Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Held:
Yes. Art 2180 NCC applies to all schools, academic or non- PASCO V CFI (ARANETA UNIVERSITY)
academic. Teachers are liable for acts of their student except 160 SCRA 785 PARAS; April 25, 1988
where the school is technical in nature (arts and trade
establishment) in which case the head thereof shall be NATURE
answerable. Petition for certiorari under RA5440 praying that judgment be
rendered setting aside the questioned order dismissing the
“There is really no substantial difference distinction between complaint as against the respondent school and denying the
the academic and non-academic schools in so far as torts reconsideration of the questioned order of dismissal.
committed by their students are concerned. The same
vigilance is expected from the teacher over the student under FACTS
their control and supervision, whatever the nature of the school - A group of students walking inside Araneta University were
where he is teaching”. “x x x x The distinction no longer obtains accosted and mauled by a group of Muslim students led by
at present. x x x “ Abdul Karin Madidis alias “Teng”. Petitioner (Reynaldo) was
subsequently stabbed by Teng requiring him to be hospitalized
The student is in the custody of the school authorities as long and to undergo surgery.
as he is under the control and influence of the school and - Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against Teng and
within its premises, whether the semester has not ended, or Arante University based on Art 2190 CC
has ended or has not yet begun. The term “custody” signifies - Respondent school filed a MTD claiming that the provision
that the student is within the control and influence of the school only applies to vocational schools and not to academic
authorities. The teacher in charge is the one designated by the institutions. They also claim that the civil liability in this case
arose from a crime, which they did not commit. Since it was a Ylarde, the concrete block caught him before he could get out,
civil case, respondent school claims that a demand should pinning him to the wall in a standing position. As a result
have been made by the plaintiff rendering it premature to bring thereof, Ylarde sustained injuries and died three (3) days later.
an action for damages against respondent school. MTD was
granted by the CA. Ylarde's parents, petitioners in this case, filed a suit for
- Petitioner mover to reconsider the Order of Dismissal. Motion damages against both private respondents Aquino and
was denied due to insufficient justification to disturb ruling. Soriano. The lower court dismissed the complaint on the
following grounds: (1) that the digging done by the pupils is in
ISSUE line with their course called Work Education; (2) that Aquino
WON the Art 2180 CC1 applies to academic institutions exercised the utmost diligence of a very cautious person; and
(3) that the demise of Ylarde was due to his own reckless
HELD imprudence.
It is unnecessary to answer the issue. What the petitioner
wants to know is WON the school or the university itself is ISSUE
liable. The answer is no since the provision speaks of WON whether or not under Article 2176 and Article 2180 of the
“teachers or heads” Civil Code, both private respondents can be held liable for
Dispositive damages.
WHEREFORE, this Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides:
YLARDE vs. AQUINO "Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
GANCAYCO; 1988 July 29 another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a
FACTS quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter."
Private respondent Mariano Soriano was the principal of the
Gabaldon Primary School and private respondent Edgardo On the other hand, the applicable provision of Article 2180
Aquino was a teacher therein. At that time, the school was states:
littered with several concrete blocks which were remnants of
the old school shop that was destroyed in World War II. "Art. 2180. . . .
Realizing that the huge stones were serious hazards to the
schoolchildren, another teacher by the name of Sergio Banez xxx xxx xxx
stated burying them all by himself.
"Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades
Deciding to help his colleague, private respondent Edgardo shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students
Aquino gathered eighteen of his male pupils, aged ten to or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody."
eleven. Being their teacher-in-charge, he ordered them to dig
beside a one-ton concrete block in order to make a hole HELD
wherein the stone can be buried. The work was left unfinished. Only Aquino, the teacher, is liable.
The following day, also after classes, private respondent Ratio: As regards the principal, We hold that he cannot be
Aquino called four of the original eighteen pupils to continue made responsible for the death of the child Ylarde, he being
the digging. These four pupils ---- Reynaldo Alonso, Fransico the head of an academic school and not a school of arts and
Alcantara, Ismael Abaga and Novelito Ylarde, dug until the trades.
excavation was one meter and forty centimeters deep. At this Reasoning:
point, private respondent Aquino alone continued digging while This is in line with the Court’s ruling in Amadora vs. Court of
the pupils remained inside the pit throwing out the loose soil Appeals, wherein this Court thoroughly discussed the doctrine
that was brought about by the digging. that under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, it is only the teacher
and not the head of an academic school who should be
When the depth was right enough to accommodate the answerable for torts committed by their students. This Court
concrete block, private respondent Aquino and his four pupils went on to say that in a school of arts and trades, it is only the
got out of the hole. Then, said private respondent left the head of the school who can be held liable.
children to level the loose soil around the open hole while he Ratio: Private respondent Aquino can be held liable under
went to see Banez who was about thirty meters away. Private Article 2180 of the Civil Code as the teacher-in-charge of the
respondent wanted to borrow from Banez the key to the school children for being negligent in his supervision over them and
workroom where he could get some rope. Before leaving, his failure to take the necessary precautions to prevent any
private respondent Aquino allegedly told the children "not to injury on their persons.
touch the stone." Reasoning:
(1) failed to avail himself of services of adult manual laborers
A few minutes after private respondent Aquino left, three of the and instead utilized his pupils aged ten to eleven to make an
four kids, Alonso, Alcantara and Ylarde, playfully jumped into excavation near the one-ton concrete stone which he knew to
the pit. Then, without any warning at all, the remaining Abaga be a very hazardous task;
jumped on top of the concrete block causing it to slide down (2) required the children to remain inside the pit even after they
towards the opening. Alonso and Alcantara were able to had finished digging, knowing that the huge block was lying
scramble out of the excavation on time but unfortunately for nearby and could be easily pushed or kicked aside by any pupil
who by chance may go to the perilous area;
(3) ordered them to level the soil around the excavation when it
1"Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils was so apparent that the huge stone was at the brink of falling;
and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody."
(4) went to a place where he would not be able to check on the teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as long as
children's safety; and (5) left the children close to the they are at attendance in the school, including recess time."
excavation, an obviously attractive nuisance. Reasoning:
(6) In ruling that the child Ylarde was imprudent, it is evident a. The SC hold a contrary view to that espoused by the CA.
that the lower court did not consider his age and maturity. This According to the CA, while it is true that Abon was not
should not be the case. The degree of care required to be attending any class or school function at the time of the
exercised must vary with the capacity of the person shooting incident, which was at about 8 o'clock in the evening;
endangered to care for himself. A minor should not be held to but considering that Abon was employed as an armorer and
the same degree of care as an adult, but his conduct should be property custodian of the BCF ROTC unit, he must have been
judged according to the average conduct of persons of his age attending night classes and therefore that hour in the evening
and experience. The standard of conduct to which a child must was just about dismissal time for him or soon thereafter. The
conform for his own protection is that degree of care ordinarily time interval is safely within the "recess time" that the trial court
exercised by children of the same age, capacity, discretion, spoke of and envisioned by the Palisoc case, supra. In line
knowledge and experience under the same or similar with the case of Palisoc, 17 a student not "at attendance in the
circumstances. Bearing this in mind, We cannot charge the school" cannot be in "recess" thereat. A "recess," as the
child Ylarde with reckless imprudence. concept is embraced in the phrase "at attendance in the
school," contemplates a situation of temporary adjournment of
DISPOSITION: Granted. school activities where the student still remains within call of
his mentor and is not permitted to leave the school premises,
or the area within which the school activity is conducted.
SALVOSA v. IAC (CASTRO) Recess by its nature does not include dismissal. Likewise, the
166 SCRA 274 PADILLA, J.: October 5, 1988 mere fact of being enrolled or being in the premises of a school
without more does not constitute "attending school" or being in
FACTS the "protective and supervisory custody' of the school, as
Jimmy Abon, a commerce student of Baguio Colleges contemplated in the law.
Foundation (BCF) and a duly appointed armorer of the BCF b. Jimmy B. Abon was supposed to be working in the armory
ROTC (under the control of AFP) was convicted of the crime of with definite instructions from his superior, the ROTC
Homicide for shooting Napoleon Castro, a student of the Commandant, when he shot Napoleon Castro.
University of Baguio on 3 March 1977, at around 8:00 p.m., in
the parking space of BCF. BCF is both an academic and arts
and trade Union and the ROTC Unit was under the control of ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL v CA(Castillo/Cadiz)
AFP. 194 SCRA 340 Paras, J.: Feb. 25, 1991
Subsequently, the heirs of Napoleon Castro sued for damages,
impleading Jimmy B. Abon, Roberto C. Ungos (ROTC NATURE: Petition for review of the decision of the CA
Commandant Benjamin Salvosa (President and Chairman of FACTS:
the Board of BCF), Jesus Salvosa (Executive Vice President of -Ferdinand Castillo, then a freshman student at St. Francis HS
BCF), Libertad D. Quetolio (Dean of the College of Education wanted to join a school picnic at Talaan Beach, Quezon. His
and Executive Trustee of BCF) and the Baguio Colleges parents didn’t allow him to go due to short notice but directed
Foundation Inc. as party defendants. him to bring food to the teachers for the picnic and go straight
After hearing, the Trial Court rendered a decision, (1) home. However, he was persuaded by his teachers to go and
sentencing defendants Jimmy B. Abon, Benjamin Salvosa and later drowned in an attempt to rescue a drowning teacher.
Baguio Colleges Foundation, Inc., jointly and severally, to pay -his parents filed a complaint against St. Francis HS,
private respondents, as heirs of Napoleon Castro; (2) absolving represented by its principal, Illumin, and several teachers for
the other defendants; and (3) dismissing the defendants' damages incurred from the death of their son, contending that
counterclaim for lack of merit. it occurred due to petitioners’ failure to exercise proper
diligence of a good father of the family. The TC found against
ISSUE the teachers as they had failed to exercise diligence by not
WON petitioners can be held solidarity liable with Jimmy B. testing the waters in which the children (12-13 yrs old) were to
Abon for damages under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, as a swim. Also, the male teachers who were to watch over the kids
consequence of the tortious act of Jimmy B. Abon. were not even in the area as they went off drinking. The TC
dismissed the case against the principal and the teacher
HELD Cadorna as the former had not consented to the picnic which
NO. Jimmy B. Abon cannot be considered to have been "at was not school sanctioned, and as the latter had her own class
attendance in the school," or in the custody of BCF, when he to supervise then and was not actually invited.
shot Napoleon Castro. Logically, therefore, petitioners cannot -Both parties appealed to the CA. On the issue of the liability of
under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code be held solidarity liable with St. Francis HS and the Illumin, the CA held that both are liable
Jimmy B. Abon for damages resulting from his acts. under Article 2176 taken together with the 1 st, 4th, and 5th
Ratio: paragraphs of Article 2180. They cannot escape liability simply
Under the penultimate paragraph of Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, because it wasn’t an “extra-curricular activity of the HS”. From
teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades are the evidence, it was shown that the principal had known of the
hable for "damages caused by their pupils and students or picnic from its planning stage and merely acquiesced to the
apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody." The holding of the event. As such, under Article 2180, both are
rationale of such liability is that so long as the student remains jointly and severally liable w/ the teachers for the damages
in the custody of a teacher, the latter "stands, to a certain incurred as the negligence of the employees (teachers) gives
extent, in loco parentis [as to the student] and [is] called upon rise to the presumption of negligence on the part of the
to exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the owner/manager (St. Francis and the principal). Petitioners
[student]." Likewise, "the phrase used in [Art. 2180 — 'so long contend that the victim’s parents failed to prove by evidence
as (the students) remain in their custody means the protective that they didn’t give their son consent to join the picnic. The
and supervisory custody that the school and its heads and Court finds this immaterial to the determination of the existence
of their liability. Also, 2 of the teachers who arrived after the ISSUES
drowning were absolved from liability as they had satisfactorily (1) WON PSBA may be held liable under articles 2176 and
explained their lateness and thus could not be said to have 2180
participated in the negligence attributed to the other teachers.
Hence this petition. HELD
(1) NO. Because the circumstances of the present case evince
ISSUE a contractual relation between the parties, the rules on quasi-
(1) WON there was negligence attributable to the defendants delict do not really govern; but the court has repeatedly held
(2) WON Art. 2180, in relation to 2176 is applicable that the liability for a tort may still exist even when there is a
(3) WON the award of exemplary and moral damages is proper contract.
-Quoting Cangco v Manila Railroad:”… the mere fact that a
HELD person is bound to another by contract does not relieve him
(1) NO. Petitioners are neither guilty of their own negligence or from extra-contractual liability to such person. When such a
the negligence of people under them. At the outset, it should contractual relation exists the obligor may break the contract
be noted that the victim’s parents allowed their son to join the under such conditions that the same act which constitutes a
picnic as evidenced by a mental and physical cross breach of the contract would have constituted the source of an
examination. extra-contractual obligation had no contract existed between
-Mere knowledge by Illumin of the planning of the picnic does the parties”
not show acquiescence or consent to it. If the CA’s findings are -Using the test in Cangco, a contractual relation is a condition
to be upheld, employers will be forever exposed to the risk and sine qua non to PSBA’s liability; hence, any finding of
danger of being hailed to Court to answer for the misdeeds or negligence would generally give rise to a breach of contractual
omissions of their employees even if such acts or omissions obligation only.
are committed while they are not in the performance of their -When an academic institution accepts a student for
duties. enrollment, a contract is established between them, resulting in
-No negligence can be attributable to the teachers as the a bilateral obligation. The school is obliged to provide the
presumption is overthrown by proof that they exercised student with an education, along with a safe atmosphere that
diligence of a good father of the family. In fact, 2 P.E. teachers promotes the undertaking of imparting knowledge. In turn, the
were invited as they were scout masters and had knowledge in student abides by the school’s academic requirements and
First Aid and swimming. Life savers were brought in the event observes its rules and regulations. However, a school cannot
of such an accident. The records also show that the 2 P.E. be an insurer for its students against all risks; one can only
teachers did all that was humanly possible to save the victim. expect it to employ the degree of diligence required by the
(2) NO. The CA erred in applying Art. 2180, particularly par 4. nature of the obligation and corresponding to the
For an employer to be held liable for the negligence of his circumstances of persons, time and place.
employee, the act or omission which caused damage or - In the case at bar a finding is yet to be made as to whether
prejudice must have occurred while an employee was in the the contract was breached due to PSBA’s negligence in
performance of his assigned task. In the case at bar, the providing proper security measures. At this stage, the
teachers were not in actual performance of their duties as the proceedings have yet to commence on the substance of the
picnic was a purely private affair and not a school sanctioned private respondent’s complaint and the record is bereft of all
activity. material facts which only the TC can determine.
(3) Since petitioners were able to prove that they had exercised WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of origin
the diligence required of them, no moral or exemplary is hereby ordered to continue proceedings consistent with
damages under Art. 2177 may be awarded in favor of this ruling of the Court. Costs against the petitioners.
respondent spouses.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the questioned decision is SET
ASIDE SOLIMAN, JR. V JUDGE TUAZON
209 SCAR 47 FELICIANO, J; May 18, 1992
NATURE: Petition to review the resolution of the CA NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari
FACTS FACTS
- On January 8, 1977, in Pulong Pulo Bridge along MacArthur - Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela was driving when she realized she
Highway, Pampanga, a head-on-collision took place between had a flat tire. She parked along the sidewalk of Aurora Blvd.,
an International cargo truck, Loadstar, owned by private put on her emergency lights, alighted from the car, and went to
respondents, Jaime Tayag and Rosalina Manalo, and driven by the rear to open the trunk. She was standing at the left side of
Ruben Galang, and a Ford Escort car driven by Jose Koh. The the rear of her car pointing to the tools to a man who will help
collision resulted in the deaths of Jose Koh, Kim McKee and her fix the tire when she was suddenly bumped by a car driven
Loida Bondoc, and physical injuries to George McKee, by defendant Richard Li and registered in the name of
Christopher McKee and Araceli McKee, all passengers of the defendant Alexander Commercial, Inc.
Ford Escort. - Because of the impact plaintiff was thrown against the
- Immediately before the collision, the cargo truck, which was windshield of the car of the defendant, which was destroyed,
loaded with 200 cavans of rice weighing about 10,000 kilos, and then fell to the ground. She was pulled out from under
was traveling southward from Angeles City to San Fernando defendant's car. Plaintiff's left leg was severed up to the middle
Pampanga, and was bound for Manila. The Ford Escort, on the of her thigh, with only some skin and sucle connected to the
other hand, was on its way to Angeles City from San Fernando. rest of the body. She was confined in the hospital for twenty
When the northbound car was about 10 meters away from the (20) days and was eventually fitted with an artificial leg. She
southern approach of the bridge, 2 boys suddenly darted from filed a claim for damages against defendant.
the right side of the road and into the lane of the car. The boys - Li’s alibi was that he was driving at 55kph when he was
were moving back and forth, unsure of whether to cross all the suddenly confronted with a speeding car coming from the
way to the other side or turn back. Jose Koh blew the horn of opposite direction. He instinctively swerved to the right to avoid
the car, swerved to the left and entered the lane of the truck; colliding with the oncoming vehicle, and bumped plaintiff's car,
he then switched on the headlights of the car, applied the which he did not see because it was midnight blue in color,
brakes and thereafter attempted to return to his lane. Before he with no parking lights or early warning device, and the area
could do so, his car collided with the truck. The collision was poorly lighted. Defendants counterclaimed for damages,
occurred in the lane of the truck, which was the opposite lane, alleging that plaintiff was the one who was reckless or
on the said bridge. negligent.
- Please see first Mckee digest for details on the collision. -RTC found Li and Alexander solidarily liable. CA absolved
- Civil cases for damages based on quasi-delict were filed as a Alexander.
result of a vehicular accident.
ISSUE
ISSUE 1. WON Li was grossly negligent in driving the company issued
WON the owners of the cargo truck (Tayag and Manalo) are car
liable for the resulting damages 2. WON Valenzuela was guilty of contributory negligence
3. WON Alexander Commercial is liable as Li’s employer
HELD
YES HELD
- The Court rules that it was the truck driver's negligence in 1. YES
failing to exert ordinary care to avoid the collision which was, in - The average motorist alert to road conditions will have no
law, the proximate cause of the collision. As employers of the difficulty applying the brakes to a car traveling at the speed
truck driver, Manalo and Tayag are, under Article 2180 of the claimed by Li. Given a light rainfall, the visibility of the street,
Civil Code, directly and primarily liable for the resulting and the road conditions on a principal metropolitan
damages. The presumption that they are negligent flows from thoroughfare like Aurora Boulevard, Li would have had ample
the negligence of their employee. That presumption, however, time to react to the changing conditions of the road if he were
is only juris tantum, not juris et de jure. Their only possible alert as every driver should be to those conditions. Driving
defense is that they exercised all the diligence of a good father exacts a more than usual toll on the senses. Physiological
of a family to prevent the damage. Article 2180 reads as "fight or flight" mechanisms are at work, provided such
follows: mechanisms were not dulled by drugs, alcohol, exhaustion,
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only drowsiness, etc. Li's failure to react in a manner which would
for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons have avoided the accident could therefore have been only due
for whom one is responsible. to either or both of the two factors: 1) that he was driving at a
xxx xxx xxx "very fast" speed as testified by one of the witneses; and 2)
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their that he was under the influence of alcohol. Either factor
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of working independently would have diminished his
their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged responsiveness to road conditions, since normally he would
in any business or industry. have slowed down prior to reaching Valenzuela's car, rather
xxx xxx xxx than be in a situation forcing him to suddenly apply his brakes.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the - Li was, therefore, negligent in driving his company-issued
persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the Mitsubishi Lancer
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. 2. NO
The diligence of a good father referred to means the diligence - Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured
in the selection and supervision of employees. party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has
- The answers of the private respondents in Civil Cases Nos. suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required
4477 and 4478 did not interpose this defense. Neither did they to conform for his own protection. Under the "emergency rule"
attempt to prove it. adopted by this Court in Gan vs. Court of Appeals, an
individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation of danger
and is required to act without much time to consider the best condition. This latter weakness was always noticed when the
means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is plaintiff had to do any difficult mental labor, especially when he
not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what attempted to use his money for mathematical calculations.
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a better - Witnesses testified that plaintiff’s physical and mental
solution, unless the emergency was brought by his own condition before the accident was excellent. He was one of the
negligence. best contractors of wooden buildings. He could not now earn
- While the emergency rule applies to those cases in which even a half of the income that he had secured for his work
reflective thought or the opportunity to adequately weigh a because he had lost 50 per cent of his efficiency. He had to
threatening situation is absent, the conduct which is required of dissolve a partnership that he had with an engineer and give
an individual in such cases is dictated not exclusively by the up a contract for the construction of a building.
suddenness of the event which absolutely negates thoroughful - Trial court held that the collision was due solely on the
care, but by the over-all nature of the circumstances. A woman negligence of the chauffeur and awarded the plaintiff the sum
driving a vehicle suddenly crippled by a flat tire on a rainy night of P14, 741.
will not be faulted for stopping at a point which is both - Act No. 2457 was enacted. It states that “E. Merritt is hereby
convenient for her to do so and which is not a hazard to other authorized to bring suit in the Court of First Instance of the city
motorists. She is not expected to run the entire boulevard in of Manila against the Government of the Philippine Islands in
search for a parking zone or turn on a dark street or alley order to fix the responsibility for the collision between his
where she would likely find no one to help her. motorcycle and the ambulance of the General Hospital, and to
- Negligence, as it is commonly understood is conduct which determine the amount of the damages, if any, to which Mr. E.
creates an undue risk of harm to others. It is the failure to Merritt is entitled on account of said collision, and the Attorney-
observe that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which General of the Philippine Islands is hereby authorized and
the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person directed to appear at the trial on the behalf of the Government
suffers injury. of said Islands, to defendant said Government at the same.”
3. YES
- Since important business transactions and decisions may ISSUES
occur at all hours in all sorts of situations and under all kinds of WON the government is liable for the damages resulting from a
guises, the provision for the unlimited use of a company car tort committed by an agent or employee of the government
therefore principally serves the business and goodwill of a
company and only incidentally the private purposes of the HELD
individual who actually uses the car, the managerial employee NO
or company sales agent. As such, in providing for a company Ratio The State is only liable for the acts of its agents, officers
car for business use and/or for the purpose of furthering the and employees when they act as special agents within the
company's image, a company owes a responsibility to the meaning of paragraph 5 of article 1903.
public to see to it that the managerial or other employees to Reasoning
whom it entrusts virtually unlimited use of a company issued - In the United States the rule is that the state is not liable for
car are able to use the company issue capably and the torts committed by its officers or agents whom it employs,
responsibly. except when expressly made so by legislative enactment. The
- In fine, Alexander Commercial, inc. has not demonstrated, to Government does not undertake to guarantee to any person
our satisfaction, that it exercised the care and diligence of a the fidelity of the officers or agents whom it employs, since that
good father of the family in entrusting its company car to Li. No would involve it in all its operations in endless
allegations were made as to whether or not the company took embarrassments, difficulties and losses, which would be
the steps necessary to determine or ascertain the driving subversive of the public interest.
proficiency and history of Li, to whom it gave full and unlimited - As to the scope of legislative enactments permitting
use of a company car. Not having been able to overcome the individuals to sue the state where the cause of action arises
burden of demonstrating that it should be absolved of liability out of either fort or contract, the rule is stated in 36 Cyc., 915,
for entrusting its company car to Li, said company, based on thus:
the principle of bonus pater familias, ought to be jointly and By consenting to be sued a state simply waives its
severally liable with the former for the injuries sustained by Ma. immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its liability
Lourdes Valenzuela during the accident. to plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his favor, or
DISPOSITION Judgment of RTC reinstated. extend its liability to any cause not previously recognized.
It merely gives a remedy to enforce a preexisting liability
and submits itself to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to
6. STATE its right to interpose any lawful defense.
- Paragraph 5 of article 1903 of the Civil Code reads:
The state is liable in this sense when it acts through a
MERRITT v GOVERNMENT
special agent, but not when the damage should have been
34 Phil 311 TRENT; March 31, 1916
caused by the official to whom properly it pertained to do
the act performed, in which case the provisions of the
NATURE: Appeal from decision of the CFI
preceding article shall be applicable.
FACTS
- The obligation to indemnify for damages which a third person
- E. Merritt, riding on a motorcycle, was hit by the General
causes to another by his fault or negligence is based, as is
Hospital ambulance, which turned suddenly and unexpectedly
evidenced by the same Law 3, Title 15, Partida 7, on that the
to Taft Avenue without sounding any whistle or horn, in
person obligated, by his own fault or negligence, takes part in
contravention of an ordinance and the Motor Vehicle Act.
the act or omission of the third party who caused the damage.
- Plaintiff was so severely injured. His leg showed a
It follows therefrom that the state, by virtue of such provisions
contraction of an inch and a half and a curvature that made his
of law, is not responsible for the damages suffered by private
leg very weak and painful at the point of the fracture.
individuals in consequence of acts performed by its employees
Examination of his head revealed a notable readjustment of the
in the discharge of the functions pertaining to their office,
functions of the brain and nerves. The patient apparently was
because neither fault nor even negligence can be presumed on
slightly deaf, had a light weakness in his eyes and in his mental
the part of the state in the organization of branches of public On the computation of damages
service and in the appointment of its agents; on the contrary, The two items which constitute a part of the P14,741 and which
we must presuppose all foresight humanly possible on its part are drawn in question by the plaintiff are (a) P5,000, the award
in order that each branch of service serves the general weal an awarded for permanent injuries, and (b) the P2,666, the
that of private persons interested in its operation. Between amount allowed for the loss of wages during the time the
these latter and the state, therefore, no relations of a private plaintiff was incapacitated from pursuing his occupation. We
nature governed by the civil law can arise except in a case find nothing in the record which would justify us in increasing
where the state acts as a judicial person capable of acquiring the amount of the first. As to the second, the record shows,
rights and contracting obligations. and the trial court so found, that the plaintiff's services as a
- The Civil Code in chap 2, title 16, book 4, regulates the contractor were worth P1,000 per month. The court, however,
obligations which arise out of fault or negligence; and whereas limited the time to 2months and 21 days, which the plaintiff was
in the first article thereof. No. 1902, where the general principle actually confined in the hospital. In this we think there was
is laid down that where a person who by an act or omission error, because it was clearly established that the plaintiff was
causes damage to another through fault or negligence, shall be wholly incapacitated for a period of 6 months. The mere fact
obliged to repair the damage so done, reference is made to that he remained in the hospital only 2 months and 21 days
acts or omissions of the persons who directly or indirectly while the remainder of the 6 months was spent in his home,
cause the damage, the following articles refers to this persons would not prevent recovery for the whole time. We, therefore,
and imposes an identical obligation upon those who maintain find that the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff,
fixed relations of authority and superiority over the authors of without any fault on his part, is P18,075.
the damage, because the law presumes that in consequence Dispositive Judgment appealed from reversed. Whether the
of such relations the evil caused by their own fault or Government intends to make itself legally liable for the amount
negligence is imputable to them. This legal presumption gives of damages above set forth, which the plaintiff has sustained
way to proof, however, because, as held in the last paragraph by reason of the negligent acts of one of its employees, by
of article 1903, responsibility for acts of third persons ceases legislative enactment and by appropriating sufficient funds
when the persons mentioned in said article prove that they therefor, we are not called upon to determine. This matter rests
employed all the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid solely with the Legislature and not with the courts.
the damage, and among these persons, called upon to answer
in a direct and not a subsidiary manner, are found, in addition
to the mother or the father in a proper case, guardians and ROSETE v AUDITOR GENERAL
owners or directors of an establishment or enterprise, the state, 81 Phil 453 FERIA; August 31, 1948
but not always, except when it acts through the agency of a
special agent, doubtless because and only in this case, the NATURE: Appeal from the decision of the Insular Auditor
fault or negligence, which is the original basis of this kind of FACTS
objections, must be presumed to lie with the state. - Jose Panlilio ignited his lighter near a drum into which
- Although in some cases the state might by virtue of the gasoline was being drained causing fire in the warehouse of
general principle set forth in article 1902 respond for all the Emergency Control Administration (ECA, a government
damage that is occasioned to private parties by orders or agency).
resolutions which by fault or negligence are made by branches - The fire destroyed the building owned by the petitioner,
of the central administration acting in the name and thereby giving rise to this claim for damages against Panlilio for
representation of the state itself and as an external expression his negligence and the officers of ECA for storing gasoline in
of its sovereignty in the exercise of its executive powers, yet said warehouse contrary to the provisions of ordinances of the
said article is not applicable in the case of damages said to City of Manila (ordinance requires a license for storing
have been occasioned to the petitioners by an executive flammable substances, which ECA didn’t have).
official, acting in the exercise of his powers, in proceedings to - Insular Auditor dismissed the claim hence this appeal.
enforce the collections of certain property taxes owing by the
owner of the property which they hold in sublease. ISSUE
- The responsibility of the state is limited by article 1903 to the WON the government is liable for the damages
case wherein it acts through a special agent (one who receives
a definite and fixed order or commission, foreign to the HELD: NO
exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official) so - Art. 1903 of the Civil Code reads:
that in representation of the state and being bound to act as an “Art. 1903. The obligation imposed in the preceding
agent thereof, he executes the trust confided to him. This article is enforceable not only for personal acts and
concept does not apply to any executive agent who is an omission but also for those persons for whom another
employee of the acting administration and who on his own is responsible.
responsibility performs the functions which are inherent in and xx
naturally pertain to his office and which are regulated by law “The state is liable in this sense when it acts through a
and the regulations. special agent, but not when the damage should have
- The responsibility of the state is limited to that which it been caused by the official to whom it properly
contracts through a special agent, duly empowered by a pertained to do the act performed, in which case the
definite order or commission to perform some act or charged provisions of the preceding article shall be applicable.”
with some definite purpose which gives rise to the claim, and
not where the claim is based on acts or omissions imputable to - In the case of Merritt v. Government, the court held the
a public official charged with some administrative or technical following:
office who can be held to the proper responsibility in the “ ’… The state is not responsible for the
manner laid down by the law of civil responsibility. damage suffered by private individuals in
- The chauffeur of the ambulance of the General Hospital was consequence of acts performed by its employees in
not such an agent within the meaning of paragraph 5 of article the discharge of the functions pertaining to their
1903 office… n relations of a private nature governed by
the civil law can arise except in a case where the
state acts as a juridical person capable of acquiring injuries suffered by private
rights and contracting obligations.’ individuals in the administration of strictly governmental
xx functions, like immunity is enjoyed by the municipality in
“ ‘That the responsibility of the state is limited the performance of the same duties, unless it is
by article 1903 to the case wherein it acts through a expressly made liable by statute.
special agent (and a special agent, in the sense in A municipality is not exempt from liability for the
which these words are employed, is one who receives negligent performance of its corporate or proprietary or
a definite and fixed order by the commission, foreign business functions. In the administration of its
to the exercise of duties of his office if he is a special patrimonial property, it is to be regarded as a private
official) so that in representation of the state and corporation or individual so far as its liability to third
being bound to act as an agent thereof, he executes persons on contract or in tort is concerned. Its
the trust confided to him. contracts, validly entered into, may be enforced and
damages may be collected from it for the
- There being no showing that whatever negligence may be torts of its officers or agents within the scope of their
imputed to the ECA or its officers, was done by a special employment in precisely the
agent, because the officers of the ECA did not act as special same manner and to the same extent as those of private
agents of the government within the above defined meaning of corporations or individuals. As to such matters the
that wod in Article 1903 of the Civil Code in storing gasoline in principles of respondeat superior applies. It is for these
the warehouse of ECA, the government is not responsible for purposes that the municipality is made liable to suits in the
damages caused through such negligence. courts.
- Although there is an act (Act No. 327) authorizing the filing of The leasing of a municipal ferry to the highest bidder
claims against the government with the Insular Auditor, and for a specified period of time is not a governmental but
appeal by private persons or entities from the latter’s decision a corporate function. Such a lease, when validly entered
to the Supreme Court, it does not make any and all claims into, constitutes a contract with the lessee which the
against the government allowable, and the latter responsible municipality is bound to respect.
for all claims. It cannot be said that in rescinding the contract with the
DISPOSITION Decision appealed from is affirmed. plaintiff, thereby making the municipality liable to an
action for damages for no valid reason at all, the
defendant councilors were honestly acting for the
MENDOZA V. DE LEON interests of the municipality. The defendants are liable
G.R. L-9596 Trent Feb. 11, 1916 jointly and severally for the damages sustained by the
plaintiff from the rescission of his contract of lease of the
FACTS ferry privilege in question.
Plaintiff was the grantee of an exclusive lease privilege
under Act No. 1643 of the Philippine Commission. After
a little over one year, plaintiff was forcibly ejected FONTANILLA V MALIAMAN and NATIONAL IRRIGATION
under and pursuant to a resolution adopted by the ADMINSITRATION 194 SCRA 486 PARAS; Feb 27, 1991
defendants-members of the municipal council of
Villasis, Pangasinan. NATURE: Resolution
Thus, plaintiff brought action against such individual FACTS
members for damages. Act No. 1643 provides that the - The National Irrigation Administration (NIA) maintains that
use of each fishery, fish-breeding ground, ferry, stable, it does not perform solely and primarily proprietary
market, and slaughterhouse belonging to any municipality functions, but is an agency of the government tasked with
or township shall be let to the highest bidder annually or governmental functions, and is therefore not liable for the
for such longer period not exceeding five years as tortuous act of its driver Garcia, who was not its special
may have been previously approved by the provincial agent.
board of the province in which the municipality or o NIA believes this bases this on:
township is located. PD 552 – amended some provisions
of RA 3601 (the law which created the NIA)
ISSUE: The case of Angat River Irrigation
W/N the municipality is liable for acts of its officers or System v. Angat River Workers’ Union
agents in the performance of governmental functions. - Angat Case: Although the majority opinion declares that
the Angat System, like the NIA, exercised a governmental
HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI function because the nature of its powers and functions
It depends. In this case, it is not liable. does not show that it was intended to “bring to the
When the acts of its officers come within the powers Government any special corporate benefit or pecuniary
which it has as agent of the state, it is exempt from profit”, a strong dissenting opinion held that Angat River
liability for its own acts and the acts of its officers; if the system is a government entity exercising proprietary
acts of the officer or agent of the city are for the special functions.
benefits of the corporation in its private or corporate - The Angat dissenting opinion:
interest, such officer is deemed the agent or servant of the - Alegre protested the announced termination of his
city, but where the act is not in relation to a private employment. He argued that although his contract did
or corporate interest of the stipulate that the same would terminate on July 17, 1976,
municipality, but for the benefit of the public at large, since his services were necessary and desirable in the
such acts by the agents and usual business of his employer, and his employment had
servants are deemed to be acts by public or state officers, lasted for five years, he had acquired the status of regular
and for the public benefit. Governmental affairs do not employee and could not be removed except for valid
lose their governmental character by being delegated to cause.
the municipal governments. The state being immune for -
- The employment contract of 1971 was executed when the of the above powers and objectives, including the power to
Labor Code of the Philippines had not yet been establish and maintain subsidiaries, and in general, to exercise
promulgated, which came into effect some 3 years after all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law,
the perfection of the contract. insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act.
ISSUE DISPOSITION We conclude that the National Irrigation
WON the NIR is a government agency with a juridical Administration is a government agency with a juridical
personality separate and distinct from the government, thereby personality separate and distinct from the government. It is not
opening it up to the possibility that it may be held liable for the a mere agency of the government but a corporate body
damages caused by its driver, who was not its special agent performing proprietary functions. Therefore, it may be held
liable for the damages caused by the negligent act of its driver
HELD YES who was not its special agent.
Reasoning the functions of government have been classified ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Reconsideration dated
into governmental or constituent and proprietary or ministrant. January 26, 1990 is DENIED WITH FINALITY. The decision of
The former involves the exercise of sovereignty and this Court in G.R. No. 55963 and G.R. No. 61045 dated
considered as compulsory; the latter connotes merely the December 1, 1989 is hereby AFFIRMED.
exercise of proprietary functions and thus considered as
optional. DISSENTING: PADILLA: to say that NIA has opened itself to
suit is one thing; to say that it is liable for damages arising from
The National Irrigation Administration was not created for tort committed by its employees, is still another thing.
purposes of local government. While it may be true that the The state or a government agency performing governmental
NIA was essentially a service agency of the government aimed functions may be held liable for tort committed by its
at promoting public interest and public welfare, such fact does employees only when it acts through a special agent.
not make the NIA essentially and purely a "government-
function" corporation. NIA was created for the purpose of
"constructing, improving, rehabilitating, and administering all Art. 2189, CC. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be
national irrigation systems in the Philippines, including all liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any
communal and pump irrigation projects." Certainly, the state person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets,
and the community as a whole are largely benefited by the bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their
services the agency renders, but these functions are only control or supervision. (n)
incidental to the principal aim of the agency, which is the
irrigation of lands.
NIA is a government agency invested with a corporate CITY OF MANILA V TEOTICA
personality separate and distinct from the government, thus is 22 SCRA 267 CONCEPCION; January 29, 1968
governed by the Corporation Law. Section 1 of Republic Act
No. 3601 provides: NATURE: Appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of
Sec. 1. Name and Domicile — A body corporate is hereby Appeals.
created which shall be known as the National Irrigation FACTS
Administration. . . . which shall be organized immediately after - Genaro N. Teotico, an accountant, was at the corner of the
the approval of this Act. It shall have its principal seat of Old Luneta and P. Burgos Avenue, Manila, waiting for a jeep.
business in the City of Manila and shall have representatives in After waiting 5 mins, he hailed a jeep that came to a stop. As
all provinces, for the proper conduct of its business. (Emphasis he stepped down from the curb to board the jeep, and took a
for emphasis). few steps, he fell inside a manhole on P. Burgos Avenue. Due
Besides, Section 2, subsection b of P.D. 552 provides that: to the fall, his head hit the rim of the manhole breaking his
(b) To charge and collect from the beneficiaries of the water eyeglasses and causing broken pieces thereof to pierce his left
from all irrigation systems constructed by or under its eyelid. As blood flowed therefrom, impairing his vision, several
administration, such fees or administration charges as may be persons came to his assistance and pulled him out of the
necessary to cover the cost of operation, maintenance and manhole. One of them brought Teotico to the Philippine
insurance, and to recover the cost of construction within a General Hospital, where his injuries were treated, after which
reasonable period of time to the extent consistent with he was taken home. In addition to the lacerated wound in his
government policy; to recover funds or portions thereof left upper eyelid, Teotico suffered contusions on the left thigh,
expended for the construction and/or rehabilitation of the left upper arm, the right leg and the upper lip apart from an
communal irrigation systems which funds shall accrue to a abrasion on the right infra-patella region. These injuries and
special fund for irrigation development under section 2 hereof; the allergic eruption caused by anti-tetanus injections
Unpaid irrigation fees or administration charges shall be administered to him in the hospital, required further medical
preferred liens first, upon the land benefited, and then on the treatment by a private practitioner.
crops raised thereon, which liens shall have preference over all - Teotico filed with CFI Manila, a complaint which was,
other liens except for taxes on the land, and such preferred subsequently, amended for damages against the City of
liens shall not be removed until all fees or administration Manila, its mayor, city engineer, city health officer, city
charges are paid or the property is levied upon and sold by the treasurer and chief of police.
National Irrigation Administration for the satisfaction thereof. . . - Defense pointed out that because of the lucrative scrap iron
. business then prevailing, stealing of iron catchbasin covers
The same section also provides that NIA may sue and be sued was rampant; that the Office of the City Engineer has filed
in court. complaints in court resulting from theft of said iron covers; that
It has its own assets and liabilities. It also has corporate in order to prevent such thefts, the city government has
powers to be exercised by a Board of Directors. Section 2, changed the position and layout of catchbasins in the City by
subsection (f): constructing them under the sidewalks with concrete cement
(f) . . . and to transact such business, as are directly or covers and openings on the side of the gutter; and that these
indirectly necessary, incidental or conducive to the attainment changes had been undertaken by the city from time to time
whenever funds were available. REPUBLIC vs PALACIO
- CFI Manila sustained the theory of the defendants and 23 SCRA 899 REYES, J.B.L., J.: May 29, 1968
dismissed the amended complaint, without costs.
- This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, except FACTS:
insofar as the City of Manila is concerned, which was Ortiz instituted action against Handong Irrigation Association to
sentenced to pay damages in the aggregate sum of recover possession of land which HIA allegedly entered and
P6,750.00. Hence, this appeal by the City of Manila. occupied at the inducement of Irrigation Service Unit, an
- The first issue raised by the Manila is whether the present agency under the Dept. of Public Works and Communications.
case is governed by Section 4 of RA 409 (Charter of the City of A writ of execution and order of garnishment was served
Manila) reading: against the deposits and trust funds of ISU to pay for the
The city shall not be liable or held for damages or damages to Ortiz .CA upheld on the basis that ISU is engaged
injuries to persons or property arising from the failure of the in the private business of purchase and sale of irrigationpumps.
Mayor, the Municipal Board, or any other city officer, to enforce
the provisions of this chapter, or any other law or ordinance, or ISSUE:
from negligence of said Mayor, Municipal Board, or other WON State or its fund can be made liable for damages
officers while enforcing or attempting to enforce said
provisions. HELD : NO
or by Article 2189 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
which provides: RATIO:
Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for The ISU liability in inducing HIA to invade and occupy land of
damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person Ortiz arose from torts and not from contract.It is a well-
by reason of defective conditions of road, streets, bridges, entrenched rule in this jurisdiction that embodied in Art 2180 of
public buildings, and other public works under their control or CC that the State is only liable for tortscaused by its special
supervision. agents especially commissioned to carry out the acts
- Manila maintains that the former provision should prevail over complained of outside of such agent’s regular duties.There
the latter, because RA 409, is a special law, intended being no proof that the making of the tortuous inducement was
exclusively for the City of Manila, whereas the Civil Code is a authorized, neither the state nor its fundscan be made
general law, applicable to the entire Philippines. liable.Other issues:Even if the liability of the state had been
judicially ascertained, the state is at liberty to determine for
ISSUES itself whether to paythe judgment or not. Thus execution
WON City of Manila should be held liable for the damages cannot issue on a judgment against the state.
suffered by Teotica.
HELD
YES.
Ratio RA 409,sec.4 refers to liability arising from negligence, in
general, regardless of the object thereof, whereas Article 2189,
CC governs liability due to "defective streets," in particular.
Since the present action is based upon the alleged defective
condition of a road, said Article 2189 is decisive thereon.