proximate

cause of the giving of herself unto

him in a sexual congress, proof that he had, in
reality, no intention of marrying her and that
the promise was only a subtle scheme or
deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to
Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. CA, GR. 97336 accept him and to obtain her consent to the
sexual act, could justify the award of damages
3. Civil Law; Damages; The existing rule is pursuant to Article 21 not because of such
that a breach of promise to marry per se is promise to marry but because of the fraud
not an actionable wrong.- and deceit behind it and the willful injury to
her honor and reputation which followed
The existing rule is that a breach of promise
thereafter. It is essential, however, that such
to marry per se is not an actionable wrong.
injury should have been committed in a
Congress deliberately eliminated from the
manner contrary to morals, good customs or
draft of the New Civil Code the provisions
public policy.
that would have made it so.
Exxon vs. Baker
4. Civil Law; Damages; Article. 21 of the Civil
Code designed to expand the concept of torts Held:
or quasi-delict in this jurisdiction grants
adequate legal remedy for the untold number 1. Because the Court is equally divided on
of moral wrongs which is impossible for whether maritime law allows corporate
human foresight to specifically enumerate liability for punitive damages based on the
and punish in the statute books.- acts of managerial agents, it leaves the Ninth
Circuit’s opinion undisturbed in this respect.
This notwithstanding, the said Code contains Of course, this disposition is not precedential
a provision, Article 21, which is designed to on the derivative liability question. See, e.g.,
expand the concept of torts or quasi-delict in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188, 192. Pp. 7–10.
this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal
remedy for the untold number of moral 2. The Clean Water Act’s water pollution
wrongs which is impossible for human penalties, 33 U. S. C. §1321, do not preempt
foresight to specifically enumerate and punitive-damages awards in maritime spill
punish in the statute books. cases. Section 1321(b) protects “navigable
waters … , adjoining shorelines, … [and]
5. Civil Law; Damages; Damages pursuant to natural resources,” subject to a saving clause
Article 21 may be awarded not because of reserving “obligations … under any … law for
promise to marry but because of fraud and damages to any … privately owned property
deceit behind it- resulting from [an oil] discharge,” §1321(o).
ln the light of the above laudable purpose of Exxon’s admission that the CWA does not
Article 21, We are of the opinion, and so hold, displace compensatory remedies for the
that where a man's promise to marry is in fact consequences of water pollution, even those
the proximate cause of the acceptance of his for economic harms, leaves the company with
love by a woman and his representation to the untenable claim that the CWA somehow
fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the preempts punitive damages, but not
compensatory damages, for economic loss. in the form of absolute monetary caps, a
Nothing in the statute points to that result, maximum ratio of punitive to compensatory
and the Court has rejected similar attempts to damages, or, frequently, some combination of
sever remedies from their causes of action, the two. Pp. 21–23.
see Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S.
238, 255–256. There is no clear indication of (d) American punitive damages have come
congressional intent to occupy the entire field under criticism in recent decades, but the
of pollution remedies, nor is it likely that most recent studies tend to undercut much of
punitive damages for private harms will have it. Although some studies show the dollar
any frustrating effect on the CWA’s remedial amounts of awards growing over time, even
scheme. Pp. 10–15. in real terms, most accounts show that the
median ratio of punitive to compensatory
3. The punitive damages award against awards remains less than 1:1. Nor do the data
Exxon was excessive as a matter of maritime show a marked increase in the percentage of
common law. In the circumstances of this cases with punitive awards. The real problem
case, the award should be limited to an is the stark unpredictability of punitive
amount equal to compensatory damages. Pp. awards. Courts are concerned with fairness as
15–42. consistency, and the available data suggest
that the spread between high and low
(a) Although legal codes from ancient individual awards is unacceptable. The
times through the Middle Ages called for spread in state civil trials is great, and the
multiple damages for certain especially outlier cases subject defendants to punitive
harmful acts, modern Anglo-American damages that dwarf the corresponding
punitive damages have their roots in 18th- compensatories. The distribution of judge-
century English law and became widely assessed awards is narrower, but still
accepted in American courts by the mid-19th remarkable. These ranges might be
century. See, e.g., Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. acceptable if they resulted from efforts to
363, 371. Pp. 16–17. reach a generally accepted optimal level of
(b) The prevailing American rule limits penalty and deterrence in cases involving a
punitive damages to cases of “enormity,” Day wide range of circumstances, but anecdotal
v. Woodworth, 13 How. 363, 371, in which a evidence suggests that is not the case, see,
defendant’s conduct is outrageous, owing to e.g., Gore, supra, at 565, n. 8. Pp. 24–27.
gross negligence, willful, wanton, and reckless (e) This Court’s response to outlier
indifference for others’ rights, or even more punitive damages awards has thus far been
deplorable behavior. The consensus today is confined by claims that state-court awards
that punitive damages are aimed at violated due process. See, e.g., State Farm
retribution and deterring harmful conduct. Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U. S.
Pp. 17–21. 408, 425. In contrast, today’s enquiry arises
(c) State regulation of punitive damages under federal maritime jurisdiction and
varies. A few States award them rarely, or not requires review of a jury award at the level of
at all, and others permit them only when judge-made federal common law that
authorized by statute. Many States have precedes and should obviate any application
imposed statutory limits on punitive awards, of the constitutional standard. In this context,
the unpredictability of high punitive awards found in the studies showing the median ratio
is in tension with their punitive function of punitive to compensatory awards. Those
because of the implication of unfairness that studies reflect the judgments of juries and
an eccentrically high punitive verdict carries. judges in thousands of cases as to what
A penalty should be reasonably predictable in punitive awards were appropriate in
its severity, so that even Holmes’s “bad man” circumstances reflecting the most down to
can look ahead with some ability to know the least blameworthy conduct, from malice
what the stakes are in choosing one course of and avarice to recklessness to gross
action or another. And a penalty scheme negligence. The data in question put the
ought to threaten defendants with a fair median ratio for the entire gamut at less than
probability of suffering in like degree for like 1:1, meaning that the compensatory award
damage. Cf. Koon v. United States, 518 U. S. exceeds the punitive award in most cases. In a
81, 113. Pp. 28–29. well-functioning system, awards at or below
the median would roughly express jurors’
(f) The Court considers three approaches, sense of reasonable penalties in cases like
one verbal and two quantitative, to arrive at a this one that have no earmarks of exceptional
standard for assessing maritime punitive blameworthiness. Accordingly, the Court
damages. Pp. 29–42. finds that a 1:1 ratio is a fair upper limit in
(i) The Court is skeptical that verbal such maritime cases. Pp. 39–42.
formulations are the best insurance against (iv) Applying this standard to the present
unpredictable outlier punitive awards, in light case, the Court takes for granted the District
of its experience with attempts to produce Court’s calculation of the total relevant
consistency in the analogous business of compensatory damages at $507.5 million. A
criminal sentencing. Pp. 29–32. punitive-to-compensatory ratio of 1:1 thus
(ii) Thus, the Court looks to quantified yields maximum punitive damages in that
limits. The option of setting a hard-dollar amount. P. 42.
punitive cap, however, is rejected because
there is no “standard” tort or contract injury,
making it difficult to settle upon a particular
dollar figure as appropriate across the board;
and because a judicially selected dollar cap
would carry the serious drawback that the
Andamo vs. IAC, GR.
issue might not return to the docket before
there was a need to revisit the figure selected. 2. Civil Law; Action; Quasi-delicts; Elements
Pp. 32–39. of quasi-delict.-
(iii) The more promising alternative is to A careful examination of the aforequoted
peg punitive awards to compensatory complaint shows that the civil action is one
damages using a ratio or maximum multiple. under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil
This is the model in many States and in Code on quasi-delicts. All the elements of a
analogous federal statutes allowing multiple quasi-delict are present, to wit: (a) damages
damages. The question is what ratio is most suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or
appropriate. An acceptable standard can be
negligence of the defendant, or some other supposedly constituting fault or negligence,
person for whose acts he must respond; and and the causal connection between the act
(c) the connection of cause and effect and the damage, with no pre-existing
between the fault or negligence of the contractual obligation between the parties
defendant and the damages incurred by the make a clear case of a quasi-delict or culpa
plaintiff. aquiliana.

3. Civil Law; Action; Quasi-delicts; There is an 5. Civil Law; Action; Quasi-delicts; A separate
assertion of a causal connection between the civil action lies against the offender in a
act of building these waterpaths and the criminal act whether or not he is criminally
damage sustained by petitioners; Case at bar.- prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted
provided that the offended party is not
Clearly, from petitioners’ complaint, the allowed to recover damages on both scores.-
waterpaths and contrivances built by
respondent corporation are alleged to have Article 2176, whenever it refers to “fault or
inundated the land of petitioners. There is negligence”, covers not only acts “not
therefore, an assertion of a causal connection punishable by law” but also acts criminal in
between the act of building these waterpaths character, whether intentional and voluntary
and the damage sustained by petitioners. or negligent. Consequently, a separate civil
Such action if proven constitutes fault or action lies against the offender in a criminal
negligence which may be the basis for the act, whether or not he is criminally
recovery of damages. prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted,
provided that the offended party is not
4. Civil Law; Action; Quasi-delicts; The allowed, (if the tortfeasor is actually charged
recitals of the complaint, the alleged presence also criminally), to recover damages on both
of damage to the petitioners, the act or scores, and would be entitled in such
omission of respondent corporation eventuality only to the bigger award of the
supposedly constituting fault or negligence two, assuming the awards made in the two
and the causal connection between the act cases vary.
and the damage, with no preexisting
contractual obligation between the parties 6. Civil Law; Action; Quasi-delicts; The same
make a clear case of a quasi-delict or culpa negligence causing damages may produce
aquiliana.- civil liability arising from a crime under the
Penal Code or create an action for quasi-
While the property involved in the cited case delicts or culpa extra-contractual under the
belonged to the public domain and the Civil Code.-
property subject of the instant case is
privately owned, the fact ramains that In the case of Castillo vs. Court of Appeals,
petitioners’ complaint sufficiently alleges that this Court held that a quasi-delict or culpa
petitioners have sustained and will continue aquiliana is a separate legal institution under
to sustain damage due to the waterpaths and the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own,
contrivances built by respondent corporation. and individuality that is entirely apart and
Indeed, the recitals of the complaint, the independent from a delict or crime—a
alleged presence of damage to the petitioners, distinction exists between the civil liability
the act or omission of respondent corporation arising from a crime and the responsibility for
quasi-delicts or culpa extra contractual. The Child Learning vs. Tagonio, GR. 150920
same negligence causing damages may
produce civil liability arising from a crime 2. Actions; Torts; Requisites; Words and
under the Penal Code, or create an action for Phrases; “Fault,” and “Negligence,”
quasi-delicts or culpa extra-contractual under Explained.-
the Civil Code. Therefore, the acquittal or
In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of
conviction in the criminal case is entirely
the Civil Code, plaintiff has to prove by a
irrele- vant in the civil case, unless, of course,
preponderance of evidence: (1) the damages
in the event of an acquittal where the court
suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or
has declared that the fact from which the civil
negligence of the defendant or some other
action arose did not exist, in which case the
person for whose act he must respond; and
extinction of the criminal liability would carry
(3) the connection of cause and effect
with it the extinction of the civil liability.
between the fault or negligence and the
7. Civil Law; Action; Property; Adjoining damages incurred. Fault, in general, signifies
landowners have mutual and reciprocal a voluntary act or omission which causes
duties which require that each must use his damage to the right of another giving rise to
own land in a reasonable manner so as not to an obligation on the part of the actor to repair
infringe upon the rights and interests of such damage. Negligence is the failure to
others.- observe for the protection of the interest of
another person that degree of care,
It must be stressed that the use of one’s precaution and vigilance which the
property is not without limitations. Article circumstances justly demand. Fault requires
431 of the Civil Code provides that “the the execution of a positive act which causes
owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in damage to another while negligence consists
such a manner as to injure the rights of a of the omission to do acts which result in
third person.” SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM damage to another.
NON LAEDAS. Moreover, adjoining
landowners have mutual and reciprocal 3. Actions; Torts; Doctrine of Res Ipsa
duties which require that each must use his Loquitur; Schools and Universities; The
own land in a reasonable manner so as not to doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies where
infringe upon the rights and interests of (1) the accident was of such character as to
others. Although we recognize the right of an warrant an inference that it would not have
owner to build structures on his land, such happened except for the defendant’s
structures must be so constructed and negligence, (2) the accident must have been
maintained using all reasonable care so that caused by an agency or instrumentality
they cannot be dangerous to adjoining within the exclusive management or control
landowners and can withstand the usual and of the person charged with negligence
expected forces of nature. If the structures complained of, and, (3) the accident must not
cause injury or damage to an adjoining have been due to any voluntary action or
landowner or a third person, the latter can contribution on the part of the person
claim indemnification for the injury or injured; The fact that a student had to go
damage suffered. through the window, instead of the door,
shows that something was wrong with the finds the regular exit, the door, not
door.- functioning. Petitioners, with the due
diligence of a good father of the family, should
The fact, however, that Timothy fell out have anticipated that a student, locked in the
through the window shows that the door toilet by a non-working door, would attempt
could not be opened from the inside. That to use the window to call for help or even to
sufficiently points to the fact that something get out. Considering all the circumstances,
was wrong with the door, if not the door therefore, there is sufficient basis to sustain a
knob, under the principle of res ipsa loquitor. finding of liability on petitioners’ part.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor applies
where (1) the accident was of such character 5. Actions; Torts; Due diligence in the
as to warrant an inference that it would not selection and supervision of employees is
have happened except for the defendant’s applicable where the employer is being held
negligence; (2) the accident must have been responsible for the acts or omissions of
caused by an agency or instrumentality others under Article 2180 of the Civil Code,
within the exclusive management or control not when the liability is under Article 2176,
of the person charged with the negligence premised on the fact of the defendant’s own
complained of; and (3) the accident must not diligence in not ensuring that all its doors are
have been due to any voluntary action or properly maintained.-
contribution on the part of the person
injured. Petitioners are clearly answerable for Petitioners’ argument that CLC exercised the
failure to see to it that the doors of their due diligence of a good father of a family in
school toilets are at all times in working the selection and supervision of its employees
condition. The fact that a student had to go is not decisive. Due diligence in the selection
through the window, instead of the door, and supervision of employees is applicable
shows that something was wrong with the where the employer is being held responsible
door. for the acts or omissions of others under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code. In this case,
4. Actions; Torts; Doctrine of Res Ipsa CLC’s liability is under Article 2176 of the
Loquitur; Schools and Civil Code, premised on the fact of its own
Universities; Petitioners, with the due negligence in not ensuring that all its doors
diligence of a good father of the family, should are properly maintained.
have anticipated that a student, locked in the
toilet by a non-working door, would attempt 6. Actions; Torts; Corporation Law; Piercing
to use the window to call for help or even to the Veil of Corporate Fiction; Elements.-
get out.- We, however, agree with petitioners that
As to the absence of grills on the window, there was no basis to pierce CLC’s separate
petitioners contend that there was no such corporate personality. To disregard the
requirement under the Building Code. corporate existence, the plaintiff must prove:
Nevertheless, the fact is that such window, as (1) Control by the individual owners, not
petitioners themselves point out, was mere majority or complete stock ownership,
approximately 1.5 meters from the floor, so resulting in complete domination not only of
that it was within reach of a student who finances but of policy and business practice in
respect to a transaction so that the corpo-
rate entity as to this transaction had at the occurrence warrant the supposition of
time no separate mind, will or existence of its negligence and they furnish circumstantial
own; (2) such control must have been used by evidence of negligence when direct evidence
the defendant to commit fraud or wrong, to is lacking. Simply stated, this doctrine finds
perpetuate the violation of a statutory or no application if there is direct proof of
other positive legal duty, or a dishonest and absence or presence of negligence. If there is
unjust act in contravention of the plaintiff’s sufficient proof showing the conditions and
legal right; and (3) the control and breach of circumstances under which the injury
duty must proximately cause the injury or occurred, then the creative reason for the said
unjust loss complained of. The absence of doctrine disappears. Further, the doctrine of
these elements prevents piercing the res ipsa loquitur applies where, (1) the
corporate veil. The evidence on record fails to accident was of such character as to warrant
show that these elements are present, an inference that it would not have happened
especially given the fact that plaintiffs’ except for the defendant’s negligence; (2) the
complaint had pleaded that CLC is a accident must have been caused by an agency
corporation duly organized and existing or instrumentality within the exclusive
under the laws of the Philippines. management or control of the person charged
with the negligence complained of; and (3)
Huang vs. Philippine Hotelier, GR. 180440 the accident must not have been due to any
voluntary action or contribution on the part
3. Civil Law; Quasi-Delicts; Res Ipsa
of the person injured.
Loquitur; Words and Phrases; Res ipsa
loquitur is a Latin phrase which literally 4. Remedial Law; Evidence; Burden of
means “the thing or the transaction speaks Proof; If the plaintiff alleged in his complaint
for itself”; The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur that he was damaged because of the negligent
applies where, (1) the accident was of such acts of the defendant, he has the burden of
character as to warrant an inference that it proving such negligence.-
would not have happened except for the
defendant’s negligence; (2) the accident must —Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court
have been caused by an agency or provides that “burden of proof is the duty of a
instrumentality within the exclusive party to present evidence on the facts in issue
management or control of the person charged necessary to establish his claim or defense by
with the negligence complained of; and (3) the amount of evidence required by law.” It is
the accident must not have been due to any then up for the plaintiff to establish his cause
voluntary action or contribution on the part of action or the defendant to establish his
of the person injured.- defense. Therefore, if the plaintiff alleged in
his complaint that he was damaged because
—Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase which of the negligent acts of the defendant, he has
literally means “the thing or the transaction the burden of proving such negligence. It is
speaks for itself.” It relates to the fact of an even presumed that a person takes ordinary
injury that sets out an inference to the cause care of his concerns. The quantum of proof
thereof or establishes the plaintiff’s prima required is preponderance of evidence.
facie case. The doctrine rests on inference and
not on presumption. The facts of the
5. Same; Quasi-Delicts; Actions; In an action such is not a complete and proper defense in
based on quasi-delict, it is incumbent upon the selection and supervision of employees.
the plaintiff to prove the presence of the In quasi-delict, there is no presumption of
following requisites before the defendant can negligence and it is incumbent upon the
be held liable, to wit: (a) damages suffered by injured party to prove the negligence of the
the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, otherwise, the former’s complaint
defendant, or some other person for whose will be dismissed, while in breach of contract,
acts he must respond; and (c) the connection negligence is presumed so long as it can be
of cause and effect between the fault or proved that there was breach of the contract
negligence of the defendant and the damages and the burden is on the defendant to prove
incurred by the plaintiff.- that there was no negligence in the carrying
out of the terms of the contract; the rule of
—As petitioner’s cause of action is based on respondeat superior is followed.
quasi-delict, it is incumbent upon her to
prove the presence of the following requisites Lucas vs. Tuano, GR. 178763
before respondents PHI and DTPCI can be
held liable, to wit: (a) damages suffered by Physicians; Medical Malpractice; Negligence;
the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the Damages; Burden of Proof; The present
defendant, or some other person for whose controversy is a classic illustration of a
acts he must respond; and (c) the connection medical negligence case against a physician
of cause and effect between the fault or based on the latter’s professional negligence,
negligence of the defendant and the damages and in this type of suit, the patient or his
incurred by the plaintiff. Further, since heirs, in order to prevail, is required to prove
petitioner’s case is for quasi-delict, the by preponderance of evidence that the
negligence or fault should be clearly physician failed to exercise that degree of
established as it is the basis of her action. The skill, care, and learning possessed by other
burden of proof is upon petitioner. persons in the same profession, and that as a
proximate result of such failure, the patient or
6. Civil Law; “Quasi-Delicts” and “Breach of his heirs suffered damages.—Petitioners’
Contract,” Distinguished.- position, in sum, is that Peter’s glaucoma is
the direct result of Dr. Tuaño’s negligence in
—In that regard, this Court finds it significant
his improper administration of the drug
to take note of the following differences
Maxitrol; “thus, [the latter] should be liable
between quasi-delict (culpa aquilina) and
for all the damages suffered and to be
breach of contract (culpa contractual). In
suffered by [petitioners].” Clearly, the present
quasi-delict, negligence is direct, substantive
controversy is a classic illustration of a
and independent, while in breach of contract,
medical negligence case against a physician
negligence is merely incidental to the
based on the latter’s professional negligence.
performance of the contractual obligation;
In this type of suit, the patient or his heirs, in
there is a pre-existing contract or obligation.
order to prevail, is required to prove by
In quasi-delict, the defense of “good father of
preponderance of evidence that the physician
a family” is a complete and proper defense
failed to exercise that degree of skill, care, and
insofar as parents, guardians and employers
learning possessed by other persons in the
are concerned, while in breach of contract,
same profession; and that as a proximate
result of such failure, the patient or his heirs exercise in like cases, which standard level of
suffered damages. care, skill and diligence is a matter best
addressed by expert medical testimony,
Same; Same; Same; Elements; For lack of a because the standard of care in a medical
specific law geared towards the type of malpractice case is a matter peculiarly within
negligence committed by members of the the knowledge of experts in the field.—When
medical profession, such claim for damages is a patient engages the services of a physician,
almost always anchored on the alleged a physician-patient relationship is generated.
violation of Article 2176 of the Civil Code; In And in accepting a case, the physician, for all
medical negligence cases, also called medical intents and purposes, represents that he has
malpractice suits, there exist a physician- the needed training and skill possessed by
patient relationship between the doctor and physicians and surgeons practicing in the
the victim.—For lack of a specific law geared same field; and that he will employ such
towards the type of negligence committed by training, care, and skill in the treatment of the
members of the medical profession, such patient. Thus, in treating his patient, a
claim for damages is almost always anchored physician is under a duty to [the former] to
on the alleged violation of Article 2176 of the exercise that degree of care, skill and
Civil Code, which states that: ART. 2176. diligence which physicians in the same
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to general neighborhood and in the same
another, there being fault or negligence, is general line of practice ordinarily possess and
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such exercise in like cases. Stated otherwise, the
fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing physician has the duty to use at least the
contractual relation between the parties, is same level of care that any other reasonably
called a quasi-delict and is governed by the competent physician would use to treat the
provisions of this Chapter. In medical condition under similar circumstances. This
negligence cases, also called medical standard level of care, skill and diligence is a
malpractice suits, there exist a physician- matter best addressed by expert medical
patient relationship between the doctor and testimony, because the standard of care in a
the victim. But just like any other proceeding medical malpractice case is a matter
for damages, four essential (4) elements i.e., peculiarly within the knowledge of experts in
(1) duty; (2) breach; (3) injury; and (4) the field.
proximate causation, must be established by
the plaintiff/s. All the four (4) elements must Same; Same; Same; There is breach of duty of
co-exist in order to find the physician care, skill and diligence, or the improper
negligent and, thus, liable for damages. performance of such duty, by the attending
physician when the patient is injured in body
Same; Same; Same; When a patient engages or in health [and this] constitutes the
the services of a physician, a physician- actionable malpractice; In order that there
patient relationship is generated; In treating may be a recovery for an injury, it must be
his patient, a physician is under a duty to the shown that the “injury for which recovery is
former to exercise that degree of care, skill sought must be the legitimate consequence of
and diligence which physicians in the same the wrong done; the connection between the
general neighborhood and in the same negligence and the injury must be a direct
general line of practice ordinarily possess and and natural sequence of events, unbroken by
intervening efficient causes”—that is, the evidence in a medical malpractice action, [the
negligence must be the proximate cause of patient] must similarly use expert testimony,
the injury.—There is breach of duty of care, because the question of whether the alleged
skill and diligence, or the improper professional negligence caused [the patient’s]
performance of such duty, by the attending injury is generally one for specialized expert
physician when the patient is injured in body knowledge beyond the ken of the average
or in health [and this] constitutes the layperson; using the specialized knowledge
actionable malpractice. Proof of such breach and training of his field, the expert’s role is to
must likewise rest upon the testimony of an present to the [court] a realistic assessment
expert witness that the treatment accorded to of the likelihood that [the physician’s] alleged
the patient failed to meet the standard level negligence caused [the patient’s] injury. From
of care, skill and diligence which physicians in the foregoing, it is apparent that medical
the same general neighborhood and in the negligence cases are best proved by opinions
same general line of practice ordinarily of expert witnesses belonging in the same
possess and exercise in like cases. Even so, general neighborhood and in the same
proof of breach of duty on the part of the general line of practice as defendant
attending physician is insufficient, for there physician or surgeon. The deference of courts
must be a causal connection between said to the expert opinion of qualified physicians
breach and the resulting injury sustained by [or surgeons] stems from the former’s
the patient. Put in another way, in order that realization that the latter possess unusual
there may be a recovery for an injury, it must technical skills which laymen in most
be shown that the “injury for which recovery instances are incapable of intelligently
is sought must be the legitimate consequence evaluating; hence, the indispensability of
of the wrong done; the connection between expert testimonies.
the negligence and the injury must be a direct
and natural sequence of events, unbroken by Same; Same; Same; The mere fact that the
intervening efficient causes”; that is, the patient does not get well or that a bad result
negligence must be the proximate cause of occurs does not in itself indicate failure to
the injury. And the proximate cause of an exercise due care.—We cannot but agree with
injury is that cause, which, in the natural and Dr. Tuaño’s assertion that when a doctor sees
continuous sequence, unbroken by any a patient, he cannot determine immediately
efficient intervening cause, produces the whether the latter would react adversely to
injury, and without which the result would the use of steroids; all the doctor can do is
not have occurred. map out a course of treatment recognized as
correct by the standards of the medical
Same; Same; Same; Evidence; Expert profession. It must be remembered that a
Witnesses; Medical negligence cases are best physician is not an insurer of the good result
proved by opinions of expert witnesses of treatment. The mere fact that the patient
belonging in the same general neighborhood does not get well or that a bad result occurs
and in the same general line of practice as does not in itself indicate failure to exercise
defendant physician or surgeon.—Just as with due care.The result is not determinative of
the elements of duty and breach of the same, the performance [of the physician] and he is
in order to establish the proximate cause [of not required to be infallible.
the injury] by a preponderance of the
Same; Same; Same; The critical and clinching sudden increase in the intraocular vision.
factor in a medical negligence case is proof of Visual acuity remains good until late in the
the causal connection between the negligence course of the disease. Hence, Dr. Tuaño claims
which the evidence established and the that Peter’s glaucoma “can only be long
plaintiff’s injuries.—Even if we are to assume standing x x x because of the large C:D ratio,”
that Dr. Tuaño committed negligent acts in and that “[t]he steroids provoked the latest
his treatment of Peter’s condition, the causal glaucoma to be revealed earlier” was a
connection between Dr. Tuaño’s supposed blessing in disguise “as [Peter] remained
negligence and Peter’s injury still needed to asymptomatic prior to steroid application.”
be established. The critical and clinching
factor in a medical negligence case is proof of Same; Same; Same; Presumptions; It must be
the causal connection between the negligence remembered that when the qualifications of a
which the evidence established and the physician are admitted, as in the instant case,
plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff must plead there is an inevitable presumption that in
and prove not only that he has been injured proper cases, he takes the necessary
and defendant has been at fault, but also that precaution and employs the best of his
the defendant’s fault caused the injury. A knowledge and skill in attending to his
verdict in a malpractice action cannot be clients, unless the contrary is sufficiently
based on speculation or conjecture. Causation established.—It must be remembered that
must be proven within a reasonable medical when the qualifications of a physician are
probability based upon competent expert admitted, as in the instant case, there is an
testimony. inevitable presumption that in proper cases,
he takes the necessary precaution and
Same; Same; Same; Glaucoma; Words and employs the best of his knowledge and skill in
Phrases; In Open-angle glaucoma, which is attending to his clients, unless the contrary is
characterized by an almost complete absence sufficiently established. In making the
of symptoms and a chronic, insidious course, judgment call of treating Peter’s EKC with
halos around lights and blurring of vision do Maxitrol, Dr. Tuaño took the necessary
not occur unless there has been a sudden precaution by palpating Peter’s eyes to
increase in the intraocular vision.—Dr. Tuaño monitor their IOP every time the latter went
does not deny that the use of Maxitrol for a check-up, and he employed the best of
involves the risk of increasing a patient’s IOP. his knowledge and skill earned from years of
In fact, this was the reason why he made it a training and practice.
point to palpate Peter’s eyes every time the
latter went to see him—so he could monitor Same; Same; Same; Civil Law; Evidence;
the tension of Peter’s eyes. But to say that Quantum of Proof; Preponderance of
said medication conclusively caused Peter’s Evidence; Words and Phrases; The concept of
glaucoma is purely speculative. Peter was “preponderance of evidence” refers to
diagnosed with open-angle glaucoma. This evidence which is of greater weight or more
kind of glaucoma is characterized by an convincing than that which is offered in
almost complete absence of symptoms and a opposition to it—in the last analysis, it means
chronic, insidious course. In open-angle probability of truth, it is evidence which is
glaucoma, halos around lights and blurring of more convincing to the court as worthy of
vision do not occur unless there has been a belief than that which is offered in opposition
thereto.—The plaintiff in a civil case has the constitutes proper medical treatment is a
burden of proof as he alleges the affirmative medical question that should have been
of the issue. However, in the course of trial in presented to experts—if no standard is
a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima established through expert medical
facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden witnesses, then courts have no standard by
of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert which to gauge the basic issue of breach
plaintiff’s prima facie case; otherwise, a thereof by the physician or surgeon.—It
verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff. seems basic that what constitutes proper
The party having the burden of proof must medical treatment is a medical question that
establish his case by a preponderance of should have been presented to experts. If no
evidence. The concept of “preponderance of standard is established through expert
evidence” refers to evidence which is of medical witnesses, then courts have no
greater weight or more convincing than that standard by which to gauge the basic issue of
which is offered in opposition to it; in the last breach thereof by the physician or surgeon.
analysis, it means probability of truth. It is The RTC and Court of Appeals, and even this
evidence which is more convincing to the Court, could not be expected to determine on
court as worthy of belief than that which is its own what medical technique should have
offered in opposition thereto. Rule 133, been utilized for a certain disease or injury.
Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court Absent expert medical opinion, the courts
provides the guidelines for determining would be dangerously engaging in
preponderance of evidence, thus: In civil speculations. Lucas vs. Tuaño, 586 SCRA 173,
cases, the party having the burden of proof G.R. No. 178763 April 21, 2009
must establish his case by a preponderance of
evidence. In determining where the
preponderance or superior weight of
evidence on the issues involved lies the court
may consider all the facts and circumstances
of the case, the witnesses’ manner of
testifying, their intelligence, their means and
opportunity of knowing the facts to which
they are testifying, the nature of the facts to
which they testify, the probability or
improbability of their testimony, their Air France vs. Carrasco, 18 SCRA 155
interest or want of interest, and also their
personal credibility so far as the same 1. Common carriers; Contracts; First class
legitimately appear upon the trial. The court tickets.-
may also consider the number of witnesses,
A written document speaks a uniform
though the preponderance is not necessarily
language; the spoken word could be
with the greater number.
notoriously unreliable. If only to achieve
stability in the relations between passenger
and air carrier, adherence to the terms of a
Same; Same; Same; Evidence; Expert ticket is desirable.
Witnesses; It seems basic that what
2. Common carriers; Damages; Moral Philippine School Business Administration
damages; Trial; Bad faith in breach of vs. CA, GR. 84698
contract of carriage.-
1. Civil Law; Quasi-Delicts; Article 2180 of the
Where at the start of the trial, respondent's Civil Code provides that the damage should
counsel placed petitioner on guard that he have been caused by pupils or students of the
intended to prove that, while sitting in the educational institution.-
plane in Bangkok, the respondent was ousted
.by petitioner's manager, who gave his seat to Article 2180, in conjunction with Article 2176
a white man, and evidence of bad faith in the of the Civil Code, establishes the rule of in
fulfillment of the contract was presented loco parentis. This Court discussed this
without objection on the part of the doctrine in the afore-cited cases of Exconde,
petitioner, it is therefore unnecessary to Mendoza, Palisoc and, more recently, in
inquire as to whether or not there is sufficient Amadora vs. Court of Appeals. In all such
averment in the complaint to justify an award cases, it had been stressed that the law
for moral damages. Deficiency in the (Article 2180) plainly provides that the
complaint, if any, was cured by the evidence. damage should have been caused or inflicted
by pupils or students of the educational
3. Common carriers; Exemplary damages.- institution sought to be held liable for the acts
of its pupils or students while in its custody.
The New Civil Code gives the court ample
However, this material situation does not
power to grant exemplary damages in
exist in the present case for, as earlier
contracts and quasi-contracts. The only
indicated, the assailants of Carlitos were not
condition is that defendant should have acted
students of the PSBA, for whose acts the
in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive,
school could be made liable.
or malevolent manner. The manner of
ejectment of respondent Carrascoso from his 2. Civil Law; Contracts; An academic
first class seat fits into this legal precept. institution enters into a contract when it
accepts students for enrollment; The contract
4. Common carriers; Attorney's fees.-
between school and student is one "imbued
The right to attorney's fees is fully with public interest".-
established. The grant of exemplary damages
Institutions of learning must also meet the
justifies a similar judgment for attorney's
implicit or "built-in" obligation of providing
fees. The least that can be said is that the
their students with an atmosphere that
courts below felt that it is but just and
promotes or assists in attaining its primary
equitable that attorneys’ fees be given. We do
undertaking of imparting knowledge.
not intend to break tradition that discretion
Certainly, no student can absorb the
well exercised—as it was here—should not
intricacies of physics or higher mathematics
be disturbed.
or explore the realm of the arts and other
sciences when bullets are flying or grenades
exploding in the air or where there looms
around the school premises a constant threat
to life and limb. Necessarily, the school must
ensure that adequate steps are taken to negligence occurs under the circumstances
maintain peace and order within the campus set out in Article 21 of the Civil Code.
premises and to prevent the breakdown
thereof. Manila Railroad vs. La Compania
Transatlantica, GR. 11318
3. Civil Law; Human Relations; Article 21; Any
person who wilfully causes loss or injury to 1.CARBIERS; CONTRACTS; LIABILITY FOR
another in a manner that is contrary to DAMAGE DONE IN DISCHARGING CARGO.—A
morals, good customs or public policy shall steamship company is liable upon its contract
compensate the latter for the damage.- of carriage for damage resulting- to cargo by
reason of the negligence of a contracting
Air France penalized the racist policy of the company in discharging the freight from the
airline which emboldened the petitioner's ship's hold; and the circumstance that the
employee to forcibly oust the private steamship company had used due diligence in
respondent to cater to the comfort of a white selecting a competent person to discharge the
man who allegedly "had a better right to the cargo does not exempt the ship's company
seat." In Austro-American, supra, the public from liability. The failure to comply with a
embarrassment caused to the passenger was contractual obligation cannot be excused by
the justification for the Circuit Court of proof that the damage was due to the
Appeals, (Second Circuit), to award damages negligence of one whom the contracting party
to the latter. From the foregoing, it can be has selected to perform the contract.
concluded that should the act which breaches
a contract be done in bad faith and be 2.NEGLIGENCE; EXEMPTION FROM
violative of Article 21, then there is a cause to LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES.—A contract
view the act as constituting a quasi-delict. In exempting a party from liability for the
the circumstances obtaining in the case at damages consequent upon accidents
bar, however, there is, as yet, no finding that occurring in the course of certain operations
the contract between the school and Bautista will not be construed to extend to damages
had been breached thru the former's resulting from the negligence of the
negligence in providing proper security contracting party or its servants in
measures. This would be for the trial court to conducting such operations, unless the
determine. And, even if there be a finding of contract is so explicit as to leave no room for
negligence, the same could give rise generally doubt that the parties so intended. Contracts
to a breach of contractual obligation only. against liability for negligence are not favored
Using the test of Cangco, supra, the negligence in the law and should be strictly construed,
of the school would not be relevant absent a with every intendment against the party
contract. In fact, that negligence becomes claiming "the benefit of the exemption from
material only because of the contractual such. liability.
relation between PSBA and Bautista. In other
3.ID. ; ID. ; CASE AT BAR.—A contracting
words, a contractual relation is a condition
company was employed by a steamship
sine qua non to the school's liability. The
company to lift a number of heavy
negligence of the school cannot exist
steamboilers from the ship's hold and place
independently on the contract, unless the
them on a lighter alongside, with the
understanding that while the contracting his part or that of his servants in performing
company would use due care in getting the such service.
boilers out, no responsibility would be
assumed by it for accidents due to any hidden 6.CONTRACTS; PRIVITY OF CONTRACT;
defect in the lifting apparatus or other ACTION BY OWNER FOR DAMAGB IN
unforeseen occurrence. There was no express DISCHARGE OP FREIGHT.—A contracting
reservation with. regard to damage company which undertakes to remove freight
attributable to the negligence of the ,from a ship's hold, subject to certain
contracting company, or - its agents in the conditions defined in a contract made with
lifting operations. In the course of discharging the steamship company, is not liable to the
the boilers, serious damage was done to one owner of freight for damage done thereto in
of them by reason of the negligence of the the lifting operations. In such case the owner
person in charge of the lifting operations. of the freight must Ipok for redress to the
Held: That the contracting company was ship's company and for lack of privity cannot
liable for the damage thus done in the maintain an action on the contract made
performance of its contract and could not be between the ship's company and the other.
exempted by reason of the fact that it had Manila Railroad Co. vs. Compania
used due care in selecting the servant whom Trasatldntica., 38 Phil. 875, No. 11318
it had placed in charge of the work. October 26, 1918

4.ID.; "CULPA CONTRACTUAL" AND "CULPA LRTA vs. Navidad, 397 SCRA 75
AQUILIANA" DISTINGUISHED.—Negligence
1. Civil Law; Contracts; Contract of
incident to the performance of a contractual
Carriage; The law requires common carriers
obligation (culpa contractual) is entirely
to carry passengers safely using the utmost
distinct from negligence considered as an
diligence of very cautious persons with due
independent source of liability in the absence
regard for all circumstances.-
of special relation. The latter species of
negligence is the culpa, aquiliana of the civil The law requires common carriers to carry
law; and liability arising therefrom is passengers safely using the utmost diligence
governed by articles 1902-1904 of the Civil of very cautious persons with due regard for
Code; while the liability incident to the all circumstances. Such duty of a common
performance of contractual obligations 'is carrier to provide safety to its passengers so
governed by articles 1101 et seq. and other obligates it not only during the course of the
special provisions relative to contractual trip but for so long as the passengers are
obligations. within its premises and where they ought to
be in pursuance to the contract of carriage.
5.ID.; LlABILlTY OF OFFICIOUS MEDDLER
(GESTOR OFICIOSO).—A party who, in the 2. Civil Law; Contracts; Contract of
absence of any contract whatever, officiously Carriage; Instances when a common carrier
under takes to do a service with respect to becomes liable for death of or injury to
the property of another, as in moving it from passengers.-
one place to another, is liable for any damage
resulting thereto by reason of negligence on The statutory provisions render a common
carrier liable for death of or injury to
passengers (a) through the negligence or 5. Civil Law; Obligations; Tort; In fine, a
willful acts of its employees or b) on account liability for tort may arise even under a
of willful acts or negligence of other contract, where tort is that which breaches
passengers or of strangers if the common the contract.-
carrier’s employees through the exercise of
due diligence could have prevented or A contractual obligation can be breached by
stopped the act or omission. tort and when the same act or omission
causes the injury, one resulting in culpa
3. Civil Law; Contracts; Contract of contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana,
Carriage; Presumption of Negligence; In case Article 2194 of the Civil Code can well apply.
of such death or injury, a carrier is presumed In fine, a liability for tort may arise even
to have been at fault or been negligent.- under a contract, where tort is that which
breaches the contract. Stated differently,
In case of such death or injury, a carrier is when an act which constitutes a breach of
presumed to have been at fault or been contract would have itself constituted the
negligent, andby simple proof of injury, the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no
passenger is relieved of the duty to still contract existed between the parties, the
establish the fault or negligence of the carrier contract can be said to have been breached by
or of its employees and the burden shifts tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to
upon the carrier to prove that the injury is apply.
due to an unforeseen event or to force
majeure. 6. Civil Law; Damages; Nominal Damages; It is
an established rule that nominal damages
4. Civil Law; Obligations; Tort; The premise, cannot co-exist with compensatory damages.-
however, for the employer’s liability is
negligence or fault on the part of the The award of nominal damages in addition to
employee.- actual damages is untenable. Nominal
damages are adjudicated in order that a right
Should Prudent be made likewise liable? If at of the plaintiff, which has been violated or
all, that liability could only be for tort under invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated
the provisions of Article 2176 and related or recognized, and not for the purpose of
provisions, in conjunction with Article 2180, indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss
of the Civil Code. The premise, however, for suffered by him. It is an established rule that
the employer’s liability is negligence or fault nominal damages cannot co-exist with
on the part of the employee. Once such fault is compensatory damages.
established, the employer can then be made
liable on the basis of the presumption juris
tantum that the employer failed to exercise
diligentissimi patris families in the selection
and supervision of its employees. The liability
is primary and can only be negated by
showing due diligence in the selection and
supervision of the employee, a factual matter
that has not been shown.
 —The primary and direct responsibility of
employer under article 1903, Civil Code, is
more likely to facilitate remedy for civil
wrongs. Such primary and direct
responsibility of employers is calculated to
Barredo vs Garcia and Almario, GR. No.
protect society.
48006, July 8, 1942
4. Id.; Id.; Id.; Id.; Degree of Proof.-
1. Damages; Quasi-delict or "Culpa
Aquiliana"; Primary and Direct Responsibility —There are numerous cases of criminal
of Employers under Articles 1902-1910 of the negligence which can not be shown beyond
Civil Code.- reasonable doubt, but can be proved by a
preponderance of evidence. In such cases,
—A head-on collision between a taxi and a
defendant can and should be made
carretela resulted in the death of a 16-year-
responsible in a civil action under articles
old boy, one of the passengers of the car-
1902 to 1910, Civil Code. Ubi jus ibi
retela. A criminal action was filed against the
remedium.
taxi driver and he was convicted and
sentenced accordingly. The court in the 5. Id.; Id.; Id.; Foundations of Doctrines Above
criminal case granted the petition that the Set Forth; Literal Meaning of the Law.-
right to bring a separate civil action be
reserved. Thereafter the parents of the — The Revised Penal Code punishes not only
deceased brought suit for damages against reckless but also simple negligence; if it
the proprietor of the taxi, the employer of the should be held that articles 1902-1910, Civil
taxi driver, under article 1903 of the Civil Code, apply only to negligence not punishable
Code. Defendant contended that his liability by law, culpa aquiliana would have very little
was governed by the Revised Penal Code, application in actual life. The literal meaning
according to which his responsibility was of the law will not be used to smother a
only secondary, but no civil action had been principle of such ancient origin and such full-
brought against the taxi driver. Held: That grown development as culpa aquiliana.
this separate civil action lies, the employer
6. Id.; Id.; Id.; Decisions of this Court.-
being primarily and directly responsible in
damages under articles 1902 and 1903 of the —Decisions of this Court are also cited
Civil Code. holding that, in this jurisdiction, the separate
individuality of a euasirdelito or culpa
2. Id.; Id.; Id.; Id.; Practice of Relying Solely on
aquiliana under the Civil Code has been fully
Civil Responsibility for a Crime.-
and clearly recognized, even with regard to a
—The harm done by such practice is pointed negligent act for. which the wrongdoer could
out, and the principle of responsibility for have been prosecuted and convicted in a
fault or negligence under articles 1902 et seq., criminal case and for which, after such a
of the Civil Code is restored to its full vigor. conviction, he could have been sued for his
civil liability arising from his crime.
3. Id.; Id.; Id.; Id.; Expeditious Remedy.-
7. Id.; Id.; Id.; Sentences of the Supreme
Tribunal of Spain.-
—The decision cites sentences of the intervenga cualquier genero de culpa o
Supreme Tribunal of Spain upholding the negligencia." Then article 1093 provides that
principles above set forth: that a quasi-delict this kind of obligation shall be governed by
or culpa extra-contractual is a separate and Chapter II of Title XVI of Book IV, meaning
distinct legal institution, independent from articles 1902-1910. This portion of the Civil
the civil responsibility arising from criminal Code is exclusively devoted to the legal insti-
liability, and that an employer is, under tution of culpa aquiliana.
article 1903 of the Civil Code, primarily and
directly responsible for the negligent acts of 11. Id.; Id.; Id.-
his employee. —The individuality of cuati-delito or culpa
8. Id.; Id.; Id.; Opinions of Jurists.- extra-contractual looms clear and unmis-
takable. This legal institution is of ancient
—The decision sets out extracts from lineage, one of its early ancestors being the
opinions of jurists on the separate existence Lex Aquilia in the Roman Law. In fact, in
of cuasi-delicts and the employer's primary Spanish legal términology, this responsibility
and direct liability under article 1903 of the is often referred to as culpa aquiliana. The
Civil Code. Partidas also contributed to the genealogy of
the present fault or negligence under the Civil
9. Id.; Id.; Id.; Distinction between Crimes Code: for instance, Law 6, Title 16, of Partida
under the Penal Code and the "Culpa 7, says: "Tenudo es de fazer emienda, porque,
Aquiliana" or "Cuasi-Delito" under the Civil cómo quier que el non fizo a sabiendas el
Code.- daño al otro, pero acaesció por su culpa."
— A distinction exists between the civil liabil- 12. Id.; Id.; Id.-
ity arising from a crime and the responsibility
for cuasi-delitos or culpa extra-contractual. —A quasi-delict or "culpa aquiliana" is a
The same negligent act causing damages may separate legal institution under the Civil
produce civil liability arising from a crime un- Code, with a substantivity all its own, and
der article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, or individuality that is entirely apart and inde-
create an action for cuasi-delito or culpa pendent from a delict or crime. Upon this
extra-contractual under articles 1902-1910 of principle, and on the wording and spirit of
the Civil Code. Plaintiffs were free to choose article 1903 of the Civil Code, the primary and
which remedy to enforce. Some of the differ- direct responsibility of employers may be
ences between crimes under the Penal Code safely anchored.
and the culpa aquiliana or cuasi-delito under
the Civil Code are enumerated in the decision. Elcano vs. Hill, May 26, 1977

10. Id.; Id.; Id.-

1. Civil law; Damages; Quasi-delicts; The
—The distinctive nature of cuasi-delitos concept of culpa aquiliana includes acts which
survives in the Civil Code. According to article are criminal in character, whether voluntary
1089, one of the five sources of obligations is or negligent.-
this legal institution of cuasi-delito or culpa
extra-contractual: "los actos * * * en que
Contrary to an immediate impression one violation of the penal law, whether voluntary
might get upon a reading of the foregoing or negligent.
excerpts from the opinion in Garcia—that the
concurrence of the Penal Code and the Civil 2. Civil law; Damages; Quasi-delicts; A
Code therein referred to contemplates only separate civil action lies against the offender
acts of negligence and not intentional in a criminal act, whether or not he is
voluntary acts—deeper reflection would criminally prosecuted and found guilty or
reveal that the thrust of the pronouncements acquitted, provided that the victim do not
therein is not so limited, but that in fact is recover damages on both scores.-
actually extends to fault or culpa. This can be . . . It results, therefore, that the acquittal of
seen in the reference made therein to the Reginald Hill in the criminal case has not
Sentence of the Supreme Court of Spain of extinguished his liability for quasi-delict,
February 14, 1919, supra, which involved a hence that acquittal is not a bar to the instant
case of fraud or estafa, not a negligent act. action against him.
Indeed, Article 1093 of the Civil Code of
Spain, in force here at the time of Garcia, 3. Civil law; Damages; Quasi-delicts; The
provided textually that obligations “which are vicarious liability of the parents on account of
derived from acts or omissions in which fault a delict committed by their minor child is not
or negligence, not punishable by law, extinguished by the fact that said, child who is
intervene shall be the subject of Chapter 11, Hiring with and dependent upon said parents
Title XV of this book (which refers to quasi- is married.-
delicts.)” And it is precisely the underlined
qualification, “not punishable by law,” that Coming now to the second issue about the
Justice Bocobo emphasized could lead to an effect of Reginald’s emancipation by marriage
undesirable construction or interpretation of on the possible civil liability of Atty. Hill, his
the letter of the law that “killeth, rather than father, it is also Our considered opinion that
the spirit that giveth life” hence, the ruling the conclusion of appellees that Atty. Hill is
that “(W)e will not use the literal meaning of already free from responsibility cannot be
the law to smother and render almost lifeless upheld. . . . . It must be borne in mind that,
a principle of such ancient origin and such according to Manresa, the reason behind the
full-grown development as culpa aquiliana or joint and solidary liability of parents with
causi-delito, which is conserved and made their offending child under Article 2180 is
enduring in articles 1902 to 1910 of the that it is the obligation of the parent to
Spanish Civil Code.” And so, because Justice supervise their minor children in order to
Bocobo was Chairman of the Code prevent them from causing damage to third
Commission that drafted the original text of persons. On the other hand, the clear
the new Civil Code, it is to be noted that the implication of Article 399, in providing that a
said Code, which was enacted after the Garcia minor emancipated by marriage may not,
doctrine, no longer uses the term, “not nevertheless, sue or be sued without the
punishable by law,” thereby making it clear assistance of the parents, is that such
that the concept of culpa aquiliana includes emancipation does not carry with it freedom
acts which are criminal in character or in to enter into transactions or do any act that
can give rise to judicial litigation. (See
Manresa, id., Vol. II, pp. 766-767, 776.) And
surely, killing someone else invites judicial These two causes of action (ex delicto or ex
action. Otherwise stated, the marriage of a quasi delicto) may be availed of, subject to the
minor child does not relieve the parents of ca- veat that the offended party cannot
the duty to see to it that the child, while still a “recover damages twice for the same act or
minor, does not give cause to any litigation, in omission” or under both causes. Since these
the same manner that the parents are two civil liabilities are distinct and
answerable for the borrowings of money and independent of each other, the failure to
alienation or encumbering of real property recover in one will not necessarily preclude
which cannot be done by their minor married recovery in the other.
child without their consent, (Art. 399;
Manresa, supra.) Accordingly, in Our 3. Civil Law; Negligence; Quasi-
considered view, Article 2180 applies to Atty. delict; Damages; Motor Vehicle
Hill notwithstanding the emancipation by Law; Petitioner held liable for the deaths and
marriage of Reginald. However, inasmuch as the injuries complained of, because it was the
it is evident that Reginald is now of age, as a registered owner of the tractor at the time of
matter of equity, the liability of Atty. Hill has the accident on July 17, 1994; Regardless of
become merely subsidiary to that of his son. sales made of a motor vehicle, the registered
owner is the lawful operator insofar as the
public and third persons are concerned; In
contemplation of law, the owner I operator of
record is the employer of the driver, the
actual operator and employer being
considered as merely its agent.-

We hold petitioner liable for the deaths and

Equitable Leasing Corporation vs. Lucita
the injuries complained of, because it was the
Suyom, Sept. 5, 2002
registered owner of the tractor at the time of
1. Civil Law; Negligence; Quasi- the accident on July 17, 1994. The Court has
delict; Requisites to sustain a claim for quasi consistently ruled that, regardless of sales
delict.- made of a motor vehicle, the registered owner
is the lawful operator insofar as the public
To sustain a claim based on quasi delict, the and third persons are concerned;
following requisites must be proven: (a) consequently, it is directly and primarily
damage suffered by the plaintiff, (b) fault or responsible for the consequences of its
negligence of the defendant, and (c) operation. In contemplation of law, the
connection of cause and effect between the owner/operator of record is the employer of
fault or negligence of the defendant and the the driver, the actual operator and employer
damage incurred by the plaintiff. being considered as merely its agent. The
same principle applies even if the registered
2. Civil Law; Negligence; Quasi- owner of any vehicle does not use it for public
delict; Offended party cannot “recover service.
damages twice for the same act or omission”
or under both causes.-

Lim vs. Ping, August 23, 2012 The test for determining whether a person is
negligent in doing an act whereby injury or
1. Civil Liability; A single act or omission that damage results to the person or property of
causes damage to an offended party may give another is this: Would a prudent man, in the
rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part position of the person to whom negligence is
of the offender- attributed, foresee harm to the person injured
as a reasonable consequence of the course
—(1) civil liability ex delicto, that is, civil
about to be pursued. If so, the law imposes a
liability arising from the criminal offense
duty on the actor to refrain from that course
under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code,
or to take precaution against its mischievous
and (2) independent civil liability, that is, civil
results, and the failure to do so constitutes
liability that may be pursued independently
negligence. Reasonable foresight of harm,
of the criminal proceedings.―A single act or
followed by the ignoring of the admonition
omission that causes damage to an offended
born of this prevision, is the constitutive fact
party may give rise to two separate civil
in negligence.
liabilities on the part of the offender. ―(1)
civil liability ex delicto, that is, civil liability 2. NEGLIGENCE; CONTRIBUTORY
arising from the criminal offense under NEGLIGENCE; SUCCESSIVE NEGLIGENT
Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and (2) ACTS.-
independent civil liability, that is, civil liability
that may be pursued independently of the Where both parties are guilty of negligence,
criminal proceedings. The independent civil but the negligent act of one succeeds that of
liability may be based on “an obligation not the other by an appreciable interval of time,
arising from the act or omission complained the one who has the last reasonable
of as a felony,” as provided in Article 31 of the opportunity to avoid the impending harm and
Civil Code (such as for breach of contract or fails to do so is chargeable with the
for tort). It may also be based on an act or consequences, without reference to the prior
omission that may constitute felony but, negligence of the other party.
nevertheless, treated independently from the
3. NEGLIGENCE; CONTRIBUTORY
criminal action by specific provision of Article
NEGLIGENCE; CASE AT BAR.-
33 of the Civil Code (“in cases of defamation,
fraud and physical injuries”). The plaintiff was riding a pony on a bridge,
Seeing an automobile ahead he improperly
pulled his horse over to the railing on the
right. The driver of the automobile, however,
guided his car toward the plaintiff without
diminution of speed until he was only a few
Picart vs. Smith, 37 Phil 809 (1918) feet away. He then turned to the right but
passed so closely to the horse that the latter
1. NEGLIGENCE; CRITERION FOR
being frightened, jumped around and was
DETERMINING EXISTENCE OF NEGLI-
killed by the passing car. Held: That although
GENCE.-
the plaintiff was guilty of negligence in being
on the wrong side of the bridge, the
defendant was nevertheless civilly liable for
the legal damages resulting from the collision, the- victim to stop his jeep to avoid a collision
as he had a fair opportunity to avoid the and that main witness of defendant-appellee,
accident af ter he realized the situation who drove the engine, was not qualified to do
created by the negligence of the plaintiff and so at the time of the accident. For one cannot
failed to avail himself of that opportunity; just single out a circumstance and then
while the plaintiff could by no means then confidently assign to it decisive weight and
place himself in a position of greater safety. significance. Considered separately, neither of
the two above errors assigned would call for
Corliss vs. Manila Rail Road, March 28, a judgment different in character. Nor would
1969 a combination of acts allegedly impressed
with negligence suffice to alter the result. The
2. Damages; Negligence; One is liable for
quantum of proof required still had not been
damages for act of negligence causing damage
met. The alleged errors fail of their desired
to another.-
effect. The case for plaintiff-appellant, such as
The Civil Code making clear .that whoever by it was, had not been improved. There is no
act or omission causes damage to another, justification for reversing the judgment of the
there being negligence, is under obligation to lower court.
pay for the damage done. (Art. 2176) Unless it
5. Damages; Negligence; Criminal
could be satisfactorily shown, therefore, that
negligence; May be attributed to a person
defendant-appellee was guilty of negligence,
who does not exercise precaution and control
then it could not be held liable.
in crossing railroads.-
3. Damages; Negligence; Definition.-
A person in control of an automobile who
Negligence is want of the care required by the crosses a railroad, even at a regular road
circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, crossing, and who does not exercise that
not an absolute, term and its application precaution and that control over it as to be
depends upon the situation of the parties and able to stop the same almost immediately
the degree of care and vigilance which the upon the appearance of a train, is guilty of
circumstances reasonably require. Where the criminal negligence, providing a collision
danger is great, a high degree of care is occurs and injury results.
necessary, and the failure to observe it is a
6. Damages; Negligence; Where facts of the
want of ordinary care under the
case show it was incumbent upon the victim
circumstances.
to stop his vehicle.-
4. Damages; Negligence; Where victim has
Predicated on the testimonies of the plaintiff s
duty to stop despite failure of appellee’s
witnesses, on the knowledge of the deceased
employer to put down crossing bars.-
and his familiarity with the set up of the
The f irst two assigned ‘errors would make checkpoint, the existence of the tracks, and on
much of ,the failure of the lower court to hold the further fact that the locomotive had
that the crossing bars not having been put blown its siren or whistle, which was heard
down and there being no guard at the gate- by said witnesses, it is dear that the victim
house, there still was a duty on the part of was so sufficiently warned in advance of the
oncoming train that it was incumbent upon
him to avoid a possible accident—and this Same; Same; Proximate Cause; Words and
consisted simply in stopping his vehicle Phrases; Definition of Proximate Cause; In
before the crossing and allowing the train to order to establish a motorist’s liability for the
move on. A prudent man under similar negligent operation of a vehicle; it must be
circumstances would have acted in this shown that there was a direct causal
manner. This, unfortunately, the victim failed connection between such negligence and the
to do. injuries or damages complained of.—
Assuming arguendo that petitioner had been
Gaid vs. People, April 7, 2009 negligent, it must be shown that his
negligence was the proximate cause of the
Civil Law; Negligence; Definition of
accident. Proximate cause is defined as that
Negligence; Elements of Simple Negligence;
which, in the natural and continuous
Standard test in determining whether a
sequence, unbroken by any efficient,
person is negligent in doing an act whereby
intervening cause, produces the injury, and
injury or damage results to the person or
without which the result would not have
property of another.—Negligence has been
occurred. In order to establish a motorist’s
defined as the failure to observe for the
liability for the negligent operation of a
protection of the interests of another person
vehicle, it must be shown that there was a
that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance
direct causal connection between such
which the circumstances justly demand,
negligence and the injuries or damages
whereby such other person suffers injury.
complained of. Thus, negligence that is not a
The elements of simple negligence: are (1)
substantial contributing factor in the
that there is lack of precaution on the part of
causation of the accident is not the proximate
the offender; and (2) that the damage
cause of an injury.
impending to be caused is not immediate or
the danger is not clearly manifest. The Pacis vs. Morales, February 25, 2010
standard test in determining whether a
person is negligent in doing an act whereby 1. Quasi-Delicts; Torts and Damages; Under
injury or damage results to the person or Article 1161 of the Civil Code, an injured
property of another is this: could a prudent party may enforce his claim for damages
man, in the position of the person to whom based on the civil liability arising from the
negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal
person injured as a reasonable consequence Code or he may opt to file an independent
of the course actually pursued? If so, the law civil action for damages under the Civil
imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from Code; Unlike the subsidiary liability of the
that course or to take precautions to guard employer under Article 103 of the Revised
against its mischievous results, and the Penal Code, the liability of the employer, or
failure to do so constitutes negligence. any person for that matter, under Article
Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the 2176 of the Civil Code is primary and direct,
ignoring of the admonition born of this based on a person’s own negligence.-
provision, is always necessary before
negligence can be held to exist. —This case for damages arose out of the
accidental shooting of petitioners’ son. Under
Article 1161 of the Civil Code, petitioners may
enforce their claim for damages based on the repair should not be loaded precisely because
civil liability arising from the crime under they are defective and may cause an
Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code or they accidental discharge such as what happened
may opt to file an independent civil action for in this case. Respondent was clearly negligent
damages under the Civil Code. In this case, when he accepted the gun for repair and
instead of enforcing their claim for damages placed it inside the drawer without ensuring
in the homicide case filed against Matibag, first that it was not loaded. In the first place,
petitioners opted to file an independent civil the defective gun should have been stored in
action for damages against respondent whom a vault. Before accepting the defective gun for
they alleged was Matibag’s employer. repair, respondent should have made sure
Petitioners based their claim for damages that it was not loaded to prevent any
under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil untoward accident. Indeed, respondent
Code. Unlike the subsidiary liability of the should never accept a firearm from another
employer under Article 103 of the Revised person, until the cylinder or action is open
Penal Code, the liability of the employer, or and he has personally checked that the
any person for that matter, under Article weapon is completely unloaded. For failing to
2176 of the Civil Code is primary and direct, insure that the gun was not loaded,
based on a person’s own negligence. Article respondent himself was negligent.
2176 states: Art. 2176. Whoever by act or Furthermore, it was not shown in this case
omission causes damage to another, there whether respondent had a License to Repair
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for which authorizes him to repair defective
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if firearms to restore its original composition or
there is no pre-existing contractual relation enhance or upgrade firearms.
between the parties, is called quasi-delict and
is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. 3. Same; Same; A higher degree of care is
required of someone who has in his
2. Same; Same; Gun Stores; A gun store owner possession or under his control an
is presumed to be knowledgeable about instrumentality extremely dangerous in
firearms safety and should have known never character, such as dangerous weapons or
to keep a loaded weapon in his store to avoid substances.-
unreasonable risk of harm or injury to
others.- —A higher degree of care is required of
someone who has in his possession or under
—As a gun store owner, respondent is his control an instrumentality extremely
presumed to be knowledgeable about dangerous in character, such as dangerous
firearms safety and should have known never weapons or substances. Such person in
to keep a loaded weapon in his store to avoid possession or control of dangerous
unreasonable risk of harm or injury to others. instrumentalities has the duty to take
Respondent has the duty to ensure that all the exceptional precautions to prevent any injury
guns in his store are not loaded. Firearms being done thereby. Unlike the ordinary
should be stored unloaded and separate from affairs of life or business which involve little
ammunition when the firearms are not or no risk, a business dealing with dangerous
needed for ready-access defensive use. With weapons requires the exercise of a higher
more reason, guns accepted by the store for degree of care.
 drainage of the open terrace [See Record on
Appeal, pp. 13 and 57; Rollo, p. 39], its failure
Civil Aeronautics Administration vs. CA and to have it repaired or altered in order to
Ernest Simke, November 8, 1988 eliminate the existing hazard constitutes such
negligence as to warrant a finding of liability
3. Administrative Law; Functions of the
based on quasi-delict upon CAA.
CAA; Torts and Damages; Due Diligence; In
the discharge of its functions, the CAA is duty 5. Administrative Law; Functions of the
bound to exercise due diligence in overseeing CAA; Torts and Damages; Due
the construction and maintenance of the Diligence; Quasi-
viewing deck of the airport.- Delict;Negligence; Contributory
Negligence; Applying the test formulated in
Hence, the CAA cannot disclaim its liability for
Picart vs. Smith (37 PHIL 809) private
the negligent construction of the elevation
respondent is not guilty of contributory
since under Republic Act No. 776, it was
negligence because he could not have
charged with the duty of planning, designing,
reasonably foreseen the harm that would
constructing, equipping, expanding,
befall him considering the circumstances.-
improving, repairing or altering aerodromes
or such structures, improvements or air The Court finds the contention that private
navigation facilities [Section 32, supra, R.A. respondent was, at the very least, guilty of
776.] In the discharge of this obligation, the contributory negligence, thus reducing the
CAA is duty-bound to exercise due diligence damages that plaintiff may recover,
in overseeing the construction and unmeritorious. Contributory negligence
maintenance of the viewing deck or terrace of under Article 2179 of the Civil Code
the airport. contemplates a negligent act or omission on
the part of the plaintiff, which although not
4. Administrative Law; Functions of the
the proximate cause of his injury, contributed
CAA; Torts and Damages; Due
to his own damage, the proximate cause of
Diligence; Quasi-Delict;Negligence; Failure of
the plaintiffs own injury being the
the CAA to have the dangerous elevation
defendant's lack of due care. In the instant
repaired in order to eliminate existing
case, no contributory negligence can be
hazards constitutes such negligence as to
imputed to the private respondent,
warrant a finding of liability based on quasi-
considering the following test formulated in
delict under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code.-
the early case of Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809
The legal foundation of CAA's liability for (1918): The test by which to determine the
quasi-delict can be found in Article 2176 of existence of negligence in a particular case
the Civil Code which provides that may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in
"(w)hoever by act or omission causes damage doing the alleged negligent act use that
to another, there being fault or negligence, is reasonable care and caution which an
obliged to pay for the damage done...." As the ordinarily prudent man would have used in
CAA knew of the existence of the dangerous the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of
elevation which it claims though, was made negligence. The law here in effect adopts the
precisely in accordance with the plans and standard supposed to be supplied by the
specifications of the building for proper imaginary conduct of the discreet
paterfamilias of the Roman law. The existence
of the negligence in a given case is not
determined by reference to the personal 7. Administrative Law; Functions of the
judgment of the actor in the situation before CAA; Torts and Damages; Due
him. The law considers what would be Diligence; Damages; Actual or Compensatory
reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the Damages; The law mandates that actual or
man of ordinary intelligence and prudence compensatory damages should be proven.-
and determines liability by that. x x x The With respect to actual or compensatory
private respondent, who was the plaintiff in damages, the law mandates that the same be
the case before the lower court, could not proven. Art. 2199. Except as provided by law
have reasonably foreseen the harm that or by stipulation, one is entitled to an
would befall him, considering the attendant adequate compensation only for such
factual circumstances. Even if the private pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly
respondent had been looking where he was proved. Such compensation is referred to as
going, the step in question could not easily be actual or compensatory damages [New Civil
noticed because of its construction. Code]. Private respondent claims P15,589.55
6. Administrative Law; Functions of the representing medical and hospitalization
CAA; Torts and Damages; Due bills. This Court finds the same to have been
Diligence; Damages; The grant upon the CAA duly proven through the testimony of Dr.
of the power to sue and be sued necessarily Ambrosio Tangco, the physician who
implies that it can be held answerable for attended to private respondent (Rollo, p. 26)
damages for its tortious acts or any wrongful and who identified Exh. "H" which was his bill
act for that matter.- for professional services [Rollo, p. 31].
Concerning the P20,200.00 alleged to have
Finally, petitioner appeals to this Court the been spent for other expenses such as the
award of damages to private respondent. The transportation of the two lawyers who had to
liability of CAA to answer for damages, represent private respondent abroad and the
whether actual, moral or exemplary, cannot publication of the postponement notices of
be seriously doubted in view of the the wedding, the Court holds that the same
conferment of the power to sue and be sued had also been duly proven. Private
upon it, which, as held in the case of Rayo v. respondent had adequately shown the
Court of First Instance, supra, includes existence of such losses and the amount
liability on a claim for quasi-delict. In the thereof in the testimonies before the trial
aforestated case, the liability of the National court [CA decision, p. 8.]
Power Corporation to answer for damages
resulting from its act of sudden, precipitate 8. Administrative Law; Functions of the
and simultaneous opening of the Angat Dam, CAA; Torts and Damages; Due
which caused the death of several residents of Diligence; Damages; Moral Damages; Because
the area and the destruction of properties, of the physical suffering and injuries of
was upheld since the grant of the power to private respondent as a result of petitioner's
sue and be sued upon it necessarily implies negligence, the former is entitled to moral
that it can be held answerable for its tortious damages.-
acts or any wrongful act for that matter.
With respect to the P30,000.00 awarded as provide the public with reasonably safe
moral damages, the Court holds private service.
respondent entitled thereto because of the
physical suffering and physical injuries 10. Administrative Law; Functions of the
caused by the negligence of the CAA [Arts CAA; Torts and Damages; Due
2217 and 2219 (2), New Civil Code]. Diligence; Damages;Attorney's
Fees; Attorney's fees may be awarded
9. Administrative Law; Functions of the whenever exemplary damages are awarded.-
CAA; Torts and Damages; Due
Diligence; Damages;Exemplary Damages; The Finally, the award of attorney's fees is also
wanton disregard of the CAA of the safety of upheld considering that under Art. 2208 (1)
the people using the viewing deck, makes it of the Civil Code, the same may be awarded
guilty of gross negligence and justifies the whenever exemplary damages are awarded,
award of exemplary damages.- as in this case, and, at any rate, under Art.
2208 (11), the Court has the discretion to
Gross negligence which, according to the grant the same when it is just and equitable.
Court, is equivalent to the term "notorious
negligence" and consists in the failure to 11. Administrative Law; Executive Order No.
exercise even slight care [Caunan v. Compania 778 (E. O. 778); The liabilities of the now
General de Tabacos, 56 Phil. 542 (1932)] can defunct CAA have been transferred to NAIA
be attributed to the CAA for its failure to pursuant to E.O. 778.-
remedy the dangerous condition of the However, since the Manila International
questioned elevation or to even post a Airport Authority (MIAA) has taken over the
warning sign directing the attention of the management and operations of the Manila
viewers to the change in the elevation of the International Airport [renamed Ninoy Aquino
floorings notwithstanding its knowledge of International Airport under Republic Act No.
the hazard posed by such elevation [Rollo, pp. 6639] pursuant to Executive Order No. 778 as
28-29; Record on Appeal, p. 57]. The wanton amended by Executive Orders Nos. 903
disregard by the CAA of the safety of the (1983), 909 (1983) and 298 (1987) and
people using the viewing deck, who are under Section 24 of the said Exec. Order 778,
charged an admission fee, including the the MIAA has assumed all the debts, liabilities
petitioner who paid the entrance fees to get and obligations of the now defunct Civil
inside the vantage place [CA decision, p. 2; Aeronautics Administration (CAA), the
Rollo, p. 25] and are, therefore, entitled to liabilities of the CAA have now been
expect a facility that is properly and safely transferred to the MIAA.
maintained—justifies the award of exemplary
damages against the CAA as a deterrent and Makati Shangri-La vs. Harper, GR. 189998
by way of example or correction for the
public good. The award of P40,000.00 by the 1. Procedural Rules and Technicalities; The
trial court as exemplary damages procedural rules should definitely be liberally
appropriately underscores the point that as construed if strict adherence to their letter
an entity charged with providing service to will result in absurdity and in manifest
the public, the CAA, like all other entities injustice, or where the merits of a party’s
serving the public, has the obligation to cause are apparent and outweigh
considerations of non-compliance with certificate to establish filiation, stressing the
certain formal requirements.- baptismal certificate’s limited evidentiary
value as proof of filiation inferior to that of a
—The principle of substantial compliance birth certificate; and declaring that the
recognizes that exigencies and situations do baptismal certificate did not attest to the
occasionally demand some flexibility in the veracity of the statements regarding the
rigid application of the rules of procedure and kinsfolk of the one baptized.-
the laws. That rules of procedure may be
mandatory in form and application does not —The Court sustained the Cabais petitioners’
forbid a showing of substantial compliance stance that the RTC had apparently erred in
under justifiable circumstances, because relying on the baptismal certificate to
substantial compliance does not equate to a establish filiation, stressing the baptismal
disregard of basic rules. For sure, substantial certificate’s limited evidentiary value as proof
compliance and strict adherence are not of filiation inferior to that of a birth
always incompatible and do not always clash certificate; and declaring that the baptismal
in discord. The power of the Court to suspend certificate did not attest to the veracity of the
its own rules or to except any particular case statements regarding the kinsfolk of the one
from the operation of the rules whenever the baptized. Nevertheless, the Court ultimately
purposes of justice require the suspension ruled that it was respondents’ failure to
cannot be challenged. In the interest of present the birth certificate, more than
substantial justice, even procedural rules of anything else, that lost them their case,
the most mandatory character in terms of stating that: “The unjustified failure to
compliance are frequently relaxed. Similarly, present the birth certificate instead of the
the procedural rules should definitely be baptismal certificate now under
liberally construed if strict adherence to their consideration or to otherwise prove filiation
letter will result in absurdity and in manifest by any other means recognized by law weigh
injustice, or where the merits of a party’s heavily against respondents.”
cause are apparent and outweigh
considerations of non-compliance with Same; Hotelkeepers; The hotel business is
certain formal requirements. It is more in imbued with public interest. Catering to the
accord with justice that a party-litigant is public, hotelkeepers are bound to provide not
given the fullest opportunity to establish the only lodging for their guests but also security
merits of his claim or defense than for him to to the persons and belongings of their guests.
lose his life, liberty, honor or property on The twin duty constitutes the essence of the
mere technicalities. Truly, the rules of business.―The hotel business is imbued with
procedure are intended to promote public interest. Catering to the public,
substantial justice, not to defeat it, and should hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only
not be applied in a very rigid and technical lodging for their guests but also security to
sense. the persons and belongings of their guests.
The twin duty constitutes the essence of the
2. Civil Law; Filiation; Evidence; The Court business. Applying by analogy Article 2000,
sustained the Cabais petitioners’ stance that Article 2001 and Article 2002 of the Civil
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) had Code (all of which concerned the
apparently erred in relying on the baptismal hotelkeepers’ degree of care and
responsibility as to the personal effects of negligence in a particular case may be stated
their guests), we hold that there is much as follows: Did the defendant in doing the
greater reason to apply the same if not alleged negligent act use that reasonable care
greater degree of care and responsibility and caution which an ordinary person would
when the lives and personal safety of their have used in the same situation? If not, then
guests are involved. Otherwise, the he is guilty of negligence. The law here in
hotelkeepers would simply stand idly by as effect adopts the standard supposed to be
strangers have unrestricted access to all the supplied by the imaginary conduct of the
hotel rooms on the pretense of being visitors discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law. The
of the guests, without being held liable should existence of negligence in a given case is not
anything untoward befall the unwary guests. determined by reference to the personal
That would be absurd, something that no judgment of the actor in the situation before
good law would ever envision. him. The law considers what would be
reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the
Dyteban vs Jose Ching, GR. 161803 man of ordinary intelligence and prudence
and determines liability by that. (Italics
Civil Law; Damages; Quasi-Delict; Requisites
supplied) The test of negligence is objective.
to sustain a claim based on quasi-delict.—
We measure the act or omission of the
Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that
tortfeasor with that of an ordinary reasonable
whoever by act or omission causes damage to
person in the same situation. The test, as
another, there being fault or negligence, is
applied to this case, is whether Limbaga, in
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such
parking the prime mover, used that
fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
reasonable care and caution which an
contractual relation between the parties, is
ordinary reasonable person would have used
called a quasi-delict. To sustain a claim based
in the same situation.
on quasi-delict, the following requisites must
concur: (a) damage suffered by plaintiff; (b) Same; Same; Same; Same; Court of Appeals
fault or negligence of defendant; and (c) reliance on Baliwag Transit, Inc. v. Court of
connection of cause and effect between the Appeals, 256 SCRA 746 (1996), as authority
fault or negligence of defendant and the for the proposition that kerosene lighted tin
damage incurred by plaintiff. cans may act as substitute early warning
device is misplaced.—Anent the absence of an
Same; Same; Same; Negligence; Words and
early warning device on the prime mover, the
Phrases; Definition of Negligence; Test of
CA erred in accepting the bare testimony of
negligence stated in the landmark case of
Limbaga that he placed kerosene lighted tin
Picart v. Smith.—Negligence is defined as the
cans on the front and rear of the prime
failure to observe for the protection of the
mover. The evidence on records belies such
interests of another person that degree of
claim. The CA reliance on Baliwag Transit, Inc.
care, precaution, and vigilance which the
v. Court of Appeals, 256 SCRA 746 (1996), as
circumstances justly demand, whereby such
authority for the proposition that kerosene
other person suffers injury. The Supreme
lighted tin cans may act as substitute early
Court stated the test of negligence in the
warning device is misplaced.
landmark case Picart v. Smith as follows: The
test by which to determine the existence or
Same; Same; Same; Same; Proximate Cause; that petitioner may hold either of them liable
Definition of Proximate Cause; There is no for damages from the collision.
exact mathematical formula to determine
proximate cause.—Proximate cause is Associated Bank vs. Tan, GR. 156940
defined as that cause, which, in natural and
1. Commercial Law; Banks and Banking; The
continuous sequence, unbroken by any
right of a collecting bank to debit a client’s
efficient intervening cause, produces the
account for the value of a dishonored check
injury, and without which the result would
that has previously been credited has fairly
not have occurred. More comprehensively,
been established by jurisprudence.-
proximate cause is that cause acting first and
producing the injury, either immediately or A bank generally has a right of setoff over the
by setting other events in motion, all deposits therein for the payment of any
constituting a natural and continuous chain of withdrawals on the part of a depositor. The
events, each having a close causal connection right of a collecting bank to debit a client’s
with its immediate predecessor, the final account for the value of a dishonored check
event in the chain immediately effecting the that has previously been credited has fairly
injury as natural and probable result of the been established by jurisprudence. To begin
cause which first acted, under such with, Article 1980 of the Civil Code provides
circumstances that the person responsible for that “[f]ixed, savings, and current deposits of
the first event should, as an ordinarily money in banks and similar institutions shall
prudent and intelligent person, have be governed by the provisions concerning
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of simple loan.”
his act or default that an injury to some
person might probably result therefrom. 2. Commercial Law; Banks and Banking; The
There is no exact mathematical formula to relationship between banks and depositors
determine proximate cause. It is based upon has been held to take place.-
mixed considerations of logic, common sense,
The relationship between banks and
policy and precedent. Plaintiff must, however,
depositors has been held to be that of
establish a sufficient link between the act or
creditor and debtor. Thus, legal compensation
omission and the damage or injury. That link
under Article 1278 of the Civil Code may take
must not be remote or far-fetched; otherwise,
place “when all the requisites mentioned in
no liability will attach. The damage or injury
Article 1279 are present,” as follows: “(1)
must be a natural and probable result of the
That each one of the obligors be bound
act or omission.
principally, and that he be at the same time a
Same; Same; Same; Same; The liability of joint principal creditor of the other; (2) That both
tortfeasors is joint and solidary.—Even debts consist in a sum of money, or if the
granting that the passenger bus was at fault, things due are consumable, they be of the
it’s fault will not necessarily absolve private same kind, and also of the same quality if the
respondents from liability. If at fault, the latter has been stated; (3) That the two debts
passenger bus will be a joint tortfeasor along be due; (4) That they be liquidated and
with private respondents. The liability of joint demandable; (5) That over neither of them
tortfeasors is joint and solidary. This means there be any retention or controversy,
commenced by third persons and himself and not to agree to the conditions set
communicated in due time to the debtor.” forth at the back of the deposit slip”.-

3. Commercial Law; Banks and Banking; By This reservation is not enough to insulate the
the nature of its functions, a bank is under bank from any liability. In the past, we have
obligation to treat the accounts of its expressed doubt about the binding force of
depositors with meticulous care.- such conditions unilaterally imposed by a
bank without the consent of the depositor. It
In BPI v. Casa Montessori, the Court has is indeed arguable that “in signing the deposit
emphasized that the banking business is slip, the depositor does so only to identify
impressed with public interest. himself and not to agree to the conditions set
“Consequently, the highest degree of diligence forth at the back of the deposit slip.”
is expected, and high standards of integrity
and performance are even required of it. By 6. Commercial Law; Banks and
the nature of its functions, a bank is under Banking; Negotiable Instruments Law; Under
obligation to treat the accounts of its the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments
depositors with meticulous care.” Law regarding the liability of a general
indorser and the procedure for a notice of
4. Commercial Law; Banks and Banking; The dishonor, it was incumbent on the bank to
degree of diligence required of banks is more give proper notice to respondent.-
than that of a good father of a family where
the fiduciary nature of their relationship with Under the provisions of the Negotiable
their depositors is concerned; The standard Instruments Law regarding the liability of a
applies, regardless of whether the account general indorser and the procedure for a
consists of only a few hundred pesos or of notice of dishonor, it was incumbent on the
millions.- bank to give proper notice to respondent. In
Gullas v. National Bank, the Court
Also affirming this long standing doctrine, emphasized: “x x x [A] general indorser of a
Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Court of negotiable instrument engages that if the
Appeals has held that “the degree of diligence instrument—the check in this case—is
required of banks is more than that of a good dishonored and the necessary proceedings
father of a family where the fiduciary nature for its dishonor are duly taken, he will pay the
of their relationship with their depositors is amount thereof to the holder (Sec. 66) It has
concerned.” Indeed, the banking business is been held by a long line of authorities that
vested with the trust and confidence of the notice of dishonor is necessary to charge an
public; hence the “appropriate standard of indorser and that the right of action against
diligence must be very high, if not the highest, him does not accrue until the notice is given.
degree of diligence.” The standard applies,
regardless of whether the account consists of Francisco vs. Chemical Bulk Carriers, GR.
only a few hundred pesos or of millions. 193577

5. Commercial Law; Banks and Banking; It is 1. Words and Phrases; Standard of

indeed arguable that “in signing the deposit Conduct; Standard of conduct is the level of
slip, the depositor does so only to identify expected conduct that is required by the
nature of the obligation and corresponding to
the circumstances of the person, time and 4. Sales; The general principle is that a seller
place.- without title cannot transfer a better title
than he has. Only the owner of the goods or
—Standard of conduct is the level of expected one authorized by the owner to sell can
conduct that is required by the nature of the transfer title to the buyer.-
obligation and corresponding to the
circumstances of the person, time and place. —The general principle is that a seller
The most common standard of conduct is that without title cannot transfer a better title
of a good father of a family or that of a than he has. Only the owner of the goods or
reasonably prudent person. To determine the one authorized by the owner to sell can
diligence which must be required of all transfer title to the buyer. Therefore, a person
persons, we use as basis the abstract average can sell only what he owns or is authorized to
standard corresponding to a normal orderly sell and the buyer can, as a consequence,
person. acquire no more than what the seller can
legally transfer.
2. Same; Estoppel; In order that there may be
estoppel, the owner must, by word or Phil Hawk Corp vs Vivian Tan, GR. 166869
conduct, have caused or allowed it to appear
that title or authority to sell is with the seller 4. Damages; Loss of Earning Capacity; The
and the buyer must have been misled to his indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the
damage.- deceased is awarded not for loss of earnings,
but for loss of capacity to earn money; As a
—The exception from the general principle is rule, documentary evidence should be
the doctrine of estoppel where the owner of presented to substantiate the claim for
the goods is precluded from denying the damages for loss of earning
seller’s authority to sell. But in order that capacity;Exceptions.-
there may be estoppel, the owner must, by
word or conduct, have caused or allowed it to —The indemnity for loss of earning capacity
appear that title or authority to sell is with of the deceased is provided for by Article
the seller and the buyer must have been 2206 of the Civil Code. Compensation of this
misled to his damage. nature is awarded not for loss of earnings, but
for loss of capacity to earn money. As a rule,
3. Same; The owner of the goods who has documentary evidence should be presented
been unlawfully deprived of it may recover it to substantiate the claim for damages for loss
even from a purchaser in good faith.- of earning capacity. By way of exception,
damages for loss of earning capacity may be
—Moreover, the owner of the goods who has
awarded despite the absence of documentary
been unlawfully deprived of it may recover it
evidence when: (1) the deceased is self-
even from a purchaser in good faith. Thus, the
employed and earning less than the minimum
purchaser of property which has been stolen
wage under current labor laws, in which case,
from the owner has been held to acquire no
judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in
title to it even though he purchased for value
the deceased’s line of work no documentary
and in good faith.
evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is
employed as a daily wage worker earning less
than the minimum wage under current labor Appeals, unless otherwise indicated (see Secs.
laws. 2 and 4, Rule 56), it has been held that the
latter is clothed with ample authority to
5. Same; The Court of Appeals is clothed with review matters, even if they are not assigned
ample authority to review matters, even if as errors on appeal, if it finds that their
they are not assigned as errors on appeal, if it consideration is necessary in arriving at a just
finds that their consideration is necessary in decision of the case. Also, an unassigned error
arriving at a just decision of the case.- closely related to an error properly assigned
—Section 8, Rule 51 of the 1997 Rules of Civil (PCIB vs. CA, et al., L-34931, Mar. 18, 1988),
Procedure provides: SEC. 8. Questions that or upon which the determination of the
may be decided.—No error which does not question raised by error properly assigned is
affect the jurisdiction over the subject matter dependent, will be considered by the
or the validity of the judgment appealed from appellate court notwithstanding the failure to
or the proceedings therein will be considered assign it as error (Ortigas, Jr. vs. Lufthansa
unless stated in the assignment of errors, or German Airlines, L-28773, June 30, 1975;
closely related to or dependent on an Soco vs. Militante, et al., G.R. No. 58961, June
assigned error and properly argued in the 28, 1983). It may also be observed that under
brief, save as the court pass upon plain errors Sec. 8 of this Rule, the appellate court is
and clerical errors. Philippine National Bank authorized to consider a plain error, although
v. Rabat, 344 SCRA 706 (2000) cited the book it was not specifically assigned by the
of Justice Florenz D. Regalado to explain the appellant (Dilag vs. Heirs of Resurreccion, 76
section above, thus: In his book, Mr. Justice Phil. 649), otherwise it would be sacrificing
Florenz D. Regalado commented on this substance for technicalities.
section, thus: 1. Sec. 8, which is an 6. Same; Same; Same; Whenever an
amendment of the former Sec. 7 of this Rule, employee’s negligence causes damage or
now includes some substantial changes in the injury to another, there instantly arises a
rules on assignment of errors. The basic presumption that the employer failed to
procedural rule is that only errors claimed exercise the due diligence of a good father of
and assigned by a party will be considered by a family in the selection or supervision of its
the court, except errors affecting its employees.-
jurisdiction over the subject matter. To this
exception has now been added errors —Whenever an employee’s negligence causes
affecting the validity of the judgment damage or injury to another, there instantly
appealed from or the proceedings therein. arises a presumption that the employer failed
Also, even if the error complained of by a to exercise the due diligence of a good father
party is not expressly stated in his of the family in the selection or supervision of
assignment of errors but the same is closely its employees. To avoid liability for a quasi-
related to or dependent on an assigned error delict committed by his employee, an
and properly argued in his brief, such error employer must overcome the presumption by
may now be considered by the court. These presenting convincing proof that he exercised
changes are of jurisprudential origin. 2. The the care and diligence of a good father of a
procedure in the Supreme Court being family in the selection and supervision of his
generally the same as that in the Court of employee. The Court upholds the finding of
the trial court and the Court of Appeals that passenger jeep parked on the left side of the
petitioner is liable to respondent, since it road, showing that the bus was negligent in
failed to exercise the diligence of a good veering to the left lane, causing it to hit the
father of the family in the selection and motorcycle and the passenger jeep.
supervision of its bus driver, Margarito Avila,
for having failed to sufficiently inculcate in Li vs. Soliman, GR. 165279
him discipline and correct behavior on the
Medical Malpractice; Medical malpractice, or
road. Indeed, petitioner’s tests were
more appropriately, medical negligence, is
concentrated on the ability to drive and
that type of claim which a victim has available
physical fitness to do so. It also did not know
to him or her to redress a wrong committed
that Avila had been previously involved in
by a medical professional which has caused
sideswiping incidents.
bodily harm.-
7. Torts; Damages; Quasi-
—The type of lawsuit which has been called
Delicts; Negligence; Foreseeability is the
medical malpractice or, more appropriately,
fundamental test of negligence-
medical negligence, is that type of claim
—to be negligent, a defendant must have which a victim has available to him or her to
acted or failed to act in such a way that an redress a wrong committed by a medical
ordinary reasonable man would have realized professional which has caused bodily harm.
that certain interests of certain persons were In order to successfully pursue such a claim, a
unreasonably subjected to a general but patient must prove that a health care
definite class of risks.—A review of the provider, in most cases a physician, either
records showed that it was petitioner’s failed to do something which a reasonably
witness, Efren Delantar Ong, who was about prudent health care provider would have
15 meters away from the bus when he saw done, or that he or she did something that a
the vehicular accident. Nevertheless, this fact reasonably prudent provider would not have
does not affect the finding of the trial court done; and that that failure or action caused
that petitioner’s bus driver, Margarito Avila, injury to the patient.
was guilty of simple negligence as affirmed by
2. Same; Same; Respondents accepted the
the appellate court. Foreseeability is the
risks that chemotherapy offered with full
fundamental test of negligence. To be
knowledge of its effects on their daughter.-
negligent, a defendant must have acted or
failed to act in such a way that an ordinary —The Solimans accepted the risks that
reasonable man would have realized that chemotherapy offered with full knowledge of
certain interests of certain persons were its effects on their daughter. It is not fair that
unreasonably subjected to a general but they should blame Dr. Li for Angelica’s
definite class of risks. In this case, the bus suffering and death brought about by a
driver, who was driving on the right side of decease that she did not wish upon her.
the road, already saw the motorcycle on the Indeed, it was not Dr. Li, according to
left side of the road before the collision. Reynaldo, who convinced him to agree to
However, he did not take the necessary submit his daughter to chemotherapy but Dr.
precaution to slow down, but drove on and Tamayo. The latter explained to him the need
bumped the motorcycle, and also the for her daughter to undergo chemotherapy to
increase the chance of containing her cancer. UERM Medical Center in Manila, the National
This consultation took place even before the Children’s Hospital in Quezon City, and finally
Solimans met Dr. Li. the St. Luke’s hospital, all of whom gave the
same dire opinion, it would be quite unlikely
3. Same; Same; Respondents are arguing from for the Solimans to accept Dr. Li’s supposed
hindsight. The fact is that they were willing to assurance that their daughter had 95%
assume huge risks on the chance that their chance of returning to normal health after
daughter could cheat death.- chemotherapy. In fact, it would be most
—The Solimans are arguing from hindsight. unlikely for someone of Dr. Li’s expertise to
The fact is that they were willing to assume make such a grossly reckless claim to a
huge risks on the chance that their daughter patient who actually had only a 20% chance
could cheat death. They did not mind that of surviving the first year. She would literary
their young daughter’s left leg would be be inviting a malpractice suit.
amputated from above the knee for a 50% 5. Same; Specific disclosures such as life
chance of preventing the spread of the cancer. expectancy probabilities are not legally
There is probably no person on this planet necessary or required to be disclosed in
whose family members, relatives, or close informed consent situations.-
friends have not been touched by cancer.
Every one knows of the travails and agonies —A third consideration is that specific
of chemotherapy, yet it is rare indeed for a disclosures such as life expectancy
cancer patient or his relatives not to take a probabilities are not legally necessary or
chance with this treatment, which had proved “required to be disclosed in informed consent
successful in extending the lives of some. situations,” thus the respondent Lina
Unfortunately for the Solimans, their Soliman’s testimony on this point cannot be
daughter did not number among the given any probative value. Thus, in the
successful cases. landmark case of Arato v. Avedon, —where
family members of a patient who died of
4. Medical Malpractice; Doctrine of Informed pancreatic cancer brought an informed
Consent; The claim that Dr. Li gave assurance consent action against defendant physicians
that Angelica had 95% chance of recovery who failed to provide the patient material
after chemotherapy cannot be believed- information (statistical life expectancy)
—it would be most unlikely for someone of necessary for his informed consent to
Dr. Li’s expertise to make such a grossly undergo chemotherapy and radiation
reckless claim to a patient who actually had treatment—the Supreme Court of California
only a 20% chance of surviving the first year. “rejected the mandatory disclosure of life
She would literally be inviting a malpractice expectancy probabilities” on account “of the
suit.—The claim that Dr. Li gave assurance variations among doctor-patient interactions
that Angelica had a 95% chance of recovery and the intimacy of the relationship itself.”
after chemotherapy cannot be believed. The 6. Same; Sufficiency of disclosure can be made
Solimans knew that their daughter had bone only after determination and assessment of
cancer. Having consulted with other doctors risks have been made.-
from four medical institutions, the Ago
Medical and Educational Center in Bicol, the
—The ponencia concludes that “there was Angelica. As a doctor whose specialty
adequate disclosure of material risks of the encompasses hospital management and
[chemotherapy administered] with the administration, she is no different from a
consent of Angelica’s parents” in view of the layperson for purposes of testifying on the
fact that the petitioner informed the risks and probabilities that arise from
respondents of the side effects of chemotherapy.
chemotherapy, such as low white and red
blood cell and platelet count, kidney or heart 8. Same; In the present case, expert testimony
damage and skin darkening. I cannot agree is required in determining the risks and or
with this conclusion because it was made side effects of chemotherapy that the
without the requisite premises. As heretofore attending physician should have considered
discussed, sufficiency of disclosure can be and disclosed as these are clearly beyond the
made only after a determination and knowledge of a layperson to testify on.-
assessment of risks have been made. As —In the present case, expert testimony is
discussed above, no evidence exists showing required in determining the risks and or side
that these premises have been properly laid effects of chemotherapy that the attending
and proven. Hence, for lack of basis, no physician should have considered and
conclusion can be made on whether sufficient disclosed as these are clearly beyond the
disclosure followed. In other words, the knowledge of a layperson to testify on. In
disclosure cannot be said to be sufficient in other words, to prevail in their claim of lack
the absence of evidence of what, in the first of informed consent, the respondents must
place, should be disclosed. present expert supporting testimony to
7. Same; Dr. Balmaceda’s testimony failed to establish the scope of what should be
establish the existence of the risks or side- disclosed and the significant risks attendant
effects the petitioner should have disclosed to to chemotherapy that the petitioner should
them in the use of chemotherapy in the have considered and disclosed; the
treatment of osteosarcoma.- determination of the scope of disclosure, and
the risks and their probability are matters a
—Unfortunately for the respondents, Dr. medical expert must determine and testify on
Balmaceda’s testimony failed to establish the since these are beyond the knowledge of
existence of the risks or side-effects the laypersons.
petitioner should have disclosed to them in
the use of chemotherapy in the treatment of 9. Medical Malpractice; Philippine
osteosarcoma; the witness, although a jurisprudence tells us that expert testimony is
medical doctor, could not have testified as an crucial, if not determinative of a physician’s
expert on these points for the simple reason liability in a medical negligence case; Expert
that she is not an oncologist nor a qualified testimony is, therefore, essential since the
expert on the diagnosis and treatment of factual issue of whether a physician or
cancers. Neither is she a pharmacologist who surgeon exercised the requisite degree of skill
can properly advance an opinion on the toxic and care in the treatment of his patient is
side effects of chemotherapy, particularly the generally a matter of expert opinion.-
effects of Cisplatin, Doxorubicin and —Philippine jurisprudence tells us that
Cosmegen—the drugs administered to expert testimony is crucial, if not
determinative of a physician’s liability in a the mouth; (5) excretion of blood in the anus;
medical negligence case. In litigations (6) development of ulcers in the mouth; (7)
involving medical negligence as in any civil sloughing off of skin; (8) systemic lupus
action, we have consistently ruled that the erythematosus; (9) carpo-pedal spasm; (10)
burden to prove by preponderance of loose bowel movement; (11) infection; (12)
evidence the essential elements—i.e., duty, gum bleeding; (13) hypovolemic shock; (14)
breach, injury and proximate causation— sepsis; and (15) death in 13 days.
rests with the plaintiff. Expert testimony is,
therefore, essential since the factual issue of 12. Same; Same; Under the patient standard
whether a physician or surgeon exercised the of materiality, a doctor obligated to disclose
requisite degree of skill and care in the that information which a reasonable patient
treatment of his patient is generally a matter would deem material in deciding whether to
of expert opinion. proceed with a proposed treatment.-

10. Same; Same; Infection, sepsis and death —Again, under the patient standard of
are material risks and side effects of materiality, a doctor is obligated to disclose
chemotherapy.- that information which a reasonable patient
would deem material in deciding whether to
—Clearly, infection, sepsis and death are proceed with a proposed treatment. Stated
material risks and side effects of differently, what should be disclosed depends
chemotherapy. To any reasonable person, the on what a reasonable person, in the same or
risk of death is one of the most important, if similar situation as the patient, would deem
not the most important, consideration in material in deciding whether to proceed with
deciding whether to undergo a proposed the proposed treatment.
treatment. Thus, Dr. Li should have disclosed
to Reynaldo and Lina that there was a chance 13. Same; Same; In order to determine what
that their 11-year old daughter could die as a the associated risks and side effects of
result of chemotherapy as, in fact, she did proposed treatment are, testimony by an
after only 13 days of treatment. expert witness is necessary because these are
beyond the common knowledge of ordinary
11. Same; Same; Dr. Li impliedly admits that people.-
she failed to disclose to Reynaldo and Lina
many of the other associated risks and side —In order to determine what the associated
effects of chemotherapy, including the most risks and side effects of a proposed treatment
material- are, testimony by an expert witness is
necessary because these are beyond the
—infection, sepsis and death.—Dr. Li common knowledge of ordinary people. In
impliedly admits that she failed to disclose to Canterbury, the Court held that, “There are
Reynaldo and Lina many of the other obviously important roles for medical
associated risks and side effects of testimony in [nondisclosure] cases, and some
chemotherapy, including the most material— roles which only medical evidence can fill.
infection, sepsis and death. She impliedly Experts are ordinarily indispensable to
admits that she failed to disclose as risks and identify and elucidate for the fact-finder the
side effects (1) rashes; (2) difficulty in risks of therapy.” The Court also held that,
breathing; (3) fever; (4) excretion of blood in “medical facts are for medical experts.”
14. Same; Same; Two standards by which —There are four essential elements a plaintiff
courts determine what constitutes adequate must prove in a malpractice action based
disclosure of associated risks and side effects upon the doctrine of informed consent: “(1)
of a proposed treatment: the physician the physician had a duty to disclose material
standard, and the patient standard of risks; (2) he failed to disclose or inadequately
materiality.- disclosed those risks; (3) as a direct and
proximate result of the failure to disclose, the
—There are two standards by which courts patient consented to treatment she otherwise
determine what constitutes adequate would not have consented to; and (4) plaintiff
disclosure of associated risks and side effects was injured by the proposed treatment.” The
of a proposed treatment: the physician gravamen in an informed consent case
standard, and the patient standard of requires the plaintiff to “point to significant
materiality. Under the physician standard, a undisclosed information relating to the
doctor is obligated to disclose that treatment which would have altered her
information which a reasonable doctor in the decision to undergo it.
same field of expertise would have disclosed
to his or her patient. x x x Under the patient 17. Same; Same; Proficiency in diagnosis and
standard of materiality, a doctor is obligated therapy is not the full measure of a
to disclose that information which a physician’s responsibility; The physician is
reasonable patient would deem material in not expected to give the patient a short
deciding whether to proceed with a proposed medical education, the disclosure rule only
treatment. requires of him a reasonable explanation,
which means generally informing the patient
15. Medical Malpractice; Doctrine of Informed in nontechnical terms as to what is at stake,
Consent; The doctrine of informed consent the therapy alternatives open to him, the
requires doctors, before administering goals expectably to be achieved, and the risks
treatment to their patients, to disclose that may ensure from particular treatment or
adequately the material risks and side effects no treatment.-
of the proposed treatment; it is distinct from
the doctor’s duty to skillfully diagnose and —The scope of disclosure is premised on the
treat the patient.- fact that patients ordinarily are persons
unlearned in the medical sciences. Proficiency
—The doctrine of informed consent requires in diagnosis and therapy is not the full
doctors, before administering treatment to measure of a physician’s responsibility. It is
their patients, to disclose adequately the also his duty to warn of the dangers lurking in
material risks and side effects of the proposed the proposed treatment and to impart
treatment. The duty to obtain the patient’s information which the patient has every right
informed consent is distinct from the doctor’s to expect. Indeed, the patient’s reliance upon
duty to skillfully diagnose and treat the the physician is a trust of the kind which
patient. traditionally has exacted obligations beyond
16. Same; Same; Four essential elements a those associated with armslength
plaintiff must prove in a malpractice action transactions. The physician is not expected to
based upon the doctrine of informed give the patient a short medical education,
consent.- the disclosure rule only requires of him a
reasonable explanation, which means not gained the consent of their patients prior
generally informing the patient in to performing a surgery or procedure. In the
nontechnical terms as to what is at stake; the United States, the seminal case was
therapy alternatives open to him, the goals Schoendorff v. Society of New York Hospital
expectably to be achieved, and the risks that which involved unwanted treatment
may ensue from particular treatment or no performed by a doctor. Justice Benjamin
treatment. As to the issue of demonstrating Cardozo’s oft-quoted opinion upheld the basic
what risks are considered material right of a patient to give consent to any
necessitating disclosure, it was held that medical procedure or treatment: “Every
experts are unnecessary to a showing of the human being of adult years and sound mind
materiality of a risk to a patient’s decision on has a right to determine what shall be done
treatment, or to the reasonably, expectable with his own body; and a surgeon who
effect of risk disclosure on the decision. Such performs an operation without his patient’s
unrevealed risk that should have been made consent, commits an assault, for which he is
known must further materialize, for liable in damages.” From a purely ethical
otherwise the omission, however norm, informed consent evolved into a
unpardonable, is without legal consequence. general principle of law that a physician has a
And, as in malpractice actions generally, there duty to disclose what a reasonably prudent
must be a causal relationship between the physician in the medical community in the
physician’s failure to divulge and damage to exercise of reasonable care would disclose to
the patient. his patient as to whatever grave risks of
injury might be incurred from a proposed
18. Same; Doctrine of Informed course of treatment, so that a patient,
Consent; Informed consent evolved into a exercising ordinary care for his own welfare,
general principle of law that a physician has a and faced with a choice of undergoing the
duty to disclose what a reasonably prudent proposed treatment, or alternative treatment,
physician in the medical community in the or none at all, may intelligently exercise his
exercise of reasonable care would disclose to judgment by reasonably balancing the
his patient as to whatever grave risks of probable risks against the probable benefits.
injury might be incurred from a proposed
course of treatment, so that a patient, 19. Same; Court has recognized that medical
exercising ordinary care for his own welfare, negligence cases are best proved by opinions
and faced with a choice of undergoing the of expert witnesses belonging in the same
proposed treatment, or alternative treatment, general neighborhood and in the same
or none at all, may intelligently exercise his general line of practice as defendant
judgment by reasonably balancing the physician or surgeon.-
probable risks against the probable benefits.-
—This Court has recognized that medical
—The doctrine of informed consent within negligence cases are best proved by opinions
the context of physician-patient relationships of expert witnesses belonging in the same
goes far back into English common law. As general neighborhood and in the same
early as 1767, doctors were charged with the general line of practice as defendant
tort of “battery” (i.e., an unauthorized physician or surgeon. The deference of courts
physical contact with a patient) if they had to the expert opinion of qualified physicians
stems from the former’s realization that the offering transportation service on a regular or
latter possess unusual technical skills which scheduled basis and one offering such service
laymen in most instances are incapable of on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled
intelligently evaluating, hence the basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish
indispensability of expert testimonies. between a carrier offering its services to the
“general public,” i.e., the general community
Calvo vs UCPB General, GR. 148496 or population, and one who offers services or
solicits business only from a narrow segment
Common Carriers; Customs Brokers; A
of the general population. We think that
customs broker is a common carrier—the
Article 1732 deliberately refrained from
concept of “common carrier” under Article
making such distinctions. So understood, the
1732 of the Civil Code may be seen to
concept of “common carrier” under Article
coincide nearly with the notion of “public
1732 may be seen to coincide neatly with the
service,” under the Public Service Act
notion of “public service,” under the Public
(Commonwealth Act No. 1416) which at least
Service Act (Commonwealth Act No. 1416, as
partially supplements the law on common
amended) which at least partially
carriers set forth in the Civil Code.-
supplements the law on common carriers set
Petitioner contends that contrary to the forth in the Civil Code.
findings of the trial court and the Court of
2. Common Carriers; Customs Brokers; There
Appeals, she is not a common carrier but a
is greater reason for holding a person who is
private carrier because, as a customs broker
a customs broker to be a common carrier
and warehouseman, she does not
because the transportation of goods is an
indiscriminately hold her services out to the
integral part of her business.-
public but only offers the same to select
parties with whom she may contract in the There is greater reason for holding petitioner
conduct of her business. The contention has to be a common carrier because the
no merit. In De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, transportation of goods is an integral part of
the Court dismissed a similar contention and her business. To uphold petitioner’s
held the party to be a common carrier, thus— contention would be to deprive those with
The Civil Code defines “common carriers” in whom she contracts the protection which the
the following terms: “Article 1732. Common law affords them notwithstanding the fact
carriers are persons, corporations, firms or that the obligation to carry goods for her
associations engaged in the business of customers, as already noted, is part and
carrying or transporting passengers or goods parcel of petitioner’s business.
or both, by land, water, or air for
compensation, offering their services to the 3. Common Carriers; Customs
public.” The above article makes no Brokers; Words and Phrases; “Extraordinary
distinction between one whose principal Diligence,” Explained;Common carriers, from
business activity is the carrying of persons or the nature of their business and for reasons of
goods or both, and one who does such public policy, are bound to observe
carrying only as an ancillary activity . . . extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over
Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any the goods and for the safety of the passengers
distinction between a person or enterprise
transported by them, according to all the characteristic of goods tendered for
circumstances of such case.- [transport] and that [it] exercise[d] due care
in the handling [thereof].” Petitioner failed to
As to petitioner’s liability, Art. 1733 of the do this.
Civil Code provides: Common carriers, from
the nature of their business and for reasons of 5. Common Carriers; Customs Brokers; If the
public policy, are bound to observe improper packing or the defects in the
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over container are known to the carrier or his
the goods and for the safety of the passengers employees or apparent upon ordinary
transported by them, according to all the observation, but he nevertheless accepts the
circumstances of each case. . . . In Compania same without protest or exception
Maritima v. Court of Appeals, the meaning of notwithstanding such condition, he is not
“extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over relieved of liability for damage resulting
goods” was explained thus: The extraordinary therefrom.-
diligence in the vigilance over the goods
tendered for shipment requires the common The rule is that if the improper packing or, in
carrier to know and to follow the required this case, the defect/s in the container, is/are
precaution for avoiding damage to, or known to the carrier or his employees or
destruction of the goods entrusted to it for apparent upon ordinary observation, but he
sale, carriage and delivery. It requires nevertheless accepts the same without
common carriers to render service with the protest or exception notwithstanding such
greatest skill and foresight and “to use all condition, he is not relieved of liability for
reasonable means to ascertain the nature and damage resulting therefrom. In this case,
characteristic of goods tendered for petitioner accepted the cargo without
shipment, and to exercise due care in the exception despite the apparent defects in
handling and stowage, including such some of the container vans. Hence, for failure
methods as their nature requires.” of petitioner to prove that she exercised
extraordinary diligence in the carriage of
4. Common Carriers; Customs Brokers; To goods in this case or that she is exempt from
prove the exercise of extraordinary diligence, liability, the presumption of negligence as
a customs broker must do more than merely provided under Art. 1735 holds.
show the possibility that some other party
could be responsible for the damage.- Ridjo Tape vs. CA, GR. 126074

Anent petitioner’s insistence that the cargo Contracts; Contracts of Adhesion; Contracts of
could not have been damaged while in her adhesion are binding as ordinary contracts
custody as she immediately delivered the where the party adhering thereto is free to
containers to SMC’s compound, suffice it to reject it in its entirety.-
say that to prove the exercise of
Evidently, the Service Contract between
extraordinary diligence, petitioner must do
petitioners and MERALCO partakes of the
more than merely show the possibility that
nature of a contract of adhesion as it was
some other party could be responsible for the
prepared solely by the latter, the only
damage. It must prove that it used “all
participation of the former being that they
reasonable means to ascertain the nature and
affixed or “adhered” their signature thereto,
thus, leaving no room for negotiation and apparatus and equipment to ensure that they
depriving petitioners of the opportunity to do not malfunction, and the due diligence to
bargain on equal footing. Nevertheless, these discover and repair defects therein. Failure to
types of contracts have been declared to be perform such duties constitutes negligence.
binding as ordinary contracts because the
party adhering thereto is free to reject it in its 6. Public Utilities; Manila Electric
entirety. Company; Negligence; Constructive
Notice; The presence of a conspicuous defect
2. Contracts; In construing a written contract, which has existed for a considerable length of
the reason behind and the circumstances time will create a presumption of
surrounding its execution are of paramount constructive notice thereof; As a public utility,
importance to place the interpreter in the MERALCO has the obligation to discharge its
situation occupied by the parties concerned functions with utmost care and diligence.-
at the time the writing was executed.+
It has been held that notice of a defect need
3. Public Utilities; Manila Electric not be direct and express; it is enough that
Company; The production and distribution of the same had existed for such a length of time
electricity is a highly technical business that it is reasonable to presume that it had
undertaking, and in conducting its operation, been detected, and the presence of a
it is only logical for public utilities, such as conspicuous defect which has existed for a
MERALCO, to employ mechanical devices and considerable length of time will create a
equipment for the orderly pursuit of its presumption of constructive notice thereof.
business, devices or equipment which are Hence, MERALCO’s failure to discover the
susceptible to defects and mechanical defect, if any, considering the length of time,
failure.+ amounts to inexcusable negligence.
Furthermore, we need not belabor the point
4. Public Utilities; Manila Electric that as a public utility, MERALCO has the
Company; Contracts; Construction of the obligation to discharge its functions with
terms of a contract which would amount to utmost care and diligence.
impairment or loss of right is not favored—
conservation and preservation, not waiver, 7. Public Utilities; Manila Electric
abandonment or forfeiture of a right, is the Company; Negligence; Public utilities should
rule.+ be put on notice, as a deterrent, that if they
completely disregard their duty of keeping
5. Public Utilities; Manila Electric their electric meters in serviceable condition,
Company; Negligence; Failure of MERALCO to they run the risk of forfeiting, by reason of
make a reasonable and proper inspection of their negligence, amounts originally due from
its apparatus and equipment to ensure that their customers.-
they do not malfunction and the due diligence
to discover and repair the defects therein The rationale behind this ruling is that public
constitutes negligence.- utilities should be put on notice, as a
deterrent, that if they completely disregard
Corollarily, it must be underscored that their duty of keeping their electric meters in
MERALCO has the imperative duty to make a serviceable condition, they run the risk of
reasonable and proper inspection of its forfeiting, by reason of their negligence,
amounts originally due from their customers. evidence, as well as to observe the demeanor
Certainly, we cannot sanction a situation of the witnesses while testifying in the case.+
wherein the defects in the electric meter are
allowed to continue indefinitely until 2. Damages; Temperate Damages; Temperate
suddenly the public utilities concerned damages, more than nominal but less than
demand payment for the unrecorded compensatory damages, may be recovered
electricity utilized when, in the first place, when the court finds that some pecuniary loss
they should have remedied the situation has been suffered but its amount cannot, from
immediately. If we turn a blind eye on the nature of the case, be proved with
MERALCO’s omission, it may encourage certainty-
negligence on the part of public utilities, to —the damages must be reasonable under the
the detriment of the consuming public. circumstances.—While the amount of actual
8. Public Utilities; Manila Electric damages was not duly established with
Company; Negligence; Being a public utility certainty, the Court recognizes the fact that,
vested with vital public interest, MERALCO is indeed, Albayda incurred a considerable
impressed with certain obligations towards amount for the necessary and reasonable
its customers and any omission on its part to medical expenses, loss of salary and wages,
perform such duties would be prejudicial to loss of capacity to earn increased wages, cost
its interest.- of occupational therapy, and harm from
conditions caused by prolonged
To summarize, it is worth emphasizing that it immobilization. Temperate damages, more
is not our intention to impede or diminish the than nominal but less than compensatory
business viability of MERALCO, or any public damages, may be recovered when the court
utility company for that matter. On the finds that some pecuniary loss has been
contrary, we would like to stress that, being a suffered but its amount cannot, from the
public utility vested with vital public interest, nature of the case, be proved with certainty.
MERALCO is impressed with certain Temperate damages must be reasonable
obligations towards its customers and any under the circumstances. Thus, the Court
omission on its part to perform such duties finds the award of One Hundred Thousand
would be prejudicial to its interest. For in the Pesos (P100,000.00) as temperate damages
final analysis, the bottom line is that those reasonable under the circumstances.
who do not exercise such prudence in the
discharge of their duties shall be made to 3. Same; Same; Same; Same; With respect to
bear the consequences of such oversight. the supervision of employees, employers
should formulate standard operating
The heirs of Redentor Complete vs CA, GR. procedures, monitor their implementation,
172200 and impose disciplinary measures for
breaches thereof.-
Appeals; Conclusions and findings of fact of
the trial court are entitled to great weight on —In the selection of prospective employees,
appeal and should not be disturbed unless for employers are required to examine them as
strong and cogent reasons, because the trial to their qualifications, experience, and service
court is in a better position to examine real records. On the other hand, with respect to
the supervision of employees, employers
should formulate standard operating liable for the damagescaused by their
procedures, monitor their implementation, employees, but the employers’ responsibility
and impose disciplinary measures for shall cease upon proof that they observed all
breaches thereof. To establish these factors in the diligence of a good father of the family in
a trial involving the issue of vicarious liability, the selection and supervision of their
employers must submit concrete proof, employees. When an injury is caused by the
including documentary evidence. negligence of an employee, a legal
presumption instantly arises that the
4. Same; Same; Same; Same; The civil liability employer was negligent. This presumption
of the employer for the negligent acts of his may be rebutted only by a clear showing on
employee is also primary and direct, owing to the part of the employer that he exercised the
his own negligence in selecting and diligence of a good father of a family in the
supervising his employee.- selection and supervision of his employee. If
—The trial court’s finding that Completo the employer successfully overcomes the
failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid legal presumption of negligence, he is
collision with Albayda at the intersection of relieved of liability. In other words, the
11th and 8th Streets of VAB gives rise to burden of proof is on the employer.
liability on the part of Completo, as driver, 6. Same; Same; Same; Bicycles; Right of
and his employer Abiad. The responsibility of Way; The bicycle occupies a legal position
two or more persons who are liable for quasi- that is at least equal to that of other vehicles
delict is solidary. The civil liability of the lawfully on the highway, and it is fortified by
employer for the negligent acts of his the fact that usually more will be required of
employee is also primary and direct, owing to a motorist than a bicyclist in discharging his
his own negligence in selecting and duty of care to the other because of the
supervising his employee. The civil liability of physical advantages the automobile has over
the employer attaches even if the employer is the bicycle; While the duty of using
not inside the vehicle at the time of the reasonable care falls alike on a motorist and a
collision. bicyclist, due to the inherent differences in
5. Same; Same; Same; Vicarious Liability of the two vehicles, more care is required from
Employers; When an injury is caused by the the motorist to fully discharge the duty than
negligence of an employee, a legal from the bicyclist.-
presumption instantly arises that the —The bicycle occupies a legal position that is
employer was negligent, which presumption at least equal to that of other vehicles lawfully
may be rebutted only by a clear showing on on the highway, and it is fortified by the fact
the part of the employer that he exercised the that usually more will be required of a
diligence of a good father of a family in the motorist than a bicyclist in discharging his
selection and supervision of his employee.- duty of care to the other because of the
—Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the physical advantages the automobile has over
obligation imposed by Article 2176 is the bicycle. At the slow speed of ten miles per
demandable not only for one’s own acts or hour, a bicyclist travels almost fifteen feet per
omissions, but also for those persons for second, while a car traveling at only twenty-
whom one is responsible. Employers shall be five miles per hour covers almost thirty-seven
feet per second, and split-second action may question of the motorist’s negligence is a
be insufficient to avoid an accident. It is question of fact.
obvious that a motor vehicle poses a greater
danger of harm to a bicyclist than vice versa. Hidalgo Enterprises vs Balandan, GR. L-
Accordingly, while the duty of using 3422
reasonable care falls alike on a motorist and a
ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE, WHAT
bicyclist, due to the inherent differences in
CONSTITUTES; MAINTAINER LIABLE FOR
the two vehicles, more care is required from
INJURIES CAUSED TO CHILD.-
the motorist to fully discharge the duty than
from the bicyclist. Simply stated, the physical One who maintains on his premises
advantages that the motor vehicle has over dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of
the bicycle make it more dangerous to the a character likely to attract children in play,
bicyclist than vice versa. and who fails to exercise ordinary care to
prevent children from playing therewith or
7. Torts and Damages; Quasi-
resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender
Delicts; Negligence; It is a rule in negligence
years who is injured thereby, even if the child
suits that the plaintiff has the burden of
is technically a trespasser in the premises.
proving by a preponderance of evidence the
motorist’s breach in his duty of care owed to 2. ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE, WHAT
the plaintiff, that the motorist was negligent CONSTITUTES; DOCTRINE NOT APPLICABLE
in failing to exercise the diligence required to TO SWIMMING POOL OR WATER TANK.-
avoid injury to the plaintiff, and that such
negligence was the proximate cause of the The attractive nuisance doctrine generally is
injury suffered.- not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as
well as natural, in the absence of some
—The instant case involved a collision unusual condition or artificial feature other
between a taxicab and a bicycle which than the mere water and its location.
resulted in serious physical injuries to the
bicycle rider, Albayda. It is a rule in
negligence suits that the plaintiff has the
burden of proving by a preponderance of
evidence the motorist’s breach in his duty of
care owed to the plaintiff, that the motorist Honoria Delgado Vda de Gregorio vs Go
was negligent in failing to exercise the Chong Bing, 102 Phil. 556
diligence required to avoid injury to the
plaintiff, and that such negligence was the 1. DAMAGES; NEGLIGENCE; LIABILITY OF
proximate cause ofthe injury suffered. Article OWNER OF VEHICLE; PROXIMATE CAUSE OF
2176 of the Civil Code provides that whoever ACCIDENT; ACT OF PERSON NOT RELATED
by act or omission causes damage to another, TO DEFENDANT.-
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to
pay for the damage done. Such fault or The defendant a truck owner ordered FR his
negligence, if there is no preexisting driver's helper and cargador who is not a
contractual relation between the parties, is licensed driver but had only a student's
called a quasi-delict. In this regard, the permit to drive said truck. Some persons
boarded the truck and among them was one not because one responsible for the accident
policeman by the name of VO. While the truck had already received indemnification
was on the way, it made a stop and then VO therefor, but because there is no direct and
the policeman took the wheel from FR who proximate causal connection between the
gave the wheel for fear of, or out of respect negligence or violation of the law by the
for the uniformed policeman and because FR defendant to the death. of the victim.
believed that the former had both the ability
and authority to drive the truck, especially as Bataclan vs. Medina, 102 Phil 181
he himself had only a student's permit and
1. DAMAGES; CARRIER'S LIABILITY; WORDS
not a driver's license. While the truck was
AND PHRASES; PROXIMATE CAUSE
being driven by VO, it so happened that they
DEFINED.-
came to a truck that was trying to park on the
left side of the road. But as they approached "The proximate legal cause is that acting first
the parking truck, and in order to avoid and producing the injury, either immediately
colliding with it, VO swerved the truck or by setting other events in motion, all
towards the right proceeding to hit two constituting a natural and continuous chain of
pedestrians and instead of applying the brake events, each having a close causal connection
put his foot on the gasoline and the truck did with its immediate predecessor, the final
not stop but went on and hit and ran over one event in the chain immediately effecting the
of the pedestrians. Because of the accident, injury as a natural and probable result of the
the policeman was prosecuted for homicide cause which first acted, under such
with reckless imprudence to which he circumstances that the person responsible for
pleaded guilty and was sentenced the first event should, as an ordinarily
accordingly. The heirs of the victim brought prudent and intelligent person, have
the present action for damages against the reasonable ground to expect at the moment of
defendant, owner of the truck but was his act or default that an injury to some
dismissed by the trial court on the ground person might probably result therefrom." (38
that the death or accident was caused by an Am. Jur. pp. 695-696.)
act or omission of a person who is not in any
way related to the defendant. Plaintiffs 2. DAMAGES; CARRIER'S
appealed contending that when defendant LIABILITY; OVERTURNING OF
permitted his cargador who was not provided Bus; PROXIMATE CAUSE OF DEATH.-
with. driver's license, to drive the truck, he
When a vehicle turned not only on its side but
thereby violated the provisions of the Revised
completely on its back, the leaking of the
Motor Vehicle Law (Section 28, Act No. 3992),
gasoline from the tank was not unnatural or
and this constitutes negligence per se. Held:
unexpected; that the coming of the men with
Where the death or accident is caused by an
lighted torch was in response to the call for
act or omission of a person who is not in any
help, made not only by the passenger, but
way related to the defendant and the said act
most probably by the driver and the
is the proximate, immediate and direct cause
conductor themselves, and that because it
of the death of the victim or accident which is
was
punishable by law, defendant should be
absolved from any civil liability. The reason is
3. DAMAGES; CARRIER'S pay for the damage done (Article 2176, New
LIABILITY; CARRIER'S Civil Code).
NEGLIGENCE; BURNING OF THE BUS.-
2. Civil Law; Negligence; To be entitled to
The burning of the bus wherein some of the damages for an injury resulting from the
passengers were trapped can also be negligence of another, a claimant must
attributed to the negligence of the carrier, establish the relation between the omission
through the driver and conductor who were and the damage; Definition of Proximate
on the road walking back and forth. They cause.-
should and must have known that in the
position in which the overturned bus was, To be entitled to damages for an injury
gasoline could and must have leaked from the resulting from the negligence of another, a
gasoline tank and soaked the area in and claimant must establish the relation between
around the bus, this aside from the fact that the omission and the damage. He must prove
gasoline when spilled, specially over a large under Article 2179 of the New Civil Code that
area, can be smelt and detected even from a the defendant’s negligence was the
distance, Held: That the failure of the driver immediate and proximate cause of his injury.
and the conductor to have cautioned or taken Proximate cause has been defined as that
steps to warn the rescuers not to bring the cause, which, in natural and continuous
lighted torch too near the bus, constitutes sequence unbroken by any efficient
negligence on the part of the agents of the intervening cause, produces the injury, and
carrier under the provisions of the Civil Code, without which the result would not have
particularly, Article 1733, 1759 and 1763 occurred (Vda. de Bataclan, et al. v. Medina,
thereof. 102 Phil. 181, 186). Proof of such relation of
cause and effect is not an arduous one if the
claimant did not in any way contribute to the
negligence of the defendant. However, where
Fernando vs. CA, 208 SCRA 714 the resulting injury was the product of the
1. Civil Law; Negligence; Definition of; Under negligence of both parties, there exists a
the Law, a person who by his omission causes difficulty to discern which acts shall be
damage to another, there being negligence is considered the proximate cause of the
obliged to pay for the damage done.- accident.

Negligence has been defined as the failure to Urbano vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 1
observe for the protection of the interests of
1. Criminal Law; Proximate Cause; Definition
another person that degree of care,
of proximate cause in Vda. de Bataclan, et al.
precaution, and vigilance which the
vs. Medina adopted.-
circumstances justly demand, whereby such
other person suffers injury (Corliss v. Manila In Vda. de Bataclan, et al. v. Medina (102 Phil.
Railroad Company, L-21291, March 28, 1969, 1181), we adopted the following definition of
27 SCRA 674 , 680). Under the law, a person proximate cause: “x x x A satisfactory
who by his omission causes damage to definition of proximate cause is found in
another, there being negligence, is obliged to Volume 38, pages 695-696 of American
Jurisprudence, cited by plaintiffs-appellants
in their brief. It is as follows: “x x x ‘that cause, 3. Criminal Law; Proximate Cause; Tetanus
which, in natural and continuous sequence, may have been the proximate cause of Javier’s
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, death with which petitioner had nothing to
produces the injury, and without which the do.-
result would not have occurred.’ And more
comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is Doubts are present. There is a likelihood that
that acting first and producing the injury, the wound was but the remote cause and its
either immediately or by setting other events subsequent infection, for failure to take
in motion, all constituting a natural and necessary precautions, with tetanus may have
continuous chain of events, each having a been the proximate cause of Javier’s death
close causal connection with its immediate with which the petitioner had nothing to do.
predecessor, the final event in the chain 4. Criminal Law; Criminal Liability; Petitioner
immediately effecting the injury as a natural at the very least is guilty of Slight Physical
and probable result of the cause which first Injury.-
acted, under such circumstances that the
person responsible for the first event should, It strains the judicial mind to allow a dear
as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent aggressor to go scot free of criminal liability.
person, have reasonable ground to expect at At the very least, the records show he is guilty
the moment of his act or default that an injury of inflicting slight physical injuries. However,
to some person might probably result the petitioner’s criminal liability in this
therefrom.” (at pp. 185-186) respect was wiped out by the victim’s own
act. After the hacking incident, Urbano and
2. Criminal Law; Proximate Cause; Death Javier used the facilities of barangay
must be the direct, natural and logical mediators to effect a compromise agreement
consequence of the wounds inflicted; Based where Javier forgave Urbano while Urbano
on Medical findings, the infection was an defrayed the medical expenses of Javier. This
efficient intervening cause distinct and settlement of minor offenses is allowed under
foreign to the crime.- the express provisions of Presidential Decree
The rule is that the death of the victim must No. 1508, Section 2(3).
be the direct, natural, and logical 5. Criminal Law; Criminal Liability; A person
consequence of the wound inflicted upon him while not criminally liable may still be civilly
by the accused. (People v. Cardenas, supra). liable; a well-settled doctrine.-
And since we are dealing with a criminal
conviction, the proof that the accused caused We must stress, however, that our discussion
the victim’s death must convince a rational of proximate cause and remote cause is
mind beyond reasonable doubt. The medical limited to the criminal aspects of this rather
findings, however, lead us to a distinct unusual case. It does not necessarily follow
possibility that the infection of the wound by that the petitioner is also free of civil liability.
tetanus was an efficient intervening cause The well-settled doctrine is that a person,
later or between the time Javier was while not criminally liable, may still be civilly
wounded to the time of his death. The liable.
infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign
to the crime.
Mercury Drug vs. Baking, GR. 156037 however, may be rebutted by a clear showing
on the part of the employer that he has
Civil Law; Negligence; Damages; Requisites to exercised the care and diligence of a good
sustain a claim based on Article 2176 of the father of a family in the selection and
New Civil Code.—To sustain a claim based on supervision of his employee. Here,
the above provision, the following requisites petitioner’s failure to prove that it exercised
must concur: (a) damage suffered by the the due diligence of a good father of a family
plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the in the selection and supervision of its
defendant; and, (c) connection of cause and employee will make it solidarily liable for
effect between the fault or negligence of the damages caused by the latter.
defendant and the damage incurred by the
plaintiff. Same; Same; Same; Award of moral damages
in order.—As regards the award of moral
Same; Same; Same; Definition and damages, we hold the same to be in order.
determination of probable cause.—Proximate Moral damages may be awarded whenever
cause is defined as any cause that produces the defendant’s wrongful act or omission is
injury in a natural and continuous sequence, the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s physical
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
such that the result would not have occurred anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
otherwise. Proximate cause is determined feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and
from the facts of each case, upon a combined similar injury in the cases specified or
consideration of logic, common sense, policy, analogous to those provided in Article 2219
and precedent. of the Civil Code.

Same; Same; Same; When an injury is caused Attorney’s Fees; Attorney’s Fees and
by the negligence of an employee, there Expenses of Litigation; It is settled that the
instantly arises a presumption of the law that reasons or grounds for the award thereof
there has been negligence on the part of the must be set forth in the decision of the
employer, either in the selection of his court.—On the matter of attorney’s fees and
employee or in the supervision over him after expenses of litigation, it is settled that the
such selection; Presumption may be rebutted reasons or grounds for the award thereof
by a clear showing on the part of the must be set forth in the decision of the court.
employer that he has exercised the care and Since the trial court’s decision did not give the
diligence of a good father of a family in the basis of the award, the same must be deleted.
selection and supervision of his employee.— In Vibram Manufacturing Corporation v.
It is thus clear that the employer of a Manila Electric Company, 466 SCRA 178
negligent employee is liable for the damages (2005), we held: Likewise, the award for
caused by the latter. When an injury is caused attorney’s fees and litigation expenses should
by the negligence of an employee, there be deleted. Well-enshrined is that “an award
instantly arises a presumption of the law that for attorney’s fees must be stated in the text
there has been negligence on the part of the of the court’s decision and not in the
employer, either in the selection of his dispositive portion only” (Consolidated Bank
employee or in the supervision over him, and Trust Corporation (Solidbank) v. Court of
after such selection. The presumption, Appeals, 246 SCRA 193 [1995] and Keng Hua
Paper Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 286 May 11, 1972, could have caused their
SCRA 257 [1998]). This is also true with the electric lines, thus becoming a possible threat
litigation expenses where the body of the lo life and property, they did not cut off from
decision discussed nothing for its basis. the plant the flow of electricity along the
lines, an act they could have easily done
Umali vs. Bacani, GR. L-40570 pending inspection of the wires to see if they
had been cut. Third, employee Cipriano
Civil law; Torts; Quasi-delicts; An electric
Baldomero was negligent on the morning of
plant company which fails to use ordinary
the incident because even if he was already
foresight in taking necessary precaution to
made aware of the live cut wire, he did not
eliminate tall banana plants which when
have the foresight to realize that the same
blown by a moderate wind could trigger
posed a danger to life and property, and that
danger, vis-a-vis, its electric lines; which after
he should have taken the necessary
a storm and foresecable damage to its lines
precaution to prevent anybody from
that could endanger life and limb did not cut
approaching the live wire; instead Baldomero
off electric power from its plant; and which,
left the promises because what was foremost
after being made aware, thru one of its
in his mind was the repair of the line,
employees, that a live wire had been cut by
obviously forgetting that if left unattended to
the action of the storm, did not take
it could endanger life and property.
precaution to prevent anybody from
approaching the live wire, is negligent and 2. Civil law; Torts; Quasi-delicts; Where
liable for damages for death of 3½ year old negligence of electric utility plant was
boy who went to the place where live wire is proximate cause of death of child, parental
located and got into contact with it.- negligence in allowing the child to go to place
where fallen live wire was located is merely
A careful examination of the record convince
contributory.-
Us that a series of negligence on the part of
defendants’ employees in the Alcala Electric It may be true, as the lower Court found out,
Plant resulted in the death of the victim by that the contributory negligence of the
electrocution. First, by the very evidence of victim’s parents in not properly taking care of
the defendant, there were tall and big banana the child, which enabled him to leave the
plants at the place of the incident standing on house alone on the morning of the incident
an elevated ground which were about 30 feet and to go a nearby place (cut wire was very
high and which were higher than the electric near the house where victim was living)
post supporting the electric line, and yet the where the fatal fallen wire electrocuted him,
employees of the defendant, who, with might mitigate respondent’s liability, but We
ordinary foresight, could have easily seen that cannot agree with petitioner’s theory that the
even in case of moderate winds the electric parents’ negligence constituted the proximate
line would be in angered by banana plants cause of the victim’s death because the real
being blown down did not even take the proximate cause was the fallen live wire
necessary precaution to eliminate that source which posed a threat to life and property that
of danger to the electric line. Second, even morning due to the series of negligence
after the employees of the Plant were already adverted to above committed by defendants’
aware of the possible damage the storm of employees and which could have killed any
other person who might by accident get into in unloading the wagon, is the custom of
contact with it. Stated otherwise, even if the drivers in the city and that the custom is
child was allowed to leave the house sanctioned by employers. Held: That acts, the
unattended due to the parents’ negligence, he performance of which has not proven
would not have died that morning were it not destructive or injurious and which have been
for the cut live wire he accidentally touched. generally acquiesced in by society for so long
a time as to have ripened into a custom, can
3. Civil law; Torts; Negligence of employee is not be held to be unreasonable or imprudent
presumed to be negligence of his employer and that, under the circumstances, the driver
who may escape liability only by proof that it was not guilty of negligence in so leaving his
exercised diligence of good father of family to team while assisting in unloading his wagon.
prevent damage not only in selection of
employees but in adequately supervising ISSUE
their work.-
Whether or Not the defendant be liable for
The negligence of the employee is presumed the negligence of his cochero?
to be the negligence of the employer x x x.
This liability of the employer is primary and HOLDING
direct. In fact, the proper defense for the No. The Court of appeals ruled in favor of the
employer to raise so that he may escape defendant. This is because the occurrence
liability is to prove that he exercised the that transpired therein was an accident
diligence of the good father of the family to resulted from an ordinary acts of life. The
prevent damage not only in the selection of prima facie case was already destroyed from
his employees but also in adequately the start when the defendant presented his
supervising them over their work. This evidence to the court by employing all the
defense was not adequately proven as found diligence of his cochero proving that the
by the trial Court, and We do not find any latter was not a negligent. Hence, it proves
sufficient reason to deviate from its finding. that the defendant is not liable for any
accusations.
S.D Martinex vs. Buskirk, GR. L-5691
RULINGS
1. MASTER AND SERVANT; DRIVERS OF
HORSES; CUSTOM AND It was held that the cochero of the defendant
USAGE; NEGLIGENCE.- was not negligent in leaving the horses in the
manner described by the evidence in this
A coachman or driver, who had driven the
case. The act of defendant’s driver in leaving
horses composing his team for a considerable
the horses in the manner proved was not
time, during which the animals had shown no
unreasonable or imprudent. Acts that the
disposition to become unruly, left his team as
performance of which has not proved
usual and was assisting in unloading the
destructive or injurious and which have,
wagon when the horses bolted and running
therefore, been acquiesced in by society for
into the plaintiffs' carriage caused personal
so long a time that they have ripened into
injuries to the plaintiff and damage to the
custom, can not be held to be of themselves
vehicle. It was further shown that, to leave
unreasonable or imprudent. In fact, the very
teams under like circumstances and to assist
reason why they have been permitted by cause of the injury sustained by the claimant;
society is that they are beneficial rather than and (4) the award of damages is predicated
prejudicial. on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of
the Civil Code.
It is the universal practice to leave the horses
in the manner in which they were left at the 4. Civil Law; Negligence; Definition of
time of the accident. Those conditions Negligence.-
showing of themselves that the defendant’s
cochero was not negligent in the management —Negligence is defined as “the omission to
of the horse. do something which a reasonable man,
guided upon those considerations which
BPI vs. Suarez, GR. 167750 ordinarily regulate the conduct of human
affairs, would do, or the doing of something
2. Same; Same; Same; Bank of Philippine which a prudent man and reasonable man
Islands (BPI) must at all times maintain a could not do.” The question concerning BPI’s
high level of meticulousness and should negligence, however, depends on whether
guard against injury attributable to BPI indeed confirmed the same-day crediting
negligence or bad faith on its part.- of the RCBC check’s face value to Suarez’s BPI
account.
—While the erroneous marking of DAIF,
which BPI belatedly rectified, was not the St. Joseph’s College vs. Jayson Miranda, GR.
proximate cause of Suarez’s claimed injury, 182353
the Court reminds BPI that its business is
affected with public interest. Itmust at all 1. Same; Same; The mishap which happened
times maintain a high level of meticulousness during the science experiment was
and should guard against injury attributable foreseeable by the school, its officials and
to negligence or bad faith on its part. Suarez teachers.-
had a right to expect such high level of care
and diligence from BPI. Since BPI failed to —In marked contrast, both the lower courts
exercise such diligence, Suarez is entitled to similarly concluded that the mishap which
nominal damages to vindicate Suarez’s right happened during the science experiment was
to such high degree of care and diligence. foreseeable by the school, its officials and
Thus, we award Suarez P75,000.00 nominal teachers. This neglect in preventing a
damages. foreseeable injury and damage equates to
neglect in exercising the utmost degree of
3. Same; Same; Damages; Conditions for the diligence required of schools, its
Award of Moral Damages.- administrators and teachers, and, ultimately,
was the proximate cause of the damage and
—The following are the conditions for the injury to Jayson. As we have held in St. Mary’s,
award of moral damages: (1) there is an “for petitioner [St. Mary’s Academy] to be
injury—whether physical, mental or liable, there must be a finding that the act or
psychological—clearly sustained by the omission considered as negligent was the
claimant; (2) the culpable act or omission is proximate cause of the injury caused because
factually established; (3) the wrongful act or the negligence must have a causal connection
omission of the defendant is the proximate to the accident.”
2. Remedial Law; Civil Petitioners were negligent by failing to
Procedure; Appeals; Factual findings of the exercise the higher degree of care, caution
trial court, especially when affirmed by the and foresight incumbent upon the school, its
appellate court, are accorded the highest administrators and teachers.
degree of respect and conclusive between the
parties; Exceptions.- Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District, 104
Phil. 397
—Jurisprudence dictates that factual findings
of the trial court, especially when affirmed by Issues:
the appellate court, are accorded the highest
(1) Whether or not plaintiffs have clearly
degree of respect and are considered
established the fault/negligence of the
conclusive between the parties. A review of
defendants so as to make it liable for the
such findings by this Court is not warranted
damages sought? (2) Whether or not the
except for highly meritorious circumstances
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance applies in the
when: (1) the findings of a trial court are
case at bench.
grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or
conjectures; (2) a lower court’s inference Ruling:
from its factual findings is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is The record shows that when the body of
grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation minor Ong was retrieved from the bottom of
of facts; (4) the findings of the appellate court the pool, the employees of appellee did
go beyond the issues of the case, or fail to everything possible to bring him back to life.
notice certain relevant facts which, if properly Thus, after he was placed at the edge of the
considered, will justify a different conclusion; pool, lifeguard Abaño immediately gave him
(5) there is a misappreciation of facts; (6) the manual artificial respiration. Soon thereafter,
findings of fact are conclusions without nurse Armando Rule arrived, followed by
mention of the specific evidence on which sanitary inspector Iluminado Vicente who
they are based, are premised on the absence brought with him an oxygen resuscitator.
of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence When they found that the pulse of the boy
on record. None of the foregoing exceptions was abnormal, the inspector immediately
which would warrant a reversal of the injected him with camphorated oil. When the
assailed decision obtains in this instance. manual artificial respiration proved
ineffective they applied the oxygen
3. Civil Law; Negligence; Petitioners were resuscitator until its contents were
negligent by failing to exercise the higher exhausted. And while all these efforts were
degree of care, caution and foresight being made, they sent for Dr. Ayuyao from the
incumbent upon the school, its University of the Philippines who however
administrators and teachers.- came late because upon examining the body
he found him to be already dead. All of the
—As found by both lower courts, the
foregoing shows that appellee has done what
proximate cause of Jayson’s injury was the
is humanly possible under the circumstances
concurrent failure of petitioners to prevent
to restore life to minor Ong and for that
the foreseeable mishap that occurred during
reason it is unfair to hold it liable for his
the conduct of the science experiment.
death.
With regard to the application of doctrine of given case is not determined by the personal
last clear chance, since it is not known how judgment of the actor in a given situation; It is
minor Ong came into the big swimming pool the law that determines what would be
and it being apparent that he went there reckless or negligent.-
without any companion in violation of one of
the regulations of appellee as regards the use The question before us is who was negligent?
of the pools, and it appearing that lifeguard Negligence is the omission to do something
Abaño responded to the call for help as soon which a reasonable man, guided by those
as his attention was called to it and considerations which ordinarily regulate the
immediately after retrieving the body all conduct of human affairs, would do, or the
efforts at the disposal of appellee had been doing of something which a prudent and
put into play in order to bring him back to reasonable man would not do, or as Judge
life, it is clear that there is no room for the Cooley defines it, "(T)he failure to observe for
application of the doctrine now invoked by the protection of the interests of another
appellants to impute liability to appellee.. person, that degree of care, precaution, and
vigilance which the circumstances justly
The last clear chance doctrine can never demand, whereby such other person suffers
apply where the party charged is required to injury." In Picart vs. Smith, decided more than
act instantaneously, and if the injury cannot seventy years ago but still a sound rule, we
be avoided by the application of all means at held: The test by which to determine the
hand after the peril is or should have been existence of negligence in a particular case
discovered; at least in cases in which any may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in
previous negligence of the party charged doing the alleged negligent act use that
cannot be said to have contributed to the reasonable care and caution which an
injury. ordinarily prudent person would have used in
the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of
negligence. The law here in effect adopts the
standard supposed to be supplied by the
imaginary conduct of the discreet
paterfamilias of the Roman Law. The
ii. Res Ipsa Loquitor existence of negligence in a given case is not
determined by reference to the personal
judgment of the actor in the situation before
Layugan vs. IAC, 167 SCRA 363
him. The Law considers what would be
reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the
1. Remedial Law; Civil
Procedure; Evidence; The rule that the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are and determines liability by that.
entitled to great respect and will not
3. Civil Law; Torts and Damages; Negligence,
ordinarily be disturbed is not inflexible; it is
Defined; Evidence; Doctrine of Res Ipsa
subject to some established exceptions.+
Loquitur, Defined.-
2. Civil Law; Torts and Damages; Negligence,
At this juncture, it may be enlightening and
Defined; The existence of negligence in a
helpful in the proper resolution of the issue of
negligence to examine the doctrine of Res direct evidence is absent and not readily
ipsa loquitur. This doctrine is stated thus: available.-
"Where the thing which causes injury is
shown to be under the management of the The doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur as a rule of
defendant, and the accident is such as in the evidence is particular to the law of negligence
ordinary course of things does not happen if which recognizes that prima facie negligence
those who have the management use proper may be established without direct proof and
care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the furnishes a substitute for specific proof of
absence of an explanation by the defendant, negligence. The doctrine is not a rule of
that the accident arose from want of care. Or substantive law but merely a mode of proof
as Black's Law Dictionary puts it: Res ipsa or a mere procedural convenience. The rule,
loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. when applicable to the facts and
Rebuttable presumption or inference that circumstances of a particular case, is not
defendant was negligent, which arises upon intended to and does not dispense with the
proof that instrumentality causing injury was requirement of proof of culpable negligence
in defendant's exclusive control, and that the on the part of the party charged. It merely
accident was one which ordinarily does not determines and regulates what shall be prima
happen in absence of negligence. Res ipsa facie evidence thereof and facilitates the
loquitur is rule of evidence whereby burden of plaintiff of proving a breach of the
negligence of alleged wrongdoer may be duty of due care. The doctrine can be invoked
inferred from mere fact that accident when and only when, under the
happened provided character accident and circumstances involved, direct evidence is
circumstances attending it lead reasonably to absent and not readily available. Hence, it has
belief that in absence of negligence it would generally been held that the presumption of
not have occurred and that thing which inference arising from the doctrine cannot be
caused injury is shown to have been under availed of, or is overcome, where plaintiff has
management and control of alleged knowledge and testifies or presents evidence
wrongdoer. Hillen v. Hooker Const. Co., Tex. as to the specific act of negligence which is
Civ. App., 484 S.W. 2d 113, 115. Under the cause of the injury complained of or
doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur" the happening where there is direct evidence as to the
of an injury permits an inference of negli- precise cause of the accident and all the facts
gence where plaintiff produces substantial and circumstances attendant on the
evidence that injury was caused by an agency occurrence clearly appear. Finally, once the
or instrumentality under exclusive control actual cause of injury is established beyond
and management of defendant, and that the controversy, whether by the plaintiff or by
occurrence was such that in the ordinary the defendant, 110 presumptions will be
course of things would not happen if involved and the doctrine becomes
reasonable care had been used. inapplicable when the circumstances have
been so completely elucidated that no
4. Civil Law; Torts and Damages; Negligence, inference of defendant's liability can
Defined; Evidence; The doctrine of Res Ipsa reasonably be made, whatever the source of
Loquitur can be invoked when and only the evidence, as in this case.
when, under the circumstance involved,
5. Civil Law; Torts and Damages; Negligence, preventing derailments, was the
Defined; Presumption of Negligence of Master responsibility of the petitioner, and that this
or Employer; The presumption of negligence responsibility was not discharged. According
on the part of the master or employer is juris to Jose Treyes, its own witness, who was in
tantum and not juris et de jure and charge of the control and supervision of its
consequently, may be rebutted; It may be train operations, cases of derailment in the
overcome by proof that the employer milling district were frequent and there were
exercised the diligence of a good father of a even times when such derailments were
family in the selection or supervision of his reported every hour. The petitioner should
employees.- therefore have taken more prudent steps to
prevent such accidents instead of waiting
The private respondent is sued under Art. until a life was finally lost because of its
2176 in relation to Art. 2180, paragraph 5, of negligence.
the Civil Code. In the latter, when an injury is
caused by the negligence of a servant or 2. Civil Law; Damages; Doctrine of the res ipsa
employee there instantly arises a loquitur.-
presumption of law that there was negligence
At any rate, the absence of the fish plates—
on the part of the master or employer either
whatever the cause or reason—is by itself—
in the selection of the servant or employee, or
alone proof of the negligence of the
in supervision over him after selection, or
petitioner. Res ipsa loquitur. The doctrine
both. Such presumption is juris tantum and
was described recently in Layugan v.
not juris et de jure and consequently, may be
Intermediate Appellate Court, thus: Where
rebutted. If follows necessarily that if the
the thing which causes injury is shown to be
employer shows to the satisfaction of the
under the management of the defendant, and
court that in the selection and in the
the accident is such as in the ordinary course
supervision he has exercised the care and
of things does not happen if those who have
diligence of a good father of a family, the
the management use proper care, it affords
presumption is overcome and he is relieved
reasonable evidence, in the absence of an
from liability. In disclaiming liability for the
explanation by the defendant, that the
incident, the private respondent stresses that
accident arose from want of care.
the negligence of his employee has already
been adequately overcome by his driver's 3. Civil Law; Damages; Contributory
statement that he knew his responsibilities as negligence, defined.-
a driver and that the truck owner used to
instruct him to be careful in driving. Contributory negligence has been defined as
Maao Central vs. CA,GR. 83491 “the act or omission amounting to want of
ordinary care on the part of the person
1. Civil Law; Damages; Negligence; Petitioner injured which, concurring with the
should have taken more prudent steps to defendant’s negligence, is the proximate
prevent such accidents instead of waiting cause of the injury.” It has been held that “to
until a life was finally lost; Case at bar.- hold a person as having contributed to his
injuries, it must be shown that he performed
There is no question that the maintenance of an act that brought about his injuries in
the rails, for the purpose inter alia of disregard of warnings or signs of an
impending danger to health and body.” There There are three requisites for admissibility of
is no showing that the caboose where Famoso evidence under Section 35, Rule 123, Rules of
was riding was a dangerous place and that he Court: (a) that the entry was made by a public
recklessly dared to stay there despite officer, or by another person, specially
warnings or signs of impending danger. enjoined by law to do so; (b) that it was made
by the public officer in the performance of his
4. Civil Law; Damages; Workmen’s duties, or by such other person in the
Compensation Act; Payment of SSS benefits to performance of a duty specially enjoined by
the employee would not wipe out or law; and (c) that the public officer or other
extinguish the employer’s liability for the person had sufficient knowledge of the facts
injury or illness contracted by his employee.- by him slated, which must have been
As observed by Justice J.B.L. Reyes in the case acquired by him personally or through official
of Valencia v. Manila Yacht Club, which is still information (Moran, Comments on the Rules
controlling: x x x By their nature and purpose, of Court, Vol. 3, p. 393).
the sickness or disability benefits to which a 2. Evidence; Hearsay rule; Reports not
member of the System may be entitled under considered an exception to hearsay rule.-
the Social Security law (Rep. Act No. 1161, as
amended by Rep. Acts Nos. 1792 and 2658) The reports of the police and fire
are not the same as the compensation that departments do not constitute an exception
may be claimed against the employer under to the hearsay rule. For, the facts stated
the Workmen’s Compensation Act or the Civil therein were not acquired by the reporting
Code, so that payment to the member officers through official information, not
employee of social security benefits would having been given by the informants
not wipe out or extinguish the employer’s pursuant to any duty to do so.
liability for the injury or illness contracted by
his employee in the course of or during the 3. Evidence; Report submitted by a police
employment. It must be realized that, under officer in the performonce of his duties.-
the Workmen’s Compensation Act (or the The report submitted by a police officer in the
Civil Code, in a proper case), the employer is performance of his duties, on the basis of his
required to compensate the employee for the own personal observation of the facts
sickness or injury arising in the course of the reported, may properly be considered as an
employment because the industry is exception to the hearsay rule.
supposed to be responsible therefore;
whereas, under the Social Security Act, 4. Evidence; Presumption of negligence under
payment is being made because the hazard the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.-
specifically covered by the membership, and
for which the employee had put up his own Where the thing which caused the injury
money, had taken place. complained of is shown to be under the
management of the defendant or his servants
Africa vs. Caltex, 16 SCRA 448 and the accident is such as in the ordinary
course of things does not happen if those who
1. Evidence; Requisites for admissibility of have its management or control use proper
entries in official records.- care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the
absence of explanation by the defendant, that contractor. Hence, Caltex should be liable for
the accident arose from want of care (45 C.J. damages caused to appellants.
1193).
7. Torts; Quasi-delicts; Force
5. Evidence; Application of principle to the majeure; Intervention of unforeseen and
case at bar.- unexpected cause.-

The gasoline-station, with all its appliances, The intervention of an unforeseen and
equipment and employees, was under the unexpected cause is not sufficient to relieve a
control of appellees. A fire occurred therein wrongdoer from consequences of negligence,
and spread to and burned the neighboring if such negligence directly and proximately
houses. The person who knew or could have cooperates with the independent cause in the
known how the fire started were the resulting injury. (MacAfee v. Traver’s Gas
appellees and their employees, but they gave Corporation, 153 S.W. 2nd 442.)
no explanation thereof whatsoever. It is a fair
and reasonable inference that the incident Cebu Shipyard vs. William Lines, 306 SCRA
happened because of want of care. 762

6. Damages; Liability of owner of gasoline 1. Appeals; Evidence; Factual findings by the

station; Case at bar.- Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties
and are not reviewable by the Supreme
A fire broke out at the Caltex service station. Court.+
It started while gasoline was being hosed
from a tank into the underground storage. 2. Appeals; Actions; Pleadings and Practice; In
The fire spread to and burned several petitions for review on certiorari, only
neighboring houses owned by appellants. questions of law may be put into issue—
Issue: Whether Caltex should be held liable questions of fact cannot be entertained.+
for the damages caused to appellants. Held:
3. Appeals; Actions; Pleadings and
This question depends on whether the
Practice; Instances Where Findings of Fact
operator of the gasoline station was an
May Be Reviewed by the Supreme Court.+
independent contractor or an agent of Caltex.
Under the license agreement the operator 4. Torts and
would pay Caltex the purely nominal sum of Damages; Negligence; Evidence; Doctrine of
P1.00 for the use of the premises and all Res Ipsa Loquitur; For the doctrine of res ipsa
equipment therein. The operator could sell loquitur to apply to a given situation, the
only Caltex products. Maintenance of the following conditions must concur: (1) the
station and its equipment was subject to the accident was of a kind which does not
approval, in other words control, of Caltex. ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent;
The operator could not assign or transfer his and (2) that the instrumentality or agency
rights as licensee without the consent of which caused the injury was under the
Caltex. Termination of the contract was a exclusive control of the person charged with
right granted only to Caltex but not to the negligence.-
operator. These provisions of the contract
show that the operator was virtually an The finding by the trial court and the Court of
employee of the Caltex, not an independent Appeals that M/V Manila City caught fire and
sank by reason of the negligence of the mandatory for judges to give substantial
workers of CSEW, when the said vessel was weight to expert testimonies. If from the facts
under the exclusive custody and control of and evidence on record, a conclusion is
CSEW is accordingly upheld. Under the readily ascertainable, there is no need for the
circumstances of the case, the doctrine of res judge to resort to expert opinion evidence. In
ipsa loquitur applies. For the doctrine of res the case under consideration, the testimonies
ipsa loquitur to apply to a given situation, the of the fire experts were not the only available
following conditions must concur: (1) the evidence on the probable cause and origin of
accident was of a kind which does not the fire. There were witnesses who were
ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; actually on board the vessel when the fire
and (2) that the instrumentality or agency occurred. Between the testimonies of the fire
which caused the injury was under the experts who merely based their findings and
exclusive control of the person charged with opinions on interviews and the testimonies of
negligence. those present during the fire, the latter are of
more probative value. Verily, the trial court
5. Torts and and the Court of Appeals did not err in giving
Damages; Negligence; Evidence; Witnesses; E more weight to said testimonies.
xpert Witnesses; Courts are not bound by the
testimonies of expert witnesses.- 7. Insurance; Subrogation; When the insurer,
after due verification of the merit and validity
Courts are not bound by the testimonies of of the insurance claim of the assured, pays the
expert witnesses. Although they may have latter the total amount covered by its
probative value, reception in evidence of insurance policy, it becomes subrogated to
expert testimonies is within the discretion of the right of the latter to recover the insured
the court. loss from the liable party.-
6. Torts and When Prudential, after due verification of the
Damages; Negligence; Evidence; Witnesses; E merit and validity of the insurance claim of
xpert Witnesses; It is never mandatory for William Lines, Inc., paid the latter the total
judges to give substantial weight to expert amount covered by its insurance policy, it
testimonies; Between the testimonies of the was subrogated to the right of the latter to
fire experts who merely based their findings recover the insured loss from the liable party,
and opinions on interviews and the CSEW.
testimonies of those present during the fire,
the latter are of more probative value.- 8. Insurance; Co-Insurance; The intention of
the parties to make each other a co-assured
Section 49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of under an insurance policy is to be gleaned
Court, provides: SEC. 49. Opinion of expert principally from the insurance contract or
witness.—The opinion of a witness on a policy itself and not from any other contract
matter requiring special knowledge, skill, or agreement because the insurance policy
experience or training which he is shown to denominates the assured and the
possess, may be received in evidence. The beneficiaries of the insurance. Thus, when the
word “may” signifies that the use of opinion insurance policy names only one party as the
of an expert witness as evidence is a
prerogative of the courts. It is never
assured thereunder, the claim of another that valid per se; as binding as an ordinary
it is a co-assured is unfounded.- contract, the Court recognizes instances when
reliance on such contracts cannot be favored
This theory of petitioner is devoid of especially where the facts and circumstances
sustainable merit. Clause 20 of the Work warrant that subject stipulations be
Order in question is clear in the sense that it disregarded. Thus, in ruling on the validity
requires William Lines to maintain insurance and applicability of the stipulation limiting
on the vessel during the period of dry- the liability of CSEW for negligence to One
docking or repair. Concededly, such a Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos only, the facts
stipulation works to the benefit of CSEW as and circumstances vis-a-vis the nature of the
the shiprepairer. However, the fact that CSEW provision sought to be enforced should be
benefits from the said stipulation does not considered, bearing in mind the principles of
automatically make it as a co-assured of equity and fair play.
William Lines. The intention of the parties to
make each other a co-assured under an 10. Insurance; Contracts; Contracts of
insurance policy is to be gleaned principally Adhesion; To allow a repair entity to limit its
from the insurance contract or policy itself liability to One Million Pesos notwithstanding
and not from any other contract or agreement the fact that the total loss suffered by the
because the insurance policy denominates the assured amounted to Forty-Five Million Pesos
assured and the beneficiaries of the (P45,000,000.00) would sanction the exercise
insurance. The hull and machinery insurance of a degree of diligence short of what is
procured by William Lines, Inc. from ordinarily required because, then, it would
Prudential named only “William Lines, Inc.” not be difficult for the former to escape
as the assured. There was no manifestation of liability by the simple expedient of paying an
any intention of William Lines, Inc. to amount very much lower than the actual
constitute CSEW as a co-assured under damage or loss suffered by the latter.-
subject policy. It is axiomatic that when the
terms of a contract are clear its stipulations Considering the aforestated circumstances,
control. Thus, when the insurance policy let alone the fact that negligence on the part
involved named only William Lines, Inc. as of petitioner has been sufficiently proven, it
the assured thereunder, the claim of CSEW would indeed be unfair and inequitable to
that it is a co-assured is unfounded. limit the liability of petitioner to One Million
Pesos only. As aptly held by the trial court, “it
9. Insurance; Contracts; Contracts of is rather unconscionable if not overstrained.”
Adhesion; Although contracts of adhesion To allow CSEW to limit its liability to One
have been consistently upheld as valid per se; Million Pesos notwithstanding the fact that
as binding as an ordinary contract, the Court the total loss suffered by the assured and paid
recognizes instances when reliance on such for by Prudential amounted to Forty Five
contracts cannot be favored especially where Million (P45,000,000.00) Pesos would
the facts and circumstances warrant that sanction the exercise of a degree of diligence
subject stipulations be disregarded.- short of what is ordinarily required because,
then, it would not be difficult for petitioner to
Although in this jurisdiction, contracts of escape liability by the simple expedient of
adhesion have been consistently upheld as paying an amount very much lower than the
actual damage or loss suffered by William vehicular accident, a mechanical defect will
Lines, Inc. not release the defendant from liability if it is
shown that the accident could have been
Perla Compania vs. Sps. Sarangaya, GR. prevented had he properly maintained and
147746 taken good care of the vehicle.-

1. Civil Law; Quasi-Delicts; Torts; Res Ipsa The exempting circumstance of caso fortuito
Loquitur; Words and Phrases; Res ipsa may be availed only when: (a) the cause of
loquitur is a Latin phrase which literally the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence
means “the thing or the transaction speaks was independent of the human will; (b) it was
for itself.”- impossible to foresee the event which
constituted the caso fortuito or, if it could be
Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase which
foreseen, it was impossible to avoid; (c) the
literally means “the thing or the transaction
occurrence must be such as to render it
speaks for itself.” It relates to the fact of an
impossible to perform an obligation in a
injury that sets out an inference to the cause
normal manner and (d) the person tasked to
thereof or establishes the plaintiff’s prima
perform the obligation must not have
facie case. The doctrine rests on inference and
participated in any course of conduct that
not on presumption. The facts of the
aggravated the accident. In fine, human
occurrence warrant the supposition of
agency must be entirely excluded as the
negligence and they furnish circumstantial
proximate cause or contributory cause of the
evidence of negligence when direct evidence
injury or loss. In a vehicular accident, for
is lacking. The doctrine is based on the theory
example, a mechanical defect will not release
that the defendant either knows the cause of
the defendant from liability if it is shown that
the accident or has the best opportunity of
the accident could have been prevented had
ascertaining it and the plaintiff, having no
he properly maintained and taken good care
knowledge thereof, is compelled to allege
of the vehicle.
negligence in general terms. In such instance,
the plaintiff relies on proof of the happening 4. Civil Law; Quasi-Delicts; Torts; Vicarious
of the accident alone to establish negligence. Liability; In the supervision of employees, the
employer must formulate standard operating
2. Civil Law; Quasi-Delicts; Torts; Test to
procedures, monitor their implementation
determine the existence of negligence.-
and impose disciplinary measures for the
The test to determine the existence of breach thereof.-
negligence in a particular case may be stated
In the supervision of employees, the
as follows: did the defendant in committing
employer must formulate standard operating
the alleged negligent act, use reasonable care
procedures, monitor their implementation
and caution which an ordinarily prudent
and impose disciplinary measures for the
person in the same situation would have
breach thereof. To fend off vicarious liability,
employed? If not, then he is guilty of
employers must submit concrete proof,
negligence.
including documentary evidence, that they
3. Civil Law; Quasi-Delicts; Torts; Fortuitous complied with everything that was incumbent
Event; Exempting Circumstances; In a on them. Here, petitioner-corporation’s
evidence hardly included any rule or presented as a witness to provide the other
regulation that Pascual should have observed party to the litigation the opportunity to
in performing his functions. It also did not question its contents. Being mere hearsay
have any guidelines for the maintenance and evidence, failure to present the author of the
upkeep of company property like the vehicle letter renders its contents suspect and of no
that caught fire. Petitioner-corporation did probative value.
not require periodic reports on or inventories
of its properties either. Based on these 3. Civil Law; Quasi-Delicts; Res Ipsa
circumstances, petitioner-corporation clearly Loquitur; Words and Phrases; Res ipsa
did not exert effort to be apprised of the loquitur is a Latin phrase which literally
condition of Pascual’s car or its serviceability. means “the thing or the transaction speaks
for itself”; The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
Huang vs. Philippine Hoteliers, GR. 180440 applies where, (1) the accident was of such
character as to warrant an inference that it
1. Remedial Law; Civil would not have happened except for the
Procedure; Appeals; Petition for Review on defendant’s negligence; (2) the accident must
Certiorari; Only errors of law and not of facts have been caused by an agency or
are reviewable by this Court in a Petition for instrumentality within the exclusive
Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the management or control of the person charged
Rules of Court.+ with the negligence complained of; and (3)
the accident must not have been due to any
2. Remedial Law; Evidence; Medical
voluntary action or contribution on the part
Certificates; Private Documents; Since a
of the person injured.-
medical certificate involves an opinion of one
who must first be established as an expert —Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase which
witness, it cannot be given weight or credit literally means “the thing or the transaction
unless the doctor who issued it is presented speaks for itself.” It relates to the fact of an
in court to show his qualifications. Thus, an injury that sets out an inference to the cause
unverified and unidentified private document thereof or establishes the plaintiff’s prima
cannot be accorded probative value.- facie case. The doctrine rests on inference and
not on presumption. The facts of the
—Since a medical certificate involves an
occurrence warrant the supposition of
opinion of one who must first be established
negligence and they furnish circumstantial
as an expert witness, it cannot be given
evidence of negligence when direct evidence
weight or credit unless the doctor who issued
is lacking. Simply stated, this doctrine finds
it is presented in court to show his
no application if there is direct proof of
qualifications. Thus, an unverified and
absence or presence of negligence. If there is
unidentified private document cannot be
sufficient proof showing the conditions and
accorded probative value. It is precluded
circumstances under which the injury
because the party against whom it is
occurred, then the creative reason for the said
presented is deprived of the right and
doctrine disappears. Further, the doctrine of
opportunity to cross-examine the person to
res ipsa loquitur applies where, (1) the
whom the statements or writings are
accident was of such character as to warrant
attributed. Its executor or author should be
an inference that it would not have happened
except for the defendant’s negligence; (2) the before respondents PHI and DTPCI can be
accident must have been caused by an agency held liable, to wit: (a) damages suffered by
or instrumentality within the exclusive the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the
management or control of the person charged defendant, or some other person for whose
with the negligence complained of; and (3) acts he must respond; and (c) the connection
the accident must not have been due to any of cause and effect between the fault or
voluntary action or contribution on the part negligence of the defendant and the damages
of the person injured. incurred by the plaintiff. Further, since
petitioner’s case is for quasi-delict, the
4. Remedial Law; Evidence; Burden of negligence or fault should be clearly
Proof; If the plaintiff alleged in his complaint established as it is the basis of her action. The
that he was damaged because of the negligent burden of proof is upon petitioner.
acts of the defendant, he has the burden of
proving such negligence.- 6. Civil Law; “Quasi-Delicts” and “Breach of
Contract,” Distinguished.-
—Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court
provides that “burden of proof is the duty of a —In that regard, this Court finds it significant
party to present evidence on the facts in issue to take note of the following differences
necessary to establish his claim or defense by between quasi-delict (culpa aquilina) and
the amount of evidence required by law.” It is breach of contract (culpa contractual). In
then up for the plaintiff to establish his cause quasi-delict, negligence is direct, substantive
of action or the defendant to establish his and independent, while in breach of contract,
defense. Therefore, if the plaintiff alleged in negligence is merely incidental to the
his complaint that he was damaged because performance of the contractual obligation;
of the negligent acts of the defendant, he has there is a pre-existing contract or obligation.
the burden of proving such negligence. It is In quasi-delict, the defense of “good father of
even presumed that a person takes ordinary a family” is a complete and proper defense
care of his concerns. The quantum of proof insofar as parents, guardians and employers
required is preponderance of evidence. are concerned, while in breach of contract,
such is not a complete and proper defense in
5. Same; Quasi-Delicts; Actions; In an action the selection and supervision of employees.
based on quasi-delict, it is incumbent upon In quasi-delict, there is no presumption of
the plaintiff to prove the presence of the negligence and it is incumbent upon the
following requisites before the defendant can injured party to prove the negligence of the
be held liable, to wit: (a) damages suffered by defendant, otherwise, the former’s complaint
the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the will be dismissed, while in breach of contract,
defendant, or some other person for whose negligence is presumed so long as it can be
acts he must respond; and (c) the connection proved that there was breach of the contract
of cause and effect between the fault or and the burden is on the defendant to prove
negligence of the defendant and the damages that there was no negligence in the carrying
incurred by the plaintiff.- out of the terms of the contract; the rule of
—As petitioner’s cause of action is based on respondeat superior is followed.
quasi-delict, it is incumbent upon her to
prove the presence of the following requisites
7. Same; Same; Theory of the of witnesses may sway a trial court judge in
Case; Actions; When a party adopts a certain deciding a case, it is not, and should not be,
theory in the court below, he will not be his only consideration. Even more vital for
permitted to change his theory on appeal for the trial court judge’s decision are the
to permit him to do so would not only be contents and substance of the witnesses’
unfair to the other party but it would also be testimonies, as borne out by the TSNs, as well
offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice as the object and documentary evidence
and due process.- submitted and made part of the records of the
case.
—Petitioner’s belated reliance on breach of
contract as her cause of action cannot be Reyes vs. Sisters of Mercy Hospital, 341
sanctioned by this Court. Well-settled is the SCRA 760
rule that a party is not allowed to change the
theory of the case or the cause of action on 1. Medical Malpractice; Elements; Words and
appeal. Matters, theories or arguments not Phrases; Medical malpractice is a particular
submitted before the trial court cannot be form of negligence which consists in the
considered for the first time on appeal or failure of a physician or surgeon to apply to
certiorari. When a party adopts a certain his practice of medicine that degree of care
theory in the court below, he will not be and skill which is ordinarily employed by the
permitted to change his theory on appeal for profession generally, under similar
to permit him to do so would not only be conditions, and in like surrounding
unfair to the other party but it would also be circumstances; There are four elements
offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice involved in medical negligence cases, namely:
and due process. Hence, a party is bound by duty, breach, injury and proximate causation.-
the theory he adopts and by the cause of
Petitioner’s action is for medical malpractice.
action he stands on and cannot be permitted
This is a particular form of negligence which
after having lost thereon to repudiate his
consists in the failure of a physician or
theory and cause of action and adopt another
surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine
and seek to re-litigate the matter anew either
that degree of care and skill which is
in the same forum or on appeal.
ordinarily employed by the profession
8. Same; Same; Judgments; By reason alone generally, under similar conditions, and in
that the judge who penned the trial court’s like surrounding circumstances. In order to
decision was not the same judge who heard successfully pursue such a claim, a patient
the case and received the evidence therein must prove that the physician or surgeon
would not render the findings in the said either failed to do something which a
decision erroneous and unreliable.- reasonably prudent physician or surgeon
would have done, or that he or she did
—Irrefragably, the fact that the judge who something that a reasonably prudent
penned the trial court’s decision was not the physician or surgeon would not have done,
same judge who heard the case and received and that the failure or action caused injury to
the evidence therein does not render the the patient. There are thus four elements
findings in the said decision erroneous and involved in medical negligence cases, namely:
unreliable. While the conduct and demeanor duty, breach, injury, and proximate causation.
2. Medical Malpractice; Evidence; Expert malpractice suits to prove that a physician
Witnesses; Inasmuch as the causes of the has done a negligent act or that he has
injuries involved in malpractice actions are deviated from the standard medical
determinable only in the light of scientific procedure, when the doctrine of res ipsa
knowledge, it has been recognized that expert loquitur is availed by the plaintiff, the need
testimony is usually necessary to support the for expert medical testimony is dispensed
conclusion as to causation.- with because the injury itself provides the
proof of negligence. The reason is that the
In the present case, there is no doubt that a general rule on the necessity of expert
physician-patient relationship existed testimony applies only to such matters clearly
between respondent doctors and Jorge Reyes. within the domain of medical science, and not
Respondents were thus duty-bound to use at to matters that are within the common
least the same level of care that any knowledge of mankind which may be testified
reasonably competent doctor would use to to by anyone familiar with the facts.
treat a condition under the same Ordinarily, only physicians and surgeons of
circumstances. It is breach of this duty which skill and experience are competent to testify
constitutes actionable malpractice. As to this as to whether a patient has been treated or
aspect of medical malpractice, the operated upon with a reasonable degree of
determination of the reasonable level of care skill and care. However, testimony as to the
and the breach thereof, expert testimony is statements and acts of physicians and
essential. Inasmuch as the causes of the surgeons, external appearances, and manifest
injuries involved in malpractice actions are conditions which are observable by any one
determinable only in the light of scientific may be given by non-expert witnesses. Hence,
knowledge, it has been recognized that expert in cases where the res ipsa loquitur is
testimony is usually necessary to support the applicable, the court is permitted to find a
conclusion as to causation. physician negligent upon proper proof of
3. Medical Malpractice; Evidence; Expert injury to the patient, without the aid of expert
Witnesses; Res Ipsa Loquitur; There is a case testimony, where the court from its fund of
when expert testimony may be dispensed common knowledge can determine the
with, and that is under the doctrine of res ipsa proper standard of care. Where common
loquitur; Where res ipsa loquitur is knowledge and experience teach that a
applicable, the court is permitted to find a resulting injury would not have occurred to
physician negligent upon proper proof of the patient if due care had been exercised, an
injury to the patient, without the aid of expert inference of negligence may be drawn giving
testimony, where the court from its fund of rise to an application of the doctrine of res
common knowledge can determine the ipsa loquitur without medical evidence,
proper standard of care.- which is ordinarily required to show not only
what occurred but how and why it occurred.
There is a case when expert testimony may be When the doctrine is appropriate, all that the
dispensed with, and that is under the doctrine patient must do is prove a nexus between the
of res ipsa loquitur. As held in Ramos v. Court particular act or omission complained of and
of Appeals : Although generally, expert the injury sustained while under the custody
medical testimony is relied upon in and management of the defendant without
need to produce expert medical testimony to presumption of negligence can be applied to
establish the standard of care. Resort to res Dr. Marlyn Rico. As held in Ramos:. . . . Res
ipsa loquitur is allowed because there is no ipsa loquitur is not a rigid or ordinary
other way, under usual and ordinary doctrine to be perfunctorily used but a rule to
conditions, by which the patient can obtain be cautiously applied, depending upon the
redress for injury suffered by him. circumstances of each case. It is generally
restricted to situations in malpractice cases
4. Medical Malpractice; Evidence; Expert where a layman is able to say, as a matter of
Witnesses; Res Ipsa Loquitur; Requisites for common knowledge and observation, that the
Application of Res Ipsa Loquitur.- consequences of professional care were not
Petitioners now contend that all requisites for as such as would ordinarily have followed if
the application of res ipsa loquitur were due care had been exercised. A distinction
present, namely: (1) the accident was of a must be made between the failure to secure
kind which does not ordinarily occur unless results, and the occurrence of something
someone is negligent; (2) the instrumentality more unusual and not ordinarily found if the
or agency which caused the injury was under service or treatment rendered followed the
the exclusive control of the person in charge; usual procedure of those skilled in that
and (3) the injury suffered must not have particular practice. It must be conceded that
been due to any voluntary action or the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can have no
contribution of the person injured. application in a. suit against a physician or a
surgeon which involves the merits of a
5. Medical Malpractice; Evidence; Expert diagnosis or of a scientific treatment. The
Witnesses; Res Ipsa Loquitur; Res ipsa physician or surgeon is not required at his
loquitur is not a rigid or ordinary doctrine to peril to explain why any particular diagnosis
be perfunctorily used but a rule to be was not correct, or why any particular
cautiously applied, depending upon the scientific treatment did not produce the
circumstances of each case—the doctrine of desired result .
res ipsa loquitur can have no application in a
suit against a physician or a surgeon which 6. Medical Malpractice; Evidence; Expert
involves the merits of a diagnosis or of a Witnesses; The standard contemplated is not
scientific treatment; The physician or surgeon what is actually the average merit among all
is not required at his peril to explain why any known practitioners from the best to the
particular diagnosis was not correct, or why worst and from the most to the least
any particular scientific treatment did not experienced, but the reasonable average
produce the desired result.- merit among the ordinarily good physicians.-

Respondents alleged failure to observe due The standard contemplated is not what is
care was not immediately apparent to a actually the average merit among all known
layman so as to justify application of res ipsa practitioners from the best to the worst and
loquitur. The question required expert from the most to the least experienced, but
opinion on the alleged breach by respondents the reasonable average merit among the
of the standard of care required by the ordinarily good physicians. Here, Dr. Marlyn
circumstances. Furthermore, on the issue of Rico did not depart from the reasonable
the correctness of her diagnosis, no standard recommended by the experts as she
in fact observed the due care required under the goods and for the safety of the passengers
the circumstances. Though the Widal test is transported by them, according to the
not conclusive, it remains a standard circumstances of each case. . . .
diagnostic test for typhoid fever and, in the
present case, greater accuracy through 8. Medical
repeated testing was rendered unobtainable Malpractice; Evidence; Negligence; Given the
by the early death of the patient. The results safeguards present in the medical profession,
of the Widal test and the patient’s history of there is no need to expressly require of
fever with chills for five days, taken with the doctors the observance of “extraordinary”
fact that typhoid fever was then prevalent as diligence—the standard contemplated for
indicated by the fact that the clinic had been doctors is simply the reasonable average
getting about 15 to 20 typhoid cases a month, merit among ordinarily good physicians, that
were sufficient to give upon any doctor of is, the reasonable skill and competence that a
reasonable skill the impression that Jorge physician in the same or similar locality
Reyes had typhoid fever. should apply.-

7. Medical The practice of medicine is a profession

Malpractice; Evidence; Negligence; The engaged in only by qualified individuals. It is
medical profession is one which, like the a right earned through years of education,
business of a common carrier, is affected with training, and by first obtaining a license from
public interest; The standard of extraordinary the state through professional board
diligence is peculiar to common carriers.- examinations. Such license may, at any time
and for cause, be revoked by the government.
Petitioners correctly observe that the medical In addition to state regulation, the conduct of
profession is one which, like the business of a doctors is also strictly governed by the
common carrier, is affected with public Hippocratic Oath, an ancient code of
interest. Moreover, they assert that since the discipline and ethical rules which doctors
law imposes upon common carriers the duty have imposed upon themselves in recognition
of observing extraordinary diligence in the and acceptance of their great responsibility to
vigilance over the goods and for the safety of society. Given these safeguards, there is no
the passengers, physicians and surgeons need to expressly require of doctors the
should have the same duty toward their observance of “extraordinary” diligence. As it
patients. They also contend that the Court of is now, the practice of medicine is already
Appeals erred when it allegedly assumed that conditioned upon the highest degree of
the level of medical practice is lower in Iligan diligence. And, as we have already noted, the
City, thereby reducing the standard of care standard contemplated for doctors is simply
and degree of diligence required from the reasonable average merit among
physicians and surgeons in Iligan City. The ordinarily good physicians. That is reasonable
standard of extraordinary diligence is diligence for doctors or, as the Court of
peculiar to common carriers. The Civil Code Appeals called it, the reasonable “skill and
provides: Art. 1733. Common carriers, from competence . . . that a physician in the same
the nature of their business and for reasons of or similar locality . . . should apply.”
public policy, are bound to observe
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over
iii. Violation of rules opposite direction and failing to consider the
speed thereof since it was still dark at 5:00
and statuses o’clock in the morning mindlessly occupied
the left lane and overtook two (2) vehicles in
front of it at a curve in the highway. Clearly,
the proximate cause of the collision resulting
in the death of Israel Reyes, a passenger of
the jeepney, was the sole negligence of the
driver of the passenger jeepney, petitioner
Alfredo Mallari, Jr., who recklessly operated
and drove his jeepney in a lane where
Mallari vs. CA, 324 SCRA 147 overtaking was not allowed by traffic rules.
Under Art. 2185 of the Civil Code, unless
1. Civil Law; Negligence; Common there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed
Carriers; Rule is settled that a driver that a person driving a motor vehicle has
abandoning his proper lane for the purpose of been negligent if at the time of the mishap he
overtaking another vehicle in an ordinary was violating a traffic regulation. As found by
situation has the duty to see to it that the road the appellate court, petitioners failed to
is clear and not to proceed if he cannot do so present satisfactory evidence to overcome
in safety.- this legal presumption.

The rule is settled that a driver abandoning 3. Civil Law; Negligence; Common
his proper lane for the purpose of overtaking Carriers; Liability of the common carrier does
another vehicle in an ordinary situation has not cease upon proof that it exercised all the
the duty to see to it that the road is clear and diligence of a good father of a family in the
not to proceed if he cannot do so in safety. selection of its employees.-
When a motor vehicle is approaching or
rounding a curve, there is special necessity The negligence and recklessness of the driver
for keeping to the right side of the road and of the passenger jeepney is binding against
the driver does not have the right to drive on petitioner Mallari, Sr., who admittedly was
the left hand side relying upon having time to the owner of the passenger jeepney engaged
turn to the right if a car approaching from the as a common carrier, considering the fact that
opposite direction comes into view. in an action based on contract of carriage, the
court need not make an express finding of
2. Civil Law; Negligence; Common fault or negligence on the part of the carrier
Carriers; Under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, in order to hold it responsible for the
unless there is proof to the contrary, it is payment of damages sought by the passenger.
presumed that a person driving a motor Under Art. 1755 of the Civil Code, a common
vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the carrier is bound to carry the passengers
mishap he was violating a traffic regulation.- safely as far as human care and foresight can
provide using the utmost diligence of very
In the instant case, by his own admission,
cautious persons with due regard for all the
petitioner Mallari, Jr. already saw that the
circumstances. Moreover, under Art. 1756 of
BULLETIN delivery van was coming from the
the Civil Code, in case of death or injuries to
passengers, a common carrier is presumed to Same; Same; Same; Same; In case a separate
have been at fault or to have acted civil action is filed, the long-standing
negligently, unless it proves that it observed principle is that the registered owner of a
extraordinary diligence. Further, pursuant to motor vehicle is primarily and directly
Art. 1759 of the same Code, it is liable for the responsible for the consequences of its
death of or injuries to passengers through the operation, including the negligence of the
negligence or willful acts of the former’s driver, with respect to the public and all third
employees. This liability of the common persons; In contemplation of law, the
carrier does not cease upon proof that it registered owner of a motor vehicle is the
exercised all the diligence of a good father of employer of its driver, with the actual
a family in the selection of its employees. operator and employer, such as a lessee,
Clearly, by the contract of carriage, the carrier being considered as merely the owner’s
jeepney owned by Mallari, Sr. assumed the agent.—In case a separate civil action is filed,
express obligation to transport the the long-standing principle is that the
passengers to their destination safely and to registered owner of a motor vehicle is
observe extraordinary diligence with due primarily and directly responsible for the
regard for all the circumstances, and any consequences of its operation, including the
injury or death that might be suffered by its negligence of the driver, with respect to the
passengers is right away attributable to the public and all third persons. In contemplation
fault or negligence of the carrier. of law, the registered owner of a motor
vehicle is the employer of its driver, with the
PCI Leasing vs. UCPB, 557 SCRA 141 actual operator and employer, such as a
lessee, being considered as merely the
Civil Law; Quasi-delicts; Damages;
owner’s agent. This being the case, even if a
Negligence; Registered owner of a motor
sale has been executed before a tortious
vehicle may be held civilly liable with the
incident, the sale, if unregistered, has no
negligent driver either subsidiarily or
effect as to the right of the public and third
solidarily.—For damage or injuries arising
persons to recover from the registered
out of negligence in the operation of a motor
owner. The public has the right to
vehicle, the registered owner may be held
conclusively presume that the registered
civilly liable with the negligent driver either
owner is the real owner, and may sue
1) subsidiarily, if the aggrieved party seeks
accordingly.
relief based on a delict or crime under
Articles 100 and 103 of the Revised Penal Same; Same; Same; Same; Land
Code; or 2) solidarily, if the complainant Transportation and Traffic Code; RA No. 8556
seeks relief based on a quasi-delict under does not supersede or repeal the law on
Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. It is compulsory motor vehicle registration.—The
the option of the plaintiff whether to waive new law, R.A. No. 8556, notwithstanding
completely the filing of the civil action, or developments in foreign jurisdictions, does
institute it with the criminal action, or file it not supersede or repeal the law on
separately or independently of a criminal compulsory motor vehicle registration. No
action; his only limitation is that he cannot part of the law expressly repeals Section 5(a)
recover damages twice for the same act or and (e) of R.A. No. 4136, as amended,
omission of the defendant.
otherwise known as the Land Transportation used on country roads, putting to great
and Traffic Code. hazard the safety and lives of the mass of the
people who travel on such roads.” In the same
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The failure case, the Court emphasized: A driver of an
to register a lease, sale, transfer or automobile, under such circumstances, is
encumbrance, should not benefit the parties required to use a greater degree of care than
responsible, to the prejudice of innocent drivers of animals, for the reason that the
victims.—The rule remains the same: a sale, machine is capable of greater destruction, and
lease, or financial lease, for that matter, that is furthermore, it is absolutely under the power
not registered with the Land Transportation and control of the driver; whereas, a horse or
Office, still does not bind third persons who other animal can and does to some extent aid
are aggrieved in tortious incidents, for the in averting an accident. It is not pleasant to be
latter need only to rely on the public obliged to slow down automobiles to
registration of a motor vehicle as conclusive accommodate persons riding, driving, or
evidence of ownership. A lease such as the walking. It is probably more agreeable to
one involved in the instant case is an send the machine along and let the horse or
encumbrance in contemplation of law, which person get out of the way in the best manner
needs to be registered in order for it to bind possible; but it is well to understand, if this
third parties. Under this policy, the evil course is adopted and an accident occurs, that
sought to be avoided is the exacerbation of the automobile driver will be called upon to
the suffering of victims of tragic vehicular account for his acts. An automobile driver
accidents in not being able to identify a guilty must at all times use all the care and caution
party. A contrary ruling will not serve the which a careful and prudent driver would
ends of justice. The failure to register a lease, have exercised under the circumstances.
sale, transfer or encumbrance, should not
benefit the parties responsible, to the 2. Civil Law; Torts; Negligence; Extraordinary
prejudice of innocent victims. Diligence; Motor Vehicles; While the duty of
using ordinary care falls alike on the motorist
Anonueva vs. CA, 441 SCRA 24 and the rider or driver of a bicycle, it is
obvious, for reasons growing out of the
1. Civil Law; Torts; Negligence; Extraordinary
inherent differences in the two vehicles, that
Diligence; Motor Vehicles; An automobile
more is required from the former to fully
driver must at all times use all the care and
discharge the duty than from the latter.-
caution which a careful and prudent driver
would have exercised under the American jurisprudence has had occasion to
circumstances.- explicitly rule on the relationship between
the motorist and the cyclist. Motorists are
There long has been judicial recognition of
required to exercise ordinary or reasonable
the peculiar dangers posed by the motor
care to avoid collision with bicyclists. While
vehicle. As far back as 1912, in U.S. v. Juanillo,
the duty of using ordinary care falls alike on
the Court has recognized that an automobile
the motorist and the rider or driver of a
is capable of great speed, greater than that of
bicycle, it is obvious, for reasons growing out
ordinary vehicles hauled by animals, “and
of the inherent differences in the two
beyond doubt it is highly dangerous when
vehicles, that more is required from the
former to fully discharge the duty than from statute will be deemed the proximate cause of
the latter. The Code Commission was the injury.-
cognizant of the difference in the natures and
attached responsibilities of motorized and The mere fact of violation of a statute is not
non-motorized vehicles. Art. 2185 was not sufficient basis for an inference that such
formulated to compel or ensure obeisance by violation was the proximate cause of the
all to traffic rules and regulations. If such injury complained. However, if the very injury
were indeed the evil sought to be remedied or has happened which was intended to be
guarded against, then the framers of the Code prevented by the statute, it has been held that
would have expanded the provision to violation of the statute will be deemed to be
include non-motorized vehicles or for that the proximate cause of the injury.” (65 C.J.S.
matter, pedestrians. Yet, that was not the 1156) “The generally accepted view is that
case; thus the need arises to ascertain the violation of a statutory duty constitutes
peculiarities attaching to a motorized vehicle negligence, negligence as a matter of law, or,
within the dynamics of road travel. The fact according to the decisions on the question,
that there has long existed a higher degree of negligence per se, for the reason that non-
diligence and care imposed on motorized observance of what the legislature has
vehicles, arising from the special nature of a prescribed as a suitable precaution is failure
motor vehicle, leads to the inescapable to observe that care which an ordinarily
conclusion that the qualification under Article prudent man would observe, and, when the
2185 exists precisely to recognize such higher state regards certain acts as so liable to injure
standard. Simply put, the standards others as to justify their absolute prohibition,
applicable to motor vehicle are not on equal doing the forbidden act is a breach of duty
footing with other types of vehicles. with respect to those who may be injured
thereby; or, as it has been otherwise
3. Civil Law; Torts; Negligence; It is the law expressed, when the standard of care is fixed
which determines what would be reckless or by law, failure to conform to such standard is
negligent.- negligence, negligence per se or negligence in
and of itself, in the absence of a legal excuse.
The Civil Code characterizes negligence as the According to this view it is immaterial, where
omission of that diligence which is required a statute has been violated, whether the act or
by the nature of the obligation and omission constituting such violation would
corresponds with the circumstances of the have been regarded as negligence in the
persons, of the time and of the place. absence of any statute on the subject or
However, the existence of negligence in a whether there was, as a matter of fact, any
given case is not determined by the personal reason to anticipate that injury would result
judgment of the actor in a given situation, but from such violation. x x x.” (65 C.J.S. pp. 623-
rather, it is the law which determines what 628) “But the existence of an ordinance
would be reckless or negligent. changes the situation. If a driver causes an
4. Civil Law; Torts; Negligence; Violation of accident by exceeding the speed limit, for
Ordinance; If the very injury has happened example, we do not inquire whether his
which was intended to be prevented by the prohibited conduct was unreasonably
statute, it has been held that violation of the dangerous. It is enough that it was prohibited.
Violation of an ordinance intended to
promote safety is negligence. If by creating guide in adjudging liability, for it seeks to
the hazard which the ordinance was intended impute culpability arising from the failure of
to avoid it brings about the harm which the the actor to perform up to a standard
ordinance was intended to prevent, it is a established by a legal fiat. But the doctrine
legal cause of the harm. This comes only to should not be rendered inflexible so as to
saying that in such circumstances the law has deny relief when in fact there is no causal
no reason to ignore the causal relation which relation between the statutory violation and
obviously exists in fact. The law has excellent the injury sustained. Presumptions in law,
reason to recognize it, since it is the very while convenient, are not intractable so as to
relation which the makers of the ordinance forbid rebuttal rooted in fact. After all, tort
anticipated. This court has applied these law is remunerative in spirit, aiming to
principles to speed limits and other provide compensation for the harm suffered
regulations of the manner of driving.” (Ross by those whose interests have been invaded
vs. Hartman, 139 Fed. 2d 14 at 15). “x x x owing to the conduct of others.
However, the fact that other happenings
causing or contributing toward an injury 6. Civil Law; Torts; Negligence; Contributory
intervened between the violation of a statute Negligence; To prove contributory
or ordinance and the injury does not negligence, it is still necessary to establish a
necessarily make the result so remote that no causal link, although not proximate, between
action can be maintained. The test is to be the negligence of the party and the
found not in the number of intervening succeeding injury.-
events or agents, but in their character and in The leading case in contributory negligence,
the natural and probable connection between Rakes v. Atlantic Gulf clarifies that damages
the wrong done and the injurious may be mitigated if the claimant “in
consequence. The general principle is that the conjunction with the occurrence,
violation of a statute or ordinance is not [contributes] only to his injury.” To hold a
rendered remote as the cause of an injury by person as having contributed to his injuries, it
the intervention of another agency if the must be shown that he performed an act that
occurrence of the accident, in the manner in brought about his injuries in disregard of
which it happened, was the very thing which warnings or signs of an impending danger to
the statute or ordinance was intended to health and body. To prove contributory
prevent.” (38 Am Jur 841) negligence, it is still necessary to establish a
5. Civil Law; Torts; Negligence; Violation of causal link, although not proximate, between
Ordinance; The rule on negligence per se the negligence of the party and the
must admit qualifications that may arise from succeeding injury. In a legal sense, negligence
the logical consequences of the facts leading is contributory only when it contributes
to the mishap.- proximately to the injury, and not simply a
condition for its occurrence.
The rule on negligence per se must admit
qualifications that may arise from the logical
consequences of the facts leading to the
mishap. The doctrine (and Article 2185, for
that matter) is undeniably useful as a judicial
 respondents as required by a city ordinance;
that the fire could have been caused by a
heated motor or a lit cigarette; that gasoline
and alcohol were used and stored in the shop;
and that workers sometimes smoked inside
the shop [CA Decision, p. 5; Rollo, p. 33.]
FF Cruz vs. CA, GR. 52732
3. Civil Law; Damages; Negligence; Even
1. Civil Law; Damages; Negligence; Concept of without applying the doctrine of res ipsa
the common law doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, petitioner’s failure to construct a
loquitur.- firewall between its shop and the residence of
private respondents, in accordance with city
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, whose ordinances, supports a findings of
application to the instant case petitioner negligence.-
objects to, may be stated as follows: Where
the thing which caused the injury complained Even without applying the doctrine of res ipsa
of is shown to be under the management of loquitur, petitioner’s failure to construct a
the defendant or his servants and the firewall in accordance with city ordinances
accident is such as in the ordinary course of would suffice to Support a finding of
things does not happen if those who have its negligence.
management or control use proper care, it
affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of 4. Civil Law; Damages; Negligence; Failure to
explanation by the defendant, that the comply with an ordinance providing for
accident arose from want of care. [Africa v. safety regulations is an act of negligence.-
Caltex (Phil.), Inc., G.R. No. L-12986, March In the instant case, with more reason should
31, 1966, 16 SCRA 448.] petitioner be found guilty of negligence since
2. Civil Law; Damages; Negligence; Doctrine it had failed to construct a firewall between
of res ipsa loquitur, applicable in the case its property and private respondents’
considering the presence of combustible residence which sufficiently complies with
materials in the furniture shop, and the the pertinent city ordinances. The failure to
failure of petitioner to build a firewall.- comply with an ordinance providing for
safety regulations had been ruled by the
The facts of the case likewise call for the Court as an act of negligence [Teague v.
application of the doctrine, considering that Fernandez, G.R. No. L-29745, June 4, 1973, 51
in the normal course of operations of a SCRA 181.] The Court of Appeals, therefore,
furniture manufacturing shop, combustible had more than adequate basis to find
material such as wood chips, sawdust, paint, petitioner liable for the loss sustained by
varnish and fuel and lubricants for machinery private respondents.
may be found thereon. It must also be noted
that negligence or want of care on the part of 5. Civil Law; Damages; Negligence; Finding of
petitioner or its employees was not merely fact by the Court of Appeals as to the amount
presumed. The Court of Appeals found that of the loss sustained by the respondents
petitioner failed to construct a firewall should not be disturbed.-
between its shop and the residence of private
Since the amount of the loss sustained by insurer in the amount of P35,000.00 for the
private respondents constitutes a finding of damage caused to their house and its
fact, such finding by the Court of Appeals contents has not escaped the attention of the
should not be disturbed by this Court [M.D. Court. Hence, the Court holds that in
Transit Taxi Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. accordance with Article 2207 of the Civil
No. L-23882, February 17, 1968, 22 SCRA Code the amount of P35,000.00 should be
559], more so when there is no showing of deducted from the amount awarded as
arbitrariness. damages. x x x The law is clear and needs no
interpretation. Having been indemnified by
6. Civil Law; Damages; Negligence; Finding of their insurer, private respondents are only
fact by the Court of Appeals as to the amount entitled to recover the deficiency from
of loss by private respondents and damages, petitioner.
not arbitrary nor excessive; Appreciation in
value of real estate and diminution of the real 8. Civil
value of the peso, considered.- Law; Damages; Negligence; Subrogation; Righ
t of insurer to be subrogated to the rights of
In the instant case, both the CFI and the Court the insured and to seek reimbursement from
of Appeals were in agreement as to the value the third party for the amount it paid to the
of private respondents’ furniture and fixtures insured, is recognized; Real party in interest
and personal effects lost in the fire (i.e. as to the indemnity received by the insured is
P50,000.00). With regard to the house, the the insurer.-
Court of Appeals reduced the award to
P70,000.00 from P80,000.00. Such cannot be On the other hand, the insurer, if it is so
categorized as arbitrary considering that the minded, may seek reimbursement of the
evidence shows that the house was built in amount it indemnified private respondents
1951 for P40,000.00 and, according to private from petitioner. This is the essence of its right
respondents, its reconstruction would cost to be subrogated to the rights of the insured,
P246,000.00. Considering the appreciation in as expressly provided in Article 2207. Upon
value of real estate and the diminution of the payment of the loss incurred by the insured,
real value of the peso, the valuation of the the insurer is entitled to be subrogated pro
house at P70,000.00 at the time it was razed tanto to any right of action which the insured
cannot be said to be excessive. may have against the third person whose
negligence or wrongful act caused the loss
7. Civil LFireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Jamila Co.,
Law; Damages; Negligence; Insurance; Having Inc., G.R. No. L-27427, April 7, 1976, 70 SCRA
been indemnified by their insurer for the 323.] Under Article 2207, the real party in
damage caused to their house and its interest with regard to the indemnity
contents, private respondents are only received by the insured is the insurer [Phil.
entitled to recover the deficiency from the Air Lines, Inc. v. Heald Lumber Co., 101 Phil.
petitioner.- 1031, (1957).] Whether or not the insurer
While this Court finds that petitioner is liable should exercise the rights of the insured to
for damages to private respondents as found which it had been subrogated lies solely
by the Court of Appeals, the fact that private within the former’s sound discretion. Since
respondents have been indemnified by their the insurer is not a party to the case, its
identity is not of record and no claim is made judgment of the court. Since in this case there
on its behalf, the private respondent’s insurer is no justification for the award of attorney’s
has to claim his right to reimbursement of the fees in the decision of the trial court, it was
P35,000.00 paid to the insured. error for the Court of Appeals to sustain such
award.
Cipriano vs. CA, 263 SCRA 711
3. Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Failure to
1. Torts and Damages; Quasi- comply with a statutory duty to secure
Delicts; Negligence; Violation of a statutory insurance coverage constitutes negligence.-
duty is negligence per se.-
—There is thus a statutory duty imposed on
—We have already held that violation of a petitioner and it is for his failure to comply
statutory duty is negligence per se. In F.F. with this duty that he was guilty of negligence
Cruz and Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we held rendering him liable for damages to private
the owner of a furniture shop liable for the respondent. While the fire in this case may be
destruction of the plaintiff’s house in a fire considered a fortuitous event, this
which started in his establishment in view of circumstance cannot exempt petitioner from
his failure to comply with an ordinance which liability for loss.
required the construction of a firewall. In
Teague v. Fernandez, we stated that where 4. Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Statutes; P
the very injury which was intended to be .D. 1572; Service and Repair Enterprises; P.D.
prevented by the ordinance has happened, 1572, §1 requires service and repair
non-compliance with the ordinance was not enterprises for motor vehicles to register
only an act of negligence, but also the with the Department of Trade and Industry.-
proximate cause of the death.
—Thus, P.D. No. 1572, §1 requires service
2. Damages; Attorney’s Fees; The reasons or and repair enterprises for motor vehicles, like
grounds for an award of attorney’s fees must that of petitioner’s, to register with the
be set forth in the decision of the court and Department of Trade and Industry. As
cannot be left to inference.- condition for such registration or
accreditation, Ministry Order No. 32 requires
—We think, however, that the Court of covered enterprises to secure insurance
Appeals erred in sustaining the award of coverage.
attorney’s fees by the lower court. It is now
settled that the reasons or grounds for an 5. Same; Same; Same; Contracts; Obligations;
award of attorney’s fees must be set forth in The existence of a contract between the
the decision of the court. They cannot be left parties does not bar a finding of negligence
to inference as the appellate court held in this under the principles of quasi-delict.-
case. The reason for this is that it is not sound
—Indeed, the existence of a contract between
policy to penalize the right to litigate. An
petitioner and private respondent does not
award of attorney’s fees, being an exception
bar a finding of negligence under the
to this policy and limited to the grounds
principles of quasi-delict, as we recently held
enumerated in the law, must be fully justified
in Fabre v. Court of Appeals. Petitioner’s
in the decision. It can not simply be inserted
negligence is the source of his obligation. He
as an item of recoverable damages in the
is not being held liable for breach of his nighttime certainly increases the risk of
contractual obligation due to negligence but accident,” that because the Cimarron had only
for his negligence in not complying with a one headlight, there was “decreased
duty imposed on him by law. It is therefore visibility,” and that the fact that the vehicle
immaterial that the loss occasioned to private was overloaded and its front seat
respondent was due to a fortuitous event, overcrowded “decreased [its]
since it was petitioner’s negligence in not maneuverability.” However, mere allegations
insuring against the risk which was the such as these are not sufficient to discharge
proximate cause of the loss. its burden of proving clearly that such alleged
negligence was the contributing cause of the
Sanitary Steam Laundry vs. CA, 300 SCRA injury.
20
2. Torts; Quasi-Delicts; Negligence; Motor
1. Torts; Quasi-Delicts; Negligence; Motor Vehicles; The maximum allowable speed for
Vehicles; A party who asserts that another trucks and buses on open country roads, such
person, by violation of the Land as the Aguinaldo Highway in Imus, Cavite, is
Transportation and Traffic Code, contributed only 50 kilometers per hour.-
to the collision of vehicles, has the burden of
showing a causal connection between the Be that as it may, whether the driver meant
injury received and the alleged violation, i.e., 60 miles per hour (which could be 96.77
that the violation of the statute was the kilometers per hour) or 60 kilometers per
proximate or legal cause of the injury or that hour, the fact remains that the panel truck
it substantially contributed thereto; was overspeeding because the maximum
Negligence, consisting in whole or in part, of allowable speed for trucks and buses on open
violation of law, like any other negligence, is country roads, such as the Aguinaldo
without legal consequence unless it is a Highway in Imus, Cavite, is only 50 kilometers
contributing cause of the injury.- per hour.

It has not been shown how the alleged 3. Torts; Quasi-Delicts; Negligence; Motor
negligence of the Cimarron driver Vehicles; Psychological and Physical
contributed to the collision between the Tests; Although no law requires the passing
vehicles. Indeed, petitioner has the burden of of psychological and physical tests prior to
showing a causal connection between the employment, such circumstance would
injury received and the violation of the Land certainly be a reliable indicator of the
Transportation and Traffic Code. He must exercise of due diligence.-
show that the violation of the statute was the
With respect to the requirement of passing
proximate or legal cause of the injury or that
psychological and physical tests prior to his
it substantially contributed thereto.
employment, although no law requires it,
Negligence, consisting in whole or in part, of
such circumstance would certainly be a
violation of law, like any other negligence, is
reliable indicator of the exercise of due
without legal consequence unless it is a
diligence.
contributing cause of the injury. Petitioner
says that “driving an overloaded vehicle with 4. Torts; Quasi-Delicts; Negligence; Motor
only one functioning headlight during Vehicles; Driving exacts a more than usual toll
on the senses, hence, it behooves employers 6. Torts; Quasi-Delicts; Damages; Moral
to exert extra care in the selection and damages are awarded to allow the victims to
supervision of their employees; They must go obtain means, diversion, or amusement to
beyond the minimum requirements fixed by alleviate the moral suffering they had
law.- undergone due to the defendant’s culpable
action.-
Driving exacts a more than usual toll on the
senses. Accordingly, it behooves employers to As to the moral damages awarded, we find
exert extra care in the selection and them to be reasonable and necessary in view
supervision of their employees. They must go of the circumstances of this case. Moral
beyond the minimum requirements fixed by damages are awarded to allow the victims to
law. In this case, David Bautista, the office obtain means, diversion, or amusement to
manager of petitioner in its Dasmariñas plant, alleviate the moral suffering they had
said that petitioner has a policy of requiring undergone due to the defendant’s culpable
job applicants to submit clearances from the action. In this case, private respondents
police and the NBI. In the case of applicants doubtless suffered some ordeal because some
for the position of driver they are required to of them lost their loved ones, while others
have at least two (2) years driving experience lost their future. Within the meaning of Art.
and to be holders of a professional driver’s 2217 of the Civil Code, they suffered sleepless
license for at least two years. But the nights, mental anguish, serious anxiety, and
supposed company policies on employment wounded feelings. An award of moral
were not in writing. Nor did Bautista show in damages in their favor is thus justified.
what manner he supervised the drivers to
ensure that they drove their vehicles in a safe 7. Torts; Quasi-Delicts; Damages; Life
way. Expectancy Formula; The formula for
determining life expectancy is determined by
5. Torts; Quasi-Delicts; Damages; To justify an applying the formula 2/3 multiplied by (80
award of actual damages, there must be minus the age of the deceased).-
competent proof of the actual amount of loss;
Credence can be given only to claims which The award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of Jason
are duly supported by receipts.- Bernabe as death indemnity is likewise in
accordance with law. However, the award of
With respect to the question of damages, we P100,000 to the heirs of Dalmacio Salunoy,
find no reversible error committed in the denominated in the decision of the trial court
award of actual damages to private as “moral damages and unearned income”
respondents. To justify an award of actual cannot be upheld. The heirs were already
damages, there must be competent proof of included among those awarded moral
the actual amount of loss. Credence can be damages. Marilyn Salunoy was ordered to be
given only to claims which are duly supported paid P10,000, Jack Salunoy, P10,000, and
by receipts. Here, the actual damages claimed their mother Nenita Salunoy, P20,000, as
by private respondents were duly supported moral damages. The amount of P100,000 was
by receipts and appear to have been really presumably awarded primarily for loss of
incurred. earning capacity but even then the amount
must be modified. In accordance with our
cases on this question, the formula for
determining the life expectancy of Dalmacio
Salunoy must be determined by applying the
formula 2/3 multiplied by (80 minus the age
of the deceased). Since Salunoy was 46 years
of age at the time of his death, as stated in his
death certificate, then his life expectancy was
22.6 years, or up to 68 years old.

iv. Dangerous weapons

and substances
NCC, Article 2188
Arneta vs. Arreglado, 104 Phil 529

SYLLABUS

1. DAMAGES; MORAL DAMAGES IN CASE OF

PHYSICAL INJURIES; PARTY ENTITLED TO
RECOVERY. — Moral damages in case of
physical injuries are only recoverable by the
party who suffered them and not by his next
of kin, unless there is express statutory
provision to the contrary. (Strebel v. Figueras,
96 Phil., 321)

2. ID.; ID.; NECESSITY AND COST OF PLASTIC
OPERATION. — The father’s failure to submit
the son to a plastic operation as soon as
possible does not prove that such treatment
is not called for or that its cost, if actually
necessary, should not enter in the assessment
of the damages to which the injured party is
entitled.