Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MANILA CASTOR
OIL CORPORATION, ROMY LIM, and THE COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 119033, July 9, 2008
To remedy the situation, the 16 May 1988 letter fixed a period for
the completion of the other structures of the project, except the
office building. Petitioner was given a month to finish this portion of
the project and the records show that it was aware of this deadline.
At the same time, the 16 May 1988 letter specified the amounts
still payable to petitioner conditioned upon the accomplishment of
certain portions of the project.
charges paid by Sofia C. Crouch for the telegram that was never
sent to the addressee, and that the moral damages should be
removed since defendant's negligent act was not motivated by
"fraud, malice or recklessness.
Issue: Whether or not the award of the moral,
compensatory and exemplary damages is proper.
RULING: Yes, there was a contract between the petitioner and
private respondent Sofia C. Crouch whereby, for a fee, petitioner
undertook to send said private respondent's message overseas by
telegram. Petitioner failed to do this despite performance by said
private respondent of her obligation by paying the required
charges. Petitioner was therefore guilty of contravening its and is
thus liable for damages. This liability is not limited to actual or
quantified damages. To sustain petitioner's contrary position in this
regard would result in an inequitous situation where petitioner will
only be held liable for the actual cost of a telegram fixed thirty (30)
years ago.
Art. 1170 of the Civil Code provides that "those who in the
performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or
delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof,
are liable for damages." Art. 2176 also provides that "whoever by
act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done."
CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD., petitioner,
vs. SPOUSES DANIEL VASQUEZ and MARIA LUISA MADRIGAL
VASQUEZ, respondents.
FACTS:
In respondents return flight to Manila from Hongkong, they were
deprived of their original seats in Business Class with their
companions because of overbooking. Since respondents were
privileged members, their seats were upgraded to First Class.
Respondents refused but eventually persuaded to accept it. Upon
return to Manila, they demanded that they be indemnified in the
amount of P1million for the humiliation and embarrassment
caused by its employees. Petitioners Country Manager failed to
respond. Respondents instituted action for damages. The RTC ruled
in favor of respondents. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC
decision with modification in the award of damages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners (1) breached the contract of
carriage, (2) acted with fraud and (3) were liable for damages.
RULING:
(1) YES. Although respondents have the priority of upgrading their
seats, such priority may be waived, as what respondents did. It
should have not been imposed on them over their vehement
objection.
(2) NO. There was no evident bad faith or fraud in upgrade of seat
neither on overbooking of flight as it is within 10% tolerance.
(3) YES. Nominal damages (Art. 2221, NCC) were awarded in the
amount of P5,000.00. Moral damages (Art.2220, NCC) and
attorneys fees were set aside and deleted from the Court of
Appeals ruling
Africa vs Caltext
the one who had exclusive control of the thing that caused the
injury complained of.
Fabre vs. CA
Facts:
Petitioner and his wife were owners of 1982 Mazda minibus. They
were using the said vehicle as a school bus service for children in
Manila. They hired Cabil as their driver. On November 2, 1982
private respondent word for world Christian fellowship arranged
the petitioner for transportation of members of young adult
ministry from manila to la union and back. While travelling, they
met an accident. The bus hit a fence and a coconut tree that
caused the passenger to be injured including respondent Antonio.
The WWCF and Antonio filed a criminal complaint against the
driver, the trial court showed in favor of respondents. All evidence
presented showed the negligence of the defendants ultimately
resulted to the accident. The court of appeals affirmed the decision
of the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether or the petitioner are liable for the injuries suffered by the
respondents based on culpa aquiliana
HELD:
The court ruled that damages should be award based on the theory
that petitioners are liable for breach of contract of carriage or culpa
aquiliana . Holding that the relation of the passenger and carrier is
contractual both origin and in nature, nevertheless the act that
breaks the contract may also be tort. In both sources of obligation,
the existence of negligence of the petitioners must be determined.
In this case, Cabil drove his bus negligently , while his employer ,
the Fabres, who owned the bus, failed to exercise the diligence of a
good father of the family in the selection supervision of their
employee fully supported by the evidence on record.
MMTC vs. CA(Gr no. 104408)
Facts:
The case arose from Nenita who incurred injuries from being
thrown out of the windshield of the jeepney that she was riding
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
FACTS:
Petitioner Joseph Saludaga was a sophomore law student of (FEU)
when he was shot by Alejandro Rosete, one of the security guards
on duty at the school premises on August 18, 1996. Petitioner was
rushed to FEU Hospital due to the wound he sustained. Meanwhile,
Rosete was brought to the police station where he explained that
the shooting was accidental. He was eventually released
considering that no formal complaint was filed against him.
In the present case, it was not shown that Globe acted wantonly or
oppressively in not heeding Philcomsats demands for payment of
rentals. It was established during the trial of the case before the
trial court that Globe had valid grounds for refusing to comply with
its contractual obligations after 1992.
Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the Petitions are DENIED for lack of merit. The
assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 63619
is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
JOSEPH SALUDAGA vs. FEU and EDILBERTO C. DE JESUS
(President of FEU)
ISSUES:
WON Saludaga may claim damages from FEU for breach of
student-school contract for a safe learning environment
Whether FEUs liability is based on quasi-delict or on contract
From what source of obligation did the other claims arose?
After a thorough review of the records, the SC found that FEU failed
to discharge the burden of proving that they exercised due
diligence in providing a safe learning environment for their
students. They failed to prove that they ensured that the guards
assigned in the campus met the requirements stipulated in the
Security Service Agreement. Certain documents about Galaxy were
presented during trial; however, no evidence as to the
qualifications of Rosete as a security guard for the university was
offered. FEU also failed to show that they undertook steps to
ascertain and confirm that the security guards assigned to them
actually possess the qualifications required in the Security Service
Agreement.
HELD:
1) Yes.
2) FEUs liability is based on contract, not quasi-delict.
3) Quasi-delict vicarious liability between Galaxy Agency and
security guard Rosete
Quasi-delict but SC held that there is no vicarious liability
between FEU and Rosete
Quasi-delict damage to FEU due to the negligence of Galaxy
Agency in supplying FEU with an unqualified guard (Imperial, the
president of Galaxy is solidarily liable with the agency)
It is undisputed that Saludaga was enrolled as a sophomore law
student in FEU. As such, there was created a contractual obligation
between the two parties. On Saludaga's part, he was obliged to
comply with the rules and regulations of the school. On the other
hand, FEU, as a learning institution is mandated to impart
knowledge and equip its students with the necessary skills to
pursue higher education or a profession. At the same time, it is
obliged to ensure and take adequate steps to maintain peace and
order within the campus.
It is settled that in culpa contractual, the mere proof of the
existence of the contract and the failure of its compliance justify,
prima facie, a corresponding right of relief. In the instant case
when Saludaga was shot inside the campus by no less the security
guard who was hired to maintain peace and secure the premises,
there is a prima facie showing that FEU failed to comply with its
obligation to provide a safe and secure environment to its
students.
In order to avoid liability, however, FEU alleged that the shooting
incident was a fortuitous event because they could not have
reasonably foreseen nor avoided the accident caused by Rosete as
he was not their employee; and that they complied with their
On October 19, 1987, two armed men entered the pawnshop and
took away whatever cash and jewelry were found inside the
pawnshop vault.
On the same date, Sicam sent Lulu a letter informing her of the
loss of her jewelry due to the robbery incident in the pawnshop.
Respondent Lulu then wroteback expressing disbelief, then
requested Sicam to prepare the pawned jewelry for withdrawal on
November 6, but Sicam failed to return the jewelry.
Lulu, joined by her husband Cesar, filed a complaint against Sicam
with the RTC of Makati seeking indemnification for the loss of
pawned jewelry and payment of AD, MD and ED as well as AF.
The RTC rendered its Decision dismissing respondents complaint
as well as petitioners counterclaim. Respondents appealed the RTC
Decision to the CA which reversed the RTC, ordering the appellees
to pay appellants the actual value of the lost jewelry and AF.
Petitioners MR denied, hence the instant petition for review on
Certiorari.
ISSUE: are the petitioners liable for the loss of the pawned articles
in their possession? (Petitioners insist that they are not liable since
robbery is a fortuitous event and they are not negligent at all.)
HELD: The Decision of the CA is AFFIRMED.
YES
Article 1174 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when
it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the
obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be
responsible for those events which could not be foreseen or which,
though foreseen, were inevitable.
Fortuitous events by definition are extraordinary events not
foreseeable or avoidable. It is therefore, not enough that the event
should not have been foreseen or anticipated, as is commonly
believed but it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. The
mere difficulty to foresee the happening is not impossibility to
foresee the same.
To constitute a fortuitous event, the following elements must
concur:
The burden of proving that the loss was due to a fortuitous event
rests on him who invokes it. And, in order for a fortuitous event to
exempt one from liability, it is necessary that one has committed
no negligence or misconduct that may have occasioned the loss.
Sicam had testified that there was a security guard in their
pawnshop at the time of the robbery. He likewise testified that
when he started the pawnshop business in 1983, he thought of
opening a vault with the nearby bank for the purpose of
safekeeping the valuables but was discouraged by the Central
Bank since pawned articles should only be stored in a vault inside
the pawnshop. The very measures which petitioners had allegedly
adopted show that to them the possibility of robbery was not only
foreseeable, but actually foreseen and anticipated. Sicams
testimony, in effect, contradicts petitioners defense of fortuitous
event.
Moreover, petitioners failed to show that they were free from any
negligence by which the loss of the pawned jewelry may have been
occasioned.
Robbery per se, just like carnapping, is not a fortuitous event. It
does not foreclose the possibility of negligence on the part of
herein petitioners.
Petitioners merely presented the police report of the Paraaque
Police Station on the robbery committed based on the report of
petitioners employees which is not sufficient to establish robbery.
Such report also does not prove that petitioners were not at fault.
On the contrary, by the very evidence of petitioners, the CA did not
err in finding that petitioners are guilty of concurrent or
contributory negligence as provided in Article 1170 of the Civil
Code, to wit:
**
Article 2123 of the Civil Code provides that with regard to
pawnshops and other establishments which are engaged in making
loans secured by pledges, the special laws and regulations
concerning them shall be observed, and subsidiarily, the provisions
on pledge, mortgage and antichresis.
ISSUES:
(1)
Whether the damage on the roof of the building of private
respondents resulting from the impact of the falling portions of the
school buildings roof ripped off by the strong winds of typhoon
Saling, was, within legal contemplation, due to fortuitous event?
(2)
Whether or not an ocular inspection is sufficient evidence
to prove negligence?
HELD:
1. Yes, petitioner should be exonerated from liability arising from
the damage caused by the typhoon. Under Article 1174 of the Civil
Code, Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is
otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the
obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be
responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which,
though foreseen, were inevitable.
In order that a fortuitous event may exempt a person from liability,
it is necessary that he be free from any previous negligence or
misconduct by reason of which the loss may have been
occasioned. 12 An act of God cannot be invoked for the protection
of a person who has been guilty of gross negligence in not trying to
forestall its possible adverse consequences. When a persons
negligence concurs with an act of God in producing damage or
injury to another, such person is not exempt from liability by
showing that the immediate or proximate cause of the damages or
injury was a fortuitous event. When the effect is found to be partly
the result of the participation of man whether it be from active
intervention, or neglect, or failure to act the whole occurrence is
hereby humanized, and removed from the rules applicable to acts
of God.
In the case at bar, the lower court accorded full credence to the
finding of the investigating team that subject school buildings
roofing had no sufficient anchorage to hold it in position especially