torts digest batch 3

8/19/2019 Torts Digest Batch 3

1/22

Yamada vs. Manila Railroad1915 (OCC)

Facts:

• Plaintiffs and 3 other companions hired a taxicab from Bachrach Garage and Taxicab Co for a trip

to Cavite Viejo.

•

On their wa bac!" while crossing the trac!s of defendant railroad in #an $%an" m%nicipalit ofCavite Viejo" the a%tomobile was str%c! b a train and the plaintiffs inj%red.

• Trial co%rt dismissed the complaint on the merits as to the &anila 'ailroad Compan and held the

defendant taxicab compan liable for damages

• the appellant contended on the trial and offered evidence to prove that" on approaching the

railroad crossing from the direction in which the a%tomobile was travelling at the time" the view ofthe railroad trac!s in both directions was obstr%cted b b%shes and trees growing alongsidethereof" and that it was impossible for a person approaching the crossing even tho%gh on g%ard"to detect b sight the approach of a train.

• 'ailroad trains rarel pass over trac!s witho%t noise and their presence" generall spea!ing" is

easil detected b persons who ta!e ordinar preca%tions.

Issue: (O) taxicab compan f%ll discharged its d%t when it f%rnished a s%itable car and selected a

driver who had *+, ears experience

Held: NO

• The Civil Code" in dealing with the liabilit of a master for the negligent acts of his servant" ma!es

a distinction between private individ%als and p%blic enterprises. -rt. /013" Civil Code.2 Thatarticle" together with the preceding article" is as follows

R! 19"#. person who b an act or omission ca%ses damage to another when there is fa%lt ornegligence shall be obliged to repair the damage so done.chanroblesvirt%alawlibrar chanrobles virt%allaw librar

R!. 19"$. The obligation imposed b the preceding article is demandable" not onl for personal acts andomissions" b%t also for the persons for whom the sho%ld beresponsible.chanroblesvirt%alawlibrar chanrobles virt%al law librar

The father" and on his death or incapacit the mother is liable for the damages ca%sed bthe minors who live with them.chanroblesvirt%alawlibrar chanrobles virt%al law librar

G%ardians are liable for the damages ca%sed b minors or incapacitated persons who are%nder their a%thorit and live with them.chanroblesvirt%alawlibrar chanrobles virt%al law librar

Owners or directors of an establishment or enterprise are e4%all liable for the damagesca%sed b their emploees in the service of the branches in which the latter ma be emploed oron acco%nt of their d%ties.chanroblesvirt%alawlibrar chanrobles virt%al law librar

The #tate is liable in this sense when it acts thro%gh a special agent" b%t not when thedamage sho%ld have been ca%sed b the official to whom properl it pertained to do the act

performed" in which case the provisions of the proceeding article shall beapplicable.chanroblesvirt%alawlibrar chanrobles virt%al law librar

5inall" master or directors of arts and trades are liable for the damages ca%sed b theirp%pils or apprentices while the are %nder their c%stod.chanroblesvirt%alawlibrar chanroblesvirt%al law librar

The liabilit referred to in this articles shall cease when the persons mentioned thereinprove that the emploed all the diligence of a good father of a famil to avoid the damage.

• President of compan even testified that none of its drivers were acc%stomed to stop or even

1


2/22

red%ce speed or ta!e an preca%tion in approaching and passing over the railroad crossings" nomatter of what nat%re" %nless the here 6the signal of the car7

%NR v. &R'N!Y#""

Facts:

• 'honda Br%nt" da%ghter of respondent 8thel Br%nt and an merican citi9en" came to the Philippines

for a visit sometime in $an%ar /0:1.

• Prior to her depart%re" she" together with her 5ilipino host $%an &an%el &. Garcia" traveled to Bag%io

Cit on board a &ercedes Ben9 sedan driven b 'odolfo ;. &ercelita.

• 1 !m@hr" drove past a vehicle" %naware of the railroad trac! %p

ahead and that the were abo%t to collide with P)' Train )o. T+>/.

• &ercelita was instantl !illed when the &ercedes Ben9 smashed into the trainA the two other

passengers s%ffered serio%s phsical inj%ries.

• certain $ames arrow bro%ght 'honda Br%nt to the Central ;%9on octor7s ospital in Tarlac"

where she was prono%nced dead after ten min%tes from arrival.• Garcia" who had s%ffered severe head inj%ries" was bro%ght via amb%lance to the same hospital.

• P)' claimed that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a famil not onl in the selection b%t

also in the s%pervision of its emploees

•


3/22

and bod. To prove contrib%tor negligence" it is still necessar to establish a ca%sal lin!" altho%gh notproximate" between the negligence of the part and the s%cceeding inj%r.


4/22

H3: )egligence is the fail%re to observeo for the protection of the interest of another persono that degree of care" preca%tion and vigilance which the circ%mstances j%stl demand"o whereb s%ch other person s%ffers inj%r.

Test for health care providers id the health care provider o either fail to do something which a reasonabl pr%dent health care provider wo%ld have done" or

that he or she did something that a reasonabl pr%dent health care provider wo%ld not have doneAand

o that fail%re or action ca%sed inj%r to the patient

8lements of an actionable cond%ct and application to the caseo %t Owners and operators of clinical laboratories have the d%t to compl with stat%tes" as

well as r%les and reg%lations" p%rposel prom%lgated to protect and promote the health of the people bpreventing the operation of s%bstandard" improperl managed and inade4%atel s%pported clinicallaboratories and b improving the 4%alit of performance of clinical laborator examinations. Violation of astat%tor d%t -' H,:: in this case2 is negligence.

. a clinical laborator m%st be administered" directed and s%pervised b a licensed phsiciana%thori9ed b the #ecretar of ealth" li!e a pathologist

. medical technologist m%st be %nder the s%pervision of the pathologist or a licensed phsician

. res%lts of an examination ma be released onl to the re4%esting phsician or his a%thori9edrepresentative %pon the direction of the laborator pathologist

o Breach violations of ' H,:: In +a+er r. Castro is t,e ,ead o* CC ut in ,is a**idavit ,e denied o6ners,i+ and

su+ervision over CC. It is Calderon t,e Med!ec, 6,o administers su+ervises and directs CC.

arcia conducted t,e H&s test o* res+ondent Ranida 6it,out t,e su+ervision o* r.

Castro !,e dis+uted H&s test result 6as released to res+ondent Ranida 6it,out t,e

aut,ori8ation o* de*endant;a++ellee Castro.Failure to com+l- 6it, t,e la6s and rules +romulatedis *ailure to oserve t,at care re


5/22

3 FOO2 v. %,iladel*a %aa+on;raviador

FC!2:

• Charles Vallereja" a >+ear old son of the spo%ses 5lorentino Vallejera and Theresa Vallejera" was

hit b a 5ord 5iera van owned b the petitioners and driven at the time b their emploee" Jene9a

•

Charles died as a res%lt of the accident.• n


6/22

&arredo v. arcia19>#

Facts

• Taxi driven b 5ontanilla" owned b Barredo" collided with a carretela carring /,+ear old Garcia"

who later on died.• 5a%stino was convicted of his criminal negligence.

• Parents moved to file a civil case against emploer Barredo.

• Barredo claims that since 5ontanilla7s offense is covered b the 'PC" his liabilit as an emploer

m%st onl be s%bsidiar %nder rt /13 of the 'PC.

Issue (o) a separate civil action ma be instit%ted against Barredo as an emploer++ Y2

Ratio

• The same negligent act ca%sing damage ma prod%ce civil liabilit arising from a crime %nder rt

/11 of the 'PC" or create an action for c%asi+delito or c%lpa extra+ contract%al %nder articles/01=+/0/1 of the Old Civil Code.

?uasi;delict or cul+a a


7/22

lcano v Hill1900

Facts

• 8lcano see!s damages from defendant 'eginald ill" a minor" married at the time of the occ%rrence"

and his father" the defendant &arvin ill" with whom he was living and getting s%bsistence" for the!illing b 'eginald of the son of the plaintiffs" named gapito 8lcano" of which" when criminallprosec%ted.F

• efendant+pellee 'eginald ill was prosec%ted criminall for the !illing of plaintiff+apellants7 son" b%t

ac4%itted on the gro%nd of Elac! of intent to !ill" co%pled with mista!eF.

• TC dismissed" %pon motion to dismiss of defendants" the complaint of plaintiffs for recover of

damages.

Issue

/.2 (o) present civil action for damages barred b the ac4%ittal of 'eginald in the criminal case.=.2 (o) rticle =/:1 -=nd and last paragraphs2 of the Civil Code can be applied against tt. ill

-defendant7s father2" notwithstanding the %ndisp%ted fact that at the time of the occ%rrence complainedof. 'eginald" tho%gh a minor" living with and getting s%bsistenee from his father" was alread legall

married.

Held/st >. 'esponsibilit for fa%lt or negligence %nder the preceding article is entirel separate and

distinct from the civil liabilit arising from negligence %nder the Penal Code. B%t the plaintiff cannotrecover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.

• c4%ittal from an acc%sation of criminal negligence" whether on reasonable do%bt or not" shall not be a

bar to a s%bse4%ent civil action" not for civil liabilit arising from criminal negligence" b%t for damagesd%e to a 4%asi+delict or Kc%lpa a4%ilianaK.

• , is demandable not onl for oneKs own acts or

omissions" b%t also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. The father and" in case of his

death or incapacit" the mother" are responsible. The father and" in case of his death or incapacit" themother" are responsible for the damages ca%sed b the minor children who live in their compan.L

•


8/22

• the marriage of a minor child does not relieve the parents of the d%t to see to it that the child" while

still a minor" does not give answerable for the borrowings of mone and alienation or enc%mbering ofreal propert which cannot be done b their minor married child witho%t their consent.

Rulin TC ordered to proceed.

RCI 4. F3ORIO190$

FC!2:

%g%st H" /0>/ German C. Garcia" Chief of the &isamis Occidental ospital" his wife" ;%minosa

;. Garcia" and 8ster 5rancisco" boo!!eeper of the hospital" hired and boarded a P? car owned andoperated b &arcelino


9/22

Petitioners have thereb foreclosed their right to intervene therein" or one where reservation to

file the civil action need not be made" for the reason that the law itself -rticle 33 of the Civil Code2alread ma!es the reservation and the fail%re of the offended part to do so does not bar him frombringing the action" %nder the pec%liar circ%mstances of the case" (e find no legal j%stification forrespondent co%rtKs order of dismissal

Mendo8a v. rrieta1909

Facts:

• three+ wa vehic%lar accident occ%rred involving a Ben9 car owned and driven b petitioner 8dgardo

&endo9a" a private jeep owned and driven b respondent 'odolfo #ala9ar" and a gravel and sand tr%c!owned b respondent 5elipino Timbol and driven b 5reddie &ontoa.

• s a conse4%ence of said mishap" two separate


10/22

• #ala9ar cannot be held civill liable for damages s%stained b petitioner7s car for considering that the collision

between the jeep driven b him and the car owned and driven b &endo9a was the res%lt of the hitting on therear of the jeep b the tr%c! driven b &ontoa" it cannot be said that #ala9ar was at fa%lt.

• ence" the right of petit ioner to claim damages from #ala9ar did not arise. ccordingl" inasm%ch as

petitionerKs ca%se of action as against jeep+owner+driver #ala9ar is ex+ delict%" fo%nded on rticle /11 of the'evised Penal Code" the civil action m%st be held to have been exting%ished in consonance with #ection 3-c2which provides that" E8xtinction of the penal action does not carr with it extinction of the civil" %nless theextinction proceeds from a declaration in a final j%dgment that the fact from which the civil right arise 'i' note*ist RF

Manliclic v. Calaunan#""0

FC!2. Petitioner &anliclic is a driver of Philippine 'abbit B%s ;ines"


11/22

of the act or omission complained of -or that there is declaration in a final j%dgment that the factfrom which the civil liabilit might arise did not exist2. The responsibilit arising from fa%lt ornegligence in a &uasi+'elict is entirel separate and distinct from the civil liabilit arising fromnegligence %nder the Penal Code. n ac4%ittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirelirrelevant in the civil case based on 4%asi+delict or c%lpa a4%iliana.

Canco v. Manila Railroad191=

Facts:

• $ose Cangco stepped off the train between >+:P& on a dar! night six meters before the train

reached a f%ll stop.

• (atermelons were placed at the edge of the platform for shipment to the mar!et.

• One or both of his feet came in contact with a sac! of watermelons and he slipped and fell on the

platform.

•

is bod then rolled off the platform and was drawn %nder the moving car" where his right armwas badl cr%shed and lacerated. is arm was amp%tated as a res%lt.

• Cangco instit%ted proceeding against &anila 'ailroad to recover damages d%e to the negligence

of servants and emploees in placing the sac!s of watermelons on the platform.

• C5


12/22

MNI3 RI3RO CO. 42. COM%NI !RN2!3N!IC191=

FC!2:

##@licante" belonging to Compania Transatlantica de Barcelona was transporting two locomotive boilers for the&anila 'ailroad Compan. The e4%ipment of the ship for discharging the heav cargo was not strong eno%gh tohandle the boilers. Compania Transatlantica contracted the services of tlantic g%lf and Pacific Co." which had thebest e4%ipment to lift the boilers o%t of the ship7s hold. (hen licante arrived in &anila" tlantic compan sent o%t itsfloating crane %nder the charge of one ;eden. (hen the first boiler was being hoisted o%t of the ship7s hold" theboiler co%ld not be bro%ght o%t beca%se the sling was not properl placed and the head of the boiler was ca%ght

%nder the edge of the hatch. The weight on the crane was increased b a strain estimated at /* tons with the res%ltthat the cable of the sling bro!e and the boiler fell to the bottom of the ship7s hold. The sling was again adj%sted andthe boiler was again lifted b%t as it was being bro%ght %p the bolt at the end of the derric! bro!e and the boiler fellagain. The boiler was so badl damaged that it had to be shipped bac! to 8ngland to be reb%ilt. The damagess%ffered b &anila 'ailroad amo%nted to P=3"3H3.=0. &anila 'ailroad then filed an action against the #treamshipCompan to recover said damages. The #teamship Compan ca%sed tlantic Compan to be bro%ght as co+defendant arg%ing that tlantic Compan as an independent contractor" who had %nderta!en to discharge the boilershad become responsible for the damage.

The Co%rt of 5irst


13/22

no right of action to recover damages from tlantic Compan for the wrongf%l act which constit%ted the violation of thecontract. The rights of &anila 'ailroad can onl be made effective thro%gh the #teamship Compan with whom thecontract of affreightment was made.

2Y?'I v. C

FC!2

• $%an #J? of the '%les and 'eg%lations of &anila &8&O'


14/22

• *," />*0 and />,3 of the Civil Code were cited. The fo%ndation of ;'T7sliabilit if the contract of carriage and its obligation to indemnif the victim arises from the breach of thatcontract b reason of its fail%re to exercise the high diligence re4%ired of the common carrier.

#) No.


15/22

the inj%r" one res%lting in c%lpa contract%al and the other in c%lpa a4%iliana" rticle #19> o* t,e CivilCode can well appl. (hen an act which constit%tes a breach of contract wo%ld have itself 33constit%tedthe so%rce of a 4%asi+delict%al liabilit had no contract existed between the parties" thecontract can be said to have been breached b tort" thereb allowing the r%les on tort toappl.

;iabilit of &anila 'ailroad is direct.


16/22

&oreover" the Co%rt conc%rs with the finding of the C that the contract between the parties herein was one

of lease as defined %nder rticle /,H3 of the Civil Code.


17/22

The #%preme Co%rt

• Petitioner merel pras for absol%tion from liabilit res%lting from the fire b claiming that it had no direct

participation in the incident.

• Petitioner asserts that there was no rational lin! between its alleged neglect in renewing the dealership

agreement and the act that ca%sed the fire.

• &oreover" petitioner points o%t" neither


18/22

each defendant. #%pposedl" %nder the ha%ling contract" petitioner ma re4%ire Villar%9 to indemnif it for itsshare. owever" beca%se it was not able to maintain the cross+claim filed against him" it shall be liable for itsown share %nder rticle /=1: and can no longer see! indemnification or s%brogation from him %nder itsdismissed cross+claim. Petitioner ma not p%rs%e its cross+claim against '%bin ? and ortina ?" beca%sethe cross+claims against them were also dismissedA moreover" the were all e4%all liable for theconflagration as disc%ssed herein.

5inall" the incident occ%rred in /00=. lmost =1 ears have passedA et" respondents" who were innocent

bstanders" have not been compensated for the loss of their homes" properties and livelihood. )otabl" neither the'TC nor the C imposed legal interest on the act%al damages that it awarded respondents. -?sed /astern (hippingcase8

!H CON2O3I! &N and !R'2! COR%OR!ION vs. C and 3.C. ID and CO.#""$

FC!

• ," ;.C. ia9 opened a savings acco%nt with #olidban!.

• On /H %g%st /00/" ;.C. ia9 thro%gh its cashier" &ercedes &acaraa" filled %p a savings -cash2 deposit slip for

P001 and a savings -chec!s2 deposit slip for P*1.

• &acaraa instr%cted the messenger of ;.C. ia9"


19/22

• ;.C. ia9 demanded from #olidban! the ret%rn of its mone. #olidban! ref%sed. ;.C. ia9 filed a Complaint for

'ecover of a #%m of &one against #olidban!.

• The trial co%rt absolved #olidban!. ;.C. ia9 appealed to the C.

• C reversed the decision of the trial co%rt. C denied the motion for reconsideration of #olidban!. B%t it modified

its decision b deleting the award of exemplar damages and attorne7s fees. ence this petition.

I22'(O) petitioner #olidban! is liable.

R'3IN

• Yes. #olidban! is liable for breach of contract d%e to negligence" or c%lpa contract%al.

•

The contract between the ban! and its depositor is governed b the provisions of the Civil Code on simple loan.

• rticle /0:1 of the Civil Code expressl provides that Ex x x savings x x x deposits of mone in ban!s and similar

instit%tions shall be governed b the provisions concerning simple loan.F

• There is a debtor+creditor relationship between the ban! and its depositor.

The law imposes on ban!s high standards in view of the fid%ciar nat%re of ban!ing. The ban! is %nder oliation

to treat t,e accounts o* its de+ositors 6it, meticulous care al6a-s ,avin in mind t,e *iduciar- nature o*t,eir relations,i+.

• This fid%ciar relationship means that the ban!7s obligation to observe Ehigh standards of integrit and

performanceF is deemed written into ever deposit agreement between a ban! and its depositor. The fid%ciarnat%re of ban!ing re4%ires ban!s to ass%me a degree of diligence higher than that of a good father of a famil.

• rticle //>= of the Civil Code states that the degree of diligence re4%ired of an obligor is that prescribed b law or

contract" and absent s%ch stip%lation then the diligence of a good father of a famil. #ection = of ' :>0/prescribes the stat%tor diligence re4%ired from ban!s that ban!s m%st observe Ehigh standards of integrit andperformanceF in servicing their depositors.

• owever" the fid%ciar nat%re of a ban!+depositor relationship does not convert the contract between the ban! and

its depositors from a simple loan to a tr%st agreement" whether express or implied.

• 5ail%re b the ban! to pa the depositor is fail%re to pa a simple loan" and not a breach of tr%st. The law simpl

imposes on the ban! a higher standard of integrit and performance in compling with its obligations %nder thecontract of simple loan" beond those re4%ired of non+ban! debtors %nder a similar contract of simple loan.

• The fid%ciar nat%re of ban!ing does not convert a simple loan into a tr%st agreement beca%se ban!s do notaccept deposits to enrich depositors b%t to earn mone for themselves.

19


20/22

2olidan/7s &reac, o* its Contractual Oliation rticle //>= of the Civil Code provides that Eresponsibilit arising from negligence in the performance of ever !ind of obligation isdemandable.F 5or breach of the savings deposit agreement d%e to negligence" or c%lpa contract%al" the ban! is liable to itsdepositor.

Calapre left the passboo! with #olidban! beca%se the Etransaction too! timeF and he had to go to llied Ban! for anothertransaction. The passboo! was still in the hands of the emploees of #olidban! for the processing of the deposit when Calapre left#olidban!. (hen the passboo! is in the possession of #olidban!7s tellers d%ring withdrawals" the law imposes on #olidban! and its

tellers an even higher degree of diligence in safeg%arding the passboo!.

#olidban!7s tellers m%st exercise a high degree of diligence in ins%ring that the ret%rn the passboo! onl to the depositor or hisa%thori9ed representative. 5or failing to ret%rn the passboo! to Calapre" the a%thori9ed representative of ;.C. ia9" #olidban! andTeller )o. , pres%mptivel failed to observe s%ch high degree of diligence in safeg%arding the passboo!" and in ins%ring its ret%rn tothe part a%thori9ed to receive the same.


21/22

negligence in allowing a withdrawal slip signed b its a%thori9ed signatories to fall into the hands of an impostor. Th%s" the liabilit of#olidban! sho%ld be red%ced.


22/22

contractual beca%se %sed the terms EtortF and E4%asi delict.F e said that the statement" Ean act thatbrea!s a contract ma also be a tortF is obiter and therefore not binding. B%t that7s his opinion.B%talid" &a. ngela G.

torts digest batch 3

Documents