torts cases second batch

8/9/2019 Torts Cases Second Batch

1/63

TORTS & DAMAGES 2ND BATCH CASES

G.R. No. 77679 September 30, 1987

VICENTE VERGARA, petitioner,vs.THE COURT OF A EA!S "#$ A%A&EO A'ARCON, respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

A&I!!A, J.:

An action for damages based on q asi!de"ict #Art. $1%& of t'e (ivi" (ode) *as +"ed b privaterespondent against petitioner. T'e action arose from a ve'ic "ar accident t'at occ rred on -A g st 1 % in /apan, N eva Eci0a, *'en artin 2e"monte, *'i"e driving a cargo tr c3 be"ongingto petitioner, rammed 4'ead!on4 t'e store!residence of t'e private respondent, ca sing damagest'ereto *'ic' *ere inventoried and assessed at 5-6,7$8.$$.

In 'is ans*er to t'e comp"aint, t'e petitioner a""eged principa"" 9 4t'at 'is driver artin 2e"monteoperated said cargo tr c3 in a ver di"igent #and) caref " manner: t'at t'e steering *'ee" ref sedto respond to 'is e;ort and as a res "t of a b"o*n!o t tire and despite app"ication of 'is bra3es, t'esaid cargo tr c3 'it t'e store!residence of p"ainti; #private respondent) and t'at t'e said accident*as an act of /od for *'ic' 'e cannot be 'e"d "i ab"e.4 1

5etitioner a"so +"ed a t'ird part comp"aint against Trave""ers Ins rance and S ret (orporation,a""eging t'at said cargo tr c3 invo"ved in t'e ve'ic "ar accident, be"onging to t'e petitioner, *asins red b t'e t'ird part defendant ins rance compan . 5etitioner as3ed t'at t'e "atter beordered to pa 'im *'atever amo nt 'e ma be ordered b t'e co rt to pa to t'e privaterespondent.

T'e tria" co rt rendered 0 dgment in favor of private respondent. Upon appea" to t'e (o rt of Appea"s, t'e "atter co rt as fees and t'e costs.On t'e t'ird part comp"aint, t'e ins rance compan *as sentenced to pa to t'e petitioner t'efo""o*ing9 #a) 5-7,777.77 for t'ird part "iabi"it nder its compre'ensive accident ins rance po"ic :and #b) 56,777.77 for and as attorne >s fees.

?ence, t'is petition for revie* on certiorari.

5etitioner>s contention t'at t'e respondent co rt erred in +nding 'im g i"t of fa "t or neg"igence isnot tenab"e. It *as estab"is'ed b competent evidence t'at t'e req isites of a q asi!de"ict arepresent in t'e case at bar. T'ese req isites are9 #1) damages to t'e p"ainti;: #$) neg"igence, b act

or omission, of *'ic' defendant, or some person for *'ose acts 'e m st respond, *as g i"t : and#6) t'e connection of ca se and e;ect bet*een s c' neg"igence and t'e damages.

It is ndisp ted t'at private respondent s ;ered damages as a res "t of an act or omission opetitioner. T'e iss e of *'et'er or not t'is act or omission can be considered as a 4neg"igent4 actor omission *as passed pon b t'e tria" co rt. T'e +ndings of said co rt, as fees and cost

ntenab"e.

A((OR IN/LB, t'e petition is ENIE .

SO OR ERE .

G.R. No. 118889 %"r)* (3, 1998

FGU INSURANCE COR ORATION, petitioner,vs.COURT OF A EA!S, FI!CAR TRANS ORT, INC., "#$ FORTUNE INSURANCECOR ORATION, respondents.

+E!!OSI!!O, J.:


2/63


@or damages s ;ered b a t'ird part , ma an action based on quasi-delict

prosper against a rent!a!car compan and, conseq ent" , its ins rer for fa "t or neg"igence of t'e car "essee in driving t'erented ve'ic"eC

T'is *as a t*o!car co""ision at da*n. At aro nd 6 o>c"oc3 of $1 Apri" 1 D%, t*o #$) ve'ic"es, bot'its bis'i (o"t Lancers, cr ising nort'*ard a"ong Epifanio de "os Santos Aven e, anda" ong

(it , +g red in a tras "icense. 1

As a conseq ence, petitioner @/U Ins rance (orporation, in vie* of its ins rance contract *it'Soriano, paid t'e "atter 5$-,6D$.$7. 2 *a of s brogation, ( it s ed a'"! ensen and respondent@IL(AR as *e"" as respondent @ort ne Ins rance (orporation #@ORTUNE) as ins rer of @IL(ARfor

quasi-delict before t'e Regiona" Tria" (o rt of a3ati (it .

Unfort nate" , s mmons *as not served on a'"! ensen since 'e *as no "onger sta ing at 'isgiven address: in fact, pon motion of petitioner, 'e *as dropped from t'e comp"aint.

On 67 " 1 1 t'e tria" co rt dismissed t'e case for fai" re of petitioner to s bstantiate its c"aimof s brogation. 3

On 61 an ar 1 - respondent (o rt of Appea"s as comp"aint. T'e pertinent provision is Art. $1%& of t'e (ivi" (ode *'ic' states94Whoever by act or omission c auses damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obligedto pay for the damage done . uch fault or negligence, if there is no pre-e!isting contractualrelation bet"een the parties, is called a quasi-delict

. . . . 4

To s stain a c"aim based t'ereon, t'e fo""o*ing req isites m st conc r9 #a) damage s ;ered b t'ep"ainti;: #b) fa "t or neg"igence of t'e defendant: and, #c) connection of ca se and e;ect bet*eent'e fa "t or neg"igence of t'e defendant and t'e damage inc rred b t'e p"ainti;. 6

Fe agree *it' respondent co rt t'at petitioner fai"ed to prove t'e e=istence of t'e secondreq isite, i.e ., fa "t or neg"igence of defendant @IL(AR, beca se on" t'e fa "t or neg"igence of

a'"! ensen *as s s or omissions, b t a"so for t'ose of persons for *'om one is responsib"e.

T'e fat'er and, in case of 'is deat' or incapacit , t'e mot'er, are responsib"e fort'e damages ca sed b t'e minor c'i"dren *'o "ive in t'eir compan .

/ ardians are "iab"e for damages ca sed b t'e minors or incapacitated per*'o are nder t'eir a t'orit and "ive in t'eir compan .

T'e o*ners and managers of an estab"is'ment or enterprise are "i3responsib"e for damages ca sed b t'eir emp"o ees in t'e service of t'e brancin *'ic' t'e "atter are emp"o ed or on t'e occasion of t'eir f nctions.

Emp"o ers s'a"" be "iab"e for t'e damages ca sed b t'eir emp"o e'o se'o"d 'e"pers acting *it'in t'e scope of t'eir assigned tas3s, even t'o g' t'eformer are not engaged in an b siness or ind str .

T'e State is responsib"e in "i3e manner *'en it acts t'ro g' a specia" agent: bnot *'en t'e damage 'as been ca sed b t'e o


3/63


s c', t'ere *as no vinculum #uris bet*een t'em as emp"o er and emp"o ee. Respondent @IL(ARcannot in an *a be responsib"e for t'e neg"igent act of a'"! ensen, t'e former not being anemp"o er of t'e "atter.

Fe no* corre"ate par. - of Art. $1D7 *it' Art. $1D8 of t'e same (ode *'ic' provides9 4 In motor vehicle mishap, the o"ner is solidarily liable "ith his driver, if the former, "ho "as in the vehicle,could have by the use of due diligence, prevented the misfortune . . . . If the o"ner "as not in themotor vehicle, the provisions of article $%&' are applicable .4 Obvio s" , t'is provision of Art. $1D8is neit'er app"icab"e beca se of t'e absence of master!driver re"ations'ip bet*een respondent

@IL(AR and a'"! ensen. ("ear" , petitioner 'as no ca se of action against respondent @IL(AR ont'e basis of quasi-delict

: "ogica"" , its c"aim against respondent @ORTUNE can neit'er prosper.

5etitioner>s insistence on B(!Agro!Ind stria" (orporation is rooted in a misappre'ension of o rr "ing t'erein. In t'at case, t'e neg"igent and rec3"ess operation of t'e tr c3 o*ned b petitionercorporation ca sed in0 ries to severa" persons and damage to propert . Intending to e=c "pateitse"f from "iabi"it , t'e corporation raised t'e defense t'at at t'e time of t'e co""ision it 'ad nomore contro" over t'e ve'ic"e as it *as "eased to anot'er: and, t'at t'e driver *as not itsemp"o ee b t of t'e "essee. T'e tria" co rt *as not pers aded as it fo nd t'at t'e tr e nat re of t'e a""eged "ease contract *as not'ing more t'an a disg ise e;ected b t'e corporation to re"ieveitse"f of t'e b rdens and responsibi"ities of an emp"o er. Fe p'e"d t'is +nding and a


4/63


5/63


On t'e ot'er 'and, nder Artic"e $1%& in re"ation to Artic"e $1D7 G$8H of t'e (ivi" (ode, an actionpredicated on q asi de"ict ma be instit ted against t'e emp"o er for an emp"o eeKs act oromission. T'e "iabi"it for t'e neg"igent cond ct of t'e s bordinate is direct and primary, b t iss b0ect to t'e defense of d e di"igence in t'e se"ection and s pervision of t'e emp"o ee. G$-H T'eenforcement of t'e 0 dgment against t'e emp"o er for an action based on Artic"e $1%& does notreq ire t'e emp"o ee to be inso"vent, since t'e "iabi"it of t'e former is solidary !! t'e "atter beingstat tori" considered a 0oint tortfeasor. G$&H To s stain a c"aim based on q asi de"ict, t'e fo""o*ingreq isites m st be proven9 #a) damage s ;ered b t'e p"ainti;, #b) fa "t or neg"igence of t'edefendant, and #c) connection of ca se and e;ect bet*een t'e fa "t or neg"igence of t'edefendant and t'e damage inc rred b t'e p"ainti; . G$%H

T'ese t*o ca ses of action # e! delicto or e! quasi delicto ) ma be avai"ed of, s b0ect to t'ecaveat G$DH t'at t'e o;ended part cannot Jrecover damages t*ice for t'e same act or omission or

nder bot' ca ses. G$ H Since t'ese t*o civi" "iabi"ities are distinct and independent of eac' ot'er,t'e fai" re to recover in one *i"" not necessari" prec" de recover in t'e ot'er. G67H

In t'e instant case, respondents !! 'aving fai"ed to recover an t'ing in t'e crimina" case !!e"ected to +"e a separate civi" action for damages, based on q asi de"ict nder Artic"e $1%& of t'e(ivi" (ode. G61H T'e evidence is c"ear t'at t'e deat's and t'e in0 ries s ;ered b respondents andt'eir 3ins *ere d e to t'e fa "t of t'e driver of t'e @ so tractor.

ated ne 8, 1 1, t 'e Lease Agreement G6$H bet*een petitioner and Ed*in Limstip "ated t 'at Jit is t 'e intention of t 'e parties to enter into a @INAN(E LEASEA/REE ENT. G66H Under s c' sc'eme, o*ners'ip of t'e s b0ect tractor *as to be registered in t'ename of petitioner, nti" t'e va" e of t'e ve'ic"e 'as been f "" paid b Ed*in Lim. G68H @ rt'er, int'e JLease Sc'ed "e, G6-H t'e mont'" renta" for t'e tractor *as stip "ated, and t'e term of t'eLease *as sc'ed "ed to e=pire on ecember 8, 1 $. After a fe* mont's, Lim comp"eted t'epa ments to cover t'e f "" price of t'e tractor. G6&H T' s, on ecember , 1 $, a eed of Sa"e G6%H over t'e tractor *as e=ec ted b petitioner in favor of Ecatine represented b Ed*inLim. ?o*ever, t'e eed *as not registered *it' t'e LTO.

Fe 'o"d petitioner "iab"e for t'e deat's and t'e in0 ries comp"ained of, beca se it *as t'eregistered o*ner of t'e tractor at t'e time of t'e accident on " 1%, 1 8. G6DH T'e (o rt 'asconsistent" r "ed t'at, regard"ess of sa"es made of a motor ve'ic"e, t'e registered o*ner is t'e"a*f " operator insofar as t'e p b"ic and t'ird persons are concerned: conseq ent" , it is direct"and primari" responsib"e for t'e conseq ences of its operation. G6 H In contemp"ation of "a*, t'eo*ner operator of record is t'e emp"o er of t'e driver, t'e act a" operator and emp"o er beingconsidered as mere" its agent .G87H T'e same princip"e app"ies even if t'e registered o*ner of anve'ic"e does not se it for p b"ic service. G81H

Since Eq itab"e remained t'e registered o*ner of t'e tractor, it co "d not escape primar"iabi"it for t'e deat's and t'e in0 ries arising f rom t'e neg"igence of t'e driver. G8$H

T'e +nance!"ease agreement bet*een Eq itab"e on t'e one 'and and Lim or Ecatine on t'eot'er 'as a"read been s perseded b t'e sa"e. In an event, it does not bind t'ird persons. T'erationa"e for t'is r "e 'as been apt" e=p"ained in )re*o v+ epte ,G86H *'ic' *e q ote 'ere nder9

J= = =. T'e main aim of motor ve'ic"e registration is to identif t'e o*ner so t'at if an accident'appens, or t'at an damage or in0 r is ca sed b t'e ve'ic"e on t'e p b"ic 'ig'*a sresponsibi"it t'erefor can be +=ed on a de+nite individ a", t'e registered o*ner. Instances aren mero s *'ere ve'ic"es r nning on p b"ic 'ig'*a s ca sed accidents or in0 ries to pedestriansor ot'er ve'ic"es *it'o t positive identi+cation of t'e o*ner or drivers, or *it' ver scant means of identi+cation. I t is to foresta"" t'ese circ mstances, so inconvenient or pre0 dicia" to t'e p bt'at t'e motor ve'ic"e registration is primari" ordained, in t'e interest of t'e determination of persons responsib"e for damages or in0 ries ca sed on p b"ic 'ig'*a s. G88H

@ rt'er, petitionerKs insistence on ./ Insurance Corp+ v+ Court of AppeaG8-H irst, in ./ Insurance , t'e registered ve'ic"e o*ner, *'ic' *as engaged in a rent!b siness, rented o t t'e car. In t'is case, t'e registered o*ner of t'e tr c3, *'ic' is engaged int'e b siness of +nancing motor ve'ic"e acq isitions, 'as act a"" so"d t'e tr c3 to Ecatine, *'ic' int rn emp"o ed T tor. econd , in ./ Insurance, t'e registered o*ner of t'e ve'ic"e *responsib"e for t'e neg"igent acts of t'e person *'o rented one of its cars, beca se Artic"e $1D7 of t'e (ivi" (ode *as not app"icab"e. Fe 'e"d t'at no vinculum #uris as empe=isted bet*een t'e o*ner and t'e driver. G8&H In t'is case, t'e registered o*ner of t'considered nder t'e "a* to be t'e emp"o er of t'e driver, *'i"e t'e act a" operator is deemed tobe its agent .G8%H T' s, Eq itab"e, t'e registered o*ner of t'e tractor, is !! for p rposes of t'e "a* oq asi de"ict !! t'e emp"o er of Ra " T tor, t'e driver of t'e tractor. Ecatine, T torKs aemp"o er, is deemed as mere" an agent of Eq itab"e. G8DH

Tr e, t'e LTO (erti+cate of Registration, dated J- 61 1, q a"i+es t'e name of t'e registereo*ner as JE UITA2LE LEASIN/ (OR5ORATION Leased to Ed*in Lim. 2 t t'e "ease agrebet*een Eq itab"e and Lim 'as been overta3en b t'e eed of Sa"e on ecember , 1bet*een petitioner and Ecatine. F'i"e t'is eed does not a;ect respondents in t'is q aside"ict s it, it de+nite" binds petitioner beca se, n"i3e t'em, it is a part to it.

Fe m st stress t'at t'e fai" re of Eq itab"e and or Ecatine to register t'e sa"e *it' t'e LTOs'o "d not pre0 dice respondents, *'o 'ave t'e "ega" rig't to re" on t'e "ega" princip"e t'at t'eregistered ve'ic"e o*ner is "iab"e for t'e damages ca sed b t'e neg"igence of driver. 5etitioner cannot 'ide be'ind its a""egation t'at T tor *as t'e emp"o ee of Ecatine. T'is*i"" e;ective" prevent respondents from recovering t'eir "osses on t'e basis of t'e inaction orfa "t of petitioner in fai"ing to register t'e sa"e. T'e non!registration is t'e fa "t of petitioner, *'ic's'o "d t' s face t'e "ega" conseq ences t'ereof.

Se)o#$ I55 e

Moral Damages

5etitioner f rt'er c"aims t'at it is not "iab"e for mora" damages, beca se respondents fai"ed

estab"is' or s'o* t'e ca sa" connection or re"ation bet*een t'e fact a" basis of t'eir c"aim andt'eir *rongf " act or omission, if an . G8 H
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn49


6/63


ora" damages are not p nitive in nat re, b t are designed to compensate G-7H and a""eviate insome *a t'e p' sica" s ;ering, menta" ang is', frig't, serio s an=iet , besmirc'ed rep tation,*o nded fee"ings, mora" s'oc3, socia" ' mi"iation, and simi"ar in0 r n0 st" ca sed a person.G-1H A"t'o g' incapab"e of pec niar comp tation, mora" damages m st nevert'e"ess be some'o*proportiona" to and in appro=imation of t'e s ;ering inPicted. G-$H T'is is so beca se mora" damagesare in t'e categor of an a*ard designed to compensate t'e c"aimant for act a" i n0 r s ;ered, notto impose a pena"t on t'e *rongdoer. G-6H

ie*ed as an action for q asi de"ict, t'e present case fa""s sq are" *it'in t'e p rvie* of

Artic"e $$1 #$),G-8H

*'ic' provides for t'e pa ment of mora" damages in cases of q asi de"ict.G--H ?aving estab"is'ed t'e "iabi"it of petitioner as t'e registered o*ner of t'e ve'ic"e,G-&H respondents 'ave satisfactori" s'o*n t'e e=istence of t'e fact a" basis for t'e a*ard G-%H and itsca sa" connection to t'e acts of Ra " T tor, *'o is deemed as petitionerKs emp"o ee. G-DH Indeed, t'edamages and in0 ries s ;ered b respondents *ere t'e pro=imate res "t of petitionerKs tortio s actor omission. G- H

@ rt'er, no proof of pec niar "oss is necessar in order t'at mora" damages ma be a*arded,t'e amo nt of indemnit being "eft to t'e discretion of t'e co rt. G&7H T'e evidence gives no gro ndfor do bt t'at s c' discretion *as proper" and 0 dicio s" e=ercised b t'e tria" co rt. G&1H T'ea*ard is in fact consistent *it' t'e r "e t'at mora" damages are not intended to enric' t'e in0 redpart , b t to a""eviate t'e mora" s ;ering ndergone b t'at part b reason of t'e defendantKsc "pab"e action .G&$H

;HEREFORE, t'e 5etition is 0)1I)0 and t'e assai"ed ecision A I2M)0+ (osts againstpetitioner.

SO OR&ERE&.

G.R. No. !s otion for Reconsideration t'ereof, 'aving been denied on A g st 1 %7, 1 petitioner e"evated t'e matter on certiorari to t'e (o rt of @irst Instance of (erespondent dge presiding, on September 11, 1 %7, a""eging t'at t'e (it dge 'ad acted *it'grave ab se of discretion in s spending t'e civi" action for being contrar to "a*

0 rispr dence. (

On November -, 1 %7, respondent dge dismissed t'e 5etition for certiorari on t'e gro nd t'at'ere *as no grave ab se of discretion on t'e part of t'e (it (o rt in s spending t'e civi" actioninasm c' as damage to propert is not one of t'e instances *'en an independent civi" action isproper: t'at petitioner 'as anot'er p"ain, speed , and adeq ate remed nder t'e "a*, *'ic' is tos bmit 'is c"aim for damages in t'e crimina" case: t'at t'e reso" tion of t'e (it (o rt isinter"oc tor and, t'erefore, certiorari is improper: and t'at t'e 5etition is defective inasm c' as*'at petitioner act a"" desires is a Frit of mandam s #Anne= 4R4). 5etitioner>s otionReconsideration *as denied b respondent dge in an Order dated November 18,1 %7 #Anne= and Anne= 4U4).

?ence, t'is 5etition for Revie* before t'is Trib na", to *'ic' *e gave d e co rse on @ebr ar $-,1 %1. 3

5etitioner ma3es t'ese9

ASSI/N ENTS O@ ERROR

1. T?E TRIAL (OURT, RES5ON ENT U /E ATEO (ANONOB, ERRE T?AT T?E TRIAL O@ T?E (I IL (ASE NO. 1D @ILE IN T?E (
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/143360.htm#_edn62


7/63


AN AUE S?OUL 2E SUS5EN E UNTIL A@TER A @INAL U / ENT IS REN EREIN T?E (RI INAL (ASE.

$. T?AT T?E (OURT ERRE IN ?OL IN/ T?AT IN OR ER TO A OI ELAB T?EO@@EN E 5ARTB AB SU2 IT ?IS (LAI @OR A A/ES IN T?E (RI INAL (ASE.

6. T?AT T?E (OURT ERRE IN ?OL IN/ T?AT T?E 5ETITION @OR certiorari IS NOT5RO5ER, 2E(AUSE T?E RESOLUTION IN UESTION IS INTERLO(UTORB.

8. T?AT T?E (OURT ERRE IN ?OL IN/ T?AT T?E 5ETITION IS E@E(TI E.

a"" of *'ic' can be s nt'esiQed into one decisive iss e9 *'et'er or not t'ere can be anindependent civi" action for damage to propert d ring t'e pendenc of t'e crimina" action.

@rom t'e (omp"aint +"ed b petitioner before t'e (it (o rt of anda e (it , (eb , it is evidentt'at t'e nat re and c'aracter of 'is action *as quasi-delictual predicated principa"" on Artic"es$1%& and $1D7 of t'e (ivi" ( ode, *'ic' provide9

Art. $1%&. F'oever b act or omission ca ses damage to anot'er, t'ere being fa "tor neg"igence is ob"iged to pa for t'e damage done. S c' fa "t or neg"igence, if t'ere is no pre!e=isting contract a" re"ation bet*een t'e parties, is caned a quasi-delict and is governed b t'e provisions of t'is ('apter. #1 7$a)

Art. $1D7. T'e ob"igation imposed b artic"e $1%& is demandab"e not on" for one>s

o*n acts or omissions b t a"so for t'ose of persons for *'om one is responsib"e.

=== === ===

Emp"o ers s'a"" be "iab"e for t'e damages ca se b t'eir emp"o ees and 'o se'o"d'e"pers acting *it'in t'e scope of t'eir assigned tas3s, even t'o g' t'e former arenot engaged in an b siness or ind str .

=== === ===

T'e responsibi"it treated of in t'is artic"e s'a"" cease *'en t'e persons 'ereinmentioned prove t'at t'e observed a"" t'e di"igence of a good fat'er of a fami" toprevent damage. #1 76a)

T' s, p"ainti; made t'e essentia" averments t'at it *as t'e fa "t or neg"igence of t'e driver,Romeo ?i"ot, in t'e operation of t'e 0eepne o*ned b t'e 5epitos *'ic' ca sed t'e co""isionbet*een 'is a tomobi"e and said 0eepne : t'at damages *ere s stained b petitioner beca se of t'e co""ision: t'at t'ere *as a direct ca sa" connection bet*een t'e damages 'e s ;ered and t'efa "t and neg"igence of private respondents.

Simi"ar" , in t'e Ans*er, private respondents contended, among ot'ers, t'at defendant, a"eriana5epito, observed d e di"igence in t'e se"ection and s pervision of 'er emp"o ees, partic "ar"'er co!defendant Romeo ?i"ot, a defense pec "iar to actions based on quasi-de

Liabi"it being predicated on quasi-delict t'e civi" case ma proceed as a independent civi" action, as speci+ca"" provided for in Artic"e $1%% of t'e (ivi" (ode.

Art. $1%%. Responsibi"it for fa "t or neg"igence nder t'e precedingentire" separate and distinct from t'e civi" "iabi"it arising from neg"igence

t'e 5ena" (ode. 2 t t'e p"ainti; cannot recover damages t*ice for t'e same act oomission of t'e defendant. #n)

T'e cr cia" distinction bet*een crimina" neg"igence andreadi" discernib"e from t'e foregoing coda" provision, 'as been e=pin 3arredo vs+ .arcia, et al+ , %6 5'i". &7%, &$7!&$1, 6 t' s9

@irst" , t'e Revised 5ena" (ode in artic"e 6&- p nis'es not on" rec3"ess bsimp"e impr dence. if *e *ere to 'o"d t'at artic"es 1 7$ to 1 17 of t'e (ivi" (orefer on" to fa "t or neg"igence not p nis'ed b "a*, according to t'e "itera" iof artic"e 17 6 of t'e (ivi" (ode, t'e "ega" instit tion of culpa ver "itt"e scope and app"ication in act a" "ife. eat' or in0 r to pedamage to property t'ro g' an degree of neg"igence even t'e s"ig'tes'ave to be indemni+ed on" t'ro g' t'e princip"e of civi" 'abi"it arisingcrime. In s c' a state of a;airs, *'at sp'ere *o "d remain for q aside"ito or caq i"iana Fe are "oat' to imp te to t'e "a*ma3er an intention to bring abo

sit ation so abs rd and anoma"o s. Nor are *e, in t'e interpretation of t'e "adisposed to p'o"d t'e "etter t'at 3i""et' rat'er t'an t'e spirit t'at givet' "ife. Fe*i"" not se t'e "itera" meaning of t'e "a* to smot'er and render a"most "ife"eprincip"e of s c' ancient origin and s c' f ""!gro*n deve"opment asor quasi-delito , *'ic' is conserved and made end ring in artic"es 1 7$ to 1t'e Spanis' (ivi" (ode.

Second" , to +nd t'e acc sed g i"t in a crimina" case, proof of g ireasonab"e do bt is req ired, *'i"e in a civi" case, preponderance of evides s) propert +rst, *o "d tantamo nt to compe""ing t'e p"ainti; to fo""o* a devio s and c mbmet'od of obtaining a re"ie" Tr e, t'ere is s c' a remed nder o r "a*s, b t t'is a"so a more e=peditio s *a , *'ic' is based on t'e primar and


8/63


responsibi"it of t'e defendant nder artic"e 1 76 of t'e (ivi" (ode. O r vie* of t'e"a* is more "i3e" to faci"itate remed for civi" *rongs beca se t'e proced reindicated b t'e defendant is *astef " and prod ctive of de"a , it being a matter of common 3no*"edge t'at professiona" drivers of ta=is and simi"ar p b"icconve ances s a"" do not 'ave s s caref " cond ct for t'e personne"and patrimonia" safet of ot'ers. As T'ei"'ard 'as said, 4t'e s'o "d reproac't'emse"ves, at "east, some for t'eir *ea3ness, ot'ers for t'eir poor se"ection anda"" for t'eir neg"igence.4 And according to anresa, 4It is m c' more eq itab"e and

0 st t'at s c' responsibi"it s'o "d fai" pon t'e principa" or director *'o co "d'ave c'osen a caref " and pr dent emp"o ee, and not pon t'e s c' emp"o eebeca se of 'is con+dence in t'e principa" or director.4 # o". 1$, p. &$$, $nd Ed.)

an 0 rists a"so base t'is primar responsibi"it of t'e emp"o er on t'e princip"eof representation of t'e principa" b t'e agent. T' s, O e"os sa s in t'e *or3a"read cited # o". %, p. %8%) t'at before t'ird persons t'e emp"o er and emp"o eevienen a ser como na so"a persona"idad, por ref ndicion de "a de" dependiente en"a de q ien "a emp"ea ti'Qa #become as one persona"it b t'e merging of t'e

person of t'e emp"o ee in t'at of 'im *'o emp"o s and ti"iQes 'im.) A"" t'eseobservations acq ire a pec "iar force and signi+cance *'en it comes to motoraccidents, and t'ere is need of stressing and accent ating t'e responsibi"it of o*ners of motor ve'ic"es.

@o rt'" , beca se of t'e broad s*eep of t'e provisions of bot' t'e 5ena" (ode andt'e (ivi" (ode on t'is s b0ect, *'ic' 'as given rise to over"apping or conc rrenceof sp'eres a"read disc ssed, and for "ac3 of nderstanding of t'e c'aracter ande


9/63


#6) asi!contracts:

#8) Acts or omissions p nis'ed b "a*: and

#-) 6uasi-delict s. #17D a)

#Emp'asis s pp"ied)

It bears emp'asiQing t'at petitioner>s ca se of action is based on quasi-delict . T'e concept of q aside"ica as en nciated in Artic"e $1%& of t'e (ivi" (ode # supra ), is so broad t'at it inc" des noton" in0 ries to persons b t a"so damage to propert . 7 It ma3es no distinction bet*een 4damage topersons4 on t'e one 'and and 4damage to propert 4 on t'e ot'er. Indeed, t'e *ord 4damage4 is

sed in t*o concepts9 t'e 4'arm4 done and 4reparation4 for t'e 'arm done. And *it' respect to'arm it is p"ain t'at it inc" des bot' in0 ries to person and propert since 4'arm4 is not "imited topersona" b t a"so to propert in0 ries. In fact, e=amp"es of quasi-delict in t'e "a* itse"f inc" dedamage to propert . An instance is Artic"e $1 1#$) of t'e (ivi" (ode *'ic' 'o"ds proprietorsresponsib"e for damages ca sed b e=cessive smo3e *'ic' ma be 'armf " to persons or

property .4

In t'e "ig't of t'e foregoing disq isition, *e are constrained to 'o"d t'at respondent dge grave"ab sed 'is discretion in p'o"ding t'e ecision of t'e (it (o rt of anda e (it , (eb ,s spending t'e civi" action based on a quasi-delict nti" after t'e crimina" case is +na"" terminated.?aving arrived at t'is conc" sion, a disc ssion of t'e ot'er errors assigned becomes nnecessar .

F?ERE@ORE, granting t'e Frit of certiorari pra ed for, t'e ecision of t'e (o rt of @irst Instance of (eb so g't to be revie*ed is 'ereb set aside, and t'e (it (o rt of anda e (it , (eb , 2ranc'11, is 'ereb ordered to proceed *it' t'e 'earing of (ivi" (ase No. 1D of t'at (o rt.

Fit'o t prono ncement as to costs.

SO OR ERE .

G.R. No. !< 6179 >"# "r= 31, 1978

CAN&I&A VIRATA, TO%AS VIRATA, %ANO!ITO VIRATA, E&ER!IN&A VIRATA, NA O!EONVIRATA, ARACE! VIRATA, 'ENAI&A VIRATA, !U'%IN&A VIRATA, ACITA VIRATA, "#$EVANGE!INA VIRATA,petitioners,vs.VICTORIO OCHOA, %A2I%O +ORI!!A "#$ THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, 7t*

>U&ICIA! &ISTRICT, +RANCH V, 5t"t o#e$ "t +ACOOR, CAVITE, respondents.

2emulla, )strella 7 Associates for petitioners

)!equil C+ Masang8ay for respondents+

FERNAN&E', J.:

T'is is an appea" b certiorari, from t'e order of t'e (o rt of @irst Instance of (avite, 2ranc' , in(ivi" (ase No. 2!168 granting t'e motion of t'e defendants to dismiss t'e comp"aint on t'e gro ndt'at t'ere is anot'er action pending bet*een t'e same parties for t'e same ca se.

T'e record s'o*s t'at on September $8, 1 %- one Arsenio irata died as a res "t of 'aving beenb mped *'i"e *a"3ing a"ong Taft Aven e, 5asa (it b a passenger 0eepne driven b a=im2ori""a and registered in t'e name Of ictoria Oc'oa: t'at 2ori""a is t'e emp"o er of Oc'oa: t'at fort'e deat' of Arsenio irata, a action for 'omicide t'ro g' rec3"ess impr dence *as instit ted onSeptember $-, 1 %- against a=imo 2ori""a in t'e (o rt of @irst Instance of RiQa" at 5asa (doc3eted as ( (ase No. 61&$!5 of said co rt: t'at at t'e 'earing of t'e said crimina" case on

ecember 1$, 1 %-, Att . "io @rancisco, t'e private prosec tor, made a reservation to +separate civi" action for damages against t'e driver on 'is crimina" "iabi"it : t'at on @ebr ar 11 %& Att . "io @rancisco +"ed a motion in said c case to *it'dra* t'e reservation to +"e a separcivi" action: t'at t'ereafter, t'e private prosec tor active" participated in t'e tria" and presentedevidence on t'e damages: t'at on ne $ , 1 %& t'e 'eirs of Arsenio irata again reserved t'eirrig't to instit te a separate civi" action: t'at on " 1 , 1 %% t'e 'eirs of Arsenio petitioners 'erein, commenced (ivi" No. 2!168 in t'e (o rt of @irst Instance of (avite at 2acoor,

2ranc' , for damages based on q asi!de"ict against t'e driver a=imo 2ori""a and t'e registeredo*ner of t'e 0eepne , ictorio Oc'oa: t'at on A g st 16, 1 %& t'e defendants, privrespondents +"ed a motion to dismiss on t'e gro nd t'at t'ere is anot'er action, (rimina" (ase No.61&$!5, pending bet*een t'e same parties for t'e same ca se: t'at on September D, 1 %& t'e(o rt of @irst Instance of RiQa" at 5asa (it a decision in (rimina" (ase No. 6&1$!5 acq ittingacc sed a=imo 2ori""a on t'e gro nd t'at 'e ca sed an in0 r b name accident: and t'at on

an ar 61, 1 %%, t'e (o rt of @irst Instance of (avite at 2acoor granted t'e motion to (ivi" (asNo. 2!168 for damages. (

T'e principa" iss e is *eat'er or not t'e of t'e Arsenio irata, can prosec te an action f or t'edamages based on q asi!de"ict against a=imo 2ori""a and ictoria Oc'oa, driver and o*nrespective" on t'e passenger 0eepne t'at b mped Arsenio irata.

It is sett"ed t'at in neg"igence cases t'e aggrieved parties ma c'oose bet*een an action ndert'e Revised 5ena" (ode or of q asi!de"ict nder Artic"e $1%& of t'e (ivi" (ode of t'e 5'i"ippineF'at is pro'ibited b Artic"e $1%% of t'e (ivi" (ode of t'e 5'i"ippines is to recover t*ice for t'e

same neg"igent act.

T'e S preme (o rt 'as 'e"d t'at9


10/63


According to t'e (ode (ommission9 >T'e foregoing provision #Artic"e $1%%) t'o g'at +rst sig't start"ing, is not so nove" or e=traordinar *'en *e consider t'e e=actnat re of crimina" and civi" neg"igence. T'e former is a vio"ation of t'e crimina" "a*,*'i"e t'e "atter is a >c "pa aq i"iana> or q asi!de"ict, of ancient origin, 'avinga"*a s 'ad its o*n fo ndation and individ a"it , separate from crimina"neg"igence. S c' distinction bet*een crimina" neg"igence and >c "pa e=tra!contract a"> or q asi!de"ito 'as been s stained b decision of t'e S preme (o rt of Spain and maintained as c"ear, so nd and perfect" tenab"e b a ra, ano tstanding Spanis' 0 rist. T'erefore, nder t'e proposed Artic"e $1%%, acq itta"from an acc sation of crimina" neg"igence, *'et'er on reasonab"e do bt or not,s'a"" not be a bar to a s bseq ent civi" action, not for civi" "iabi"it arising fromcrimina" neg"igence, b t for damages d e to a q asi!de"ict or >c "pa aq i"iana>. 2 tsaid artic"e foresta""s a do b"e recover . #Report of t'e (ode (ommission, p. 1&$.)

A"t'o g', again, t'is Artic"e $1%% does seem to "itera"" refer to on" acts of neg"igence, t'e same arg ment of stice 2ocobo abo t constr ction t'at p'o"ds>t'e spirit t'at given "ife> rat'er t'an t'at *'ic' is "itera" t'at 3i""et' t'e intent of t'e "a*ma3er s'o "d be observed in app" ing t'e same. And considering t'at t'epre"iminar c'apter on ' man re"ations of t'e ne* (ivi" (ode de+nite" estab"is'est'e separabi"it and independence of "iabi"it in a civi" action for acts crimina" inc'aracter # nder Artic"es $ to 6$) from t'e civi" responsibi"it arising from crime+=ed b Artic"e 177 of t'e 5ena" (ode, and, in a sense, t'e R "es of (o rt, nderSections $ and 6#c), R "e 111, contemp"ate a"so t'e same separabi"it , it is >morecongr ent> *it' t'e spirit of "a*, eq it and 0 stice, and more in 'armon *it'modern progress>, to borro* t'e fe"icito s "ang age in Ra3es vs. At"antic / "f and5aci+c (o., % 5'i". to 6- , to 'od as Fe do 'o"d, t'at Artic"e $1%&, *'ere it refers to

>fa "t covers not on" acts >not p nis'ab"e b "a*> b t a"so crimina" in c'aracter,*'et'er intentiona" and vo" ntar or conseq ent" , a separate civi" action "iesagainst t'e in a crimina" act, *'et'er or not 'e is crimina"" prosec ted and fo ndg i"t and acq itted, provided t'at t'e o;ended part is not a""o*ed, if 'e isact a"" c'arged a"so crimina"" , to recover damages on bot' scores, and *o "d beentit"ed in s c' event a"it on" to t'e bigger a*ard of t'e, t*o ass ming t'ea*ards made in t'e t*o cases var . In ot'er *ords t'e e=tinction of civi" "iabi"itrefereed to in 5ar. #c) of Section 16, R "e 111, refers e=c" sive" to civi" "iabi"itfo nded on Artic"e 177 of t'e Revised 5ena" (ode, *'ereas t'e civi" "iabi"it for t'esame act considered as a q asi!de"ict on" and not as a crime is not e=ting is'edeven b a dec"aration in t'e crimina" case t'at t'e crimina" act c'arged 'as not'appened or 'as not been committed b t'e acc sed. 2rief stated, Fe 'o"d, inreitration of /arcia, t'at c "pa aq i"ina inc" des vo" ntar and neg"igent acts *'ic'ma be p nis'ab"e b "a*. 3

T'e petitioners are not see3ing to recover t*ice for t'e same neg"igent act. 2efore (rimina" (aseNo. 61&$!5 *as decided, t'e manifested in said crimina" case t'at t'e *ere +"ing a separate civi"action for damages against t'e o*ner and driver of t'e passenger 0eepne based on quasi-delict+ T'e acq itta" of t'e driver, a=imo 2ori""a, of t'e crime c'arged in (rimina" (ase No. 61&$!5is not a bar to t'e prosec tion of (ivi" (ase No. 2!168 for damages based on q asi!de"ict T'eso rce of t'e ob"igation so g't to be enforced in (ivi" (ase No. 2!168 is quasi-delict , not an act or

omission p nis'ab"e b "a*. Under Artic"e 11-% of t'e (ivi" (ode of t'e 5'i"ippines, q asi!de"ict andan act or omission p nis'ab"e b "a* are t*o di;erent so rces of ob"igation.

oreover, for t'e petitioners to prevai" in t'e action for damages, (ivi" (ase No. 2!168, t'e 'aveon" to estab"is' t'eir ca se of action b preponderance of t'e evidence.

F?ERE@ORE, t'e order of dismissa" appea"ed from is 'ereb set aside and (ivi" (ase No. 2!168 isreinstated and remanded to t'e "o*er co rt for f rt'er proceedings, *it' costs against t'e privaterespondents.

SO OR ERE .

G.R. No. 8019 %"r)* (1, 1989

E&GAR >Avs.COURT OF A EA!S "#$ >OSE ?UAN SING, respondents.

Cora*on Mira9ores and Vicente :+ 3illena for petitioner+

Manuel + .emarino for private respondent+

REGA!A&O, J.:

T'e records s'o* t'at private respondent ose an Sing *as 4side!s*iped b a ve'ic"e in t'eevening of " %, 1 %1 in "Qnart Street, I"oi"o (it 4 1 T'e respondent (o rt of Appeat'e +ndings of t'e co rt a quo t'at t'e said ve'ic"e *'ic' +g red in t'e mis'ap, a o"3s*#2eet"e t pe) car, *as t'en driven b petitioner Edgar aranti""a a"ong said street to*ard tdirection of t'e provincia" capito", and t'at private respondent s stained p' sica" in0 ries as conseq ence. (

5etitioner *as according" c'arged before t'e t'en (it (o rt of I"oi"o for serio s p' sica" in0 riet'r rec3"ess impr dence in (rimina" (ase No. 8%$7% t'ereof. 3 5rivate comp"aining *itness t'erein, did not reserve 'is rig't to instit te a separate civi" action and 'eintervened in t'e prosec tion of said crimina" case t'ro g' a private prosec tor.acq itted in said crimina" case 4on reasonab"e do bt4. -

On October 67, 1 %8, private respondent +"ed a comp"aint against t'e petitioner in t'e forme(o rt of @irst Instance of I"oi"o, 2ranc' I , 6 doc3eted t'erein as (ivi" (ase No. %civi" action invo"ved t'e same s b0ect matter and act comp"ained of in (rimina" (ase


11/63


12/63


*'i"e *it'in t'e contemp"ation of an independent civi" action nder Artic"e 66 of t'e (ivi" (ode,constit tes on" a pena" omen and cannot ot'er*ise be considered as a q asi!de"ict or culpaaquiliana nder Artic"es $1%& and $1%% of t'e (ivi" (ode. And *'i"e petitioner dra*s attention tot'e s pposed reiteration of t'e Roa doctrine in t'e "ater case of A*ucena vs+ :otenciano, et al+, (1 t'is time invo"ving damage to propert t'ro g' neg"igence as to ma3e o t a case of q asi!de"ict nder Artic"es $1%& and $1D7 of t'e (ivi" (ode, s c' secondar re"iance is misp"aced sincet'e t'erein p"ainti; AQ cena did not intervene in t'e crimina" action against defendant 5otenciano.

T'e citation of 2oa in t'e "ater case of A*ucena *as, t'erefore, c"ear" obiter and a;ords nocomfort to petitioner.

T'ese are aside from t'e fact t'at t'ere 'ave been doctrina", and even stat tor , (( c'anges ont'e matter of civi" actions arising from crimina" o;enses and q asi!de"icts. Fe *i"" reserve o rdisc ssion on t'e stat tor aspects for anot'er case and time and, for t'e nonce, Fe *i"" considert'e doctrina" deve"opments on t'is iss e.

In t'e case nder consideration, private respondent participated and intervened in t'e prosec tionof t'e crimina" s it against petitioner. Under t'e present 0 rispr dentia" mi"ie , *'ere t'e tria"co rt acq its t'e acc sed on reasonab"e do bt, it co "d ver *e"" ma3e a prono nce ment on t'ecivi" "iabi"it of t'e acc sed (3 and t'e comp"ainant co "d +"e a petition for mandam s to compe"t'e tria" co rt to inc" de s c' civi" "iabi"it in t'e 0 dgment of acq itta". (

5rivate respondent, as a"read stated, +"ed a separate civi" aciton after s c' acq itta". T'is isa""o*ed nder Artic"e $ of t'e (ivi" (ode. Fe 'ave r "ed in t'e re"ative" recent case of ;ontoc vs+M0


13/63


*ords, t'e e=tinction of civi" "iabi"it referred to in 5ar. #c) of Sec. 6 R "e 111, referse=c" sive" to civi" "iabi"it fo nded on Artic"e 177 of t'e Revised 5ena" (ode:*'ereas t'e civi" "iabi"it for t'e same act considered as a q asi!de"ict on" and notas a crime is not e=ting is'ed even b a dec"aration in t'e crimina" case t'at t'ecrimina" act c'arged 'as not 'appened or 'as not been committed b t'eacc sed . . .

T'e aforecited case of ;ontoc vs+ M0


14/63


T'e test b * 'ic' to determine t'e e=istence of neg"igence in a partic "ar case ma be stated asfo""o*s9 id t'e defendant in doing t'e a""eged neg"igent act se t'at person *o "d 'ave sed int'e same sit ationC If not, t'en 'e is g i"t of neg"igence. T'e "a* 'ere in e;ect adopts t'estandard s pposed to be s pp"ied b t'e imaginar cond ct of t'e discreet paterfami"ias of t'eRoman "a*. T'e e=istence of neg"igence in a given case is not determined b reference to t'epersona" 0 dgment of t'e actor in t'e sit ation before 'im. T'e "a* considers *'at *o "d berec3"ess, b"ame*ort' , or neg"igent in t'e man of ordinar inte""igence and pr dence anddetermines "iabi"it b t'at.

T'e q estion as to *'at *o "d constit te t'e cond ct of a pr dent man in a given sit ation m stof co rse be a"*a s determined in t'e "ig't of ' man e=perience and in vie* of t'e facts invo"vedin t'e partic "ar case. Abstract spec "ations cannot 'ere be of m c' va" e b t t'is m c' can bepro+tab" said9 Reasonab"e men govern t'eir cond ct b t'e circ mstances *'ic' are before t'emor 3no*n to t'em. T'e are not, and are not s pposed to be, omniscient of t'e f t re. ?ence t'ecan be e=pected to ta3e care on" *'en t'ere is somet'ing before t'em to s ggest or *arn of danger. (o "d a pr dent man, in t'e case nder consideration, foresee 'arm as a res "t of t'eco rse act a"" p rs edC If so, it *as t'e d t of t'e actor to ta3e preca tions to g ard againstt'at 'arm. Reasonab"e foresig't of 'arm, fo""o*ed b ignoring of t'e s ggestion born of t'isprevision, is a"*a s necessar before neg"igence can be 'e"d to e=ist. Stated in t'ese terms, t'eproper criterion for determining t'e e=istence of neg"igence in a given case is t'is9 (ond ct is saidto be neg"igent *'en a pr dent man in t'e position of t'e tortfeasor *o "d 'ave foreseen t'at ane;ect 'armf " to anot'er *as s s ards "ocated not far a*a . T'e rai"s *ere

conve ed pon cars *'ic' *ere 'a "ed a"ong a narro* trac3. At certain spot near t'e *ater>s edget'e trac3 gave *a b reason of t'e combined e;ect of t'e *eig't of t'e car and t'e insec rit of t'e road bed. T'e car *as in conseq ence pset: t'e rai"s s"id o;: and t'e p"ainti;>s "eg *asca g't and bro3en. It appeared in evidence t'at t'e accident *as d e to t'e e;ects of t'e t p'oon*'ic' 'ad dis"odged one of t'e s pports of t'e trac3. T'e co rt fo nd t'at t'e defendant compan*as neg"igent in 'aving fai"ed to repair t'e bed of t'e trac3 and a"so t'at t'e p"ainti; *as, at t'emoment of t'e accident, g i"t of contrib tor neg"igence in *a"3ing at t'e side of t'e car insteadof being in front or be'ind. It *as 'e"d t'at *'i"e t'e defendant *as "iab"e to t'e p"ainti; b reasonof its neg"igence in 'aving fai"ed to 3eep t'e trac3 in proper repair nevert'e"ess t'e amo nt of t'edamages s'o "d be red ced on acco nt of t'e contrib tor neg"igence in t'e p"ainti;. As *i"" be

seen t'e defendant>s neg"igence in t'at case consisted in an omission on" . T'e "iabi"it of t'ecompan arose from its responsibi"it for t'e dangero s condition of its trac3. In a case "i3e t'e oneno* before s, *'ere t'e defendant *as act a"" present and operating t'e a tomobi"e *'ic'ca sed t'e damage, *e do not fee" constrained to attempt to *eig' t'e neg"igence of t'erespective parties in order to apportion t'e damage according to t'e degree of t'eir re"ative fa "t.It is eno g' to sa t'at t'e neg"igence of t'e defendant *as in t'is case t'e immediate anddetermining ca se of t'e accident and t'at t'e antecedent neg"igence of t'e p"ainti; *as a moreremote factor in t'e case.

A point of minor importance in t'e case is indicated in t'e specia" defense p"eaded in tdefendant>s ans*er, to t'e e;ect t'at t'e s b0ect matter of t'e action 'ad been previo s"ad0 dicated in t'e co rt of a 0 stice of t'e peace. In t'is connection it appears t'at soon after t'eaccident in q estion occ rred, t'e p"ainti; ca sed crimina" proceedings to be instit ted before

0 stice of t'e peace c'arging t'e defendant *it' t'e inPiction of serio s in0 ries #"esiones graves).At t'e pre"iminar investigation t'e defendant *as disc'arged b t'e magistrate and t'eproceedings *ere dismissed. (onceding t'at t'e acq itta" of t'e defendant at t'e tria" pon t'emerits in a crimina" prosec tion for t'e o;ense mentioned *o "d be res ad0 dicata pon tq estion of 'is civi" "iabi"it arising from neg"igence !! a point pon *'ic' it is nnecessare=press an opinion !! t'e action of t'e 0 stice of t'e peace in dismissing t'e crimina" proceeding

pon t'e pre"iminar 'earing can 'ave no e;ect. #See U. S. vs. 2anQ e"a and 2anQ e"a, 61 5'i"Rep., -&8.)

@rom *'at 'as been said it res "ts t'at t'e 0 dgment of t'e "o*er co rt m st be reversed, and 0 dgment is 'er rendered t'at t'e p"ainti; recover of t'e defendant t'e s m of t*o ' ndred pesos#5$77), *it' costs of ot'er instances. T'e s m 'ere a*arded is estimated to inc" de t'e va" e of t'e 'orse, medica" e=penses of t'e p"ainti;, t'e "oss or damage occasioned to artic"es of 'isappare", and "a*f " interest on t'e *'o"e to t'e date of t'is recover . T'e ot'er damages c"aimedb t'e p"ainti; are remote or ot'er*ise of s c' c'aracter as not to be recoverab"e. So ordered.

Arellano, C+ +,


15/63


CIT TRUST +AN?ING COR ORATION, petitioner,vs.THE INTER%E&IATE A E!!ATE COURT "#$ E%%E HERRERO, respondents.

Agcaoili and Associates for petitioner+

0avid 3+ Agoncillo for private respondent+

>umberto 3+ 3asco, collaborating counsel for private respondent+

VITUG, J.:

T'is case emanated from a comp"aint +"ed b private respondent Emme ?errero for damagesagainst petitioner (it tr st 2an3ing (orporation. In 'er comp"aint, private respondent averred t'ats'e, a b siness*oman, made reg "ar deposits, starting September of 1 % , *it' petitioner(it tr st 2an3ing (orporation at its 2 rgos branc' in (a"amba, Lag na. On 1- a 1 D7, s'edeposited *it' petitioner t'e amo nt of T'irt One T'o sand @ive ? ndred 5esos #561,-77.77), incas', in order to amp" cover si= #&) postdated c'ec3s s'e iss ed, vi* 9

('ec3 No. Amo nt

77%6D6 51,-7%.77

77%6D8 1,$&$.7777%6D% 8,$ .7777%6D% $,$78.7777%8 $ &,$D1.7777%877 8,%1&.77

F'en presented for encas'ment pon mat rit , a"" t'e c'ec3s *ere dis'onored d e to4ins s fee in t'e amo nt of T?OUSAN 5ESOS #5-,777.77) p" s cost of s it.

5rivate respondent *ent to t'e (o rt of Appea"s, *'ic' fo nd t'e appea" meritorio s. ?ence, itrendered 0 dgment, on 1- " 1 DD, reversing t'e tria" co rt>s decision. T'e appe""ate co rt r

F?ERE@ORE, t'e 0 dgment appea"ed from is RE ERSE and a ne* one t'ereb ordering defendant to pa p"ainti; nomina" damages of 5$,7temperate and moderate damages of 5-,777.77, and attorne >s fees of 58,777.

T'e co nterc"aim of defendant is dismissed for "ac3 of merit, *it' costs ag'im.

5etitioner (it tr st 2an3ing (orporation is no* before s in t'is petition for revie* on

5etitioner ban3 concedes t'at it is its ob"igation to 'onor c'ec3s iss ed b private respondent*'ic' are s s depositorsvie* t'e se of n mbers as simp" for t'e convenience of t'e ban3 b t *as nevintended to disregard t'e rea" name of its depositors. T'e ban3 is engageb siness impressed *it' p b"ic interest, and it is its d t to protect in retman c"ients and depositors *'o transact b siness *it' it. It s'o "d not matter of t'e ban3 a"one receiving deposits, "ending o t mone and co"interests. It is a"so its ob"igation to see to it t'at a"" f nds invested *it'

proper" acco nted for and d " posted in its "edgers.

In t'e case before Us, Fe are not pers aded t'at defendant ban3 *as not frefrom b"ame for t'e +asco. In t'e +rst p"ace, t'e te""er s'o "d not 'ave accep


16/63


p"ainti;>s deposit *it'o t correcting t'e acco nt n mber on t'e deposit s"ip *'ic',obvio s" , *as erroneo s beca se, as pointed o t b defendant, it contained on"seven #%) digits instead of eig't #D). Second, t'e comp"ete name of p"ainti; depositor appears in bo"d "etters on t'e deposit s"ip #E='. 424). T'ere co "d be nomista3ing in 'er name, and t'at t'e deposit *as made in 'er name, 4Emma E.?errero.4 In fact, defendant>s te""er s'o "d not 'ave fed 'er deposit s"ip to t'ecomp ter 3no*ing t'at 'er acco nt n mber *ritten t'ereon *as *rong as itcontained on" seven #%) digits. As it 'appened, according to defendant, p"ainti;>sdeposit 'ad to be consigned to t'e s spense acco nts pending veri+cation. T'is,indeed, co "d 'ave been avoided at t'e +rst instance 'ad t'e te""er of defendant

ban3 performed 'er d ties es emp"o ees. On t'e ot'er'and, t'e depositors are not concerned *it' ban3ing proced re. T'at is t'eresponsibi"it of t'e ban3 and its emp"o ees. epositors are on" concerned *it't'e faci"it of depositing t'eir mone , earning interest t'ereon, if an , and*it'dra*ing t'erefrom, partic "ar" b sinessmen, "i3e p"ainti;, *'o are s pposedto be a"*a s 4on!t'e!go4. 5"ainti;>s acco nt is a 4c rrent acco nt4 *'ic' s'o "dimmediate" be posted. After a"", it does not earn interest. At "east, t'e forbearances'o "d be commens rated *it' prompt, es name dname of t'e depositor c"ear" *ritten on t'e deposit s"ip s'eer neg"igence *'ic' co "d 'ave easi" been adefendant ban3 e=ercised d e di"igence and circ mspecacceptance and posting of p"ainti;>s deposit.

Fe s bscribe to t'e above disq isitions of t'e appe""ate co rt. In ime! InInc . vs . Court of Appeals, 1D6 S(RA 6&7, reiterated in 3an8 of :hilippine Islands

Appellate Court, $7& S(RA 87D, *e simi"ar" said, in ca tioning depositor ban3s on t'eir +responsibi"it , t'at

In ever case, t'e depositor e=pects t'e ban3 to treat 'is acco nt *it' tmo+de"it , *'et'er s c' acco nt consists on" of a fe* ' ndred pesos or of mi""i

T'e ban3 m st record ever sing"e transaction acc rate" , do*n to t'centavo, and as prompt" as possib"e. T'is 'as to be done if t'e acco nt rePect at an given time t'e amo nt of mone t'e depositor can dispose of as sees +t, con+dent t'at t'e ban3 *i"" de"iver it as and to *'omever 'e directs.b" nder on t'e part of t'e ban3, s c' as t'e dis'onor of a c'ec3 *it'o t gooreason, can ca se t'e depositor not a "itt"e embarrassment if not a"so +nancia"and per'aps even civi" and crimina" "itigation.

T'e point is t'at as a b siness a;ected *it' p b"ic interest and beca se of tnat re of its f nctions, t'e ban3 is nder ob"igation to treat t'e acco nts depositors *it' metic "o s care, a"*a s 'aving in mind t'e +d ciar nat re of tre"ations'ip.

Fe agree *it' petitioner, 'o*ever, t'at it is *rong to a*ard, a"ong *it' nomina" damages,temperate or moderate damages. T'e t*o a*ards are incompatib"e and cannot be grantedconc rrent" . Nomina" damages are given in order t'at a rig't of t'e p"ainti;, *'ic' 'as beenvio"ated or invaded b t'e defendant, ma be vindicated or recogniQed, and not for t'e p rpose ofindemnif ing t'e p"ainti; for an "oss s ;ered b 'im #Art. $$$1, Ne* (ivi" (ode:Corp . vs . Intermediate Appellate Court, 161 S(RA $%1). Temperate or moderate damare more t'an nomina" b t "ess t'an compensator damages, on t'e ot'er 'and, ma berecovered *'en t'e co rt +nds t'at some pec niar "oss 'as been s ;ered b t its amo nt cannot,from t'e nat re of t'e case, be proved *it' reasonab"e certaint #Art. $$$8, Ne* (ivi" (ode).

In t'e instant case, *e a"so +nd need for vindicating t'e *rong done on private respondent, and*e according" agree *it' t'e (o rt of Appea"s in granting to 'er nomina" damages b t not insimi"ar" a*arding temperate or moderate damages.

F?ERE@ORE, t'e appea"ed decision is O I@IE b de"eting t'e a*ard of temperate or moderadamages. In a"" ot'er respects, t'e appe""ate co rt>s decision is A@@IR E . No costs instance.

SO OR ERE .


17/63


G.R. No. 11(-76 O)tober (6, 199

CA


18/63


a re!disco nting "oan from t'e (entra" 2an3, t'e same *as credited on" on Apri" 1-, 1 D$ after t'e(entra" 2an3 +na"" con+rmed t'at a credit advice *as indeed iss ed in favor of R25/: t'at aftert'e con+rmation, 2T( credited t'e amo nt of t'e credit advice to p"ainti; R25/>s acco nt andt'r its os misro ting of t'e credit advice res "ting int'e ret rn of t'e c'ec3s in q estion, despite dai" reporting of credit memos and a correspondingdai" radio message con+rmation, #as s'o*n b E='ibit 4I,4 t'e Investigation Report of t'e ban3>s

r. a"entino E"evado) and r. ngo>s improper 'and"ing of c"ients "ed to t'e messenger>s

dismissa" from service and r. ngo>s transfer from etro ani"a to indoro.

T'e t'res'o"d i ss e *as *'et'er or not, nder t'e facts and circ mstances of t'e case, p"ainti; ma be a""o*ed to recover act a", mora" and e=emp"ar damages, inc" ding attorne >s fees,"itigation e=penses and t'e costs of t'e s it. On A g st $-, 1 D , t'e RT( of Lipa (it rendered adecision ( in favor of p"ainti;s and against t'e defendant 2T(, ordering t'e "atter to9

1. pa p"ainti; Isabe" atigba3 5-7,777.77 as temperate damages:

$. pa 5-77,777.77 as mora" damages, considering t'at R25/>s credit standingand b siness rep tation *ere damaged b t'e *rongf " acts of defendant>semp"o ees, co p"ed *it' t'e r de treatment received b Isabe" atigba3 at t'e'ands of r. ngo, a"" of *'ic' impe""ed 'er to see3 medica" treatment:

6. pa 5177,777.77 as attorne >s fees and "itigation e=penses: and.

8. pa t'e costs of s it.

T'e "o*er co rt did not a*ard act a" damages in t'e amo nt of 5-7,777.77 representing t'eamo nt of t'e t*o #$) c'ec3s pa ab"e to r. @e"ipe (. Roq e and rs. E"isa Roq e for 5$-,777eac', as it fo nd no s'o*ing t'at r. Antonio atigba3 *'o a""eged" paid t'e amo nt *as act a""reimb rsed b p"ainti; R25/. oreover, t'e co rt 'e"d t'at no act a" damages co "d 'ave beens ;ered b p"ainti; R25/ beca se on Apri" 1-, 1 D$, t'e (entra" 2an3 credit advice in t'e amo ntof 5678,777 *'ic' inc" ded t'e t*o #$) c'ec3s iss ed to t'e Roq e spo ses in t'e s m of 5-7,777.77 *ere a"read credited to t'e acco nt of R25/ and t'e service, as *e"" as pena"tc'arges, *ere a"" reversed.

2T( appea"ed from t'e decision to t'e (o rt of Appea"s in (A /R ( No. $&-%1, a""eging t'att'e tria" co rt erred in a*arding temperate and mora" damages, as *e"" as attorne >s fees, p" scosts and e=penses of "itigation *it'o t fact a" or "ega" basis t'erefor.

On October $ , 1 $, t'e (o rt of Appea"s rendered a decision 3

as fees. 5"ainti;s!appe""ees +"ed a motion for reconsideration of t'e decision,

q estioning t'e de"etion of t'e a*ard of temperate damages and t'e red ction of t'e a*ard of mora" damages and attorne >s fees. T'e motion *as denied.

2T( +"ed t'is petition, presenting t'e fo""o*ing iss es for reso" tion9

1. *'et'er or not private respondents R25/ and Isabe" Rodrig eQ are "eentit"ed to mora" damages and attorne >s fees, and

$. ass ming t'at t'e are so entit"ed, *'et'er or not t'e amo nts a*arded are

e=cessive and nconscionab"e.

T'e petition is devoid of merit.

T'e case at benc' *as instit ted to see3 damages ca sed b t'e dis'onor t'ro g' neg"igence of respondent ban3>s c'ec3s *'ic' *ere act a"" s s os neg"igence ma nattended *it' ma"ice and bad fait', nevert'e"ess, it ca sed serio s an=iet , embarrassment and' mi"iation to private respondents for *'ic' t'e are entit"ed to recover reasonab"e moradamages. 6

As t'e records bear o t, ins "t *as added to in0 r b petitioner ban3>s iss ance of memoranda representing service and pena"t c'arges for t'e ret rned c'ec3s, not to mention t'e

ins "ting remar3s from its Assistant (as'ier.

In t'e case of ;eopoldo Araneta v+ 3an8 of America , 7 *e 'e"d t'at9


19/63


20/63


1. @o r @E2T( ?arrison 5"aQa 2ranc' o""ar emand rafts Nos. DD&& 8 76, DD&& 8 78,DD&& 8 7- and DD&& 8 7& for US 1-,117. & eac', a""eged" iss ed b petitioner to respondent>s' sband ominador after pa ment on t'e certi+cates of deposit: 16

$. A "etter of A"icia de 2 stos, branc' cas'ier of @E2T( at ?arrison 5"aQa, dated an ar $6, 1 D%,*'ic' *as sent to (itiban3, N.A., (itiban3 (enter, 5aseo de Ro=as, a3ati, etro ani"a, informingt'e "atter t'at @E2T( 'ad iss ed t'e fo r drafts and req esting (itiban3 Ne* Bor3 to debit frompetitioner>s acco nt &7,886.D8, t'e aggregate va" e of t'e fo r drafts: 18

6. 4(iticorp Remittance Service9 ai" S mmar and 5a ment Report4 dated an ar $6, 1 D%: 1-

8. ebit Tic3et dated an ar $6, 1 D%, s'o*ing t'e debit of US &7,886.D8 or its eq iva"ent at t'etime of51,$87, 1$.78 from t'e @E2T( ?arrison 5"aQa 2ranc': 1& and

-. An Interbranc' Transaction Tic3et Register or (redit Tic3et dated an ar $6, 1 D% s'o*ing t'atUS &7,886.D8 or 51,$87, 1$.78 *as credited to petitioner>s Internationa" Operation ivision#IO ) .1%

On a &, $777, t'e tria" co rt rendered 0 dgment for respondent. T'e dispositive portion of t'edecision stated9

F?ERE@ORE, 0 dgment is 'ereb rendered in favor of p"ainti; GEstre""a O. erimitH andagainst defendants G@E2T( et a".H9

1. OR ERIN/ defendants to a""o* p"ainti; to *it'dra* 'er U.S. Time eposit of &7,777.77 p" s accr ed interests:

$. OR ERIN/ defendants to pa mora" damages in t'e amo nt of 5-7,777.77:

6. OR ERIN/ defendants to pa e=emp"ar damages in t'e amo nt of 5-7,777.77:

8. OR ERIN/ defendants to pa attorne >s fees in t'e amo nt of 5177,777.77p" s 517,777.77 per appearance of co nse": and

-. OR ERIN/ defendants to pa t'e costs of t'e s it.

SO OR ERE . 1D

On a 1-, $777, petitioner appea"ed to t'e (o rt of Appea"s *'ic', on arc' &, $771, as deceased ' sband.

III. Respondent is g i"t of "ac'es since t'e fo r #8) certi+cates of deposit *ere a"" iss e$8 November 1 D& b t s'e attempted to *it'dra* t'eir aggregate va" e on $ " 1on" on or after t'e "apse of more t'an nine # ) ears and eig't #D) mont's.

I . Respondent is not "iab"e to petitioner for attorne >s fees. $$

After revie*ing t'e records, *e +nd t'e petition to be *it'o t merit.

irst . 5etitioner ban3 fai"ed to prove t'at it 'ad a"read paid Estre""a erimit, t'e bearer an"a*f " 'o"der of t'e s b0ect certi+cates of deposit. T'e +nding of t'e tria" co rt on t'is point, asa


21/63


deposits evidenced b a certi+cate of deposit, *it'o t its prod ction and s rrender after properindorsement. $D As a r "e, one *'o p"eads pa ment 'as t'e b rden of proving it. Even *'ere t'ep"ainti; m st a""ege non!pa ment, t'e genera" r "e is t'at t'e b rden rests on t'e defendant toprove pa ment, rat'er t'an on t'e p"ainti; to prove pa ment. T'e debtor 'as t'e b rden of s'o*ing *it' "ega" certaint t'at t'e ob"igation 'as been disc'arged b pa ment. $

In t'is case, t'e certi+cates of deposit *ere c"ear" mar3ed pa ab"e to 4bearer,4 *'ic' means, to4GtH'e person in possession of an instr ment, doc ment of tit"e or sec rit pa ab"e to bearer orindorsed in b"an3.4 67 5etitioner s'o "d not 'ave paid respondent>s ' sband or an t'ird part*it'o t req iring t'e s rrender of t'e certi+cates of deposit.

5etitioner c"aims t'at it did not demand t'e s rrender of t'e s b0ect certi+cates of deposit sincerespondent>s ' sband, ominador erimit, *as one of t'e ban3>s senior managers. 2 t even "ongafter respondent>s ' sband 'ad a""eged" been paid respondent>s deposit and before 'isretirement from service, t'e @E2T( never req ired 'im to de"iver t'e certi+cates of deposit inq estion. 61 oreover, t'e accommodation given to respondent>s ' sband *as made in vio"ation of t'e ban3>s po"icies and proced res . 6$

5etitioner @E2T( t' s fai"ed to e=ercise t'at degree of di"igence req ired b t'e nat re of itsb siness. 66 2eca se t'e b siness of ban3s is impressed *it' p b"ic interest, t'e degree of di"igencereq ired of ban3s is more t'an t'at of a good fat'er of t'e fami" or of an ordinar b siness +rm.

T'e +d ciar nat re of t'eir re"ations'ip *it' t'eir depositors req ires t'em to treat t'e acco ntsof t'eir c"ients *it' t'e 'ig'est degree of care. 68 A ban3 is nder ob"igation to treat t'e acco nts of its depositors *it' metic "o s care *'et'er s c' acco nts consist on" of a fe* ' ndred pesos orof mi""ions of pesos. Responsibi"it arising from neg"igence in t'e performance of ever 3ind of ob"igation is demandab"e. 6- 5etitioner fai"ed to prove pa ment of t'e s b0ect certi+cates of deposit

iss ed to t'e respondent and, t'erefore, remains "iab"e for t'e va" e of t'e do""ar depositsindicated t'ereon *it' accr ed interest.

econd . T'e eq itab"e princip"e of "ac'es is not s s c'ief cas'ier, to t'e respondentban3 to app" for a foreign e=c'ange demand draft in A stra"ian do""ars.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_118492_2001.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_118492_2001.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_118492_2001.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_148582_2002.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_118492_2001.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_118492_2001.html#fnt3


22/63


/odofredo *ent to respondent ban3>s 2 endia 2ranc' in a3ati (it to app" for a demand draft int'e amo nt One T'o sand Si= ? ndred Ten A stra"ian o""ars #AU 1,&17.77) pa ab"e to t'e orderof t'e $7 t' Asian Racing (onference Secretariat of S dne , A stra"ia. ?e *as attended to brespondent ban3>s assistant cas'ier, r. Basis, *'o at +rst denied t'e app"ication for t'e reasont'at respondent ban3 did not 'ave an A stra"ian do""ar acco nt in an ban3 in S dne . /odofredoas3ed if t'ere co "d be a *a for respondent ban3 to accommodate 5R(I>s rgent need to remitA stra"ian do""ars to S dne . Basis of respondent ban3 t'en informed /odofredo of a ro ndabo t*a of e;ecting t'e req ested remittance to S dne t' s9 t'e respondent ban3 *o "d dra* ademand draft against Festpac 2an3 in S dne , A stra"ia #Festpac!S dne for brevit ) and 'avet'e "atter reimb rse itse"f from t'e U.S. do""ar acco nt of t'e respondent in Festpac 2an3 in Ne*

Bor3, U.S.A. #Festpac!Ne* Bor3 for brevit ). T'is arrangement 'as been c stomari" resorted tosince t'e 1 &7>s and t'e proced re 'as proven to be prob"em!free. 5R(I and t'e petitioner/regorio ?. Re es, acting t'ro g' /odofredo, agreed to t'is arrangement or approac' in order toe;ect t'e rgent transfer of A stra"ian do""ars pa ab"e to t'e Secretariat of t'e $7 t' Asian Racing(onference.

On " $D, 1 DD, t'e respondent ban3 approved t'e said app"ication of 5R(I and iss ed @oreignE=c'ange emand raft #@M ) No. $7 &D in t'e s m app"ied for, t'at is, One T'o sand Si=? ndred Ten A stra"ian o""ars #AU 1,&17.77), pa ab"e to t'e order of t'e $7 t' Asian Racing(onference Secretariat of S dne , A stra"ia, and addressed to Festpac!S dne as t'e dra*eeban3. %B"phi%+n t

On A g st 17, 1 DD, pon d e presentment of t'e foreign e=c'ange demand draft, denominatedas @M No. $7 &D, t'e same *as dis'onored, *it' t'e notice of dis'onor stating t'e fo""o*ing94=== No acco nt 'e"d *it' Festpac.4 ean*'i"e, on A g st 1&, 1 DD, Fespac!Ne* Bor3 sent acab"e to respondent ban3 informing t'e "atter t'at its do""ar acco nt in t'e s m of One T'o sandSi= ? ndred Ten A stra"ian o""ars #AU 1,&17.77) *as debited. On A g st 1 , 1 DD, in response to5R(I>s comp"aint abo t t'e dis'onor of t'e said foreign e=c'ange demand draft, respondent ban3informed Festpac!S dne of t'e iss ance of t'e said demand draft @M No. $7 &D, dra*nagainst t'e Fespac!S dne and informing t'e "atter to be reimb rsed from t'e respondent ban3>sdo""ar acco nt in Festpac!Ne* Bor3. T'e respondent ban3 on t'e same da "i3e*ise informedFespac!Ne* Bor3 req esting t'e "atter to 'onor t'e reimb rsement c"aim of Fespac!S dne . OnSeptember 18, 1 DD, pon its second presentment for pa ment, @M No. $7 &D *as againdis'onored b Festpac!S dne for t'e same reason, t'at is, t'at t'e respondent ban3 'as nodeposit do""ar acco nt *it' t'e dra*ee Fespac!S dne .

On September 1%, 1 DD and September 1D, 1 DD, respective" , petitioners spo ses /regorio ?.Re es and (ons e"o 5 at!Re es "eft for A stra"ia to attend t'e said racing conference. F'enpetitioner /regorio ?. Re es arrived in S dne in t'e morning of September 1D, 1 DD, 'e *entdirect" to t'e "obb of ?ote" Regent S dne to register as a conference de"egate. At t'eregistration des3, in t'e presence of ot'er de"egates from vario s member of t'e conferencesecretariat t'at 'e co "d not register beca se t'e foreign e=c'ange demand draft for 'isregistration fee 'ad been dis'onored for t'e second time. A disc ssion ens ed in t'e presence and

*it'in t'e 'earing of man de"egates *'o *ere a"so registering. @ee"ing terrib" embarrassed and' mi"iated, petitioner /regorio ?. Re es as3ed t'e "ad member of t'e conference secretariat t'at'e be s'o*n t'e s b0ect foreign e=c'ange demand draft t'at 'ad been dis'onored as *e"" as t'ecovering "etter after *'ic' 'e promised t'at 'e *o "d pa t'e registration fees in cas'. In t'e

meantime 'e demanded t'at 'e be given 'is name p"ate and conference 3it. T'e "ad member of t'e conference secretariat re"ented and gave 'im 'is name p"ate and conference 3it. It *as on"t*o #$) da s "ater, or on September $7, 1 DD, t'at 'e *as given t'e dis'onored demand draft anda covering "etter. It *as t'en t'at 'e act a"" paid in cas' t'e registration fees as 'e 'ad ear"ierpromised.

ean*'i"e, on September 1 , 1 DD, petitioner (ons e"o 5 at!Re es arrived in S dne . S'e to*as embarassed and ' mi"iated at t'e registration des3 of t'e conference secretariat *'en s'e*as to"d in t'e presence and *it'in t'e 'earing of ot'er de"egates t'at s'e co "d not be registeredd e to t'e dis'onor of t'e s b0ect foreign e=c'ange demand draft. S'e fe"t 'erse"f tremb"ing and

nab"e to "oo3 at t'e peop"e aro nd 'er. @ort nate" , s'e sa* 'er ' sband, coming to*ard 'er. ?esaved t'e sit ation for 'er b te""ing t'e secretariat member t'at 'e 'ad a"read arranged for t'epa ment of t'e registration fee in cas' once 'e *as s'o*n t'e dis'onored demand draft. On"t'en *as petitioner 5 at!Re es given 'er name p"ate and conference 3it.

At t'e time t'e incident too3 p"ace, petitioner (ons e"o 5 at!Re es *as a member of t'e ?o seof Representatives representing t'e "one (ongressiona" istrict of a3ati, etro ani"a. S'e 'asbeen an os campaign c'airman for t'e nint'# t' ) consec tive ear.

On November $6, 1 DD, t'e petitioners +"ed in t'e Regiona" Tria" (o rt of a3ati, etro ani"a,comp"aint for damages, doc3eted as (ivi" (ase No. DD!$8&D, against t'e respondent ban3 d e tt'e dis'onor of t'e said foreign e=c'ange demand draft iss ed b t'e respondent ban3. T'e

petitioners c"aim t'at as a res "t of t'e dis'onor of t'e said demand draft, t'e *ere e=posed tonnecessar s'oc3, socia" ' mi"iation, and deep menta" ang is' in a foreign co ntr , and in t'epresence of an internationa" a dience.

On November 1$, 1 $, t'e tria" co rt rendered 0 dgment in favor of t'e defendant #respondenban3) and against t'e p"ainti;s #'erein petitioners), t'e dispositive portion of *'ic' states9

F?ERE@ORE, 0 dgment is 'ereb rendered in favor of t'e defendant, dismissing p"aincomp"aint, and ordering p"ainti;s to pa to defendant, on its co nterc"aim, t'e amo nt5-7,777.77, as reasonab"e attorne >s fees. (osts against t'e p"ainti;.

SO OR ERE . -

T'e petitioners appea"ed t'e decision of t'e tria" co rt to t'e (o rt of Appea"s. On " $$, 1 8t'e appe""ate co rt a


23/63


F?ERE@ORE, t'e 0 dgment appea"ed from, insofar as it dismissed p"ainti;>s comp"aint, is'ereb A@@IR E , b t is 'ereb RE ERSE and SET ASI E in a"" ot'er respect. No specia"prono ncement as to costs.

SO OR ERE . &

According to t'e appe""ate co rt, t'ere is no basis to 'o"d t'e respondent ban3 "iab"e for damagesfor t'e reason t'at it e=erted ever e;ort for t'e s b0ect foreign e=c'ange demand draft to be'onored. T'e appe""ate co rt fo nd and dec"ared t'at9

=== === ===

T' s, t'e 2an3 'ad ever reason to be"ieve t'at t'e transaction +na"" *ent t'ro g'smoot'" , considering t'at its Ne* Bor3 acco nt 'ad been debited and t'at t'ere *as nomiscomm nication bet*een it and Festpac!Ne* Bor3. SFI@T is a *or"d *ide association

sed b a"most a"" ban3s and is 3no*n to be t'e most re"iab"e mode of comm nication int'e internationa" ban3ing b siness. 2esides, t'e above proced re, *it' t'e 2an3 as dra*erand Festpac!S dne as dra*ee, and *it' Festpac!Ne* Bor3 as t'e reimb rsement 2an3'ad been in p"ace since 1 &7s and t'ere *as no reason for t'e 2an3 to s spect t'at t'ispartic "ar demand draft *o "d not be 'onored b Festpac!S dne .

@rom t'e evidence, it appears t'at t'e root ca se of t'e miscomm nications of t'e 2an3>sSFI@T message is t'e erroneo s decoding on t'e part of Festpac!S dne of t'e 2an3>sSFI@T message as an T% format. ?o*ever, a c"oser "oo3 at t'e 2an3>s E='s. 4&4 and4%4 *o "d s'o* t'at despite *'at appears to be an asteric3 *ritten over t'e +g re before4 4, t'e +g re can sti"" be distinct" seen as a n mber 414 and not n mber 4%4, to t'ee;ect t'at Festpac!S dne *as responsib"e for t'e dis'onor and not t'e 2an3.

oreover, it is not said asteris3 t'at ca sed t'e mis"eading on t'e part of t'e Festpac!S dne of t'e n mbers 414 to 4%4, since E='s. 4&4 and 4%4 are 0 st doc mentar copies of t'e cab"e message sent to Fespac!S dne . ?ence, if t'ere *as mista3e committed bFestpac!S dne in decoding t'e cab"e message *'ic' ca sed t'e 2an3>s message to besent to t'e *rong department, t'e mista3e *as Festpac>s, not t'e 2an3>s. T'e 2an3 'addone *'at an ordinar pr dent person is req ired to do in t'e partic "ar sit ation, a"t'o g'appe""ants e=pect t'e 2an3 to 'ave done more. T'e 2an3 'aving done ever t'ingnecessar or s a" in t'e ordinar co rse of ban3ing transaction, it cannot be 'e"d "iab"efor an embarrassment and corresponding damage t'at appe""ants ma 'ave inc rred. %

=== === ===

?ence, t'is petition, anc'ored on t'e fo""o*ing assignment of errors9

I

T?E ?ONORA2LE (OURT O@ A55EALS ERRE IN @IN IN/ 5RI ATE RESNE/LI/ENT 2B ERRONEOUSLB A55LBIN/ T?E STAN AR O@ ILI/EN(E O@ A5RU ENT 5ERSON4 F?EN IN TRUT? A ?I/?ER E/REE O@ ILI/EN(E IS I 5OSEU5ON T?E 2AN S.

II

T?E ?ONORA2LE (OURT O@ A55EALS ERRE IN A2SOL IN/ 5RI ATE RES5OLIA2ILITB 2B O ERLOO IN/ T?E @A(T T?AT T?E IS?ONOR O@ T?E E AN 2REA(? O@ 5RI ATE RES5ON ENT>S FARRANTB AS T?E RAFER T?EREO@.

III

T?E ?ONORA2LE (OURT O@ A55EALS ERRE IN NOT ?OL IN/ T?ATO ERF?EL IN/LB 2B T?E E I EN(E, T?E IS?ONOR O@ T?E E AN RA@T 5RI ATE RES5ON ENT>S NE/LI/EN(E AN NOT T?E RAFEE 2AN . D

T'e petitioners contend t'at d e to t'e +d ciar nat re of t'e re"ations'ip bet*een t'erespondent ban3 and its c"ients, t'e respondent s'o "d 'ave e=ercised a 'ig'er degree of di"igencet'an t'at e=pected of an ordinar pr dent person in t'e 'and"ing of its a;airs as in t'e case at bar.

T'e appe""ate co rt, according to petitioners, erred in app" ing t'e standard of di"igence of aordinar pr dent person on" . 5etitioners a"so c"aim t'at t'e respondent ban3 vio"ate Section &1 ot'e Negotiab"e Instr ments La* *'ic' provides t'e *arrant of a dra*er t'at 4===presentment, t'e instr ment *i"" be accepted or paid, or bot', according to its tenor ===.4 T' s,t'e petitioners arg e t'at respondent ban3 s'o "d be 'e"d "iab"e for damages for vio"ation of t'is*arrant . T'e petitioners pra t'is (o rt to re!e=amine t'e facts to cite certain instances of neg"igence.

It is o r vie* and *e 'o"d t'at t'ere is no reversib"e error in t'e decision of t'e appe""ate co rt.

Section 1 of R "e 8- of t'e Revised R "es of (o rt provides t'at 4#T)'e petition #for revie*) s'a"raise only questions of la" *'ic' m st be distinct" set fort'.4 T' s, *e 'ave r "ed t'at fa+ndings of t'e (o rt of Appea"s are conc" sive on t'e parties and not revie*ab"e b t'is (o rt Vand t'e carr even more *eig't *'en t'e (o rt of Appea"s a


24/63


faci"itate internationa" commercia" transactions. In fact, t'e SFI@T cab"e message sent brespondent ban3 to t'e dra*ee ban3, Festpac!S dne , stated t'at it ma c"aim reimb rsementfrom its Ne* Bor3 branc', Festpac!Ne* Bor3, *'ere respondent ban3 'as a deposit do""ar acco nt.

T'e facts as fo nd b t'e co rts a quo s'o* t'at respondent ban3 did not ca se an erroneo stransmitta" of its SFI@T cab"e message to Festpac!S dne . It *as t'e erroneo s decoding of t'ecab"e message on t'e part of Festpac!S dne t'at ca sed t'e dis'onor of t'e s b0ect foreigne=c'ange demand draft. An emp"o ee of Festpac!S dne in S dne , A stra"ia mista3en" read t'eprinted +g res in t'e SFI@T cab"e message of respondent ban3 as 4 T% 4 instead of as 4 T1 4.As a res "t, Festpac!S dne constr ed t'e said cab"e message as a format for a "etter of credit,and not for a demand draft. T'e appe""ate co rt correct fo nd t'at 4t'e +g re before > > can sti""be distinct" seen as a n mber >1> and not n mber >%>.4 Indeed, t'e "ine of a 4%4 is in a s"antingposition *'i"e t'e "ine of a 414 is in a 'oriQonta" position. T' s, t'e n mber 414 in 4 T1 4 cannotbe constr ed as 4%4. 11

T'e evidence a"so s'o*s t'at t'e respondent ban3 e=ercised t'at degree of di"igence e=pected of an ordinar pr dent person nder t'e circ mstances obtaining. 5rior to t'e +rst dis'onor of t'es b0ect foreign e=c'ange demand draft, t'e respondent ban3 advised Festpac!Ne* Bor3 to 'onort'e reimb rsement c"aim of Festpac!S dne and to debit t'e do""ar acco nt 1$ of respondent ban3*it' t'e former. As soon as t'e demand draft *as dis'onored, t'e respondent ban3, t'in3ing t'att 'e prob"em *as *it ' t 'e reimb rsement and *it 'o t an idea t 'at it *as d e tomiscomm nication, re!con+rmed t'e a t'orit of Festpac!Ne* Bor3 to debit its do""ar acco nt fort'e p rpose of reimb rsing Festpac!S dne . 16 Respondent ban3 a"so sent t*o #$) more cab"emessages to Festpac!Ne* Bor3 inq iring *' t'e demand draft *as not 'onored. 18

Fit' t'ese estab"is'ed facts, *e no* determine t'e degree of di"igence t'at ban3s are req ired toe=ert in t'eir commercia" dea"ings. In :hilippine 3an8 of Commerce v+ Court of Appeals 1- p'o"dinga "ong standing doctrine, *e r "ed t'at t'e degree of di"igence req ired of ban3s, is more t'an t'atof a good father of a family *'ere t'e +d ciar nat re of t'eir re"ations'ip *it' t'eir depositors isconcerned. In ot'er *ords ban3s are d t bo nd to treat t'e deposit acco nts of t'eir depositors*it' t'e highest degree of care . 2 t t'e said r "ing app"ies on" to cases *'ere ban3s act ndert'eir +d ciar capacit , t'at is, as depositar of t'e deposits of t'eir depositors. 2 t t'e same'ig'er degree of di"igence is not e=pected to be e=erted b ban3s in commercia" transactions t'atdo not invo"ve t'eir +d ciar re"ations'ip *it' t'eir depositors.

(onsidering t'e foregoing, t'e respondent ban3 *as not req ired to e=ert more t'an t'e di"igenceof a good fat'er of a fami" in regard to t'e sa"e and iss ance of t'e s b0ect foreign e=c'angedemand draft. T'e case at bar does not invo"ve t'e 'and"ing of petitioners> deposit, if an , *it' t'erespondent ban3. Instead, t'e re"ations'ip invo"ved *as t'at of a b er and se""er, t'at is, bet*eent'e respondent ban3 as t'e se""er of t'e s b0ect foreign e=c'ange demand draft, and 5R(I as t'eb er of t'e same, *it' t'e $7 t' Asian Racing conference Secretariat in S dne , A stra"ia as t'epa ee t'ereof. As ear"ier mentioned, t'e said foreign e=c'ange demand draft *as intended for t'epa ment of t'e registration fees of t'e petitioners as de"egates of t'e 5R(I to t'e $7 t' Asian Racing(onference in S dne .

T'e evidence s'o*s t'at t'e respondent ban3 did ever t'ing *it'in its po*er to prevent t'edis'onor of t'e s b0ect foreign e=c'ange demand draft. T'e erroneo s reading of its cab"e

message to Festpac!S dne b an emp"o ee of t'e "atter co "d not 'ave been foreseen b t'erespondent ban3. 2eing na*are t'at its emp"o ee erroneo s" read t'e said cab"e message,Festpac!S dne mere" stated t'at t'e respondent ban3 'as no deposit acco nt *it' it to coverfor t'e amo nt of One T'o sand Si= ? ndred Ten A stra"ian o""ar #AU 1&17.77) indicated inforeign e=c'ange demand draft. T' s, t'e respondent ban3 'ad t'e impression t'at Festpac!Ne*

Bor3 'ad not et made avai"ab"e t'e amo nt for reimb rsement to Festpac!S dne despite t'efact t'at respondent ban3 'as a s


25/63


from t'e direction of E SA to*ards e"ta (irc"e at appro=imate" 87 3i"ometers per 'o r. G1H Uponreac'ing t'e intersection of 8t' Fest Street t'eir car co""ided *it' a 1 %- 8!door To ota (oronasedan *it' p"ate n mber 5 %11 o*ned and driven b /regorio artineQ. artineQ 'ad 0 stattended a Loved @"oc3 meeting *it' 'is da g'ter Sa'"ee G$H and *as coming from t'e easternportion of eQon Aven e near e"ta (irc"e. ?e *as t'en e=ec ting a U!t rn at t'e speed of - 3p'at t'e nort'!*est portion of eQon Aven e going to ani"a *'en t'e accident occ rred.

T'e co""ision P ng t'e (orona t*ent #$7) meters so t'*ard from t'e point of impact ca singit to "and atop t'e center is"and of eQon Aven e. T'e /a"ant s3ittered so t'*ard on eQonAven e>s *estern 'a"f "eaving its "eft rear abo t fo r #8) meters past t'e (orona>s rig't frontside. T'e principa" points of contact bet*een t'e t*o #$) cars *ere t'e /a"ant>s "eft front side andt'e (orona>s rig't front door inc" ding its rig't front fender.

2ot' petitioner and artineQ c"aimed t'at t'eir "anes 'ad green tra rec3"ess impr dence consist ing in 'is pa ing no 'eed to t'e red "ig'tand ma3ing !1 #/a"ant car) proceed at a fast c"ip as it approac'ed and entered t'eintersection. /regorio>s basic c"aim, s bstantia"" corroborated b Sa'"ee>s testimon ! in s m tot'e e;ect t'at *'en 'e made !$ #(orona car) proceed to t rn "eft, t'e "eft!t rn arro* *as "ig'ted

green or go for !$ and it *as red "ig't or stop for !1 ! is t'e same basic version 'e gave in 'is*ritten q estion!and!ans*er statement to t'e po"ice investigator on 16 ecember 1 7: certain" ,t'e c"ear consistenc of /regorio>s post re respecting s c' cr cia", na decisive, matecirc mstance attending t'e s b0ect accident nderscores t'e veracit of t'e prosec tion version,even as it tends to indicate t'e scant meas re of fait' and credence t'at can be safe" reposed ont'e defense version = = = = # emphasis ours ).G1$H

T'is is f rt'er e"aborated pon b t'e (o rt of Appea"s in its decision !

/regorio testi+ed t'at *'en t'e arro* of t'e tras car rested on top of tcenter is"and of eQon Aven e, *'i"e appe""ant>s car stopped at t'e midd"e of t'e "ane of eQ

Aven e facing to*ards t'e genera" direction of iapo # id ., pp. 16!18: emphas

espite t'ese +ndings, petitioner, maintaining t'at 'is conviction in t'e co rts be"o* *asbased mere" on 'is post!co""ision cond ct, as3s s to discard t'e +ndings of fact of t'e tria" co rand eva" ate ane* t'e probative va" e of t'e evidence. In t'is regard, *e reiterate o r r "ingin :eople v+ 3erna lG18H !

= = = = It 'as t' s become a persistent monoton for t'e (o rt to 'o"d, since more often t'annot t'e c'a""enge re"ates to t'e credibi"it of *itnesses, t'at it i s bo nd b t'e prevai"ing doctrine,fo nded on a 'ost of 0 rispr dentia" r "ings, to t'e e;ect t'at t'e matter is best determined at t'etria" co rt "eve" *'ere testimonies are 4+rst 'and given, received, assessed and eva" ated4 #v+ Miranda , $6- S(RA $7$). T'e +ndings of t'e tria" co rt on t'e cred "it of testimongenera"" not dist rbed on appea" since 4signi+cant foc s is 'e"d to "ie on t'e deportment of, *e"" as t'e pec "iar manner in *'ic' t'e dec"aration is made b , t'e *itness in open co rt4#:eople v+ 0ado , $88 S(RA &--) *'ic' an appe""ate co rt *o "d be nab"e to f "" apprect'e same *a t'at a tria" co rt can, from t'e mere reading of t'e transcript of stenograp'ic

notes. It is on" *'en strong 0 sti+cations e=ist t'at an appe""ate co rt co "d den respect to ttria" co rt>s +ndings *'en, q ite repeated" said, it is s'o*n t'at t'e tria" co rt 'as c"ear"over"oo3ed, mis nderstood or misapp"ied some facts or circ mstances of *eig't or s bstan
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125134.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125134.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125134.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125134.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125134.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125134.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125134.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125134.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125134.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125134.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125134.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125134.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/

torts cases second batch

Documents