Cantre vs. Go Facts: 1. At 1:30 a.m.

of April 20, 19912, Nora gave birth to her fourth child, a baby boy. However, at around 3:30 a.m., Nora suffered profuse bleeding inside her womb due to some parts of the placenta which were not completely expelled from her womb after delivery. 2. Nora suffered hypovolemic shock, resulting in a drop in her blood pressure to 40 over 0. 3. Petitioner and the assisting resident physician performed various medical procedures to stop the bleeding and to restore Noras blood pressure. 4. While petitioner was massaging Noras uterus for it to contract and stop bleeding, she ordered a droplight to warm Nora and her baby. 5. Nora remained unconscious until she recovered. 6. While in the recovery room, her husband respondent John David Z. Go noticed a fresh wound in the inner portion of her left arm, close to the armpit. 7. The nurses informed him it was a burn. 8. John David filed a request for investigation. In response, Dr. Rainerio S. Abad, the medical director of the hospital, called petitioner and the assisting resident physician to explain what happened. Petitioner said the blood pressure cuff caused the injury. 9. John David brought Nora to the NBI for a physical examination and the medico-legal officer testified that Noras injury appeared to be a burn and that a droplight when placed near the skin for about 10 minutes could cause such a burn. 10.Noras injury was referred to a plastic surgeon. Unfortunately Noras arm would never be the same. The unsightly marks remain and the pain in the left arm was still there.

Issue: Was Dr. Abad negligent? Trial Court Dr. Abad is guilty. Court of Appeals Dr. Abad is guilty but damages were lowered from 500k in the Trial Court to 200K in the Court of Appeals Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur/captain of the ship doctrine The Court Held: The presumption that petitioner was negligent in the exercise in her profession stands unrebutted. Clearly, under the law, petitioner is obliged to pay Nora for

moral damages suffered by the latter as a proximate result of petitioners negligence. The Court noted that petitioner has served well as Noras obstetrician for her past three successful deliveries. Mercury Drug Corporation vs. Baking 1. On November 25, 1993, Sebastian Baking, respondent went to the clinic of Dr. Cesar Sy for a medical check-up. 2. Dr. Sy found that respondents blood sugar and triglyceride were above normal levels. 3. Dr. Sy then gave respondent two medical prescriptions Diamicron for his blood sugar and Benalize tablets for his triglyceride. 4. Respondent then went to Mercury Drug. However, the saleslady misread the prescription for Diamicron as a prescription for Dormicum (a sleeping tablet). 5. Respondent had a vehicular accident wherein his car collided with the car of one Josie Peralta. Respondent fell asleep while driving. 6. Respondent showed the medicine to Dr. Sy, who was shocked to find that what was sold to respondent was Dormicum, instead of the prescribed Diamicron. Issues: 1. Whether or not Mercury Drug was negligent, and if so, whether such negligence was the proximate cause of respondents accident? 2. Whether the award of moral damages, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and the cost of suit is justified? The Court Held: The vehicular accident could not have occurred had petitioners employee been careful in reading the prescription. It is clear also, that the employer of a negligent employee is liable for the damages caused by the latter. When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there instantly arises a presumption of the law that there has been negligence on the part of the employee, either in the selection of his employee or in the supervision over him, after such selection. The presumption, however, may be rebutted by a clear showing on the part of the employer that he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee. Moral damages may be awarded whenever the defendants wrongful act or omission is the proximate cause of the plaintiffs suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury in the cases specified or analogous to those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. Proximate cause is defined as any cause that produces injury in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, such that the result would not have occurred otherwise. Libi vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

1. Julie Ann was shot by Wendell who in turn shot himself. 2. Private respondents, bereaved over the death of their daughter submitted that Wendell caused her death by shooting her with the aforesaid firearm and, thereafter, turning the gun on himself to commit suicide. 3. Petitioners averred that Wendell may have displeased or antagonized by reason of his work as a narcotics informer of the Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unit must have caused Wendells death and then shot Julie Ann to eliminate any witness and thereby avoid identification. 4. In the trial court, emphasis was placed by the lower court on the absence of gunpowder or tattooing around the wound at the point of entry of the bullet. 5. The Appellate Court found petitioners to be liable for the civil liability based on what appears from all indications was a crime committed by their minor son. Issue: Are the parents of Wendell civilly liable for the acts of their minor son? If so is the liability primary or subsidiary? The Court Held: The parent is primarily liable for the civil liability arising from criminal offenses committed by their minor children under their legal authority or control or who live in their company, unless it is proven that the former acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent such damages. Exconde vs. Capuno Facts of the Case: 1. Dante Capuno, son of Delfin Capuno, was accused of double homicide through reckless imprudence for the death of Isidoro Caperina and Amado Ticzon. 2. In line with Sabina Excondes reservation, she filed the present action against Delfin Capuno and his son Dante Capuno asking for damages for the death of her son Isidoro. 3. Defendants set up the defense that if any one should be liable for the death of Isidoro, he is Dante Capuno and not his father Delfin because at the time of the accident, the former was not under the control, supervision and custody of the latter. 4. Dante Capuno was a member for the Boy Scouts Organization and a student of the Balintawak Elementary School situated in a barrio in the City of San Pablo. 5. He attended a parade in honor of Jose Rizal. 6. From the School, the students boarded a jeep and when the same started to run, Dante took hold of the wheel and drove it while the driver sat on his left side. 7. The jeep turned turtle and two of its passengers, Amado Ticzon and Isidoro Caperina died as a consequence. Issue: Whether defendant Delfin Capuno can be held civilly liable, jointly and severally with his son Dante, for damages resulting from the death of Isidoro Caperina caused by the negligent act of minor Dante Capuno?

The Court Held: The civil liability imposed by the law upon the father, and in case of his death or incapacity, the mother for any damages that may be caused by the minor children who live with them, is obvious. This is a necessary consequence of parental authority. Delfin Capuno and Dante Capuno shall pay to plaintiff, jointly and severally the amount of damages. The decision appealed from was modified. Cuadra vs. Monfort Facts of the Case: 1. Maria Teresa Cuadra and Maria Teresa Monfort were classmates in Grade Six at the Mabini Elementary School in Bacolod City. 2. The teacher assigned them, together with three other classmates, to weed grass in the school premises. 3. Teresa Monfort found a plastic headband. Jokingly she said aloud that she found an earthworm and evidently, to frighten the Cuadra girl, tossed the object at her. 4. The object hit the Cuadra girls right eye. She rubbed the injured part and treated it with some powder. 5. The eye had become swollen and the child underwent surgical operation. Maria Teresa completely lost the sight of her right eye. 6. The parents instituted a suit against the father of Maria Teresa Monfort. Issue: Is the father of Maria Teresa Monfort civilly liable for the negligence towards her classmate? The Court Held: In the present case there is nothing from which it may inferred that the defendant could have prevented the damage by the observance of due care, or that he was in any way remiss in the exercise of his parental authority in failing to foresee such damage, or the act which caused it. On the contrary, his child was at school, where it was his duty to send her and where she was, as he had the right to expect her to be, under the care and supervision of the teacher. Fuellas va. Cadano 1. Pepito Cadano and Rico Fuellas, were classmates at St. Marys High School, Dansalan City. 2. Pepito was studying his lessons in the classroom when Rico took the pencil of Ernesto and placed it inside the pocket of Pepito. 3. When Ernesto asked Rico to return pencil, it was Pepito who instead returned it.

4. This angered Rico. 5. Outside the school house Rico held Pepito y the neck and with his leg, placed Pepito out of balance and pushed him to the ground. Pepito fell on his right side with his right arm under his body, whereupon, Rico rode on his left side. 6. Pepito arm was broken. 7. That same evening Pepito was brought to the Lanao General Hospital for treatment. 8. The X-ray showed that there was a complete fracture of the radius and ulna of the right forearm necessitating plaster casting. 9. A month after Pepitos release from the hospital the plaster cast was removed. 10.Up to the last hearing of the case the forearm of Pepito appeared to be shorter than the left forearm. Issue: Is the father civilly liable under the RPC or under Article 2180 of the Civil Code? The Court Held: It is true that under Article 101 of the RPC a father is made civilly liable for the acts committed by his son only if the latter is an imbecile, an insane, under 9 years of age, or over 9 but under 15 years of age, who acts without discernment, unless it appears that there is no fault or negligence on his part. This is because a son who commits the act under any of those conditions is by law exempt from criminal liability. The idea is not to leave the act entirely unpunished but to attach certain civil liability to the person who has the delinquent minor under his legal authority or control. But a minor over 15 who acts with discernment is not exempt from criminal liability, for which reason the Code is silent as to the subsidiary liability of his parents should he stand convicted. In that case, resort should be had to the general law which is our Civil Code.