Construction Development vs Estrella

The plaintiff Estrella, together with her granddaughter boarded a BLTB bus en route San Pablo City in
Laguna. However, they encountered an accident, their bus being rammed from behind by a tractor truck
of CDCP in NLEX. Upon collision, the seats of the BLTB bus pushed forward, pinning their knees
between their seats and the seats in front. They regained consciousness only when the rescuers extricated
them from the crash by boring a hole against the bus.

The plaintiff sued the CDCP (precursor of now PNNC), BLTB, and both the drivers of the collided
vehicles for damages. The latter alleged that the drivers Payunan (CDCP) and Datinguinoo (BLTB) were
negligent as they did not obey traffic regulations; that both CDCP and BLTB were negligent in the
selection and supervision of their respective employees; that BLTB was negligent in allowing the
undermaintained bus to operate.

The trial court, after trial, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that CDCP and BLTB and their
respective drivers were negligent. The trial court held that BLTB is liable for damages on account of its
breach of contract of carriage, failing to carry the passengers to their destination with outmost diligence.

The trial court also held that CDCP is liable for damages on account of its failure to diligently supervise
its employees in the discharge of their duties, there being evidence that its driver was driving at excessive
speed during the collision.

WORTHY TO NOTE that in the decision of the trial court, the 1
st
paragraph of the dispositive portion
ordered CDCP and BLTB and their respective drivers to pay damages. In the 2
nd
paragraph thereof, the
trial court ordered CDCP and its driver to pay damages anew for moral damages.

Upon the defendants appeal with the CA, the appellate court ruled to affirm the trial court decision with
modification as to legal interest and the award of exemplary damages.

The defendant CDCP sought recourse with the SC, arguing that BLTB and its driver are solely liable for
the damages sustained by the plaintiffs, and that it should not be held liable to pay damages twice arising
from the same incident.

WON there was double recovery of damages executed against the defendant petitioner

(1.) There was no double recovery. In the present case, the 1
st
award as per the trial court decision is for
culpa acuillana (quasi delict). There exist a joint tortfeasor between CDCP and BLTB. Asdie from the fact
that BLTB, the common carrier was found to be negligent, the driver of CDCP was also found to be
negligent upon discovering that the later was driving at an excessive speed, as per the police report (there
were skid marks on the road).

It is held under numerous jurisprudence that the owner of the other vehicle which collided with a common
carrier is solidarily liable to the injured passenger. Joint tort feasors are jointly and severally liable for the
tort which they commit.

Joint tort feasors are not liable pro rata. A payment in full for the damage done, by one of the joint tort
feasors, of course satisfies any claim which might exist against the others. There can be but satisfaction.
The release of one of the joint tort feasors by agreement generally operates to discharge all.

(2.) There is no double recovery. The 1
st
award for damages is grounded upon a joint torfeasr between
CDCP and BLTB. The 2
nd
award is for damages against CDCP alone.
Exconde vs Capuno

The defendant Delfin Capuno was sued together with his son, Dante Capuno for damages in connection
with a criminal case for homicide due to reckless imprudence filed against the son Capuno. In the
criminal case, the plaintiff private complainant alleged the following, to wit;

1. That the accused, a 15 year old minor, was a member of the Boy Scouts Org. and a student of
Balintawak Elementary School; that the latter attended a Jose Rizal parade;
2. That the accused, together with a group of student attendees boarded a jeepney en route to the parade
grounds; that the driver of the jeepney at that time permitted the accused to drive the jeepney; that the
jeepney turned turtle, causing the death of the deceased.

Initially, Dante Capuno was charged with the murder the deceased Caperina and Ticzon, where the
mother of the deceased Caperina, herein plaintiff Exconde, reserved her right to institute a separate civil
action against the accused.

After conviction of the accused Dante Capuno, the plaintiff filed an action for damages against the
accused and his father, Delfin Capuno. The plaintiff alleged that the father Capuno is jointly liable with
the accused on account of his failure to supervise his son.

As a defense, the father Capuno alleged that he cannot be held liable for damages on account that during
the time of the incident, he had no control and supervision over his son, and that he is not even under his
custody.

The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, hence the recourse of the plaintiff with the SC.

WON the father Capuno must be held liable for damages for the reckless imprudence of his son.

(1.) Yes, the father Capuno is liable for the negligence committed by his son. Under the civil code, the
negligent acts committed by minors WHO LIVES WITH THEM, which caused damages to another must
be borne by the father, or the mother in case of the formers incapacity or death. The liability is a
necessary consequence of parental authority.

The only way for the parents to deny liability is to prove that they exercised due diligence of a good father
of a family; such was not proved in the present case.

(2.) Although the civil code provides that teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for the
damages caused by their pupils or apprentices under their custody, such is not applicable in the present
case on account that the accused is not a student or an apprentice in an institution of arts and trades.












Cuadra vs Monfort

The plaintiff Ulises Cuadra filed an action for damages against herein defendant Monfort. During trial,
the plaintiff alleged that his daughter, Maria Teresa Cuadra (12 years old), together with the daughter of
the defendant, Maria Teresa Monfort (13 years old), are grade 6 student of Mabini Elementary School.

At the day of the incident, the childrens teacher requested both to weed the grass around the school
premises. Upon weeding the same, the Monfort found a plastic headband. Jokingly, she shouted that she
found an earthworm, and suddenly threw the said ornament towards Cuadra and hit the latter on the right
eye. Due to the pain, Cuadra rubbed powder onto her eyes, which caused the eye to be infected.

As a consequence of the incident, she underwent surgery twice which necessitated a sizable amount of
money. Despite the medical procedures undertaken, Cuadra lost her sight on her right eye.

After trial, the father Monfort was ordered to pay the damages prayed for. Hence the recourse of Monfort
with the SC, alleging that he is not liable for the damages sustained by the plaintiffs daughter.

WON Monfort is liable for the damages sustained by the plaintiffs daughter as a consequence of t6he
horseplaying of their children.

(1.) No, Monfort is not liable for damages. Although it is provided under the civil code that the
negligence of a minor child which caused damage to another must be borne by the father or mother, as the
case may be, such liability may be denied by proof of the parents exercise of due diligence of a good
father of the family.

In the present case, the father Monfort cannot be expected to exercise due diligence while the daughter
was in school. The father has the right to expect that the teachers who had special parental authority over
the children under their custody would exercise such diligence to prevent untoward incidents such as in
the present case.

(2.) The parents of the minor child cannot be expected to exercise such diligence on account that the child
is not even under their custody during the incident. Parents are not burdened by law to anticipate every
untoward incident which may involve their children.

It is not proven by evidence that the child has a mischievous propensity which is imputable to the parents.

Dissenting: There is nothing in the record that would indicate that Alfonso Monfort had properly advised
his daughter to behave properly and not to play dangerous jokes on her classmate and playmates. Without
proof of such, he can be liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. There is nothing in the record to
show that he had done anything at all to even try to minimize the damage caused upon by his child.











Gutierrez vs CA

The plaintiffs spouses Baloyo filed an action for damages against herein defendants Gutierrez and
Balisalisa for their negligence which caused their daughters death. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that
Gutierrez, a contractor, and Balisalia, a project engineer, were contracted by the Bureau of Public Works
for the construction of a drainage system.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant Gutierrez, under the supervision Balisalisa, proceeded to excavate
a hole near the Mabini Elementary School through means of a crane. The pile of dirt dug up was piled
against adobe wall of the said school.

When the pile reached the height of the fence, the crane was used to flatten the same, causing immense
stress against the wall of the school. Eventually, the wall collapsed inward the school, pinning down
students who were playing within the school grounds. Consequently, the daughter of the plaintiffs was
buried within the rubble, causing her death.

The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the defendants are jointly and severally liable
to pay moral and exemplary damages.

Upon appeal of the respondent with the SC, he alleged that the liability is without justification on account
that there existed no employer employee relationship between him and the crane operators.
WON the defendant petitioner is liable for damages.

(1.) Yes, Gutierrez is liable for damages. In the present case, the petitioner could have reasonably
expected that the adobe wall will collapse if immense pressure is exerted against it. The petitioner ought
to have known that piling of dirt and pressing it down against an otherwise weak wall is not the right
thing to do.

The danger not only to the wall but also to the students on the other side of the wall could have been
easily anticipated, and yet they did not desist from doing the negligent act, not exerted any precautionary
measure to avoid any accident.

For such an omission, the plaintiffs are entitled to moral and exemplary damages. The petitioner
Gutierrez, being a contractor for public works, must be more careful in the performance of their contracts.
The award of such damages is a deterrent for other contractors to exercise a trifling degree of diligence.

(2.) The allegation that no employer employee relationship exists between his and the crane operators is
without merit. Under the contract and by overt actions of the defendants and his operators, it is readily
apparent that the latter are his employees. Such an allegation is made for purposes of delay and evasion.












Phil. Rabbit Lines vs Phil. Am. Forwarders

The plaintiff Philippine Rabbit filed an action for damages against the defendant Phil. Am. Forwarders
and its manager named Balingit for negligence based on culpa aquillana.

In its complaint, the plaintiff alleged that Pineda, the driver of the truck owned by Phil. Am. Forwarders,
drove recklessly along a national highway in Pampangga.

The truck of the defendant collided with the bus of the plaintiff, driven by Pangalanan where the latter
sustained injuries as a result. The bus also sustained major damage and was out of commission for 79
days, causing the plaintiff to lose profits.

As a defense, Balingit alleged that he is not the employer of Pineda, and that he is merely a manager of
the corporation which employs Pineda as driver.

The trial court took credence of Balingits defense and dismissed the complaint against the latter. With
such dismissal, the plaintiffs appealed with the CA, where the appellate court certified the case with the
SC as a matter which involves pure questions of law.

The plaintiff petitioner argued that the term employer under the civil code covers managers of
corporations

WON Balingit is liable as an employer of the negligent driver.

(1.) No, Balingit is not liable. Under the civil code, the employers are liable for the negligent acts
committed by its employees in the performance of the latters duties.

However, the term employer does not cover manager of the corporation which employs the negligent
employee.

Hence, under the allegations of the complaint, no tortious or quasi-delictual liability can be fastened on
Balingit as manager of Phil-American Forwarders, Inc., in connection with the vehicular accident already
mentioned because he himself may be regarded as an employee or dependiente of his employer, Phil-
American Forwarders, Inc.

















Pilipinas Shell vs CA

The respondent Camacho operates a Shell Gasoline Station in Naguillian Road, Baguio. Subsequently,
the defendant requested the petitioner Shell to conduct a hydro pressure test on the underground storage
tanks of the station to determine whether there is a leak in the tanks.

Shell accepted the request and contracted with Feliciano, through Shells Field Manager Mitra, to conduct
the said test, by virtue of a job order. With this, Feliciano ordered that the tank be emptied and filled with
water through a hose connected to the faucet of the water tank of Camacho. Feliciano, before leaving,
ordered the men of Camacho to shut off the water when the tank is filled.

Around 2am, Camacho shut the water line when the water had already reached the lip of the storage tank.
HOWEVER, the husband of Camacho started to sell gasoline around 5am in the morning, not knowing
that the tank was filled with water, and not gasoline.

The customers returned to the station and informed that their car stalled on account that the gasoline
which the respondent sold had water in it. Another customer had reported the incident to the police, and
alleged that the respondent is selling adulterated gasoline.

After investigation conducted by Shells superintendent, it was discovered that the water which was
inside the storage tank being tested seeped into the other tanks which contained the gasoline being
dispensed. The respondents ordered an excavation to repair the corroded pipelines; the work was
continued by a certain Padua who replaced Feliciano.

Subsequently, the respondents filed an action against Shell for damages due to the negligence of its
employees in conducting the hydro pressure test done to its storage tanks. Shell argued in turn that it is
not liable for damages on account that the work was performed by an independent contractor, and not it
employees.

The trial court dismissed the complaint, and ruled that Feliciano is neither an employee nor an agent of
shell, and that the latter is an independent contractor to whom liability must be taken against.

Upon appeal with the CA, the appellate court reversed the trial court decision and held that Shell is liable.
The petitioner Shell sought recourse with the SC, alleging that Feliciano is an independent contractor.

WON Shell is liable for the damages due to the negligence of Feliciano.

(1.) No, Shell is not liable for the negligence of Feliciano on account that the latter is not its employee,
but an independent contractor. For vicarious liability of employers to apply, an employer employee
relationship must first be established. The 4 fold test under Labor Law must be utilized to determine the
existence of an employer employee relationship. (control, select, dismiss, payment of wages)

In the present case, there is no power of control exercised by Shell over the means and methods to be used
by Feliciano in performing the hydro pressure test. THE FACT THAT MITRA HAD GIVEN THE JOB
ORDER TO FELICIANO IS NOT AN EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF CONTROL. Although it is true
that Shell was the one which contracted Feliciano, but the mere fact of hiring does not give rise to an
employer employee relationship.

Feliciano is independently maintaining a business under a duly registered business name, "JFS Repair and
Maintenance Service," and is duly registered with the Bureau of Domestic Trade. He does not enjoy a
fixed salary but instead charges a lump sum consideration for every piece of work he accomplishes.
Metro Manila Transit vs CA

The plaintiff Custodio (minor) boarded a passenger jeepney driven by defendant Calebag and owned by
defendant Lamayo, en route to work around 6am. While the jeepney traversed through DBP Avenue in
Bicutan, it collided with a fast approaching MMTC bus coming from Honeydew road, driven by
defendant Leonardo.

As a result of the collision, the plaintiff was thrown out of the jeepney and landed on the pavement,
causing her to lose consciousness. She was brought to Medical City where she regained consciousness
after 1 week.

The plaintiff filed an action for damages against the defendants. During trial, all the defendants pointed
the fault at each other, alleging that they exercised due diligence in the operation of their respective
vehicles.

MMTC however presented numerous TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE to prove that it exercised the
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees.

It alleged and substantiated with evidence that it regularly conducts trainings and seminars for its
drivers; that it imposes upon the applicant drivers to submit pertinent documents such as NBI
clearances and proof of highest educational attainment to ascertain their qualifications; that if the
applicant is found to be acceptable, the latter will still have to undergo an intensive training
program; that it has a dispatcher which supervises the operations of the buses.

The trial court held that the drivers of both vehicles for not observing traffic rules and not undertaking
necessary precautions when approaching an intersection. The owner of the jeepney was held liable for
damages, while exonerating MMTC upon proving that it exercised due diligence in the selection and
supervision of its employees.

The plaintiff appealed with the CA insofar as the exoneration of MMTC. The CA granted the appeal and
held that MMTC did not manage to prove that it exercised due diligence in the supervision and selection
of its employees. The plaintiff, herein petitioner, sought recourse with the SC.

WON MMTCs evidence is sufficient to prove that it exercised due diligence in the selection and
supervision of its employees.


(1.) No, the evidence presented by the petitioner is not sufficient to overturn its liability for the negligence
of its employees. Although the petitioner managed to present a wide array of testimonial evidence to
prove that it exercise the diligence required, IT DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE, NEITHER
DOCUMENTARY NOR TESTIMONIAL, TO PROOVE THAT ITS DRIVER HAD AQUIRED ALL
THE QUALIFICATION AND HAD UNDERWENT ALL THE TRAINING THAT THE PETITIONER
BOLSTERS.

The mere formulation of various company policies on safety without showing that they were being
complied with is not sufficient to exempt petitioner from liability arising from negligence of its
employees. It is incumbent upon petitioner to show that in recruiting and employing the erring driver the
recruitment procedures and company policies on efficiency and safety were followed.

(2.) With the employers failure to prove the exercise of the diligence required of employers, then
vicarious liability caused by the negligence of its employees will apply.
Pleyto vs Lomboy

The plaintiff Lomboy filed an action against the defendant Pleyto and Philippine Rabbit for damages. It
was alleged by the plaintiff that Pleyto is employed by Philippine Rabbit as a bus driver. The plaintiff
alleged that her husband and daughter was onboard a Mitsubishi Lancer driven by his brother in law,
en route towards Manila around 11:30 in a drizzly morning.

However, the car boarding her husband and daughter collided with the bus en route Vigan driven by the
defendant when it overtook a tricycle and occupied the opposite lane at an excessive speed. As a result of
the head on collision, the plaintiffs husband died, and her daughter sustained physical injuries which
necessitated hospitalization.

Pleyto argued in turn that the bus was running slowly at the time of the incident, and that the cause of the
collision was the fact that the bus skidded towards the opposite lane when he tried to avoid colliding with
the tricycle which he tried to overtake when the same suddenly stopped in front of the bus.

After trial, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and held that Pleyto did not exercise due diligence
by not being prudent in overtaking the tricycle, knowing for a fact that the road conditions were wet
during that time. Philippine Rabbit was also held liable for its failure to exercise due diligence in the
supervision and selection of its employees.

Upon appeal of the defendant with the CA, the CA affirmed the trial court ruling, and held that the
negligence of Pleyto is palpable; the fact that the bus skidded upon apllying the breaks indicates that
Pleyto was driving at an excessive speed. The Ca also affirmed the liability of Philippine Rabbit by virtue
of Art. 2180, the vicarious liability of employers for the negligence of their employees.

The defendant, herein petitioner sought recourse with the SC.

WON the petitioner is vicariously liable for the negligence of its driver.

(1.) Yes, Philippine Rabbit is liable for the negligence of its driver, under the doctrine of vicarious
liability. In the present case, Pleyto is undoubtedly negligent in driving the bus. It was discovered that he
tried to overtake the tricycle despite the fact that the car carrying the deceased was nearly 50 meters away.

Such is a violation of traffic rules. As such, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove that he
exercise due diligence. In the present case however, Pleyto failed to prove such exercise.

(2.) Philippine Rabbit is vicariously liable. Although it managed to present evidence to prove that it
imposes a strict guideline in the selection of its employees, such is not sufficient to overcome the
presumption of negligence. There must be proof of actual supervision of employees.

There is no proof that that the petitioner employed persons who will supervise the operations of their
drivers.

(3.) RE: computation of award of loss of earning capacity. In considering the earning capacity of the
victim as an element of damages, the net earnings, which is computed by deducting necessary expenses
from the gross earnings, and not the gross earnings, is to be utilized in the computation. BS?