UNCHUAN vs. LOZADA (G.R. No.

172671,April 16, 2009) FACTS: Sisters Anita Lozada Slaughter and Peregrina Lozada Saribay were the registered co-owners of 2 lots in Cebu City. The sisters who were based in the !nited States sold the lots to their ne"hew Antonio #.P. Lozada under a $eed of Sale. Ar%ed with a S"ecial Power of Attorney fro% Anita Peregrina went to the house of their brother $r. Antonio Lozada &$r. Lozada' $r. Lozada agreed to ad(ance the "urchase "rice of !S)*+, --- or P.- --- --- for Antonio his ne"hew. The $eed of Sale was later notarized and authenticated at the Phili""ine Consul/s 0ffice and new TCTs were issued in the na%e of Antonio Lozada. Pending registration of the deed "etitioner 1arissa 2. !nchuan caused the annotation of an ad(erse clai% on the lots. 1arissa clai%ed that Anita donated an undi(ided share in the lots to her under an unregistered $eed of $onationAntonio and Anita brought a case against 1arissa for 3uieting of title with a""lication for "reli%inary in4unction and restraining order. 1arissa filed an action to declare the $eed of Sale (oid and to cancel the new TCTs. At the trial res"ondents "resented a notarized and duly authenticated sworn state%ent and a (ideota"e where Anita denied ha(ing donated land in fa(or of 1arissa. 5n a $ecision dated #une 6 .66, 2TC dis"osed of the consolidated cases ruling a%ong others that: .. Plaintiff Antonio #.P. Lozada is declared the absolute owner of the "ro"erties in 3uestion7 2. $efendant 1arissa 2. !nchuan is ordered to "ay Antonio #.P. Lozada and Anita Lozada da%ages. 0n %otion for reconsideration by "etitioner the 2TC issued an 0rder dated A"ril 8 .666. Said order declared the $eed of Sale (oid ordered the cancellation of the new TCTs in Antonio/s na%e and directed Antonio to "ay 1arissa da%ages P.-- --attorney/s fees and P8- --- for e9"enses of litigation. 2es"ondents %o(ed for reconsideration. 0n #uly + 2--- Presiding #udge the 2TC reinstated the $ecision dated #une 6 .66, but with the %odification that the award of da%ages and attorney/s were disallowed. Petitioner a""ealed to the Court of A""eals. 0n February 2* 2--+ the a""ellate court affir%ed with %odification the #uly + 2--0rder of the 2TC. 5SS!:S: .. ;hether or not the deed of donation e9ecuted in fa(or of the "etitioner is (oid. 2. ;hether or not (ideota"ed state%ent is hearsay. 2!L5<=: .. <0. ;hen the law re3uires that a contract be in so%e for% in order that it %ay be (alid or enforceable or that a contract be "ro(ed in a certain way that re3uire%ent is absolute and indis"ensable. Pertinent to this the 2ules re3uire a "arty "roducing a docu%ent as genuine which has been altered and a""ears to ha(e been altered after its e9ecution in a "art %aterial to the 3uestion in dis"ute to account for the alteration. >e %ay show that the alteration was %ade by another without his concurrence or was %ade with the consent of the "arties affected by it or was otherwise "ro"erly or innocently %ade or that the alteration did not change the %eaning or language of the instru%ent. 5f he fails to do that the docu%ent shall as in this case not be ad%issible in e(idence. 2. <0. :(idence is hearsay when its "robati(e force de"ends in whole or in "art on the co%"etency and credibility of so%e "ersons other than the witness by who% it is sought to be "roduced. There are three reasons for e9cluding hearsay e(idence: &.' absence of cross-e9a%ination7 &2' absence of de%eanor e(idence7 and &*' absence of oath. 5t is a hornboo? doctrine that an affida(it is %erely hearsay e(idence where its %a?er did not ta?e the witness stand. @erily the sworn state%ent of Anita was of this ?ind because she did not a""ear in court to affir% her a(er%ents therein. Aet a %ore circu%s"ect e9a%ination of our rules of e9clusion will show that they do not co(er ad%issions of a "arty7 the (ideota"ed state%ent of Anita a""ears to belong to this class. Section 2+ of 2ule .*- "ro(ides that Bthe act declaration or o%ission of a "arty as to a rele(ant fact %ay be gi(en in e(idence against hi%. 5t has long been settled that these ad%issions are ad%issible e(en if they are hearsay. 5ndeed there is a (ital distinction between ad%issions against interest and declaration against interest. Ad%issions against interest are those %ade by a "arty to a litigation or by one in "ri(ity with or identified in legal interest with such "arty and are ad%issible whether or not the declarant is a(ailable as a witness. $eclaration against interest are those %ade by a "erson who is neither a "arty nor in "ri(ity with a "arty to the suit are secondary e(idence and constitute an e9ce"tion to the hearsay rule. They are ad%issible only when the declarant is una(ailable as a witness. Thus a %an/s acts conduct and declaration wherever made if (oluntary are ad%issible against hi% for the reason that it is fair to "resu%e that they corres"ond with the truth and it is his fault if they do not. >owe(er as a further 3ualification ob4ect e(idence such as the (ideota"e in this case %ust be authenticated by a s"ecial testi%ony showing that it was a faithful re"roduction. Lac?ing this we are constrained to e9clude as e(idence the (ideota"ed state%ent of Anita. :(en so this does not detract fro% our conclusion concerning "etitioner/s failure to "ro(e by "re"onderant e(idence any right to the lands sub4ect of this case.

1.

2. Bank of America vs Philippine Racing Club, 594 SCRA 30 !"009#

FACTS: P2C5 is a do%estic cor"oration which %aintains se(eral accounts with different ban?s in the 1etro 1anila area. A%ong the accounts %aintained was with defendant-a""ellant CA. The authorized 4oint signatories with res"ect to said Current Account were

"laintiff-a""ellee/s President &Antonia 2eyes' and @ice President for Finance &=regorio 2eyes'. 0n or about the 2nd wee? of $ece%ber .6DD the President and @ice President of "laintiff-a""ellee cor"oration were scheduled to go out of the country. 5n order not to disru"t o"erations in their absence they "re-signed se(eral chec?s. These chec?s were entrusted to the accountant with instruction to %a?e use of the sa%e as the need arose. The internal arrange%ent was in the e(ent there was need to %a?e use of the chec?s the accountant would "re"are the corres"onding (oucher and thereafter co%"lete the entries on the "re-signed chec?s. 5t turned out that on $ece%ber .+ .6DD a #ohn $oe "resented to CA for encash%ent a cou"le of cor"oration/s chec?s with the indicated (alue of P..- ---.-- each. The 2 chec?s had si%ilar entries with si%ilar infir%ities and irregularities. 0n the s"ace where the na%e of the "ayee should be indicated &Pay To The 0rder 0f' the following 2-line entries were instead ty"ewritten: on the u""er line was the word BCAS>B while the lower line had the following ty"ewritten words (iz: B0<: >!<$2:$ T:< T>0!SA<$ P:S0S 0<LA.B $es"ite the highly irregular entries on the face of the chec?s CA encashed said chec?s. The chec?s a""eared to ha(e co%e into the hands of an e%"loyee of P2C5 &one Clarita 1esina who was subse3uently cri%inally charged for 3ualified theft' who e(entually co%"leted without authority the entries on the "re-signed chec?s. P2C5/s de%and for defendant-a""ellant to "ay fell on deaf ears hence the co%"laint. After due "roceedings the trial court rendered a $ecision in fa(or of P2C5. CA a""ealed the aforesaid trial court $ecision to the CA which howe(er affir%ed said decision in toto in its #uly .+ 2--. $ecision. Petitioner/s 1otion for 2econsideration of the CA $ecision was subse3uently denied hence this instant "etition. ISSUES: .. ;hether or not the Court of A""eals gra(ely erred in holding that "etitioner was liable for the a%ount of the chec?s des"ite the fact that "etitioner was %erely fulfilling its obligation under law and contract. 2. ;hether the "ro9i%ate cause of the wrongful encash%ent of the chec?s in 3uestion was due to &a' "etitioner/s failure to %a?e a (erification regarding the said chec?s with the res"ondent in (iew of the %is"lace%ent of entries on the face of the chec?s or &b' the "ractice of the res"ondent of "re-signing blan? chec?s and lea(ing the sa%e with its e%"loyees. HELD:

$ No, the Court of Appeals was correct i holdi ! petitio er "a # lia"le for the amou t of the chec#s$
There is no dis"ute that the signatures a""earing on the sub4ect chec?s were genuine signatures of the res"ondent/s authorized 4oint signatories. 5t is li?ewise ad%itted that neither of the sub4ect chec?s contains any %aterial alteration or erasure. >owe(er on the blan? s"ace of each chec? reser(ed for the "ayee the following ty"ewritten words a""ear: B0<: >!<$2:$ T:< T>0!SA<$ P:S0S 0<LA.B Abo(e the sa%e is the ty"ewritten word BCAS>.B 0n the blan? reser(ed for the a%ount the sa%e a%ount of 0ne >undred Ten Thousand Pesos was indicated with the use of a chec? writer. The "resence of these irregularities in each chec? should ha(e alerted the "etitioner to be cautious before "roceeding to encash the% which it did not do. 5t is well-settled that ban?s are engaged in a business i%"ressed with "ublic interest and it is their duty to "rotect in return their %any clients and de"ositors who transact business with the%. They ha(e the obligation to treat their client/s account %eticulously and with the highest degree of care considering the fiduciary nature of their relationshi". The diligence re3uired of ban?s therefore is %ore than that of a good father of a fa%ily. 5n the case at bar e9traordinary diligence de%ands that "etitioner should ha(e ascertained fro% res"ondent the authenticity of the sub4ect chec?s or the accuracy of the entries therein not only because of the "resence of highly irregular entries on the face of the chec?s but also of the decidedly unusual circu%stances surrounding their encash%ent. 2es"ondent/s witness testified that for chec?s in a%ounts greater than &P2- ---.--' it is the co%"any/s "ractice to ensure that the "ayee is indicated by na%e in the chec?. >owe(er the confluence of the irregularities on the face of the chec?s and circu%stances that de"art fro% the usual ban?ing "ractice of res"ondent should ha(e "ut "etitioner/s e%"loyees on guard that the chec?s were "ossibly not issued by the res"ondent in due course of its business. Petitioner/s subtle so"histry cannot e9cul"ate it fro% beha(ior that fell e9tre%ely short of the highest degree of care and diligence re3uired of it as a ban?ing institution. "$ The "ro9i%ate cause of the wrongful encash%ent was due to Petitioner Can? but 2es"ondent P2C5 should also share the loss for contributing to the said wrongful encash%ent. An allocation of +-E of the actual da%ages in(ol(ed in this case &re"resented by the a%ount of the chec?s with legal interest' to "etitioner is "ro"er under the "re%ises. 2es"ondent should in light of its contributory negligence bear forty "ercent &F-E' of its own loss. Petitioner cannot e(ade res"onsibility for the loss by attributing negligence on the "art of res"ondent because e(en if we concur that the latter was indeed negligent in "re-signing blan? chec?s the for%er had the last clear chance to a(oid the loss &doctrine of last clear chance'. To reiterate "etitioner/s own o"erations %anager ad%itted that they could ha(e called u" the client for (erification or confir%ation before honoring the dubious chec?s. @erily "etitioner had the final o""ortunity to a(ert the in4ury that befell the res"ondent. Failing to %a?e the necessary (erification due to the (olu%e of ban?ing transactions on that "articular day is a fli%sy and unacce"table e9cuse considering that the Bban?ing business is so i%"ressed with "ublic interest where the trust and confidence of the "ublic in general is of "ara%ount i%"ortance such that the a""ro"riate standard of diligence %ust be a high degree of diligence if not the ut%ost diligence.B Petitioner/s negligence has been undoubtedly established and thus "ursuant to Art. ..,- of the <CC it %ust suffer the conse3uence of said negligence.

Also in the interest of fairness howe(er we belie(e it is "ro"er to consider res"ondent/s own negligence to %itigate "etitioner/s liability. Article 2.,6 of the Ci(il Code "ro(ides: Art. 2.,6. ;hen the "laintiff/s own negligence was the i%%ediate and "ro9i%ate cause of his in4ury he cannot reco(er da%ages. Cut if his negligence was only contributory the i%%ediate and "ro9i%ate cause of the in4ury being the defendant/s lac? of due care the "laintiff %ay reco(er da%ages but the courts shall %itigate the da%ages to be awarded. 2es"ondent/s "ractice of signing chec?s in blan? whene(er its authorized ban? signatories would tra(el abroad was a dangerous "olicy7 es"ecially considering the lac? of e(idence on record that res"ondent had a""ro"riate safeguards or internal controls to "re(ent the "re-signed blan? chec?s fro% falling into the hands of unscru"ulous indi(iduals and being used to co%%it a fraud against the co%"any. ;e cannot belie(e that there was no other secure and reasonable way to guarantee the non-disru"tion of res"ondent/s business. ;e also cannot ignore the fact that the "erson who stole the "re-signed chec?s sub4ect of this case fro% res"ondent/s accountant turned out to be another e%"loyee "ur"ortedly a cler? in res"ondent/s accounting de"art%ent. As the e%"loyer of the Bthief B res"ondent su""osedly had control and su"er(ision o(er its own e%"loyee. This gi(es the Court %ore reason to allocate "art of the loss to res"ondent.

3. %&R'()*S' A+R,+%*S v$ -*,.+% S$ CA'APA%/

86F SC2A F-. &2--6' A y discourteous co duct o the part of the carrier%s employees toward a passe !er !ives the latter a actio for dama!es a!ai st the carrier$ $elfin S. Cata"ang re3uested First !nited Tra(el 5nc. &F!T' to issue in his fa(or atic?et that would allow reboo?ing or rerouting of flights within the !nited States. F!T infor%ed hi% that <orthwest Airlines 5nc. &<orthwest' was willing to acco%%odate his re3uest "ro(ided that he will "ay an additional !S)8- for e(ery reboo?ing or rerouting of flight. Cata"ang agreed with the condition. !"on Cata"angGs arri(al in <ew Aor? he called u" <orthwestGs office which infor%ed hi% that his tic?et was not Hreboo?able or reroutable. >e thus "roceeded to <orthwestGs nearest tic?eting office where he was treated in a rude %anner by an e%"loyee who infor%ed hi% that his tic?et was not reboo?able or reroutable. >e was further infor%ed that his tic?et was of a Hrestricted ty"e and he could not reboo? unless he "ays !S+FF.--. Cata"ang "aid that a%ount for reboo?ing. Cata"ang u"on his return filed with 2TC of 1a?ati a co%"laint for da%ages against<orthwest. The 2TC ruled that <orthwest was liable for breach of contract of carriage. 0n a""eal the Court of A""eals affir%ed the trial courtGs $ecision. 5SS!:S: ;hether or not <orthwest was right to assail the award to Cata"ang of %oral and e9e%"lary da%ages by (irtue of breach of contract >:L$: ;hen Cata"ang in3uired fro% <orthwestGs agent F!T if he would be allowed to reboo?Ireroute his flight F!T ad(ised hi% that he could on the condition that he would "ay )8- for e(ery reboo?ing. >e was not told by F!T and the tic?et did notreflect it that the tic?et being issued to hi% was a Jrestricted ty"eK to call for itsu"grading before a reboo?ingIrerouting <orthwestGs breach in this case was aggra(ated by the undenied treat%ent recei(ed by Cata"ang when he tried to reboo? his tic?et. 5nstead of ci(illy infor%ing Cata"ang that his tic?et could not be reboo?ed <orthwstGs agent in <ew Aor? e9hibited rudeness in the "resence of Cata"angGs brother-in-law and other custo%ers insulting Cata"ang by telling hi% that he could not understand :nglish. Passengers ha(e the right to be treated by a carrierGs e%"loyees with ?indness res"ect courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be "rotected against "ersonal %isconduct in4urious language indignities and abuses fro% such e%"loyees. So it is that any discourteous conduct on the "art of these e%"loyees toward a "assenger gi(es the latter an action for da%ages against the carrier.

4.

AN!AL"ON #$ A%"R&CAN "' R"$$

Posted by ?aye lee on ..:*- P1 =.2. <o. .,F2+6 1ay D 2--6 LCredit TransactionM FACTS: After the A%sterda% incident that ha""ened in(ol(ing the delay of A%erican :9"ress Card to a""ro(e his credit card "urchases worth !S).* D2+.-- at the Coster store Pantaleon co%%enced a co%"laint for %oral and e9e%"lary da%ages before the 2TC against A%erican :9"ress. >e said that he and his fa%ily e9"erienced incon(enience and hu%iliation due to the delays in credit authorization. 2TC rendered a decision in fa(or of Pantaleon. CA re(ersed the award of da%ages in fa(or of Pantaleon holding that A%:9 had not breached its obligations to Pantaleon as the "urchase at Coster de(iated fro% PantaleonNs established charge "urchase "attern. 5SS!:: .. ;hether or not A%:9 had 2. ;hether or not A%:9 is liable for da%ages. co%%itted a breach of its obligations to Pantaleon.

2!L5<=: .. Aes. The "o"ular notion that credit card "urchases are a""ro(ed Jwithin seconds K there really is no strict legally deter%inati(e "oint of de%arcation on how long %ust it ta?e for a credit card co%"any to a""ro(e or disa""ro(e a custo%er/s "urchase %uch less one s"ecifically contracted u"on by the "arties. 0ne hour a""ears to be "atently unreasonable length of ti%e to a""ro(e or disa""ro(e a credit card "urchase. The cul"able failure of A%:9 herein is not the failure to ti%ely a""ro(e "etitioner/s "urchase but the %ore ele%ental failure to ti%ely act on the sa%e whether fa(orably or unfa(orably. :(en assu%ing that A%:9/s credit authorizers did not ha(e sufficient basis on hand to %a?e a 4udg%ent we see no reason why it could not ha(e "ro%"tly infor%ed Pantaleon the reason for the delay and duly ad(ised hi% that resol(ing the sa%e could ta?e so%e ti%e. 2. Aes. The reason why Pantaleon is entitled to da%ages is not si%"ly because A%:9 incurred delay but because the delay for which cul"ability lies under Article ..,- led to the "articular in4uries under Article 22., of the Ci(il Code for which %oral da%ages are re%unerati(e. The so%ewhat unusual attending circu%stances to the "urchase at Coster O that there was a deadline for the co%"letion of that "urchase by "etitioner before any delay would redound to the in4ury of his se(eral tra(eling co%"anions O ga(e rise to the %oral shoc? %ental anguish serious an9iety wounded feelings and social hu%iliation sustained by Pantaleon as concluded by the 2TC.

8$ ,ucas v$ 'ua0o, /$R$ %o$ 12133, April " , "009 Facts: Peter Lucas contracted Hsore eyes in his right eye. >e was referred to $r. Tuano an o"hthal%ologist at St. Lu?eGs. !"on consultation with $r . Tuano &6 days since the "roble%s began' he was already ta?ing 1a9itrol to address the "roble%. !"on e9a%ination Tuano diagnosed Peter with con4uncti(itis or Hsore eyes. >e "rescribed S"ersacet-C+ eye dro"s for Peter and told the latter to return for follow -u" after a wee?. A wee? later Tuano told Peter that the Hsore eyes in the latterGs right eye had already cleared u" and he could discontinue the S"ersacet-C. >owe(er The sa%e eye de(elo"ed :"ide%ic Perato Con4uncti(itis &:PC' so Tuano "rescribed to the for%er a steroid -based eye dro" called 1a9itrol. 0n a later chec?-u" Tuano instructed the for%er to ta"er down the dosage of 1a9itrol because the :PC in his right eye had already resol(ed . $r. Tuano s"ecifically cautioned Peter that being a steroid 1a9itrol had to be withdrawn gradually7 otherwise the :PC %ight recur.

Peter would go bac? and forth to TuanoGs clinic to co%"lain about the worsening condition of his right eye. 5n these instances Tuano would "rescribe different %eds to counter the recurring :PC. 0n $ec. .66D Peter had no (ision in his right eye7 right eye a""eared to be bloody and swollen. Tuano ordered the i%%ediate discontinuation of 1a9itrol and "rescribed other %eds.

Peter went to see another o"hthal%ologist $r. Catungbacal. $r. CatungbacalGs diagnosis was =lauco%a and reco%%ended Laser Trabeculo"lasty . $r. Tuano was at a loss as to how to balance the treat%ent of PeterGs :PC (is -a-(is the "resence of glauco%a thus he referred Peter to $r. Agulto who concurred on PeterGs condition and reco%%ended the sa%e %edication. Also Peter was "rodded by his friends to see? a second %edical o"inion. Thus he consulted $r. 1ario @. A3uino who s"ecializes in the treat%ent of glauco%a. >e infor%ed Peter that his eyes were relati(ely nor%al e9ce"t for the tubular (ision in PeterGs right eye. Petitioners clai%ed that $r. A3uino essentially told Peter that the latterGs condition would re3uire lifeti%e %edication and follow-u"s. Thus he underwent 2 "rocedures of the laser trabeculo"lasty.

Clai%ing to ha(e steroid -induced glauco%a and bla%ing Tuano for the sa%e Peter filed a co%"laint for da%ages against Tuano. >e a(erred that as the direct conse3uence of his"rolonged use of 1a9itrol he suffered fro% steroid induced glauco%a as well as incurable i%"air%ent of (ision which %ay lead to "er%anent blindness . They "rayed that "rayed that Tuano be ad4udged liable for co%"ensation for his i%"aired (ision actual %oral and e9e%"lary da%ages "lus attorneyGs fees.

5n his defense Tuano asserted that the drug-induced glauco%a is te%"orary and curable and that Steroids are "rescribed to treat :PC. Contrary to PeterGs fallacious clai% he did <0T continually "rescribe the drug 1a9itrol because it was discontinued as soon as :PC disa""eared and was resu%ed only when :PC rea""eared. >e stressed that PeterGs glauco%a can only be due to other causes not attributable to steroids Q long standing glauco%a7 and that in fact steroids were in fact beneficial as they "ro(o?ed the latest glauco%a to be re(ealed earlier.

2TC dis%issed the co%"laint for insufficient e(idence. !"on a""eal CA also dis%issed it.

5ssue: $id Lucas fail to "ro(e that Tuano ignored the standard %edical "rocedure for o"hthal%ologists as well as ad%inistered %edication with rec?lessness and e9hibited an absence of co%"etence and s?ills e9"ected of hi%R

>eld: A:S. The case at bar is a %edical negligence case against a "hysician based on the latterGs "rofessional negligence. 5n order to "re(ail the "etitioner is re3uired to "ro(e by "re"onderance of e(idence that the "hysician failed to e9ercise that degree of s?ill care and learning "ossessed by other "ersons in the sa%e "rofession7 and that as a "ro9i%ate result of such failure the "atient or his heirs suffered da%ages. Such clai% for da%ages is al%ost always anchored on the alleged (iolation of Article 2.,+ of the Ci(il Code.

5n %edical negligenceI%al"ractice cases there e9ists a "hysician-"atient relationshi". To hold the "hysician liable for da%ages F ele%ents %ust be shown to co-e9ist: &.' duty &2' breach7 &*' in4ury7 and &F' "ro9i%ate causation.

There is breach of duty of care s?ill and diligence or the i%"ro"er "erfor%ance of such duty when the "atient is in4ured in body or in health. Proof rests u"on the testi%ony of an e9"ert witness that the treat%ent accorded to the "atient failed to %eet the standard le(el of care s?ill and diligence which "hysicians in the sa%e general line of "ractice ordinarily "ossess and e9ercise in li?e cases. Proof of breach of duty on the "art of the attending "hysician is insufficient7 there %ust be a causal connection between said breach and the resulting in4ury - in4ury for which reco(ery is sought %ust be the legiti%ate conse3uence of the wrong done. 5n other words negligence %ust be the "ro9i%ate cause of the in4ury Q or that cause which in the natural and continuous se3uence unbro?en by any efficient inter(ening cause "roduces the in4ury and without which the result would not ha(e occurred. To establish the "ro9i%ate cause one %ust si%ilarly use e9"ert testi%ony to "resent to the court a realistic assess%ent of the li?elihood that the "hysicianGs alleged negligence caused the "atientGs in4ury.

<o 3uestion that a "hysician-"atient relationshi" de(elo"ed between $r. Tuano and Peter. The onus "robandi was on the "atient to establish before the trial court that the "hysicians ignored standard %edical "rocedure. >owecer there was absolute failure on the "art of "etitioners to "resent any e9"ert testi%ony to establish: & .' the standard of care to be i%"le%ented by co%"etent "hysicians 2' that in his treat%ent of Peter $r. Tuano failed in his duty to e9ercise said standard of care that any other co%"etent "hysician would use *' that the in4ury or his glauco%a was the result of his use of 1a9itrol as "rescribed by $r .Tuano. Failure to "ro(e the first ele%ent alone is already fatal . Petitioners %aintain that $r. Tuano failed to follow in PeterGs case the re3uired "rocedure for the "rolonged use of 1a9itrol .

Absent a definiti(e standard of care or diligence re3uired of $r . Tuano under the circu%stances we ha(e no %eans to deter%ine whether he was able to co%"ly with the sa%e. The Court has no yardstic? u"on which to e(aluate or weigh the attendant facts to state with confidence that the acts co%"lained of indeed constituted negligence. Critical and clinching factor in a %edical negligence case is "roof of the causal connection between the negligence which the e(idence established and the "laintiffGs in4uries. 5t is necessary to "ro(e not only that he has been in4ured and defendant has been at fault but also that the defendantGs fault caused the in4ury. Causation %ust be "ro(en within a reasonable %edical "robability based u"on co%"etent e9"ert testi%ony - "roof that PeterGs glauco%a would not ha(e occurred but for $r. TuanoGs su""osed negligent conduct .

;hat constitutes "ro"er %edical treat%ent is a %edical 3uestion that should ha(e been "resented to e9"erts. 5f no standard is established the courts ha(e no standard by which to gauge the basic issue of breach. Absent e9"ert %edical o"inion the courts would be dangerously engaging in s"eculations.

P:2S0<S A<$ FA15LA 2:LAT50<S

A2T5CL: .8I<AT50<AL5TA 2!L: O 5SAC:L

,. -evelopmen4 Bank of 4he Philippine 5S$ Spouses 6esus an7 Anacori4a -o8on /R %o$ 31"32

T>: CAS: $CP filed a "etition for certiorari with "rayer to set aside CA resolutions on denying %otions for reconsideration dated <o(. 2* 2--F and Feb. .D 2--8 res"ecti(ely. And asserts that it did <0T act in bad faith when it foreclosed res"ondents/ real and chattel %ortgages anew because loans were "ast due it had the right to satisfy credit in doing so. FACTS 2es"ondents/ &S"ouses $oyon' ac3uired se(eral loans a%ounting to .- %illion "esos with their real estate "ro"erty and #$ bus line %otor (ehicles %ortgaged as security for loans 2es"ondents failed to "ay due obligations to the "etitioners $CP "ast %aturity date 2es"ondents then re3uested "etitioner to restructure their e9isting loan ter%s which were agreed u"on by both "arties resulting to the written "ro%issory notes &contracted by both "arties' by the res"ondents to "etitioner Petitioner de%anded res"ondent s"ouses $oyon to "ay in full a%ount e9isting loans with their failure to %eet their due "ay%ents agreed in the "ro%issory notes ;ith res"ondents ada%ant refusal to "ay said loans "etitioner filed for e9tra4udicial foreclosure of the real and chattel %ortgages in 2TC 0r%oc City 2es"ondents then filed for nullification of foreclosure clai%ing they had already "aid the "rinci"le a%ount of their loans doc?eted as Ci(il Case <o. **.F- Ci(il Case stalled for three years Petitioner due to inaction %o(ed for the dis%issal of the case and withdrew a""lication for e9tra4udicial foreclosure to which the 2TC granted both "etitions Petitioners then filed for e9tra4udicial foreclosure of res"ondents real and chattel %ortgages with $CP Sherrif of 1a?ati Sheriff secured "ro"erties and subse3uently issued notices of sale at "ublic auction 2es"ondents/ filed for da%ages suit against "etitioner and $CP sheriff "ointing out that "etitioners %otion for dis%issal of their ci(il case led the% to belie(e that their loans had been e9tinguished Court awarded the da%ages suit in fa(or of the res"ondents holding $CP with the e9clusion of the Sheriff be held liable in "aying due costs Petitioners file for %otion for reconsideration denied then leading to e9isting "etition for certiorari 5SS!: ;0< "etitioners e9ercising e9tra4udicial foreclosure and subse3uent issuances for sale at "ublic auction "roceedings acted in bad faith. <0 SC 2!L5<= >eld that "etitioners did <0T act in bad faith as they were %erely acting on their legal right to re%edy against a defaulting debtor which is considered to be a ?nown sound ban?ing "ractice. Therefore court rules that "etitioners ha(ing acted their legal right dis so in good faith and are not in (iolation of Art. .6 of the Ci(il Code.

F!2T>:2 2:F2:<C::

!nder the "ro(isions of Art. .6 of the Ci(il Code for an action for da%ages to "ros"er co%"lainant 1!ST "ro(e that: a.' $efendant ha(e the legal right or duty b.' :9ercised his rightI"erfor%ed his duty with bad faith c.' Co%"lainant was "re4udicedIin4ured as result of the said e9ercise or "erfor%ance by defendant

;ith reference to the first re3uisite defendant &res"ondents herein' in failing to co%"ly with the sti"ulated contracts agreed and signed u"on by both "etitioner and res"ondents which states that failure to co%"ly with due loan obligations u"on %aturity date real and chattel %ortgages are thereby sub4ect to foreclosure by default for the "ur"ose of satisfying his credit. >ence res"ondents/ ha(e no legal right to file for da%ages under said article.

2egarding the second re3uisite bad faith i%"orts a dishonest "ur"ose or so%e %oral obli3uity or conscious doing of a wrong that "arta?es the nature of fraud. >owe(er "etitioners ha(e acted on their legal right which res"ondents ha(e duly recognized in signing the contract can not accuse the "etitioners of ha(ing acted in bad faith.

2$ People v$ Amo7io !/$R$ %o$ 11353# Facts: 0n #une .- 2--* at about *:-- a.%. 2ichard A(ila 2oda an Assistant 1anager of <ognog @ideo?e 2estaurant in Suezon City went out of the restaurant to in(ite custo%ers. >e noticed that three of the attac?ers who% he later identified as accuseda""ellants A%odia 1arino and Lo-oc were regular custo%ers of their restaurant. >e saw Lo-oc hold the shoulders of the (icti% while 1arino and A%odia too? turns in beating the (icti%.As a result of the beating the (icti% fell on the ground where 2oda i%%ediately a""roached the (icti% and saw blood oozing out of the bac? of his head. 0ne of the %aulers was about to deli(er another blow on the (icti% but 2oda was able to sto" hi% thereafter the a""ellants then went inside the restaurant and dran? one bottle of beer each.Cut 2oda did not i%%ediately re"ort the incident because he was threatened by accused-a""ellants who were still hanging around the area. Later in the early %orning of the sa%e day there were already so%e barangay tanods and "olice officers in(estigating the incident.The (icti% later identified as #ai%e Cartina was then brought to the Suezon City =eneral >os"ital and died at around 8 oNcloc? in the afternoon of #une .- 2--*. !"on the ad(ice of a "erson fro% the La Lo%a Police Station 2oda went to Ca%" Paringal in Suezon City to re"ort what he had witnessed.The "olice then filed an in(estigation re"ort which beca%e the basis for the filing of an 5nfor%ation against accused-a""ellants. >owe(er accused-a""ellants "leaded not guilty to the charge against the% by denying in(ol(e%ent in the death of the (icti% and a(erred alibi as their defense. The 2egional Trial Court rendered a decision finding accused-a""ellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the cri%e of %urder. The case was a""ealed to the Court of A""eals which in its decision affir%ed the trial court/s decision. 5ssue: ;hether or not the ?illing was 3ualified by the circu%stance of abuse of su"erior strengthR $ecision: <o.The 3ualifying circu%stance of abuse of su"erior strength had not been sufficiently "ro(ed. To a""reciate the attendant circu%stance of abuse of su"erior strength what should be considered is whether the aggressors too? ad(antage of their co%bined strength in order to consu%%ate the offense. 1ere su"eriority in nu%ber is not enough to constitute su"erior strength. There %ust be clear "roof that the assailants "ur"osely used e9cessi(e force out of "ro"ortion to the defense a(ailable to the "erson attac?ed. 5n this case although the (icti% was un3uestionably outnu%bered it was not shown that accused-a""ellants deliberately a""lied their co%bined strength to wea?en the defense of the (icti% and guarantee the e9ecution of the cri%e. <otably accuseda""ellants too? turns in bo9ing the (icti%. ;hen the (icti% fell the "rosecution witness was able to hold hi% "re(enting accuseda""ellants fro% further hurting hi%. Then accused-a""ellants si%"ly turned away. To be sure had accused-a""ellants really intended to use their su"erior strength to ?ill the (icti% they would ha(e finished off the (icti% and "robably e(en the lone "rosecution eyewitness.