Company as casual worker (janitor) and was later
extended into a probationary employee
● A Wage Order was promulgated granting a two-tier increase in the minimum wage
● The Union asked the Company for the across-the-board implementation of the Wage Orders as it was its
“decades old practice”
● The Company refused
● Barquin received a notice advising him that his service were to be terminated, was placed in forced leave
and paid in full for the duration of the leave.
● The voluntary arbitrator ruled that Barquin was illegally dismissed to avoid compliance with the wage
orders but not entitled to reinstatement because he received his separation pary and voluntary signed the
Deed of Release and Quitclaim

40
 ISSUE:
WON the quitclaim is void and therefore Barquin is entitled to reinstatement

HELD
● YES.
● The quitclaim is void and illegal
● The voluntariness of the execution of the quitclaim in the instant case was put into issue. The law looks with
disfavor upon quitclaims and releases by employees pressured into signing the same in order for the
employers to evade legal responsibility
● Barquin’s consent to the quitclaim cannot be deemed as being voluntarily and freely given inasmuch as his
consent was vitiated by mistake or fraud, there being no recourse but to annul the same.
● Barquin is therefore entitled to reinstatement

13 DAPAR

FACTS:
● Gloria <3 Mario = married in civil rights, had 4 children
● Mario = worked as an electrician in Saudi from 1977 to 1981
● In 1979, Mario met Zenaida Dapar (a domestic helper) = had an intimate relationship
● Mario then failed to support his wife and family
● Mario and Zenaida returned to the Philippines and lived in the same house, opened a joint bank account
with PNB
● Contract to sell was executed between a real estate corporation on one hand, and as the contract read, “Sps.
Mario Biascan and Zenaida Biascan” on the other
● Legal wife Gloria filed a complaint against Zenaida, claiming among others, that the use of “Biascan” is a
usurpation of surname under Article 377 of the Civil Code, so that Gloria was entitled to damages

ISSUE: Is concubine Zenaida liable to legal wife Gloria for usurpation of the surname of Mario?

HELD: No!
● The mere use of a surname cannot be enjoined!
● What gives rise to damages: The use coupled with the representation that one is the lawful wife / the
usurpation of the wife’s status

Moreover:
● Elements of confusion of identity between the owner and usurper:
a. Actual use of another’s name by the defendant
b. Use is unauthorized, and
c. Use of another’s name is to designate personality / identity of the person
● Gloria did not claim that Zenaida attempted to impersonate her.
● And trial court found that Mario allowed Zenaida to use his surname.

14 SISON

FACTS:
● Defendant filed for a petition for bond alleging among others that the movants therein object to the urgent
petition ex-parte on the ground that the property to be sold herein is one of the few properties inherited
from Margarita David which is not encumbered, and that Priscila Estate Inc is operating on overdraft, which
is the reason why these properties are to be sold.
● Plaintiff alleged in this complaint that such averment was made with malice and evident intent to put him in
ridicule, for defendant knew him to the president of Priscila Estate, Inc.
● And that by the statements therein, defendant implied which clear malevolence and malignity that plaintiff
is incompetent and unfit to manage the affairs of Priscila Estate

ISSUE: WON a civil case for libel or slander may arise from contents of the petition for bond

HELD:
● NO
● A Petition for Bond is an absolutely privileged communication.

41
 ● In an absolutely privileged communication, proof of “actual malice” does not affect the exemption attached
to it, provided that in case of judicial proceedings, the derogatory statements are pertinent, relevant or
related to or connected with the subject matter of the communication involved.
● Hence, Petition for bond is absolutely privileged and no civil action for libel and slander may arise
therefrom, unless the contents of the petition are irrelevant to the subject matter thereof.

15 ALFREDO
● Atty. Malit was counsel of Ruth Fernandez in an administrative case filed against her by Dr. Macaspac
● At the hearing of the case, Dr. Macaspac identified exhibits on the witness stand
● Atty. Malit asked Dr. Macaspac if she knew the person who made a certain exhibit
● Dr. Macaspac said she did not understand the word “made”.
● Atty. Malit explained but Dr. Macaspac did not answer. Dr. Macaspac made a clarification
● Atty. Malit said, “I doubt how did you become a doctor”
● Dr. Macaspac instituted a complaint for slander
● Issue: W/N Atty. Malit is guilty of slander
● No!
● Parties, counsel and witnesses are exempted from liability in libel or slander cases for words otherwise
defamatory, uttered or published in the course of judicial proceedings as long as pertinent or relevant to the
case
● Dr. Macaspac would not answer the question so Atty. Malit was prompted to say what he said
● The privilege is granted in aid and for the advantage of the administration of justice

1 PRO LINE
FACTS:
● Proline is the exclusive distributor of “Spalding” sports products in the PH
● Edwin Buncio, General Manager of Proline, sent a letter complaint to NBI regarding the alleged manufacture
of fake Spalding products by respondent Universal.
● Some 1200 basketballs and volleyballs marked Spalding were seized and confiscated by the NBI
● Meanwhile, a criminal complaint for unfair competition was filed against respondents
● After the prosecution rested its case, respondents filed a demurer to evidence which was granted by the
RTC
● Thereafter, respondents filed a civil case againt Proline and Questor (owner of Spalding) for malicious
prosecution
ISSUE
● WON Proline and Questor are guilty of malicious prosecution
HELD
● No
● The complainants were unable to prove two essential elements of the crime of malicious prosecution,
namely: absence of probable cause and legal malice on the part of petitioners
● The existence of probable cause is derivable from the facts and circumstances of the case.
● The affidavit of Lacanaria, former employee of respondent Universal, attesting to the illegal sale and
manufacture of Spalding products was sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant the prosecution of private
respondent.

2 SERGIO

FACTS:
● Sergio Amonoy was counsel for the respondents in a previous case involving the partition of estate.
● The attorney’s fees amounted to 27K which necessitated a mortgage on 2 lots.
● The lots were foreclosed when the attorney’s fees were not paid.
● One of the 2 lots sold in the public auction was the lot on which the respondent Gutierrez spouses had their
house.
● Respondent spouses filed a case to annul the sale. It was decided in favor of the spouses when it reached the
SC.
● However, by the time the SC promulgated the decision, the house of the spouses was already destroyed by
virtue of a Writ of Demolition issued by the lower court.
● Respondents filed a complaint for damages against Amonoy.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is liable for damages

42

HELD: YES
● Well-settled is the maxim that damage resulting from the legitimate exercise of a person’s rights is a loss
without injury—damnum absque injuria—for which the law gives no remedy [One who merely exercises
one’s rights does no actionable injury and cannot be held liable for damages.]
● Damnum absque injuria is not applicable in the present case.
● Although there was a Writ of Demolition issued, there was also a TRO issued by the SC enjoining the
demolition of the respondents’ house. Based on the Certificate of Service, a copy of the TRO was served on
petitioner himself.
● The continuation of the demolition after the issuance of the TRO amounted to insidious abuse of right. His
acts are tainted with bad faith. There was unlawful exercise of right.

3 ROGELIO

FACTS:
● Catalan filed a complaint against Mariscal for the annulment of their marriage on the ground that it was void
ab initio for having been solemnized without a valid marriage license and for being bigamous.
● Two days later, Mariscal filed his own complaint against Bella on the ground that he was forced to marry her
at gunpoint and that they had no valid license.

ISSUE:
● W/N there is litis pendentia

HELD:
● YES. The following are the requisites for litis pendentia: (a) identity of parties, or at least such as
representing the same interest in both actions, (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief
being founded on the same facts, and (c) identity in two cases should be such that the judgment that may be
rendered in the pending case would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata.
● The first two requisites are present. The parties involved in civil case Iloilo are the same in Digos. The
actions in both fora are based on the same set of facts that gave rise to the uniformity of principal reliefs, the
ultimate dissolution of marriage.
● Mariscal has raised the issue of force, violence, intimidation, threats and strategy before Iloilo. He cannot
deny the issues as well as arguments raised are identical.
● Any decision of RTC Iloilo will necessarily constitute res judicata before RTC Digos and vice-versa.

43