Definition of Tort under Philippine Law equivalent to 1 month pay or at least ½ month pay

Naguiat v. NLRC for every year of service, whichever is higher.

Naguiat v NLRC | G.R. No. 116123. March 23, 1997 | 2. W/N NOWM has the personality to represent
Panganiban, J. | Definition of Tort under Philippine Law| by individual respondents-employees - YES
Jecs ● Petitioners are held in estoppel for not raising this
issue before the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC
FACTS: 3. W/N petitioner Naguiat Enterprises is solidarily
● Petitioner Clark Field Taxi, Inc. (CFTI) held a liable - NO
concessionaire’s contract w/ the Army Air Force ● The Court agreed with the labor arbiter in that
Exchange Service (AAFES) for operation of taxi individual respondents were regular employees of
services within Clark Air Base and employed CFTI
individual respondents as taxicab drivers ● No substantial evidence provided showing that
● However, the AAFES was dissolved due to the Naguiat Enterprises is neither an indirect employer
phase-out of US military bases nor a labor contractor, let alone involved at all.
● The AAFES Taxi Drivers Association, hereafter ○ Failed to substantiate claim that Naguiat
referred to as drivers’ union, negotiated and Enterprises managed, supervised and
subsequently accepted separation benefits worth controlled their employment
P500/year of service ○ Presumed that Sergio Naguiat, the
● Individual respondents refused to accept and individual, was managing and controlling
through private respondent National Organization the taxi business on behalf of Naguiat
of Workingmen, subsequently filed for payment of Enterprises
separation pay due to termination/phase-out ● The Constitution of the drivers’ union provides that
○ Alleged that they were regular employees the definite employer is CFTI
and thus, entitled to separation pay 4. MAIN: W/N CFTI President Sergio Naguiat is
● Petitioners countered that the cessation was due to solidarily liable - YES
great financial losses and lost business opportunity ● LC Art. 212 (c) defines that the term employer also
caused by the phaseout due to the eruption of Mt. includes any person acting directly or indirectly in
Pinatubo the interest of an employer
● The Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioners pay ○ It shall not include any labor org, officer or
individual respondents P1,200/year for agent EXCEPT when acting as employer
humanitarian consideration ● AC Ransom Labor Union-CCLU v NLRC: Responsible
● Respondents also appealed to NLRC which was officer of an employer corporation can be held
granted personally, not to say even criminally, liable for
● Petitioners filed for MR which was denied; hence, nonpayment of back wages
this petition for issuance of a TRO ● Since petitioner President actively managed the
ISSUES/RATIO: business, he falls within the meaning of employer
1. W/N NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion as put forth by the Labor Code.
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ● Corporation Code Sec. 100, par. 5 also provides that
increasing the amount of separation pay - NO when the stockholders are actively engaged in the
● Petitioner contend that NLRC unilaterally increased management or operation of a business, they shall
the amount of severance pay be held personally liable for corporate torts
● The Court held that findings of fact of ● The Court then defined tort as the violation of a
administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies right given or omission of a duty provided by law;
are generally accorded not only great respect but a breach of a legal duty
even finality. ○ LC Art. 283 mandates the employer to
● Furthermore, the petitioner did not refute nor provide separation pay in cases of closure
offered evidence to controvert allegations of or cessation not due to serious business
private respondents as to work schedule and their losses or financial reverses
financial arrangement and the $240 monthly pay ● In the case at bar, CFTI failed to comply with such
● Petitioners also did not appeal the decision of the obligation and consequently, its stockholder who is
labor arbiter, and thus are in estoppel actively engaged in the management and operation
● Petitioners are not exempted from payment of shall be held personally liable
separation pay since they failed to prove business 5. W/N CFTI VP Antolin Naguiat is personally liable -
losses or financial reverses with clear and NO
satisfactory evidence ● While he also carried the title of general manager,
● The Labor Arbiter also correctly found that it had not been shown that he acted in such
petitioners’ stopped the taxi business not because capacity and there was also no evidence as to the
of any great financial loss but because of the phase- extent of his participation
out of the US military presence 6. W/N there was a denial of due process - NO
● Labor Code Art. 283 also provides that in case of ● Petitioners assail the resolution of NLRC in holding
retrenchment to prevent losses due to them solidarily liable in that they were not
closure/cessation, the separation pay shall be impleaded as parties to the complaint
 ● The Court held that the petitioners voluntarily ○ Sec. 38 is a general law while NCC Art. 32
submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the is a specific law and under the latter, it is
labor arbiter when they filed a position paper enough that there was a violation of consti
before the latter rights and doesn’t require that the public
○ Thus, they may not claim to have been officer acted with malice or bad faith
denied due process as they had the ISSUE/RATIO:
opportunity to present their positions 1. W/N a public officer may be sued in his/her private
RULING: NLRC decision MODIFIED. Petitioners CFTI and its capacity for acts done in the discharge of official
President, Sergio Naguiat, are ORDERED to pay $120 for duties - YES
every year of service. Petitioner Naguiat Enterprises, Inc. ● General rule: officer acting in the performance of
and VP Antolin Naguiat are ABSOLVED from liability his official duties within his authority is NOT liable
for damages
Vinzons-Chatto v. Fortune ○ Exception: NOT immune from damages in
Vinzon v Fortune Tobacco Corp | G.R. No. 141309. June 19, his/her personal capacity for acts done in
2007 | Ynares-Santiago, J. | Definition of Torts under bad faith
Philippine Law | by Jecs ● Cojuangco, Jr. v CA: public officer who directly or
indirectly violates the consti rights of another may
FACTS: validly sued for damages under NCC Art. 32 even if
● Before the enactment of RA 7654, respondent’s there was no malice or bad faith
cigarette brands “Champion”, “Hope” and “More” ● The Court held that a public officer may be validly
were classified as local brands and charged an ad sued in his/her private capacity for acts done in the
valorem tax of 20%-45& performance of his official duties when
● 2 days prior before RA 7654 took effect, petitioner 1. Acted with malice, bad faith or negligence
issued RMC 37-93 which subjected the brands to 2. Violated constitutional right of plaintiff
the provisions of Sec. 142, (c) (1): 2. W/N there was a cause of action - YES
○ Reclassified said brands as locally ● The Court first discussed the relationship between
manufactured but bearing a foreign brand general and special law
○ Subjected to an ad valorem tax of 55%
General Special
● After receiving said issuance via ordinary mail,
respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, Class of subjects Particular persons or
which was denied in a letter things
○ Said letter also assessed a payment of
P9.58M and demanded payment 10 days If the same subject, should be read in pari materia
from receipt thereof and harmonized in order to give effect to both
● Respondent filed a petition for review before the
CTA, which then issued an injunction in that RMC If there is conflict,
37-93 is defective, invalid and unenforceable prevails over general
○ CA and SC AFFIRMED in that it has fallen law since it evinces
short of the requirements of a valid legislative intent more
admin issuance clearly
● Respondent also filed a complaint for damages
against petitioner in her private capacity under NCC If passed later, the If passed later, it
Art. 32 since the issuance violated its constitutional special statute will be becomes the
rights against deprivation of property construed as an exception/qualification
● Petitioner then filed a motion to dismiss since the exception
issuance was in the performance of her official
function and w/in scope of her authority, acted
● However, in City of Manila v Teotico and Bagatsing
merely as an agent of the Republic, no cause of
v. Ramirez, it was held that when the special law
action due to lack of allegation of malice/bad faith,
treats a subject in general while a general statute
and forum shopping; the RTC DENIED.
treats in particular, the general statute prevails
● CA also DISMISSED said motion, holding that
● The Court then discussed torts in relation to NCC
liability may arise under NCC Art. 32 even if there
Art. 32, a general law and Sec. 38, a special law
was no malice or bad faith and that the latter need
DISCUSSION ABOUT TORTS
not be alleged in the complaint for damages
● NCC Art. 32 was patterned after the “tort” in
● Petitioner then filed this present action, arguing
American Law
that Sec. 38, Book I of Admin Code, and not NCC Art.
● Tort is a commission or omission of an act by one
32, which should be applied; according to her:
w/o right, wherein one person directly or indirectly
○ Sec. 38 is a special law and that liability
suffers injury in person, property or reputation
only attaches when there is a showing of
● There are cases wherein civil liability in tort is
malice, bad faith or gross negligence while
determined by conduct and not the mental state
NCC Art. 32 is a general law
and where the motive is rendered immaterial
● Respondent on the other hand, countered that
 ● Liability in tort is not precluded by lack of evil kicked her out of their home, and refused to
intent uphold his engagement to her, eventually claiming
that he was already married to another woman in
Bacolod.
Sec. 38 Art. 32
- The petitioner, on the other hand, denies promising
Presence of bad faith, Provides a cause of to marry the respondent and mistreating her, and
malice and negligence action in the nature of claims that he asked her to stop coming to his home
are vital elements to tort for violation of because she was stealing from him.
make public officers consti rights, - The respondent filed a suit for P45,000 worth of
liable irrespective of motive damages as well as attorney’s fees and costs worth
or intent P600. The petitioner filed a counterclaim for
P25,000 worth of moral damages and P5,000 for
Particular with liability Specifies in clear and miscellaneous expenses.
of gov’t officials but the unequivocal terms the - Trial Court applied Article 21 of the Civil Code in
subject is general i.e. acts that may give rise awarding respondent a total of P25,000 (10k
did not specify which to action for damages moral, 5k attorney and litigation expenses).
action/omission may which would be a tort Decision affirmed by Court of Appeals.
give rise to a civil suit for impairment of rights - Petitioner finally appealed to the Supreme Court,
and liberties questioning whether or not Article 21 should
indeed apply to the case at bar.
ISSUE:
● In this case, the Court held that there was a cause - WON petitioner Gashem Shookat Baksh actually
of action as it was brought under NCC Art. 32; thus, proposed to respondent Marilou Gonzales - YES
bad faith and malice are not necessary and failure - The Court held that this is a question of
to allege such would not amount to a failure to state fact which may not be raised in a petition
a cause of action for review on certiorari.
3. W/N there was non-compliance against forum - The trial court found through the
shopping - NO testimony of the respondent (she wouldn’t
● Petitioner alleges that there was such defect since expose her honor and reputation for a lie)
the certificate was signed by respondent’s counsel and her witnesses (family and coworkers
instead of the plaintiff/principal party (respondent testified about marriage preparations and
in the present case) relationship) that this was a fact.
● The defect in the certificate against forum shopping - SC found no reason to disturb these
was cured by the secretary’s certificate authorizing findings.
the counsel to sign & executed the certificate - WON respondent Marilou Gonzales is entitled to
against forum shopping damages - YES
RULING: Petition is DENIED. RTC and CA decisions in - The Court reiterated the existing rule that
denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss is AFFIRMED. a breach of promise to marry per se is not
an actionable wrong (citing De Jesus v
Tort and Quasi-delict Syquia, Heart Balm legislation, etc.)
Baksh v. CA - However, the Court held that Article 21 of
Baksh v CA the Civil Code expands the concept of
Tort and Quasi-Delict |G.R. No. 97336 | Feb 19, 1993 torts and quasi-delicts, and serves as a
Davide, J. | Paulo Soller remedy for wrongs not specifically
enumerated by law.
FACTS: - The Court cited the Civil Code
- This case revolves around one can recover Commission in explaining how Article
damages from a breach of promise to marry. 2176 requires payment of damages for
- The respondent, 22-year-old Marilou Gonzales, quasi-delicts, or only negligent acts and
alleges that while working at the Mabuhay omissions. Article 21 (along with 19 and
Luncheonette in Dagupan City, she met the 20) punishes intentional and malicious
petitioner, Iranian Gashem Shookat Baksh, who acts.
was at the time a medical student. - It is not the breach of promise itself that
- They dated for a time, and he eventually proposed could justify awarding of damages, but
to her. After accepting his proposal, respondent the fraud and deceit behind it.
subsequently resigned from her job and began - The Court found that the petitioner made
cohabiting with the petitioner. She claims that she a false promise to marry that he had no
even introduced him to her parents who gave their intention of keeping in order to take
blessing and even began to procure livestock (pigs advantage of the respondent. Without
and chickens), find sponsors, and invite guests for such promise, respondent may never have
the wedding. quit her job, had sexual relations with him,
- Respondent claims that the petitioner’s demeanor or incurred expenses for a wedding.
changed soon after. He began to mistreat her,
 - The Court ruled that he was liable for ISSUE/RATIO: W/N CA erred in holding petitioner Garcia
damages because of these wrongs that he liable for damages by way of issuing an incorrect HBsAg
willfully inflicted on her. result - NO
- Minor Issue: Petitioner proposes that even if he did ● Petitioner argues that he shall not be held liable for
propose to marry her, respondent is in pari delicto damages since he followed the appropriate lab
for cohabiting with him before marriage. Court measure and did everything in his professional
disagreed, she was not driven by lust, but by a competence to arrive at an objective, impartial and
sincere desire to marry him. impersonal resukt
● The Court did note that the issues raised are factual
in nature and is beyond the ambit of petition for
RULING: Petition Denied. Gashem Shookat Baksh is liable review on certiorari
for P25,000 worth of damages for fraud and deceit behind ● It then defined negligence as failure to observe for
his promise to marry Marilou Gonzales. the protection of the interest of another that
degree of care, precaution & vigilance which the
circumstances demand, whereby another suffers
injury
Elements of Tort ○ With regard to health care providers, there
Garcia v. Salvador is negligence if s/he failed to do something
Garcia v Salvador | G.R. No. 168512. March 20, 2007 | which a reasonably prudent health care
Ynares-Santiago, J. | by Jecs provider would have done, or did
FACTS: something that one would not have done
● Respondent Ranida Salvador, an Accounting Dept. ● Elements of actionable conduct are:
trainee at Limay Bulk Handling Terminal Inc., 1. Duty
underwent a medical examination at the 2. Breach
Community Diagnostic Center as a prerequisite for 3. Injury
her regular employment 4. Proximate Causation
● Garcia conducted the HBSAg test, the result of - All of which are present in the case at bar
which showed that petitioner was “HBsAg: ● The Court held that where the law imposes upon a
Reactive” perosn a duty to do something, his omission or non-
○ Said result bore Garcia’s name and performance will render him liable to whoever may
signature and the rubber-stamp signature be injured thereby
of petitioner Castro (as the pathologist) ● To protect the public from substandard medical
● Ranida then submitted said test result to her examination, Sec. 2 of RA 4688, DOH AO No. 49-B
company’s physician, who then informed series 1998 and Sec. 29 (b) of RA 5527 provide that:
respondent that she was suffering from Hepatitis B ○ Clinical laboratory must be administered,
○ Company then terminated her directed and supervised by a licensed
employment physician authorized by the DOH Secretary
○ Her father suffered a heart attack after ○ Medical technologist must be under the
petitioner informed him of her condition supervision of a pathologists/licensed
and was hospitalized physician
● Respondent then underwent further HBsAg tests ○ Results may only be released only to the
which yielded the ff results requesting physician (or representative)
○ Bataan Doctors’ Hospital: non-reactive ● In this case at bar, petitioner Garcia failed to follow
○ CDC (confirmatory testing): Negative these standards
○ Bataan Doctors’ Hospital (via Micro-Elisa ○ CDC was not administered, directed and
Method): Negative supervised by a licensed physician but by a
○ CDC: negative licensed medical technologist
● Ranida and her father then filed a complaint for ○ Conducted the HBsAg test without the
damages against petitioners, claiming that because supervision of Castro
of the erroneous interpretation of the results, she ○ Released said result without the
lost her job and suffered anxiety, trauma while her authorization of Castro
father was hospitalized ● While he did not intend the consequences, his
● Petitioner Garcia denied allegations of gross failure to comply with laws and rules for public
negligence & incompetence while Castro claimed safety is failure to observe reasonably prudent
that the case was only referred to him & did not health care
examine respondent Ranida ○ As a result, Ranida suffered from injury
● Trial court DISMISSED the complaint for failure to (terminated from work, anxiety, …)
present sufficient evidence to prove petitioners’ ● NCC Art. 20 provides the legal basis for award of
liability damages to a party who suffers damages whenever
● CA REVERSED, holding that petitioner Garcia is one commits an act in violation of some legal
liable for damages by way of negligently issuing an provision
erroneous HBsAg result but exonerated Castro ○ Thus, respondent Ranida established her
right to be awarded damages
RULING: CA decision finding Garcia guilty of gross • December 28, 1988 - Upon examination, Dr. Tuano
negligence & liable to respondents is AFFIRMED noted the hardness in Peter's right eye and
discovered that the tension in Peter's right eye was
Lucas v. Tuano 39.0 Hg.
Lucas v Tuaño •
GR 178763, April 21, 2009 | Chico-Nazario, J. | by R. Leal o Since the tension was way over the
normal IOP which only ranged from 10.0
Doctrine: Hg to 21.0 Hg, Dr. Tuano then ordered him
In a medical negligence suit, the patient or his heirs, in order to immediately discontinue the use of
to prevail, is required to prove by preponderance of Maxitrol and prescribed to the latter
evidence that the physician failed to exercise that degree of Diamox and Normoglaucon instead.
skill, care, and learning possessed by other persons in the o He also required Peter to go for a daily
same profession; and that as a proximate result of such check-up in order for the former to closely
failure, the patient or his heirs suffered damages. monitor the pressure of the latter' eyes.
•
Four essential elements must be established and must co-
• He referred Peter to Dr. Manuel Agulto, M.D.,
exist in order to find the physician negligent and, thus, liable
another opthalmologist specializing in glaucoma
for damages:
treatment.
-Duty •
-Breach • January 13, 1989 - Prodded by his friends, Lucas
-Injury went to Dr. Aquino, another ophthalmologist who
-Proximate causation confirmed Tuano’s findings of him having tubular
vision.
o It was also through dr. Aquino that Lucas
FACTS & Recit Summary: found that his condition would require
• Sometime in 1988, petitioner Peter Paul Patrick lifetime medication and follow ups
Lucas contracted "sore eyes" in his right eye. •
• • May 1990 and June 1991, Peter underwent two (2)
• Sept 2, 1988 - Upon consultation with Dr. Tuano, procedures of laser trabeculoplasty to attempt to
Peter narrated that it has been 9 days since the control the high IOP of his right eye.
problem with his right eye began, and that he was
already taking Maxitrol to address the eye problem. • Eventually, Peter, in claiming to have "steroid-
induced glaucoma" and blaming Dr. Tuano for the
• According to Dr. Tuano, he performed "ocular same, filed a complaint for damages against Dr.
routine examination" on Peter's eyes, wherein: Tuano.
o a cross examination Peter's eyes and their •
surrounding area was made • In their complaint, petitioners averred that as the
o Peter's visual acuity were taken direct consequence of Peter's prolonged use of
o Peter's eyes were palpated to check the Maxitrol, he suffered from steroid-induced
intraocular pressure of each glaucoma which may cause blindness
o the mortility of Peter's eyes were o They also claimed that a direct result of
observed, this was the deterioration of Lucas’
o the ophthalmoscopy on Peter's eyes was personal life, career, and his family’s
used. financial situation.
• •
• Dr. Tuano diagnosed that Peter was suffering from • Dr. Tuano asserted that the treatment made by him
conjunctivitis or sore eyes. He then prescribed more than three years ago has no causal connection
Spersacet C-eye drops for Peter. to Peter's glaucoma.
• •
• Sept 9, 1988 - Dr. Tuano discovered that the right • He further explained that 'drug-induced glaucoma
eye developed Epidemic Kerato Conjunctivitis, EKC, is temporary and curable, steroids have the side
a viral infection. effect of increasing intraocular pressure. Steroids
o To address the problem, Dr. Tuano are prescribed to treat Epidemic Kerato
prescribed Maxitrol, for a dosage of 6 Conjunctivitis or EKC which is an infiltration of the
times a day. cornea as a result of conjunctivitis or sore eyes'.
• •
• However, the EKC was getting worse and Dr. Tuano • He also claimed that it was actually through his
still continued on advising the use of Maxittrol, prescriptions and action that a condition that barely
despite Peter's wife’s discovery of the inscribed had any symptoms was able to be detected and be
warning written in its label. treated earlier.
• •
 • Petitioners sought pecuniary award for their pain supposed absence of evidence, but is
and suffering supposedly brought about by Dr contradicted by the evidence on record.
Tuano’s negligence. • The fact of want of competence or diligence is
o The amount of P2,000,000.00 to plaintiff evidentiary in nature, the veracity of which can best
Peter Lucas as and by way of be passed upon after a full-blown trial for it is
compensation for his impaired vision. virtually impossible to ascertain the merits of a
o The amount of P300,000.00 to spouses medical negligence case without extensive
Lucas as and by way of actual damages investigation, research, evaluation and consultation
plus such additional amounts that may be with the medical experts.
proven during trial. •
o The amount of P1,000,000.00 as and by • Absent a definitive standard of care or diligence
way of moral damages. required of Dr. Tuaño under the circumstances, the
o The amount of P500,000.00 as and by way Court has no yardstick to evaluate the facts to be
of exemplary damages. able to state with confidence that the acts
o The amount of P200,000.00 as and by way complained of constituted negligence and should
of attorney's fees plus costs of suit. be the subject of pecuniary reparation.
• •
• The RTC dismissed the Civil Case for insufficiency of • In medical negligence cases there exist a physician-
evidence. patient relationship between the doctor and the
o It was said that petitioners failed to prove victim.
by preponderance of evidence that Dr. o But just like any other proceeding for
Tuano was negligent in his treatment of damages, four essential (4) elements i.e.,
Peter's condition. ▪ Duty
o The trial court reasoned that the ▪ Breach
recognized standards of the medical ▪ Injury
community has not been established in ▪ proximate causation,
this case, much less has causation been • must be established by the
established to render Dr. Tuano liable. plaintiff/s.
o Further, absence of any medical evidence o All the four (4) elements must co-exist in
to the contrary, the RTC ruled that it order to find the physician negligent and,
cannot accept petitioner's claim that the thus, liable for damages.
use of steroid is the proximate cause of the o From the foregoing, it is apparent that
damage sustained by Peter's eye. medical negligence cases are best proved
• by opinions of expert witnesses belonging
• The CA faulted petitioners because they failed to in the same general neighborhood and in
present any medical expert to testify that Dr. the same general line of practice as
Tuano's prescription of Maxitrol and Blephamide defendant physician or surgeon.
for the treatment of EKC on petiitioner's right eye •
was not proper and that his palpation of Peter's • In this case, there was absolute failure on the part
right eye was not enough to detect adverse reaction of petitioners to present any expert testimony to
to steroid. establish:
o They testified what Dr Agulto had said o the standard of care to be implemented by
about not using the steroids but the same competent physicians in treating the same
doctor had not been presented as a condition as Peter's under similar
witness circumstances
• o that Dr. Tuaño failed in his duty to exercise
ISSUE: said standard of care that any other
WON the CA had committed a reversible error in deciding competent physician would use in treating
that the petitioners had NOT amply proved that Dr. Tuaño the same condition as Peter's under
failed to exercise diligence in the performance of his duty similar circumstances;
as petitioner Peter Lucas’ physician. – NO o and that the injury or damage to Peter's
• The issue at hand was a question of fact and only right eye, i.e., his glaucoma, was the result
questions of law may be raised under Rule 45 of the of his use of Maxitrol, as prescribed by Dr.
ROC Tuaño.
o The said issue constitutes a question of •
fact, as the Supreme Court is asked to • Because of the lack of evidence- from the absence
revisit anew the factual findings of the RTC of any expert opinion- of the petition, they were
and the CA. While this general rule admits able to determine, with certainty, that Tuano’s acts
of certain exceptions, such as the were indeed negligent.
circumstance when the finding of fact of •
the Court of Appeals is premised on the RULING:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is fulfills the adequate and immediate
DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated 27 medical attendance required by Art. 160 of
September 2006 and Resolution dated 3 July 2007, both of the Labor Code
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 68666, are hereby ● In any case, the alleged negligence of Hao cannot
AFFIRMED. No cost. be considered to be the proximate cause of
SO ORDERED. Bladimir's death
○ Proximate cause is that which, in natural
and continuous sequence, unbroken by an
efficient intervening cause, produces
Ocean Builders v. Spouses injury, and without which the result would
Ocean Builders v. Sps. Cubacub | G.R. No. 150898 | April 13, not have occurred
2011 | Carpio-Morales, J. ○ An injury or damage is proximately caused
by an act or omission whenever it
FACTS appears from the evidence that the act or
● Bladimir Cabacub was employed as a maintenance omission played a substantial part in
personnel by Ocean Builders (pet'r) bringing about the injury or damage, and
● Bladimir was infected with chickenpox and was that the injury or damage was either a
advised by Dennis Hao, the company's manager, to direct result or a reasonably probable
take a 3-day rest consequence of the act or omission
● 3 days later, Bladimir went back to work but later ○ The argument that the company's
that afternoon, he asked a co-worker to accompany negligence was the proximate cause of
him to his house in Tarlac so he could rest Bladimir's death rests on the allegation
● The co-worker informed Hao of Bladimir's that he contracted chicken pox
intentions and Hao gave him 1,000 pesos with from a co-worker, an assertion that finds
instructions to take Bladimir to the nearest hospital no support from the records
● Bladimir was confined in the hospital where he was
placed in the ICU; he died the next day RULING
● Bladimir's parents (respondents) filed a complaint Appeal granted. The decision of the CA is reversed
for damages against petitioners, alleging that Hao and the complaint against the petitioner is dismissed
was guilty of negligence which resulted in the
deterioration of Bladimir's health which led to his RELEVANT LAWS
subsequent death
● Tarlac RTC dismissed the case, holding that the Labor Code, ART. 161. Assistance of Employer - It shall be the
petitioner wasn't negligent duty of any employer to provide all the necessary assistance
● Upon the respondents' appeal, the CA reversed the to ensure the adequate and immediate medical and dental
trial court ruling, stating that Hao's failure to bring attendance and treatment to an injured or sick employee in
Bladimir to a better equipped hospital was a case of emergency.
violation of Article 161 of the Labor Code
● Hence, the present petition ART. 157. Emergency Medical and Dental Services. - It shall
be the duty of every employer to furnish his employees in
ISSUES any locality with free medical and dental attendance and
1. W/N Hao is liable for damages due to negligence - facilities consisting of:
NO a. The services of a full-time registered nurse when
● Elements of torts the number of employees exceeds fifty
1. duty (50) but not more than two hundred (200) except
2. breach when the employer does not maintain hazardous
3. injury workplaces, in which case, the services of a
4. proximate causation graduate first-aider shall be provided for the
● When the Labor Code mandates an employer to protection of workers, where no registered nurse is
provide immediate medical and dental attendance available. The Secretary of Labor and
to sick and injured employees, it does not specify Employment shall provide by appropriate
what "adequate and immediate" means. regulations, the services that shall be required
○ Therefore, the determination is left to the where the number of employees does not exceed
employer EXCEPT if the fifty (50) and shall determine by appropriate order,
company retained the services of a nurse hazardous workplaces for purposes of this Article;
or physician b. The services of a full-time registered nurse, a part-
○ Herein company's size (employee-wise) time physician and dentist, and an emergency
does not warrant the retention of either a clinic, when the number of employees
nurse or a physician under Art. 157 of the exceeds two hundred (200) but not more than
Labor Code three hundred (300); and
○ Hence, Hao's advice for Bladimir to take a c. The services of a full-time physician, dentist and a
3-day rest and his later initiative to have full-time registered nurse as well
the latter brought to a hospital sufficiently as a dental clinic and an infirmary or emergency
 hospital with one bed capacity for every one Barredo (proprietor of Malate Taxicab, Fontanilla’s
hundred (100) employees when the number of employer)
employees exceeds three hundred (300). ○ CFI awarded damages in favor of the
parents (P2,000 with interest
BERSAMIN, J. (Dissenting Opinion) ● CA reduced damages to P1,000 with interest
● Disagrees with the majority opinion that the ○ undisputed that the cause of the accident
petitioner was not negligent was Fontanilla’s negligence
● Argues that the size of Ocean Builders warrants that ○ as to Barredo: no proof that he exercised
they have a least a first-aid practitioner the diligence of a good father of a family to
○ The admitted failure to provide to the prevent the damage
employees, in general, and to ○ he was careless in employing Fontanilla
Bladimir, in particular, any of the several who had been caught several times for
free emergency medical and dental speeding
services and facilities required by the ○ must indemnify plaintiffs under Art. 1903
Labor Code and the implementing rules CC
and regulations of the Department of ● main theory of the defense: Barredo’s liability is
Labor and Employment removed the governed by the RPC, therefore, subsidiary
foundation for absolving the ○ since no civil action vs Fontanilla (person
petitioners from liability criminally liable), Barredo can’t be held
● Hao's instructions for Bladimir to rest in the responsible
company barracks falls short of the requires
standard of medical attention in the Labor Code as
the barracks is a poor place for recuperation, the ISSUE
arrangement of which actually promotes WON plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action against
the spreading of the varicella virus Barredo, thus making him primarily and directly responsible
○ Hao's refusal to allow Bladimir to obtain under Art. 1903 CC as employer of Fontanilla
complete and proper rest led to the
latter's death
○ The former's attitude enabled the
complications of chickenpox to HELD: YES
set in and aggravate Bladimir's condition ● quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) - separate legal
○ Hao's insistence that Bladimir be brought institution under CC; entirely apart and
to the hospital was superficial, too little, independent from a delict
and too late ● art. 1902 CC seems to be broad enough to cover the
driver’s negligence in this case, but the same article
Concept of Quasi-Delict limits quasi-delicts to acts or omissions not
Historical Background punishable by law
Barredo v. Garcia ● but art. 365 RPC punishes simple and reckless
Sources of Obligation | G.R. No. 48006 July 8, 1942 | Bocobo, imprudence or negligence; fault or negligence
J. | by Susano, J under 1902 CC is crowded out
FACTS ● however, such a concurrence of scope in regard to
negligent acts does not destroy distinction between
● May 3, 1936, 1:30 AM, road between Malabon and civil liability arising from a crime and responsibility
Navotas for quasi-delicts
○ head-on collision between a taxi (Malate ○ the same negligent act causing damages
Taxicab) driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a may produce civil liability arising from a
carretela guided by Pedro Dimapilis crime under art. 100 RPC, or create an
○ Fontanilla was driving at a high speed on action for quasi-delict under arts. 1902-10
the wrong side of the road CC
○ carretela was overturned and one of its ● differences between crimes (RPC) and quasi-delict
passengers, 16 y/o Faustino Garcia (CC)
suffered injuries from which he died 2 days ○ crimes affect public interest, quasi-delicts
later are private
● criminal action filed against Fontanilla in CFI Rizal. ○ RPC punishes/corrects a criminal act, CC
convicted repairs the damage through
○ court in crim case granted the petition that indemnification
the right to bring a separate civil action be ○ crimes are punished only if there is a penal
reserved law governing them, quasi-delicts include
● CA affirmed sentence in crim case all acts in which any kind of fault or
● Severino Garcia and Timotea Almario (parents of negligence intervenes
deceased) brought action in CFI Manila vs Faustino ● in this jurisdiction, the separate individuality of a
quasi-delict has been fully and clearly recognized
 ○ the same act of negligence can be a proper (5) Quasi-delicts. (1089a)
subject matter either of a crim action with
its corresponding civil liability arising from Definition, Elements
crime OR of an entirely separate and Article 2176, CC
independent civil action for Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
fault/negligence another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
● cases regarding the liability of employers the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
○ Bahia v Litonjua and Leynes existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a
■ when an injury is caused by the quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this
negligence of an employee there Chapter. (1902a)
instantly arises a presumption of Scope, Intentional Acts
law that there was negligence on Article 2176, CC
the part of the employer either in Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
selection or supervision (or both) another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
■ this presumption is juris tantum the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
and may be rebutted by a existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a
showing that the employer had quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this
exercised the diligence of a good Chapter. (1902a)
father of a family
■ responsibility of the master based Cangco v. Manila Railroad
ultimately on his own negligence, G.R.No.12191 October 14, 1918 | Cangco v Manila Railroad
not his servant’s Co. | Fisher, J | Lansangan, J.
○ Court in Cerf v Medel Facts:
■ master liable for negligent acts of 1. Jose Cangco was a clerk for Manila Railroad. At
his servant where he is the owner 7/8pm after work, he was about to get off the
or director of a business or station near home but slipped on a shipment of
enterprise and the negligent acts watermelons.
are committed while the servant a. The row of sacks of melons only had a
is engaged in his master's clearance of 2ft from the platform and he
employment as such owner didn’t see them due to the cover of night.
○ Cuison v Norton & Harrison Co 2. He rolled down because the platform rose gradually
■ basis of civil law liability is and his right arm was badly crushed and lacerated
relationship of pater familias (not and he was drawn under the train in an unconscious
respondent/superior) state.
3. He was hospitalized and his arm was amputated.
The result was unsatisfactory so he had to go to a
○ Walter A. Smith & Co v Cadwallader 2nd hospital and it was amputated higher up.
Gibson Lumber 4. Cangco instituted a proceeding to recover damages
■ presumption of liability against from MR. He claimed that the negligence of the
the defendant may be overcome employees of the MR in placing the melons
by the exercise of the care and haphazardly compromised the safety and security
diligence of a good father of a of passengers alighting from the coaches.
family 5. CFI judge ruled against him stating that he failed to
● primary and direct responsibility of employers and use caution in alighting.
their presumed negligence are principles to protect 6. The court does not doubt that the employees are
society liable in not taking precaution and being negligent
● GOING BACK TO THE PRESENT CASE in placing the shipment. The question is on the
○ defendant’s theory about his secondary liability of MR and if Cangco has any contributory
liability is negated by the aforementioned negligence.
cases Issues: W/N Manila Railroad is liable for the resulting
○ he is primarily and directly liable for damages due to the negligence of its employees. -YES
damages under art. 1903 CC 1. As per Art 1903 (now Art ----) an employer’s liability
may be rebutted by proof of exercise of due care in
RULING: CA decision affirmed. Barredo is liable for damages. their selection of employees. In such case then only
the employee may be held liable (i.e. as long as the
Nature damage does not amount to a breach between the
Article 1157, CC employer and the person injured).
Article 1157. Obligations arise from: 2. However, as per Art 1903 (now Art ----) if the
contract is breached, then even if it is by the
(1) Law; employee’s negligence the employer may not
(2) Contracts; escape liability (if they were able to, then most
(3) Quasi-contracts; juridical entities would be untouchable since
(4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and employees would take the fall).
 3. In this case, MR’s legal liability is founded on its ❖ In this case, the defendant-appellee Reginald Hill was
contract of carriage and hence the burden of proof prosecuted criminally in the CFI of Quezon City for killing
that they were not negligent falls upon them. Agapito, the son of plaintiffs-appellants.
a. MR had the duty to carry Cangco safely. ❖ However, he was acquitted on the ground that his act
Since it is contractual in nature, it is was not criminal because of "lack of intent to kill,
therefore direct and immediate (i.e. non- coupled with mistake."
excusable and cannot be imputed to its ISSUES & RATIO:
employees). 1. W/N the present civil action for damages is barred
W/N Cangco had any contributory negligence which may by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case
hinder him from recovering damages. –NO wherein the action for civil liability was not
4. Test of negligence (Picart v Snith): was there reversed?
anything in the circumstances surrounding the ❖ Citing the opinion from the Garcia case, the court here
plaintiff at the time he alighted which would have elucidated that said opinion holds that the concurrence
admonished a person of average prudence that to of the Penal Code and the Civil Code contemplate not
get off the train under the conditions then existing only acts of negligence and not intentional voluntary
was dangerous? acts but also extends to fault or culpa
a. As per Commentaries on Negligence by ❖ "ART. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under
Thompson, age, sex, and condition of the the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct
passenger should also be taken into from the civil liability arising from negligence under the
consideration. Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages
5. Cangco was young and strong. Athough he alighted twice for the same act or omission of the defendant."
six meters prior to the train’s full stop, he was more ❖ According to the Code Commission: “Under Article
than capable to handle the landing. 2177, acquittal from an accusation of criminal
6. Furthermore, people exit under these conditions negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall
day in day out without harm. not be a bar to a subsequent civil action, not for civil
7. Court found that it’s the placement of the shipment liability arising from criminal negligence, but for
that caused the injury. Cangco gets off at the same damages due to a quasi-delict or 'culpa aquiliana'. But
stop every day without any problems and had every said article forestalls a double recovery."
reason to believe that the platform would be clear. ❖ The Court held that Article 2176, which defines a quasi-
8. The platform was also dimly lit hence it would have delict, where it refers to "fault or negligence," covers
been difficult to see any obstacles. MR had the duty not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts
to warn its passengers of the unusual circumstance criminal in character, whether intentional and
(melons). voluntary or negligent.
Ruling: ❖ Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the
9. Injuries permanently disabled him from his offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally
employment; lower court decision is reversed, prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted. So long as the
damages should be awarded to Cangco (Php3290). offended party is not allowed, to recover damages on
Dissent (Malcolm, J): both scores (i.e. criminal prosecution and civil liability
10. Malcolm cites this particular line from the majority from quasi-delict), and would be entitled in such
opinion: “It may be admitted that had plaintiff eventuality only to the bigger award of the two,
waited until the train had come to a full stp before assuming the awards made in the two cases vary.
alighting, the particular injury suffered by him could ❖ The extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of
not have occurred.” Section 3, Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil liability
11. Malcolm states that any attempt to alight from a founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code,
moving train is negligence per se. That said, Cangco whereas the civil liability for the same act considered
had contributory negligence and MR should be as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not
absolved from the complaint. extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case
that the criminal act charged has not happened or has
not been committed by the accused.
❖ It results, therefore, that the acquittal of Reginald Hill
Elcano v. Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for
Elcano v. Hill quasi-delict, hence that acquittal is not a bar to the
Scope Intentional Acts | G.R. No. L-24803. May 26, 1977| instant action against him.
Barredo, J. | By Luy, C.
FACTS: 2. W/N Article 2180 (2nd and last paragraphs) of the
❖ This is an appeal from the order of the CFI of Quezon Civil Code may be applied against Atty. Hill, the
City dated which dismissed the complaint of plaintiffs father of the offender notwithstanding the fact
for recovery of damages from defendant Reginald Hill, a that at the time of the occurrence, Reginald was
minor, married at the time of the occurrence, and his already legally married, although still a minor,
father, the defendant Marvin Hill, with whom he was living with and getting subsistence from his
living and getting subsistence father?
❖ The court held that Atty. Hill, the father of the offender,
is not free from responsibility.
❖ While it is true that parental authority is terminated
upon emancipation of the child (Article 327, Civil Code), FACTS & Recit Summary:
and under Article 397, emancipation takes place "by the • Petitioner spouses Emmanuel and Natividad
marriage of the minor (child)", it is, however, also clear Andamo are the owners of a parcel of land in Biga,
that pursuant to Article 399, emancipation by marriage Silang, Cavite which is adjacent to that of
of the minor is not really full or absolute. respondent, Missionaries of our Lady of La Salette,
❖ According to the court, Article 399, in providing that a Inc., a religious corporation
minor emancipated by marriage may not, nevertheless, • Within the land of the missionaries, waterpaths and
sue or be sued without the assistance of the parents, is contrivances, including an artificial lake, were
that such emancipation does not carry with it freedom constructed
to enter into transactions or do any act that can give rise • Said structures allegedly inundated and eroded the
to judicial litigation. And surely, killing someone else petitioner’s land, endangered the lives of Andamo’s
invites judicial action. and laborers during the rainy season, and exposed
❖ Now under Article 2180, "(T)he obligation imposed by plants and other improvements to destruction
article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts • Andamos then filed before the RTC a criminal action
or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom against Efren Musngi, Orlando Sapuay, and Rutillo
one is responsible. The father and, in case of his death Mallillin, officers and directors of the missionaries,
or incapacity, the mother, are responsible. The father for destruction by means of inundation under Art
and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are 324 of RPC
responsible for the damages caused by the minor • Another action was filed by the Andamos, a civil
children who live in their company." action for damages with prayer for the issuance of
❖ In the instant case, it is not controverted that Reginald, a writ of preliminary injunction before the same
although married, was living with his father and getting court
subsistence from him at the time of the occurrence in • Missionaries filed its answer to the complaint and
question. Thus, Reginald was still subservient to and opposition to the issuance of a writ of prelim
dependent on his father. injuction.
❖ According to Manresa, the reason behind the joint and • RTC granted the motion to dismiss or suspend the
solidary liability of parents with their offending child civil action filed by missionaries and issued an order
under Article 2180 is that is the obligation of the parent suspending further hearings in the civil action until
to supervise their minor children in order to prevent after judgement in the related criminal action.
them from causing damage to third persons. o This is on the groud that Sec 3 (a), Rule III
❖ Accordingly, in the court’s view, Article 2180 applies to of the ROC provides that criminal and civil
Atty. Hill notwithstanding the emancipation by marriage actions arising from the same offense may
of Reginald. However, inasmuch as it is evident that be instituted separately, but after the
Reginald is now of age, as a matter of equity, the liability criminal action has been commenced, the
of Atty. Hill has become merely subsidiary to that of his civil action cant be instituted until final
son. judgement has been rendered in the
RULING: criminal action
❖ WHEREFORE, the order appealed from which dismissed • IAC affirmed RTC
the complaint of plaintiffs for recovery of damages is •
reversed and the trial court is ordered to proceed in ISSUE:
accordance with the foregoing opinion. Costs against WON the corporation, by its actions (as found in the case),
appellees. be held civilly liable for damages under Art 2176 and 2177
Separate opinion: of the Civil code on quasi-delicts- such that the resulting
AQUINO, J., concurring: civil case can proceed independently of the criminal case –
❖ “Article 2176 of the Civil Code comprehends any YES
culpable act, which is blameworthy, when judged by
• All elements of Quasi-delicts are present:
accepted legal standards. "The idea thus expressed is
o Damages suffered by the plaintiff
undoubtedly board enough to include any rational
o Fault or negligence of the defendant
conception of liability for the tortious acts likely to be
o The connection of cause and effect
developed in any society." (Street, J. in Daywalt vs.
between the fault or negligence and the
Corporacion de PP. Agustinos Recoletos, 39 Phil. 587,
damage incurred
600). See article 38, Civil Code and the ruling that "the
• It is clear from the case that the waterpaths,
infant tort feasor is liable in a civil action to the injured
contrivances, and lake built by the missionaries
person in the same manner and to the same extent as
have inundated and eroded the land of the
an adult" (27 Am. Jur. 812 cited by Bocobo, J., in
complainant. Damage-fault-connection of cause
Magtibay vs. Tiangco, 74 Phil. 576, 579).”
and effect exists in the case.
Andamo v. IAC
• It must be stressed that the use of one’s property is
Andamo v IAC
not without limitations
GR 74761, November 6, 1990 | Fernan, J. | by R. Leal
• Art 431 of Civil code provides that ‘the owner of a
thing cannot make use thereof in such a manner as
Doctrine:
 to injure the rights of a third person” “SIC UTERE - The Court held that this is a question of
TUO UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS”. fact which may not be raised in a petition
• Adjoining land owners have mutual and reciprocal for review on certiorari.
duties which require that each must use his own - The trial court found through the
land in a reasonable manner. testimony of the respondent (she wouldn’t
• Structures built on land must be constructed and expose her honor and reputation for a lie)
maintained using all reasonable care so that they and her witnesses (family and coworkers
cannot be dangerous to adjoining owners. testified about marriage preparations and
• relationship) that this was a fact.
• - SC found no reason to disturb these
RULING: findings.
Assailed decision of IAC affirming the order of dismissal of - WON respondent Marilou Gonzales is entitled to
RTC Cavite is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE damages - YES
- The Court reiterated the existing rule that
a breach of promise to marry per se is not
Baksh v. CA an actionable wrong (citing De Jesus v
Baksh v CA Syquia, Heart Balm legislation, etc.)
Tort and Quasi-Delict |G.R. No. 97336 | Feb 19, 1993 - However, the Court held that Article 21 of
Davide, J. | Paulo Soller the Civil Code expands the concept of
torts and quasi-delicts, and serves as a
FACTS: remedy for wrongs not specifically
- This case revolves around one can recover enumerated by law.
damages from a breach of promise to marry. - The Court cited the Civil Code
- The respondent, 22-year-old Marilou Gonzales, Commission in explaining how Article
alleges that while working at the Mabuhay 2176 requires payment of damages for
Luncheonette in Dagupan City, she met the quasi-delicts, or only negligent acts and
petitioner, Iranian Gashem Shookat Baksh, who omissions. Article 21 (along with 19 and
was at the time a medical student. 20) punishes intentional and malicious
- They dated for a time, and he eventually proposed acts.
to her. After accepting his proposal, respondent - It is not the breach of promise itself that
subsequently resigned from her job and began could justify awarding of damages, but
cohabiting with the petitioner. She claims that she the fraud and deceit behind it.
even introduced him to her parents who gave their - The Court found that the petitioner made
blessing and even began to procure livestock (pigs a false promise to marry that he had no
and chickens), find sponsors, and invite guests for intention of keeping in order to take
the wedding. advantage of the respondent. Without
- Respondent claims that the petitioner’s demeanor such promise, respondent may never have
changed soon after. He began to mistreat her, quit her job, had sexual relations with him,
kicked her out of their home, and refused to or incurred expenses for a wedding.
uphold his engagement to her, eventually claiming - The Court ruled that he was liable for
that he was already married to another woman in damages because of these wrongs that he
Bacolod. willfully inflicted on her.
- The petitioner, on the other hand, denies promising - Minor Issue: Petitioner proposes that even if he did
to marry the respondent and mistreating her, and propose to marry her, respondent is in pari delicto
claims that he asked her to stop coming to his home for cohabiting with him before marriage. Court
because she was stealing from him. disagreed, she was not driven by lust, but by a
- The respondent filed a suit for P45,000 worth of sincere desire to marry him.
damages as well as attorney’s fees and costs worth
P600. The petitioner filed a counterclaim for
P25,000 worth of moral damages and P5,000 for RULING: Petition Denied. Gashem Shookat Baksh is liable
miscellaneous expenses. for P25,000 worth of damages for fraud and deceit behind
- Trial Court applied Article 21 of the Civil Code in his promise to marry Marilou Gonzales.
awarding respondent a total of P25,000 (10k
moral, 5k attorney and litigation expenses).
Decision affirmed by Court of Appeals. Quasi-delict and Delict – Overlap
- Petitioner finally appealed to the Supreme Court, LG Foods v. Philadelfa
questioning whether or not Article 21 should L.G. Foods v. Philadelfa | G.R. No. 158995 | Sept. 26, 2006 |
indeed apply to the case at bar. Garcia, J.
ISSUE:
- WON petitioner Gashem Shookat Baksh actually FACTS
proposed to respondent Marilou Gonzales - YES ● Charles Vallereja (victim), child of the present
respondents, was hit by a car owned by the
 petitioners and driven by their employee Vincent based on quasi-delict precisely because
Yeneza the death of the driver renders an action
○ Charles died because of the accident based on delict an impossibility
● A criminal case for reckelss imprudence resulting to ● The petitioners also argue that the respondents
homicide was filed against Yeneza but before the faield to reserve the right to file a separate civil
trial could be conclude, he committed suicide action and so when the criminal case was
○ The criminal case was subsequently dismissed, the civil case was dismissed with it
dismissed ○ the Court finds no merit in this argument
● The respondents filed a complaint for damages ○ since the criminal case was terminated
against petitioners, alleging that the latter failed to prematurely owing to the driver's death,
exercise due diligence in the selection and no pronouncement could be made as to
supervision of their employees the merits of the case; therefore, it is
● The petitioners responded with a Motion to as if there was no criminal case in the first
Dismiss, stating that the complaint is a claim for place
subsidiary liability against an employer under Art.
103 of the RPC RULING
○ The petitioners contend that a condition Petition denied.
sine qua non of such claim is a criminal
conviction of the driver
○ ergo, since the case was dismissed before
a conviction was pronounced, the
petitioners may not be held subsidiarily
liable
● The RTC denied the motion to dismiss
● Upon appeal, the CA upheld the RTC decision
● Hence, the present petition assailing the CA's
choice of upholding the RTC's ruling

ISSUES
1. W/N the cause of action of the respondents is
founded upon Art. 103 of the RPC - NO
● the petitioner's motion to dismiss lacks merit as the
respondents' claim was not founded upon RPC Art.
103; in fact, the respondents did not even try to
aver the basic elements of subsidiary liability under
said provision
● although not explicitly stated, it is clear from their
allegations that the respondents' remedy of choice
was quasi-delict
○ victims of negligence or their heirs have a
choice between an action to enforce the
civil liability arising from culpa criminal
under Art. 100 of the RPC, and an action
for quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) under Art.
2176 to 2194 of CC
○ If, like in the present case, the action
chosen is for quasi-delict, the plaintiff may
hold the employer liable for the negligent
act of its employee (subject to the
employer's defense of exercise of the
diligence of a good father)
○ Under Art. 2180 of the CC, the liability of
the employer is direct/immediate and is
not conditioned upon a prior recourse
against an employeee
● In the present case, the respondents sufficiently
alleged that the death of their son was caused by
the negligence of the petitioners' driver and that
the petitioners themselves were civilly laible for
failing to exercise the necessary diligence in
selecting and supervising their driver
○ the court is constrained to conclude that
the action filed by the respondents is one