CASE DIGESTS IN TORTS AND

DAMAGES

Submitted by:
Valdez, Nikki Maxine Q.
2017-0488

Submitted to:
Atty. Engelbert Caronan
 PHILIPPINE RABBIT LINES, INC., vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 147703 I April 14, 2004

FACTS
Napoleon Roman was found guilty and convicted of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting
to triple homicide, multiple physical injuries and damage to property and was sentenced to
suffer imprisonment and to pay damages. The court further ruled that in the event of the
insolvency of accused, petitioner shall be liable for the civil liabilities of the accused. Evidently,
the judgment against accused had become final and executory.

Admittedly, accused had jumped bail and remained at-large. The CA ruled that the institution
of a criminal case implied the institution also of the civil action arising from the offense. Thus,
once determined in the criminal case against the accused-employee, the employer’s subsidiary
civil liability as set forth in Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code becomes conclusive and
enforceable.

ISSUE
Whether or not employer is responsible

RULING
Yes. Article 102 of the Revised Penal Code states the subsidiary civil liabilities of innkeepers,
as follows:
In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or
corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases
where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall
have been committed by them or their employees.

Innkeepers are also subsidiary liable for restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within
their houses from guests lodging therein, or for payment of the value thereof, provided that
such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing
him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the
directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the
care and vigilance over such goods.No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeepers employees.

Moreover, the foregoing subsidiary liability applies to employers, according to Article 103
which reads:

The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers,
teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by
their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.
 PACIS vs MORALES
G.R. No. 169467 I February 25, 2010

FACTS

On January 19, 1991, Alfred Dennis Pacis, then 17 years old and a first year student at the
Baguio Colleges Foundation taking up BS Computer Science, died due to a gunshot wound in
the head which he sustained while he was at the Top Gun Firearm[s] and Ammunition[s] Store
located at Upper Mabini Street, Baguio City. The gun store was owned and operated by
defendant Jerome Jovanne Morales.

With Alfred Pacis at the time of the shooting were Aristedes Matibag and Jason Herbolario.
They were sales agents of the defendant, and at that particular time, the caretakers of the gun
store.

The bullet which killed Alfred Dennis Pacis was fired from a gun brought in by a customer of
the gun store for repair.

The gun, an AMT Automag II Cal. 22 Rimfire Magnum with Serial No. SN-H34194, was left
by defendant Morales in a drawer of a table located inside the gun store.

Morales was in Manila at the time. His employee Armando Jarnague, who was the regular
caretaker of the gun store was also not around. He left earlier and requested sales agents
Matibag and Herbolario to look after the gun store while he and defendant Morales were away.
Jarnague entrusted to Matibag and Herbolario a bunch of keys used in the gun store which
included the key to the drawer where the fatal gun was kept.

It appears that Matibag and Herbolario later brought out the gun from the drawer and placed it
on top of the table. Attracted by the sight of the gun, the young Alfred Dennis Pacis got hold
of the same. Matibag asked Alfred Dennis Pacis to return the gun. The latter followed and
handed the gun to Matibag. It went off, the bullet hitting the young Alfred in the head.

A criminal case for homicide was filed against Matibag, however, was acquitted of the charge
against him because of the exempting circumstance of accident under Art. 12, par. 4 of the
Revised Penal Code.

ISSUE

Whether or not Morales may be held responsible for the death of Pacis

RULING

Yes. As a gun store owner, respondent is presumed to be knowledgeable about firearms safety
and should have known never to keep a loaded weapon in his store to avoid unreasonable risk
of harm or injury to others. Respondent has the duty to ensure that all the guns in his store are
not loaded. Firearms should be stored unloaded and separate from ammunition when the
firearms are not needed for ready-access defensive use. With more reason, guns accepted by
the store for repair should not be loaded precisely because they are defective and may cause an
accidental discharge such as what happened in this case. Respondent was clearly negligent
when he accepted the gun for repair and placed it inside the drawer without ensuring first that
it was not loaded. In the first place, the defective gun should have been stored in a vault. Before
accepting the defective gun for repair, respondent should have made sure that it was not loaded
to prevent any untoward accident. Indeed, respondent should never accept a firearm from
another person, until the cylinder or action is open and he has personally checked that the
weapon is completely unloaded. For failing to insure that the gun was not loaded, respondent
himself was negligent. Furthermore, it was not shown in this case whether respondent had a
License to Repair which authorizes him to repair defective firearms to restore its original
composition or enhance or upgrade firearms.
Clearly, 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.
 AIRFRANCE vs CARRASCOSO
G.R. No. L-21438 I September 28, 1966

FACTS

In March 1958, Rafael Carrascoso and several other Filipinos were tourists en route to Rome
from Manila. Carrascoso was issued a first class round trip ticket by Air France. But during a
stop-over in Bangkok, he was asked by the plane manager of Air France to vacate his seat
because a white man allegedly has a “better right” than him. Carrascoso protested but when
things got heated and upon advise of other Filipinos on board, Carrascoso gave up his seat and
was transferred to the plane’s tourist class.
After their tourist trip when Carrascoso was already in the Philippines, he sued Air France for
damages for the embarrassment he suffered during his trip. In court, Carrascoso testified,
among others, that he when he was forced to take the tourist class, he went to the plane’s pantry
where he was approached by a plane purser who told him that he noted in the plane’s journal
the following:

First- class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will, and the captain
refused to intervene.

The said testimony was admitted in favor of Carrascoso. The trial court eventually awarded
damages in favor of Carrascoso. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Air France is assailing the decision of the trial court and the CA. It avers that the issuance of a
first class ticket to Carrascoso was not an assurance that he will be seated in first class because
allegedly in truth and in fact, that was not the true intent between the parties.
Air France also questioned the admissibility of Carrascoso’s testimony regarding the note made
by the purser because the said note was never presented in court.

ISSUE

Whether or not Air France is liable for damages and on what basis

RULING

Yes. It appears that Air France’s liability is based on culpa-contractual and on culpa aquiliana.
There exists a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso. There was a contract to
furnish Carrasocoso a first class passage; Second, That said contract was breached when Air
France failed to furnish first class transportation at Bangkok; and Third, that there was bad faith
when Air France’s employee compelled Carrascoso to leave his first class accommodation
berth “after he was already, seated” and to take a seat in the tourist class, by reason of which
he suffered inconvenience, embarrassments and humiliations, thereby causing him mental
anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social humiliation, resulting in moral
damages.The Supreme Court did not give credence to Air France’s claim that the issuance of
a first class ticket to a passenger is not an assurance that he will be given a first class seat. Such
claim is simply incredible.
SC ruled, even though there is a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso, there
is also a tortuous act based on culpa aquiliana. Passengers do not contract merely for
transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carrier’s employees with kindness, respect,
courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against personal misconduct,
injurious language, indignities and abuses from such employees. So it is, that any rule or
discourteous conduct on the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action
for damages against the carrier. Air France’s contract with Carrascoso is one attended with
public duty. The stress of Carrascoso’s action is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This is a
violation of public duty by the Air France — a case of quasi-delict. Damages are proper.
 RAMOS vs COURT OF APPEALS
GR No. 124354 I December 29, 1999

FACTS

Plaintiff Erlinda Ramos was, until the afternoon of June 17, 1985 a 47-year old robust woman.
Except for occasional complaints of discomfort due to pains allegedly caused by presence of a
stone in her gall bladder, she was as normal as any other woman. Married to Rogelio Ramos,
an executive of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT), she has three children
whose names are Rommel, Roy Roderick, and Ron Raymond. Because of the discomforts
somehow interfered with her normal ways, she sough professional advice. She was told to
undergo an operation for the removal of a stone in her gall bladder. She underwent series of
examination which revealed that she was fit for the said surgery. Through the intercession of a
mutual friend, she and her husband met Dr. Osaka for the first time and she was advised by Dr.
Osaka to go under the operation called cholecystectomy and the same was agreed to be
scheduled on June 17,1985 at 9:00am at the Delos Santos Medical Center. Rogelio asked Dr.
Osaka to look for a good anesthesiologist to which the latter agreed to. A day before the
scheduled operation, she was admitted at the hospital and on the day of the operation, Erlinda’s
sister was with her insider the operating room. Dr. Osaka arrived at the hospital late, Dr.
Guttierez, the anesthesiologist, started to intubate Erlina when Herminda heard her say that
intubating Erlinda is quite difficult and there were complications. This prompt Dr. Osaka to
order a call to another anesthesiologist, Dr. Caldron who successfully intubated Erlina. The
patient’s nails became bluish and the patient was placed in a trendelenburg position. After the
operation, Erlina was diagnosed to be suffering from diffuse cerebral parenchymal damage and
that the petitioner alleged that this was due to lack of oxygen supply to Erlinda’s brain which
resulted from the intubation.

ISSUE

Whether or not the doctors and the hospital are liable for damages against petitioner for the
result to Erlinda of the said operation.

RULING

Yes. The private respondents were unable to disprove the presumption of negligence on their
part in the care of Erlinda and their negligence was the proximate case of her piteous condition.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that the scope of res ipsa liquitor has been measurably enlarged,
it does not automatically follow that it apply to all cases of medical negligence as to
mechanically shift the burden of proof to the defendant to show that he is not guilty of the
ascribed negligence. Res ipsa liquitor is not a rigid or ordinary doctrine to be perfunctorily used
but a rule to be cautiously applied, depending upon the circumstances of each case. It 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 liquitor can
have no application in a suit against a physician or surgeon which involves the merits of a
diagnosis or of a scientific treatment.
CASTILEX INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION vs VICENTE VASQUEZ, JR. and LUISA
SO VASQUEZ, and CEBU DOCTORS' HOSPITAL, INC.
G.R. No. 132266 I December 21, 1999

FACTS

At around 1:30 to 2:00 in the morning, Romeo So Vasquez (son of respondents Vicente and
Luisa Vasquez), was driving a Honda motorcycle around Fuente Osmeña Rotunda. He was
traveling counter-clockwise, (the normal flow of traffic in a rotunda) but without any protective
helmet or goggles. He was also only carrying a Student's Permit to Drive at the time.

Benjamin ABAD was a manager of petitioner CASTILEX Industrial Corporation, registered

owner of a Toyota Hi-Lux Pick-up with plate no. GBW-794. ABAD drove the said company
car out of a parking lot but instead of going around the Osmeña rotunda he made a short cut
against [the] flow of the traffic in proceeding to his route to General Maxilom St.

In the process, the motorcycle of Vasquez and the pick-up of ABAD collided with each other
causing severe injuries to the former. ABAD brought Vasquez to CEBU DOCTORS'
HOSPITAL where he died.

A Criminal Case was filed against ABAD but which was subsequently dismissed for failure to
prosecute. An action for damages was then commenced by respondents against ABAD and
petitioner CASTILEX

Trial court ruled in favor of private respondents and ordered ABAD and to pay jointly and
solidarily respondents

Petitioner CASTILEX and ABAD separately appealed the decision.

Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court holding ABAD and petitioner
CASTILEX liable but held that the liability of the latter is "only vicarious and not solidary"
with the former.

Hence, CASTILEX filed the instant petition.

ISSUE

Whether an employer may be held vicariously liable for the death resulting from the negligent
operation by a managerial employee of a company-issued vehicle

RULING

Yes. Both provisions apply to employers: the fourth paragraph, to owners and managers of an
establishment or enterprise; and the fifth paragraph, to employers in general, whether or not
engaged in any business or industry.
The fourth paragraph covers negligent acts of employees committed either in the service of the
branches or on the occasion of their functions, while the fifth paragraph encompasses negligent
acts of employees acting within the scope of their assigned task.
The latter is an expansion of the former in both employer coverage and acts included.
Negligent acts of employees, whether or not the employer is engaged in a business or industry,
are covered so long as they were acting within the scope of their assigned task, even though
committed neither in the service of the branches nor on the occasion of their functions
Under the fifth paragraph of Article 2180, whether or not engaged in any business or industry,
an employer is liable for the torts committed by employees within the scope of his assigned
tasks
But it is necessary to establish the employer-employee relationship; once this is done, the
plaintiff must show, to hold the employer liable, that the employee was acting within the scope
of his assigned task when the tort complained of was committed.