Você está na página 1de 30

Ramos vs Pepsi-Cola Facts 1. On June 30, 1958 Placido and Augusto Ramos sued Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. o t!

e P.".and And#es Boni acio in t!e Cou#t o $i#st "nstance o %anila as a conse&uence o a collision, on %a' 10, 1958, in(ol(ing t!e ca# o Placido Ramos and a t#acto#-t#uc) and t#aile# o P*P*+"-CO,A. -. +aid ca# .as at t!e time o t!e collision d#i(en /' Augusto Ramos, son and co-plainti o Placido. P*P+"-CO,A0s t#acto#-t#uc) .as t!en d#i(en /' its d#i(e# and co-de endant And#es Boni acio. 3. A te# t#ial t!e Cou#t o $i#st "nstance #ende#ed 1udgment on Ap#il 15, 1921, inding Boni acio negligent and decla#ing t!at P*P+"-CO,A !ad not su icientl' p#o(ed its !a(ing e3e#cised t!e due diligence o a good at!e# o a amil' to p#e(ent t!e damage. P*P+"-CO,A and Boni acio, solida#il', .e#e o#de#ed to pa' t!e plainti sP-,238.50 actual damages4 P-,000.00 mo#al damages4 P-,000.00 as e3empla#' damages4 and, P1,000.00atto#ne'0s ees, .it! costs. Issue 1. 5O6 Pepsi Cola !ad e3e#cised due diligence in t!e selection o its d#i(e#s. Ruling 1. Pepsi Cola !ad e3e#cised due diligence in t!e selection o its d#i(e#s. 7!e uncont#adicted testimon' o Juan 7. Anasco, pe#sonnel manage# o

de endant compan', .as to t!e e ect t!at de endant d#i(e# .as i#st !i#ed as a mem/e# o t!e /ottle c#op in t!e p#oduction depa#tment4 t!at .!en !e .as !i#ed as a d#i(e#, 0.e !ad si8ed !im /' loo)ing into !is /ac)g#ound, as)ing !im to su/mit clea#ances, p#e(ious e3pe#ience, p!'sical e3amination and late# on, !e .as sent to t!e pool !ouse to ta)e t!e usual d#i(e#0s e3amination, consisting o 9 $i#st, t!eo#etical e3amination and second, t!e p#actical d#i(ing e3amination, all o .!ic! !e !ad unde#gone, and t!at t!e de endant compan' .as a mem/e# o t!e +a et' Council.

"n (ie. !e#eo , .e a#e o t!e sense t!at de endant compan' !ad e3e#cised t!e diligence o a good at!e# o a amil' in t!e c!oice o# selection o Campo (s. Cama#ote, :R 6o. ,-91;< =1952>, de endant d#i(e#. "n t!e case o

53 O.:. -<9;, cited in appellee0s /#ie , ou# +up#eme Cou#t !ad occasion to put it do.n as a #ule t!at ? In order that the defendant may be considered as having exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family, he should not have been satisfied with the mere possession of a professional driver's license he should have carefully examined the applicant for employment as to his !ualifications, his experiences and record of service"# $rticle %&'( o t!e Ci(il Code p#o(ides inte# alia9 7!e o.ne#s and manage#s o an esta/lis!ment o# ente#p#ise a#e li)e.ise #esponsi/le o# damages caused /' t!ei# emplo'ees in t!e se#(ice o t!e /#anc!es in .!ic! t!e latte# a#e emplo'ed o# on t!e occasion o t!ei# unctions. 7!e #esponsi/ilit' t#eated o in t!is A#ticle s!all cease .!en t!e pe#sons !e#ein mentioned p#o(e t!at t!e' o/se#(ed all t!e diligence o a good at!e# o a amil' to p#e(ent damage4 !ence, Pepsi Cola s!all /e #elie(ed #om lia/ilit'

)inluan vs C$ Facts 1. 7!e /us o.ned /' $#ancisca @iluan, and d#i(en /' Ae#menigildo A&uino #aced .it! t!e o(e#ta)ing /us d#i(en /' :#ego#io Au ana and o.ned /' Pat#icio Au ana. -. A&uino lost cont#ol o t!e /us, !itting a post and c#as!ing into a t#ee, a te# .!ic! it /u#st into lames .!e#ein se(en pe#sons .e#e )illed and t!i#teen ot!e#s .e#e in1u#ed. 3. "n t!e complaint o# /#eac! o cont#act o ca##iage and damages iled /' t!e !ei#s o t!ose .!o pe#is!ed in t!e incident and Ca#olina +a/ado, an in1u#ed passenge#, @ilaun and A&uino iled t!i#d pa#t' complaints against :#ego#io Au ana and !is emplo'e#, Pat#icio Au ana, contending t!at t!e incident .as t!ei# ault. ;. 7!e lo.e# cou#t ound t!at t!e accident .as due to t!e concu##ent negligence o t!e d#i(e#s o t!e t.o /uses and !eld /ot! t!e t.o d#i(e#s and t!ei# emplo'e#s 1ointl' and se(e#all' lia/le o# damages. 5. 7!e Cou#t o Appeals a i#med t!e inding o concu##ent negligence on t!e pa#t o t!e t.o /uses /ut !eld t!at onl' @ilaun is lia/le /ecause A&uino, as d#i(e#, cannot /e made 1ointl' and se(e#all' lia/le in a cont#act o ca##iage. "t #uled t!at t!e Au ana cannot /e made lia/le since t!e plainti s did not amend t!ei# complaints in t!e main action so as to asse#t a claim against t!em. Issue 1. 5!et!e# Pat#icio and :#ego#io Au ana s!ould /e made e&uall' lia/le alt!oug! t!e' .e#e t!i#d-pa#t' de endants and not p#incipal de endants Ruling 1. 7!e act t!at t!e #espondents .e#e not sued as p#incipal de endants /ut .e#e /#oug!t into t!e cases as t!i#d pa#t' de endants s!ould not p#eclude a inding o t!ei# lia/ilit'. -. +ection 5 Rule 1- o t!e Rules o Cou#t, p#ecluding a 1udgment in a(o# o a plainti and against a t!i#d pa#t' de endant .!e#e t!e plainti !as not

amended !is complaint to asse#t a claim against a t!i#d pa#t' de endant, applies onl' to cases .!e#e t!e t!i#d pa#t' de endant is /#oug!t in on an allegation o lia/ilit' to t!e de endants. "t does not appl' .!e#e a t!i#d pa#t' de endant is impleaded on t!e g#ound o di#ect lia/ilit' to t!e plainti s, in .!ic! case no amendment o necessa#'. 3. "n t!is case t!e t!i#d-pa#t' complaints iled /' @iluan and A&uino c!a#ged :#ego#io and Pat#icio Au ana .it! di#ect lia/ilit' to t!e plainti s. Amendment o t!e complaint is not necessa#' and is me#el' a matte# o o#m since t!e lia/ilit' o t!e Au anaBs as t!i#d-pa#t' de endant .as al#ead' asse#ted in t!e t!i#d-pa#t' complaint. ;. Rega#dless .!et!e# t!e in1u#' is &uasi-delict o# /#eac! o cont#act o ca##iage, in case o in1u#' to a passenge# due to t!e negligence o t!e d#i(e# o t!e /us on .!ic! !e .as #iding and o t!e d#i(e# o anot!e# (e!icle, t!e d#i(e#s as .ell as t!e o.ne#s o t!e t.o (e!icles a#e 1ointl' and se(e#all' lia/le o# damages. t!e plainti s complaint is

*aliwang +ransit vs C$ Facts 1. On 31 Jul' 1980, ,eticia :a#cia, and !e# 5-'ea# old son, Allan :a#cia, /oa#ded Bali.ag 7#ansit Bus -032 /ound o# Ca/anatuan Cit' d#i(en /' Jaime +antiago. 7!e' too) t!e seat /e!ind t!e d#i(e#. -. At a/out <930 p.m., in %alim/a, :apan, 6ue(a *ci1a, t!e /us passenge#s sa. a ca#go t#uc), o.ned /' A C J 7#ading, pa#)ed at t!e s!oulde# o t!e national !ig!.a'. "ts le t #ea# po#tion 1utted to t!e oute# lane, as t!e s!oulde# o t!e #oad .as too na##o. to accommodate t!e .!ole t#uc). A )e#osene lamp appea#ed at t!e edge o t!e #oad o/(iousl' to se#(e as a .a#ning de(ice. 7!e t#uc) d#i(e#, and !is !elpe# .e#e t!en #eplacing a lat ti#e. 3. Bus d#i(e# +antiago .as d#i(ing at an ino#dinatel' ast speed and ailed to notice t!e t#uc) and t!e )e#osene lamp at t!e edge o t!e #oad. +antiagoBs passenge#s u#ged !im to slo. do.n /ut !e paid t!em no !eed. +antiago e(en ca##ied animated con(e#sations .it! !is co-emplo'ees .!ile d#i(ing. 5!en t!e dange# o collision /ecame imminent, t!e /us passenge#s s!outed DBa/angga ta'oEF. +antiago stepped on t!e /#a)e, /ut it .as too late. Ais /us #ammed into t!e stalled ca#go t#uc) )illing !im instantl' and t!e t#uc)Bs !elpe#, and in1u#' to se(e#al ot!e#s among t!em !e#ein #espondents. ;. 7!us, a suit .as iled against Bali.ag 7#ansit, "nc., A C J 7#ading and Julio Reconti&ue o# damages in t!e R7C o Bulacan. A te# t#ial, it ound Bali.ag 7#ansit, "nc. lia/le o# !a(ing ailed to deli(e# :a#cia and !e# son to t!ei# point o destination sa el' in (iolation o :a#ciaBs and Bali.ag 7#ansitBs cont#actual #elation4 and li)e.ise ound A C J and its t#uc) d#i(e# lia/le o# ailu#e to p#o(ide its ca#go t#uc) .it! an ea#l' .a#ning de(ice in (iolation o t!e %oto# @e!icle ,a.. All .e#e o#de#ed to pa' solida#il' t!e :a#cia spouses. 5. On appeal, t!e CA modi ied t!e t#ial cou#tBs Gecision /' a/sol(ing A C J 7#ading #om lia/ilit'. Issue

1. 5!et!e# o# not Bali.ag s!ould /e !eld solel' lia/le o# t!e in1u#ies.

Ruling 1. Hes. As a common ca##ie#, Bali.ag /#eac!ed its cont#act o ca##iage .!en it ailed to deli(e# its passenge#s, ,eticia and Allan :a#cia to t!ei# destination sa e and sound. A common carrier is bound to carry its passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with due regard for all the circumstances. In a contract of carriage, it is presumed that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent when a passenger dies or is injured. Unless the presumption is rebutted, the court need not even make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the common carrier. This statutory presumption may only be overcome by evidence that the carrier exercised extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles Article !"" and !## of the $ivil $ode.

!#% of the $ivil $ode provides that &$ommon carriers are

liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former's employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers. This liability of the common carriers do not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection or supervision of their employees.( +ection 3; =g> o t!e ,and 7#anspo#tation and 7#a ic Code p#o(ides D,ig!ts and #e lecto# .!en pa#)ed o# disa/led. I App#op#iate pa#)ing lig!ts o# la#es (isi/le one !und#ed mete#s a.a' s!all /e displa'ed at t!e co#ne# o t!e

(e!icle .!ene(e# suc! (e!icle is pa#)ed on !ig!.a's o# in places t!at a#e not .ell-lig!ted o#, is placed in suc! manne# as to endange# passing t#a ic. $u#t!e#mo#e, e(e#' moto# (e!icle s!all /e p#o(ided at all times .it! /uilt-in #e lecto#s o# ot!e# simila# .a#ning de(ices eit!e# pasted, painted o# attac!ed at its #ont and /ac) .!ic! s!all li)e.ise /e (isi/le at nig!t at least one !und#ed mete#s a.a'. 6o (e!icle not p#o(ided .it! an' o t!e #e&ui#ements mentioned in t!is su/section s!all /e #egiste#ed. F 3 3 3 Ao.e(e#, t!e e(idence s!o.s t!at Reconti&ue and *cala placed a )e#osene lamp o# to#c! at t!e edge o t!e #oad, nea# t!e #ea# po#tion o t!e t#uc) to se#(e as an ea#l' .a#ning de(ice. 7!is su/stantiall' complies .it! +ection 3; =g> o t!e ,and 7#anspo#tation and 7#a ic Code. 7!e la. clea#l' allo.s t!e use not onl' o an ea#l' .a#ning de(ice o t!e t#iangula# #e lecto#i8ed plates (a#iet' /ut also pa#)ing lig!ts o# la#es (isi/le 100 mete#s a.a'. "ndeed, Col. dela C#u8 !imsel admitted t!at a )e#osene lamp is an accepta/le su/stitute o# t!e #e lecto#i8ed plates. 6o negligence, t!e#e o#e, ma' /e imputed to A C J 7#ading and its d#i(e#, Reconti&ue. 7!e +up#eme Cou#t a i#med t!e Gecision o t!e Cou#t o Appeals =CA-:R C@31-;2> .it! t!e modi ication #educing t!e actual damages o# !ospitali8ation and medical ees to P5,01<.<;4 .it!out costs.

,etro ,anila +ransit Corp" vs C$ Facts 1. 6enita Custodio .as a pa'ing passenge# o a pu/lic utilit' 1eepne', t!en d#i(en /' Cale/ag and o.ned /' ,ama'o, .!en it collided .it! a /us d#i(en /' ,eona#do and o.ned /' t!e %et#o %anila 7#ansit Co#p=%%7C>. -. 7!e collision !appened a te# ailu#e o /ot! (e!icles to slo. do.n o# /lo. t!ei# !o#ns .!en t!e' .e#e simultaneousl' app#oac!ing t!e same inte#section in 7aguig. 3. As a #esult o t!e collision, Custodio su e#ed p!'sical in1u#ies. Assisted /' !e# pa#ents, since s!e .as still a mino#, s!e iled a complaint o# damages against t!e d#i(e#s o t!e automo/iles and t!ei# #especti(e emplo'e#s. ;. At t!e t#ial cou#t, %%7C p#esented its t#aining o ice# and its t#anspo#t supe#(iso# .!o #especti(el' testi ied t!at9 a> it .as not onl' ca#e ul and diligent in c!oosing and sc#eening applicants o# 1o/ openings /> /ut .as also st#ict and diligent in supe#(ising its emplo'ees i. ii. /' seeing to it t!at its emplo'ees .e#e in p#ope# uni o#ms /#ie ed in t#a ic #ules and #egulations /e o#e t!e sta#t o dut' positi(e o# alco!ol and i(. t!at t!e' ollo.ed ot!e# #ules and #egulations o t!e Bu#eau o ,and 7#anspo#tation and o t!e compan'. 5. 7C ound /ot! d#i(e#s concu##entl' negligent. As 1oint to#t easo#s, /ot! d#i(e#s, as .ell as ,ama'o=o.ne# o t!e 1eepne'> .e#e !eld solida#il' lia/le o# damages sustained /' Custodio. %%7C .as a/sol(ed on t!e g#ound t!at it e3e#cised diligence o a good at!e# o a amil' in selecting and supe#(ising its emplo'ees. 2. CA modi ied 7CBs decision /' !olding %%7C solida#il' lia/le .it! t!e ot!e# de endants on t!e g#ound t!at t!e testimonies o t!e t#aining o ice# and t#anspo#t supe#(iso# .e#e not enoug! to o(e#come t!e p#esumption o negligence4 t!e' .e#e not a/le to p#esent an' e(idence t!at its d#i(e# !as complied .it! all t!e clea#ances and t#ainings, and e(idence as to t!e alleged .#itten guidelines o t!e compan'.

iii. t!at it c!ec)ed its emplo'ees to dete#mine 5O6 t!e' .e#e

Issue 1. 5O6 %%7C e3e#cised due diligence -. 5O6 %%7C s!ould /e !eld solida#il' lia/le .it! t!e ot!e# de endants Ruling 1. 6o -. Conclusion o CA is mo#e i#ml' g#ounded on 1u#isp#udence and ampl' suppo#ted /' e(idence o #eco#d t!an t!at o 7C. 3. "t is p#ocedu#all' #e&ui#ed o# eac! pa#t' in case to p#o(e !is o.n a i#mati(e asse#tion /' t!e deg#ee o e(idence #e&ui#ed /' la.. +uc! pa#t' must p#esent all a(aila/le e(idence at !is disposal in t!e manne# t!at ma' /e necessa#' to /utt#ess !is claim. ;. "n t!e instant case, inasmuc! as t!e .itnessesB =t#aining supe#(iso# and t#anspo#t supe#(iso#> d.elt on me#e gene#alities, t!e' cannot /e conside#ed as su icientl' pe#suasi(e p#oo t!at %%7C o/se#(ed due diligence in t!e selection and supe#(ision o emplo'ees. 5. %%7C s!ould !a(e p#esented ot!e# e(idence, o/1ect o# documenta#', to /utt#ess an appa#entl' /iased testimon'. Gecla#ations a#e not enoug!. 2. Aence, %%7C ell s!o#t o t!e #e&ui#ed e(identia#' &uantum as .ould con(incingl' and undou/tedl' p#o(e its diligence

Calalas vs C$ Facts 1. At 10 o0cloc) in t!e mo#ning o August -3, 1989, +unga, t!en a college #es!man, too) a passenge# 1eepne' o.ned and ope#ated /' Calalas. As t!e 1eepne' .as illed to capacit' o a/out -; passenge#s, +unga .as gi(en /' t!e conducto# an ?e3tension seat,? a .ooden stool at t!e /ac) o t!e doo# at t!e #ea# end o t!e (e!icle. On t!e .a' to Po/lacion +i/ulan, 6eg#os Occidental, t!e 1eepne' stopped to let a passenge# o . As s!e .as seated at t!e #ea# o t!e (e!icle, +unga ga(e .a' to t!e outgoing passenge#. -. Just as s!e .as doing so, an "su8u t#uc) d#i(en /' @e#ena and o.ned /' +al(a /umped t!e le t #ea# po#tion o t!e 1eepne', in1u#ing +unga necessitating !e# con inement and to am/ulate in c#utc!es o# 3 mont!s 3. +unga iled a complaint o# damages against Calalas, alleging (iolation o t!e cont#act o ca##iage, to .!ic! Calalas in tu#n iled a t!i#d-pa#t' complaint against +al(a, t!e o.ne# o t!e "su8u t#uc) ;. 7!e lo.e# cou#t #ende#ed 1udgment against +al(a as t!i#d-pa#t' de endant and a/sol(ed Calalas o lia/ilit', !olding t!at it .as t!e d#i(e# o t!e "su8u t#uc) .!o .as #esponsi/le o# t!e accident, ta)ing cogni8ance o anot!e# case =Ci(il Case 6o. 3;90>, iled /' Calalas against +al(a and @e#ena, o# &uasi-delict, in .!ic! B#anc! 3< o t!e same cou#t !eld +al(a and !is d#i(e# @e#ena 1ointl' lia/le to Calalas o# t!e damage to !is 1eepne' 5. On appeal, t!e CA #e(e#sed on t!e g#ound t!at +unga0s cause o action .as /ased on a cont#act o ca##iage, not &uasi-delict, and t!at t!e common ca##ie# ailed to e3e#cise t!e diligence #e&ui#ed unde# t!e Ci(il Code, and dismissed t!e t!i#d-pa#t' complaint against +al(a and ad1udged Calalas lia/le o# damages to +unga Issue 1. 5!et!e# t!e decision in t!e case o# &uasi delict /et.een Calalas on one !and and +al(a and @e#ena on t!e ot!e# !and, is #es 1udicata to t!e issue in t!is case

-. 5!et!e# Calalas e3e#cised t!e e3t#ao#dina#' diligence #e&ui#ed in t!e cont#act o ca##iage 3. 5!et!e# mo#al damages s!ould /e a.a#ded Ruling 1. 7!e a#gument t!at +unga is /ound /' t!e #uling in Ci(il Case 6o. 3;90 inding t!e d#i(e# and t!e o.ne# o t!e t#uc) lia/le o# &uasi-delict igno#es t!e act t!at s!e .as ne(e# a pa#t' to t!at case and, t!e#e o#e, t!e p#inciple o #es 1udicata does not appl'. 6o# a#e t!e issues in Ci(il Case 6o. 3;90 and in t!e p#esent case t!e same. 7!e issue in Ci(il Case 6o. 3;90 .as .!et!e# +al(a and !is d#i(e# @e#ena .e#e lia/le o# &uasi-delict o# t!e damage caused to petitione#0s 1eepne'. On t!e ot!e# !and, t!e issue in t!is case is .!et!e# petitione# is lia/le on !is cont#act o ca##iage. 7!e i#st, &uasi-delict, also )no.n as culpa a&uiliana o# culpa e3t#a t!e to#t easo#. 7!e cont#actual, !as as its sou#ce t!e negligence o

second, /#eac! o cont#act o# culpa cont#actual, is p#emised upon t!e negligence in t!e pe# o#mance o a cont#actual o/ligation. Conse&uentl', in &uasi-delict, t!e negligence o# ault s!ould /e clea#l' esta/lis!ed /ecause it is t!e /asis o t!e action, .!e#eas in /#eac! o cont#act, t!e action can /e p#osecuted me#el' /' p#o(ing t!e e3istence o t!e cont#act and t!e act t!at t!e o/ligo#, in t!is case t!e common ca##ie#, ailed to t#anspo#t !is passenge# sa el' to !is destination. "n case o deat! o# in1u#ies to passenge#s, A#t. 1<52 o t!e Ci(il Code p#o(ides t!at common ca##ie#s a#e p#esumed to !a(e /een at ault o# to !a(e acted negligentl' unless t!e' p#o(e t!at t!e' o/se#(ed e3t#ao#dina#' diligence as de ined in A#ts. 1<33 and 1<55 o t!e Code. 7!is p#o(ision necessa#il' s!i ts to t!e common ca##ie# t!e /u#den o p#oo . "t is immate#ial t!at t!e p#o3imate cause o t!e collision /et.een t!e 1eepne' and t!e t#uc) .as t!e negligence o t!e t#uc) d#i(e#. The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for )uasi*delict, not in actions involving breach of contract. The doctrine is a device for imputing liability

to a person where there is no relation between him and another party. "n suc! a case, t!e o/ligation is c#eated /' la. itsel . But, .!e#e t!e#e is a p#e-e3isting cont#actual #elation /et.een t!e pa#ties, it is t!e pa#ties t!emsel(es .!o c#eate t!e o/ligation, and t!e unction o t!e la. is me#el' to #egulate t!e #elation t!us c#eated. -. 5e do not t!in) so. $i#st, t!e 1eepne' .as not p#ope#l' pa#)ed, its #ea# po#tion /eing e3posed a/out t.o mete#s #om t!e /#oad s!oulde#s o t!e !ig!.a', and acing t!e middle o t!e !ig!.a' in a diagonal angle. +econd, it is undisputed t!at petitione#0s d#i(e# too) in mo#e passenge#s t!an t!e allo.ed seating capacit' o t!e 1eepne'. 7!e act t!at +unga .as seated in an ?e3tension seat? placed !e# in a pe#il g#eate# t!an t!at to .!ic! t!e ot!e# passenge#s .e#e e3posed. 7!e#e o#e, not onl' .as petitione# una/le to o(e#come t!e p#esumption o negligence imposed on !im o# t!e in1u#' sustained /' +unga, /ut also, t!e e(idence s!o.s !e .as actuall' negligent in t#anspo#ting passenge#s. 5e ind it !a#d to gi(e se#ious t!oug!t to petitione#0s contention t!at +unga0s ta)ing an ?e3tension seat? amounted to an implied assumption o #is). "t is a)in to a#guing t!at t!e in1u#ies to t!e man' (ictims o t!e t#agedies in ou# seas s!ould not /e compensated me#el' /ecause t!ose passenge#s assumed a g#eate# #is) o d#o.ning /' /oa#ding an o(e#loaded e##'. 7!is is also t#ue o petitione#0s contention t!at t!e 1eepne' /eing /umped .!ile it .as imp#ope#l' pa#)ed constitutes caso o#tuito. A caso o#tuito is an e(ent .!ic! could not /e o#eseen, o# .!ic!, t!oug! o#eseen, .as ine(ita/le. 7!is #e&ui#es t!at t!e ollo.ing #e&ui#ements /e p#esent9 a. t!e cause o t!e /#eac! is independent o t!e de/to#0s .ill4 /. t!e e(ent is un o#eseea/le o# una(oida/le4 c. t!e e(ent is suc! as to #ende# it impossi/le o# t!e de/to# to ul ill !is o/ligation in a no#mal manne#, and d. t!e de/to# did not ta)e pa#t in causing t!e in1u#' to t!e c#edito#. Petitione# s!ould !a(e o#eseen t!e dange# o pa#)ing !is 1eepne' .it! its /od' p#ot#uding t.o mete#s into t!e !ig!.a'.

3. As a gene#al #ule, mo#al damages a#e not #eco(e#a/le in actions o# damages p#edicated on a /#eac! o cont#act o# it is not one o t!e items enume#ated unde# A#t. --19 o t!e Ci(il Code. As an e3ception, suc! damages a#e #eco(e#a/le9 a. in cases in .!ic! t!e mis!ap #esults in t!e deat! o a passenge#, as p#o(ided in A#t. 1<2;, in #elation to A#t. --02=3> o t!e Ci(il Code4 and /. in t!e cases in .!ic! t!e ca##ie# is guilt' o p#o(ided in A#t. ---0. "n t!is case, t!e#e is no legal /asis o# a.a#ding mo#al damages since t!e#e .as no actual inding /' t!e appellate cou#t t!at petitione# acted in /ad ait! in t!e pe# o#mance o t!e cont#act o ca##iage. #aud o# /ad ait!, as

$ir France vs Carrascoso Facts 1. Ra ael Ca##ascoso .as pa#t o a g#oup o pilg#ims lea(ing o# ,ou#des. Ai# $#ance, t!#oug! PA,, issued to Ca##ascoso a i#st class #ound t#ip tic)et. -. $#om %anila to Bang)o), !e t#a(eled in i#st class /ut at Bang)o), t!e manage# o Ai# $#ance o#ced !im to (acate !is seat, /ecause a ?.!ite man? !ad a ?/ette# #ig!t? to it. 3. Ae #e used and e(en !ad a !eated discussion .it! t!e manage# /ut a te# /eing paci ied /' ello. passenge#s, !e #eluctantl' ga(e up t!e seat. ;. Ai# $#ance asse#ts t!at t!e tic)et does not #ep#esent t!e t#ue and complete intent and ag#eement o t!e pa#ties, and t!at t!e issuance o a i#st class tic)et did not gua#antee a i#st class #ide =depends upon t!e a(aila/ilit' o seats>. C$" and CA disposed o t!is contention. Issue 1. 5O6 Ca##ascoso .as entitled to t!e i#st class seat !e claims ---- H*+ -. 5O6 Ca##ascoso is entitled to mo#al damages ----- H*+ Ruling 1. Hes to /ot! -. 7o ac!ie(e sta/ilit' in t!e #elation /et.een passenge# and ai# ca##ie#, ad!e#ence to t!e tic)et issued is desi#a/le. Juoting t!e cou#t, ?5e cannot unde#stand !o. a #eputa/le i#m li)e Ai# $#ance could !a(e t!e indisc#etion to gi(e out tic)ets it ne(e# meant to !ono# at all. "t #ecei(ed t!e co##esponding amount in pa'ment o t!e tic)ets and 'et it allo.ed t!e passenge# to /e at t!e me#c' o its emplo'ees. "t is mo#e in )eeping .it! t!e o#dina#' cou#se o /usiness t!at t!e compan' s!ould )no. .!et!e# o# not t!e tic)ets it issues a#e to /e !ono#ed o# not.? 3. *(idence o /ad ait! .as p#esented .it!out o/1ection on t!e pa#t o t!e Ca##ascoso. "n t!e case, it could !a(e /een eas' o# Ai# $#ance to p#esent its manage# to testi ' at t!e t#ial o# secu#e !is deposition /ut de endant did neit!e#. 7!e#e is also no e(idence as to .!et!e# o# not a p#io# #ese#(ation .as made /' t!e .!ite man.

;. 7!e manage# not onl' p#e(ented Ca##ascoso #om en1o'ing !is #ig!t to a 1st class seat, .o#se !e imposed !is a#/it#a#' .ill. Ae o#ci/l' e1ected !im #om !is seat, made !im su e# t!e !umiliation o !a(ing to go to tou#ist class 1ust to gi(e .a' to anot!e# passenge# .!ose #ig!t .as not esta/lis!ed. Ce#tainl', t!is is /ad ait!. 5. Passenge#s do not cont#act me#el' o# t#anspo#tation. 7!e' !a(e a #ig!t to /e t#eated /' t!e ca##ie#0s emplo'ees .it! )indness, #espect, cou#tes' and due conside#ation. 7!e' a#e entitled to /e p#otected against pe#sonal is conduct, in1u#ious language, indignities and a/use #om suc! emplo'ees. An' discou#teous conduct on t!e pa#t o emplo'ees to.a#ds a passenge# gi(es t!e latte# an action o# damages against t!e ca##ie#. 2. *3empla#' damages .e#e also a.a#ded. 7!e manne# o e1ectment its into t!e condition o# e3empla#' damages t!at de endant acted in a .anton, #audulent, #ec)less, opp#essi(e o# male(olent manne#. KBad $ait! - state o mind a i#mati(el' ope#ating .it! u#ti(e design o# .it! some moti(e o sel -inte#est o# ill .ill o# o# ulte#io# pu#pose

*arredo vs -arcia Facts 1. On %a' 3, 1932, t!e#e .as a !ead-on collision /et.een a ta3i o t!e %alate ta3ica/ d#i(en /' $ontanilla and a ca##etela guided /' Gimapilis. 7!e ca##etela .as o(e#-tu#ned, and a passenge#, a 12-'ea# old /o', :a#cia, su e#ed in1u#ies #om .!ic! !e died. -. A c#iminal action .as iled against $ontanilla, and !e .as con(icted. 7!e cou#t in t!e c#iminal case g#anted t!e petition to #ese#(e t!e ci(il action. 3. :a#cia and Alma#io, pa#ents o t!e deceased, on %a#c! <, 1939, iled a ci(il action against Ba##edo, t!e p#op#ieto# o t!e %alate 7a3ica/ and emplo'e# o $ontanilla, ma)ing !im p#ima#il' and di#ectl' #esponsi/le unde# culpa ac&uiliana o A#ticle -180 o t!e Ci(il Code o t!e P!ilippines. ;. "t is undisputed t!at $ontanillaBs negligence .as t!e cause o t!e accident, as !e .as d#i(ing on t!e .#ong side o t!e #oad at !ig! speed, and t!e#e .as no s!o.ing t!at Ba##edo e3e#cised t!e diligence o a good at!e# o a amil', a de ense to A#ticle -180 o t!e said Code. Ba##edoBs t!eo#' o de ense is t!at $ontanillaBs negligence /eing punis!ed /' t!e Re(ised Penal Code, !is lia/ilit' as emplo'e# is onl' su/sidia#', /ut $ontanilla, .as not sued o# ci(il lia/ilit'. 5. Aence, Ba##edo claims t!at !e cannot /e !eld lia/le. Issue 1. 5O6 Ba##edo, as emplo'e# is ci(ill' lia/le o# t!e acts o $ontanilla, !is emplo'ee. Ruling 1. Hes, Ba##edo is lia/le o# damages. -. A#ticle -1<< - Juasi-delict o# culpa ac&uiliana is a sepa#ate legal institution unde# t!e Ci(il Code o t!e P!ilippines is enti#el' distinct and independent #om a delict o# c#ime unde# t!e Re(ised Penal Code. "n t!is 1u#isdiction, t!e same negligent act causing damage ma' p#oduce ci(il lia/ilit' =su/sidia#'> a#ising #om a c#ime unde# A#ticle 103 o t!e Re(ised Penal Code o t!e P!ilippines4 o# c#eate an action o# &uasi-delicto o#

culpa a&uiliana unde# A#ticles -1<9 and -180 o t!e Ci(il Code and t!e pa#ties a#e #ee to c!oose .!ic! cou#se to ta)e. 3. And in t!e instant case, t!e negligent act o $ontanilla p#oduces t.o =-> lia/ilities o Ba##edo9 $i#st, a su/sidia#' one /ecause o t!e ci(il lia/ilit' o $ontanilla a#ising #om t!e latte#Bs c#iminal negligence unde# A#ticle 103 o t!e Re(ised Penal Code, and second, Ba##edoBs p#ima#' and di#ect #esponsi/ilit' a#ising #om !is p#esumed negligence as an emplo'e# unde# A#ticle -180 o t!e Ci(il Code. ;. +ince t!e plainti s a#e #ee to c!oose .!at #emed' to ta)e, t!e' p#e e##ed t!e second, .!ic! is .it!in t!ei# #ig!ts. 7!is is t!e mo#e e3pedious and e ecti(e met!od o #elie /ecause $ontanilla .as eit!e# in p#ison o# 1ust /een #eleased o# !ad no p#ope#t'. Ba##edo .as !eld lia/le o# damages. 5. Ae is p#ima#il' lia/le unde# $rticle &.(/ .!ic! is a sepa#ate ci(il action against negligent emplo'e#s. :a#cia is .ell .it!in !is #ig!ts in suing Ba##edo. Ae #ese#(ed !is #ig!t to ile a sepa#ate ci(il action and t!is is mo#e e3peditious /ecause /' t!e time o t!e +C 1udgment $ontanilla is al#ead' se#(ing !is sentence and !as no p#ope#t'. "t .as also p#o(en t!at Ba##edo is negligent in !i#ing !is emplo'ees /ecause it .as s!o.n t!at $ontanilla !ad !ad multiple t#a ic in #actions al#ead' /e o#e !e !i#ed !im L somet!ing !e ailed to o(e#come du#ing !ea#ing. Aad :a#cia not #ese#(ed !is #ig!t to ile a sepa#ate ci(il action, Ba##edo .ould !a(e onl' /een su/sidia#il' lia/le. $u#t!e#, Ba##edo is not /eing sued o# damages a#ising #om a c#iminal act =!is d#i(e#Bs negligence> /ut #at!e# o# !is o.n negligence in selecting !is emplo'ee =A#ticle 1903>.

,analo vs Robles +ransportation Co Facts 1. On August 9, 19;<, a ta3ica/ o.ned and ope#ated /' de endant Ro/les 7#anspo#tation Compan', "nc. =t!e Compan'> and d#i(en /' Ae#nande8 its d#i(e#, collided .it! a passenge# t#uc). "n t!e cou#se o and a #esult o t!e accident, t!e ta3ica/ #an o(e# A#mando %analo, an ele(en 'ea# old, causing !im p!'sical in1u#ies .!ic! #esulted in !is deat! se(e#al da's late#. -. Ae#nande8 .as p#osecuted o# !omicide t!#oug! #ec)less imp#udence and a te# t#ial .as ound guilt'. Ae se#(ed out !is sentence /ut ailed to pa' t!e indemnit'. - .#its o e3ecution .e#e issued against !im to satis ' t!e amount /ut /ot! .#its .e#e #etu#ned unsatis ied /' t!e s!e#i . 3. On $e/#ua#' 1<, 1953, plainti s *milio %analo and !is .i e Cla#a +al(ado#, at!e# and mot!e# #especti(el' o A#mando iled t!e p#esent action against t!e Compan' to en o#ce its su/sidia#' lia/ilit', pu#suant to A#ticles 10- and 103 o t!e Re(ised Penal Code. ;. "t also iled a motion to dismiss t!e complaint unless and until t!e con(icted d#i(e# Ae#nande8 .as included as a pa#t' de endant, t!e Compan' conside#ing !im an indispensa/le pa#t'. 7!e 7C and CA /ot! co##ectl' #uled t!at Ae#nande8 .as not an indispensa/le pa#t' de endant. 7!e Compan' is no. /e o#e +C. 5. 7o p#o(e t!ei# case against t!e de endant Compan', t!e plainti s int#oduced a cop' o Ae#nande8 o t!e decision in t!e c#iminal case con(icting t!e s!e#i !omicide t!#oug! #ec)less imp#udence, t!e .#its o

e3ecution to en o#ce t!e ci(il lia/ilit', and t!e #etu#ns o insol(enc' o Ae#nande8, t!e s!e#i

s!o.ing t!at t!e t.o .#its o e3ecution .e#e not satis ied /ecause o t!e /eing una/le to locate an' p#ope#t' in !is name. O(e# t!e o/1ections o t!e Compan', t!e t#ial cou#t admitted t!is e(idence and /ased its decision in t!e p#esent case on t!e same. 2. 7!e Compan' contends t!at t!is )ind o e(idence is inadmissi/le. 7!e Compan' also claims t!at in admitting as e(idence t!e s!e#i 0s #etu#n o t!e .#its o e3ecution to p#o(e t!e insol(enc' o Ae#nande8, .it!out #e&ui#ing said oppo#tunit' to c#oss-e3amine said s!e#i .

Issue 1. 5O6 A#ticles 10- and 103 o t!e Re(ised Penal Code .e#e #epealed /' t!e 6e. Ci(il Code, p#omulgated in 1950, pa#ticula#l', /' t!e #epealing clause unde# .!ic! comes A#ticle --<0 o t!e said codeM Ruling 1. $rticle %&00 o t!e 6e. Ci(il Code e3p#essl' #ecogni8es ci(il lia/ilities a#ising #om negligence unde# t!e Penal Code, onl' t!at it p#o(ides t!at plainti cannot #eco(e# damages t.ice o# t!e same act o omission o t!e de endant. ?AR7. -1<<. Responsi/ilit' o# ault o# negligence unde# t!e p#eceding a#ticle is enti#el' sepa#ate and distinct #om t!e ci(il lia/ilit' a#ising #om negligence unde# t!e Penal Code. But t!e plainti cannot #eco(e# damages t.ice o# t!e same act o omission o t!e de endant.?

"n(o)ing p#esc#iption, appellant claims t!at t!e p#esent action is /a##ed /' t!e +tatute o ,imitations o# t!e #eason t!at it is an action eit!e# upon an in1u#' to t!e #ig!ts o t!e plainti , o# upon a &uasi delict, and t!at acco#ding to A#ticle 11;2 o t!e 6e. Ci(il Code, suc! action must /e instituted .it!in ou# 'ea#s. 5e ag#ee .it! t!e appellee t!at t!e p#esent action is /ased upon a 1udgment, namel', t!at in t!e c#iminal case, inding Ae#nande8 guilt' o !omicide t!#oug! #ec)less imp#udence and sentencing !im to indemni ' t!e !ei#s o t!e deceased in t!e sum o P3,000, and, conse&uentl' ma' /e instituted .it!in ten 'ea#s.

As #ega#ds t!e ot!e# e##o#s assigned /' appellant, .e ind it unnecessa#' to discuss and #ule upon t!em.

$inding t!e decision appealed #om to /e in acco#dance .it! la., t!e same is !e#e/' a i#med, .it! costs.

)irata vs 1choa Facts 1. A#senio @i#ata died as a #esult o !a(ing /een /umped .!ile .al)ing along 7a t A(enue /' a passenge# 1eepne' d#i(en /' %a3imo Bo#illa and #egiste#ed in t!e name o @icto#ia Oc!oa. -. An action o# !omicide t!#oug! #ec)less imp#udence .as instituted against %a3imo Bo#illa in t!e C$" o Ri8al. 3. Att'. $#ancisco, t!e p#i(ate p#osecuto#, made a #ese#(ation to ile sepa#atel' t!e ci(il action o# damages against t!e d#i(e# o# !is c#iminal lia/ilit', .!ic! !e late# on .it!d#e. and p#esented e(idence on t!e damages. ;. 7!e Aei#s o A#senio @i#ata again #ese#(ed t!ei# #ig!t to institute a sepa#ate ci(il action. 5. 7!e' commenced an action o# damages /ased on &uasi-delict against t!e d#i(e# %a3imo Bo#illa and t!e #egiste#ed o.ne# o t!e (e!icle, @icto#ia Oc!oa. 2. P#i(ate #espondents iled a motion to dismiss on t!e g#ound t!at t!e#e is anot!e# action pending o# t!e same cause. <. 7!e C$" ac&uitted Bo#illa on t!e g#ound t!at !e caused t!e in1u#' /' accident. 7!e motion to dismiss .as g#anted.

Issue 1. 5O6 t!e Aei#s o A#senio @i#ata can p#osecute an action o# damages /ased on &uasi-delict against %a3imo Bo#illa and @icto#ia Oc!oa, d#i(e# and o.ne#, #especti(el' on t!e passenge# 1eepne' t!at /umped A#senio @i#ataM

Ruling 1. H*+. "7 "+ A6 *JN"7AB,* %OR7:A:*. -. "n negligence cases, t!e agg#ie(ed pa#ties ma' c!oose /et.een an action unde# t!e Re(ised Penal Code o# o &uasi-delict unde# A#ticle -1<2 o t!e Ci(il Code. 5!at is p#o!i/ited /' A#ticle -1<< o t!e Ci(il Code is to #eco(e# t.ice o# t!e same negligent act.

3. "n t!is case, t!e petitione#s a#e not see)ing to #eco(e# t.ice o# t!e same negligent act. Be o#e t!e C#iminal Case .as decided, t!e' mani ested in t!e said case t!at t!e' .e#e iling a sepa#ate ci(il action o# damages against t!e o.ne# and d#i(e# o t!e passenge# 1eepne' /ased on &uasi-delict. ;. Ac&uittal #om an accusation o c#iminal negligence, .!et!e# on #easona/le dou/t o# not, s!all not /e a /a# to a su/se&uent ci(il action, not o# ci(il lia/ilit' a#ising #om c#iminal negligence, /ut o# damages due to a &uasi-delict o# Oculpa a&uilianaB. 5. 7!e sou#ce o damages soug!t to /e en o#ced in t!e Ci(il Case is &uasidelict, not an act o# omission punis!a/le /' la.. Nnde# A#t. 115< o t!e Ci(il Code, &uasi-delict and an act o# omission punis!a/le /' la. a#e t.o di e#ent sou#ces o o/ligation. 2. %o#eo(e#, o# petitione#s to p#e(ail in t!e Ci(il Case, t!e' !a(e onl' to esta/lis! t!ei# cause o action /' p#eponde#ance o e(idence. Philippine Rabbit *us 2ines vs I$C Facts 1. At 11am on Gecem/e# -;, 1922, Catalina Pascua, Ca#idad Pascua, Adelaida *stomo, *#linda %e#iales, %e#cedes ,o#en8o, Ale1and#o %o#ales and Penaida Pa#e1as /oa#ded t!e 1eepne' o.ned /' spouses "sid#o %angune and :uille#ma Ca##eon and d#i(en /' 7#an&uilino %analo at Gau, %a/alacat,Pampanga /ound o# Ca#men, Rosales, Pangasinan to spend C!#istmas .it! t!ei# amilies o# P -;.00. -. Npon #eac!ing /a##io +ina'oan, +an %anuel, 7a#lac, t!e #ig!t #ea# .!eel o t!e 1eepne' detac!ed causing it to #un in an un/alanced position. G#i(e# %analo stepped on t!e /#a)e, causing t!e 1eepne' to ma)e a Ntu#n, in(ading and e(entuall' stopping on t!e opposite lane o t!e #oad =t!e 1eepne'0s #ont aced t!e sout! = #om .!e#e it came> and its #ea# aced t!e no#t! =to.a#ds .!e#e it .as going>>. 3. 7!e 1eepne' occupied and /loc)ed t!e g#eate# po#tion o t!e .este#n lane, .!ic! is t!e #ig!t o .a' o (e!icles coming #om t!e no#t!. ;. Petitione# P!il. Ra//it Bus ,ines claims t!at almost immediatel' a te# t!e sudden N-tu#n t!e /us /umped t!e #ig!t #ea# po#tion o t!e 1eep. Ge endants, on t!e ot!e# !and, claim t!at t!e /us stopped a e. minutes /e o#e !itting t!e 1eepne'. 5. *it!e# .a', as a #esult o t!e collision, t!#ee passenge#s o t!e 1eepne' =Catalina Pascua, *#linda %e#iales and Adelaida *stomo> died .!ile t!e ot!e# 1eepne' passenge#s sustained p!'sical in1u#ies. 2. A c#iminal complaint .as iled against t!e t.o d#i(e#s o# %ultiple Aomicide. 7!e case against delos Re'es =d#i(e# o P!il. Ra//it> .as

dismissed o# insu icien' o e(idence. %analo =1eepne' d#i(e#>,!o.e(e#, .as con(icted and sentenced to su e# imp#isonment. <. 3 complaints o# #eco(e#' o damages .e#e t!en iled /e o#e t!e C$" o Pangasinan. a> +pouses Casiano Pascua and Juana @alde8 sued as !ei#s o Catalina Pascua .!ile Ca#idad Pascua sued in !e# /e!al Cou#t o $i#st "nstance o Pangasinan. /> +pouses %anuel %illa#es and $idencia A#cica sued as !ei#s o *#linda %e#iales. c> spouses %a#iano *stomo and Gionisia +a#miento sued as !ei#s o Adelaida *stomo. 8. All t!#ee cases impleaded spouses %angune and Ca##eon, %analo =1eepne' o.ne#s>,Ra//it and delos Re'es as de endants. Plainti s anc!o#ed t!ei# suits against spouses %angune and Ca##eon and %analo on t!ei# cont#actual lia/ilit'. As against Ra//it and delos Re'es, plainti s /ased t!ei# suits on t!ei# culpa/ilit' o# a &uasi-delict. $il#ite#s :ua#ant' Assu#ance Co#po#ation, "nc. 5as also impleaded as additional de endant in t!e i#st case onl'. 9. 7!e t#ial cou#t #uled in a(o# o t!en plainti s, inding de endants negligent and !a(ing /#eac!ed t!e cont#act o ca##iage .it! t!ei# passenge#s and o#de#ing t!em, 1ointl' and se(e#all', to pa' t!e plainti s damages. 10. 7!e "AC #e(e#sed t!e #uling o t!e t#ial cou#t, appl'ing p#ima#il' a> t!e doct#ine o last clea# c!ance /> t!e p#esumption t!at d#i(e#s .!o /ump t!e #ea# o anot!e# (e!icle guilt' and t!e cause o t!e accident unless cont#adicted /' ot!e# e(idence c> t!e su/stantial acto# test =.!ic! concluded t!at /us d#i(e# delos Re'es, 6O7 1eepne' d#i(e# %analo, .as negligent>. Issue 1. 5!o a#e lia/le o# t!e deat! and in1u#ies o t!e passenge#M - 7#ial cou#t decision #einstated .it! modi ication. Onl' "sid#o %angune, :uille#ma Ca##eon and $il#ite#s :ua#ant' Assu#ance Co#po#ation, "nc. a#e lia/le to t!e (ictims o# t!ei# !ei#s. Ruling 1. 7!e p#inciple o ?the last clear# chance is applica/le in a suit /et.een t!e o.ne#s and d#i(e#s o t!e t.o colliding (e!icles. "t does not a#ise .!e#e a passenge# demands #esponsi/ilit' #om t!e ca##ie# to en o#ce its cont#actual o/ligations.

-. $o# it .ould /e ine&uita/le to e3empt t!e negligent d#i(e# o t!e 1eepne' and its o.ne#s on t!e g#ound t!at t!e ot!e# d#i(e# .as li)e.ise guilt' o negligence. 3. 7!e "AC e##ed in appl'ing t!e p#esumption t!at t!e d#i(e# .!o /umps t!e #ea# o anot!e# (e!icle is guilt' and t!e cause o t!e accident, unless cont#adicted /' ot!e# e(idence. 7!is p#esumption is /ased on t!e #esponsi/ilit' gi(en to a #ea# (e!icle o a(oiding a collision .it! t!e #ont (e!icle o# it is t!e #ea# (e!icle .!o !as ull cont#ol o t!e situation as it is in a position to o/se#(e t!e (e!icle in #ont o it. +uc! p#esumption is #e/utted /' t!e e(idence t!at s!o.s t!at t!e 1eepne', .!ic! .as t!en t#a(eling on t!e easte#n s!oulde#, ma)ing a st#aig!t, s)id ma#) o app#o3imatel' 35 mete#s, c#ossed t!e easte#n lane at a s!a#p angle, ma)ing a s)id ma#) o app#o3imatel' 15 mete#s #om t!e easte#n s!oulde# to t!e point o impact. =Basicall', t!e N-tu#n .as sudden and delos Re'es could not !a(e #easona/l' anticipated it e(en t!oug! !e .as t!e #ea# (e!icle> ;. ,i)e.ise, t!e /us cannot /e made lia/le unde# t!e su/stantial acto# test =t!at i t!e acto#0s conduct is a su/stantial acto# in /#inging a/out !a#m to anot!e#, t!e act t!at t!e acto# neit!e# o#esa. no# s!ould !a(e o#eseen t!e e3tent o t!e !a#m o# t!e manne# in .!ic! it occu##ed does not p#e(ent !im #om /eing lia/le>. Cont#a#' to t!e indings o t!e appellate cou#t, t!e /us .as t#a(elling .it!in t!e speed limit allo.ed in !ig!.a's. Ae also !ad onl' a e. seconds to #eact to t!e situation. 7o #e&ui#e delos Re'es to a(oid t!e collision is to as) too muc! #om !im. Aside #om t!e time element in(ol(ed, t!e#e .e#e no options a(aila/le to !im to !a(e a(oided t!e collision. 7!e p#o3imate cause o t!e accident .as t!e negligence o 1eepne' d#i(e# %analo and spouses %angune and Ca##eon. 7!e' all ailed to e3e#cise t!e p#ecautions t!at a#e needed p#ecisel' p#o !ac (ice.. 5. "n culpa cont#actual, t!e moment a passenge# dies o# is in1u#ed, t!e ca##ie# is p#esumed to !a(e /een at ault o# to !a(e acted negligentl', and t!is disputa/le p#esumption ma' onl' /e o(e#come /' e(idence t!at !e !ad o/se#(ed e3t#a-o#dina#' diligence as p#esc#i/ed in A#ticles 1<33, 1<55 and 1<52o t!e 6e. Ci(il Code o# t!at t!e deat! o# in1u#' o t!e passenge# .as due to a o#tuitous e(ent. 7!e negligence o %analo .as p#o(en du#ing t!e t#ial /' t!e un#e/utted testimonies o Ca#idad Pascua, t!e police .!o a##i(ed on t!e scene, !is =%analo0s> con(iction and t!e application o t!e doctrine of res ipsa lo!uitur supra. 2. +pouses %angune and Ca##eon alleged t!at t!ei# mec!anic #egula#l' maintains t!e 1eepne' and on t!e da' /e o#e t!e collision, t!e mec!anic actuall' c!ec)ed t!e (e!icle and e(en tig!tened t!e /olts, t!us t!e incident .as caused /' a caso o#tuito. <. 7!e +C up!eld t!e t#ial cou#tBs indings t!at ?in an action o# damages against t!e ca##ie# o# !is ailu#e to sa el' ca##' !is passenge# to !is destination, an accident caused eit!e# /' de ects in t!e automo/ile o# t!#oug! t!e negligence o its d#i(e#, is not a caso o#tuito .!ic! .ould

a(oid t!e ca##ie#sB lia/ilit'. 8. 7!e +C modi ied t!e decision !olding spouses %angune and Ca##eon 1ointl' and se(e#all' lia/le .it! %analo. 7!e d#i(e# cannot /e !eld 1ointl' and se(e#all' lia/le .it! t!e ca##ie# in case o /#eac! o t!e cont#act o ca##iage. $i#stl', t!e cont#act o ca##iage is /et.een t!e ca##ie# and t!e passenge#, and in t!e e(ent o cont#actual lia/ilit', t!e ca##ie# is e3clusi(el' #esponsi/le to t!e passenge#, e(en i suc! /#eac! /e due to t!e negligence o !is d#i(e#. "n ot!e# .o#ds, t!e ca##ie# can neit!e# s!i t !is lia/ilit' on t!e cont#act to !is d#i(e# no# s!a#e it .it! !im, o# !is d#i(e#0s negligence is !is. +econdl', t!at .ould ma)e t!e ca##ie#0s lia/ilit' pe#sonal instead o me#el' (ica#ious and conse&uentl', entitled to# #eco(e# onl' t!e s!a#e .!ic! co##esponds to t!e d#i(e# cont#adicto#' to t!e e3plicit p#o(ision o A#ticle-181 o t!e 6e. Ci(il Code.

GOC7R"6* 7!e principle of #the last clear# chance is applica/le in a suit /et.een t!e o.ne#s and d#i(e#s o t!e t.o colliding (e!icles. "t does not a#ise .!e#e a passenge# demands #esponsi/ilit' #om t!e ca##ie# to en o#ce its cont#actual o/ligations. $o# it .ould /e ine&uita/le to e3empt t!e negligent d#i(e# and its o.ne#s on t!e g#ound t!at t!e ot!e# d#i(e# .as li)e.ise guilt' o negligence. "n culpa cont#actual, t!e moment a passenge# dies o# is in1u#ed, t!e ca##ie# is p#esumed to !a(e /een at ault o# to !a(e acted negligentl', and t!is disputa/le p#esumption ma' onl' /e o(e#come /' e(idence t!at !e !ad o/se#(ed e3t#a-o#dina#' diligence as p#esc#i/ed in A#ticles 1<33, 1<55 and 1<52 o t!e 6e. Ci(il Code o# t!at t!e deat! o# in1u#' o t!e passenge# .as due to a o#tuitous e(ent. 7!e d#i(e# cannot /e !eld 1ointl' and se(e#all' lia/le .it! t!e ca##ie# in case o /#eac! o t!e cont#act o ca##iage. $i#stl', t!e cont#act o ca##iage is /et.een t!e ca##ie# and t!e passenge#, and in t!e e(ent o cont#actual lia/ilit', t!e ca##ie# is e3clusi(el' #esponsi/le to t!e passenge#, e(en i suc! /#eac! /e due to t!e negligence o !is d#i(e#. "n ot!e# .o#ds, t!e ca##ie# can neit!e# s!i t !is lia/ilit' on t!e cont#act to !is d#i(e# no# s!a#e it .it! !im, o# !is d#i(e#0s negligence is !is. +econdl', t!at .ould ma)e t!e ca##ie#0s lia/ilit' pe#sonal instead o me#el' (ica#ious and conse&uentl', entitled to #eco(e# onl' t!e s!a#e .!ic! co##esponds to t!e d#i(e# cont#adicto#' to t!e e3plicit p#o(ision o A#ticle -181 o t!e 6e. Ci(il Code.

,acalinao vs 1ng Facts 1. %acalinao and Ong .e#e emplo'ed as utilit' man and d#i(e#, #especti(el', at t!e :enet#on "nte#national %a#)eting =:enet#on>, a single p#op#ieto#s!ip o.ned and ope#ated /' +e/astian. On Ap#il -5, 199-, +e/astian inst#ucted %a(alinao, Ong and t.o t#uc) !elpe#s to deli(e# a !ea(' piece o mac!ine#' L a #eacto#Qmoto# o# mi3ing c!emicals, to +e/astianBs manu actu#ing plant in Angat, Bulacan. -. 5!ile in t!e p#ocess o compl'ing .it! t!e o#de#, t!e (e!icle d#i(en /' Ong, :enet#onBs "su8u *l 7#uc) .it! plate noo. P%P-102 !it and /umped t!e #ont po#tion o p#i(ate 1eepne' along Ca'pom/o, +ta.%a#ia, Bulacan at a#ound 119-0 in t!e mo#ning. 3. Bot! (e!icles incu##ed se(e#e damages .!ile t!e passenge#s sustained p!'sical in1u#ies as a conse&uence o t!e collision. %acalinao incu##ed t!e most se#ious in1u#ies among t!e passenge#s o t!e t#uc). ;. Ae .as initiall' /#oug!t to t!e +ta. %a#ia Gist#ict Aospital o# i#st aid t#eatment /ut in (ie. o t!e se(e#it' o !is condition, !e .as t#ans e##ed to t!e P!ilippine O#t!opedic Cente# at t!e instance o +e/astian. 5. Ae .as again mo(ed to Capitol %edical Cente# /' !is pa#ents, o# medical #easons t!en to P:A o# inancial conside#ation. 2. %acalinaoBs /od' .as pa#al'8ed and immo/ili8ed #om t!e nec) do.n as a #esult o t!e accident and pe# docto#Bs ad(ice, !is oot .as amputated. Ae also su e#ed #om /ed so#es and in ection. <. Ais immedica/le condition, coupled .it! t!e docto#Bs #ecommendation, led !is amil' to /#ing !im !ome .!e#e !e died on 6o(. 0<, 199-. 8. Be o#e !e died, %acalinao .as a/le to ile an action o# damages against /ot! Ong and +e/astian /e o#e t!e R7C o JC. A te# !is deat! %acalinao .as su/stituted /' !is pa#ents in t!e action. 9. 7#ial Cou#t #uled t!at /ased on t!e e(idence, Ong d#o(e t!e "su8u t#uc) in a #ec)less and imp#udent manne# t!e#e/' causing t!e same to !it t!e p#i(ate 1eepne'. "t o/se#(ed t!at .!ile #espondents claimed t!at Ong .as d#i(ing cautiousl' and p#udentl' at t!e time o t!e mis!ap, no e(idence .as p#esented to su/stantiate t!e claim. 10.CA #e(e#sed t!e indings o t#ial cou#t. *(idence p#esented /' petitione#s is insu icient to suppo#t (e#dict o negligence against Ong.

Issue 5O6 su icient e(idence .as p#esented to suppo#t a inding o negligence

against Ong

Ruling 1. 7!e e(idence on #eco#d coupled .it! t!e doctrine of res ipsa lo!uitur su icientl' esta/lis!es OngsB negligence. -. Application o Goct#ine o Res "psa ,o&uitu#9 a. 7!e p!otog#ap!s o t!e accident dese#(e su/stantial cogitation /. P!'sical e(idence is a mute /ut an elo&uent mani estation o t#ut! .!ic! #an)s !ig! in ou# !ie#a#c!' o t#ust.o#t!' e(idence. c. "n t!is case, .!ile t!e#e is dea#t! o testimonial e(idence to enlig!ten us a/out .!at actuall' !appened, p!otog#ap!s depicting t!e #elati(e positions o t!e (e!icles immediatel' a te# t!e accident too) place do e3ist. "t is .ell esta/lis!ed t!at p!otog#ap!s, .!en dul' (e#i ied and s!o.n /' e3t#insic e(idence to /e ait! ul #ep#esentations o t!e su/1ect as o t!e time in &uestion, a#e in t!e disc#etion o t!e t#ial cou#t, admissi/le in e(idence as aids in a##i(ing at an unde#standing o t!e e(idence, t!e situation o# condition o o/1ects o# p#emises o# t!e ci#cumstances o an accident. d. Anot!e# piece o e(idence .!ic! suppo#ts a inding o negligence against Ong is t!e police #epo#t o t!e incident. 7!e #epo#t states t!at t!e "su8u t#uc) .as t!e one .!ic! !it t!e le t po#tion o t!e p#i(ate 1eepne'. "t must still /e #emem/e#ed t!at alt!oug! police /lotte#s a#e o little p#o/ati(e (alue, t!e' a#e ne(e#t!eless admitted and conside#ed in t!e a/sence o competent e(idence to #e ute t!e acts stated t!e#ein. *nt#ies in police #eco#ds made /' a police o ice# in t!e pe# o#mance o t!e dut' especiall' en1oined /' la. a#e p#ima acie e(idence o t!e act t!e#ein stated, and t!ei# p#o/ati(e (alue ma' /e eit!e# su/stantiated o# nulli ied /' ot!e# competent e(idence. e. 5!ile not constituting di#ect p#oo o OngBs negligence, t!e o#egoing pieces o e(idence 1usti ' t!e application o #es ipsa lo&uitu#, a ,atin p!#ase .!ic! lite#all' means Dt!e t!ing o# t#ansaction spea)s o# itsel .F 3. 3octrine of Res Ipsa 2o!uitur recogni+es that parties may establish prima facie negligence without direct proof, thus, it allows the principle to substitute for specific proof of negligence. It permits the plaintiff to present along with proof of the accident, enough of the attending circumstances to invoke the doctrine, create an inference or presumption of negligence and thereby place on the defendant the burden of proving that there was no negligence on his part.

;. +he doctrine can be invo4ed only when under the circumstances, direct evidence is absent and not readily available" 7!is is /ased in pa#t upon t!e t!eo#' t!at t!e de endant in c!a#ge o t!e inst#umentalit' .!ic! causes t!e in1u#' eit!e# )no.s t!e cause o t!e accident o# !as t!e /est oppo#tunit' o asce#taining it .!ile t!e plainti !as no )no.ledge, and is t!e#e o#e compelled to allege negligence in gene#al te#ms and #el' upon t!e p#oo o t!e !appening o t!e accident in o#de# to esta/lis! negligence.

5. Re!uisites of application of res ipsa lo!uitur9 a. 7!e accident is o a )ind .!ic! o#dina#il' does not occu# in t!e a/sence o someoneBs negligence4 /. "t is caused /' an inst#umentalit' .it!in t!e e3clusi(e cont#ol o t!e de endant o# de endants4 c. 7!e possi/ilit' o cont#i/uting conduct .!ic! .ould ma)e t!e plainti #esponsi/le is eliminated 2. 7!e cou#t !eld t!at all t!e a/o(e #e&uisites a#e p#esent in t!e case at /a#. "n t!is case, %acalinao could no longe# testi ' as to t!e cause o t!e accident since !e is dead. Petitione#s, .!ile su/stituting t!ei# son as plainti , !a(e no actual )no.ledge a/out t!e e(ent since t!e' .e#e not p#esent at t!e c#ucial moment. <. 7!e d#i(e# o t!e 1eepne' .!o could !a(e s!ed lig!t on t!e ci#cumstances is li)e.ise dead. 7!e onl' ones le t .it! )no.ledge a/out t!e cause o t!e mis!ap a#e t!e t.o t#uc) !elpe#s .!o su#(i(ed, /ot! emplo'ees o +e/astian, and Ong, .!o is not onl' +e/astianBs p#e(ious emplo'ee /ut !is co-#espondent in t!e case as .ell.

5antos vs Pi6ardo Facts 1. Gionisio %. +i/a'an .as c!a#ged .it! #ec)less imp#udence #esulting to multiple !omicide and multiple p!'sical in1u#ies due to t!e (e!icle collision /et.een @i#on 7#ansit /us d#i(en /' +i/a'an and a ,ite @an Ace. %7C penali8ed +i/a'an .it! imp#isonment o# t.o =-> 'ea#s, ou# =;> mont!s and one =1> da' to ou# =;> 'ea#s and t.o =-> mont!s. -. Ao.e(e# t!e municipal ci#cuit t#ial cou#t made no p#onouncement as to t!e ci(il lia/ilit'. 7!e petitione#s iled a complaint o# damages to t!e #espondents pu#suant to t!ei# #ese#(ation to ile a sepa#ate ci(il action citing +i/a'anBs 1udgment con(iction. @i#on mo(ed to dismiss t!e case alleging t!at t!e g#ounds o# t!e cause o action !ad al#ead' p#esc#i/ed =&uasi-delict p#esc#i/es in ; 'ea#s #om acc#ual o cause o action>. 3. 7!e petitione#s opposed t!e motion to dismiss contending t!at t!e #ig!t to ile a sepa#ate action in t!is case p#esc#i/es in ten =10> 'ea#s #ec)oned #om t!e inalit' o t!e 1udgment in t!e c#iminal action. As t!e#e .as no appeal o t!e decision con(icting +i/a'an, t!e complaint .!ic! .as iled /a#el' t.o =-> 'ea#s t!ence .as clea#l' iled .it!in t!e p#esc#ipti(e pe#iod. ;. 7C dismissed case t!e case. Again t!e petitione#s iled a #econside#ation t!at t!e complaint is not /ased on &uasi- delict /ut on t!e inal 1udgment o con(iction in t!e c#iminal case .!ic! p#esc#i/es ten =10> 'ea#s upon t!e inalit' o t!e 1udgment. 7!e motion o# #econside#ation o t!e petitione#s .as denied /' t!e t#ial cou#t /ased on &uasi-delict in A#ticle 11;2 o t!e Ci(il Code t!at t!e complaint .as iled mo#e t!an ou# =;> 'ea#s a te# t!e (e!icula# acti(ities t!e#e o#e it al#ead' p#esc#i/ed. 5. On t!e petition o# ce#tio#a#i .it! CA, it .as dismissed t!e same e##o# in t!e c!oice o# mode o appeal. "t also denies t!e petitione#sB motion o# #econside#ation since t!e petitione#s ailed to allege t!at t!e petition .as /#oug!t .it!in t!e #ecogni8ed e3ceptions o# t!e allo.ance o ce#tio#a#i in lieu o appeal. 2. Petitione#s insist t!at it s!ould /een o#ced in t!e complaint t!at a#ose in e3 delicto and not /ased on &uasi-delict. +ince t!e action is /ased on t!e c#iminal lia/ilit' o p#i(ate #espondents, t!e cause o action acc#ued #omt !e inalit' o t!e 1udgment o con(iction. <. P#i(ate #espondents insisted, pointing out t!e a(e#ments in t!e complaint ma)e out a cause o action o# &uasi delict in A#ticle -1<2 and -180o t!e Ci(il Code. 7!e p#esc#ipti(e pe#iod o ou# =;> 'ea#s s!ould /e #ec)oned #om t!e time t!e accident too) place. 8. @i#on t#ansit also alleges t!at its su/sidia#' lia/ilit' cannot /e en o#ced since +i/a'an .as not o#de#ed to pa' damages in t!e c#iminal case, in

sitting A#t. 103 o Re(ised Penal Code t!e ci(il aspect o t!e case .e#e instituted in t!e c#iminal case and no #ese#(ation to ile a sepa#ate ci(il case .as made. 9. Respondents li)e.ise allege t!at t!e petitione#s s!ould !a(e appealed t!e ad(e#se o#de# o t!e t#ial cou#t. Petitione#s iled a #epl' and t!e p#i(ate #espondents also illed a #e1oinde# /ot! in #eite#ation o t!ei# a#guments. 10.Aence t!is petition. Issues 1. 5!et!e# o# not t!e dismissal o t!e action .as /ased on culpa a&uiliana is a /a# to t!e en o#cement o t!e su/sidia#' lia/ilit' o t!e emplo'e#M Ruling 1. 6o, t!e dismissal o t!e action /ased on culpa a&uiliana is not a /a# to t!e su/sidia#' lia/ilit' o t!e emplo'e#. 1ur Revised Penal Code provides that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable" 5uch civil liability may consist of restitution, reparation of the damage caused and indemnification of conse!uential damages" 7hen a criminal action is instituted, the civil liability arising from the offense is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, sub8ect to three notable exceptions9 first, .!en t!e in1u#ed pa#t' expressly waives t!e #ig!t to #eco(e# damages #om t!e accused4 second, .!en t!e o ended pa#t' reserves !is #ig!t to !a(e t!e ci(il damages dete#mined in a sepa#ate action in o#de# to ta)e ull cont#ol and di#ection o t!e p#osecution o !is cause4 and third, .!en t!e in1u#ed pa#t' actuall' e3e#cises t!e #ig!t to maintain a p#i(ate suit against t!e o ende# /' instituting a civil action prior to the filing of the criminal case . Petitione#s e3p#essl' made a #ese#(ation o t!ei# #ig!t to ile a sepa#ate ci(il action as a #esult o t!e c#ime committed /' +i/a'an. On account o t!is #ese#(ation, t!e municipal ci#cuit t#ial cou#t, in its decision con(icting +i/a'an, did not ma)e an' p#onouncement as to t!e latte#0s ci(il lia/ilit'. Besides, in cases o negligence, t!e o ended pa#t' !as t!e c!oice /et.een an action to en o#ce ci(il lia/ilit' a#ising #om c#ime unde# t!e Re(ised Penal Code and an action o# quasi delict unde# t!e Ci(il

Code. An act o# omission causing damage to anot!e# ma' gi(e #ise to t.o sepa#ate ci(il lia/ilities on t!e pa#t o t!e o ende#, i.e.,

1. ci(il lia/ilit' ex delicto, unde# A#ticle 100 o t!e Re(ised Penal


Code4 and a. -. independent ci(il lia/ilities, suc! as t!ose not a#ising #om an act o# omission complained o as a elon', e.g., culpa contractual o# o/ligations a#ising #om la. unde# A#ticle 31 o t!e Ci(il Code, intentional to#ts unde# A#ticles 3- and 3;, and culpa aquiliana unde# A#ticle -1<2 o t!e Ci(il Code4 o# .!e#e t!e in1u#ed pa#t' is g#anted a #ig!t to ile an action independent and distinct #om t!e c#iminal action unde# A#ticle 33 o t!e Ci(il Code.

/.

*it!e# o t!ese lia/ilities ma' /e en o#ced against t!e o ende# su/1ect to t!e ca(eat unde# $rticle %&00 of the Civil Code t!at t!e plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant and the similar proscription against double recovery unde# t!e Rules a/o(e-&uoted. 3ismissal of the action based on culpa a)uiliana is not a bar to the enforcement of the subsidiary liability of the employer" 1nce there is a conviction for a felony, final in character, the employer becomes subsidiarily liable if the commission of the crime was in the discharge of the duties of the employees" This is so because Article ," of the -evised .enal $ode operates with controlling force to obviate the possibility of the aggrieved party being deprived of indemnity even after the rendition of a final judgment convicting the employee.