Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LIABILITY that she and her husband were its possessors at the time of the
A. POSSESSOR OF ANIMALS incident in question.
- There is evidence showing that she and her family regularly
went to the house, once or twice weekly.
Art. 2183, CC. The possessor of an animal or whoever - Theness developed hydrophobia, a symptom of rabies, as a
may make use of the same is responsible for the damage result of the dog bites, and second, that asphyxia broncho-
which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. pneumonia, which ultimately caused her death, was a
This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage complication of rabies. The Court finds that the link between the
should come from force majeure or from the fault of the dog bites and the certified cause of death has been satisfactorily
person who has suffered damage. (1905) established.
- It does not matter that the dog was tame and was merely
VESTIL V IAC (UY) provoked by the child into biting her. The law does not speak
179 SCRA 47 CRUZ; December 6, 1989 only of vicious animals but covers even tame ones as long as
they cause injury. As for the alleged provocation, the petitioners
NATURE: Petition to reinstate the decision of the Appellate forget that Theness was only three years old at the time she was
Court. attacked and can hardly be faulted for whatever she might have
done to the animal.
FACTS - Obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil Code is not
- July 29, 1975: Theness was bitten by a dog while she was based on the negligence or on the presumed lack of vigilance of
playing with a child of the petitioners in the house of the late the possessor or user of the animal causing the damage. It is
Vicente Miranda, the father of Purita Vestil. She was rushed to based on natural equity and on the principle of social interest
the Cebu General Hospital, where she was treated for "multiple that he who possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service
lacerated wounds on the forehead.” She was discharged after must answer for the damage which such animal may cause.
nine days but was re-admitted one week later due to "vomiting DISPOSITION: The Court approves the time.
of saliva." The following day, on August 15, 1975, the child died.
The cause of death was certified as broncho-pneumonia.
- Theness developed hydrophobia, a symptom of rabies, as a
result of the dog bites, and second, that asphyxia broncho- B. THINGS THROWN OR FALLING FROM A
pneumonia, which ultimately caused her death, was a BUILDING
complication of rabies
- Seven months later, the Uys sued for damages, alleging that CIVIL CODE
the Vestils were liable to them as the possessors of "Andoy," the
dog that bit and eventually killed their daughter.
- Judge Jose R. Ramolete of the Court of First Instance of Cebu Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is
sustained the defendants. IAC found that the Vestils were in responsible for the damages resulting from its total or
possession of the house and the dog and so should be partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary
responsible under Article 2183 of the Civil Code for the injuries repairs. (1907)
caused by the dog.
- On the strength of the foregoing testimony, the Court finds that Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for
the link between the dog bites and the certified cause of death damages caused:
has been satisfactorily established. (1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been
Petitioners’ Claim
The Vestils are liable for the death of Theness, since they own
taken care of with due diligence, and the inflammation of
the dog that bit her. explosive substances which have not been kept in a safe
Respondents’ Comments and adequate place;
The dog belonged to the deceased Vicente Miranda, that it was (2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons
a tame animal, and that in any case no one had witnessed it bite or property;
Theness. (3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or
lanes, if not caused by force majeure;
ISSUE (4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits
WON the Vestils are liable for the damage caused by the dog. of infectious matter, constructed without precautions
HELD
suitable to the place. (1908)
Ratio The obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil Code
is not based on the negligence or on the presumed lack of Art. 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding
vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal causing the articles should be the result of any defect in the
damage. It is based on natural equity and on the principle of construction mentioned in Article 1723, the third person
social interest that he who possesses animals for his utility, suffering damages may proceed only against the
pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such engineer or architect or contractor in accordance with said
animal may cause. article, within the period therein fixed. (1909)
Reasoning
ART. 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make
Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or
use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may
cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility a part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by
shall cease only in case the damage should come from force things thrown or falling from the same. (1910)
majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered
1
- While it is true that she is not really the owner of the house, are liable for quasi-delict is solidary. (n)
which was still part of Vicente Miranda's estate, there is no doubt DINGCONG vs. KANAAN
72 Phil.14; G.R. No.L-47033 AVANCEÑA;Apr.25, 1941 contributed to his death or injury, the compensation shall
be equitably reduced.
NATURE: Pet. for certiorari assailing the dec’n of the CA Art. 1712. If the death or injury is due to the negligence of
FACTS: a fellow worker, the latter and the employer shall be
-The brothers Loreto and Jose Dingcong rented the house solidarily liable for compensation. If afellow worker's
of Emilia Saenz (in Jose Ma. Basa Street of the City of intentional malicious act is the only cause of the death or
Iloilo) and established the Central Hotel. Among the injury, the employer shall not be answerable, unless it
hotel's guests is Francisco Echevarria, paying P30 a should be shown that the latter did not exercise due
month, and occupying room no. 10 of said hotel. Kanaan, diligence in the selection or supervision of the plaintiff's
on the other hand, occupies the ground floor of the hotel fellow worker.
and established his "American Bazaar" dedicated to the
purchase and sale of articles and merchandise.
-Around 11pm of 19 September 1933, Echevarria, when AFABLE V SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY
retiring to bed, carelessly left the faucet open that with 58 PHIL 14 VICKERS; March 6, 1933
only an ordinary basin without drainage. That time, the
pipes of the hotel were under repair; the water run off the NATURE: Appeal from a decision of the CFI of Manila
pipes and spilled to the ground, wetting the articles and FACTS:
merchandise of the "American Bazaar," causing a loss - Leopoldo Madlangbayan was a collector for the Singer
which the CFI sets at P1,089.61. Sewing Machine Company in the district of San Francisco
-The Kanaans (Halim, Nasri and Michael), representing del Monte, outside of the limits of the City of Manila, and
the establishment "American Bazaar," thereafter filed this he was supposed to be residing in his district according to
complaint for damages against Loreto Dingcong, Jose the records of the company.
Dingcong and Francisco Echevarria. - One Sunday afternoon, Leopoldo Madlangbayan while
-CFI held Francisco Echevarria liable, and acquitted Jose riding a bicycle was run over and fatally injured at the
Dingcong. CA reversed and declared Jose Dingcong corner of O'Donnel and Zurbaran streets in the City of
responsible, sentencing him to pay the plaintiffs damages. Manila by a truck driven by Vitaliano Sumoay.
ISSUE: - It appears that Madlangbayan had moved to Teodora
WON Jose Dingcong and Francisco Echevarria are liable Alonso St. in Manila without notifying the company, and
for damages that at the time of his death he was returning home after
HELD: YES. making some collections in San Francisco del Monte.
-Francisco Echevarria, the hotel guest, is liable for being - According to the practice of the company, if collectors
the one who directly, by his negligence in leaving open made collections on Sunday they were required to deliver
the faucet, caused the water to spill to the ground and the amount collected to the company the next morning.
wet the articles and merchandise of the plaintiffs. - The widow and children of Leopoldo Madlangbayan
-Jose Dingcong, being a co-renter and manager of the brought an action to recover from the defendant
hotel, with complete possession of the house, must also corporation under Act No. 3428, as amended by Act. No.
be responsible for the damages caused. He failed to 3812, P100 for burial expenses and P1,745.12 for
exercise the diligence of a good father of the family to compensation.
prevent these damages, despite his power and authority - Plaintiffs' complaint was subsequently amended, and
to cause the repair of the pipes. they sought to recover under sections 8 and 10 of Act No.
Disposition Appealed decision is affirmed, with the costs 3428 fifty per cent of P16.78 for 208 weeks of P1,745.12
against apellant. plus P100 for burial expenses.
- Defendant as special defenses alleged that Leopoldo
Madlangbayan at the time that he sustained the injuries
C. DEATH/INJURIES IN THE COURSE OF resulting in his death was violating an ordinance of the
EMPLOYMENT City of Manila which prohibits work on Sunday; and that
Act No. 3428, as amended, is unconstitutional and void
CIVIL CODE: because it denies the defendant the equal protection of
Art. 1711. Owners of enterprises and other employers are the law, and impairs the obligation of the contract between
obliged to pay compensation for the death of or injuries to the defendant and Leopoldo Madlangbayan, and deprives
their laborers, workmen, mechanics or other employees, the Courts of First Instance of their probate jurisdiction
even though the event may have been purely accidental over the estate of deceased persons and nullifies
or entirely due to a fortuitous cause, if the death or Chapters XXIX, XXX, XXXI, XXXII, XXXIII, and XXXIV of
personal injury arose out of and in the course of the the Civil Code Procedure and related articles of the Civil
employment. The employer is also liable for Code.
compensation if the employee contracts any illness or ISSUE:
disease caused by such employment or as the result of WON the employer is liable to pay the employee’s heirs.
the nature of the employment. If the mishap was due to
the employee's own notorious negligence, or voluntary
2
act, or drunkenness, the employer shall not be liable for RULING : NO.
Page
compensation. When the employee's lack of due care - As the deceased Leopoldo Madlangbayan was killed on
November 16, 1930 and Act No. 3812 was not approved
until December 8, 1930, it is apparent that the law which employment of the deceased. If the deceased saw fit to
is applicable is Act No. 3428, section 23 of which reads change his residence from San Francisco del Monte to
as follows: Manila and to make use a bicycle in going back and forth,
When any employee receives a personal injury from any he did so at his own risk, as the defendant company did
accident due to in the pursuance of the employment, or not furnish him a bicycle or require him to use one; and if
contracts any illness directly caused by such employment he made collections on Sunday, he did not do so in
or the result of the nature of such employment, his pursuance of his employment, and his employer is not
employer shall pay compensation in the sums and to the liable for any injury sustained by him.
persons hereinafter specified.
- The accident which caused the death of the employee DISPOSITION The decision appealed from was affirmed,
was not due to and in pursuance of his employment. with the costs against the appellants.
- At the time that he was over by the truck Leopoldo
Madlangbayan was not in the pursuance of his
employment with the defendant corporation, but was on D. STRICT LIABILITY/PRODUCT LIABILITY
his way home after he had finished his work for the day
and had left the territory where he was authorized to take Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, p. 142
collections for the defendant.
- The employer is not an insurer "against all accidental
injuries which might happen to an employee while in the
course of the employment", and as a general rule an
employee is not entitled to recover from personal injuries
resulting from an accident that befalls him while going to
or returning from his place of employment, because such Art. 2187,CC. Manufacturers and processors of
an accident does no arise out of and in the course of his foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be
employment. liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or
- The phrase "due to and in the pursuance of" used in harmful substances used, although no contractual relation
section 2 of Act No. 3428 was changed in Act No. 3812 to exists between them and the consumers.
"arising out of and in the course of". Discussing this
phrase, the Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of Consumer Act:
Mueller Construction Co. vs. Industrial Board, said: REGULATION OF SALES ACTS AND PRACTICES
The words "arising out of" refer to the origin or cause of Art. 50. Prohibition Against Deceptive Sales Acts or
the accident, and are descriptive of its character, while the Practices. - A deceptive act or practice by a seller or
words "in the course of" refer to the time, place, and supplier in connection with a consumer transaction
circumstances under which the accident takes place. By violates this Act whether it occurs before, during or after
the use of these words it was not the intention of the the transaction. An act or practice shall be deemed
legislature to make the employer an insurer against all deceptive whenever the producer, manufacturer,
accidental injuries which might happen to an employee supplier or seller, through concealment, false
while in the course of the employment, but only for such representation of fraudulent manipulation, induces a
injuries arising from or growing out of the risks peculiar to consumer to enter into a sales or lease transaction of
the nature of the work in the scope of the workman's any consumer product or service.
employment of incidental to such employment, and Without limiting the scope of the above paragraph, the
accidents in which it is possible to trace the injury to some act or practice of a seller or supplier is deceptive when it
risk or hazard to which the employee is exposed in a represents that:
special degree by reason of such employment. Risks to (a) a consumer product or service has the sponsorship,
which all persons similarly situated are equally exposed approval, performance, characteristics, ingredients,
and not traceable in some special degree to the particular accessories, uses, or benefits it does not have;
employment are excluded. (b) a consumer product or service is of a particular
- If the deceased had been killed while going from house standard, quality, grade, style, or model when in fact it is
to house in San Francisco del Monte in the pursuance of not;
his employment, the plaintiffs would undoubtedly have the (c) a consumer product is new, original or unused, when
right, prima facie, to recover. in fact, it is in a deteriorated, altered, reconditioned,
- In the case at bar the deceased was going from work in reclaimed or second-hand state;
his own conveyance. (d) a consumer product or service is available to the
- Furthermore, it appears that the deceased had never consumer for a reason that is different from the fact;
notified the defendant corporation of his removal from San (e) a consumer product or service has been supplied in
Francisco del Monte of Manila, and that the company did accordance with the previous representation when in
not know that he was living in Manila on the day of the fact it is not;
accident; that the defendant company did not require its (f) a consumer product or service can be supplied in a
employees to work on Sunday, or furnish or require its quantity greater than the supplier intends;
3
- These are additional reasons for holding that the when in fact it is not;
accident was not due to and pursuance of the (h) a specific price advantage of a consumer product
exists when in fact it does not; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION WHICH SHALL
(i) the sales act or practice involves or does not involve a ADMINISTER AND ENFORCE THE LAWS
warranty, a disclaimer of warranties, particular warranty PERTAINING THERETO.
terms or other rights, remedies or obligations if the Section 11. The following acts and the causing thereof
indication is false; and are hereby prohibited: (a) The manufacture, sale,
(j) the seller or supplier has a sponsorship, approval, or offering for sale or transfer of any food, drug, device or
affiliation he does not have. cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded.
(b) The adulteration or misbranding of any food, drug,
Art. 51. Deceptive Sales Act or Practices By Regulation. device, or cosmetic.
- The Department shall, after due notice and hearing, (c) The refusal to permit entry or inspection as
promulgate regulations declaring as deceptive any sales authorized by Section twenty-seven hereof or to allow
act, practice or technique which is a misrepresentation of samples to be collected.
facts other than these enumerated in Article 50. (d) The giving of a guaranty or undertaking referred to in
Section twelve (b) hereof which guaranty or undertaking
Art. 52. Unfair or Unconscionable Sales Act or is false, except by a person who relied upon a guaranty
Practice. - An unfair or unconscionable sales act or or undertaking to the same effect signed by, and
practice by a seller or supplier in connection with a containing the name and address of, the person residing
consumer transaction violates this Chapter whether it in the Philippines from whom he received in good faith
occurs before, during or after the consumer transaction. the food, drug, device, or cosmetic or the giving of a
An act or practice shall be deemed unfair or guaranty or undertaking referred to in Section twelve (b)
unconscionable whenever the producer, manufacturer, which guaranty or undertaking is false.
distributor, supplier or seller, by taking advantage of the (e) Forging, counterfeiting, simulating, or falsely
consumer's physical or mental infirmity, ignorance, representing or without proper authority using any mark,
illiteracy, lack of time or the general conditions of the stamp, tag label, or other identification device authorized
environment or surroundings, induces the consumer to or required by regulations promulgated under the
enter into a sales or lease transaction grossly inimical to provisions of this Act.
the interests of the consumer or grossly one-sided in (f) The using by any person to his own advantage, or
favor of the producer, manufacturer, distributor, supplier revealing, other than to the Secretary or officers or
or seller. employees of the Department or to the courts when
In determining whether an act or practice is unfair and relevant in any judicial proceeding under this Act, any
unconscionable, the following circumstances shall be information acquired under authority of Section nine, or
considered: concerning any method or process which as a trade
(a) that the producer, manufacturer, distributor, supplier secret is entitled to protection.
or seller took advantage of the inability of the consumer (g) The alteration, mutilation, destruction, obliteration, or
to reasonably protect his interest because of his inability removal of the whole or any part of the labeling of, or the
to understand the language of an agreement, or similar doing of any other act with respect to, a food, drug,
factors; device, or cosmetic, if such act is done while such article
(b) that when the consumer transaction was entered is held for sale (whether or not the first sale) and results
into, the price grossly exceeded the price at which in such article being adulterated or misbranded.
similar products or services were readily obtainable in (h) The use, on the labeling of any drug or in any
similar transaction by like consumers; advertising relating to such drug, of any representation
(c) that when the consumer transaction was entered into, or suggestion that an application with respect to such
the consumer was unable to receive a substantial benefit drug is effective under Section twenty-one hereof, or that
from the subject of the transaction; such drug complies with the provisions of such section.
(d) that when the consumer was entered into, the seller (i) The use, in labeling, advertising or other sales
or supplier was aware that there was no reasonable promotion of any reference to any report or analysis
probability or payment of the obligation in full by the furnished in compliance with Section twenty-six hereof.
consumer; and
(e) that the transaction that the seller or supplier induced
the consumer to enter into was excessively one-sided in
favor of the seller or supplier.
AN ACT TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PURITY OF 227 SCRA 292 DAVIDE, JR.; October 18, 1993
Page
ISSUE
WON the complaint is founded on a quasi-delict and
pursuant to A1146(12), CC, the action prescribes in 4
years
HELD
YES
Reasoning E. INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL
- The vendee’s remedies against a vendor with respect
5
RELATIONS
Page
- In 1989, the lessor, DC Chuan sent a letter to Tek Hua wrongful motives or malice on the part of So. Hence the
Page
advising it of a 25% increase in rent effective September lack of malice precludes the award of damages.
1, 1989. A further rent increase of 30% effective January
- The provision in the Civil Code with regard tortuous Art. 2189, CC. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall
interference is Article 1314 which states that “ any third be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered
party who induces another to violate his contract shall be by, any person by reason of the defective condition of
liable for damages to the other contracting party”. The roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public
Court ratiocinated that the recovery of legal fees is in the works under their control or supervision. (n)
concept of actual or compensatory damages as provided
in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. In this casse, due to
defendant’s action of interference, plaintiff was forced to GUILATCO v CITY OF DAGUPAN
seek relief through the Court snd thereby incur expenses 171 SCRA 382 SARMIENTO; Mar 21, 1989
to protect his interests. The Court, however, found the Nature:
award exorbitant. It was reduced to Pesos 100,000.00 Petition for Certiorari to review the decision of CA
Disposition: Facts:
Petition denied. CA decision affirmed subject to the on July 25, 1978, Florentina Guilatco, a court
modified award of attorney’s fees. interpreter, accidentally fell into a manhole while she
was about to board a motorized tricycle at a sidewalk
at Perez Blvd. Her right leg was fractured, due to
AQUINO, pp 795-801 which she was hospitalized, operated on, and
confined.
She averred that she suffered mental and physical
pain, and that she has difficulty in locomotion. She
has not yet reported for duty as court interpreter (at
the time of filing of complaint) and thus lost income.
She also lost weight, and she is no longer her former
jovial self. Moreover, she has been unable to perform
her religious, social, and other activities which she
used to do prior to the incident.
Police confirmed existence of the manhole, which
was partially covered by a concrete flower pot by
leaving a gaping hole about 2 ft long by 1 ½ feet wide
or 42 cm wide by 75 cm long by 150 cm deep.
City Engineer of Dagupan Alfredo Tangco admitted
that the manhole is owned by the National
Government and the sidewalk on which they are
found along Perez Blvd. are also owned by the
National Government. He said that he supervises the
maintenance of said manholes and sees to it that they
are properly covered, and the job is specifically done
by his subordinates.
Trial court ordered the city to pay Guilatco actual,
moral and exemplary damages, plus attorney’s fees.
CA reversed the lower court’s ruling on the ground
that no evidence was presented to prove that City of
Dagupan had control or supervision over Perez Blvd.
City contends that Perez Blvd is a national road that
is not under the control or supervision of the City of
Dagupan. Hence, no liability should attach to the city.
Issue:
WON control or supervision over a national road by the
City of Dagupan exists, in effect binding the city to answer
for damages in accordance with article 2189 CC.
Held: YES
- The liability of private corporations for damages arising
from injuries suffered by pedestrians from the
defective condition of roads is expressed in the Civil
Code as follows:
Article 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be
liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by,
any person by reason of the defective condition of roads,
streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works
7
G. PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE
CIVIL CODE: