Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

TOPIC:

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

FORSEEABILITY Actor is NOT negligent if a prudent man could have foreseen the harm that would result if the conduct is pursued.

ONG v METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for the death of their son in one of the swimming pools operated by defendant. Defendant is not liable. It was not remiss in its duty to provide adequate warnings/ signs to inform the patrons of the pool of the depth of the pool & other safety procedures. It did all that was humanly possible under the circumstances to restore life to the minor, and for that reason, it is unfair to hold it liable for his death. CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION v CA & ERNEST E. SIMKE Private respondent seeks to recover damages for the injuries he suffered when he slipped on an elevation in the viewing deck maintained by petitioner. Petitioner is liable. It was the obligation of the petitioner to insure the safety of the viewers using the viewing deck. It knew of the existence of the dangerous elevation, yet, it failed to have it repaired or altered in order to eliminate the existing hazard. TOPIC: EMERGENCY RULE When faced with an impending danger, one is not guilty of negligence if he was required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid it, unless the emergency he finds himself in was caused by his own negligence.

VALENZUELA v CA Petitioner seeks to recover damages for injuries sustained by her in a vehicular accident, which occurred when she parked 1-1/2 ft away from the sidewalk along Aurora Blvd due to a flat tire, and was subsequently hit by private respondents vehicle. Petitioner is not guilty of contributory negligence. She exercised the standard reasonably dictated by the emergency and could not be considered to have contributed to the unfortunate circumstances which eventually led to the amputation of one of her lower extremities. The emergency which led her to park her car on a sidewalk in Aurora Blvd was not of her own making, and it was evident that she had taken all reasonable precautions. TOPIC: CHILDREN The action of a child will not necessarily be judged according to the standard of an ordinary adult.

JULIAN DEL ROSARIO v MANILA ELECTRIC CO. Petitioner seeks to recover damages for the death of his son, resulting from a shock from a wire used by respondent for the transmission of electricity. Petitioners son is not guilty of contributory negligence, owing to his immature years and the natural curiosity which a child would feel to do something out of the ordinary. And the mere fact that the deceased ignored the caution of a companion whos 8 years old, does not alter the case. TAYLOR v MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT CO.

Laura Katrina Noel

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

Petitioner seeks to recover damages for the loss of an eye and other injuries sustained after playing with caps used by respondent for blasting charges of dynamite. Respondent is not liable for damages. Petitioners son was more mature both mentally and physically than the average boy of his age, as he was exposed to the mechanical work his dad did. Although he might not have anticipated the injuries resulting from his act, he knew that a more or less dangerous explosion might occur from his igniting the contents of the cap with a match. FEDERICO YLARDE v EDGARDO AQUINO Petitioner seeks to recover damages for the death of his son resulting from the concrete block that fell into the pit dug by his son & 3 others, which eventually pinned him to the wall. Petitioners son is not guilty of reckless imprudence causing his own death. Respondent negligently left the children to play in the pit, an obviously attractive nuisance, despite knowing that the huge concrete block could fall anytime. The standard of conduct to which a child must conform for his own protection is that degree of care ordinarily exercised by children of the same age, capacity, discretion, knowledge and experience under the same or similar circumstance. TOPIC: PHYSICAL DISABILITY The standard of conduct to which a physically disabled person must conform to in order to avoid being negligent is that of a reasonable person under like disability.

UNITED STATES v BONIFACIO The respondent is being charged with reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. The victim was a deaf-mute who died after being run over by a train manned by respondent. The respondent is absolved of any liability. The victim, being a deaf-mute, should have known of the dangers in walking along the train tracks. The respondent was not remiss in his duty of trying to warn the victim. ROBERTS v STATE OF LUISIANA Petitioner seeks to recover damages from private respondent, a totally blind concession stand operator, for injuries sustained when respondent accidentally bumped petitioner while walking to the restroom without a cane. Private respondent was not negligent. Its not uncommon for blind people to rely on other techniques when moving around in a familiar setting. TOPIC: EXPERTS AND PROFESSIONALS An expert should exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular field that he is in.

CULION ICE, FISH AND ELECTRIC CO v PHIL. MOTORS CORPORATION Petitioner seeks to recover damages for the destruction of its motor schooner, which respondent negligently repaired. Respondents employee is liable for damages. Quest held himself out to be an expert at installing parts on the schooner of petitioner, and due to his lack of skill and negligence, petitioners boat was wrecked in a fire during the trial run caused by the wrong mixture of fuel. TOPIC: INTOXICATION

Laura Katrina Noel

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

Actor will not be liable despite being intoxicated if it was proven that his intoxication did not contribute to the accident or that the accident would not have occurred had he been sober. E M WRIGHT v MANILA ELECTRIC R R & LIGHT CO Petitioner seeks to recover damages for injuries sustained by him when he fell of his calesa as he was crossing the tracks of respondent, while being in a state of intoxication. Respondent is liable for damages. Petitioner cannot be said to have been negligent because of intoxication for the reason that even though he was not intoxicated, he would still have fallen off the calesa due to the poor maintenance of respondents tracks. TOPIC: STANDARD v SPECIFIC RULES In deciding negligence cases, courts place greater importance on standards, which are context-sensitive legal norms that may vary depending on the situation, as opposed to rules, which are more formal and mechanical.

BALTIMORE & OHIO R R v GOODMAN Respondent seeks to recover damages for the death of her husband, which occurred when petitioners train ran him down at a railroad crossing. Petitioner is not liable. Respondents husband should have been more responsible, as the circumstances show that it was daylight and he was familiar with the territory. Respondents husband should have stepped down from the vehicle and checked for an incoming train, as his view of the tracks was covered. POKORA v WABASH RY CO Petitioner seeks to recover damages for injuries sustained when the ice truck he was driving was struck by a train while crossing respondents railroad tracks. Petitioner is not guilty of contributory negligence. Despite the ruling enunciated in the Goodman case, petitioner is not required to step out of his truck and survey the tracks. There were boxcars blocking the tracks, and even though he stops at the clearing, said clearing was already in the danger zone, and by the time he gets back into his truck, a train might already be on the way. PRECIOLITA CORLISS v THE MANILA RAILROAD CO Petitioner seeks to recover damages for the death of her husband, which occurred when the jeep he was driving collided with a locomotive owned by Respondent. Respondent is not liable for damages. The accident that occurred was caused by petitioners husbands own fault. He had ample time to apply the breaks, yet despite the constant whistle blows by the conductor of the train, he still chose to speed up to try to reach the other side before the train crossed the tracks. VICTORINO CUSI & PILAR POBRE v PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS Petitioners seek to recover damages for the injuries caused by the collision between their car and a train. Respondent is liable. Petitioners were not remiss in the care they exercised before crossing the tracks, whose bars were raised, as they were driving at a slow pace and they also listened for any whistles. Respondents had the duty to ensure safe crossing, yet they did not have any guards manning the tracks, nor were the bars raised, which prohibit cars from crossing as a train approaches.

Laura Katrina Noel

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

TOPIC:

PROXIMATE CAUSE For an actor to be liable, the one seeking damages has the burden of proof to show that there was a causal connection between the negligence or violation of the statute and the injury.

VDA DE GREGORIO v GO CHING BING Petitioner seeks to recover damages for the death of her husband after being hit by a truck owned by the Respondent. Respondent is not liable for damages. The one ultimately responsible was the person driving at the time, who was a uniformed policeman, and was actually not authorized by the respondent to drive his truck. Although respondent was wrong in directing a mere holder of a students license to drive, there was no direct and proximate causal connection seen between the negligence/violation of the law to the death of petitioners husband. TOPIC: PRACTICE AND CUSTOM Non-compliance with the custom or practice in a community does not necessarily mean that the actor was negligent.

S D MARTINEZ v WILLIAM VAN BUSKIRK Petitioner seeks to recover damages for the injuries she sustained when the delivery wagon being driven by the defendant hit the carromata she was riding on. Respondent is not liable for damages. The manner in which he was handling the delivery van has not proved to be destructive nor injurious, and has been acquiesced by society for so long a time that they have ripened into custom. The very reason they have been accepted by society is the fact that said acts are beneficial rather then prejudicial. TOPIC: DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE Gross negligence will result in liability for damages if said actor pursued a course of conduct which would naturally and probably result to injury utter disregard of consequences.

NEGROS NAVIGATION CO, INC v CA Private respondent seeks to recover damages for the death of his family when the ship they were riding collided with an oil tanker. Petitioner is guilty of gross negligence. The crew of petitioners ship did not perform their duty of ensuring safe passage of their passengers. When the oil tanker signaled a possible collision, said crew was busy playing cards, and other similar recreational activities, instead of actively manning the ship. BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC v CA Private respondents seek to recover damages for the death of their father caused by electrocution due to an open electric wire which came in contact with the antenna of a jeep he touched. Petitioner is guilty of gross negligence. It is not only tasked with the distribution of electricity, but it must also ensure the safety of the public by proper maintenance and upkeep of its facilities. It was aware of the open electric wire years ago, yet it failed to repair said wire.

Laura Katrina Noel

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

TOPIC:

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

BURDEN OF PROOF He who seeks to recover damages because of the negligent acts of another has the burden of proving such negligence.

ESPIRITU v PHILIPPINE POWER AND DEV CO Petitioner seeks to recover damages due to severe injuries sustained after the electric wire owned by respondent broke and hit his head. Respondent is liable for damages. Petitioner did not perform acts out of the ordinary course of things, nor did he do anything to cause his injuries. Respondent is solely liable, as it was negligent in maintaining said electric wires causing it to suddenly snap. RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES v CA Private respondent seeks to recover damages due to undue embarrassment caused by defamatory words appended by petitioners employee to a telegram sent to him. Petitioner is liable. Although negligence may be hard to substantiate in proper cases, such by a breach of contract by a company due to the acts of its employees, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may apply, by considering the presence of facts or circumstances surrounding the injury. TOPIC: EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES Employers are required to provide reasonably safe premises, proper tools/materials, and other things to ensure that the employee is in a place wherein it is safe for him to work.

MA-AO SUGAR CENTRAL CO, INC v CA Private respondent seeks to recover damages for the death of her husband which occurred due to the improper maintenance of petitioners locomotive rails. Petitioner is liable. When the thing causing the injury is shown to be under the maintenance of the petitioner, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the petitioner, that the accident arose from want of care. TOPIC: BANKS Banks are required to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.

PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE v CA Private respondent seeks to recover damages for petitioners violation of their fiduciary relationship by not ensuring that the deposits made were actually credited to their account. Petitioner is liable. Although petitioner maintains that its employees are the ones liable personally, as a bank, it is imbued with public interest, and as such, it must exercise extraordinary diligence in ensuring that the accounts of its depositors are handled with utmost care. TOPIC: DOCTORS Whether or not a physician is guilty of negligence depends on the standard of care observed by other members of the profession in good standing under similar circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state of the profession at the time of treatment or the present state of medical science.

Laura Katrina Noel

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

DR NINEVETCH CRUZ v CA

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

Private respondent seeks damages for the death of her mother which occurred while petitioner was operating on her. Petitioner is guilty of medical malpractice. Petitioner failed to perform her duties with utmost care, as proved by her failure to conduct pre-operation tests, and the subsequent transfer of the deceased without the respondents permission. TOPIC: PLAINTIFFS NEGLIGENCE AS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE If the plaintiffs action was the proximate cause of his own injury, he cannot recover.

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO, INC v CA & SPOUSES ESTEBAN Private respondents seek damages for the injury they sustained when the car they were riding fell into an excavation being undertaken by petitioner. Petitioner is not liable. Private respondents are solely responsible for the injuries they sustained. Petitioner was not remiss in its duty to provide warning signs for the excavation and other repairs being done on the road. Furthermore, despite said warnings, respondents were driving fast, not being able to break on time, and is subsequently the proximate cause of its accident. KIM v PHILIPPINE AERIAL TAXI CO Petitioner seeks damages for the severe injuries he sustained as he was alighting from respondents seaplane. Respondent is not liable. Petitioner was solely at fault for not following the safety procedures. He was aware that if the plane has not come to a full stop, and the propellers are still in motion, he must not alight from the plane. Due to his own negligence and impatience, the propellers hit his arm, causing his arm to be amputated. TOPIC: CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE If the proximate cause was due to the act of the defendant, and his negligence was merely contributory, the damages he may recover will be mitigated. M H RAKES v THE ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY Petitioner seeks to recover damages for the injury he sustained while working for Respondent. Petitioner is guilty of contributory negligence. Petitioner was aware of the companys safety precautions, yet he chose to walk by the side of the car. Although it did not per se contribute to the cause, it was still an element to be considered as part of the damage. PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION, INC & ARMANDO U CARBONEL v IAC Private respondent seeks to recover damages for the injuries he sustained when he collided into the dump truck owned by petitioner. Private respondent is guilty of contributory negligence. He was driving recklessly, and though petitioners were at fault for parking irresponsibly, respondent was still partly to blame for his own injury. TOPIC: FORTUITOUS EVENT The actor will not be excused from liability if the fortuitous event was not the sole cause of the injury.

Laura Katrina Noel

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v CA

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

Private respondents seek to recover damages for the deaths and destruction of property that occurred when petitioner released water from Angat Dam, causing a flood. Petitioner is guilty of negligence. A human factor intervened through the insufficiency in the early warning signs that was sent to the residents. To be free from liability, the petitioner must have been free from any previous negligence by which the loss or damage may have been occasioned. SOUTHEASTERN COLLEGE, INC. v CA Private respondents seek to recover damages for the destruction of their roof when portions of petitioners building was partly ripped off and blown away during the storm. Petitioners are not liable. Private respondents failed to affirmatively establish by competent evidence the facts constituting negligence. They merely gave presumptions and conclusions without basis in fact. TOPIC: DANGEROUS CONDITIONS A person who, knowing that he is exposed to a dangerous condition, voluntarily assumes the risk of such dangerous condition may not recover from the defendant who maintained such dangerous conditions.

TRANSPORTO v MIJARES Petitioner seeks to recover damages due to injuries sustained by him when he took the bet of defendant and lit the firecracker while holding it tightly with his hand. Petitioner cannot recover. He was already told by his officemates that the firecracker was real, and would explode, yet he was acting stupid and all-knowing, saying that if it was held tightly, it wouldnt explode. He was the only cause for his own injury. MURPHY v STEEPLECHASE AMUSEMENT CO Petitioner seeks to recover damages due to injuries sustained by him when he rode an attraction (The Flopper) featured in the respondents amusement park. Petitioner cannot recover. The very hazard that was invited and foreseen was a fall, which was what happened to petitioner. Respondent cannot be held liable for this was a single occurrence of injury, and petitioner knew very well that should he ride the attraction, he might fall. TOPIC: REMOTE CAUSE Remote cause is a cause which some independent force merely took advantage of to accomplish something not the natural effect thereof.

CONSOLACION GABETO v AGATON ARANETA Petitioner seeks to recover damages for the death of her husband which occurred when he fell from the carromata which was stopped in the middle of the street by respondent. Respondent is not liable. His act of stopping the carromata in the middle of the street did lead to the driver to alight from his seat, which eventually led to the horse running off at full speed, then to the decedent jumping off the carromata. But the sequence of events were too far off to connect the first cause to the actual and proximate cause which was actually the weak tie from the carromata to the horse.

Laura Katrina Noel

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

TOPIC:

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

CONCURRENT CAUSES Should a persons negligence, concurring with one or more efficient causes other than the plaintiffs, become the proximate cause of the injury, he shall be solidarily liable with all the joint tortfeasors.

PROSPERO SABIDO v CARLOS CUSTODIO Private respondent seeks to recover damages for the death of Agripino Custodio which occurred when the truck owned by petitioner and a bus owned by Laguna Tayabas sideswiped each other. Petitioner is jointly and severally liable with Laguna Tayabas and their respective drivers. Both acts were the proximate cause of the death. The negligence of petitioner and its driver would not have produced an accident without the negligence of Laguna Tayabas and its driver, as well. FRANCISCO VINLUAN v CA Private respondents seek to recover damages for the death of their family members who perished when the bus they were riding on crashed and burned. Petitioner (owner of the bus) is jointly and severally liable with its driver. Instead of giving way to a bus which tried to overtake it, petitioners driver increased its speed and lost control of the bus. Petitioner liability, thus, stems from breach of contract of carriage.

TOPIC:

CAUSE-IN-FACT TEST To be liable, the cause must be that, without which, the damage would not have occurred.

PILIPINAS BANK v CA Private respondent seeks to recover damages for embarrassment and serious anxiety cause by petitioner. Petitioner is liable. Its failure to ensure that the money that respondent deposited was actually credited to his account, thus, subsequently embarrassing respondent by allowing his checks to bounce, gave rise to a cause of action for damages. TOPIC: DANGEROUS CONDITIONS If a person creates a condition, he may be held liable if such condition causes harm to either person or property.

RODRIGUEZA v MANILA RAILROAD CO Petitioner seeks to recover damages for the destruction of his property. Respondent is liable. It was negligent in ensuring that their locomotive would not produce sparks enough to ignite a fire. Although petitioners house is partly in the property of the respondent, and within the danger zone, respondent merely tolerated the positioning of the house, and did not tear it down, despite having the right to do so.

Laura Katrina Noel

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

TOPIC:

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

MEDICAL TREATMENT AS INTERVENING CAUSE A person is still liable despite the negligence, mistake or lack of skill of a physician or surgeon, whose treatment aggravated the original injury caused by the person. This is considered as a normal and foreseeable risk.

VDA DE BATACLAN v MARIANO MEDINA Petitioners seek to recover damages for the death of their family members who perished in a burning bus. Respondent is liable. Although the proximate cause of the deaths were not the overturning of the bus, but the fire that burned it, respondent still had the responsibility to ensure a safe travel. Respondent and his driver had every opportunity to save the people left in the bus, specially knowing that gas may have leaked, considering the position of the bus, but they still failed to try and save them. MERCEDES M TEAGUE v ELENA FERNANDEZ Respondent seeks to recover damages for the death of her sister due to a stampede when the building across was on fire. Petitioner is liable. Petitioner violated a building ordinance which required 2 stairways instead of just one. Although there were many events which followed, the violation of the ordinance was a continuing one, which actually became the proximate cause that created a condition which caused injury to others.

FILOMENO URBANO v IAC Petitioner seeks to overturn the respondents decision that he is liable for the death of Javier. Petitioner is not liable. Although petitioner may have wounded Javier with a bolo, Javier failed to take the necessary precautions to prevent germs from entering the open wound. Eventually, tetanus was able to seep into his body through the open wound, which was already healing. This is the proximate cause of the injury, not the wound inflicted by Urbano. TOPIC: CASES WHERE DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE WAS APPLIED Said doctrine is being applied to determine the proximate cause of the injury. It is not used to evaluate if the plaintiff is guilty of contributory or comparative negligence. In fact, the courts use this to determine if the defendants act is the proximate cause, and the plaintiffs is the one guilty of contributory negligence.

GLAN PEOPLES LUMBER AND HARDWARE v IAC Private respondent seeks to recover damages for the death of her husband which occurred due to a collision between the jeep he was driving and the truck of petitioner. Petitioner is not liable. Although petitioners truck was being driven a little over the other lane, the truck stopped upon seeing the jeep. Thus, private respondents husband is the one negligent based on the doctrine of last clear chance. He had every opportunity to swerve the jeep or to stop in order not to hit the truck, but he failed to do so. TOPIC: CASES WHERE DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE WAS HELD INAPPLICABLE

Laura Katrina Noel

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

Some instances where it does not apply are when plaintiff is not negligent, emergency rule, concurrent causes, action was instituted based on breach of contract, and plaintiff was not aware of the risk brought about by a prior fraud or negligent act. PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS v MARICAR BASCOS BAESA Respondent seeks to recover damages for the death of her family members which resulted from the collision between the bus of petitioner and the driver. Petitioner is liable. The last clear chance doctrine will not apply here, because the bus driver did not stop or go back onto his own lane, despite seeing that the jeep was approaching. The jeepney driver was also not aware that there was an existence of danger, as it was reasonable for him to expect that the bus would either stop or go back to his lane. None of which, the bus driver did. LBC AIR CARGO v CA Private respondent seeks to recover damages for the death of their father resulting from the collision of his motorcycle and the petitioners truck. Petitioner is liable. Petitioner negligently made a sharp turn to the left, despite not being able to see clearly due to the cloud of dust from 2 racing vehicles. The last clear chance doctrine will not apply because the petitioner is, in fact, the one guilty of supervening negligence. Although, the deceased may have been guilty of contributory negligence as he was also speeding too close to the vehicle he was following. But this only mitigates petitioners liability.

TOPIC:

ABUSE OF RIGHT

UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST v JADER Respondent seeks to recover damages for the humiliation experienced by him when petitioner failed to inform him that he was not eligible to take the bar exams. Petitioner is liable. Educational institutions are duty-bound to inform their students of their academic status, and not wait for the latter to inquire with them. ARTURO VALENZUELA v CA Petitioner seeks to recover damages for the unmerited dismissal by private respondents, as well as the withholding of the commission rightfully due to him. Respondents are liable. Respondents unwarranted attitude was brought about by the fact that petitioner refused to share the commission with them. Petitioner had every right to claim the commission for himself. He was under no obligation to remit part of the commission to them, yet, respondents fired him from the job. Their act was in bad faith and with abuse of right. TOPIC: BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY

APOLONIO TANJANCO v CA Private respondent seeks to recover damages for breach of promise to marry. Petitioner is not liable. Private respondent was not deceived into sleeping with him. Despite her knowing that petitioner will not marry her, she still had sexual relations with him. Had she been deceived, she would no longer have met with the petitioner repeatedly for a year.

Laura Katrina Noel

10

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH v CA Private respondent seeks to recover damages for breach of promise to marry.

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

Petitioner is liable. He deceived her into thinking that he will marry her, leading her and her family to believe him, as proven by the fact that her family had already begun spending for the wedding. However, petitioner was, in fact, already married, and merely promised to marry her so that she would have sexual relations with him. TOPIC: SEXUAL ASSAULT

CECILIO PE v ALFONSO PE Petitioner seeks to recover damages for the wrong caused by respondent on his family when he deceitfully convinced petitioners daughter to have an illicit affair with him. Respondent is liable. Respondent was married yet, he devised a clever strategy to convince petitioners daughter to enter into an affair with him. Since the time petitioners daughter left the parental home to meet with respondent, she was nowhere to be found, and for that, the family deserves the award for damages.

TOPIC:

DISCONNECTION OF ELECTRICITY OR GAS SERVICES The right to disconnect and deprive a customer of gas or electricity service must be exercised in accordance with law and rules. Mere deficiency in payment does not warrant immediate disconnection without prior notice to the customer.

MANILA GAS CORPORATION v CA Private respondent seeks to recover damages for the abrupt disconnection of his gas service constituting a breach of contract. Petitioner is liable. Petitioner had the legal duty to notify defendant of any deficiency in payment before cutting the gas service, yet he failed to do so. TOPIC: ABORTION AND WRONGFUL DEATH

ANTONIO GELUZ v CA Private respondent seeks to recover damages for the successive abortions committed by petitioner on his wife without his consent. Petitioner is not liable. Private respondent knew of the fact that his wife has already had 2 abortions, yet he never thought of telling her that he did not want her to do it. He never expressed any disagreement with her decision. Thus, despite his not expressly consenting to her abortions, his silence shall not be construed as expressly dissenting thereto. TOPIC: ILLEGAL DISMISSAL

GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP v CA Private respondent seeks to recover damages for the unlawful, malicious and oppressive acts of petitioner.

Laura Katrina Noel

11

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

Petitioner is liable. Despite being clear of all charges pertaining to fraudulent transactions, petitioner still persisted that he was the suspect, and that he should be fired. The dismissal by petitioner was tainted with bad faith and an abuse of right, and therefore, subject to damages. TOPIC: ACQUITTAL

GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP v CA Private respondent seeks to recover damages for malicious prosecution. Petitioners are liable. Petitioners already received numerous police investigations that private respondent is not guilty. Their complaints were also dismissed, yet they still filed other complaints with the court.

DRILON v CA Private respondent seeks to recover damages for malicious prosecution. Petitioner is not liable. Drilon merely made a mistake in good faith, thinking that rebellion complexed with murder and frustrated murder was actually a crime. Doubtful questions of law may actually become the basis of good faith, such as in this instance. Furthermore, public officers are accorded the presumption of good faith in the performance of their duties. MANILA GAS CORPORATION v CA Private respondent seeks to recover damages for malicious prosecution. Petitioner is liable. Petitioner made a mistake in installing the gas meter, which eventually led to a loss in revenue. Instead of admitting its mistake, it filed an unsubstantiated complaint against private respondent for qualified theft. TOPIC: PUBLIC HUMILIATION

RAFAEL PATRICIO v HON OSCAR LEVISTE Respondent seeks to recover damages for the humiliation endured by him. Petitioner is liable. He slapped him in front of a crowd, albeit in the state of intoxication. The act of slapping one on the face is contrary to morals, good customs, and caused respondent mental anguish and social humiliation. GRAND UNION SUPERMARKET INC v JOSE J ESPINO, JR Respondent seeks to recover damages for the humiliation endured by him. Petitioner is liable. Respondent vehemently denied shoplifting, and was even offering to pay for the item which he accidentally forgot to pay for. Even after respondent sincerely apologized, he was still subjected to humiliation in front of the other customers without any justification. SOLEDAD CARPIO v LEONORA VALMONTE

Laura Katrina Noel

12

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

Respondent seeks to recover damages for the humiliation endured by her.

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

Petitioner is liable. She immediately blamed respondent for allegedly stealing her jewelry without any proof to substantiate her claim. In addition to that, she requested that respondent be tailed by hotel security, and during the wedding reception, she was telling the guests that respondent took her jewelry. TOPIC: BASIS OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES

BLAS OPLE v RUBEN TORRES Petitioner questions the constitutionality of the National Computerized Identification Reference System. The AO is unconstitutional. The AO may be a basis for an award for damages caused by a violation of the right to privacy. There were no safeguards that were proposed to protect the citizens privacy. Having the information on a single database may lead to numerous identity thefts, and the like. TOPIC: PUBLIC RECORDS

RICARDO VALMONTE v FELICIANO BELMONTE JR Petitioners seek to be furnished with a list of those members of Congress who were able to avail of a loan from GSIS with then First Lady Imelda Marcos as the guarantor. Respondent must grant them access to such public records. There is no intrusion to the right to privacy if the subject matter to be inspected is of public record. This is specially true if the ones invoking the right are public officers and the matter involved is of public concern. TOPIC: NEWSWORTHINESS

AYER PRODUCTIONS PTY LTD ET AL v HON IGNACIO CAPULONG Private respondent seeks to prevent petitioner from creating a film on the EDSA Revolution, as he was also to be portrayed in the movie. Petitioner is not liable for violation of the right to privacy. Private respondent is a public figure. As such, he must be regarded as having passed into public domain and as an appropriate subject of expression and coverage by any form of mass media. Furthermore, as a public figure, he enjoys a more limited right to privacy, as compared to individuals, as their actions are subject to closer public scrutiny. JOSE CORDERO v ALICIA BUGASCO Petitioner seeks to recover damages after details of the private and personal affairs of the petitioner were published in a newspaper without his consent. Respondent is liable for violation of the right to privacy. Although the article was not defamatory in character, because the petitioners personal life was published without his consent, and with intent to gain or for use in commercial purposes, it became a violation of a right. TOPIC: FALSE LIGHT

Laura Katrina Noel

13

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

It is imperative that an individual not be made to appear before the public in an objectionable false light or false position. What makes it a tort is the embarrassment an individual would feel when he is being made into something he is not. ST. LOUIS REALTY CORP. v COURT OF APPEALS Private respondent seeks to recover damages for the unauthorized use of his house for their promotional gain. Petitioner is liable for damages. Although petitioner really intended to use another persons house for their promo materials, it was grossly negligent in mixing up the 2 residences and publishing such in a widely circulated publication. Further, it never made a written apology nor explanation for the mixup. RODRIGO CONCEPCION v COURT OF APPEALS Private respondents seek to recover damages for baseless accusations hurled at him by petitioner, causing him extreme embarrassment and shame. Petitioner is liable for damages. He publicly confronted private respondent and accused him of having an affair with his deceased brothers wife. Damages are rightfully awarded, although his act may not have been among those enumerated in Art. 26 & 2219. Said acts are not exclusive and do not preclude other similar or analogous acts. It is enough that petitioner violated private respondents dignity by using profane, insulting, humiliating, scandalous or abusive language. TOPIC: INTERFERENCE WITH FAMILY AND OTHER RELATIONS Malice must likewise be established in addition to the fact that there must be proof that one interfered with anothers mental attitude toward the other resulting in some actual conduct, which materially affects their marital relations.

TENCHAVES v ESCANO Petitioner seeks to recover damages for allegedly causing his wife to alienate her affections from him, and for also influencing her conduct towards him. Respondents are not liable for damages. Petitioner failed to support his allegations with credible evidence. It was not proved in court that respondents were led with malice in aiding and abetting her original suit for annulment or her subsequent divorce. Petitioners wife was of age and appeared to have acted independently. Her parents merely respected her decision, which does not equate to bad faith. Good faith is presumed until the contrary is proved. TOPIC: SEXUAL HARASSMENT A-I-M W-E-T (may be committed by one in a position of Authority, Influence or Moral Ascendancy in the following environments Workplace, Educational institution or Training Ground)

DR. RICO JACUTIN v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Petitioner was charged with the crime Sexual Harassment as he took advantage his position to convince private respondent to accede to his demands for sexual favors. Petitioner is liable. Private respondent was applying for a job wherein petitioner was in a position of power to make things happen. Thus, due to his high position, he was able to take undue liberalities on the person of private respondent. PHILIPPINE AEOLUS AUTOMOTIVE UNITED CORP v NLRC & ROSALINDA CORTEZ

Laura Katrina Noel

14

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

Private respondent seeks to recover damages for illegal dismissal after throwing a stapler at petitioners plant manager. Petitioner is liable for damages. Private respondents reaction was due to the plant managers discriminatory acts towards her after her refusal to respond to any of his sexual innuendos. The gravamen of the offense is not the violation of the employees sexuality, but the abuse of power.

TOPIC:

SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not destroy a persons right and cause of action for damages for illegal arrest and detention and other violations of his constitutional right.

ROGELIO ABERCA v MAJ GEN FABIAN VER Petitioner seeks to recover damages for respondents violation of his right against unreasonable searches and seizures during a period when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was suspended. Respondent is liable, along with the persons who were acting under his direction. The law speaks of an officer or employee or person directly or indirectly responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of another. It is not the actor alone who must answer for damages under Art. 32; the person indirectly responsible has also to answer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party. In addition, the suspension of the writ does not render valid an otherwise illegal arrest or detention. It does not suspend their rights and causes of action for injuries suffered because of a violation of their right against unreasonable searches and seizures. TOPIC: DEFAMATION One who invades the interest in reputation and good name, by communication to others which tend to diminish the esteem in which the plaintiff is held, or to excite adverse feelings or opinion against him, shall be held liable for defamation.

MVRS PUBLICATIONS INC v ISLAMIC DAWAH COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES INC Respondent seeks to recover damages for the alleged defamation they suffered when petitioner caused the publication of a supposed libelous statement that was insulting and damaging to Muslims. Petitioner is not liable. The rule in libel is that the action must be brought by the person against whom the defamatory charge has been made. Respondent failed to prove that they are the persons with reference to whom the statement was made. The statement did not specifically identify nor refer to any particular individuals who were purportedly the subject of the alleged libelous publication. ARTURO BORJAL v COURT OF APPEALS Private respondent seeks to recover damages after petitioners wrote and published articles that were allegedly derogatory and offensive to him. Petitioners are not liable. The questioned articles written by petitioner did not identify private respondent as the subject of the criticisms. Petitioner acted in good faith, moved by a sense of civic duty and prodded by his responsibility as a newspaperman, to expose and denounce what he perceived to be a public deception. ESTEBAN MANUEL v THE HON ERNANI CRUZ-PANO Petitioner seeks to recover damages for respondents denial of his motion to quash the information for libel filed against him and 2 of his clients.

Laura Katrina Noel

15

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

Respondent is liable. Respondent should have approved the motion to quash, as the basis for filing the information for libel was a privileged communication, and that the news report that came out was not based on the same letter-complaint. Complainants were erroneous in assuming that petitioner caused the publication of the letter-complaint he sent to the ASAC Chairman, thereby leading the newspaper to publish a negative article about them. Thus, the allegations did not, in fact, constitute an offense. TOPIC: FRAUD For fraud to arise, the following must be present: a) false representation by defendant to plaintiff b) representation must be one of fact c) defendant knows that representation is false or is unsure of its truth d) plaintiff acted on false representation e) defendant intended plaintiff to act on representation f) plaintiff suffered damage

ELENITA LEDESMA SILVA v ESTHER PERALTA Petitioner seeks to recover damages for humiliation supposedly suffered by her upon learning that Respondent has a child with her husband and is now seeking to recover support from him. Respondent is not liable. It is actually the respondent who has a right to claim for damages suffered due to the fraud committed by their husband. Respondent eventually lost employment due to her being impregnated by him. In addition, he refused to marry her and continued to hide from her because he was still married to another Australian woman. The acts of the husband prove actual fraud.

Laura Katrina Noel

16

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

TOPIC:

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES The presence of a justifying circumstance frees the defendant from civil liability, except if defendant himself was benefitted by reason of an act performed in a state of necessity

ANITA TAN v STANDARD VACUUM OIL CO Petitioner seeks to recover damages after the gasoline truck of respondent caught fire and subsequently burning and destroying her house and others, as well. Respondent is liable for damages. Respondent claimed that its employees were merely trying to avoid a greater harm by moving the truck to the middle of the street, and that it was an unfortunate accident that petitioners house was destroyed in the process. However, respondents company was also benefitted from preventing a greater harm. As such, although its employees were acquitted in the criminal proceeding, it may still be sued for civil liability as this is separate and distinct from the criminal liability. TOPIC: EFFECT OF DEATH Death of the accused before final judgment relieves the accused of both criminal and civil liability arising from the crime. However, in a libel or physical injuries case, one who initially opted to claim damages in the criminal case can file another case to enforce his claim.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v ROGELIO BAYOTAS Petitioner seeks to enforce the civil liability arising from the crime of rape, despite the death of the Respondent during the pendency of the criminal case. Both the civil and criminal liabilities directly arising from the crime of rape are extinguished by respondents death. This is the rule with regard to civil liabilities, which are based solely on the crime. If the injured, however, can still claim damages arising from civil liability based on other sources such as law, contract, quasi contract and quasi delict, the civil liability survives. Such separate civil action may be enforced against the estate of the deceased wrongdoer. TOPIC: DEFENSE OF EXERCISE OF DUE DILIGENCE The burden of proof is on the parents and persons exercising parental authority to show that they were not remiss in observing the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage cause by their child. However, the circumstances attendant to each case must be observed to determine the degree of care actually necessary.

CUADRA v MONFORT Petitioner seeks to recover damages due to the carelessness of respondents daughter, eventually causing her right eye to completely lose sight. Respondent is not liable. Respondent was not remiss in his duty as a parent. Based on the circumstances, the girls were merely playing around. It was an unfortunate circumstance that the band that hit petitioners eye caused an infection. There was nothing that the respondent could have done to prevent the damage. TAMARGO v CA Petitioners seek to recover damages for the death of their daughter after the son of private respondents shot her with an air rifle.

Laura Katrina Noel

17

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

Respondents are liable. Respondents contend that they are not the one who should be held liable as another couple already signed the papers for the adoption of their son, even before the incident occurred. However, the basis of parental liability is the relationship existing between the parents and the minor child with whom they exercise supervision over. No retroactive effect can be given to impose liability on the adoptive parents, specially since they had neither physical nor actual custody over the adopted child. LIBI v IAC Private respondents seek to recover damages for the death of their daughter after being shot by petitioners son, who thereafter committed suicide. Petitioners are liable. They failed to duly exercise the requisite care of a good father of a family. They were negligent in preventing their deceased son from getting their gun, which he used in killing himself and private respondents daughter. They never even knew that he was an informer of the Anti-Narcotics Unit. Their lack of knowledge of their sons activities proved that they were remiss in exercising due care in raising their son. TOPIC: SCHOOLS, TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS Schools, teachers and administrators have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child under their supervision or custody. Their only defense would be proof that they exercised proper diligence. However, despite shifting the liability to the teachers or school, the parents are still subsidiarily liable.

AMADORA v CA Petitioners seeks to recover damages for the death of their son after a student shot him within school premises. Respondent school, its teachers and administrators are not liable. Although the court ruled that teachers can also be liable for acts committed in a school which is not for the arts and trades alone, there was no showing that the teacher in charge was remiss in his duty of diligence. He was not present in the school premises as he was not required to be there that day. PSBA v CA Private respondents seek to recover damages for the death of their son in petitioners school after being stabbed by outsiders. Case was remanded to the lower courts for determination of material facts. The SC, however, ruled that no contract was actually breached between the school and the deceased student through the negligence of the school in providing adequate security. A contractual relation is a condition precedent to the schools liability. ST. MARYS ACADEMY v CARPITANOS Respondents seek to recover damages for the death of their son after a vehicular accident which occurred while on a campaign trip for his school. Petitioner is not liable. Petitioners negligence in not making sure that an adult was with them to supervise the trip was only a remote cause of the accident. The proximate cause was the detachment of the steering wheel of the jeep, thus making the registered owner of the vehicle the one liable. In addition, to hold the school liable, it must be shown that its negligence was the proximate cause of the accident, and not merely a remote one. TOPIC: PERFORMANCE OF ASSIGNED TASK

Laura Katrina Noel

18

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

The employer is liable only if the employee was performing his task at the time the injury was caused. It is not extinguished despite a minor deviation from the assigned task of an employee. VALENZUELA v CA Petitioner seeks to recover damages for injuries she sustained from a car accident caused by Private Respondents employee. Private respondent is liable under the principle bonus pater familias. It was not able to prove that it exercised diligence in entrusting the company car to its employee. It also failed to overcome the burden of demonstrating that it should be absolved of any liability. Thus, it is solidarily liable with its employee. SPOUSES AFRICA v CALTEX Petitioners seek to recover damages from respondent for the negligence committed by its employee in transferring gas into the underground storage thereby causing fire to spread to the neighboring houses of the gas station. Respondent is liable as employer of owner of the gas station. Although the owner contends that he is not an employee, and as such, respondent should not be liable, all facts show that the owner was under the direct control and supervision of the respondent, thus, making him an employee, or at least an agent of the corporation, and NOT an independent contractor. PILIPINAS SHELL v CA Private respondent seeks to recover damages sustained form loss of business due to the negligence of petitioners employees in maintaining the underground storage tank in her gas station. Petitioner is not liable. The person who maintained the storage tank was an independent contractor, not an employee, specially since petitioner had no supervision over said person. TOPIC: ANIMALS Absent force majeure or fault by the injured party, the one in possession or whoever makes use of the animal shall be liable for any injury caused by said animal. VESTIL v IAC Private respondents seek to recover damages for the death of their daughter after being bitten by a dog in the possession of the petitioners. Petitioners are liable. Although they may have been living in another house, they were still in possession of the dog, as the place where the dog was in was actually one which the private respondents were caretakers of. Thus, due to the negligence of the petitioners in caring for the dog, they shall be held liable. TOPIC: NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS Commercial and industrial activities which are lawful in themselves may become nuisances if they are so offensive to the senses that they render the enjoyment of life and property uncomfortable.

VELASCO v MANILA ELECTRIC CO Petitioner seeks to recover damages arising from a public nuisance caused by respondent. Respondent is liable. Although the substation it has built may be beneficial and is required for the community, there is no reason why it should be operated to the detriment and discomfort of others.

Laura Katrina Noel

19

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

Though Meralco may not have received any complaint for the past 50 years, it does not mean that their liability is extinguished. So long as their business is operating at a nuisance or to the detriment of other people, it shall be liable to whomever it may injure. TOPIC: YU v CA Petitioner seeks to recover damages for lost profits due to unfair competition. Private respondent is liable. Petitioner had an exclusive distributorship agreement with an international company. Private respondent willfully brought in the same products and sold it, as well, despite knowing of the exclusivity between the producer and the petitioner. Private respondent even made the producer believe that the products were going to be sold in Nigeria, when it was actually being sold here. Thus, he shall be liable for unfair competition. GILCHRIST v CUDDY Petitioner seeks to recover damages from Respondent & private respondents for violating the terms of their contract. Respondent is liable and was issued a mandatory injunction. Respondent gave Petitioner the sole right to feature the film. As such, respondent was enjoined from accepting other offers, which would unjustly diminish profits that the petitioner would have realized. Private respondents are likewise liable to petitioner for interfering with their contractual relationship, although with no malice. Yet, because they induced Cuddy to enter into a contract with them, they shall be liable for damages. BUSINESS TORTS

DAYWALT v LA CORPORACION Petitioner seeks to recover damages for the interference it committed with regard to his contract with private respondent. Respondent is liable. Respondent convinced private respondent not to turn over the land in question, despite a favorable decision awarding petitioner the land, as respondent was using the same land for its own purpose. Although petitioner may have been asking for a greater award than what private respondent is liable for, respondent corporation, being a stranger to the original contract, can only be liable up to the same extent for which the original party would have been liable for. SO PING BUN v CA Petitioner seeks to lift the order of permanent injunction with regard to its lease contract with private respondent. The injunction shall not be lifted. Petitioner is liable for interfering with the original lease contract between private respondent and his grandfathers business partners. Although they acceded to letting him use the warehouse, the moment they expressed their intention to use it once again, thereby needing petitioner to vacate the premises, petitioner induced private respondent to execute a lease contract between himself and private respondent. Although the interference was brought by economic interests and not malice, petitioner shall still be held legally liable. TOPIC: MONOPOLIES AND PREDATORY PRICING

SHELL v INSULAR PETROLEUM

Laura Katrina Noel

20

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

Petitioner seeks to recover damages from respondent for unfair competition.

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

Respondent is not liable. The transaction wherein the drum used as container for respondents products, was an independent transaction. There was no showing that respondent was in the habit of using the drums of other competitors without removing the markings, and selling their own oil by passing it off as their competitors. Respondent merely forgot to remove the marking in the drum used as container, but it never attempted to sell it as another companys oil. Absent any showing of actual deception or confusion to the public, the respondent is not liable. TOPIC: DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA In some cases, there is no liability, even if there is damage, because there was no injury.

CUSTODIO v CA Private respondent seeks to recover damages and the grant of a right of easement after petitioners fenced off their own property, causing difficulty in reaching private respondents premises, and eventually losing profits from possible tenants. Petitioners are not liable. Although private respondent may have suffered damage, petitioners are well within their rights to construct a fence to enclose their own property. Petitioners did not commit a legal wrong from which respondent suffered damage thereby. The proper exercise of a lawful right cannot constitute a legal wrong for which an action will lie, although the act may result in damage. TOPIC: PERSONAL INJURY AND DEATH Damages may be awarded for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict to the heirs for loss of earning capacity of the deceased, support, and moral damages for any mental anguish they may have suffered due to the death.

MANZANARES v MORETA Petitioner seeks to recover damages for the death of her child. Respondent is liable. Although a persons life cannot be measured, the damages to be awarded shall be based on the particular circumstance affecting each case. In this case, the law implies that the parent suffered a pecuniary loss equivalent to the amount which she would have received had the minor lived. TOPIC: LOSS OF PROFITS The right to recover lost profits is now expressly recognized under the new civil code. The loss of profits must, however, be sufficiently established. Mere speculation will not warrant a recovery.

ALGARRA v SANDEJAS Petitioner seeks to recover damages for loss of profits due to his incapacity for 2 months, equating to loss of a greater portion of his business. Respondent is liable. There was sufficient proof showing that petitioner lost profits due to his inability to perform the functions essential to his business. The business of petitioner, being a regular and established one already, may be able to base the amount of damages recoverable on how much less valuable the business is due to the interruption. The courts shall now look at the ordinary profits the business derives. TOPIC: AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES

Laura Katrina Noel

21

Torts Doctrines Based on Aquino Book

3-D | 2010 Atty. Cadiz

A party cannot recover damages flowing from consequences, which the party could reasonably have avoided. VELASCO v MERALCO Petitioner seeks to recover damages for illness allegedly imputable to respondent maintaining nuisance in the form of a substation that emitted noise at unreasonable levels. Respondents liability is mitigated. Petitioner did not successfully show that his illness was brought about solely by the nuisance. Further, he did not take any steps to bring action to abate the nuisance or remove himself from the affected area as soon as the deleterious effects became noticeable. The law obligates the injured party to take steps to alleviate, and not aggravate, his condition after the infliction of an injury. TOPIC: TEMPERATE OR MODERATE DAMAGES Temperate damages may be awarded to answer for the anticipated increase in future medical expenses. This kind of award should be given to meet pecuniary loss certain to be suffered but which could not, from the nature of the case, be made with certainty.

RAMOS v CA Petitioner seeks to recover damages to answer for the medical expenses of the victim after being rendered comatose by medical malpractice. Private respondent is liable for temperate damages. The initial award was not enough to give the patient the optimal care needed. The patient was only being nursed at home, despite the need to have her taken cared of in a facility, as they did not have enough money to pay for such. ARANETA v BANK OF AMERICA Petitioner seeks to recover damages for besmirched reputation, undue embarrassment and humiliation experienced as a businessman. Respondent is liable. Respondent repeatedly stamped checks drawn by petitioner with Account Closed despite petitioner having enough money to cover such checks. The dishonor of a merchants check is tantamount or analogous to a slander of his trade or business, imputing to him insolvency or bad faith. The financial credit of a businessman is a prized and valuable asset, it being a significant part of the foundation of his business. Any adverse reflection thereon constitutes some material loss to him.

Laura Katrina Noel

22