TORTS & DAMAGES

Collapse of Structures; Last Clear Chance (1990)

Mr and Mrs R own a burned-out building, the firewall of
which collapsed and destroyed the shop occupied by the
family of Mr and Mrs S, which resulted in injuries to said
couple and the death of their daughter. Mr and Mrs S had
been warned by Mr & Mrs R to vacate the shop in view of its
proximity to the weakened wall but the former failed to do
so. Mr & Mrs S filed against Mr and Mrs R an action for
recovery of damages the former suffered as a result of the
collapse of the firewall. In defense, Mr and Mrs R rely on the
doctrine of last clear chance alleging that Mr and Mrs S had
the last clear chance to avoid the accident if only they heeded
the former’s warning to vacate the shop, and therefore Mr
and Mrs R’s prior negligence should be disregarded. If you
were the judge, how would you decide the case? State your
reasons.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would decide in favor of Mr & Mrs S. The proprietor of a
building or structure is responsible for the damages resulting
from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack
of necessary repairs (Art 2190 Civil Code)

As regards the defense of “last clear chance,” the same is not

tenable because according to the SC in one case (De Roy v CA
L-80718, Jan 29, 1988, 157 S 757) the doctrine of last clear
chance is not applicable to instances covered by Art 2190 of
the Civil Code.
Further, in Phoenix Construction, Inc. v. Intermediate Availing of that portion of Section 12 of Article II of the
Appellate Court (G.R. L-65295, March 10, 1987. 148 SCRA 353) 1987 Constitution which reads;
the Supreme Court held that the role of the common law "last The State x xx shall equally protect the life of the mother
clear chance" doctrine in relation to Article 2179 of the Civil and the life of the unborn from conception, "xxx" which
Code is merely to mitigate damages within the context of he claims confers a civil personality on the unborn from
contributory negligence. the moment of conception.

Damages (1994) Boy filed a case for damages against the abortionist, praying
On January 5, 1992, Nonoy obtained a loan of Pl,000,000.00 therein that the latter be ordered to pay him: (a) P30,000.00 as
from his friend Raffy. The promissory note did not stipulate indemnity for the death of the fetus, (b) P100.000.00 as moral
any payment for Interest. The note was due on January 5, damages for the mental anguish and anxiety he suffered, (c)
1993 but before this date the two became political enemies. P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, (d) P20,000.00 as nominal
Nonoy, out of spite, deliberately defaulted in paying the note, damages, and (e) P25,000.00 as attorney's fees. May actual
thus forcing Raffy to sue him. 1) What actual damages can damages be also recovered? If so, what facts should be alleged
Raffy recover? 2) Can Raffy ask for moral damages from and proved?
Nonoy? 3) Can Raffy ask for nominal damages? 4) Can Raffy
ask for temperate damages? 5) Can Raffy ask for attorney's SUGGESTED ANSWER:
fees? Yes, provided that the pecuniary loss suffered should be
substantiated and duly proved.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Raffy may recover the amount of the promissory note of Damages arising from Death of Unborn Child (2003)
P1 million, together with interest at the legal rate from the If a pregnant woman passenger of a bus were to suffer an
date of judicial or extrajudicial demand. In addition, abortion following a vehicular accident due to the gross
however, inasmuch as the debtor is in bad faith, he is liable negligence of the bus driver, may she and her husband claim
for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the damages from the bus company for the death of their unborn
non-performance of the obligation. (Art. 2201(2). NCC). child? Explain. 5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2) Yes, under Article 2220, NCC moral damages are No, the spouses cannot recover actual damages in the form
recoverable in case of breach of contract where the defendant of indemnity for the loss of life of the unborn child. This is
acted fraudulently or in bad faith. because the unborn child is not yet considered a person and
the law allows indemnity only for loss of life of person. The
3) Nominal damages may not be recoverable in this case mother, however may recover damages for the bodily injury
because Raffy may already be indemnified of his losses with she suffered from the loss of the fetus which is considered
the award of actual and compensatory damages. NOMINAL part of her internal organ. The parents may also recover
DAMAGES are adjudicated only in order that a right of the damages for injuries that are inflicted directly upon them, e.g.,
plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant moral damages for mental anguish that attended the loss of
may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of the unborn child. Since there is gross negligence, exemplary
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. (Article damages can also be recovered. (Gelus v. CA, 2 SCRA 801
2231. Civil Code) [1961])

4) Raffy may ask for, but would most likely not be awarded Death Indemnity (1994)
temperate damages, for the reason that his actual damages Johnny Maton's conviction for homicide was affirmed by the
may already be compensated upon proof thereof with the Court of Appeals and in addition, although the prosecution
promissory note. TEMPERATE DAMAGES may be had not appealed at all. The appellate court increased the
awarded only when the court finds that some pecuniary loss indemnity for death from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00. On his
has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of appeal to the Supreme Court, among the other things Johnny
the case, be proved with certainty. (Article 2224, Civil Code) Maton brought to the high court's attention, was the increase
of indemnity imposed by the Court of Appeals despite the
clear fact that the People had not appealed from the appellate
5) Yes, under paragraph 2, Article 2208 of the Civil Code, court's judgment. Is Johnny Maton correct?
considering that Nonoy's act or omission has compelled Raffy
to litigate to protect his interests. Furthermore. attorneys' fees SUGGESTED ANSWER:
may be awarded by the court when it is just and equitable. a) In Abejam v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court said
(Article 2208(110) Civil Code). that even if the issue of damages were not raised by the
appellant in the Court of Appeals but the Court of Appeals
Damages arising from Death of Unborn Child (1991) in its findings increased the damages, the Supreme Court will
On her third month of pregnancy, Rosemarie, married to not disturb the findings of the Court of Appeals.
Boy, for reasons known only to her, and without informing
Boy, went to the clinic of X, a known abortionist, who for a b) No, the contention of the accused is not correct because
fee, removed and expelled the fetus from her womb, Boy upon appeal to the Appellate Court, the court acquired
learned of the abortion six (6) months later. jurisdiction over the entire case, criminal as well as civil. Since
the conviction of homicide had been appealed, there
is no finality in the amount of indemnity because the civil A van owned by Orlando and driven by Diego, while
liability arising from the crime and the judgment on the crime negotiating a downhill slope of a city road, suddenly gained
has not yet become final speed, obviously beyond the authorized limit in the area, and
bumped a car in front of it, causing severed damage to the
c) Yes. Since the civil indemnity is an award in the civil action care and serious injuries to its passengers. Orlando was not in
arising from the criminal offense, the rule that a party cannot the car at the time of the incident. The car owner and the
be granted affirmative relief unless he himself has appealed injured passengers sued Orlando and Diego for damages
should apply. Therefore, it was error for the Court of Appeals caused by Diego’s negligence. In their defense, Diego claims
to have expanded the indemnity since the judgment on the that the downhill slope caused the van to gain speed and that,
civil liability had become final. as he stepped on the brakes to check the acceleration, the
brakes locked, causing the van to go even faster and
d) No. Courts can review matters not assigned as errors. eventually to hit the car in front of it. Orlando and Diego
(Hydro Resource vs. CA . 204 SCRA 309). contend that the sudden malfunction of the van’s brake
system is a fortuitous even and that, therefore, they are
Defense; Due Diligence in Selection (2003) exempt from any liability. Is this contention tenable? Explain.
As a result of a collision between the taxicab owned by A (2%)
and another taxicab owned by B, X, a passenger of the first SUGGESTED ANSWER:
taxicab, was seriously injured. X later filed a criminal action No. Mechanical defects of a motor vehicle do not constitute
against both drivers. fortuitous event, since the presence of such defects would
have been readily detected by diligent maintenance check.
May both taxicab owners raise the defense of due diligence in The failure to maintain the vehicle in safe running condition
the selection and supervision of their drivers to be absolved constitutes negligence.
from liability for damages to X? Reason. 5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Liability; Airline Company; Non-Performance of an Obligation
It depends. If the civil action is based on a quasi-delict the (2004)
taxicab owners may raise the defense of diligence of a good DT and MT were prominent members of the frequent
father of a family in the selection and supervision of the travelers’ club of FX Airlines. In Hongkong, the couple were
driver; if the action against them is based on culpa contractual assigned seats in Business Class for which they had bought
or civil liability arising from a crime, they cannot raise the tickets. On checking in, however, they were told they were
defense. upgraded by computer to First Class for the flight to Manila
because the Business Section was overbooked.
Filing of Separate Civil Action; Need for Reservation (2003)
As a result of a collision between the taxicab owned by A Both refused to transfer despite better seats, food, beverage
and another taxicab owned by B, X, a passenger of the first and other services in First Class. They said they had guests in
taxicab, was seriously injured. X later filed a criminal action Business Class they should attend to. They felt humiliated,
against both drivers. embarrassed and vexed, however, when the stewardess
allegedly threatened to offload them if they did not avail of
Is it necessary for X to reserve his right to institute a civil the upgrade. Thus they gave in, but during the transfer of
action for damages against both taxicab owners before he luggage DT suffered pain in his arm and wrist. After arrival in
can file a civil action for damages against them? Why Manila, they demanded an apology from FX’s management as
SUGGESTED ANSWER: well as indemnity payment. When none was forthcoming,
It depends. If the separate civil action is to recover damages they sued the airline for a million pesos in damages. Is the
arising from the criminal act, reservation is necessary. If the airline liable for actual and moral damages? Why or why not?
civil action against the taxicab owners is based on culpa Explain briefly. (5%)
contractual, or on quasi-delict, there is no need for
reservation. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: FX Airlines committed breach of contract when it upgraded
No, such reservation is not necessary. Under Section 1 of DT and MT, over their objections, to First Class because they
Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, what is had contracted for Business Class passage. However,
“deemed instituted” with the criminal action is only the action although there is a breach of contract, DT and MT are
to recover civil liability arising from the crime or ex delicto. entitled to actual damages only for such pecuniary losses
All the other civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 suffered by them as a result of such breach. There seems to
of the New Civil Code are no longer “deemed instituted”, and be no showing that they incurred such pecuniary loss. There
may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even is no showing that the pain in DT's arm and wrist resulted
without any reservation in the criminal action (Section 3, Rule directly from the carrier's acts complained of. Hence, they
111, Ibid). The failure to make a reservation in the criminal are not entitled to actual damages. Moreover, DT could have
action is not a waiver of the right to file a separate and avoided the alleged injury by requesting the airline staff to do
independent civil action based on these articles of the New the luggage transfer as a matter of duty on their part. There is
Civil Code (Casupanan v. Laroya GR No. 145391, August 26, also no basis to award moral damages for such breach of
2002). contract because the facts of the problem do not show bad
faith or fraud on the part of the airline. (Cathay Pacific v.
Fortuitous Event; Mechanical Defects (2002)
Vazquez, 399 SCRA 207 [2003]). However, they
may recover moral damages if the cause of action is based The action may or may not prosper. Moral damages include
on Article 21 of the Civil Code for the humiliation and physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
embarrassment they felt when the stewardess threatened to besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
offload them if they did not avail of the upgrade. humiliation, and similar injury. Although incapable of
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if
If it can be proved that DT's pain in his arm and wrist they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act
occasioned by the transfer of luggage was caused by fault or or omission. Moral damages predicated upon a breach of
negligence on the part of the airline's stewardess, actual contract of carriage are recoverable only in instances where
damages may be recovered. the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith or where the mishap
resulted in the death of a passenger. (Cathay Pacific Airways,
The airline may be liable for moral damages pursuant to Art. Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 60501, March 5, 1993) Where
2219 (10) if the cause of action is based on Article 21 or an there is no showing that the airline acted fraudulently or in
act contrary to morals in view of the humiliation suffered by bad faith, liability for damages is limited to the natural and
DT and MT when they were separated from their guests and probable consequences of the breach of the contract of
were threatened to be offloaded. carriage which the parties had foreseen or could have
reasonably foreseen. In such a case the liability does not
Liability; Airline Company; Non-Performance of an Obligation include moral and exemplary damages.
(2005)
Dr. and Mrs. Almeda are prominent citizens of the country In the instant case, if the involuntary upgrading of the
and are frequent travelers abroad. In 1996, they booked Almedas' seat accommodation was not attended by fraud or
round-trip business class tickets for the Manila-Hong Kong- bad faith, the award of moral damages has no leg to stand on.
Manila route of the Pinoy Airlines, where they are holders of
Gold Mabalos Class Frequent Flier cards. On their return
flight, Pinoy Airlines upgraded their tickets to first class Thus, spouses would not also be entitled to exemplary
without their consent and, inspite of their protestations to be damages. It is a requisite in the grant of exemplary damages
allowed to remain in the business class so that they could be that the act of the offender must be accompanied by bad
with their friends, they were told that the business class was faith or done in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent manner.
already fully booked, and that they were given priority in (Morris v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127957, February 21, 2001)
upgrading because they are elite members/holders of Gold Moreover, to be entitled thereto, the claimant must first
Mabalos Class cards. Since they were embarrassed at the establish his right to moral, temperate, or compensatory
discussions with the flight attendants, they were forced to take damages. (Art. 2234, Civil Code) Since the Almedas are not
the flight at the first class section apart from their friends who entitled to any of these damages, the award for exemplary
were in the business class. Upon their return to Manila, they damages has no legal basis. Where the awards for moral and
demanded a written apology from Pinoy Airlines. When it exemplary damages are eliminated, so must the award for
went unheeded, the couple sued Pinoy Airlines for breach of attorney's fees be eliminated. (Orosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
contract claiming moral and exemplary damages, as well as No. 111080, April 5, 2000; Morris v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
attorney's fees. Will the action prosper? Give reasons. (5%) 127957, February 21, 2001) The most that can be adjudged in
their favor for Pinoy Airlines' breach of contract is an award
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
for nominal damages under Article 2221 of the Civil Code.
Yes, the action will prosper. Article 2201 of the Civil Code
(Cathay Pacific Airways v. Sps. Daniel & Maria Luisa Vasquez,
entitles the person to recover damages which may be
G.R. No. 150843, March 14, 2003)
attributed to non-performance of an obligation. In Alitalia
Airways v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 77011, July 24, 1990) ,
when an airline issues ticket to a passenger confirmed on a However, if spouses Almeda could prove that there was bad
particular flight, a contract of carriage arises and the passenger faith on the part of Pinoy Airlines when it breached the
expects that he would fly on that day. When the airline contract of carriage, it could be liable for moral, exemplary as
deliberately overbooked, it took the risk of having to deprive well as attorney's fees.
some passengers of their seat in case all of them would show
up. For the indignity and inconvenience of being refused the Liability; Employer; Damage caused by Employees (1997)
confirmed seat, said passenger is entitled to moral damages. a) When would an employer's liability for damage, caused
by an employee in the performance of his assigned
tasks, be primary and when would it be subsidiary in
In the given problem, spouses Almeda had a booked nature? b) Would the defense of due diligence in the
roundtrip business class ticket with Pinoy Airlines. When selection and
their tickets were upgraded to first class without their supervision of the employee be available to the
consent, Pinoy Airlines breached the contract. As ruled in employer in both instances?
Zulueta v. Pan American (G.R. No. L-28589, January 8, 1973), SUGGESTED ANSWER::
in case of overbooking, airline is in bad faith. Therefore, (a) The employer's liability for damage based on culpa
spouses Almeda are entitled to damages. aquiliana under Art, 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code is
primary; while that under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: is subsidiary.
(b) The defense of diligence in the selection and the vehicle at the time of the accident, be held solidarily
supervision of the employee under Article 2180 of the Civil liable with his driver, John? (5%)
Code is available only to those primarily liable thereunder, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
but not to those subsidiarily liable under Article 103 of the Yes. Art may be held solidary liable with John, if it was proven
Revised Penal Code (Yumul vs. Juliano, 72 Phil. 94). that the former could have prevented the misfortune with the
use of due diligence. Article 2184 of the Civil Code states: "In
Liability; owner who was in the vehicle (1996) motor mishaps, the owner is solidary liable with his driver, if
Marcial, who does not know how to drive, has always been the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of
driven by Ben, his driver of ten years whom he had chosen due diligence, prevented the misfortune, x x x"
carefully and has never figured in a vehicular mishap. One
day, Marcial was riding at the back seat of his Mercedes Benz ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
being driven along EDSA by Ben. Absorbed in reading a 1. It depends. The Supreme Court in Chapman vs, Underwood
book, Marcial did not notice that they were approaching the (27 Phil 374), held: "An owner who sits in his automobile, or
corner of Quezon Avenue, when the traffic light had just other vehicle, and permits his driver to continue in a violation
turned yellow. Ben suddenly stepped on the gas to cross the of law by the performance of negligent acts, after he has had a
intersection before the traffic light could turn red. But, too reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct that the
late. Midway in the intersection, the traffic light changed, and driver cease therefrom, becomes himself responsible for such
a Jeepney full of passengers suddenly crossed the car's path. A acts, x x x On the other hand, if the driver, by a sudden act of
collision between the two vehicles was inevitable. As a result, negligence, and without the owner having a reasonable
several jeepney passengers were seriously injured. A suit for opportunity to prevent the act or its continuance, injures a
damages based on culpa aquiliana was filed against Marcial person or violates the criminal law, the owner of the
and Ben, seeking to hold them jointly and severally liable for automobile, although present therein at the time the act was
such injuries. May Marcial be held liable? Explain. committed is not responsible, either civilly or criminally,
therefor. The act complained of must be continued in the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: presence of the owner for such a length of time that the
Marcial may not be liable because under Art. 2184, NCC, the owner, by his acquiescence, makes his driver's act his own."
owner who is in the vehicle is not liable with the driver if by
the exercise of due diligence he could have prevented the
injury. The law does not require the owner to supervise the Liability; owner who was in the vehicle (2002)
driver every minute that he was driving. Only when through Does the presence of the owner inside the vehicle causing
his negligence, the owner has lost an opportunity to prevent damage to a third party affect his liability for his driver’s
the accident would he be liable (Caedo v. Ytt Khe Thai, 26 negligence? Explain (2%)
SCRA 410 citing Chapman v. Underwood and Manlangit v. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Mauler, 250 SCRA 560). In this case, the fact that the owner
In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is made solidarily liable
was absorbed in reading a book does not conclusively show with his driver if he (the owner) was in the vehicle and could
that he lost the opportunity to prevent the accident through have, by the use of due diligence, prevented the mishap.
his negligence. (Caedo v. Yu Khe Thai, 26 SCRA 410 [1968]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Marcial should be held liable. Art. 2164. NCC makes an Moral Damages & Atty Fees (2002)
owner of a motor vehicle solidarily liable with the driver if, Ortillo contracts Fabricato, Inc. to supply and install tile
being in the vehicle at the time of the mishap, he could have materials in a building he is donating to his province. Ortillo
prevented it by the exercise of due diligence. The traffic pays 50% of the contract price as per agreement. It is also
conditions along EDSA at any time of day or night are such agreed that the balance would be payable periodically after
as to require the observance of utmost care and total alertness every 10% performance until completed. After performing
in view of the large number of vehicles running at great about 93% of the contract, for which it has been paid an
speed. Marcial was negligent in that he rendered himself additional 40% as per agreement, Fabricato, Inc. did not
oblivious to the traffic hazards by reading a book instead of complete the project due to its sudden cessation of
focusing his attention on the road and supervising the operations. Instead, Fabricato, Inc. demands payment of the
manner in which his car was being driven. Thus he failed to last 10% of the contract despite its non-completion of the
prevent his driver from attempting to beat the traffic light at project. Ortillo refuses to pay, invoking the stipulation that
the junction of Quezon Avenue and EDSA, which Marcial, payment of the last amount 10% shall be upon completion.
without being a driver himself could have easily perceived as Fabricato, Inc. brings suit for the entire 10%. Plus damages,
a reckless course of conduct. Ortillo counters with claims for (a) moral damages for
Fabricato, Inc.’s unfounded suit which has damaged his
Liability; owner who was in the vehicle (1998) reputation as a philanthropist and respect businessman in his
A Gallant driven by John and owned by Art, and a Corolla driven community, and (b) attorney’s fees.
by its owner, Gina, collided somewhere along Adriatico Street. As A. Does Ortillo have a legal basis for his claim for moral
a result of the accident, Gina had a concussion. Subsequently. damages? (2%)
Gina brought an action for damages against John and Art. There B. How about his claim for attorney’s fees, having hired a
is no doubt that the collision is due to John's negligence. Can Art, lawyer to defend him? (3%)
who was in SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. There is no legal basis to Ortillo’s claim for moral a) When a 7-year old boy injures his playmate while
damages. It does not fall under the coverage of Article 2219 playing with his father's rifle. Explain. (2%)
of the New Civil Code. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The parents of the 7-year old boy who caused injury to his
B. Ortillo is entitled to attorney’s fees because Fabricato’s playmate are liable under Article 219 of the Family Code, in
complaint is a case of malicious prosecution or a clearly relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code since they exercise
unfounded civil action. (Art. 2208 [4] and [11], NCC). parental authority over the person of the boy. (Tamargo v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992; Elcano v. Hill,
Moral Damages; Non-Recovery Thereof (2006) G.R. No. L-24803, May 26, 1977)
Under Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be
recovered in the cases specified therein several of which are b) When a domestic helper, while haggling for a lower
enumerated below. Choose the case wherein you cannot price with a fish vendor in the course of buying foodstuffs
recover moral damages. Explain. (2.5%) a) A criminal offense for her employer's family, slaps the fish vendor, causing
resulting in physical injuries b) Quasi-delicts causing physical her to fall and sustain injuries. Explain. (2%)
injuries c) Immorality or dishonesty d) Illegal search e)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Malicious prosecution SUGGESTED ANSWER: Immorality and Employer of the domestic helper who slapped a fish vendor.
dishonesty, per se, are not among those cases enumerated in Under Article 2180, par. 5 of the Civil Code, "employers shall
Article 2219 which can be the basis of an action for moral be liable for the damages caused by their employees and
damages. The law specifically mentions adultery or household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned
concubinage, etc. but not any and every immoral act. tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business
or industry."

c) A carpenter in a construction company accidentally

hits the right foot of his co-worker with a hammer.
Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Quasi-Delict (1992) The owner of the construction company. Article 2180,
As the result of a collision between a public service passenger paragraph 4 states that "the owners and managers of an
bus and a cargo truck owned by D, X sustained physical establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for
injuries and Y died. Both X and Y were passengers of the bus. damages caused by their employees in the service of the
Both drivers were at fault, and so X and Z, the only heir and branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion
legitimate child of the deceased Y, sued the owners of both of their functions."
vehicles. a) May the owner of the bus raise the defense of
having exercised the diligence of a good father of a family? b) d) A 15-year old high school student stabs his classmate
May D raise the same defense? c) May X claim moral who is his rival for a girl while they were going out of the
damages from both defendants? d) May Z claim moral classroom after their last class. Explain. (2%)
damages from both defendants? Give reasons for all your
answers, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The school, teacher and administrator as they exercise special
SUGGESTED ANSWER: parental authority. (Art. 2180, par. 7 in relation to Art. 218
(a) No. The owner of the bus cannot raise the defense and Art. 219 of the Family Code)
because the carrier's liability is based on breach of contract
e) What defense, if any, is available to them? (2%)
(b) Yes. D can raise the defense because his liability is based SUGGESTED ANSWER:
on a quasi-delict. The defense that might be available to them is the observance
of a good father of the family to prevent the damage. (Last
(c) Because X suffered physical injuries, X can claim moral par., Art. 2180, Civil Code)
damages against D, but as against the owner of the bus. X can
claim moral damages only if X proves reckless negligence of Quasi-Delict; Acts contrary to morals (1996)
the carrier amounting to fraud. Rosa was leasing an apartment in the city. Because of the Rent
Control Law, her landlord could not increase the rental as
(d) Z can claim moral damages against both defendants much as he wanted to, nor terminate her lease as long as she
because the rules on damages arising from death due to a was paying her rent. In order to force her to leave the
quasi-delict are also applicable to death of a passenger caused premises, the landlord stopped making repairs on the
by breach of contract by a common carrier (Arts. 1755. 1756, apartment, and caused the water and electricity services to be
1764, 2206 and 2219. Civil Code). disconnected. The difficulty of living without electricity and
running water resulted in Rosa's suffering a nervous
Quasi-Delict (2005) breakdown. She sued the landlord for actual and moral
Under the law on quasi-delict, aside from the persons who damages. Will the action prosper? Explain.
caused injury to persons, who else are liable under the
following circumstances: SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, based on quasi-delict under the human relations for quasi-delict may nonetheless prosper. The Supreme
provisions of the New Civil Code (Articles 19, 20 and 21) Court has consistently ruled that the act that breaks the
because the act committed by the lessor is contrary to morals. contract may also be a tort. There is a fiduciary relationship
Moral damages are recoverable under Article 2219 between the bank and the depositor, imposing utmost
(10) in relation to Article 21. Although the action is based on diligence in managing the accounts of the depositor. The
quasi-delict and not on contract, actual damages may be dishonor of the check adversely affected the credit standing
recovered if the lessee is able to prove the losses and of Tony, hence, he is entitled to damages (Singson v. BPI,
expenses she suffered. G.R. No. L-24932, June 27, 1968; American Express
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS: International, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 72383, November 9, 1988;
a) Yes, based on breach of contract. The lessor has the Consolidated Bank and Trust v. CA, G.R. No. L-70766
obligation to undertake repairs to make the apartment November 9,1998).
habitable and to maintain the lessee in the peaceful and
adequate enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration of the Vicarious Liability (1991)
contract (Article 1654. NCC). Since there was willful breach Romano was bumped by a minivan owned by the Solomon
of contract by the lessor, the lessee is entitled to moral School of Practical Arts (SSPA). The minivan was driven by
damages under Article 3220, NCC. She is also entitled to Peter, a student assistant whose assignment was to clean the
actual damages, e. g. loss of income, medical expenses, etc., school passageways daily one hour before and one hour after
which she can prove at the trial. regular classes, in exchange for free tuition. Peter was able to
drive the school vehicle after persuading the regular driver,
b) Yes, based on contract and/or on tort. The lessor willfully Paul, to turn over the wheel to him (Peter). Romano suffered
breached his obligations under Article 1654. NCC, hence, he serious physical injuries. The accident happened at night when
is liable for breach of contract. For such breach, the lessee only one headlight of the vehicle was functioning and Peter
may recover moral damages under Art. 2220 of the NCC, and only had a student driver's permit. As a consequence, Peter
actual damages that she may have suffered on account was convicted in the criminal case. Thereafter, Romano sued
thereof. And since the conduct of the lessor was contrary to for damages against Peter and SSPA. a) Will the action for
morals, he may also be held liable for quasi-delict. The lessee damages against Peter and SSPA
may recover moral damages under Article 2219 (10) in
relation to Article 21, and all actual damages which she may prosper? b) Will your answer be the same if, Paul, the regular
have suffered by reason of such conduct under Articles 9, 20
and 21. driver, was impleaded as party defendant for allowing
Peter to drive the minivan without a regular driver's
c) Yes, the action should prosper for both actual and moral license. c) Is the exercise of due diligence in the selection and
damages. In fact, even exemplary damages and attorney's fees
can be claimed by Rosa, on the authority of Magbanua vs. supervision of Peter and Paul a material issue to be
IAC (137 SCRA 328), considering that, as given, the lessor's resolved in this case?
willful and illegal act of disconnecting the water and electric SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Yes. It will prosper (Art, 2180) because at the time he
services resulted in Rosa's suffering a nervous breakdown.
drove the vehicle, he was not performing his assigned tasks as
Art. 20 NCC and Art, 21, NCC authorize the award of
provided for by Art. 2180. With respect to SSPA, it is not
damages for such willful and illegal conduct.
liable for the acts of Peter because the latter was not an
Quasi-Delict; Mismanagement of Depositor’s Account (2006) employee as held by Supreme Court in Filamer Christian
Institute vs. CA. (190 SCRA 485). Peter belongs to a special
Tony bought a Ford Expedition from a car dealer in category of students who render service to the school in
Muntinlupa City. As payment, Tony issued a check drawn exchange for free tuition fees.
against his current account with Premium Bank. Since he has
B. I would maintain the same answer because the incident did
a good reputation, the car dealer allowed him to immediately
not occur while the employee was in the performance of his
drive home the vehicle merely on his assurance that his check
duty as such employee. The incident occurred at night time,
is sufficiently funded. When the car dealer deposited the
and in any case, there was no indication in the problem that
check, it was dishonored on the ground of "Account Closed."
he was performing his duties as a driver.
After an investigation, it was found that an employee of the
bank misplaced Tony's account ledger. Thus, the bank
C. In the case of Peter, if he were to be considered as
erroneously assumed that his account no longer exists. Later it
employee, the exercise of due diligence in the selection and
turned out that Tony's account has more than sufficient funds
supervision of peter would not be a material issue since the
to cover the check. The dealer however, immediately filed an
conviction of Peter would result in a subsidiary liability where
action for recovery of possession of the vehicle against Tony the defense would not be available by the employer.
for which he was terribly humiliated and embarrassed. Does
Tony have a cause of action against Premium Bank? Explain. In the case of Paul, since the basis of subsidiary liability is the
(5%) pater familias rule under Art. 2180, the defense of selection
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Tony may file an action against Premium Bank for damages and supervision of the employee would be a valid defense.
under Art. 2176. Even if there exists a contractual relationship
between Tony and Premium Bank, an action ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
C. In the case of Peter, if he were to be considered an The doctrine of VICARIOUS LIABILITY is that which
employee, the exercise of due diligence in the selection and renders a person liable for the negligence of others for whose
supervision of Peter would not be a material issue since the acts or omission the law makes him responsible on the theory
conviction of Peter would result in a subsidiary liability where that they are under his control and supervision.
the defense would not be available by the employer.
Vicarious Liability (2004)
In the case of Paul, since he was in the performance of his OJ was employed as professional driver of MM Transit bus
work at the time the incident occurred, the school may be owned by Mr. BT. In the course of his work, OJ hit a
held subsidiarily liable not because of the conviction of Peter, pedestrian who was seriously injured and later died in the
but because of the negligence of Paul under Art. 2180. hospital as a result of the accident. The victim’s heirs sued
the driver and the owner of the bus for damages. Is there a
presumption in this case that Mr. BT, the owner, had been
Vicarious Liability (2001) negligent? If so, is the presumption absolute or not?
After working overtime up to midnight, Alberto, an executive Explain. (5%)
of an insurance company drove a company vehicle to a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
favorite Videoke bar where he had some drinks and sang Yes, there is a presumption of negligence on the part of the
some songs with friends to "unwind". At 2:00 a.m., he drove employer. However, such presumption is rebuttable. The
home, but in doing so, he bumped a tricycle, resulting in the liability of the employer shall cease when they prove that they
death of its driver. May the insurance company be held liable observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
for the negligent act of Alberto? Why? damage (Article 2180, Civil Code).

SUGGESTED ANSWER: When the employee causes damage due to his own negligence
The insurance company is not liable because when the while performing his own duties, there arises the juris tantum
accident occurred, Alberto was not acting within the assigned presumption that the employer is negligent, rebuttable only by
tasks of his employment. proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a
family (Metro Manila Transit v. CA, 223 SCRA 521 [1993];
It is true that under Art. 2180 (par. 5), employers are liable for Delsan Transport Lines v, C&tA Construction, 412 SCRA 524
damages caused by their employees who were acting within 2003).
the scope of their assigned tasks. However, the mere fact that
Alberto was using a service vehicle of the employer at the time Likewise, if the driver is charged and convicted in a criminal
of the injurious accident does not necessarily mean that he was case for criminal negligence, BT is subsidiarily liable for the
operating the vehicle within the scope of his employment. In damages arising from the criminal act.
Castilex Industrial Corp. v. Vasquez Jr (321 SCRA393 [1999]).
the Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the fact that the Vicarious Liability (2006)
employee did some overtime work for the company, the Arturo sold his Pajero to Benjamin for P1 Million. Benjamin
former was, nevertheless, engaged in his own affairs or took the vehicle but did not register the sale with the Land
carrying out a personal purpose when he went to a restaurant Transportation Office. He allowed his son Carlos, a minor who
at 2:00 a.m. after coming out from work. The time of the did not have a driver's license, to drive the car to buy pan de sal
accident (also in a bakery. On the way, Carlos driving in a reckless manner,
2:00 a. m.) was outside normal working hours. sideswiped Dennis, then riding a bicycle. As a result, he suffered
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: serious physical injuries. Dennis filed a criminal complaint against
The insurance company is liable if Alberto was negligent in Carlos for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical
the operation of the car and the car was assigned to him for injuries.
the benefit of the insurance company, and even though he 1. Can Dennis file an independent civil action against Carlos
was not within the scope of his assigned tasks when the and his father Benjamin for damages based on quasi-delict?
accident happened. In one case decided by the Supreme Explain. (2,5%)
Court, where an executive of a pharmaceutical company was SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Dennis can file an independent
given the use of a company car, and after office hours, the civil action against Carlos and his father for damages based on
executive made personal use of the car and met an accident, quasi-delict there being an act or omission causing damage to
the employer was also made liable under Art. 2180 of the another without contractual obligation. Under Section 1 of
Civil Code for the injury caused by the negligent operation of Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, what is
the car by the executive, on the ground that the car which deemed instituted with the criminal action is only the action to
caused the injury was assigned to the executive by the recover civil liability arising from the act or omission punished
employer for the prestige of the company. The insurance by law. An action based on quasi-delict is no longer deemed
company was held liable even though the employee was not instituted and may be filed separately [Section 3, Rule 111,
performing within the scope of his assigned tasks when the Rules of Criminal Procedure].
accident happened [Valenzuela v. CA, 253 SCRA 3O3 (1996)].

Vicarious Liability (2002) 2. Assuming Dennis' action is tenable, can Benjamin raise the
Explain the concept of vicarious liability in quasi-delicts. defense that he is not liable because the vehicle is not
registered in his name? Explain. (2.5%)
(1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Benjamin cannot raise the
defense that the vehicle is not registered in his name. His liability,
vicarious in character, is based on Article 2180 because he is the
father of a minor who caused damage due to negligence. While
the suit will prosper against the registered owner, it is the actual
owner of the private vehicle who is ultimately liable (See Duavit v.
CA, G.R. No. L-29759, May 18, 1989). The purpose of car
registration is to reduce difficulty in identifying the party liable in
case of accidents
(Villanueva v. Domingo, G.R. No. 144274, September 14, 2004).

Vicarious Liability; Public Utility (2000)

Silvestre leased a car from Avis-Rent-A-Car Co. at the
Mactan International Airport. No sooner had he driven the
car outside the airport when, due to his negligence, he
bumped an FX taxi owned and driven by Victor, causing
damage to the latter in the amount of P100,000.00. Victor
filed an action for damages against both Silvestre and Avis,
based on quasi-delict. Avis filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint against it on the ground of failure to state a cause
of action. Resolve the motion. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion to dismiss should be granted, AVIS is not the
employer of Silvestre; hence, there is no right of action
against AVIS under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Not being
the employer, AVIS has no duty to supervise Silvestre.
Neither has AVIS the duty to observe due diligence in the
selection of its customers. Besides, it was given in the
problem that the cause of the accident was the negligence of
Silvestre.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The motion should be denied. Under the Public Service Law,
the registered owner of a public utility is liable for the
damages suffered by third persons through the use of such
public utility. Hence, the cause of action is based in law, the
Public Service Law.