Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
170498
January 9, 2013
2003. AMC still did not file its bill of particulars. The
RTC, on the other hand, did not act on Metrobanks
motion to strike out AMCs third-party complaint.22
In its answer23 dated December 1, 2003, Metrobank
admitted that it deposited the checks in question to
the account of Ayala Lumber and Hardware, a sole
proprietorship Chua owned and managed. The
deposit was allegedly done with the knowledge and
consent of AMC. According to
Court
A distinctive character of Metrobanks fourth-party
complaint is its contingent nature the claim
depends on the possibility that Metrobank would be
adjudged liable to AMC, a future event that may or
may not happen. This characteristic unmistakably
marks the complaint as a contingent one that must
be included in the claims falling under the terms of
Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court:
Associate Justice
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Barredo vs Garcia
This case comes up from the Court of Appeals which
held the petitioner herein, Fausto Barredo, liable in
damages for the death of Faustino Garcia caused by
the negligence of Pedro Fontanilla, a taxi driver
employed by said Fausto Barredo.
CIVIL CODE
ART. 1089
Obligations arise from law, from
contracts and quasi-contracts, and from acts and
omissions which are unlawful or in which any kind of
fault or negligence intervenes.
ART. 1092. Civil obligations arising from felonies or
misdemeanors shall be governed by the provisions of
the Penal Code.
ART. 1093. Those which are derived from acts or
omissions in which fault or negligence, not
punishable by law, intervenes shall be subject to the
provisions of Chapter II, Title XVI of this book.
ART 1902. Any person who by an act or omission
causes damage to another by his fault or negligence
shall be liable for the damage so done.
ART. 1903. The obligation imposed by the next
preceding article is enforcible, not only for personal
acts and omissions, but also for those of persons for
whom another is responsible.
The father and in, case of his death or incapacity, the
mother, are liable for any damages caused by the
minor children who live with them.
Guardians are liable for damages done by minors or
incapacitated persons subject to their authority and
living with them.
Owners or directors of an establishment or business
are equally liable for any damages caused by their
employees while engaged in the branch of the
service in which employed, or on occasion of the
performance of their duties.
The State is subject to the same liability when it acts
through a special agent, but not if the damage shall
have been caused by the official upon whom properly
devolved the duty of doing the act performed, in
which case the provisions of the next preceding
article shall be applicable.
Finally, teachers or directors of arts trades are liable
for any damages caused by their pupils or
apprentices while they are under their custody.
SO ORDERED.
c)
Extinction of the penal action does not carry
with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction
proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that
the fact from which the civil night arise did not
exist. ...
4.
In the absence of a teacher-in-charge, it is
probably the dean of boys who should be held liable
especially in view of the unrefuted evidence that he
had earlier confiscated an unlicensed gun from one
of the students and returned the same later to him
without taking disciplinary action or reporting the
matter to higher authorities. While this was clearly
negligence on his part, for which he deserves
sanctions from the school, it does not necessarily link
him to the shooting of Amador as it has not been
shown that he confiscated and returned pistol was
the gun that killed the petitioners' son.
5.
Finally, as previously observed, the Colegio
de San Jose-Recoletos cannot be held directly liable
under the article because only the teacher or the
head of the school of arts and trades is made
responsible for the damage caused by the student or
apprentice. Neither can it be held to answer for the
tort committed by any of the other private
respondents for none of them has been found to
have been charged with the custody of the offending
student or has been remiss in the discharge of his
duties in connection with such custody.
In sum, the Court finds under the facts as disclosed
by the record and in the light of the principles herein
announced that none of the respondents is liable for
the injury inflicted by Pablito Damon on Alfredo
Amadora that resulted in the latter's death at the
auditorium of the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos on
April 13, 1972. While we deeply sympathize with the
petitioners over the loss of their son under the tragic
circumstances here related, we nevertheless are
unable to extend them the material relief they seek,
as a balm to their grief, under the law they have
invoked.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, without any
pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.
Yap, Narvasa, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Bidin,
Sarmiento, Cortes and Grio-Aquino, JJ., concur.
Fernan, Padilla and Teehankee, C.J., JJ, took no part.
G.R. No. L-21438
AIR FRANCE, petitioner,
vs.
RAFAEL CARRASCOSO and the HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
Lichauco, Picazo and Agcaoili for petitioner.
Bengzon Villegas and Zarraga for respondent R.
Carrascoso.
SANCHEZ, J.:
The Court of First Instance of Manila 1 sentenced
petitioner to pay respondent Rafael Carrascoso
P25,000.00 by way of moral damages; P10,000.00 as
exemplary damages; P393.20 representing the
difference in fare between first class and tourist class
for the portion of the trip Bangkok-Rome, these
various amounts with interest at the legal rate, from
the date of the filing of the complaint until paid; plus
P3,000.00 for attorneys' fees; and the costs of suit.
On appeal,2 the Court of Appeals slightly reduced the
amount of refund on Carrascoso's plane ticket from
P393.20 to P383.10, and voted to affirm the
appealed decision "in all other respects", with costs
against petitioner.
The case is now before us for review on certiorari.
The facts declared by the Court of Appeals as " fully
supported by the evidence of record", are:
Plaintiff, a civil engineer, was a member of a group of
48 Filipino pilgrims that left Manila for Lourdes on
March 30, 1958.
On March 28, 1958, the defendant, Air France,
through its authorized agent, Philippine Air Lines,
Inc., issued to plaintiff a "first class" round trip
airplane ticket from Manila to Rome. From Manila to
Bangkok, plaintiff travelled in "first class", but at
Bangkok, the Manager of the defendant airline forced
plaintiff to vacate the "first class" seat that he was
occupying because, in the words of the witness
Ernesto G. Cuento, there was a "white man", who,
the Manager alleged, had a "better right" to the seat.
When asked to vacate his "first class" seat, the
plaintiff, as was to be expected, refused, and told
defendant's Manager that his seat would be taken
over his dead body; a commotion ensued, and,
vs.
vs.
MARCELO LAURON, ET AL., defendantsappellees.
TORRES, J.:
On the 23rd of November, 1906, Arturo Pelayo, a
physician residing in Cebu, filed a complaint against
Marcelo Lauron and Juana Abella setting forth that on
or about the 13th of October of said year, at night,
the plaintiff was called to the house of the
defendants, situated in San Nicolas, and that upon
arrival he was requested by them to render medical
assistance to their daughter-in-law who was about to
give birth to a child; that therefore, and after
consultation with the attending physician, Dr. Escao,
it was found necessary, on account of the difficult
birth, to remove the fetus by means of forceps which
operation was performed by the plaintiff, who also
had to remove the afterbirth, in which services he
was occupied until the following morning, and that
afterwards, on the same day, he visited the patient
several times; that the just and equitable value of
the services rendered by him was P500, which the
defendants refuse to pay without alleging any good
reason therefor; that for said reason he prayed that
the judgment be entered in his favor as against the
defendants, or any of them, for the sum of P500 and
costs, together with any other relief that might be
deemed proper.
In answer to the complaint counsel for the
defendants denied all of the allegation therein
contained and alleged as a special defense, that their
daughter-in-law had died in consequence of the said
childbirth, and that when she was alive she lived with
her husband independently and in a separate house
without any relation whatever with them, and that, if
on the day when she gave birth she was in the house
of the defendants, her stay their was accidental and
due to fortuitous circumstances; therefore, he prayed
that the defendants be absolved of the complaint
with costs against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff demurred to the above answer, and the
court below sustained the demurrer, directing the
defendants, on the 23rd of January, 1907, to amend
their answer. In compliance with this order the
We DENY.
As the Court sees it, the sole issue for resolution is
whether the spouses Vallejeras' cause of action in
Civil Case No. 99-10845 is founded on Article 103 of
the Revised Penal Code, as maintained by the
petitioners, or derived from Article 218010 of the
Civil Code, as ruled by the two courts below.
e) Quasi-delicts
3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in
Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may
be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil
action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985
Rules on Criminal Procedure15 as amended. The
separate civil action may be enforced either against
the executor/administrator or the estate of the
accused, depending on the source of obligation upon
which the same is based as explained above.
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a
forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action
by prescription, in cases where during the
prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its
extinction, the private-offended party instituted
together therewith the civil action. In such case, the
statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed
interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case,
conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the
Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any
apprehension on a possible [de]privation of right by
prescription.
Applying the foregoing rules, ABS-CBN's insistence
that the case at bench survives because the civil
liability of the respondents subsists is stripped of
merit.
To begin with, there is no criminal case as yet against
the respondents. The Ombudsman did not find
probable cause to prosecute respondents for various
felonies in the RPC. As such, the rule that a civil
action is deemed instituted along with the criminal
action unless the offended party: (a) waives the civil
action, (b) reserves the right to institute it
separately, or (c) institutes the civil action prior to
the criminal action,16 is not applicable.
In any event, consistent with People v. Bayotas,17 the
death of the accused necessarily calls for the
dismissal of the criminal case against him, regardless
of the institution of the civil case with it. The civil
action which survives the death of the accused must
hinge on other sources of obligation provided in
Article 1157 of the Civil Code. In such a case, a
surviving civil action against the accused founded on
other sources of obligation must be prosecuted in a
separate civil action. In other words, civil liability
1
-Incised wound 2 inches in length at the
upper portion of the lesser palmar prominence, right.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Date Diagnosis
adm. at DX TETANUS
xxx
xxx
xxx
BARREDO, J.:
Appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of
Quezon City dated January 29, 1965 in Civil Case No.
Q-8102, Pedro Elcano et al. vs. Reginald Hill et al.
dismissing, upon motion to dismiss of defendants,
the complaint of plaintiffs for recovery of damages
from defendant Reginald Hill, a minor, married at the
time of the occurrence, and his father, the defendant
Marvin Hill, with whom he was living and getting
subsistence, for the killing by Reginald of the son of
the plaintiffs, named Agapito Elcano, of which, when
criminally prosecuted, the said accused was
acquitted on the ground that his act was not criminal,
because of "lack of intent to kill, coupled with
mistake."
Actually, the motion to dismiss based on the
following grounds:
1. The present action is not only against but a
violation of section 1, Rule 107, which is now Rule III,
of the Revised Rules of Court;
2. The action is barred by a prior judgment which is
now final and or in res-adjudicata;
SO ORDERED.