Torts And Damages Case Digest: Bustamante V.

CA (1991)
G.R. No. 89880 February 6, 1991
Lessons Applicable: Last Clear Chance (Torts and Damages)

FACTS:

April 20, 1983 6:30 am: a collision occurred

between a 1947 model gravel and sand truck driven
by Montesiano and owned by Del Pilar and a Mazda
passenger bus driven Susulin along the national road
at Calibuyo, Tanza, Cavite

front left side portion (barandilla) of the

body of the truck sideswiped the left side wall of the
passenger bus, ripping off the wall from the driver's
seat to the last rear seat

several passengers of the bus were

thrown out and died as a result of the injuries they
sustained:

1. Rogelio Bustamante, 40,

husband of Emma Adriano Bustamante and father of
Rossel, Gloria, Yolanda, Ericson, and Ederic, all
surnamed Bustamante;
2. Maria Corazon Jocson, 16, daughter of spouses
Salvador and Patria Jocson;
3. Jolet C. Ramos, 16, daughter of spouses Jose and
Enriqueta Ramos;
4. Enrico Himaya, 18, son of spouses Narciso and
Adoracion Himaya; and
5. Noel Bersamina, 17, son of spouses Jose and Ma.
Commemoracion Bersamina

The bus was registered in the name of

Novelo but was owned and/or operated as a passenger
bus jointly by Magtibay and Serrado

before the collision, the cargo truck and the

passenger bus were approaching each other, coming
from the opposite directions of the highway. While the
truck was still about 30 meters away, Susulin, the bus
driver, saw the front wheels of the vehicle wiggling. He
also observed that the truck was heading towards his
lane. Not minding this circumstance due to his belief
that the driver of the truck was merely joking, Susulin
shifted from fourth to third gear in order to give more
power and speed to the bus, which was ascending the
inclined part of the road, in order to overtake or pass a
Kubota hand tractor being pushed by a person along
the shoulder of the highway

RTC: liability of the two drivers for their negligence

must be solidary

CA: owner and driver of the sand and gravel truck

appealed was granted
ISSUE: W/N the last clear chance can apply making the bus
negligent in failing to avoid the collision and his act in
proceeding to overtake the hand tractor was the proximate
cause of the collision making him solely liable

HELD: NO. Petition is granted. CA reversed.

the doctrine of last clear chance means that even

though a person's own acts may have placed him in a
position of peril, and an injury results, the injured
person is entitled to recovery.

a person who has the last clear chance or

opportunity of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding
the negligent acts of his opponent or that of a third
person imputed to the opponent is considered in law
solely responsible for the consequences of the
accident.

since the case at bar is not a suit between the

owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles but a suit
brought by the heirs of the deceased passengers
against both owners and drivers of the colliding
vehicles the court erred in absolving the owner and
driver of the cargo truck from liability
Torts And Damages Case Digest: Joaquinita P. Capili V. Sps.
Dominador And Rosalita Cardana (2006)
G.R. No. 157906 November 2, 2006

Lessons Applicable: Res ipsa loquitur (Torts and Damages)

Laws Applicable: Article 2176 of the Civil Code

FACTS:

February 1, 1993: Jasmin Cardaa was walking

along the San Roque ElementarySchool when a branch
of a caimito tree located within the school premises fell
on her, causing her instantaneous death. Her
parents Dominador and Rosalita Cardaa filed a case for
damages against the school principal Joaquinita Capili
knowing that the tree was dead and rotting did not
dispose of it

RTC: dismissed for failing to show negligence on

the part of Capili

CA: reversed. Awarded P50,000 as indemnity for

the death of Jasmin and P15,010 as reimbursement of
her burial expenses, moral damages P50,000
and attorney's fees and litigation P10,000
ISSUE: W/N Capili can be held liable for damages under Res
ipsa loquitur

HELD: YES.

negligent act

inadvertent(unintentional) act

may be merely carelessly done from a

lack of ordinary prudence and may be one which
creates a situation involving an unreasonable risk to
another because of the expectable action of the other,
a third person, an animal, or a force of nature

an ordinary prudent person in the

actor's position, in the same or similar circumstances,
would foresee such an appreciable risk of harm to
others as to cause him not to do the act or to do it in a
more careful manner

The probability that the branches of a dead and

rotting tree could fall and harm someone is clearly a
danger that is foreseeable. As school principal, she
was tasked to see to the maintenance of the school
grounds and safety of the children within the school
and its premises. Moreover, even if petitioner had
assigned disposal of the tree to another teacher, she
exercises supervision over her assignee

Jasmin, died as a result of the dead and rotting tree

within the school's premises shows that the tree was
indeed an obvious danger to anyone passing by and
calls for application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur.

Once respondents made out a prima facie case of

all requisites, the burden shifts to petitioner to
explain.The presumption or inference may be rebutted
or overcome by other evidence and, under appropriate
circumstances a disputable presumption, such as that
of due care or innocence, may outweigh the inference
Under the circumstances, we have to concede that
petitioner was not motivated by bad faith or ill motive
vis--vis respondents' daughter's death.The award of
moral damages is therefore not proper.

McKee vs IAC:

Facts: Two boys suddenly darted before McKees

car forcing McKee to swerve the car to avoid
hitting the boys and in the process entered into the
opposite lane and collided with the oncoming cargo
truck in the opposite lane.

CDCP v ESTRELLA
Posted by ladymaridel on June 19, 2008

Tayabas Bus Co. (BLTB) and Construction Development Corporation

of the Philippines (CDCP) liable for damages.
Rebecca G. Estrella and her granddaughter, Rachel E. Fletcher,
boarded in San Pablo City, a BLTB bus bound for Pasay City.

bus was rammed from behind by a tractor-truck of CDCP in the

South Expressway.
COMPLAINT damages against CDCP(now PNCC), BLTB, Espiridion
Payunan, Jr. and Wilfredo Datinguinoo
Payunan, Jr. and Datinguinoo, who were the drivers of CDCP and
BLTB buses, respectively, were negligent and did not obey traffic
laws;
CDCP include a third-party complaint against Philippine Phoenix
Surety and Insurance, Inc
TC > CDCP and BLTB and their employees liable for damages
LC> BLTB, as a common carrier, was bound to observe
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the safety of its
passengers. It must carry the passengers safely as far as human
care and foresight provide, using the utmost diligence of very
cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. Thus,
where a passenger dies or is injured, the carrier is presumed to have
been at fault or has acted negligently. BLTBs inability to carry
respondents to their destination gave rise to an action for breach of
contract of carriage while its failure to rebut the presumption of
negligence made it liable to respondents for the breach.
CDCP, tractor-truck it owned bumped the BLTB bus from
behind. Evidence showed that CDCPs driver was reckless and
driving very fast at the time of the incident. The gross negligence of
its driver raised the presumption that CDCP was negligent either in
the selection or in the supervision of its employees which it failed to
rebut thus making it and its driver liable
CA affirmed
actual or compensatory damage sought by respondents for
the injuries they sustained in the form of hospital bills were already
liquidated and were ascertained. 6% interest per annum and also
awarded attorneys fees equivalent to 30%. Respondents are
entitled to exemplary and moral damages. Claim of CDCP against
Phoenix had already prescribed.
The case filed by respondents against petitioner is an
action for culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict under Article 2176
In this regard, Article 2180 provides that the obligation
imposed by Article 2176 is demandable for the acts or omissions of
those persons for whom one is responsible.
Consequently, an action based on quasi-delict may be
instituted against the employer for an employees act or
omission. The liability for the negligent conduct of the subordinate
is directand primary, but is subject to the defense of due diligence in
the selection and supervision of the employee.
TC and CA> solidarily liable with BLTB for the actual
damages suffered by respondents because of the injuries they
sustained. It was established that Payunan, Jr. was driving
recklessly because of the skid marks as shown in the sketch of the
police investigator.
SC> affirmed with modification

and paid to tend for the carabaos. He, at the time of the goring, is
the possessor and the user of the carabao and therefore he is the
one who had custody and control of the animal and was in
a position to prevent the animal from causing damage. It would have
been different had Afialda been a stranger. Obviously, it was the
caretakers business to try to prevent the animal from causing injury
or damage to anyone, including himself. And being injured by the
animal under those circumstances was one of the risks of the
occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must
take the consequences.
This action could have been more appropriately raised in court
under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act as the risk
involve was one of occupational hazards.
Ilusorio vs CA
FACTS:
Ilusorio was a businessman who was in charge of 20 or so
corporations. He was a depositor in good standing of Manila
Banking Corporation. As he was in charge of a big number
of corporations, he was usually out of the country for
business. He then entrusted his credit cards, checkbook,
blank checks, passbooks, etc to his secretary, Katherine
Eugenio. Eugenio was also in charge of verifying and
reconciling the statements of Ilusorios checking account.

Eugenio was able to encash and deposit to her personal

account checks drawn against Ilusorios account with an
aggregate amount of 119K. Ilusorio didnt bother to check
his statement of account until a business partner informed
him that he saw Eugenio using his credit cards. Ilusorio then
fired her and instituted criminal case of Estafa thru
falsification against Eugenio. Manila Banking Corp. also
instituted a complaint of estafa against Eugenio based on
the affidavit of Dante Razon, an employee. Razon stated
that he personally examined and scrutinized the encashed
checks in accordance with their verification procedures.

Manila Bank sought the expertise of NBI in determining the

genuineness of the checks but Ilusorio failed to submit
specimen signatures and thus, NBI could not conduct the
examination.

Margarita Afialda vs Basilio Hisole et al

85 Phil 67 Civil Law Torts and Damages Liability of possessors
or users of animals Assumption of Risk
Loreto Afialda was a caretaker of the carabaos owned by Basilio
Hisole. In March 1947, without any fault from Afialda or any force
majeure, one of the carabaos gored him thereby causing his death.
Afialdas sister, Margarita Afialda, sued Hisole arguing that under the
Civil Code, The possessor of an animal, or the one who uses the
same, is liable for any damages it may cause, even if such animal
should escape from him or stray away. This liability shall cease only
in case, the damage should arise fromforce majeure or from the fault
of the person who may have suffered it.
ISSUE: Whether or not Hisole is liable in the case at bar as owner of
the carabao which killed Afialda.
HELD: No. The law uses the term possessor and user of the
animal. Afialda was the caretaker of the animal and he was tasked

Issue: W/N Manila Bank is liable for damages for failing to

detect a forged check

Held:

No. To be entitled to damages, Ilusorio has the burden of

poving that the bank was negligent in failing to detect the
discrepancy in the signatures on the checks. Ilusorio had to
establish the fact of forgery which he failed to do by failing
to submit his specimen signatures for NBI to conclusively
establish forgery.

Furthermore, the Bank was not negligent in verifying the

checks as they verified the drawers signatures against their
specimen signatures and in doubt, referred to more
experienced verifier for further verification.

On the contrary, it was Ilusorio who was found to be

negligent. He accorded his secretary with an unusual
degree of trust and unrestricted access to his finances.
Furthermore, despite the fact that the bank was regularly
sending statements of account, he failed to check them
until he found out that his secretary was using his credit
cards.

Sec. 23 of the Negotiable Instruments law provides that a

forged check is inoperative, meaning there was no right to
enforce payment against any party. But it also provides an
exception: unless the party against whom it is sought
enforce such right is precluded from setting up the forgery
or want of authority. This case falls under the exception
since Ilusorio is precluded from setting up forgery due to his
own negligence considering that he allowed his secretary
access to his credit cards, checkbook, and allowed his
secretary to verify his statements of account.