Professional Documents
Culture Documents
'Manila'Railroad'
GR#12191,#14#October#1918#
#
Facts:##
Jose# Cangco,# was# in# the# employment# of# the# Manila#
Railroad# Company# in# the# capacity# of# clerk,# with# a#
monthly# wage# of# P25.# He# lived# in# the# pueblo# of# San#
Mateo,# Rizal,# which# is# located# upon# the# line# of# the#
Manila# Railroad# Company;# and# in# coming# daily# by# train#
to# the# companys# office# in# the# city# of# Manila# where# he#
worked,# he# used# a# pass,# supplied# by# the# company,#
which# entitled# him# to# ride# upon# the# companys# trains#
free#of#charge.##
#
On#20#January#1915,#Cangco#was#returning#home#by#rail#
from# his# daily# labors;# and# as# the# train# drew# up# to# the#
station#in#San#Mateo,#Cangco#arose#from#his#seat#in#the#
second# classMcar# where# he# was# riding# and,# making# his#
exit#through#the#door,#took#his#position#upon#the#steps#
of#the#coach,#seizing#the#upright#guardrail#with#his#right#
hand# for# support.# On# the# side# of# the# train# where#
passengers# alight# at# the# San# Mateo# station# there# is# a#
cement# platform# which# begins# to# rise# with# a# moderate#
gradient#some#distance#away#from#the#companys#office#
and# extends# along# in# front# of# said# office# for# a# distance#
sufficient#to#cover#the#length#of#several#coaches.#As#the#
train# slowed# down# another# passenger,# named# Emilio#
Zuniga,# also# an# employee# of# the# railroad# company,# got#
off#the#same#car,#alighting#safely#at#the#point#where#the#
platform# begins# to# rise# from# the# level# of# the# ground.#
When# the# train# had# proceeded# a# little# farther,# Cangco#
stepped# off# also,# but# one' or' both' of' his' feet' came' in'
contact' with' a' sack' of' watermelons' with' the' result'
that' his' feet' slipped' from' under' him' and' he' fell'
violently'on'the'platform.#His#body#at#once#rolled#from#
the# platform# and# was# drawn# under# the# moving# car,#
where'his'right'arm'was'badly'crushed'and'lacerated.#
It#appears#that#after#Cangco#alighted#from#the#train#the#
car#moved#forward#possibly#6#meters#before#it#came#to#
a#full#stop.##
#
The#accident#occurred#between#7#and#8#p.m.,#and#as#the#
railroad# station# was# lighted# dimly# by# a# single# light#
located# some# distance# away,# objects# on# the# platform#
where# the# accident# occurred# were# difficult# to# discern,#
especially# to# a# person# emerging# from# a# lighted# car.#
Cangco' was' drawn' from' under' the' car' in' an'
unconscious' condition,' and' it' appeared' that' the'
injuries' which' he' had' received' were' very' serious.# He#
was# therefore# brought# at# once# to# a# certain# hospital# in#
the#city#of#Manila#where'an'examination'was'made'and'
his' arm' was' amputated.# The# result# of# this# operation#
was# unsatisfactory,# and# Cangco# was# then# carried# to#
#
As#pertinent#to#the#question#of#contributory#negligence#
on# the# part# of# the# plaintiff# in# this# case# the# following#
circumstances#are#to#be#noted:#The'companys'platform'
was' constructed' upon' a' level' higher' than' that' of' the'
roadbed' and' the' surrounding' ground.# The' distance'
from' the' steps' of' the' car' to' the' spot' where' the'
alighting' passenger' would' place' his' feet' on' the'
platform' was' thus' reduced,' thereby' decreasing' the'
risk' incident' to' stepping' off.# The# nature# of# the#
platform,#constructed#as#it#was#of#cement#material,#also#
assured# to# the# passenger# a# stable# and# even# surface# on#
which# to# alight.# Furthermore,# the# plaintiff# was#
possessed# of# the# vigor# and# agility# of# young# manhood,#
and#it#was#by#no#means#so#risky#for#him#to#get#off#while#
the# train# was# yet# moving# as# the# same# act# would# have#
been# in# an# aged# or# feeble# person.# In# determining# the#
question#of#contributory#negligence#in#performing#such#
act# # that# is# to# say,' whether' the' passenger' acted'
prudently' or' recklessly' ' the' age,' sex,' and' physical'
condition' of' the' passenger' are' circumstances'
necessarily' affecting' the' safety' of' the' passenger,' and'
should'be'considered.#Women,#it#has#been#observed,#as#
a# general# rule,# are# less# capable# than# men# of# alighting#
with#safety#under#such#conditions,#as#the#nature#of#their#
wearing# apparel# obstructs# the# free# movement# of# the#
limbs.# Again,# it' may' be' noted' that' the' place' was'
perfectly'familiar'to'Cangco,'as'it'was'his'daily'custom'
to'get'on'and'off'the'train'at'this'station.#There#could,#
therefore,# be# no# uncertainty# in# his# mind# with# regard#
either# to# the# length# of# the# step# which# he# was# required#
to# take# or# the# character# of# the# platform# where# he# was#
alighting.' Cangcos' conduct,' in' undertaking' to' alight'
while' the' train' was' yet' slightly' under' way,' was' not'
characterized' by' imprudence' and' that' therefore' he'
was'not'guilty'of'contributory'negligence.'
#
ISSUE:#Whether'or'not'Manila'Railroad'Co'is'liable'for'
damages.#
HELD:# Yes.# Alighting# from# a# # moving# train# while# it# is#
slowing#down#is#a#common#practice#and#a#lot#of#people#
are#doing#so#every#day#without#suffering#injury.#Cangco#
has#the#vigor#and#agility#of#young#manhood,#and#it#was#
by# no# means# so# risky# for# him# to# get# off# while# the# train#
was#yet#moving#as#the#same#act#would#have#been#in#an#
aged#or#feeble#person.#He'was'also'ignorant'of'the'fact'
that' sacks' of' watermelons' were' there' as' there' were'
no'appropriate'warnings'and'the'place'was'dimly'lit.#
The# Court# also# elucidated# on# the# distinction# between#
the# liability# of# employers# under# Article# 2180# and# their#
liability#for#breach#of#contract#[of#carriage]:#
#
#
#
#
#
NOTES:# But,# if# the# master# has# not# been# guilty# of# any#
negligence# whatever# in# the# selection# and# direction# of#
the# servant,# he# is# not# liable# for# the# acts# of# the# latter,#
whatever# done# within# the# scope# of# his# employment# or#
not,# if# the# damage# done# by# the# servant# does# not#
amount#to#a#breach#of#the#contract#between#the#master#
and#the#person#injured.#
The' liability' arising' from' extraIcontractual' culpa' is'
always'based'upon'a'voluntary'act'or'omission'which,'
without' willful' intent,' but' by' mere' negligence' or'
inattention,'has'caused'damage'to'another.'
These# two# fields,# figuratively# speaking,# concentric;# that#
is# to# say,# the# mere# fact# that# a# person# is# bound# to#
another# by# contract# does# not# relieve# him# from# extraM
contractual# liability# to# such# person.# When# such# a#
contractual# relation# exists# the# obligor# may# break# the#
contract#under#such#conditions#that#the#same#act#which#
constitutes#the#source#of#an#extraMcontractual#obligation#
had#no#contract#existed#between#the#parties.#
Manresa:#Whether#negligence#occurs#an#incident#in#the#
course#of#the#performance#of#a#contractual#undertaking#
or# in# itself# the# source# of# an# extraMcontractual#
undertaking# obligation,# its# essential# characteristics# are#
identical.#
Vinculum'Juris:#(def)#It#means#an#obligation#of#law,#or#
the# right# of# the# obligee# to# enforce# a# civil# matter# in# a#
court#of#law.#
AIR'FRANCE'v.'CARRASCOSO'
FACTS:'
In# March# 1958,# Rafael# Carrascoso# and# several# other#
Filipinos# were# tourists# en# route# to# Rome# from# Manila.#
Carrascoso# was# issued# a# first# class# round# trip# ticket# by#
Air# France.# But# during# a# stopMover# in# Bangkok,# he# was#
asked#by#the#plane#manager#of#Air#France#to#vacate#his#
seat#because#a#white#man#allegedly#has#a#better#right#
than# him.# Carrascoso# protested# but# when# things# got#
heated# and# upon# advise# of# other# Filipinos# on# board,#
Carrascoso#gave#up#his#seat#and#was#transferred#to#the#
planes#tourist#class.#
After# their# tourist# trip# when# Carrascoso# was# already# in#
the#Philippines,#he'sued'Air'France'for'damages'for'the'
embarrassment' he' suffered' during' his' trip.# In# court,#
Carrascoso# testified,# among# others,# that# he# when# he#
was# forced# to# take# the# tourist# class,# he# went# to# the#
planes# pantry# where# he# was# approached# by# a# plane#
purser#who#told#him#that#he#noted#in#the#planes#journal#
the#following:#
First&class* passenger* was* forced* to* go* to* the* tourist*
class* against* his* will,* and* that* the* captain* refused* to*
intervene*
The#said#testimony#was#admitted#in#favor#of#Carrascoso.#
The#trial#court#eventually#awarded#damages#in#favor#of#
Carrascoso.#This#was#affirmed#by#the#Court#of#Appeals.#
Air#France#is#assailing#the#decision#of#the#trial#court#and#
the#CA.#It#avers#that#the#issuance#of#a#first#class#ticket#to#
Carrascoso#was#not#an#assurance#that#he#will#be#seated#
in#first#class#because#allegedly##in#truth#and#in#fact,#that#
was#not#the#true#intent#between#the#parties.#
Air# France# also# questioned# the# admissibility# of#
Carrascosos#testimony#regarding#the#note#made#by#the#
purser# because# the# said# note# was# never# presented# in#
court.#
ISSUE#1:#Whether#or#not#Air#France#is#liable#for#damages#
and#on#what#basis.#
ISSUE# 2:# Whether# or# not# the# testimony# of# Carrasoso#
regarding#the#note#which#was#not#presented#in#court#is#
admissible#in#evidence.#
HELD# 1:# Yes.# It# appears# that# Air' Frances' liability' is'
based'on'culpaIcontractual'and#on#culpa#aquiliana.#
Culpa'Contractual'
There#exists#a#contract'of'carriage'between'Air'France'
and' Carrascoso.# There# was# a# contract' to' furnish'
Carrasocoso' a' first' class' passage;# Second,# That' said'
contract' was' breached' when' Air' France' failed' to'
furnish'first'class'transportation'at'Bangkok;#and#Third,'
that' there' was' bad' faith' when' Air' Frances' employee'
compelled' Carrascoso' to' leave' his' first' class'
accommodation' berth' after' he' was' already,' seated'
and' to' take' a' seat' in' the' tourist' class,# by# reason# of#
which# he# suffered# inconvenience,# embarrassments# and#
LIGHT'RAIL'TRANSIT'AUTHORITY'vs.'Navidad'
'
FACTS:'
#
Nicanor# Navidad,# then# drunk,# entered# the# EDSA# LRT#
station# after# purchasing# a# token# (representing#
payment# of# the# fare).# While# Navidad# was# standing# on#
the# platform# near# the# LRT# tracks,# Junelito# Escartin,# the#
security# guard# assigned# to# the# area# approached# him.# A#
misunderstanding# or# an# altercation# between# the# two#
apparently#ensued#that#led#to#a#fist'fight.##
#
No# evidence,# however,# was# adduced# to# indicate# how#
the# fight# started# or# who,# between# the# two,# delivered#
the# first# blow# or# how# Navidad# later# fell# on# the# LRT#
tracks.# At# the# exact# moment# that# Navidad# fell,# an# LRT#
train,# operated# by# petitioner# Rodolfo# Roman,# was#
coming# in.# # Navidad' was' struck' by' the' moving' train,'
and' he' was' killed' instantaneously.# The# widow# of#
Nicanor,#Marjorie#Navidad,#along#with#her#children,#filed#
a# complaint# for# damages# against# Junelito# Escartin,#
Rodolfo# Roman,# the# LRTA,# the# Metro# Transit#
Organization,# Inc.# (Metro# Transit),# and# Prudent# for# the#
death#of#her#husband.##
#
Trial#court#ruled#in#favor#Navidads#wife#and#against#the#
defendants# Prudent# Security# and# Junelito# Escartin# .#
LRTA# and# Rodolfo# Roman# were# dismissed# for# lack# of#
merit.# CA# held# LRTA# and# Roman# liable,# hence# the#
petition.#
#
ISSUE:#Who#can#be#held#liable?#
HELD:##
#
A# common# carrier,# both# from# the# nature# of# its#
business# and# for# reasons# of# public# policy,# is# burdened#
with#the#duty#of#exercising#utmost#diligence#in#ensuring#
the#safety#of#passengers.##
#
The# law# requires# common# carriers# to# carry#
passengers# safely# using# the# utmost# diligence# of# very#
cautious#persons#with#due#regard#for#all#circumstances.#
Such#duty#of#a#common#carrier#to'provide'safety'to'its'
passengers'so'obligates'it'not'only'during'the'course'of'
the'trip'but'for'so'long'as'the'passengers'are'within'its'
premises'and'where'they'ought'to'be'in'pursuance'to'
the' contract' of' carriage.# The# statutory# provisions#
render#a#common#carrier#liable#for#death#of#or#injury#to#
passengers:#
(a)# through# the# negligence# or# wilful# acts# of# its#
employees#or##
(b)# on# account# of# wilful# acts# or# negligence# of# other#
passengers# or# of# strangers# if# the# common# carriers#
employees# through# the# exercise# of# due# diligence# could#
have#prevented#or#stopped#the#act#or#omission.##
In#case#of#such#death#or#injury,#a#carrier#is#presumed#to#
have# been# at# fault# or# been# negligent,# and# by# simple#
proof#of#injury,#the#passenger#is#relieved#of#the#duty#to#
still#establish#the#fault#or#negligence#of#the#carrier#or#of#
its#employees#and#the#burden#shifts#upon#the#carrier#to#
prove# that# the# injury# is# due# to# an# unforeseen# event# or#
to#force#majeure.#
#
Once#such#fault#is#established,#the#employer#can#
then# be# made# liable# on# the# basis# of# the# presumption#
juris# tantum# that# the# employer# failed# to# exercise#
diligentissimi# patris# families' in' the' selection' and'
supervision' of' its' employees.# The# liability# is# primary#
and# can# only# be# negated# by# showing# due# diligence# in#
the#selection#and#supervision#of#the#employee,#a#factual#
matter#that#has#not#been#shown.##
#
When# an# act# which# constitutes# a# breach# of#
contract# would# have# itself# constituted# the# source# of# a#
quasiMdelictual#liability#had#no#contract#existed#between#
the# parties,# the# contract# can# be# said# to# have# been#
breached# by# tort,# thereby# allowing# the# rules# on# tort# to#
apply.# #
#
Consolidated'Bank'and'Trust'Corp.'v.'CA'+'L.C.'Diaz'and'
Company'(2003)'/'Carpio'
#
Facts'
LC# Diaz# [professional# partnership# engaged# in#
accounting]# opened# a# savings# account# with# Solidbank.#
LC# Diaz's# cashier,# Macaraya,# filled# up# two# savings#
deposit# slips,# and# she# gave# them# +# passbook# to#
messenger# Calapre# and# instructed# him# to# deposit# the#
money# with# Solidbank.# Calapre# presented# the# deposit#
slips# and# passbook# to# the# teller.# He# left# the# passbook#
with#Solidbank#first#as#he#had#to#make#another#deposit#
at#Allied#Bank,#but#when#he#returned,#he#was#informed#
that#somebody#got#the#passbook.#Calapre#reported#this#
to# Macaraya.# Macaraya# +# Calapre# went# back# to#
Solidbank# with# a# deposit# slip# [P200k# check].# When#
Macaraya#asked#about#the#passbook,#the#teller#said#that#
someone# shorter# than# Calapre# got# it.# Macaraya#
reported#this#matter.##
#####The#following#day,#CEO#Diaz#called#Solidbank#to#stop#
any# transaction# using# the# passbook# until# the# company#
could# open# a# new# account.# It# was# found# out# that#
learned# that# P300k# was# withdrawn# from# the# account#
the# previous# day.# The# withdrawal# slip# bore# the#
signatures# of# two# authorized# signatories# of# LC# Diaz# but#
they# denied# signing# it.# Noel# Tamayo# received# this# sum#
of#money.#
#####An# information# for# Estafa# through# Falsification# of#
Commercial# Document# was# filed# against# one# of# their#
messengers# (Ilagan)# and# one# Roscoe# Verdazola# (first#
time#they#appeared#in#the#case#discussion),#but#the#RTC#
nature#does#not#convert#K#from#a#simple#loan#to#a#trust#
agreement#(failure#by#bank#to#pay#depositor#is#failure#to#
pay#a#simple#loan#only).#
'
Solidbank's'breach'of'contractual'obligation'
For# breach# of# the# savings# deposit# agreement# due# to#
negligence,#or#culpa#contractual,#the#bank#is#liable#to#its#
depositor.# When# the# passbook# is# in# the# possession# of#
Solidbanks#tellers#during#withdrawals,#the#law#imposes#
an# even# higher# degree# of# diligence.# Likewise,# tellers#
must#exercise#a#high#degree#of#diligence#in#insuring#that#
they# return# the# passbook# only# to# the# depositor# or#
authorized#representative.#
'''''In' culpa' contractual,' once' the' plaintiff' proves' a'
breach' of' contract,' there' is' a' presumption' that' the'
defendant' was' at' fault' or' negligent.# The# burden# is# on#
the# defendant# to# prove# that# he# was# not# at# fault# or#
negligent.' In' culpa' aquiliana,' the' plaintiff' has' the'
burden' of' proof.# Solidbank# failed# to# discharge# this#
burden,# after# LC# Diaz# establishing# the# breach# of#
contractual# obligation.# Hence,# Solidbank' is' bound' by'
the' negligence' of' its' employees.' The' defense' of'
exercising' required' diligence' in' selecting,' supervising'
employees' is' NOT' a' complete' defense' in' culpa'
contractual,#unlike#in#culpa#aquiliana.#
'
Proximate'cause'of'unauthorized'withdrawal'
Solidbanks*negligence*in*not*returning*the*passbook*to*
Calapre* was* the* proximate* cause.# [Definition:# cause#
which,# in# natural# and# continuous# sequence,# unbroken#
by# any# efficient# intervening# cause,# produces# the# injury#
and#without#which#the#result#would#not#have#occurred.]#
#####RTC#said#that#LC#Diaz#negligence#was#the#proximate#
cause.# However,# SC' says' LC' Diaz' was' not' at' fault' that'
the' passbook' landed' in' the' hands' of' the' impostor.' In'
fact,' it' was' in' the' possession' of' the' bank' while' the'
deposit' was' being' processed.# CA# said# that# teller's#
failure#to#call#LC#Diaz#was#the#proximate#cause.#SC#says#
the#bank#did#not#have#the#duty#to#call#LC#Diaz#to#confirm#
withdrawal.#
#
Doctrine'of'last'clear'chance'
"Where#both#parties#are#negligent#but#the#negligent#act#
of# one# is# appreciably# later# than# that# of# the# other,# or#
where# it# is# impossible# to# determine# whose# fault# or#
negligence# caused# the# loss,# the# one# who# had# the# last#
clear#opportunity#to#avoid#the#loss#but#failed#to#do#so,#is#
chargeable#with#the#loss."#
#####SC# DOES# NOT# APPLY# IT# HERE.# Solidbank' is' liable' for'
breach' of' contract' due' to' negligence' in' the'
performance' of' its' contractual' obligation' to' LC' Diaz.#
This# is# a# case# of# culpa# contractual,# where# neither# the#
contributory#negligence#of#the#plaintiff#nor#his#last#clear#
is# defined# under# Article# 1732# of# the# # # Civil# Code# as#
persons,#corporations,#firms#or#associations#engaged#in#
the# business# of# carrying# or# transporting# passengers# or#
goods#or#both,#by#land,#water#or#air,#for#compensation,#
affecting#their#services#to#the#public.# It# is# obvious# from#
the# above# definition# that# respondent# is# not# an# entity#
engaged# in# the# business# of# transporting# either#
passengers#or#goods#and#is#therefore,#neither#a#private#
nor#a#common#carrier.#Respondent#did#not#undertake#to#
transport#petitioner#from#one#place#to#another#since#its#
covenant#with#its#customers#is#simply#to#make#travel#
arrangements#in#their#behalf.##
#
Respondents# services# as# a# travel# agency# include#
procuring#tickets#and#facilitating#travel#permits#or#visas#
as#well#as#booking#customers#for#tours.#It#is#in#this#sense#
that# the# contract# between# the# parties# in# this# case# was#
an# ordinary# one# for# services# and# not# one# of# carriage.#
The'standard'of'care'required'of'respondent'is'that'of'
a'good'father'of'a'family'under'Article'1173'of'the'Civil'
Code.# This# connotes# reasonable# care# consistent# with#
that# which# an# ordinarily# prudent# person# would# have#
observed#when#confronted#with#a#similar#situation.##
#
It# is# clear# that# respondent' performed' its' prestation'
under'the'contract'as'well'as'everything'else'that'was'
essential' to' book' petitioner' for' the' tour.' Had#
petitioner#exercised#due#diligence#in#the#conduct#of#her#
affairs,#there#would#have#been#no#reason#for#her#to#miss#
the#flight.#Needless#to#say,#after'the'travel'papers'were'
delivered' to' petitioners,' it' became' incumbent' upon'
her' to' take' ordinary' care' of' her' concerns.# This'
undoubtedly' would' require' that' she' at' least' read' the'
documents'in'order'to'assure'herself'of'the'important'
details'regarding'the'trip.'
'
'
Philippine'Airlines'v.'Savillo'
Facts:'
Savillo#was#a#judge#of#the#RTC#of#Iloilo.#He#was#invited#
to# participate# in# the# 1993# ASEAN# Seniors# Annual# Golf#
Tournament# in# Jakarta# Indonesia.# So,# in# order# to# take#
part#in#such#event,#he#purchased#a#ticket#from#PAL#with#
the# following# itinerary:# ManilaMSingaporeMJakartaM
SingaporeMManila.#PAL#would#take#them#from#Manila#to#
Signapore,# while# Singapore# Airlines# would# take# them#
from#Singapore#to#Jakarta.#
When# they# arrived# in# Singapore,# Singapore# Airlines#
rejected# the# tickets# of# Savillo# because# they# were# not#
endorsed# by# PAL.# It# was# explained# that# if# Singapore#
Airlines# honoured# the# tickets# without# PALS#
endorsement,#PAL#would#not#pay#Singapore#Airlines#for#
their#passage.#
#
In#its#answer,#G#&#S#alleged#that#proximate#cause#of#the#
death# of# Ochoa# is# a# fortuitous# event# # and/# or# fault# or#
negligence# of# the# driver# of# delivery# van# that# hit# the#
taxicab.# They# further# claim# it# exercise# diligence# of# a#
good#father#of#a#family#in#the#selection#and#supervision#
of#employees##including#Padilla.#
#
RTC#ruled#accident#not#a#fortuitous#event#but#caused#by#
the#negligence#of#Padilla.#It#declared#G#&#S#civilly#liable#
to#the#heirs#but#not#actual#damages#due#to#lack#of#proof#
and# receipts.# RTC# later# on# ruled# that# heirs# are# also#
entitled#to#moral#and#exemplary#damages#based#on#Art.#
1764#in#relation#to#Art.#2206#of#the#CC.#and#also#based#
on#Art.#2232.#CA#ruled#in#favor#of#the#heirs#contending#
that# Padilla# failed# to# exercise# reasonable# care# and#
foresight# and# diligence# needed# to# exempt# G# &# S# from#
liability.# Court# also# noted# the# pertinent# provision# of#
MTC#decision#convicting#Padilla#of#Reckless#Imprudence#
resulting# in# homicide# to# negate# G# &# S# claim# that# the#
proximate# cause# of# the# accident# was# the# fault# of# the#
driver#of#the#delivery#van.#
#
ISSUE:#WON#G#&#S#is#liable?#
HELD:''YES.'They'are'liable'as'a'common'carrier.''
Common# carrier;# breach# of# contract# of# carriage.# There#
existed# a# contract# of# carriage# between# G# &# S,# as# the#
owner# and# operator# of# the# Avis# taxicab,# and# Jose#
Marcial,#as#the#passenger#of#said#vehicle.###As#a#common#
carrier,#G#&#S#is#bound#to#carry#[Jose#Marcial]#safely#as#
far#as#human#care#and#foresight#can#provide,#using#the#
utmost# diligence# of# very# cautious# persons,# with# due#
regard#for#all#the#circumstances.###
However,# Jose# Marcial# was# not# able# to# reach# his#
destination# safely# as# he# died# during# the# course# of# the#
travel.#In#a#contract#of#carriage,#it#is#presumed#that#the#
common# carrier# is# at# fault# or# is# negligent# when# a#
passenger# dies# or# is# injured.# # In# fact,# there# is# even# no#
need#for#the#court#to#make#an#express#finding#of#fault#or#
negligence# on# the# part# of# the# common# carrier.# This#
statutory# presumption# may# only# be# overcome# by#
evidence# that# the# carrier# exercised# extraordinary#
diligence.# # Unfortunately,# G# &# S# miserably# failed# to#
overcome# this# presumption.# # Both# the# trial# court# and#
the# CA# found# that# the# accident# which# led# to# Jose#
Marcials# death# was# due# to# the# reckless# driving# and#
gross# negligence# of# G# &# S# driver,# Padilla,# thereby#
holding# G# &# S# liable# to# the# heirs# of# Jose# Marcial# for#
breach#of#contract#of#carriage.#
#
That# the# driver# was# acquitted# in# the# criminal# case# for#
reckless#imprudence#is#immaterial.#Article#31#of#the#Civil#
Code#provides,#viz:#
#
When# the# civil# action# is# based# on# an# obligation# not#
arising# from# the# act# or# omission# complained# of# as# a#
felony,# such# civil# action# may# proceed# independently# of#
the#criminal#proceedings#and#regardless#of#the#result#of#
the#latter.#
#
In#this#case,#the'action'filed'by'the'heirs'is'primarily'for'
the' recovery' of' damages' arising' from' breach# of#
contract# of# carriage# allegedly# committed# by# G# &# S.##
Clearly,# it# is# an# independent# civil# action# arising# from#
contract# which# is# separate# and# distinct# from# the#
criminal# action# for# reckless# imprudence# resulting# in#
homicide#filed#by#the#heirs#against#Padilla#by#reason#of#
the# same# incident.# # Hence,# regardless# of# Padillas#
acquittal# or# conviction# in# said# criminal# case,# same# has#
no#bearing#in#the#resolution#of#the#present#case.#
#
PICART'v.'SMITH'
FACTS:'
December# 12,# 1912:# Amado# Picart# was# riding# on# his#
pony#over#Carlatan#Bridge,#at#San#Fernando,#La#Union#
Before# he# had# gotten# half# way# across,# the# Frank# Smith#
driving#an#automobile#came#from#the#opposite#direction#
at#the#rate#of#about#10M12#miles/hour#
####As#Frank#Smith#neared#the#bridge#he#saw#a#horseman#
on#it#and#blew#his#horn#to#give#warning#of#his#approach.##
He# continued# his# course# and# after# he# had# taken# the#
bridge# he# gave# two# more# successive# blasts,# as# it#
appeared#to#him#that#the#man#on#horseback#before#him#
was#not#observing#the#rule#of#the#road.##
#
#####Amado# saw# the# automobile# coming# and# heard# the#
warning# signals# being# perturbed# by# the# novelty# of# the#
apparition#or#the#rapidity#of#the#approach,#he'pulled'the'
pony'closely'up'against'the'railing'on'the'right'side'of'
the' bridge' instead' of' going' to' the' left' because' he'
thought'he'did'not'have'sufficient'time'to'get'over'to'
the'other'side.'
###The#pony#had#not#as#yet#exhibited#fright,#and#the#rider#
had#made#no#sign#for#the#automobile#to#stop#When#he#
had#gotten#quite#near,#there#being#then#no#possibility#of#
the#horse#getting#across#to#the#other#side,#Frank#quickly#
turned#his#car#sufficiently#to#the#right#to#escape#hitting#
the# horse# alongside# of# the# railing# but# because# it# got#
close#the#horse#became#frightened#and#turned#its#body#
across#the#bridge#with#its#head#toward#the#railing#
####The#left#hind#leg#was#hit#by#the#flange#of#the#car#and#
the# limb# was# broken.# The# horse# fell# and# its# rider# was#
thrown#off#with#some#violence.#As#a#result#of#its#injuries#
the# horse# died.# Amado' received' contusions' which'
caused' temporary' unconsciousness' and' required'
medical'attention'for'several'days.#
more# so,# when# such# findings# affirm# those# of# the# trial#
court.#
#
Verily,#this#Court#reviews#only#issues#of#law.#Negligence#
is#conduct#that#creates#undue#risk#of#harm#to#another.#It#
is#the#failure#to#observe#that#degree#of#care,#precaution#
and# vigilance# that# the# circumstances# justly# demand,#
whereby#that#other#person#suffers#injury.#
#
Petitioner's# vessel# was# carrying# chemical# cargoMM# alkyl#
benzene# and# methyl# methacrylate# monomer.# While#
knowing# that# their# vessel# was# carrying# dangerous#
inflammable# chemicals,# its# officers# and# crew# failed# to#
take# all# the# necessary# precautions# to# prevent# an#
accident.#Petitioner#was,#therefore,#negligent.#The#three#
elements# of# quasi# delict# # are:# (a)# damages# suffered# by#
the# plaintiff,# (b)# fault# or# negligence# of# the# defendant,#
and#(c)#the#connection#of#cause#and#effect#between#the#
fault# or# negligence# of# the# defendant# and# the# damages#
inflicted#on#the#plaintiff.#
#
All# these# elements# were# established# in# this# case.#
Knowing# fully# well# that# it# was# carrying# dangerous#
chemicals,#petitioner'was'negligent'in'not'taking'all'the'
necessary'precautions'in'transporting'the'cargo.'
'
'
DELSAN' TRANSPORTATIONVS.C' &' A' CONSTRUCTION,'
INC.G.R.'no.'156034'October'1,'2003Facts:'
'
C# &# A# construction,# construct# a# deflector# wall# at# the#
Vitas# reclamation# Area# in# Tondo,Manila# it# was# not#
formally#turnover#to#National#Housing#Authority#though#
it#was#completed#in1994.#On#12:00#midnight#of#October#
20,# 1994# Captain# Demetrio# T.# Jusep# of# M/V# Delsan#
Express#receive#a#report#that#that#a#typhoon#was#going#
to#hit#Manila#after#eight#(8)#hours.#At#8:35#a.m.#he#tried#
to# seek# shelter# but# it# was# already# congested.# At# 10:00#
a.m.#Capt.#Jusep#drop#the#anchor#at#the#vicinity#of#Vitas#
mouth,#the#waves#were#already#reaching#8#to#10#feet.##
#
The#ship#was#dragged#by#the#wind#toward#the#Napocor#
power# barge# Capt.# Jusep# ordered# a# full# stop# of# the#
vessel# to# avoid# the# collision# but# when# the# engine# was#
reMstarted,# it# hit# the# deflector# wall# # constructed# by# the#
respondent.# P456,198.24# was# the# damaged# cause# by#
the#incident.#C#&#A#construction#demanded#payment#of#
the#damages#from#Capt.#Jusep#but#the#latter#refused#to#
pay#due#to#the#cause#of#the#incident#was#by#a#fortuitous#
event.# The# trial# court# ruled# that# Captain# Jusep# was# not#
guilty#of#negligence#in#applying#the#emergency#rule#
because# it# had# taken# necessary# precautions# to# avoid#
accident.#The#Court#of#Appeals#reversed#&#set#aside#the#
Philippine'National'Railways'(PNR)'vs.CA'(GR'LI55347,'
4'October'1985)'
#
Facts:'
On# 10# September# 1972,# at# about# 9:00# p.m.,Winifredo#
Tupang,#husband#of#Rosario#Tupang,#boarded#Train#516#
of# the# Philippine# National# Railways# at# Libmanan,#
Camarines#Sur,#as#a#paying#passenger#bound#for#Manila.#
Due# to# some# mechanical# defect,# the# train# stopped# at#
Sipocot,# Camarines# Sur,# for# repairs,# taking# some# two#
hours# before# the# train# could# resume# its# trip# to# Manila.#
Unfortunately,# upon# passing# Iyam# Bridge# at# Lucena,#
Quezon,#Winifredo#Tupang#fell#off#the#train#resulting#in#
his# death.# The# train# did# not# stop# despite# the# alarm#
raised#by#the#other#passengers#that#somebody#fell#from#
the# train.# Instead,# the# train# conductor,# Perfecto#
Abrazado,# called# the# station# agent# at# Candelaria,#
Quezon,# and# requested# forv# erification# of# the#
information.##
#
Police#authorities#of#Lucena#City#were#dispatched#to#the#
Iyam# Bridge# where# they# found# the# lifeless# body# of#
Winifredo# Tupang.# As# shown# by# the# autopsy# report,#
Winifredo#Tupang#died#of#cardioMrespiratory#failure#due#
to# massive# cerebral# hemorrhage# due# to# traumatic#
injury.# Tupang# was# later# buried# in# the# public# cemetery#
of#Lucena#City#by#the#local#police#authorities.##
#
Upon#complaint#filed#by#the#deceaseds#widow,#Rosario#
Tupang,# the# then# CFI# Rizal,# after# trial,# held# the# PNR#
liable#for#damages#for#breach#of#contract#of#carriage#and#
ordered#it#to#pay#Rosario#Tupang#the#sum#of#P12,000.00#
for#the#death#of#Winifredo#Tupang,#plus#P20,000.00#for#
loss# of# his# earning# capacity,# and# the# further# sum# of#
P10,000.00# as# moral# damages,# andP2,000.00# as#
attorneys#fees,#and#cost.##
#
On#appeal,#the#Appellate#Court#sustained#the#holding#of#
the#trial#court#that#the#PNR#did#not#exercise#the#utmost#
diligence#required#bylaw#of#a#common#carrier.#It#further#
increased# the# amount# adjudicated# by# the# trial# court# by#
ordering# PNR# to# pay# the# Rosario# Tupang# an# additional#
sum# of# P5,000,00# as# exemplary# damages.# Moving# for#
reconsideration# of# the# above# decision,# the# PNR# raised#
for# the# first# time,# as# a# defense,# the# doctrine# of# state#
immunity#from#suit.#The#motion#was#denied.#Hence#the#
petition#for#review.#
#
Issue:' WON# there# was# contributory# negligence# on# the#
part#of#Tupang.#
#
#
'
Held:'
PNR# has# the# obligation# to# transport# its# passengers# to#
their# destinations# and# to# observe# extraordinary#
diligence# in# doing# so.# Death# or# any# 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.##
#
PNR# failed# to# overthrow# such# presumption# of#
negligence# with# clear# and# convincing# evidence,#
inasmuch# as# PNR# does# not# deny,(1)# that# the# train#
boarded# by# the# deceased# Winifredo# Tupang# was# so#
overcrowded# that# the# and# many# other# passengers# had#
no#choice#but#to#sit#on#the#open#platforms#between#the#
coaches#of#the#train,##
(2)# that# the# train# did# not# even# slow# down# when# it#
approached#the#Iyam#Bridge#which#was#under#repair#at#
the#time,#and##
(3)# that# neither# did# the# train# stop,# despite# the# alarm#
raised#by#other#passengers#that#a#person#had#fallen#off#
the#train#at#Iyam#Bridge.##
#
While# PNR# failed# to# exercise# extraordinary# diligence# as#
required# by# law,# it# appears# that# the# deceased# was#
chargeable# with# contributory# negligence.# Since# he#
opted#to#sit#on#the#open#platform#between#the#coaches#
of#the#train,#he#should#have#held#tightly#and#tenaciously#
on# the# upright# metal# bar# found# at# the# side# of# said#
platform#to#avoid#falling#off#from#the#speeding#train.#
#
Such# contributory# negligence,# while# not# exempting# the#
PNR#from#liability,#nevertheless#justified#the#deletion#of#
the# amount# adjudicated# as# moral# damages.# The#
Supreme# Court# modified# the# decision# of# the# appellate#
court# by# eliminating# there# from# the# amounts# of#
P10,000.00# and# P5,000.00# adjudicated# as# moral# and#
exemplary#damages,#respectively;#without#costs.#
#
#
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
Guillang'vs'Bedania'
#
Facts:'
One#afternoon#of#October#1994,#Guillang#was#driving#his#
Corolla#along#Aguinaldo#Highway#in#Cavite#when#it#was#
hit# by# a# turning# 10Mwheeler# truck# driven# by# Rodolfo#
Bedania#and#owned#by#Rodolfo#de#Silva.#The#passengers#
of# the# car# were# rushed# to# the# Medical# Center# in#
Dasmarias,# Cavite# for# treatment.# Because# of# severe#
injuries,# Antero,# one# of# the# passengers,# was# later#
transferred# to# the# Philippine# General# Hospital.#
However,#on#3#November1994,#Antero#died#due#to#the#
injuries# he# sustained# from# the# collision.# The# car# was# a#
total#wreck#while#the#truck#sustained#minor#damage.##
On# 24# April# 1995,# petitioners# Genaro,# Llanillo,#
Dignadice,# and# the# heirs# of# Antero# instituted# a#
complaint# for# damages# based# on# quasiMdelict# against#
respondents#Bedania#and#de#Silva.#
On# 5# December# 2000,# the# trial# court# rendered# a#
decision# in# favor# of# petitioners.# The# trial# court# found#
Bedania# grossly# negligent# for# recklessly# maneuvering#
the# truck# by# making# a# sudden# UMturn# in# the# highway#
without# due# regard# to# traffic# rules# and# the# safety# of#
other# motorists.# The# trial# court# also# declared# de# Silva#
grossly#negligent#in#the#selection#and#supervision#of#his#
driver,#Bedania.#On#appeal,#the#CA#reversed#the#decision#
of# the# lower# court# and# dismissed# the# civil# case# for# lack#
of# merit.# Petitioners# then# filed# a# MR# but# to# no# avail.#
Hence,#this#case.#
Issue:' Who# is# liable# for# the# damages# suffered# by#
petitioners?'
Held:'
#The# trial# court# held# Bedania# and# de# Silva,# as# Bedanias#
employer,# liable# because# the# proximate# cause# of# the#
collision# was# the# sudden# UMturn# executed# by# Bedania#
without#any#signal#lights.#On#the#other#hand,#the#Court#
of# Appeals# reversed# the# trial# courts# decision# and# held#
Genaro# liable# because# the# proximate# cause# of# the#
collision# was# Genaros# failure# to# stop# the# car# despite#
seeing#that#Bedania#was#making#a#UMturn.#
#
Negligence# is# defined# as# the# failure# to# observe# for# the#
protection#of#the#interest#of#another#person#that#degree#
of# care,# precaution,# and# vigilance# which# the#
circumstances# justly# demand,# whereby# such# other#
person#suffers#injury.#In#Picart#v.#Smith,#we#held#that#the#
test#of#negligence#is#whether#the#defendant#in#doing#the#
alleged# negligent# act# used# that# reasonable# care# and#
caution# which# an# ordinary# person# would# have# used# in#
the#same#situation.#
#
#The#conclusion#of#the#Court#of#Appeals#that#Genaro#was#
negligent# is# not# supported# by# the# evidence# on# record.#