GAN vs.

CA 165 SCRA 378 FACTS: On July 4, 1972, Hedy Gan was driving a Toyota Crown Sedan along North Bay Boulevard, Tondo, Manila. While driving two vehicles, a truck and a jeepney, are parked at the right side of the road. While driving, there was a vehicle coming from the opposite direction and another one who overtakes the first vehicle. To avoid a head-on collision, the Gan served to the right and as a consequence the Toyota Sedan was damaged and hit an old man pedestrian(Isidoro Casino) which later on died in the hospital. Also the jeep and the truck suffered damages. Gan was convicted of Homicide thru Reckless Imprudence ISSUE: Whether or not Gan is criminally liable. RULING: Test for determining negligence: Would a prudent man in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued? If so, the law imposes the duty on the doer to take precaution against its mischievous results and the failure to do so constitutes negligence. However a corollary rule must be understood, that is the Emergency Rule which provides that: One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence It presupposes sufficient time to analyze the situation and to ponder on which of the different courses of action would result to the least possible harm to herself and to others. The CA, in its decision, said that Gan should have stepped on the brakes when she saw the car going in the opposite direction. And that she should not only have swerved the car she was driving to the right but should have also tried to stop or lessen her speed so that she would not bump into the pedestrian. The SC held that the appellate court is asking too much from a mere mortal like the petitioner who in the blink of an eye had to exercise her best judgment to extricate herself from a difficult and dangerous situation caused by the driver of the overtaking vehicle. The danger confronting Gan was real and imminent, threatening her very existence. She had no opportunity for rational thinking but only enough time to head the very powerful instinct of self-preservation.
1 Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

McKEE V IAC 221 SCRA 517 FACTS: On January 8, 1977, in Pulong Pulo Bridge along MacArthur Highway, Pampanga, a head-on-collision t o o k p l a c e b e t w e e n a n I n t e r n a t i o n a l c a r g o t r u c k , Loadstar, owned by private respondents, Jaime Tayag and Rosalina Manalo, and driven by Ruben Galang, and a F o r d E s c o r t c a r d r i v e n b y J o s e K o h . T h e c o l l i s i o n r e s u l t e d i n t h e d e a t h s o f J o s e K o h , K i m M c K e e a n d Loida Bondoc, and physical injuries to George McKee, Christopher McKee and Araceli McKee, all passengers of the Ford Escort. Immediately before the collision, the cargo truck, which was loaded with 200 cavans of rice weighing a b o u t 10,000 kilos, was traveling southward from Angeles City to San F e r n a n d o P a m p a n g a , a n d w a s bound for Manila. When the northbound car was about 10 meters away f r o m t h e s o u t h e r n a p p r o a c h o f t h e b r i d g e , 2 b o y s suddenly darted from the right side of the road and into the lane of the car. The boys were moving back and forth, unsure of whether to cross all the way to the other side or turn back. Jose Koh blew the horn of the car, swerved to the left and entered the lane of the truck; he then switched on the headlights of the car, applied the brakes and thereafter attempted to return to his lane. Before he could do so, his car collided with the truck. The collision occurred in the lane of the truck, which was the opposite lane, on the said bridge. ISSUE: Whether or not the owners of the cargo truck (Tayag and Manalo) are liable for the resulting damages. RULING: Yes. The Court rules that it was the truck driver's negligence in failing to exert ordinary care to avoid the collision which was, in law, the proximate cause of the collision. As employers of the truck driver, Manalo and T a y a g a r e , u n d e r A r t i c l e 2 1 8 0 o f t h e C i v i l C o d e , directly and primarily liable for the resulting damages. The presumption that they are negligent flows from the n e g l i g e n c e o f t h e i r e m p l o y e e . T h a t p r e s u m p t i o n , however, is only juris tantum, not juris et de jure. Their only possible defense is that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. Article 2180 reads as follows: The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. Employers shall be liable for the damag es caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. The diligence of a good father referred to means the d i l i g e n c e i n t h e s e l e c t i o n a n d s u p e r v i s i o n o f employees. The answers of the private respondents did not interpose this defense. Neither did they attempt to prove it.
2 Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION vs. IAC G.R. No. L-65295, March 10, 1987 FACTS: Early morning of November 15, 1975 at about 1:30am, Leonardo Dionisio was on his way home from a cocktails-and-dinner meeting with his boss. During the cocktails phase of the evening, Dionisio had taken "a shot or two" of liquor. Dionisio was driving his Volkswagen car, when his car headlights (in his allegation) suddenly failed. He switched his headlights on "bright" and thereupon he saw a Ford dump truck looming some 2-1/2 meters away from his car. The dump truck, owned by and registered in the name of petitioner was parked on the right hand side of General Lacuna Street facing the oncoming traffic. The dump truck was parked askew (not parallel to the street curb) in such a manner as to stick out onto the street, partly blocking the way of oncoming traffic. There were no lights or any so-called "early warning" reflector devices set anywhere near the dump truck, front or rear. Dionisio claimed that he tried to avoid a collision by swerving his car to the left but it was too late and his car smashed into the dump truck. As a result of the collision, Dionisio suffered some physical injuries including some permanent facial scars, a "nervous breakdown" and loss of two gold bridge dentures. Dionisio commenced an action for damages in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga which rendered judgment in his favor. ISSUE: Whether or not Phoenix should be held liable for the damage incurred by Dionisio, notwithstanding the allegation that the latter had no curfew pass and thus drove speedily with his headlights off. RULING: Yes. The collision between the dump truck and the Dionisio's car would in all probability not have occurred had the dump truck not been parked askew without any warning lights or reflector devices. The improper parking of the dump truck created an unreasonable risk of injury for anyone driving down General Lacuna Street and for having so created this risk, the truck driver must be held responsible. The SC hold that Dionisio's negligence was "only contributory," that the "immediate and proximate cause" of the injury remained the truck driver's "lack of due care" and that consequently respondent Dionisio may recover damages though such damages are subject to mitigation by the courts. Petitioner Carbonel's proven negligence creates a presumption of negligence on the part of his employer Phoenix in supervising its employees properly and adequately. As to the award of damages, the SC believes that the demands of substantial justice are satisfied by allocating most of the damages on a 20-80 ratio. Thus, 20% of the damages awarded by the respondent appellate court, except the award of P10,000.00as exemplary damages and P4,500.00 as attorney's fees and costs, shall be borne by private respondent Dionisio; only the balance of 80% needs to be paid by petitioners Carbonel and Phoenix who shall be solidarity liable therefor to the former. The award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees and costs shall be borne exclusively by the petitioners. Phoenix is of course entitled to reimbursement from Carbonel. There is no sufficient reason for disturbing the reduced award of damages made by the respondent appellate court.
3 Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

GAID vs. PP GR No. 171636, April 7, 2009 FACTS: Petitioner Norman Gaid was charged with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. He was driving a passenger jeepney when he ran over the victim Michael Dayata resulting to the victims untimely death. Dayata raised his left hand to flag down the said jeepney which was traveling on the right lane of the road. However, neither did the petitioner nor the conductor, Dennis Mellalos, saw anybody flagging down the jeepney to ride at that point. The trail court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Petitioner was held negligent in his driving considering that the victim was dragged to a distance of 5.70 meters from the point of impact. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is negligent and should be held liable. RULING: It appears from the evidence that the victim came from the left side of the street. Petitioner, who was driving the jeepney on the right lane, did not see the victim flag him down. He also failed to see him go near the jeepney at the left side. Understandably, petitioner was focused on the road ahead. They only saw Dayata after they heard a strong impact coming from the jeep. Thus, petitioner cannot be held liable. Petitioner had exercised extreme precaution as he drove slowly upon reaching the vicinity of the school. He cannot be faulted for not having seen the victim who came from behind on the left side. Assuming that petitioner had been negligent, it must be shown that his negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. The evidence on the record do not show that the jeepney dragged the victim after he was hit and run over by the jeepney. The victim was not dragged at all. If at all, Petitioners failure to render assistance to the victim would constitute abandonment of ones victim punishable under Article 275 of the Revised Penal Code. However, the omission is not covered by the information. Thus, to hold petitioner criminally liable under the provision would be tantamount to a denial of due process. The award of damages must be also deleted pursuant to Article 2179 of the Civil Code which states that when the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages.

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

WALTER SMITH and CO. vs. CADWALLER GIBSON 55 Phil. 517 FACTS: On August 30, 1926, steamer Helen Company owned by Cadwaller struck the wharf of Walter Smith during the maneuvers. The wharf was partially demolished and the timbers piled on it were thrown into the water. The wharf was old. Walter Smith averred that there was negligence on the part of the captain of the ship and that the impact of the ship with the wharf was due to the excessive force with which the captain ordered the winchee to work. ISSUE: Whether or not Cadwaller as owner of the steamship is liable for damages. RULING: Cadwaller proved that Captain Lasa and all officer of Helen Company where duly licensed to hold their positions when the wharf collapse and they were chosen for their reputed skills in directing the Helen Company safely, carefully and efficiently. Thus the presumption of liability against the defendant had overcome by the exercise of diligence and care of a good father of the family in selecting Captain Lasa. Cadwaller was absolved from all liability.

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

CHAING YSA MIN vs. CA 355 SCRA 608 FACTS: Petitioner alleges that the said USD$100, 000.00 was sent by Han Lung Bank of Hongkong on February 7, 1979 through the Pacific Banking Corporation to respondent Bank Head Office. It was sent prior to his arrival in the Philippines. Sometime in mid 1985, Petitioner checked his account, he discovered that it was transferred to the Shaw Boulevard branch and was converted to Peso account which had only balance of ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY TWO PESOS (P1,362.10). The bank said that the initial deposit was P729, 752.20 but a total of P728, 390.00 was withdrawn by way of five (5) checks sometimes in 1979 in favor of Paperson. Paperson did not deny receiving the checks but argued that unless proven otherwise, the said check should be presumed to have been issued in their favor for a sufficient and favorable and reasonable consideration. The trial court rendered decision in favor of the petitioners, ordering the plaintiff to pay the sum of USD$100, 000.00 with Twelve Percent (12%) exemplary damages, Twenty (20%) attorneys fees. ISSUE: Whether or not damages can be issued if there is fraud, fault or negligence on the part of the petitioner. RULING: Judgments for damages could not be issued where the source of injury was fraud, fault and negligence and was affirmatively established by competent evidence. In the case, the matter several a malicious intention on petitioners part to conceal material circumstances and prevent the threat and cast serious doubt on the legitimacy of his claim.

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

MERALCO vs. T.E.A.M. ELECTRONICS CORPORATION 540 SCRA 62 F A C T S: TEC is a utility company supplying electricity in Metro Manila. The TEC entered into a contract of lease with Ultra to use the latters DCIM building for a period of 5 years. On Sept2mber 28, 1987, a team of inspectors representing the petitioner found that the TEC allegedly tampered with two meters installed at the DCIM building and had not been registering the proper consumption. MERALCO disconnected the electrical supply from the DCIM building due to the failure of the TEC to pay the differential billing of P 7,040,401.01. TEC demanded there connection of electrical service, claiming it had nothing to do with the alleged tampering. MERALCO then sent out another investigative team in TECs NS building which revealed that the electric meters were also not registering the proper energy consumption. Petitioner then demanded P280, 813.72 as the differential billing-which TEC paid. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not TEC tampered with the electric meters installed at its DCIM and NS buildings; 2. Whether or not it is liable for the differential billing as computed by petitioner; 3. Whether or not petitioner was justified in disconnecting the electric power supply in TECs DCIM building RULINGS: 1. NO, because there is a cloud of doubt over the petitioners claim of meter tampering, due to the fact that there was no drastic difference between the consumption of the TEC before and after the petitioners inspection. Such allegation was not proven. The meters were enclosed in a metal cabinet, the metal seal of which was unbroken, with the petitioner having sole access to the said meters. 2. NO. Because no tampering was committed. 3. NO. Although the petitioner sent a demand letter to the DEC for payment, it did not include any notice that electricity would be disconnected. Disconnection was subject to the prior requirement of a 48-hour written notice of disconnection under P.D. No. 401. The decree penalized unauthorized water, electrical or telephone connections and such acts as the use of tampered electrical meters. Basic is the rule that to recover actual damages, not only must the amount of loss be capable of proof; it must also be actually proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or the best evidence obtainable.

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

LAMBERT vs. HEIRS OF RAY CASTILLON 452 SCRA 285 FACTS: Ray Castillon together with his friend met an accident with a jitney owned by the petitioner and driven by Reynaldo Gamot which traversing on the same direction but made a sudden left turn. The incident resulted to the instantaneous death of Ray and injuries suffered by Sergio. ISSUE: Whether or not the award of damages is proper. RULING: The reason for the grant of moral damages is based at the restoration of the spiritual status quote; therefore, it should be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. The intensity of the pain experienced by the relatives of the victims is proportionate to the injuries and the affection for the deceased and bears no relation to the wealth and means of the offender.

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

FILIPINAS vs. AGO 448 SCRA 412 FACTS: Expose is a radio documentary program by Carmelo Mel Rima and Hermogenes Jun Alegre. Expose is aired every morning over DZRC-AM which is owned by the Petitioner. Expose is heard over Legazpi City, the Albay Municipalities and other Bicol areas. In the morning of December 14 and 15 of 1989, Rima and Alegre exposed various alleged complaints from students, teachers and parents against respondent school and its administrators. Claiming that the broadcasts were defamatory, AMEC and Angelita Ago, as Dean of AMECs College of Medicine, filed a complaint for damages against petitioner. The complaint further alleged that AMEC is a reputable learning institution. With the supposed exposes, FBNI, Rima and Alegre, transmitted malicious imputations, and as such, destroyed plaintiffs reputation. AMEC and Ago included FBNI as defendant for allegedly failing to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees, particularly Rima and Alegre. FBNI, Rima and Alegre filed an Answer alleging that the broadcast against AMEC were fair and true. They claimed that they were plainly impelled by a sense of public duty to report the goings-on in AMEC, an institution imbued with public interest. The trial court rendered a decision finding defendants jointly and severally ordered to pay plaintiff AMEC the amount of P300, 000.00 moral damages, plus P30, 000.00 reimbursement of attorneys fees, and to pay the costs of the suit. ISSUE: Whether AMEC is entitled to moral damages. RULING: A juridical person is generally not entitled to moral damages because, unlike a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or moral shock. The CA cites Mambulao Lumber Co. vs. PNB, et. al. to justify the award of moral damages. However, the Courts statement in Mambulao that a corporation may have a good reputation which, if besmirched, may also be a ground for the award of moral damages is an obiter dictum. In the present case, the broadcasts are libelous perse. Thus, AMEC is entitled to moral damages.
9 Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

CITY TRUST BANKING CORP. vs. VILLANUEVA 361 SCRA 446 FACTS: Isagani C. Villanueva opened a savings account and a current account with the City Trust Banking Corporation. Villanueva deposited some money in his savings account with the Banks Legaspi Village Branch at Makati. Realizing that he had run out of blank checks, Villanueva requested a new check book requisition slip with the obligatory particulars, except for his current account from one of the Banks customer service representative. He filled up a check book requisition slip with the obligatory particulars, except for his current account number which he could not remember. Pia Rempillo, customer service representative of the Bank, upon seeing the name Isagani Villanueva copied the written amount number in Villanuevas request slip. Villanueva signed a check bearing an amount of P50, 000.00 payable to Kingly Commodities Traders and Multi Resources, Inc. six (6) days later, Villanuevas check was re-deposited however, after three (3) days it was again dishonored. It was found out that the reason for the dishonored check was that the account number assigned to his new check book was the account number of another depositor also name Isagani Villanueva but with a different middle initial. As a result thereof, Villanueva sent a letter to the Bank, demanding indemnification for the alleged losses and damages suffered by him as a result of the dishonored well-funded check. In its answer, the bank just apologized. Hence, a case was filed with the RTC but it was dismissed for lack of merit. ISSUE: Whether Villanueva suffered actual or compensatory damages in the form of loss of profit is factual. RULING: Both the CA and the trial court have ascertained that Villanueva was unable to prove his demand for compensatory damages arising from loss. His evidence thereon was found inadequate, uncorroborated, speculative, hearsay and not the best evidence. Basing in the jurisprudential principle that in determining actual damages, the court cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures or guess work but must depend on competent proof and on the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount of the loss. Actual damages cannot be presumed but must be duly proved with reasonable certainty.

10

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

PEDROSA vs. CA and RODRIGUEZ 353 SCRA 620 FACTS: The Spouses Miguel Rodriguez and Rosalina de Rodriguez initiated proceedings before CFI of Osamis City for legal adoption of herein petitioner, Maria Elena Rodriguez Pedrosa, which the court granted. On April 29, 1972, Miguel died intestate. Thereafter, petitioner and Rosalina entered into extrajudicial settlement of Miguels estate, adjudicating between themselves in equal proportion the estate of Miguel. Private respondent filed an action before the CFI to annul the adoption of petitioner, with the petitioner and herein respondent Rosalina as defendant. The CFI denied the petition and upheld the validity of the adoption. Thereafter, private respondent appealed said decision to the CA. While said appeal was pending, the Rodriguezes entered into an extrajudicial settlement with respondent Rosalina for partition of the estate of Miguel and another sister, Pilar. Armed with the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Partition, respondent Rodriguezes were able to secure new Transfer Certificate of Title and were able to transfer some parcels of land to the other respondents herein. Pedrosa then filed a complaint to annul the partition. The RTC dismissed the complaint. ISSUE: Is the petitioner entitled to damages? RULING: Considering that Pedrosa sustained injury but was not adequately and properly proved that she was unlawfully deprived of her legal participation in the partition of the estate of Miguel and that properties were transferred to third persons and that this case was dragged on for more than a decade, the court found it reasonable to grant nominal damages in recognition of the existence of a technical injury. The amount to be awarded as such damages should at least commensurate to the injury sustained by Pedrosa. Thus, P100, 000.00 is awarded to Pedrosa in view of the technical injury she has suffered.

11

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

PEOPLE vs. SORILLA 556 SCA 392 FACTS: Alejandro Sorilla, Jr., Jose Balausa and Antonio Quimno were charged with the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. After trial, the RTC of Pasig rendered a decision against them and sentenced them to imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. On the civil liability, they are ordered to pay the heirs of Restitute Mariquit whom they killed; actual damages in the amount of P98, 968.00, moral damages of P50, 000.00 and temperate damages at P25, 000.00, P7, 000.00, P26, 950.00 and P4, 000.00, respectively, all with interest thereon at the legal rate of 6% per annum until fully paid. CA affirmed the said decision, but deleted the award of temperate damages. ISSUE: Whether or not the decision is correct. RULING: The decision is correct. Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. When death occurs due to a crime, the following damages maybe awarded: 1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; 2) actual be compensatory damages; 3) moral damages; 4) exemplary damages and 5) temperate damages. In cases of murder and homicide, civil indemnity of P50, 000.00 and moral damages of P50, 000.00 are awarded automatically, it is mandatory without need of proof.

12

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

PEOPLE vs. ABESAMIS 531 SCRA 300 FACTS: After a heated argument in a billiard match where it escalated into a fight between Rodel and Ramon, Victorino tried to help his brother Rodel by stabbing Ramon in his back. Greatly weakened by the mortal wounds inflicted on him, Ramon managed to take a few steps before slumping on the pavement and was already dead when he was brought to the hospital. The trial court found accused-appellant guilty of homicide and was sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment and ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P50, 000. 00 as indemnity and P100, 000.00 for other damages. ISSUE: Whether or not award of other damages or actual damages was proper. RULING: The trial court correctly awarded P50, 000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity for his death. This does not need any proof. However, the award of P100, 000.00 for other damages was wrong. The award of actual damages is proper only if the actual amount of loss of loan proven with a reasonable degree of certainty. It should be supported by receipts. While the victims death like funeral and burial expenses, she failed to substantiate her claim. Thus, actual or compensatory damages cannot be awarded.

13

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

AGAPITO FUELLAS vs. CADANO 3 SCRA 361 FACTS: For Serious Physical Injuries sustained by Pepito Cadano, son of plaintiff-appellee Elpidio Cadano, two separate actions were instituted, Civil Case No. 583, filed on October 1, 1954, for damages against Agapito Fuellas, father of the minor Rico Fuellas, who caused the injuries, and criminal case No. 1765, against Rico Fuellas guilty of the offense for serious physical injuries. They were tried jointly. A judgment of conviction in the criminal case was rendered, finding Rico Fuellas guilty of the offense charged. Then, the same court, rendered judgment in the civil case making defendant therein, now appellant Fuellas, liable under Art. 2180 of the New Civil Code for the damages. ISSUE: Whether or not the parents are liable for damages incurred by Fuellas. RULING: A father can be made responsible for the criminal act of his son committed with deliberate intents and with discernment, is an action based on the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liability of the parents. That is an injury is caused by the fault or negligence of his minor son, the law presumes that there was negligence on the part of his father.

14

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

PEOPLE vs. MONDIGO 543 SCRA 384 FACTS: Perlito A. Mondigo, while drinking with victims, suddenly hacked Anthony and afterwards attacked Damaso. The trial court found appellant guilty of murder for the killing of Anthony, mitigated by intoxication. ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is guilty of Murder and Frustrated Murder and liable for damages. RULING: Perlito Mondigo is found guilty of Homicide for the killing of Damaso Delima and is sentenced with imprisonment and further ordered to pay the heirs of Damso Delima civil indemnity of P50, 000.00 and moral damages of P50, 000.00.

15

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

RAZON vs. PEOPLE 525 SCRA 284 FACTS: At around 11:30 P.M. on August 1, 1993, three men boarded the cab of Edwin Razon and asked him to bring them to Dreamland Subdivision in Pinget for the sum of P90.00. Upon reaching their destination and while Razon was turning the cab around Benedict Gonzalo, who was seating behind the drivers seat, declared a hold-up and poked a Batangas knife at the right side of the base of Razons neck. Razon however was able to grab the knife and release his right hand from Gonzalos two companions. Gonzalos companions then went out of the cab. Gonzalo followed and Razon ran after them. Razon admitted having stabbed Gonzalo but insisted that he did so in self-defense. Not finding credence in Razons claim of self-defense, Razon was convicted of homicide and further ordered to pay the heirs of Benedict Gonzalo the amount of P12, 770.00 by way of actual damages; P50, 000.00 by way of moral damages and P10, 000.00 by way of attorneys fees. ISSUE: Whether or not the award of damages is proper. RULING: As to the damages awarded by the RTC failed to awards the heirs of Gonzalo, the court finds that certain modifications need to be made. While not assigned in errors, it is the duty of the court to correct such errors as may be found in the judgment appealed from, since an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review. RTC failed to award the heirs of Gonzalo, P50, 000.00 as civil indemnity for his death which is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof. The award of temperate damages is justified in lieu of the actual damages of a lesser amount. The moral damages is correctly awarded because it was proved that the father of the victim suffered emotional anguish due to the untimely death of the son. The award of attorneys fees is proper in this case as it is borne by the records that the family or the victim hired the services of a private lawyer to prosecute the case.

16

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

PEOPLE vs. BUBAN 523 SCRA 118 FACTS: On August 13, 1995, Arsenio Imperial was shot to death inside his house. During the cross-examination, when asked why her husband was shot, Perla replied that her husband told her that while he was fishing on August 11, 1995, he witnessed the accused Buban with several policemen slaughtering cattle at the river, an illegal activity. After trial, the accused was found guilty of murder and sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death by lethal injection and to pay the heirs of the victim Imperial the sum of P50, 000.00 as civil indemnity and P50, 000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs of the suit. ISSUE: Whether or not the award of damages is proper. RULING: As to damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: 1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; 2) actual or compensatory damages; 3) moral damages; 4) exemplary damages; 5) attorneys fees and expenses of litigation; and 6) interest, in proper cases. Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. Based on current jurisprudence, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto of P75, 000.00 in favor of the heirs of Arsenio Imperial is in order. The RTC also correctly awarded moral damages in the amount of P50, 000.00 in view of the violent death of the victim and the resultant grief to his family. Article 223o of the Civil Code states that exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, as in this case. To deter future similar transgressions, the court finds that an award of P25, 000.00 for exemplary damages is proper.

17

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

PEOPLE vs. ORPILLA 374 SCRA 567 FACTS: Accused-appellant, Renato Orpilla, asked the victim, Vicente Verceles, a tricycle driver, to deliver to his house five gantas of rice, beans and one pig leg. After paying the victim P5.00 and a stick of cigarette, accused-appellant returned to his place of work as a dispatcher of vehicles. The victim, however, failed to deliver the goods to the house of the accused-appellant. At about 6:00 P.M. of the same day, accused-appellant inquired from the victim about the goods he asked to be delivered to his house. The victim apologetically answered that the goods were still in the tricycle and that he failed to deliver them because his tricycle developed engine trouble. The victim turned and steeped to get the items from the side car of his tricycle. As he was about to hand the goods to accused-appellant, the latter suddenly stabbed him on the lower abdomen and immediately ran away. After trial, Renato Orpilla was found guilty of the crime of Murder and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay the victims wife, P50, 000.00 as indemnity, P30, 000.00 as moral damages, P30, 000.00 representing medical and expenses incurred during the wake and funeral expenses and the costs of the suit. ISSUE: Whether or not the award damages is proper. RULING: As to civil liability, the award of P30, 000.00 as moral damages should be increased to P50, 000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence. The award of P30, 000.00 for medical and funeral expenses cannot, however, be allowed as the prosecution failed to present receipts thereof. Nevertheless, the heirs of the victim are entitled to P10, 000.00 by way of temperate damages, since they were able to prove pecuniary loss, only that there was no competent proof as to the amount thereof. Finally, accused-appellant should be ordered to pay damage for the victims loss of earning capacity.

18

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

ACE HAULERS vs. CA 332 SCRA 572 FACTS: The case was an action for damages from a vehicular mishap involving a truck owned by Ace Haulers driven by its employee. Jesus de la Cruz, and a jitney owned by Isabelito Rivera, driven by Rodolfo Parma. A third vehicle, a motorcycle, was bumped and dragged by the jitney and its rider, Fidel Abiva, was run over by the truck owned by Ace Haulers causing his death. A case for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide was filed against the two drivers, de la Cruz and Parma. A separate civil action filed by the wife of the victim was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that no civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal action in a case for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The IAC however, reversed said decision, appealed to the SC by Ace Haulers but was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Meanwhile, the two drivers were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. The Civil case was also decided in favor of the victims wife. The CA consequently affirmed the decision except for the award of P30, 000.00 as exemplary damages. ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the trial court and the CA is correct. RULING: In this case, the victims wife shall have the choice which of the awards to take, naturally expecting that she should opt to recover the greater amount. It has not been shown that she has recovered on the award in the criminal case; consequently, she can unquestionably recover from petition in the civil case. Regarding the award of damages, the award of actual damages was supported of evidence. The attorneys fees percent of the amount of actual damages.

19

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

UNLAD RESOURCES vs. DRAGON 560 SCRA 63 & 85 FACTS: Plaintiffs (herein respondents) and defendant (herein petitioner) entered into a MOA wherein it is provided that respondents, as controlling stockholders of the Rural Bank of Noveleta shall allow Unlad to invest P4.8 Million in the Rural Bank in the form of additional equity. On the other hand, petitioner Unlad bound itself to invest the said amount of P4.8 Million in the Rural Bank, upon signing. It was agreed that Unlad shall subscribe to a minimum of P480, 000.00 common or preferred non-voting shares of stock with par value of P4.8M and pay up immediately P1.2M for said subscription; that the respondent, upon signing of said agreement shall transfer control and management over the Rural Bank to Unlad Resources. Dragon complied with their obligation, however, Unlad Resources, despite repeated demands failed and refused to comply with their obligation. Dragon filed before the RTC a complaint for recession of the agreement and return of control and management of the Rural Bank plus damages. The RTC decided in favor of Dragon. ISSUE: Whether or not Dragon is entitled with the damages awarded by the RTC. RULING: Accordingly, based upon the findings of the trial court, it is clear that Dragon is entitled to the damages awarded. The acts attributed to the petitioners manifestly prejudiced the respondents causing detriment to their standing as directors and stockholders of the Rural Bank.

20

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

BAUTISTA vs. MANGALDAN 230 SCRA 16 FACTS: Cristeta Bautista mortgaged her conjugal share of the half of the land covered by a title for P2, 000 to defendant Mangaldan Rural Bank. The inscription at the back of the title states that only 1/2 portion of the subject land is mortgaged. The said mortgage was foreclosed extra-judicially for failure of plaintiff to pay the principal obligation and other charges with the defendant as the highest bidder. After the plaintiff failed to redeem the mortgaged property within the reglementary period, ownership over the whole parcel of land instead of the one-half portion which was mortgaged was consolidated in the name of the Bank and the Bank sold said land to Rodriguez. Bautista filed complaint against the Bank. After trial, the lower court ruled in favor of Bautista. The defendants were also ordered to pay jointly and severally and to place plaintiffs in possession of one-half pro-indiviso of the parcel of the land, and the sum of P5, 000.00 as damages, P11, 750.00 as attorneys fees, P5, 000.00 as litigation expenses and to pay double costs. ISSUE: Whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to damages as a result of the Banks mistake of selling the entire portion of the subject land. RULING: The CA erred in setting aside the decision of the lower court. Moral damages are not awarded to penalize the defendant bank but to compensate the plaintiff for the injuries he may have suffered. In this case, there is no doubt that petitioners must have suffered sleepless nights, serious anxiety and wounded feelings upon learning that they have cost the remaining one-half of their property due to the negligence of the bank. Moral damages is proper. Said moral damages should then be raised to P10, 000.00. To serve as caution for respondent bank from separating similar acts, this court likewise awards exemplary damages in the sum of P10, 000.00.

21

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

TAN vs. CA 239 SCRA 310 FACTS: Petitioner is a depositor and had maintained an account in the respondent RCBC Bank. To avoid carrying cash while enroute to Manila, he secured a cashiers check from the RCBC amounting to P30, 000.00 payable in his order. He deposited the check on his account with RCBC and erroneously sent the same cashiers check for clearing to the Central Bank which was returned for having been missent or misrouted. Relying on the common knowledge that the cashiers check was as good as cash, petitioner issued two personal checks that bounced because of RCBCs misclearing and had put in doubt his credibility among his business peers and bullied his reputation as a community leader which he had painstakingly cultivated for years. In defense, RCBC, disowning any negligence and put the blame for the misrouting on the petitioner for using the wrong check deposit slip. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to moral damages. RULING: Yes. While the bank was not in bad faith, its negligence caused the private respondent to suffer mental anguish, serious anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation; he is entitled to recover moral damages. Further, moral damages are not meant to enrich the complainant at the expense of the defendant. It is only intended to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone.

22

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

PEOPLE vs. TROPA 374 SCRA 42 FACTS: When the remains of Loriana Tropa, the mother of victim Doroteo Tropa and grandmother of the accused appellant was buried in the cemetery, the victim did not attend the burial. These arose the hatred of the accused causing him to hack the victim several times with a bolo until he died. ISSUE: Whether or not moral damages should be awarded to the victims family. RULING: The accused-appellants are jointly and severally ordered to pay the heirs of the victim as an award for moral damages in the amount of P50, 000.00.Taking into consideration the pain and anguish of the victims family in addition to the civil indemnity of P50, 000.00

23

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

SINGSON vs. CA 282 SCRA 149, 160 FACTS: Careous Singson and his cousin Cresentio Tiongson bought from Cathay Pacific Airways two open-dated, identically routed, round trip plane tickets for the purpose of spending their vacation in the US. They arrived safely in Los Angeles and after staying there for three weeks, they decided to return to the Philippines so they arranged their return flight. While Tiongson easily get a booking for the flight, Singson was not as easy. It was discovered that his ticket booklet did have the flight coupon corresponding to the trip going back to Manila. They were then deferred from flight about five days until they finally able to arrange his return flight to Manila. ISSUE: Whether or not in breaking the contract of carriage, the defendant airline is shown to have acted fraudulently, with malice or in bad faith, the award of moral and exemplary damages, in addition to actual damages is proper. RULING: Yes. The carriers utter lack of care and sensitivity to the needs of its passengers clearly constitutive of gross negligence recklessness and wanton disregard of the rights of the latter, acts evidently indistinguishable or no different from fraud, malice and bad faith. As the rule now stands, where breaching the contract of carriage the defendant airline is shown to have acted fraudulently with malice or bad faith, the award of moral and exemplary damages, in addition to actual damages is proper and well-entrenched principle is that the grant of moral damages depends upon the discretion of the court based on the circumstances.

24

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

PEOPLE vs. ESCOTO 229 SCRA 430 FACTS: Nenita Escoto, aged 13 was raped by her uncle, Callisto Escoto, a plea of not guilty was entered by the accused. Trial ensued and the accused was found guilty as charged by the trial court with the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim in the amount of P100, 000.00 as damages. ISSUE: Whether or not award of moral indemnification is proper. RULING: Yes. Moral indemnification is proper, as observed in People vs. Guibao, GR No. 93517, January 15, 1993, this case involves a crime of rape committed against a very young girl who has been further denied thereby of her right to grow up and discover the wonders of woman hood in a normal body. As declared, in compromising judicial sanctions should stem the growing tide of paraphilia that seeks the youth for its victims, leaving inevitable traumatic and psychological scars on their young and innocent lives.

25

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

LIBI vs. IAC 214 SCRA 16 FACTS: The respondent spouses are the legitimate parents of Julie Ann Gotiong while petitioners are the parents of Wendell Libi, then a minor between 18 and 19 years of age living with his aforesaid parents. Julie Ann and Wendell are sweethearts but their relationship ended because Libi was allegedly sadistic and irresponsible. An attempt of reconciliation was made but it resulted to the death of the sweethearts. Wendell Libi killed himself and Julie using a gun registered in the name of Wendells father. ISSUE: Whether or not the parents of Wendell Libi, who is minor, are liable. RULING: Yes, in the case at the bar, whether the death of the hapless Julie Ann Gotiong was caused by a felony or a quasi-delict committed by Wendell Libi, respondent court did not err in holding petitioners liable for damages arising therefrom, subject to the proceeding modifications of the premises relied upon it. The parents failed to duly exercise the requisite diligentissim patris familias to prevent such damages.

26

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

DRILON vs. CA 270 SCRA 210 FACTS: Secretary of Justice Franklin Drilon sent a letter-complaint to then Chief of Staff Renato de Villa for an alleged participation of herein respondents including Adaza for failed coup d etat or Rebellion complex with murder and frustrated murder. The institution of said charges led Adaza to file a complaint for damages contending that petitioners acted with malice in filing a crime not existing in the statute books. ISSUE: Whether or not damages are recoverable from malicious prosecution. RULING: There should be proof that prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person and that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless. The mere act of submitting a care to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for malicious prosecution.

27

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

TULFO vs. PEOPLE and SO GR No. 161032, September 16, 2008 FACTS: Atty. Carlos Ding So filed separate charges of libel against Erwin Tulfo as the writer, and against the publisher, the managing editor, the city and national editor, all of Remate, a tabloid newspaper of general circulation. This is in connection with the articles in Tulfos column, Direct Hit published by Remate, were Tulfo called Atty. So as a corrupt official of the government. Said articles there and then willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with malicious intent discredited and dishonored Atty. Carlos So. Erwin Tulfo averred that he wrote the articles without malice, that he does not know Atty. Carlos So, that he relied on his source from the South Harbor and that the criticism was not directed to Atty. Carlos So but to a certain Ding So. The RTC found Tulfo and the officers of the Remate guilty of libel. With the penalty of imprisonment and as the article are libelous per se, they are jointly and severally liable to pay P800, 000.00 as actual damages, P1 Million as moral damages and an additional P500, 000.00 by way of exemplary damages. The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court. In their Appeal to the SC, Tulfo interposed the defense of Qualified Privileged Communication, where malice should be proved. ISSUE: Whether or not the articles are libelous or are protected as qualified privileged communication. RULING: The articles are libelous perse and are not protected as qualified privileged communication. Freedom of the press is not absolute and unbounded. Press freedom must be done consistent with good faith and reasonable care. Tuldo did not verify first his story and instead misinformed the public. There is no showing that Atty. Carlos So was indeed a villain as Tulfo pictured him to be. He wrote the articles with utter disregard of whether the same were false or not. However, as they are charged with libel for the first time, and considering the necessity of a free press balanced with the necessity of a balanced press, the fine of P6, 000.00 for each court of libel would suffice. The awards of damages were modified: a. Pursuant to Article 21999 of the Civil Code, there was no showing that Atty. So suffered pecuniary loss, there is no proof of actual loss that can be measured, the award of actual damages cannot stand; b. Exemplary damages cannot be justified. Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that no aggravating circumstance, no exemplary damages, in here there is no aggravating circumstance accompanied the commission of the libelous acts. No. exemplary damages can be awarded; c. The award of moral damages is justified.
28 Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

MAMBULAO vs. PNB 22 SCRA 381 FACTS: Mambulao Lumber Co., availed a loan from PNB Naga Branch. The approved loan was P100, 000.00 but PNB released the sum of P27, 500.00 and P15, 000.00 in installment. To secure the loan, Mambulao mortgaged a parcel of land together with the buildings and improvements thereon as well as various saw mill equipments. Mambulao thereafter failed to pay its loan after due date and despite demands from the bank, leading to the foreclosure of the mortgage. Mambulao filed a civil case against the PNB Naga Branch claiming that the foreclosure was illegal, for PNB sold it a very low price and that it did not heed the oppositions of Mambulao to said foreclosure. The CFI dismissed the case and ordered Mambulao to pay PNB the sum of P3, 582.52 with interests thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from December 22, 1961 until fully paid, and the costs of the suit. Attorneys fees in the amount of P5, 821.35 and P2, 989.54 as expense of the foreclosure. ISSUE: Whether or not the ruling of the lower court is correct. RULING: The lower court erred in computing the indebtedness and the interest. Interest due shall earn legal interest only from the time it is judicially demanded. Interest due and unpaid, shall not earn interest. As to the expenses during the foreclosure, the sheriff or the officer conducting the sale is entitled to collect a fee of P5.00 for each day of actual work performed in addition to his expenses in connection at the foreclosure sale. However, the claim of moral damages by Mambulao ha no legal or factual basis. An artificial person cannot experience physical sufferings, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock or social humiliation. Wherefore, PNB and the deputy sheriff are ordered to pay to Mambulao the total amount of P56, 000.73 as actual value of the chattels in exemplary damages, the overpaid amount of the loan and attorneys fees.

29

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

PEOPLE vs. MANERO 218 SCRA 85 FACTS: Manero and his companions planned to liquidate a number of suspected communist sympathizers at Cotabato. On the same day, Father Tulio Favali, an Italian priest, arrived in that place on board his motorcycle. While the priest was inside a house, Manero and his companions towed the motorcycle and set it on fire. The priest accosted respondent and suddenly one of the companion of Manero fired his gun and shot the priest at the head. Another companion of Manero jumped over the body of the priest. Kicked the body twice and fired anew which shattered the head of the priest causing his brains to scatter on the road. They were found guilty of murder and were sentence to imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua; to pay the Pontifical Institute of Foreign Mission Brothers, the congregation to which Father Favali belonged, a civil indemnity of P12, 000.00, Attorneys fees in the sum of P50, 000.00 for each of the accused, court appearance fee of P10, 000.00 for every appearance in court, moral damages in the sum of P100, 000.00. Further, Manero being guilty of arson, to pay the sum of P19, 000.00 representing the value of the motorcycle. ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court is correct. RULING: The judgment of the trial court is accord with law and evidence, however, the award of moral damages to the PIME is not proper. A juridical person like the PIME is not entitled to moral damages because not being a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or moral shock. It is only when a juridical person has a good reputation that is debased, resulting in social humiliation that moral damages may be awarded. Neither can moral damages be awarded to the heirs of Father Favali for the reason that the heirs never presented any evidence showing that they suffered mental anguish, much less did they take the witness stand. It has been held that moral damages and there causal relation to the defendants acts should be satisfactorily proved by the claimant. The award of exemplary damages is reasonable considering the brutal slaying of the priest was attended with abuse of superior strength, cruelty and ignominy. With respect to the civil indemnity of P12, 000.00, the amount is increased to P50, 000.00 in accordance with existing jurisprudence and which should be paid to his legal heirs and not to the PIME.
30 Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

CHILD LEARNING CENTER vs. TAGORIO 476 SCRA 237 FACTS: Timothy Tagorio, a grade IV pupil at Marymount School, operated by the petitioner, was locked inside the boys comfort room of the said school. Unable to get out, he started to panic and so he banged the door and yelled for help. When no help arrived, he decided to open the window to call for help. In the process of opening the window, he went right through and fell down threestorey. He was hospitalized and was treated for serious multiple physical injuries. His parents sued the school. The RTC found in favor of the victim and ordered CLC to pay them P200, 253. 12 as actual and compensatory damages, P200, 000.00 as moral damages, P50, 000.00 as exemplary damages, P100, 000.00 as Attorneys fees and the cost of the suit. ISSUE: Whether or not the decision was correct. RULING: The lower courts decision was correct. It was proven that the door was defective. The fall of the victim was not due to his own negligence but it originated from CLCs own negligence, it is not ensuring that all its doors are properly maintained and in not placing grills on the window. CLC, with the diligence of a good father of a family should have anticipated that a student locked in the toilet by a non-working door, would attempt o use the window to call for help or even to get out. As to the damages, the resolution rested on factual determinations by the trial court, affirmed by the CA, therefore no legal issue warrants its intervention.

31

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

CRYSTAL vs. BPI 572 SCRA 299 FACTS: Sps. Raymundo and Desomparades Crystal obtained loans in behalf of the Cebu Contractors Consortium Co. (CCCC) from the BP, the loans were secured by a Chattel Mortgage and Real Estate Mortgage executed by the Spouses Crystal. Also the spouses bind themselves as surety CCCC. When CCCC failed to pay its loans, BPI resorted to the foreclosure of the mortgages. The Spouses contested it and filed a TRO. The foreclosure of the mortgages was consummated, however, it was not sufficient to pay the total obligation. The RTC in where the bank filed a complaint for sum of money against CCCC and spouses Crystal, seeking to recover the deficiency of the loan. The trial court ruled in favor of the BPI. ISSUE: Whether or not BPI is entitled to moral damages. RULING: BPI is not entitled to moral damages. A juridical person is generally not entitled to moral damages because, unlike a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments and wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or moral shock. The CA found BPI as being famous and having gained its familiarity and respect not only in the Philippines but also in the whole world because of its good will and good reputation must protect and defend the same against any unwarranted suit such as in the case. In holding that BPI is entitled to moral damages, the CA relied on the case of People vs. Manero, wherein the court ruled that it debased, resulting in social humiliation, that moral damages may be awarded.

32

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS and STEWARDS vs. PAL 559 SCRA 252 FACTS: This is a case of illegal dismissal wherein the Labor Arbiter awarded moral damages to the petitioner, the duly certified collective bargaining representative of PAL flight attendants and stewards. ISSUE: Whether or not FALSAP is entitled to moral damages award. RULING: We have again held that as a general rule, a corporation cannot suffer nor be entitled to moral damages. A corporation, being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation, has no feelings, no emotions, no senses; therefore it cannot experience physical suffering and mental anguish. The Labor Arbiters award of moral damages was therefore improper.

33

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

FAR EAST BANK vs. CA GR no. 108164, February 23, 1995 FACTS: Petitioner issued credit card to the Spouses Luna. On August, 1988, Clarita Luna lost her credit card. It was then considered as a hot card or cancelled card. On October 6, 1988, Luis tendered a despedida lunch for a close friend. He presented his credit card to pay for the lunch but it was dishonored. He was forced to pay the bill in cash. Luis felt embarrassed by this incident. Luis Luna then filed for damages against the bank. The banks vicepresident apologized. The RTC, consequently ordered the bank to pay Luna P300, 000.00 as moral damages, P50, 000.00 as exemplary damages and P20, 000. 00 as attorneys fees. ISSUE: Whether or not Luna is entitled to damages. RULING: Malice or bad faith implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity, it is different from the negative idea of negligence in that malice or bad faith contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ills will. Nevertheless, the banks failure, even perhaps inadvertent, to honor its credit card issued to private respondent Luis showed entitle him to recover a measure of damages sanctioned under Article 2221 of the Civil Code providing, thus, nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, maybe vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. Reasonable attorneys fees may be recovered where the court deemed just and equitable. The award of moral and exemplary damages are deleted and in its stead. The bank is ordered to pay Luis Luna an amount of P5, 000.00 by way of nominal damages.

34

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

FRANCISCO vs. FERRER 352 SCRA 261 FACTS: Herein respondents ordered three-layered cake from petitioner for their wedding. In the day of said wedding, the cake was delivered late. Moreover, instead of a three-layered cake, it was only a two-layered cake and resorted to same rival as substitute for the wedding cake. ISSUE: Whether or not damages may be awarded. RULING: The SC ordered the petitioner to pay the respondent the amount of the cake for P3, 175. 00, P10, 000.00 as nominal damages and P10, 000.00 for attorneys fees and cost of litigation. Petitioner must be held liable for insensitivity, inadvertence or inattention to their customers anxiety and held of the hour. Nominal damages are recoverable when a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion.

35

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

De ROY vs. CA 157 SCRA 756 FACTS: The firewall of a burned out building owned by petitioners collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop occupied by the family of private respondents. Resulting in injuries and the death of Marissa Bernal. Private respondents had been warned by the petitioner to vacate their shop in view of its proximity to the weakened wall but the former failed to do so. It was found that petitioners are guilty of gross negligence and awarded damages to private respondent. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is liable under Article 2190 of the Civil Code for damages from the total or partial collapse of a building if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs. RULING: Yes, petitioner is liable under Article 2190 of the Civil Code which provides that the proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it showed be due to the lack of necessary repairs.

36

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

YLARDE vs. AQUINO 163 SCRA 697 FACTS: Ylardes parents, petitioners in this case, filed a suit for damages against the private respondents. The complaint stemmed on their sons death because of the digging done by the pupils to bury stones, which is in line with their course call work education and that Aquino did not exercise the utmost diligence of a very cautious person and that the demise of Ylarde was due to said digging. ISSUE: Whether or not teachers are liable for torts committed by their students. RULING: It is only the teachers and not the principal or head of an academic school that should be answerable for torts committed by their students. In a school of arts and trades it is only the heads of the school that can be held liable. Under Section 2180 of the Civil Code the teacher-in-charge of school children should be held liable for negligence in his supervision over them, and his failure to take the necessary precautions to prevent any injury on their persons.

37

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

PNR vs. CA GR no. 55347, October 4, 1985 FACTS: Winifredo Tupang, husband of Rosario Tupang, boarded a train to Manila from Camarines Sur. Upon passing Iyam bridge, Tupang fell off from the train resulting to his death. The train did not stop despite the alarm raised by passengers that somebody fell. The widow, Rosario Tupang, filed a complaint against the PNR. The CFI held the PNR liable for damages for breach of contract of carriage and ordered PNR to pay plaintiff the sum of P12, 000.00 for the death of Winifredo, P20, 000.00 for the loss of is earning capacity, P10, 000.00 for damages and P2, 000.00 as attorneys fees and costs. The CA sustained the said decision and it even added P5, 000.00 as exemplary damages. ISSUE: Whether or not PNR is liable for damages. RULING: The moral and exemplary damages are deleted. The SC said that PNR has the obligation to observe extraordinary diligence. Death or injury suffered by any of its passengers gives rise to the presumption that it was negligent in the performance of its obligation under the contract of carriage. But while Petitioner failed to exercise extraordinary diligence as required by law, it appeared that the deceased was chargeable with contributory negligence. Since he opted to sit on the open platform, he should have held tightly and tenaciously on the upright metal bar found at the side of the platform to avoid falling off from the speeding train. Exemplary damages may be allowed only in cases where the defendant acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. There being no evidence of fraud, malice or bad faith on the part of the petitioner, the grant of the exemplary damages should be discarded.

38

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

BANTOTO vs. BOBIS GR No. L-18966, November 22, 1966 FACTS: Crispin Vallejo was a registered owner of a jeepney and operated by him through driver Salvador Bobis. Though the drivers negligence, the jeepney struck a three year old girl, Damiana Bantoto, that led to her death. The driver was sentenced with aresto mayor and P3, 000.00 as indemnity to the deceased heirs. By amended complaint, the heirs of the deceased instituted an action for civil damages, exemplary damages, and attorneys fees, this time including the owner of the jeepney as employer of the driver. The trial court ruled against Vallejo and ordered to pay the appellees the sum of P3, 000.00 as indemnity, P1, 000.-00 as moral damages, P1, 000.00 as exemplary damages, and P500 as attorneys fees. ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court is correct. RULING: The SC modified the decision by eliminating the award of P1, 000.00 exemplary damages and doubling the amount of counsel fees, retaining the P3, 000.00 indemnity with interest at 6% from the filing of the complaint. In the case of Martinez vs. Barredo, the SC ruled that in the absence of collection the judgment convicting and sentencing the servant to pay indemnity is conclusive in an action to enforce the subsidiary liability of the master or employer. It also added that the case was predicated upon the sentence of conviction in the criminal case, the award of the exemplary damages was improper. No such damages were imposed on the driver, and the master, as subsidiarily cannot incur greater liability than his convicted employee, any more than a guarantee can be held responsible for more than the principal doctor.

39

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

PNB vs. GENERAL ACCEPTANCE 161 SCRA 449 FACTS: Francisco Santos obtained an application of an impost letters of credit with the PNB in favor of a Hongkong Company in the amount of $50, 000 to cover importation of a refining machine. Consequent to PNBs approval, Santos gave the PNB a check worth P30, 000.00 under a special time deposit. Later on, Santos assigned his special time deposit to General Acceptance and the latter wrote to PNB informing about the assignment and ask the bank for its withdrawal. Days later, the same deposit was garnished by the sheriff of Manila in the execution of a judgment of a Manila Court against Santos and notice of delivery of money was served. The trial court ruled that the deduction of PNB to the deposit was valid and ordered the PNB to deliver to General Acceptance the sum of P21, 668.87 with interest. The CA modified the decision ordering the PNB to deliver the entire P30, 000.00 plus interest; P5, 000.00 as exemplary or corrective damages and P3, 000. 00 for attorneys fees and costs. ISSUE: Whether or not the bank is liable for exemplary and compensatory damages as well as attorneys fees and cost of the litigation. RULING: The SC said, the PNB was acting well within its right in making deductions in Frasam in satisfaction of its credits against the latter relative to their transactions. The correctness of the amount of the deductions has not, incidentally impugned. In refusing to deliver to General Acceptance the entire deposit, in the face of the latters insistence that no deductions should be made, coupled with a claim by a third party, was not of so reckless, oppressive or malevolent a character as would give rise to liability for exemplary damages and for attorneys fees.

40

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

PEOPLE vs. ISANG 513 SCRA 150 FACTS: Ignacio Isang was charged with two counts of rape committed against his daughter. The rape happened in two occasions and while the mother of victim is working abroad. During the trial, the victim cannot anymore recall the rape that happened in June, 1996, however, she was clear and straightforward in testifying on the rape that happened in September, 1999. During the pendency of the trial, Isang escaped from jail. The case was submitted for decision, I sang was acquitted on the first charge of rape because of insufficiency of evidence, but he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the trial court on the second charge of rape. Isang meted the highest penalty of death, considering the minority of the victim and the relationship between the accused and the victim. Furthermore, the accused was ordered to pay the victim the sum of P15, 000.00 as civil indemnity, P25, 000.00 as exemplary and P50, 000.00 as moral damages. The decision of the trial court was affirmed by the CA with modifications, the penalty of death is reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parol; the award of moral damages is hereby increased to P75, 000.00. ISSUE: Whether or not the CA is correct in modifying the decision of the trial court. RULING: The CA correctly modified the penalty imposed in accordance with RA 9346 prohibiting the imposition of death penalty which was made effective in 2006, less than two years after the decision of the RTC which was made in 2004. As regards the award of damages, if the crime was qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty by the applicable laws, the accused shall be ordered to pay the amount of P75, 000.00 as civil indemnity. This is mandatory in rape convictions. The award of P25, 000.00 as exemplary damages is likewise proper. (Art. 2230 of the Civil Code)

41

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

De YSARI vs. NLRC 231 SCRA 173 FACTS: The petitioner was an employee of his father, herein private respondent, as farm administrator of Hacienda Maneccao. The petitioner suffered several illnesses and was hospitalized. During the entire period of his sickness, private respondent took care of his medical bills and petitioner continue to receive compensation. In 1984, private respondent ceased to pay the petitioners salary, without due notice. The petitioner filed with the NLRC a complaint of illegal dismissal against respondent, with prayer for reinstatement, with full back wages, thirteen month pay for 1983, consequential, moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorneys fees. ISSUE: Whether or not moral and exemplary damages is proper. RULING: Moral damages under article 2217 of the Civil Code, may be awarded to compensate one for diverse injuries such as mental anguish, wounded feelings, provided that such injuries spring from the act which was the proximate cause thereof, exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for public good, they are not recoverable as a matter of right, it being left to the court to decide whether or not they should be adjudicated. In this case, no moral and exemplary damages can be rightfully awarded for the reason that each one has a cause for damages against the other.

42

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

ST. FRANCIS vs. CA GR No. 82465, February 25, 1991 FACTS: Freshman students Ferdinand Castillo joined the Picnic at Talaan Beach. His parents did not allow him because of the short notice, but they allowed him to bring food to teachers for the picnic. Because of persuasion, he went to the beach. During the picnic a female was apparently drowning, Ferdinand Castillo together with other student came to the rescue, but in the process it was Ferdinand himself who drowned. The parents sued the school and the court decided in favor of the parents. ISSUE: Whether or not the decision is correct. RULING: No, negligence was attributable to the defendants, the defendants exercised and observed the required diligence of a good father or a family in ensuring the safety of the student, thus, it cannot be said that they are guilty of the negligence of those under them. The school, therefore is not guilty of any fault or negligence, hence, no moral damages can be claimed against them.

43

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

PALISOC vs. BRILLANTES 41 SCRA 548 FACTS: Dominador Palisoc, 16 years old, was watching Virgilio Daffon and Desidero Cruz work on a machine in their laboratory class. Daffon scolded Palisoc and a fistfight ensued between the two. Daffon delivered blows that eventually killed Palisoc. The parents of Palisoc sued Daffon, the school president, the instructor and the owner of the school. The trial court as well as the CA ruled that only Daffon is liable for damages. ISSUE: Whether or not the ruling is correct. RULING: Valenton and Quibule as president and teacher-in-charge of the school must be held jointly and severally liable for the quasi delict of Daffon. The unfortunate death of the victim because of the fistfight could have been avoided, had said defendants complied with their duty of providing adequate supervision over the activities of the students in the school premises to protect their students from harm.

44

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting

DIAZ vs. DAVAO LIGHT 520 SCRA 481 FACTS: Petitioner unilaterally installed a meter to replace another one. There was notice of disconnection. There was a petition for mandatory reconnection, which was settled by a compromise agreement. Thereafter, respondent filed a criminal case for theft against the petitioner; hence, a complaint for damages for abuse of right was filed. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to damages. RULING: Petitioner is not entitled to damages. There is a distinction between damages and injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right while damages is the loss, hurt or harm which results from the injury and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury, in those cases in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty, where the consequence must be borne by the injured person alone. The law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act which does not amount to a legal injury or wrong. These situations are often called danmum absque injuria. Whatever damages petitioner may have suffered would have to be borne by him alone because it was his acts which led to the filing of the complaint against him.

45

Torts and Damages Atty. M. Patting