David Taylor vs Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company well knew the explosive character of the cap
e character of the cap with which he was amusing himself. The
16 Phil. 18 – Civil Law – Torts and Damages – Element – Quasi Delicts
FACTS: David Taylor was a 15 year old boy who spent time as a cabin boy at sea; he
was also able to learn some principles of mechanical engineering and mechanical
drawing from his dad’s office (his dad was a mechanical engineer); he was also
employed as a mechanical draftsman earning P2.50 a day – all said, Taylor was
mature well beyond his age.
One day in 1905, he and another boy entered into the premises of Manila Electric
power plant where they found 20-30 blasting caps which they took home. In an effort
to explode the said caps, Taylor experimented until he succeeded in opening the caps
and then he lighted it using a match which resulted to the explosion of the caps
causing severe injuries to his companion and to Taylor losing one eye.
Taylor sued Manila Electric alleging that because the company left the caps exposed
to children, they are liable for damages due to the company’s negligence.
ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Electric is liable for damages.
HELD: No. The SC reiterated the elements of quasi delict as follows:
(1) Damages to the plaintiff.
(2) Negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally, or some person for
whose acts it must respond, was guilty.
(3) The connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the damage.
In the case at bar, it is true that Manila Electric has been negligent in disposing off
the caps which they used for the power plant, and that said caps caused damages to
Taylor. However, the causal connection between the company’s negligence and the
injuries sustained by Taylor is absent. It is in fact the direct acts of Taylor which led
to the explosion of the caps as he even, in various experiments and in multiple
attempts, tried to explode the caps. It is from said acts that led to the explosion and
hence the injuries.
Taylor at the time of the accident was well-grown youth of 15, more mature both
mentally and physically than the average boy of his age; he had been to sea as a cabin
boy; was able to earn P2.50 a day as a mechanical draftsman thirty days after the
injury was incurred; and the record discloses throughout that he was exceptionally
well qualified to take care. The evidence of record leaves no room for doubt that he
series of experiments made by him in his attempt to produce an explosion admit of
no other explanation. His attempt to discharge the cap by the use of electricity,
followed by his efforts to explode it with a stone or a hammer, and the final success
of his endeavors brought about by the applications of a match to the contents of the
cap, show clearly that he knew what he was about. Nor can there be any reasonable
doubt that he had reason to anticipate that the explosion might be dangerous.
“The just thing is that a man should suffer the damage which comes to him through
his own fault, and that he cannot demand reparation therefor from another.”
HEIRS OF PEDRO TAYAG, SR. vs. HONORABLE FERNANDO S. ALCANTARA,
PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. and ROMEO VILLA Y CUNANAN
[G.R. No. 50959. July 23, 1980.]
FACTS: In the afternoon of September 2, 1974, while Pedro Tayag Sr. was riding on a
bicycle along MacArthur Highway at Bo. San Rafael, Tarlac, Tarlac on his way home,
he was bumped and hit by a Philippine Rabbit Bus bearing Body No. 1107 and Plate
No. YL 604 PUB '74, driven by Romeo Villa, as a result of which he sustained injuries
which caused his instantaneous death. Thus, petitioner heirs (Crisanta Salazar, Pedro
Tayag, Jr., Renato Tayag, Gabriel Tayag, Corazon Tayag and Rodolfo Tayag) filed with
the CFI Tarlac a complaint for damages against the private respondents Philippine
Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. and Romeo Villa. On April 30, 1975, the private respondents
filed a motion to suspend the trial on the ground that the criminal case against the
driver of the bus Romeo Villa was still pending in said court, and that Section 3, Rule
III of the Revised Rules of Court enjoins the suspension of the civil action until the
criminal action is terminated. Such was granted. On October 25, 1977, the
respondent Judge in the criminal case acquitted Villa of the crime of homicide on the
ground of reasonable doubt. After that, private respondents once again filed an MD
on the civil action on the ground that the petitioners have no cause of action against
them, the driver of the bus having been acquitted in the criminal action. Petitioners
opposed and claimed however that their cause of action is not based on crime but
on quasi-delict. The MD was granted. Petitioners filed for MR but was denied. Hence,
present petition for certiorari, to annul and set aside the order of respondent Judge
dated April 13, 1977, claiming that the respondent Judge acted without or in excess
of his jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the disputed order,
and that there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law except thru the present petition.
ISSUE: WON respondent Judge acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction and/or
with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Civil Case No. 5114
the accused. Briefly stated, We here hold, in reiteration of Garcia that culpa aquiliana
includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law."]
Thus, the petitioners' cause of action being based on a quasi-delict, the acquittal of
the driver, private respondent Romeo Villa, of the crime charged in Criminal Case No.
836 is not a bar to the prosecution of Civil Case No. 5114 for damages based on quasi-
delict.

HELD: Yes because in the case at bar, the allegations of the complaint clearly show
that petitioners' cause of action was based upon a quasi delict. Aside from the facts
established, the complaint alleged that Villa drove in faster and greater speed than
what was reasonable and proper and in a grossly negligent, careless, reckless and
imprudent manner, without due regards to injuries to persons and damage to
properties and in violation of traffic rules and regulations and that defendant
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. has failed to exercise the diligence of a good father
of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees.

All the essential averments for a quasi delictual action are present, namely: (1) an
act or omission constituting fault or negligence on the part of private respondent;
(2) damage caused by the said act or omission; (3) direct causal relation between the
damage and the act or omission; and (4) no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties.

[To reiterate in the case of Elcano vs. Hill ". . ., a separate civil action lies against
the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found
guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he is actually
charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled
in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made
in the two cases vary. In other words, the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par.
(e), Section 3, Rule III, refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-
delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal
case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by