TORTS JURISPRUDENCE FOR BRY CUA

Bar Exam 2017

1. Air France vs. Carascoso An act which violates a contract may also be considered a tort.
The contract of air carriage generates a relation attended with a
public duty. Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees,
naturally, could give ground for an action for damages. The violation
of public duty by the air carrier constitutes a case of quasi-delict so
damages are proper.
2. Fernando vs. CA The concept of damnum absque injuria (damage without injury) was
evident.

The Court did not find meritorious the petitioner’s submission that
warning signs of noxious gas should have been put up in the toilet
in addition to the signs of “Men” and “Women” already in place in
the area. Toilets and septic tanks are not nuisances per se, which
would necessitate warning signs for the protection of the public. It
would then appear that an accident such as toxic gas leakage from
the septic tank is likely to happen unless one removes its covers. The
accident here happened because the victims on their own and
without authority from the public respondent opened the septic
tank.
3. Cangco vs. MRR The contract of defendant to transport plaintiff carried with it, by
implication, the duty to carry him in safety and to provide safe
means of entering and leaving its trains (civil code, article 1258). That
duty, being contractual, was direct and immediate, and its non-
performance could not be excused by proof that the fault was
morally imputable to defendant's servants.

It may be admitted that had plaintiff waited until the train had come
to a full stop before alighting, the particular injury suffered by him
could not have occurred, however, thousands of person alight from
trains under these conditions every day of the year, and sustain no
injury where the company has kept its platform free from dangerous
obstructions.
4. Ong vs. Metropolitan The action for damage will fail if the claimants are not able to prove
Water District negligence on the part of the defendant and if it appears that the victim’s
injury was brought about by his own actions.
The last clear chance doctrine can never apply where the party
charged is required to act instantaneously, and if the injury cannot
be avoided by the application of all means at hand after the peril is
or should have been discovered; at least in cases in which any
previous negligence of the party charged cannot be said to have
contributed to the injury.
In this case, the claimants were not able to prove negligence on the
part of the lifeguard. The Court also found that the fourteen-year
old boy might have dived into a pool that is only 5.5 feet deep and
hit his head
5. Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez The head of a house, the owner of an automobile, who maintains it
for the general use of his family, is liable for its negligent operation
by one of his children, whom he designates or permits to run it,
where the car is occupied and being used at the time of the injury
 for the pleasure of other members of the owner's family than the
child driving it.
6. Martin vs. Meralco The employment relationship must first be established before a
claim may be made against an employer for the act/negligence of
its alleged employee.

If the plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of
action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which
he bases his claim, the defendant is under no obligation to prove his
exception or defense.
7. Villanueva vs. CA This case is about the right to recover damages for alleged abuse of
right committed by a superior public officer in preventing a
subordinate from doing her assigned task and being officially
recognized for it.
8. Palisoc vs. Brillantes The rationale of such liability of school heads and teachers for the
tortious acts of their pupils and students, so long as they remain in
their custody, is that they stand, to a certain extent, as to their pupils
and students, in loco parentis and are called upon to "exercise
reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child.

The phrase used in the cited article — "so long as (the students)
remain in their custody" means the protective and supervisory
custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise over the
pupils and students for as long as they are at attendance in the
school, including recess time. There is nothing in the law that
requires that for such liability to attach the pupil or student who
commits the tortious act must live and board in the school.
9. St Francis vs. CA Before an employer may be held liable for the negligence of his
employee, the act or omission which caused damage or prejudice
must have occurred while an employee was in the performance of
his assigned tasks. In the case at bar, the teachers/petitioners were
not in the actual performance of their assigned tasks. The incident
happened not within the school premises, not on a school day and
most importantly while the teachers and students were holding a
purely private affair, a picnic. This picnic had no permit from the
school head or its principal, Benjamin Illumin because this picnic is
not a school sanctioned activity neither is it considered as an extra-
curricular activity. The mere knowledge by petitioner/principal
Illumin of the planning of the picnic by the students and their
teachers does not in any way or in any manner show acquiescence or
consent to the holding of the same.
10. PSBA vs. CA There is, as yet, no finding that the contract between the school and
Bautista had been breached thru the former’s negligence in
providing security measures. This would be for the trial court to
determine. And, even if there be a finding of negligence, the same
could give rise generally to a breach of contractual obligation only.
Using the test of Cangco, the negligence of the school would not be
relevant absent a contract. In other words, a contractual relation is a
condition sine qua non to the school’s liability.
11. Ruks Consult vs. Adworld Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omissions of
Sign two or more persons, although acting independently, are in
 combination the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a
third person, it is impossible to determine in what proportion each
contributed to the injury and either of them is responsible for the
whole injury

12. Napocor vs. CA The principal employer is responsible to the employees of the
"labor-only" contractor as if such employees had been directly
employed by the principal employer
13. Picart vs. Smith In view of the known nature of horses, there was an appreciable risk
that, if the animal in question was unacquainted with automobiles,
he might get excited and jump under the conditions which here
confronted him. When the defendant exposed the horse and rider to
this danger he was, in our opinion, negligent in the eye of the law. A
prudent man, placed in the position of the defendant, would in our
opinion, have recognized that the course which he was pursuing was
fraught with risk, and would therefore have foreseen harm to the
horse and the rider as reasonable consequence of that course.
14. Anuran vs. Buño The principle about the "last clear chance" would call for application
in a suit between the owners and drivers of the two colliding vehicles. It
does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the
carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. For it would be
inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its
owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of
negligence.
15. Philippine Rabbit Bus The issue before the Court was whether the terms “employers” and
Lines vs. American “owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise” used in
Founders, Inc. Article 2180 embrace the manager of a corporation owning a truck,
the reckless operation of which allegedly resulted in the vehicular
accident from which the damage arose. The Court held that these
terms do not include the manager of a corporation, since it may be
gathered from the context of Article 2180 that the term “manager” is
used in the sense of “employer”. Hence, no tortious or quasi-
delictual liability can be fastened on Balingit as manager of Phil-
American Forwarders, Inc., in connection with the vehicular accident
because he himself may be regarded as an employee of Phil-
American Forwarders, Inc.