H.I.
CONSTRUCTION INC VS MARINA ADVANCED FOUNDATION SYSTEMS VS NEW
PROPERTIES
Marina entered into a contract with HI for the construction
of Phase III of a condominium complex. However, HI
failed to finish on the agreed date forcing Marina to hire
a second contractor. Held: HI Construction is liable for
actual and liquidated damages because the latter did not
fulfill its contractual obligation. Actual damages because
it was forced to hire second contractor due to the delay of
HI and liquidated damages because it was agreed upon by
the parties in case of breach.
However, MPC is liable for labor cost escalation
otherwise there is unjust enrichment. There is unjust
enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code when (1) a
person is unjustly benefited, and (2) such benefit is
derived at the expense of or with damages to another.
CHUA VS UCPB
ALMARIO VS PAL
PAL gave Almario, a pilot, additional training for having
higher position. However, after 8 months from training he
tendered his resignation contrary to their CBA that he
must at least render 3 years of service until the costs of
traning were recovered. Held: Almario is obliged to
reimburse the costs incurred by PAL for his training
otherwise it would be an unjust enrichment. The injury to
the plaintiff need not be the cause of the enrichment of the
defendant. It is enough that there be some relation
between them, that the enrichment of the defendant would
not have been produced had it not been for the fact from
which the injury to the plaintiff is derived.
BENGUET CORP VS DENR MINES
ADJUDICATION BOARD
Benguet and JG Realty entered into RAWOP wherein JG
was acknowledged as the owner of 4 mining claims.
However, JG terminated the RAWOP because Benguet
failed to perform obligations set therein such as
undertaking the devt works within 2 yrs and allowing high
graders to operate. Held: JG is correct. It will not amount
to unjust enrich because the termination of the RAWOP
was brought about by Benguet’s violation of the RAWOP
WORLD
PNB VS CA
Rita is indebted to PNB. She mortgaged her standing
crops and sugar quota allocation to bank. She later leased
her sugar quota allocation to Tuazon however the BOD
disapprove the lease so Tuazon was forced to rescind the
least. Held: Corporation is liable whenever a tortuous act
is committed by an officer or agent under express
direction or authority from the SH/members acting as a
body, or from the directors as the governing body. For
PNBs failure to observe the reasonable care and vigilance
which the surrounding circumstances impose, it is liable
for the damages caused to Rita.
GUILLERMO VS USON
Uson, an acctg supervisor in Royal Class Venture Phils,
was dismissed by Guillermo, the companys
president/general manager, for having exposed the latter’s
practice of dictating and undervaluing the shares of stocks
of the corporation. Held: in corporate tort of a close
corporation, it is the person actively engaged in the mgmt.
of the corp who is held liable. Uson’s allegations that
Guillermo was the responsible officer in charge of
running the company and who illegally dismissed him
was uncontroverted.
RODRIGUEZ-LUNA VS IAC
There is a collision which involves a gokart driven by
Roberto Luna and Toyota Car driven by Luis Dela Rosa,
a minor without driver’s license. Held: SC cannot apply
the case of Elcano vs Hill to make the liability of his father
subsidiary only because Luis dela Rosa is abroad and
beyond reach of phil courts and he does not have any
property either in the phils or elsewhere and his earnings
are insufficient to support his family.
PALEYAN VS BANGKILI
Carlos was charged with homicide and less serious
physical injuries. He was sentenced for the criminal
liabilities however no decision as to his civil liability.
1
Held: Mother of Carlos is solidarily liable with her son.
Art 2180 applies. It is not a defense that Carlos is 19 yrs
old and mature enough to have a mind of his own. Art
2180 does not provide for exemption except proof that the
defendant parent observed all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage.
LANUZO VS PING
A freight truck (owned by Sy Bon Ping and driven by
Salvador) rammed the residential house and store of
plaintiff. Held: Driver is primarily liable under Art 2176
for his reckless driving. Sy Bon Ping is also primarily and
directly liable under art 2180 as employer. He is also
primary and solidarily liable for damages for failure to
rebut legal presumption of his negligence in selection and
supervision of employee. Although he is solidarily liable
with the ee for damages, he can demand reimbursement
from his ee.
MALIPOL VS TAN
Pantaleion Malijan was walking, he was hit by a gasoline
tanker and while on the ground he was again run over by
said tanker. He died. Held: The employer, Lily Lim tan,
is primarily liable for damages without prejudice to her
asking for reimbursement from the driver, Ernesto
Labasan.
ANURAN VS BUNO
A speeding motor truck bumped an overloaded passenger
jeepney. 3 passenger died and 2 others suffered injuries.
Held: The driver and the owners of the truck have not
appealed from the Court of Appeals' assessment. The
plaintiffs (petitioners) have not asked here for a greater
amount of indemnity. They merely pray for a declaration
that Pepito Buño, Pedro Gahol and Luisa Alcantara (the
driver and the owners of the jeepney, respectively) be
declared jointly and severally liable with the other
defendants. Wherefore, affirming the decision under
review, we hereby modify it in the sense prayed for by
plaintiffs-petitioners. The three defendants last mentioned
are required to pay solidarily with the other defendants-
respondents the amounts fixed by the appealed decision.
Costs of both appeals against said three defendants
CHAN VS IGLESIA NI CRISTO
Chan owned a gas station. Behind the prop was INC
chapel. He engaged the services of Yoro for digging
septic tank and for treasure hunting. They have MOA
concerning the damages that could result. It caused
damage to the chapel of INC. Held: The basis of their
solidary liability is not the MOA but the fact that they
have become joint tortfeasors. All reqs of quasi delict are
present. The tortious act was the excavation which caused
damage to the respondent because it was done
surreptitiously within its premises and it may have
affected the foundation of the chapel. The excavation on
INC’s premises was caused by fault. Finally, there was no
preexisting contractual relation between petitioner and
yoro on the one hand, and the respondent on the other.
ELCANO VS HILL
Reginald Hill killed Agapito Elcano. He was acquitted in
his criminal liability. Heirs of Elcano filed complaint for
damages against Reginald Hill, minor and married at the
time of occurrence, and against his father Marvin Hill.
Held: It is true that parental authority is terminated upon
emancipation of the child however emancipation by
marriage of the minor is not really full or absolute.
Reginald is now of age, as a matter of equity, the liability
of Atty Hill has become milling, subsidiary to that of his
son.
GUTIERREZ VS GUTIERREZ
Passenger truck and an automobile (driven Bonifacio an
18 year old lad) collided while attempting to pass each
other on a bridge. Held: Bonifacio’s obligation arises
from culpa aquiliana. Saturnino Cortez and his truck
driver Abelardo Velasco’s obligation arise from culpa
contractual. Bonifacio is an incompetent chauffeur. The
guaranty given by the father at the time the son was
granted a license to operate motor vehicles made the
father responsible for the acts of his son. Art 1903 makes
the father alone, and not the minor or the mother, liable
for the damages caused by the minor.
EXCONDE VS CAPUNO
15 year old Dante Capuno was convicted of double
homicide through reckless imprudence for causing the
2
death of two persons when he was driving a jeepney that TAMARGO VS CA
turned turtle while they were in a school procession.
Adelberto Bundoc, a 10y/o minor, shot Jennifer Tamargo
Held: In line with Art 1903 the civil liability must be
which caused her death. He was charged with Homicide
imposed on the father and in his absence, the mother. the
through Reckless Imprudence but was acquitted and
only way he can relieve himself of liability is by proving
exempted. A complaint for damages was filed against him
that he exercised the diligence of a good father in
and her natural parents. Prior to the incident, Sps Rapisura
preventing the damage which the defendants failed to do.
filed petition to adopt him and it was granted after the
incident. Held: No presumption of parental dereliction on
the part of adopting parents could have arisen since
FUELLAS VS CADANO Adelberto was not in fact subject to their control at the
Rico Fuellas took the pencil of Ernesto Cabanok and time the tort was committed. Parental authority was still
placed it in the pocket of Pepito, who returned it to lodged with the natural parents at the time the shooting
Ernesto. Rico got angry. They were pacified by their incident happened.
teacher and asked to go home. However, a fight ensued
later which resulted in the fracture of the arm of Pepito.
Held: Agapito Fuellas the father, is liable. Under art BARTOLOME VS SSS
2180, the father and in case of his death or incapacity, the
John Colcol died in a work related accident. He is under
mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the
ECP. His biological parent claimed as a sole beneficiary
minor children who live in their company. The civil
but denied by SSS, ruling that John was already adopted.
liability of the father or mother is a necessary
Held: in case of death of an adopted child, leaving no
consequence of the parental authority they exercise over
children or descendants, his parents and relatives by
them.
consanguinity and not by adoption, shall be his legal heirs.
3 years after adoption, adopter died leaving John who is
still a minor. Under such circumstance, parental authority
CUADRA VS MONFORT reverted in favor of the biological parents.
Cuadra and Monfort were assigned to weed the grass in
the school premises. Monfort tosssed an object to Cuadra
which hit her eye. She rubbed the injured part and treated GARCIA JR VS SALVADOR
it with some powder however it later lead to loss of sight
As a prereq for regulat empt, Ranida Salvador had a
of her right eye. Held: The complaint is dismissed. There
medical test in CDC for Hepatitis B however the test
is nothing from which it may be inferred that the
resulted given by Garcia indicated that Ranida was
defendant father could have prevented the damage by the
Reactive. He was dismissed from work for failing to pass
observance of due care or that he was in any way remiss
the physical exam. He had the same test in other hospital
in the exercise of his parental authority in failing to
where the result indicated NonReactive. He was rehired.
foresee such damage of the act which caused it. On the
Held: Castro, the pathologist, is liable. Under the Clinical
contrary his child was at school, under the care and
Lab Law, a clinical lab must be administered, directed,
supervision of the teacher.
and supervised by a licensed physician. Here CDC is not
administered by a licensed physician, Garcia conducted
the test without the supervision of Castro, and the test was
LIBI VS IAC released without authorization from Castro. Garcia’s act
Wendell Libi, around 18-19y/o, shot Julie Ann Gotiong, constitutes breach of duty. The elements of actionable
18 y/o, and her bestfriend after Julie decided to end their conduct are: 1)duty 2) breach 3)injury 4) proximate
relationship. Held: the parents of the boy are held liable causation.
for not exercising due diligence. The father owns the gun
which he kept in a safety deposit box. The parents had the
key and the boy knew of it. Also they don’t know that
their son was a Constabulary Anti Narcotics Unit agent

3
PACIS VS MORALES
Morales is the owner of a gunstore. He put a gun in a
drawer. The person who attended the store placed it on the
table. Alfred got hold of it and while returning it bullet
went off hitting him. Held: the owner, Morales, is liable
because he was negligent when he accepted the gun for
repair and placed it inside the drawer without ensuring
first that it was not loaded.
PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINE VS PHIL
AMERICAN FORWARDERS
Pineda recklessly drove a freight truck owned by Phil Am
Forwarders hitting the PRBL bus. Phil Am Forwarders,
Balingit as manager, and Pineda were sued. Held:
Manager is not included in the terms “employer” and
“owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise.”
Hence, no tortious or quasi-delictual liability can be
imposed on Balingit as manager of Phil-American
Forwarders, in connection with the vehicular accident in
question, because he himself may be regarded as an
employee or dependiente of Phil-American Forwarders
GENSON VS ADARLE
Arbatin asked Adarle to haul the junk. While doing so, a
bucket from the payloader fell to Adarle causing injuries
to him. Genson, the Highway District Engineer, was sued
because he allowed them to work in a non working day.
Held: Genson is not liable. there was no evidence to prove
Genson’s presence when the accident occurred, nor was
there any basis for the lower courts to hold that Genson
was at fault by authorizing Arbatin and his men to work
on a non-working day. It might even be proven that
working on a Saturday for the specific purpose of hauling
junk would be the time when the most work can be done,
as it has less traffic.
MARTIN VS CA
Ernesto Martin was the owner of private car. The car,
driven by Nestor Martin, crashed into an electric post of
Meralco. Meralco sued Ernesto as Nestor’s employer.
Held: Meralco had the burden of proof, or the duty “to
present evidence on the fact in issue necessary to establish
his claim” as required by Rule 131, Section 1 of the
Revised Rules of Court. Failure to do this was fatal to its
action. As the employment relationship between Ernesto
Martin and Nestor Martin could not be presumed, it was
necessary for the plaintiff to establish it by evidence.
CUISON VS NORTION AND HARRISON
PILIPINAS PETROLEUM VS CA
Clarita Camacho, operator of a gas station, requested shell
to conduct hydro-pressure test. After such test, customers
complained that their vehicle stalled because there was
water in the gasoline they bought. Shell argued that
Feliciano was the one who conducted the test. Held:
Feliciano is an independent contractor. Being an
independent contractor, Feliciano is responsible for his
own acts and omissions. As he alone was in control over
the manner of how he was to undertake the hydro-pressure
test, he alone must bear the consequences of his
negligence, if any, in the conduct of the same.
DE LEON BROKERAGE VS CA
VALENZUELA VS CA
While driving from her restau, Lourdes Valenzuela
noticed she had a flat tire so she parked along the
sidewalk. However, her car was hit by another driven by
Richard Li causing injury to Lourdes. Held: Alexander
Commercial, Inc. has not demonstrated, to our
satisfaction, that it exercised the care and diligence of a
good father of the family in entrusting its company car to
Li.
DULAY VS PEOPLE
Benigno Torzuela, a security guard, shot and killed Atty
Dulay. Superguard, the er, was also sued. Held: The
liability of the employer is direct and immediate not
subsidiary. it is not conditioned upon prior recourse
against the negligent employee and a prior showing of the
insolvency of such employee. Therefore, it is incumbent
upon the private respondents to prove that they exercised
4
the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection
and supervision of their employee.
UMALI VS BACANI
During the storm, the banana plants standing near the
transmission line of the Alcala Electric Plant (AEP) were
blown down and fell on the electric wire. The live electric
wire was cut. Thereafter, a small boy of 3 years and 8
months old by the name of Manuel P. Saynes, got in
contact with it. The boy was electrocuted and he
subsequently died. It was only after the electrocution that
the broken wire was fixed. Held: a series of negligence
on the part of defendants' employees in the AEP resulted
in the death of the victim by electrocution. With ordinary
foresight, the employees of the petitioner could have
easily seen that even in case of moderate winds the
electric line would be endangered by banana plants being
blown down. Art. 2179 CC provides that if the negligence
of the plaintiff (parents of the victim in this case) was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the
injury being the defendants' (petitioners’) lack of due
care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts
shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
SECOSA VS HEIRS OF ERWIN SUAREZ
FRANCISCO
3 vehicles were traversing the southbound lane at a fairly
high speed. When Secosa overtook the sand and gravel
truck, he bumped the motorcycle causing Francisco to
fall. The rear wheels of the Isuzu truck then ran over
Francisco, which resulted in his instantaneous death.
Secosa left his truck. Held: when an injury is caused by
the negligence of an employee, there instantly arises a
presumption that there was negligence on the part of the
employer either in the selection of his employee or in the
supervision over him after such selection. The
presumption, however, may be rebutted by a clear
showing on the part of the employer that it exercised the
care and diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of his employee.
MERCURY DRUG VS BAKING
Mercury Drug gave Baking wrong medicine because the
ee misread the prescription. Baking later figured in an
accident because he fell asleep while driving. Held:
Petitioner is liable. 3 elements of Quasi-delict are: 1)
Damage suffered by the plaintiff; 2) Fault or negligence
of the defendant; and 3) Connection of the cause and
effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant
and the damage incurred by the plaintiff. the proximate
cause of the accident was the petitioner’s employee’s
negligence. The vehicular accident could have not
occurred had the employee been careful to his job. It is
generally recognized that the drugstore business is
imbued with public interest. The health and safety of the
people will be put into jeopardy if the drugstore
employees will not exercise the highest degree of care and
diligence.
MERCURY DRUG VS DE LEON
De leon was given by the assistant pharmacist of Mercury
Drug a wrong medicine. Instead of an eye drop, an ear
drop was given. Held: Mercury and Ganzon are liable. In
cases where an injury is caused by the negligence of an
employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that
there has been negligence on the part of the employer,
either in the selection or supervision of one’s employees.
This presumption may be rebutted by a clear showing that
the employer has exercised the care and diligence of a
good father of the family. Mercury Drug failed to
overcome such presumption. De Leon relied on
the expertise and experience of Mercury Drug and its
employees in dispensing to him the right medicine. This
Court has ruled that in the purchase and sale of drugs, the
buyer and seller do not stand at arms length. There exists
an imperative duty on the seller or the druggist to take
precaution to prevent death or injury to any person who
relies on one’s absolute honesty and peculiar learning.
HEIRS OF REDENTOR COMPLETO VS
ALBAYDA
ORTALIZ VS ECHARRI
5
ONG VS METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
Dominador Ong was retrieved from the pool lifeless. The
safeguard, nurse, and doctor of the pool tried to revived
him but still he died. Held: The death of minor
Dominador Ong cannot be attributed to the negligence
of Metropolitan Water District and/or its employees.
Since the present action is one for damages founded on
culpable negligence, the principle to be observed is that
the person claiming damages has the burden of proving
that the damage is caused by the fault or negligence of the
person from whom the damage is claimed, or of one of his
employees.
RAMOS VS PEPSI COLA BOTTLING
The car driven by Augusto Ramos (son of co-plaintiff
Placido Ramos) collided with the truck of PEPSI, driven
by the driver and co-defendant Andres Bonifacio. As a
result, the Ramoses sued Bonifacio and Pepsi. The trial
court found Bonifacio negligent and declared that PEPSI-
COLA had not sufficiently proved that it exercised the
due diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the
damage. PEPSI-COLA and Bonifacio, solidarily, were
ordered to pay the plaintiffs damages. CA affirmed the
decision of the trial court, but absolved PEPSI-COLA
from liability, finding that it sufficiently proved due
diligence in the selection of its driver Bonifacio. In its
decision, CA stated the basis for its decision: Held: The
decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed.
FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE VS IAC
Funtecha was a working student of Filamer Christian
Institute. Being a part-time janitor and a scholar of
petitioner Filamer, he was considered an employee even
if he was assigned to clean the premises for just 2 hours
every day. Allan Masa is the driver of the school. One
time, Funtecha, having student license, asked to drive.
However, they figured in an accident injuring a
pedestrian. Held: Filamer is liable. The fact that Funtecha
was not the school driver or was not acting within the
scope of his janitorial duties does not relieve the petitioner
of the burden of rebutting the presumption that there was
negligence on its part either in the selection of a servant
or employee, or in the supervision over him. The
petitioner has failed to show proof of its having exercised
the required diligence of a good father of a family over its
employees Funtecha and Allan.
CHILD LEARNING CENTER VS TAGORIO
Timothy Tagoria was locked in the boy’s comfort room.
He opened the window to call for help. As he opened the
window, Timothy went right through and fell down three
stories. Held: The school is negligent. In every tort case
filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, plaintiff has to
prove by a preponderance of evidence: (1) the damages
suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or negligence of the
defendant or some other person for whose act he must
respond; and (3) the connection of cause and effect
between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred.
Petitioners’ argument that CLC exercised the due
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of its employees is not decisive. Due
diligence in the selection and supervision of employees is
applicable where the employer is being held responsible
for the acts or omissions of others under Article 2180 of
the Civil Code. In this case, CLC’s liability is under
Article 2176 of the Civil Code, premised on the fact of its
own negligence in not ensuring that all its doors are
properly maintained. The Court’s pronouncement that
Timothy climbed out of the window because he could not
get out using the door, negates petitioners’ other
contention that the proximate cause of the accident was
Timothy’s own negligence. The injuries he sustained
from the fall were the product of a natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any intervening cause, that
originated from CLC’s own negligence
MERCURY DRUG VS HUANG
The truck owned by Mercury and Toyota Corolla driven
by Huang figured in an accident. License of the driver of
truck was confiscated at the time of the incident. Held:
The driver and mercury drug are liable.
AFRICA VS CALTEZ
A fire broke out at the Caltex service station while
gasoline was being hosed from a tank truck into the
underground storage. The fire spread to and burned
several houses. Held: Even without proof as to the cause
and origin of the fire, the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur should apply so as to presume negligence on the
part of the respondents. Res ipsa loquitur literally means
“the thing or transaction speaks for itself.” For the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply, the following
requisites should be present: (a) the accident is of a kind
6
which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of
someone’s negligence; (b) it is caused by an
instrumentality within the exclusive control of the
defendant or defendants; and (c) the possibility of
contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff
responsible is eliminated. In the case at bar, the gasoline
station, with all its appliances, equipment and employees,
was under the control of respondents. A fire occurred
therein and spread to and burned the neighboring houses.
The persons who knew or could have known how the fire
started were respondents and their employees, but they
gave no explanation thereof whatsoever. It is a fair and
reasonable inference that the incident happened because
of want of care. The negligence of the employees was the
proximate cause of the fire, which in the ordinary course
of things does not happen. Therefore, the petitioners are
entitled to the award for damages.
LAMIS VS ONG
Ong is insisting to come inside the Manila Chinese
Cemetery even if it is beyond visiting hours. The guard,
Lamis, shot him. He sustained injuries. Held:
CEREZO VS TUAZON
A Country Bus Lines passenger bus collided with a
tricycle. The driver of the tricycle Tuazon filed a
complaint for damages against Mrs. Cerezo, the owner of
the bus lines, her husband, Atty. Cerezo, and bus driver
Foronda. According to the facts alleged in the complaint,
Tuazon was driving on the proper lane. There was a "Slow
Down" sign which Foronda ignored. In their reply, Mrs.
Cerezo contended that the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction because there was no service of summons on
Foronda. Moreover, Tuazon failed to reserve his right to
institute a separate civil action for damages in the criminal
action. Held: Mrs. Cerezo's contention is wrong.
Tuazon's case is not based on criminal law but on quasi-
delict under the Civil Code.
Moreover, an employer's liability based on a quasi-delict
is primary and direct, while the employer's liability based
on a delict is merely subsidiary. The words "primary and
direct," as contrasted with "subsidiary," refers to the
remedy provided by law for enforcing the obligation
rather than to the character and limits of the obligation.
Although liability under Art. 2180 originates from the
negligent act of the employee, the aggrieved party may
sue the employer directly. When an employee causes
damage, the law presumes that the employer has himself
committed an act of negligence in not preventing or
avoiding the damage. This is the fault that the law
condemns. While the employer is civilly liable in a
subsidiary capacity for the employee's criminal
negligence, the employer is also civilly liable directly and
separate for his own civil negligence in failing to exercise
due diligence in selecting and supervising his employee.
The idea that the employer's liability is wholly subsidiary
is wrong.
The action can be brought directly against the person
responsible (for another) without including the author of
the act. The action against the principal is accessory in the
sense that it implies the existence of a prejudicial act
committed by the employee, but is not subsidiary in the
sense that it cannot be instituted till after the judgment
against he author of the act or at least, that it is subsidiary
to the principal action; action for responsibility (of the
employer) is in itself a principal action.
In contrast, an action based on a delict seeks to enforce
the subsidiary liability of the employer for the criminal
negligence of the employee as provided in Art. 103, RPC.
To hold the employer liable in a subsidiary capacity under
a delict, the aggrieved party must initiate a criminal action
where the employee's delict and corresponding primary
liability are established. If the present action proceeds
from a delict, then the trial court's jurisdiction over
Foronda is necessary.
However, the action filed by Tuazon was based on a
quasi-delict, which is separate and independent from an
action based on a delict. Hence, there was no need to
reserve the filing of a separate civil action. The purpose
of allowing the filing the of an independent action based
on quasi-delict against the employer is to facilitate the
remedy for civil wrongs.