ADRIANO

 Guillermo Adriano entrusted the original copy of his TCT to Angelina Salvador, a distant
relative, for the purpose of securing a loan.
 Without his knowledge and consent, Angelina mortgaged the property to respondent
Romulo Pangilinan.
 Upon verification of the status of his title with the RD, Adriano was surprised to discover
the annotation of a real estate mortgage on his TCT in favor of respondent.

 Defense of Pangilinan:
- He was a businessman engaged in buying, selling and mortgage of properties
- Salvador and Adriano himself went to his house inquiring how to secure a loan over
a parcel of land
- There is a principal-agent relationship between Salvador and Adriano because the
latter voluntarily entrusted the TCT to the former

Issue: Whether or not petitioner was negligent in entrusting and delivering his TCT to a relative
who was supposed to help him find a money lender; and if so, was such negligence sufficient to
deprive him of his property

HELD: NO
 It was proven in this case that the signature of the mortgagor has been forged and that
an impostor had pretended to be the former when the mortgagee made an ocular
inspection of the subject property.

 Respondent Pangilinan was not an “innocent purchaser for value”. He failed to observe
the diligence of a person engaged in the real estate business: he is expected to
ascertain the status and condition of the properties offered to him as collateral as well as
to verify the identities of the persons he transacts business with.

 Petitioner Adriano’s act of entrusting and delivering his TCT to Salvador was only for the
purpose of helping him find a money lender. Not having executed a power of attorney in
her favor, he clearly did not authorize her to be his agent in procuring the mortgage.

 Assuming both parties are negligent, respondent should still bear the loss since his
superior knowledge of the matter should have made him more cautious with regard to
the loan and the mortgage. Respondent’s own negligence was the primary, immediate
and overriding reason of his predicament

CITY OF MANILA

 The burial lot of Vivencio Sto. Domingo, Lot No. 159 in North Cemetery, was leased by
the City of Manila to Vivencio’s spouse, Irene, for a period of 50 years commencing on
06 June 1971.
 By virtue of Administrative order No. 5, the City of Manila prescribed a uniform procedure
for the use and disposition of burial lots within North Cemetery.
 The said order allowed the exhumation and removal from the burial lot of Vivencio’s
remains. The said lot was rented out to another lessee
  Irene only discovered that Vivencio’s remains were no longer in the said burial lot when
she visited the grave on All Soul’s Day. She was, instead, told to find the remains of his
husband from the piles of bones in the cemetery’s warehouse
 Irene filed a complaint for damages against the City of Manila

 City of Manila’s defense: immune from tort liability because it is a political subdivision
 Irene’s argument: City of Manila entered into a contract of lease, an exercise of
proprietary function. Thus, it can be sued for violation of contract

ISSUE: Whether or not the City of Manila is liable for the acts committed by its agent

HELD: YES
 Settled is the rule that with respect to proprietary functions, a unicial corporation may be
held liable to third persons ex contractu.
 The AO which prescribes a 5-year period for lease contracts only covers new leases.
The lease contract for 50 years between Irene and the City of Manila was still in full force
and effect when the remains of Vivencio were exhumed.
 Therefore, the City of Manila is liable for its agent’s failure to verify and check the
duration of the contract of lease.

SMITH BELL
FACTS:

 Smith Bell filed a written request with the Bureau of Customs for the attendance of the
latter’s inspection team on vessel M/T King Family upon its arrival in Manila
 Catalino Borja was instructed by the Supervising Customs Inspector board said vessel
and perform inspector duties.
 The vessel contained 750 metric tons of alkyl benzene and methyl methacrylate
monomer.
 While the vessel was unloading chemicals unto 2 barges owned by ITTC, a sudden
explosion occurred setting the vessel on fire. Borja went outside his cabin to check what
happened. Another explosion was heard.
 Borja hurriedly jumped over board to save himself but the water was also on fire
because of the spilled chemicals. He was only rescued after he swam his way for 1 hour
 Borja was diagnosed to be permanently disabled due to the incident. He demanded
against Smith Bell and ITTC for the damages caused by the explosion

ISSUE:
Whether or not Smith Bell should be held liable for Borja’s injuries

HELD: YES
 Smith was negligent. While knowing that their vessel as carrying dangerous inflammable
chemicals, Smith Bell’s officers and crew failed to take all necessary precautions to
prevent an accident.
 The owner or the person in possession and control of a vessel are liable for all natural
and proximate damage caused to persons and property by reason of negligent
management and navigation.
ONG
FACTS:
Defendant Metropolitan Water District (MWD) owns and operates three recreational swimming pools.
The care and supervision of the pools and the users is entrusted to a recreational section composed of a
chief, nurse and lifeguards who have taken life-saving course.
For the safety of its patrons, MWD has provided the pools with a ring buoy, toy roof, towing line, saving kit
and a resuscitator. There is also a sanitary inspector in charge of a clinic. The list of rules and regulations
are displayed in conspicuous places.

Dominador Ong, the son of the plaintiff spouses, swam with his brothers. Dominador later told his
brothers that he will go to the locker room to drink Coke. The brothers did not notice Dominador actually
go to the locker room.

The lifeguard on duty received a report that someone ws swimming in the bigger pool for quite a long
time. When the lifeguard went there, he retrieved the dead body of Dominador.

Plaintiff spouses filed a petition for damages against MWD

ISSUE: Whether or not Dominador’s death can be attributed to the negligence of MWD and/or its
employees so as to entitle the plaintiff spouses to recover damages

HELD: NO
The owners of resorts to which people generally are expressive or by implication invited are legally bound
to exercise ordinary care and prudence in the management and maintenance of such resorts, to the end
of making then reasonably safe for visitors.
Proprietor of a natatorium is liable for injuries resulting from lack of ordinary care in providing safey but it
is not an insurer of the patrons’ safety.
Evidence sufficiently proves that MWD has taken necessary measures to avod danger to the lives of its
patrons.
The doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable where the party charged is required to act
instantaneously and if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand, as in this
case.

PHILIPPINE RAILWAY
FACTS:
At about 3AM, Reynaldo Vizcara was driving a jeep towards Bicol to deliver onion crops with 5 other
companions.
While crossing the railroad track in Quezon, a PNR train, operated by respondent Estranas, suddenly
rammed the jeepney causing the death of Reynaldo and 3 of his companions. The other two named
Dominador and Joel sustained serious physical injuries.

At the time of the accident:

- No level crossing installed
- Stop, Look and Listen signage was poorly maintained
- Stop signage was faded
- Listen signage was partly blocked by another signboard

The 2 survivors and the heirs of the deceased instituted an action for damages against PNR, Estranas
and Ben Saga, the alternate driver of the train.

ISSUE: Whether or not the doctrine of last clear chance applies in this case (maybe the doctrine was
invoked by the petitioners)

HELD: NO
The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of
one is appreciably later in point of time than of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose
fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the last clear
opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequences arising
therefrom.
The proximate cause of the collision was the petitioner’s negligence in ensuring that motorists and
pedestrians alike may safely cross the railroad track.
The unsuspecting driver and passengers did not have no participation in the occurrence of the
unfortunate event; no overt act manifesting disregard for their own safety.

WALTER
FACTS:
In the course of its maneuvers to moor, the steamer belonging to Cadwallader Gibson struck Walter
Smith’s wharf partially demolishing it and throwing the timber piled thereon to the water.
Smith instituted an action to recover damages against Cadwallader
Trial court held that Cadwallader is not liable. Partial demolition of wharf was due to excessive weight of
timber piled.
Smith’s contention: negligence on the part of the captain of the ship/steamer

ISSUE: Whether or not Cadwallader is liable for damages

HELD: NO
In case of extra-contractual liability, as in this case, some fault personally imputable to the defendant must
exist. When an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee, there instantly arises a
presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer whether in the
selection of the servant or employee or in the supervision over him after selection.

This presumption, however, is juris tatum and not juris et de jure, and consequently may be rebutted. If
the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in the selection and supervision he has exercised
the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from
liablility.

The presumption is rebutted in this case since defendant presented evidence to the effect that the captain
and all the officers of the steamer were duly licensed and authorized to hold their positions. Moreover,
they were chosen for their reputed skill in directing and navigating the steamer, safely, carefully and
efficiently.

SERGIO
FACTS:
Sergio Amonoy was counsel for the respondents in a previous case involving the partition of estate.
The attorney’s fees amounted to Php27,000 which necessitated a mortgage on 2 lots.
The lots were foreclosed when the attorney’s fees were not paid.
One of the 2 lots sold in the public auction was the lot on which the respondent Gutierrez spouses had
their house.
Respondent spouses filed a case to annul the sale. It was decided in favor of the spouses when it
reached the SC.
However, the house of the spouses was already destroyed, by virtue of a Writ of Demolition issued by the
lower court, by the time of the SC promulgated the decision.
Respondents filed a complaint for damages against Amonoy.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is liable for damages

HELD: YES
Well-settled is thae maxim that damage resulting from the legitimate exercise of a person’s rights is a loss
without injury—damnum absque injuria—for which the law gives no remedy [One who merely exercises
one’s rights does no actionable injury and cannot be held liable for damages.
Damnum absque injuria is not applicable in the present case.
Although there was a Writ of Demolition issued, there was also a TRO issued by the SC enjoining the
demolition of the respondents’ house. Based on the Certificate of Service, a copy of the TRO was served
on petitioner himself.
The continuation of the demolition after the issuance of the TRO amounted to insidious abuse of right;
acts are tainted with bad faith. There was unlawful exercise of right.