Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2180)
DOCTRINE OF IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE
aka
xxx
xxx
only
the
the
was
Considering
the
motion
for
reconsideration filed by the defendants
on January 14, 1965 and after
thoroughly examining the arguments
therein contained, the Court finds the
same to be meritorious and wellfounded.
WHEREFORE, the Order of this Court on
December
8,
1964
is
hereby
reconsidered by ordering the dismissal
of the above entitled case. SO
ORDERED.
Quezon City, Philippines, January 29,
1965. (p. 40, Record [p. 21, Record on
Appeal.)
Hence, this appeal where plaintiffs-appellants,
the spouses Elcano, are presenting for Our
resolution the following assignment of errors:
THE
LOWER
COURT
ERRED
IN
DISMISSING THE CASE BY UPHOLDING
THE CLAIM OF DEFENDANTS THAT I
THE PRESENT ACTION IS NOT ONLY
AGAINST BUT ALSO A VIOLATION OF
SECTION 1, RULE 107, NOW RULE 111,
OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT, AND
THAT SECTION 3(c) OF RULE 111, RULES
OF COURT IS APPLICABLE;
II
THE ACTION IS BARRED BY A PRIOR
JUDGMENT WHICH IS NOW FINAL OR
RES-ADJUDICTA;
III
THE PRINCIPLES OF QUASI-DELICTS,
ARTICLES 2176 TO 2194 OF THE CIVIL
CODE, ARE INAPPLICABLE IN THE
INSTANT CASE; and
IV
THAT THE COMPLAINT STATES NO
CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT
MARVIN
HILL
BECAUSE
HE
WAS
RELIEVED AS GUARDIAN OF THE OTHER
DEFENDANT THROUGH EMANCIPATION
BY MARRIAGE. (page 4, Record.)
It appears that for the killing of the son,
Agapito, of plaintiffs-appellants, defendantappellee
Reginald
Hill
was
prosecuted
criminally in Criminal Case No. 5102 of the
Court of First Instance of Quezon City. After due
trial, he was acquitted on the ground that his
act was not criminal because of "lack of intent
to kill, coupled with mistake." Parenthetically,
none of the parties has favored Us with a copy
of the decision of acquittal, presumably
because appellants do not dispute that such
indeed was the basis stated in the court's
decision. And so, when appellants filed their
complaint against appellees Reginald and his
father, Atty. Marvin Hill, on account of the
death of their son, the appellees filed the
motion to dismiss above-referred to.
As We view the foregoing background of this
case, the two decisive issues presented for Our
resolution are:
1. Is the present civil action for damages
barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the
criminal case wherein the action for civil
liability, was not reversed?
2. May Article 2180 (2nd and last paragraphs)
of the Civil Code he applied against Atty. Hill,
notwithstanding the undisputed fact that at
the time of the occurrence complained of.
Reginald, though a minor, living with and
3 | Vicarious Liability
his
father,
was
SYLLABUS
1. MASTER AND SERVANT; NEGLIGENCE OF
SERVANT; PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE OF
EMPLOYER. Under article 1903 of the Civil
Code, if an injury is caused by the negligence
of a servant or employee the law presumes
that there was negligence on the part of the
master or employer either in the selection of
the servant or employee or in supervision over
him after the selection, or both.
of
Adoption.
11 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
The
1.
CIVIL LAW; QUASI DELICT; LIABILITY OF
PARENTS FOR CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM
CRIMINAL OFFENSES COMMITTED BY THEIR
MINOR CHILDREN; RULE. The parents are
and should be held primarily liable for the civil
liability
arising
from
criminal
offenses
committed by their minor children under their
legal authority or control, or who live in their
company, unless it is proven that the former
acted with the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent such damages. That primary
liability is premised on the provisions of Article
101 of the Revised Penal Code with respect to
damages ex delicto caused by their children 9
years of age or under, or over 9 but under 15
years of age who acted without discernment;
and, with regard to their children over 9 but
under 15 years of age who acted with
discernment, or 15 years or over but under 21
years of age, such primary liability shall be
imposed pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil
Code.
Under
said
Article
2180,
the
enforcement of such liability shall be effected
against the father and, in case of his death or
incapacity, the mother. This was amplified by
the Child and Youth Welfare Code which
provides that the same shall devolve upon the
father and, in case of his death or incapacity,
upon the mother or, in case of her death or
incapacity, upon the guardian, but the liability
may also be voluntarily assumed by a relative
or family friend of the youthful offender.
However, under the Family Code, this civil
liability is now, without such alternative
qualification, the responsibility of the parents
and those who exercise parental authority over
the minor offender. For civil liability arising
from quasi-delicts committed by minors, the
same rules shall apply in accordance with
2.
3.
family
child
of the
child.
duties
"ARTICLE 101.
Rules
liability in certain cases.
x
regarding
civil
19 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
B.
OWNERS
&
ESTABLISHMENTS
MANAGERS
of
JOSE
CANGCO, plaintiff-appellant, vs.
MANILA RAILROAD CO., defendant-appellee.
FISHER, J.:
At the time of the occurrence which gave rise
to this litigation the plaintiff, Jose Cangco, was
in the employment of Manila Railroad
Company in the capacity of clerk, with a
monthly wage of P25. He lived in the pueblo of
San Mateo, in the province of Rizal, which is
located upon the line of the defendant railroad
company; and in coming daily by train to the
company's office in the city of Manila where he
worked, he used a pass, supplied by the
company, which entitled him to ride upon the
company's trains free of charge. Upon the
occasion in question, January 20, 1915, the
plaintiff arose from his seat in the second
class-car where he was riding and, making, his
exit through the door, took his position upon
the steps of the coach, seizing the upright
guardrail with his right hand for support.
On the side of the train where passengers
alight at the San Mateo station there is a
cement platform which begins to rise with a
moderate gradient some distance away from
the company's office and extends along in
front of said office for a distance sufficient to
cover the length of several coaches. As the
train slowed down another passenger, named
Emilio Zuiga, also an employee of the railroad
company, got off the same car, alighting safely
at the point where the platform begins to rise
from the level of the ground. When the train
had proceeded a little farther the plaintiff Jose
Cangco stepped off also, but one or both of his
feet came in contact with a sack of
watermelons with the result that his feet
slipped from under him and he fell violently on
the platform. His body at once rolled from the
platform and was drawn under the moving car,
where his right arm was badly crushed and
lacerated. It appears that after the plaintiff
alighted from the train the car moved forward
possibly six meters before it came to a full
stop.
20 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
24 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
27 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
by
for
for
is
FILIPINAS
BROADCASTING
NETWORK,
INC., petitioner, vs. AGO MEDICAL AND
EDUCATIONAL CENTER-BICOL CHRISTIAN
COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, (AMEC-BCCM) and
ANGELITA F. AGO, respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This petition for review1 assails the 4 January
1999 Decision2 and 26 January 2000 Resolution
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
40151. The Court of Appeals affirmed with
modification
the
14
December
1992
Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi
City, Branch 10, in Civil Case No. 8236. The
Court of Appeals held Filipinas Broadcasting
Network,
Inc.
and
its
broadcasters
Hermogenes Alegre and Carmelo Rima liable
for libel and ordered them to solidarily pay Ago
Medical and Educational Center-Bicol Christian
College of Medicine moral damages, attorneys
fees and costs of suit.
The Antecedents
"Expos" is a radio documentary 4 program
hosted by Carmelo Mel Rima ("Rima") and
Hermogenes Jun Alegre ("Alegre"). 5 Expos is
aired every morning over DZRC-AM which is
owned by Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc.
("FBNI"). "Expos" is heard over Legazpi City,
the Albay municipalities and other Bicol areas. 6
In the morning of 14 and 15 December 1989,
Rima and Alegre exposed various alleged
complaints from students, teachers and
parents against Ago Medical and Educational
29 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
xxx
On the other hand, the administrators of
AMEC-BCCM, AMEC Science High School
and
the
AMEC-Institute
of
Mass
Communication in their effort to minimize
expenses in terms of salary are absorbing
or continues to accept "rejects". For
example how many teachers in AMEC are
former teachers of Aquinas University but were
removed because of immorality? Does it mean
that the present administration of AMEC have
the total definite moral foundation from
catholic administrator of Aquinas University. I
will prove to you my friends, that AMEC is a
dumping ground, garbage, not merely of
moral and physical misfits. Probably they
only qualify in terms of intellect. The Dean of
Student Affairs of AMEC is Justita Lola, as the
family name implies. She is too old to work,
being an
old woman. Is the AMEC
administration
exploiting
the
very
[e]nterprising
or
compromising
and
undemanding Lola? Could it be that AMEC is
just patiently making use of Dean Justita Lola
were if she is very old. As in atmospheric
situation zero visibility the plane cannot
land, meaning she is very old, low pay follows.
By the way, Dean Justita Lola is also the
chairman of the committee on scholarship in
AMEC. She had retired from Bicol University a
long time ago but AMEC has patiently made
use of her.
xxx
MEL RIMA:
xxx My friends based on the expose, AMEC is a
dumping ground for moral and physically misfit
people. What does this mean? Immoral and
physically misfits as teachers.
May I say Im sorry to Dean Justita Lola. But
this is the truth. The truth is this, that your are
no longer fit to teach. You are too old. As an
aviation, your case is zero visibility. Dont
insist.
xxx Why did AMEC still absorb her as a
teacher, a dean, and chairman of the
30 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
13
(Emphasis supplied)
31 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
BROADCASTS
ARE
OF
questioned
broadcasts
are not based
on established facts. The record supports
the following findings of the trial court:
xxx Although defendants claim that they were
motivated by consistent reports of students
and parents against plaintiff, yet, defendants
have not presented in court, nor even gave
name of a single student who made the
complaint to them, much less present written
complaint or petition to that effect. To accept
this defense of defendants is too dangerous
because it could easily give license to the
media to malign people and establishments
based on flimsy excuses that there were
reports to them although they could not
satisfactorily establish it. Such laxity would
encourage
careless
and
irresponsible
broadcasting which is inimical to public
interests.
Secondly, there is reason to believe that
defendant radio broadcasters, contrary to the
mandates of their duties, did not verify and
analyze the truth of the reports before they
aired it, in order to prove that they are in good
faith.
Alegre contended that plaintiff school had no
permit and is not accredited to offer Physical
Therapy courses. Yet, plaintiff produced a
certificate coming from DECS that as of Sept.
22, 1987 or more than 2 years before the
controversial broadcast, accreditation to offer
Physical Therapy course had already been
given the plaintiff, which certificate is signed
by no less than the Secretary of Education and
Culture herself, Lourdes R. Quisumbing (Exh.
C-rebuttal). Defendants could have easily
known this were they careful enough to verify.
And yet, defendants were very categorical and
sounded too positive when they made the
erroneous report that plaintiff had no permit to
offer Physical Therapy courses which they
were offering.
The allegation that plaintiff was getting
tremendous aids from foreign foundations like
Mcdonald Foundation prove not to be true also.
The truth is there is no Mcdonald Foundation
existing. Although a big building of plaintiff
school was given the name Mcdonald building,
that was only in order to honor the first
missionary in Bicol of plaintiffs religion, as
explained by Dr. Lita Ago. Contrary to the
claim of defendants over the air, not a single
centavo appears to be received by plaintiff
school from the aforementioned McDonald
Foundation which does not exist.
and inaccurate
and
misleading
information. x x x Furthermore, the
station shall strive to present balanced
discussion of issues. x x x.
xxx
7. The station shall be responsible at all
times in the supervision of public affairs,
public issues and commentary programs
so that they conform to the provisions
and standards of this code.
8. It shall be the responsibility of the
newscaster, commentator, host and
announcer to protect public interest,
general welfare and good order in the
presentation of public affairs and public
issues.36 (Emphasis supplied)
The broadcasts fail to meet the standards
prescribed in the Radio Code, which lays down
the code of ethical conduct governing
practitioners in the radio broadcast industry.
The Radio Code is a voluntary code of conduct
imposed by the radio broadcast industry on its
own members. The Radio Code is a public
warranty by the radio broadcast industry that
radio broadcast practitioners are subject to a
code by which their conduct are measured for
lapses, liability and sanctions.
The public has a right to expect and demand
that radio broadcast practitioners live up to the
code of conduct of their profession, just like
other professionals. A professional code of
conduct
provides
the
standards
for
determining whether a person has acted justly,
honestly and with good faith in the exercise of
his rights and performance of his duties as
required by Article 1937 of the Civil Code. A
professional code of conduct also provides the
standards for determining whether a person
who willfully causes loss or injury to another
has acted in a manner contrary to morals or
good customs under Article 2138 of the Civil
Code.
II.
Whether AMEC is entitled to moral damages
FBNI contends that AMEC is not entitled to
moral damages because it is a corporation. 39
A juridical person is generally not entitled to
moral damages because, unlike a natural
person, it cannot experience physical suffering
or such sentiments as wounded feelings,
November 27,
SPS.
BUENAVENTURA
JAYME
AND
ROSARIO
JAYME, petitioners,
vs.
RODRIGO
APOSTOL,
FIDEL
LOZANO,
ERNESTO SIMBULAN, MAYOR FERNANDO
Q.
MIGUEL,
MUNICIPALITY
OF
KORONADAL (NOW CITY OF KORONADAL),
PROVINCE
OF
SOUTH
COTABATO,
represented
by
the
MUNICIPAL
TREASURER and/or MUNICIPAL MAYOR
FERNANDO Q. MIGUEL, and THE FIRST
INTEGRATED BONDING AND INSURANCE
COMPANY, INC., respondents.
DECISION
REYES, R.T., J.:
39 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
exemplary damages,
litigation expenses.
attorney's
fees,
and
40 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
MERCURY
DRUG
CORPORATION
and
ROLANDO J. DEL ROSARIO, petitioners, vs.
SPOUSES RICHARD HUANG and CARMEN
HUANG,
and
STEPHEN
HUANG, respondents.
DECISION
PUNO, C.J.:
On appeal are the Decision1 and Resolution2 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 83981,
dated February 16, 2006 and March 30, 2006,
respectively which affirmed with modification
the Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Makati City, dated September 29, 2004. The
trial court found petitioners jointly and
severally liable to pay respondents damages
for the injuries sustained by respondent
Stephen Huang, son of respondent spouses
Richard and Carmen Huang.
First, the facts:
Petitioner Mercury Drug Corporation (Mercury
Drug) is the registered owner of a six-wheeler
1990 Mitsubishi Truck with plate number PRE
641 (truck). It has in its employ petitioner
Rolando J. del Rosario as driver. Respondent
spouses Richard and Carmen Huang are the
parents of respondent Stephen Huang and own
the red 1991 Toyota Corolla GLI Sedan with
plate number PTT 775 (car).
These two vehicles figured in a road accident
on December 20, 1996 at around 10:30 p.m.
within the municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila.
Respondent Stephen Huang was driving the
car, weighing 1,450 kg., while petitioner Del
Rosario was driving the truck, weighing 14,058
kg. Both were traversing the C-5 Highway,
north bound, coming from the general
direction of Alabang going to Pasig City. The
car was on the left innermost lane while the
truck was on the next lane to its right, when
the truck suddenly swerved to its left and
slammed into the front right side of the car.
The collision hurled the car over the island
where it hit a lamppost, spun around and
landed on the opposite lane. The truck also hit
a lamppost, ran over the car and zigzagged
towards, and finally stopped in front of Buellah
Land Church.
At the time of the accident, petitioner Del
Rosario only had a Traffic Violation Receipt
(TVR).
His
drivers
license
had
been
as
as
EMPLOYEES
EVIDENCE
COMPANY;
DESPITE
PRESENTED
OVERWHELMING
BY
PETITIONER
45 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
WITNESS:
Yes, sir, about that distance.
ATTY. DIAZ:
And this was despite the fact that you were
only traveling at the speed of seventy five
kilometers per hour, jumped over the island,
hit the lamppost, and traveled the three lanes
of the opposite lane of C-5 highway, is that
what you want to impress upon this court?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.10
We therefore find no cogent reason to disturb
the findings of the RTC and the Court of
Appeals. The evidence proves petitioner Del
Rosarios negligence as the direct and
proximate cause of the injuries suffered by
respondent Stephen Huang. Petitioner Del
Rosario failed to do what a reasonable and
prudent man would have done under the
circumstances.
We now come to the liability of petitioner
Mercury Drug as employer of Del Rosario.
Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code
provide:
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed
by the provisions of this Chapter.
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by article
2176 is demandable not only for ones own
acts or omissions, but also for those of persons
for whom one is responsible.
xxx
The owners and managers of an establishment
or enterprise are likewise responsible for
damages caused by their employees in the
service of the branches in which the latter are
employed or on the occasion of their functions.
xxx
The liability of the employer under Art. 2180 of
the Civil Code is direct or immediate. It is not
conditioned on a prior recourse against the
negligent employee, or a prior showing of
insolvency of such employee. It is also joint
and solidary with the employee.11
To be relieved of liability, petitioner Mercury
Drug should show that it exercised the
46 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
C. STATE
G.R. No. L-11154
E.
MERRITT, plaintiff-appellant, vs.
GOVERNMENT
OF
THE
PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS, defendant-appellant.
TRENT, J.:
This is an appeal by both parties from a
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
city of Manila in favor of the plaintiff for the
sum of P14,741, together with the costs of the
cause.
Counsel for the plaintiff insist that the trial
court erred (1) "in limiting the general
damages which the plaintiff suffered to P5,000,
instead of P25,000 as claimed in the
complaint," and (2) "in limiting the time when
plaintiff was entirely disabled to two months
and twenty-one days and fixing the damage
accordingly in the sum of P2,666, instead of
P6,000 as claimed by plaintiff in his
complaint."
The Attorney-General on behalf of the
defendant urges that the trial court erred: (a)
in finding that the collision between the
plaintiff's motorcycle and the ambulance of the
General Hospital was due to the negligence of
the chauffeur; (b) in holding that the
Government of the Philippine Islands is liable
for the damages sustained by the plaintiff as a
result of the collision, even if it be true that the
collision was due to the negligence of the
chauffeur; and (c) in rendering judgment
against the defendant for the sum of P14,741.
The trial court's findings of fact, which are fully
supported by the record, are as follows:
It is a fact not disputed by counsel for
the defendant that when the plaintiff,
riding on a motorcycle, was going
toward the western part of Calle Padre
Faura, passing along the west side
thereof at a speed of ten to twelve miles
an hour, upon crossing Taft Avenue and
when he was ten feet from the
southwestern
intersection
of
said
streets,
the
General
Hospital
ambulance, upon reaching said avenue,
instead of turning toward the south,
after passing the center thereof, so that
it would be on the left side of said
avenue, as is prescribed by the
ordinance and the Motor Vehicle Act,
turned suddenly and unexpectedly and
long before reaching the center of the
street, into the right side of Taft Avenue,
without having sounded any whistle or
49 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
50 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
INOCENCIO
ROSETE, petitioner, vs.
AUDITOR GENERAL, respondent.
FERIA, J.:
54 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
xxx
xxx
THE
In the case of Merritt vs. Government of the
Philippine Islands (34 Phil., 311), this Court
held the following:
xxx
xxx
PARAS, J.:
In G.R. No. L-55963, the petition for review on
certiorari seeks the affirmance of the decision
dated March 20, 1980 of the then Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch VIII, at San
Jose City and its modification with respect to
the denial of petitioner's claim for moral and
exemplary damages and attorneys fees.
In G.R. No. 61045, respondent National
Irrigation Administration seeks the reversal of
the aforesaid decision of the lower court. The
original appeal of this case before the Court of
Appeals was certified to this Court and in the
resolution of July 7, 1982, it was docketed with
the aforecited number. And in the resolution of
April 3, this case was consolidated with G.R.
No. 55963.
It appears that on August 21, 1976 at about
6:30 P.M., a pickup owned and operated by
respondent National Irrigation Administration,
a government agency bearing Plate No. IN651, then driven officially by Hugo Garcia, an
employee of said agency as its regular driver,
bumped a bicycle ridden by Francisco
Fontanilla, son of herein petitioners, and
Restituto Deligo, at Maasin, San Jose City along
the Maharlika Highway. As a result of the
impact, Francisco Fontanilla and Restituto
Deligo were injured and brought to the San
Jose City Emergency Hospital for treatment.
Fontanilla was later transferred to the
Cabanatuan Provincial Hospital where he died.
Garcia was then a regular driver of respondent
National Irrigation Administration who, at the
time of the accident, was a licensed
professional driver and who qualified for
employment as such regular driver of
respondent after having passed the written
and oral examinations on traffic rules and
maintenance of vehicles given by National
Irrigation Administration authorities.
The within petition is thus an off-shot of the
action (Civil Case No. SJC-56) instituted by
petitioners-spouses on April 17, 1978 against
D. TEACHERS &
ESTABLISHMENTS
HEADS
OF
ACADEMICS
61 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
Lastly,
teachers
or
heads
of
establishments of arts and trades shall
be liable for damages caused by their
pupils and students or apprentices so
long as they remain in their custody.
particular.
The
modifying
clause
"of
establishments of arts and trades" should
apply only to "heads" and not "teachers."
Exconde was reiterated in the Mercado Case,
and with an elaboration. A student cut a
classmate with a razor blade during recess
time at the Lourdes Catholic School in Quezon
City, and the parents of the victim sued the
culprits parents for damages. Through Justice
Labrador, the Court declared in another obiter
(as the school itself had also not been sued
that the school was not liable because it was
not an establishment of arts and trades.
Moreover, the custody requirement had not
been proved as this "contemplates a situation
where the student lives and boards with the
teacher, such that the control, direction and
influences on the pupil supersede those of the
parents." Justice J.B.L. Reyes did not take part
but the other members of the court concurred
in this decision promulgated on May 30, 1960.
In Palisoc vs. Brillantes, decided on October 4,
1971, a 16-year old student was killed by a
classmate with fist blows in the laboratory of
the Manila Technical Institute. Although the
wrongdoer who was already of age was
not boarding in the school, the head thereof
and the teacher in charge were held solidarily
liable with him. The Court declared through
Justice Teehankee:
The phrase used in the cited article
"so long as (the students) remain in
their custody" means the protective
and supervisory custody that the school
and its heads and teachers exercise
over the pupils and students for as long
as they are at attendance in the school,
including recess time. There is nothing
in the law that requires that for such
liability to attach, the pupil or student
who commits the tortious act must live
and board in the school, as erroneously
held by the lower court, and the dicta in
Mercado (as well as in Exconde) on
which it relied, must now be deemed to
have been set aside by the present
decision.
This decision was concurred in by five other
members, 10 including Justice J.B.L. Reyes, who
stressed, in answer to the dissenting opinion,
that even students already of age were
covered by the provision since they were
equally in the custody of the school and
subject to its discipline. Dissenting with three
others, 11 Justice Makalintal was for retaining
the custody interpretation in Mercado and
63 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
academic
ones.
What
substantial
difference is there between them insofar
as concerns the proper supervision and
vice over their pupils? It cannot be
seriously contended that an academic
teacher is exempt from the duty of
watching that his pupils do not commit a
tort to the detriment of third Persons, so
long as they are in a position to exercise
authority and Supervision over the pupil.
In my opinion, in the phrase "teachers or
heads of establishments of arts and
trades" used in Art. 1903 of the old Civil
Code, the words "arts and trades" does
not qualify "teachers" but only "heads of
establishments." The phrase is only an
updated version of the equivalent terms
"preceptores y artesanos" used in the
Italian and French Civil Codes.
68 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
February 6,
ST.
MARY'S
ACADEMY, petitioner, vs.
WILLIAM CARPITANOS and LUCIA S.
CARPITANOS, GUADA DANIEL, JAMES
DANIEL
II,
JAMES
DANIEL,
71 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
ST.
FRANCIS
HIGH
SCHOOL,
as
represented by SPS. FERNANDO NANTES
AND ROSARIO LACANDULA, BENJAMIN
ILUMIN, TIRSO DE CHAVEZ, LUISITO
VINAS, CONNIE ARQUIO AND PATRIA
CADIZ, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
ELEVENTH DIVISION and DR. ROMULO
CASTILLO and LILIA CADIZ, respondents.
PARAS, J.:
This is a petition for review of the decision * of
the Court of Appeals, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
WHEREFORE, the decision under appeal
is hereby affirmed, with the following
modifications: (1) Exemplary damages
in the amount of P20,000.00 are hereby
awarded to plaintiffs, in addition to the
actual damages of P30,000.00, moral
damages of P20,000.00 and attorney's
fees in the amount of P15,000.00
awarded to plaintiffs in the decision
under appeal; (2) St. Francis High
School, represented by the Spouses
Fernando Nantes and Rosario Lacandula,
74 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
exemplary damages,
expenses for litigation.
attorney's
fees
and
xxx
xxx
Dr. Lazaro
on
cross
xxx
xxx
Luisito
Vinas
on
cross
Tirso
de
Chavez
on
direct
ATTY. FLORES:
Q Who actually applied the first aid or
artificial respiration to the child?
A Myself, sir.
Q How did you apply the first aid to the
guy?
A The first step that I took, with the help
of Mr. Luisito Vinas, was I applied back
to back pressure and took notice of the
condition of the child. We placed the
feet in a higher position, that of the
head of the child, sir.
Q After you have placed the boy in that
particular position, where the feet were
on a higher level than that of the head,
what did you do next?
A The first thing that we did, particularly
myself, was that after putting the child
in that position, I applied the back to
back pressure and started to massage
from the waistline up, but I noticed that
the boy was not responding, sir.
Q For how long did you apply this back
to back pressure on the boy?
A About 10 seconds, sir.
Q What about Mr. Vinas?
A Almost the same a little longer, for 15
seconds, sir.
Q After you noticed that the boy was not
responding, what did you do?
A When we noticed that the boy was not
responding, we changed the position of
the boy by placing the child facing
BAUTISTA
and
BAUTISTA, respondents.
ARSENIA
D.
PADILLA, J.:
With these facts in mind, no moral nor
exemplary damages may be awarded in favor
of respondents-spouses. The case at bar does
not fall under any of the grounds to grant
moral damages.
Art. 2217. Moral Damages include
physical suffering, mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury. Though incapable of pecuniary
computation, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate
result of the defendant's wrongful act or
omission.
Moreover, as already pointed out hereinabove,
petitioners are not guilty of any fault or
negligence, hence, no moral damages can be
assessed against them.
While it is true that respondents-spouses did
give their consent to their son to join the
picnic, this does not mean that the petitioners
were already relieved of their duty to observe
the required diligence of a good father of a
family in ensuring the safety of the children.
But in the case at bar, petitioners were able to
prove that they had exercised the required
diligence. Hence, the claim for moral or
exemplary damages becomes baseless.
PREMISES
CONSIDERED,
the
questioned
decision dated November 19, 1987, finding
petitioners herein guilty of negligence and
liable for the death of Ferdinand Castillo and
awarding the respondents damages, is hereby
SET ASIDE insofar as the petitioners herein are
concerned, but the portion of the said decision
dismissing their counterclaim, there being no
merit, is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 84698 February 4, 1992
PHILIPPINE
SCHOOL
OF
BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION, JUAN D. LIM, BENJAMIN
P. PAULINO, ANTONIO M. MAGTALAS, COL.
PEDRO
SACRO
and
LT.
M.
SORIANO, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. REGINA
ORDOEZ-BENITEZ, in her capacity as
Presiding Judge of Branch 47, Regional
Trial
Court,
Manila,
SEGUNDA
R.
80 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y
to
deny
the
petitioners'
motion
reconsideration. Hence, this petition.
for
83 | V i c a r i o u s L i a b i l i t y