lOMoARcPSD|7424173

Case digest on Oblicon

BS Accountancy (University of Batangas)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Justin Tayaban ([email protected])
 lOMoARcPSD|7424173

Navales vs. Rias 8 Phil. 508 said to have been suffered due to his worry,
neglect of his interests and his family as well in
FACTS: the supervision of the cultivation of his land, a
total of P 15,000.
Navales constructed a house in the land owned
by Rias, the deputy sheriff and by the virtue of Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte rejected the
the decision of the justice carried to execution theory of De la Cruz because he was an agent of
was obliged to destroy the house and remove it Northern Theatrical Enterprises Inc. and that as
from the land owned by Rias, this procedure is such agent he was entitled to compensate the
according to the usual action for ejectment. Then expenses incurred by him in connection with the
Navales filed a complaint with the Court of First agency.
Instance of Cebu claiming for the damages
against Rias. The court rendered judgement The court found and decided that De La Cruz had
declaring the decision entered by the Justice of no cause of action and dismissed the complaint
Peace and the execution of the order of the without costs.
sheriff illegal, and the defendant were liable for
the damages. Issue:

ISSUE: Whether or not an agent who’s in the line of duty

performs an act that resulted in his incurring
Whether or not the defendants were liable for expenses caused by a stranger. May the latter
damages. recover the said expenses against his former
employer.
HELD:
Held:
No. There has no proof has been submitted that a
contract had been entered into between the No, because the relationship between the
plaintiff and the defendants, or that the latter had Northern Theatrical Enterprises Inc. and plaintiff
committed illegal acts or omissions or incurred in was not that of principal and agent because the
any kind of fault or negligence, from any of which principle of representation as a characteristic of
an obligation might have arisen on the part of the agency was in no way involved. Plaintiff was not
defendants to indemnify the plaintiff. For this employed to represent corporation in its dealings
reason, the claim for indemnity, on account of with third parties. Plaintiff is a mere employee
acts performed by the sheriff while enforcing a hired to perform a certain specific duty or task,
judgment, can not under any consideration be that of acting as a special guard and staying at
sustained. (Art. 1089, Civil Code.) the main entrance of the movie house to stop
gate crashers and to maintain peace and order
The illegality of the judgment of the justice of the within the premises
peace, that of the writ of execution thereunder,
or of the acts performed by the sheriff for the PELAYO VS. LAURON Case Digest
enforcement of the judgment, has not been
shown. ARTURO PELAYO VS. MARCELO LAURON

12 Phil 453

DOMINGO DE LA CRUZ vs. NORTHERN January 12, 1909

THEATRICAL ENTERPRISES INC., ET AL.
FACTS:
Facts:
On November 23, 1906, Arturo Pelayo, a
1941, The Northern Theatrical Enterprises Inc., a physician, filed a complaint against Marcelo and
domestic corporation operated a movie house in Juana Abella. He alleged that on October 13, 1906
Laoag, Ilocos Norte. Domingo De La Cruz was at night, Pelayo was called to the house of the
employed whose duties were to guard the main defendants to assist their daughter-in-law who
entrance, to maintain peace and order and to was about to give birth to a child. Unfortunately,
report the commission of disorders within the daughter-in-law died as a consequence of
premises. He carried a revolver. said childbirth. Thus, the defendant refuses to
pay. The defendants argue that their daughter-in-
Benjamin Martin wanted to crash the gate or law lived with her husband independently and in
entrance of the movie house. Infuriated by the a separate house without any relation, that her
refusal of De la Cruz to let him in without first stay there was accidental and due to fortuitous
providing himself with a ticket, Martin attacked event.
him with a bolo. De la Cruz defendant himself as
best he could until he was cornered, at which ISSUE:
moment to save himself he shot Martin, resulting
in Benjamin Martin’s death. Whether or not the defendants should be held
liable for the fees demanded by the plaintiff upon
De la Cruz was charged with homicide. After a re- rendering medical assistance to the defendants’
investigation conducted by the Provincial Fiscal daughter-in-law.
the latter filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which was granted by the court. De la Cruz was RULING:
again accused of the same crime of homicide.
After trial, he was finally acquitted of the charge. No.

He then demanded from former employer to The Court held that the rendering of medical
repay the expenses but was refused thus filed assistance is one of the obligations to which
present action against the Northern Theatrical spouses are bound by mutual support, expressly
Enterprises Inc company and to three members determined by law and readily demanded.
of its Board of Directors to recover amounts he Therefore, there was no obligation on the part of
had paid his lawyers including moral damages

Downloaded by Justin Tayaban ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7424173

the in-laws but rather on the part of the husband only thus be convicted under Article 335 of the
who is not a party. Revised Penal Code, as amended, of simple rape
punishable by reclusion perpetua.
Thus, decision affirmed.
Thus, in the case at bar, although relationship has
not been alleged in the information, the offense
having been committed, however, prior to the
UST Cooperative vs. City of Manila effectivity of the new rules, the civil liability
already incurred by appellant remains unaffected
Facts:
thereby.
UST Cooperative Store paid municipal taxes and
license fees to the City of Manila for the period
beginning July 1957 up to December 1958 BARREDO V. GARCIA
amounting to P12,345.10. Unknown to UST
Cooperative Store Republic Act No. 2023 was FAUSTO BARREDO, petitioner, vs. SEVERINO
enacted on June 1957 exempting cooperatives GARCIA and TIMOTEO ALMARIO,
from taxes if they have the net asset of not more respondents
than P500,000.00. UST Cooperative Store had a
net asset of below P500,000.00. Thus, they paid No. 48006. July 8, 1942
erroneously and now claims for a refund from the
City of Manila. Facts:

Issue A head-on collision between a taxicab owned by

Barredo and a carretela occurred. The carretela
Can UST Cooperative Store recover the amount it was overturned and one of its passengers, a 16-
paid to the City of Manila? year old boy, the son of Garcia and Almario, died
as a result of the injuries which he received. The
Held: driver of the taxicab, an employee of Barredo,
was prosecuted for the crime and was convicted.
Yes. When money is paid to another under the When the criminal case was instituted, Garcia
influence of a mistake of fact — that on the and Almario reserved their right to institute a
mistaken supposition of the existence of a separate civil action for damages. Subsequently,
specific fact which would entitle the other to the Garcia and Almario instituted a civil action for
money — and it would not have been known that damages against Barredo, the employer of the
the fact making the payment was otherwise, it taxicab driver.
may be recovered. The ground upon which the
right of recovery rests is that money paid through Issue:
misapprehension of facts belongs, in equity , and
in good conscience, to the person who paid it. Whether or not they can file a separate civil
action against Fausto Barredo making him
primarily and directly responsible
People vs Catubig Held:
363 SCRA 621 (2001) (Foreword: The Barredo case was decided by the
Supreme Court prior to the present Civil Code.
Facts: However, the principle enunciated in said case,
that responsibility for fault or negligence as
Dannilyn Catubig, and her four (4) younger
quasi-delict is distinct and separate from
siblings were watching television in the sala of negligence penalized under the Revised Penal
their house located at Sunlife Subdivision, San
Code, is now specifically embodied in Art. 2177 of
Jose del Monte, Bulacan. the Civil Code.)
After an hour, Dannilyns father, herein appellant
The defendant maintains that Fontanilla’s
Danilo Catubig, arrived and told Dannilyns negligence being punishable by the Penal Code,
siblings to proceed to her aunts house which is
his (defendant’s) liability as an employer is only
just located nearby. Thereafter, appellant told subsidiary, according to said Penal Code, but
Dannilyn to go inside a room and to lie down on
Fontanilla has not been sued in a civil action and
the bed. After Dannilyn had complied, appellant his property has not been exhausted. To decide
removed Dannilyns shorts and panty, while
the main issue, we must cut thru the tangle that
appellant, after removing his brief and t-shirt, laid has, in the minds of many, confused and jumbled
on top of Dannilyn. Afraid of appellant who beat
together delitos and cuasi delitos, or crimes
and raped her in the past, Dannilyn was not able under the Penal Code and fault or negligence
to resist appellant who succeeded the
under Articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code.
penetration. According to the Supreme Tribunal of Spain:
Issue:
“Authorities support the proposition that a quasi-
delict or ‘culpa aquiliana’ is a separate legal
Whether or not Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code as amended by RA 7659 is applicable. institution under the Civil Code, with a
substantivity all its own, and individuality that is
Held: entirely apart and independent from a delict or
crime. Upon this principle, and on the wording
The information failed to state the minority of the and spirit of Article 1903 of the Civil Code, the
victim and her relationship with the offender, primary and direct responsibility of employers
both special qualifying circumstances under may be safely anchored.
Republic Act No. 7659, and for want of such
allegations, the trial court erred in imposing the “It will thus be seen that while the terms of
death penalty on the accused. Appellant could Article 1902 of the Civil Code seem to be broad
enough to cover the driver’s negligence in the

Downloaded by Justin Tayaban ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7424173

instant case, nevertheless Article 1903 limits with mistake. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a
cuasi-delitos TO ACTS OR OMISSIONS ‘NOT complaint for recovery of damages against
PUNISHABLE BY LAW.’ But inasmuch as Article defendant Reginald Hill, a minor, married at the
365 of the Revised Penal Code punishes not only time of the occurrence, and his father, the
reckless but even simple imprudence or defendant Marvin Hill, with who he was living and
negligence, the fault or negligence under Article getting subsistence, for the same killing. A
1902 of the Civil Code has apparently been motion to dismiss was filed by the defendants.
crowded out. It is this overlapping that makes the The Court of First Instance of Quezon City denied
“confusion worse confounded.’ However, a closer the motion. Nevertheless, the civil case was
study shows that such a concurrence of scope in finally dismissed upon motion for reconsideration.
regard to negligent acts does not destroy the
distinction between the civil liability arising from Issues:
a crime and the responsibility for cuasi-delitos or
culpa extra-contractual. The same negligent act 1. WON the present civil action for damages is
causing damages may produce civil liability barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal
arising from a crime under Article 100 of the case.
Revised Penal Code; or create an action for cuasi-
delito or culpa extra-contractual under Articles 2. WON Article 2180 (2nd and last paragraphs) of
1902-1910 of the Civil Code. “Some of the the Civil Code may be applied against Atty. Hill,
differences between crimes under the Penal Code notwithstanding the undisputed fact that at the
are: time of the occurrence complained of. Reginald,
though a minor, living with and getting
“1. That crimes affect the public interest, while subsistence from his father, was already legally
quasi-delitos are only of private concern. married.

“2. That consequently, the Penal Code punishes Ruling of the Court:
or corrects the criminal act, while the Civil Code,
by means of indemnification, merely repairs the 1. No, the present civil action for damages is not
damage. barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal
case. Firstly, there is a distinction as regards the
“3. That delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts, proof required in a criminal case and a civil case.
because for the former are punished only if there To find the accused guilty in a criminal case,
is a penal law clearly covering them, while the proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is
latter, cuasi-delitos, include all acts in which ‘ any required, while in a civil case, preponderance of
kind of fault or negligence intervenes.’ However, evidence is sufficient to make the defendant pay
it should be noted that not all violations of the in damages. Furthermore, a civil case for
penal law produce civil responsibility, such as damages on the basis of quasi-delict does is
begging in contravention of ordinances, violation independently instituted from a criminal act. As
of the game laws, infraction of the rules of traffic such the acquittal of Reginald Hill in the criminal
when nobody is hurt. case has not extinguished his liability for quasi-
delict, hence that acquittal is not a bar to the
“The foregoing authorities clearly demonstrate instant action against him.
the separate individuality of cuasi-delitos or culpa
aquiliana under the Civil Code. Specifically they 2. Yes, the above mentioned provision may still
show that there is a distinction between civil be applied against Atty Marvin Hill. Although
liability arising from criminal negligence parental authority is terminated upon
(governed by the Penal Code) and responsibility emancipation of the child, emancipation by
for fault or negligence under Articles 1902 to marriage is not absolute, i.e. he can sue and be
1910 of the Civil Code, and that the same sued in court only with the assistance of his
negligent act may produce either a civil liability father, mother or guardian. As in the present
arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or a case, killing someone else contemplated judicial
separate responsibility for fault or negligence litigation, thus, making Article 2180 apply to Atty.
under Articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code. Still Hill.However, inasmuch as it is evident that
more concretely the authorities above cited Reginald is now of age, as a matter of equity, the
render it inescapable to conclude that the liability of Atty. Hill has become milling,
employer – in this case the defendant-petitioner – subsidiary to that of his son.
is primarily and directly liable under Article 1903
of the Civil Code.” People v. Peña

PEDRO ELCANO and PATRICIA ELCANO, in G.R. No. 133964

their capacity as Ascendants of
February 13, 2002
AgapitoElcano, deceased,plaintiffs-
appellants, Facts
vs. 1. Ramil Peña was charged with murder.
REGINALD HILL, minor, and MARVIN HILL, as 2. In the early morning of December 8, 1995,
father and Natural Guardian of said minor, Peña hired Jimbo Pelagio, a tricycle driver to take
defendants-appellees. him to Paco, Obando, Bulacan. At the destination,
he ordered Pelagio to get off the tricycle.
G.R. No. L-24803 [May 26, 1977]
3. Then, Peña robbed Pelagio of his money and
Facts of the Case:
repeatedly struck him on the head with a gun.
Respondent Reginald Hill killed the son of the Pelagio fell on the ground unconscious. Peña shot
plaintiffs named Agapito Elcano. A criminal him on the head and fled on board his tricycle.
complaint was instituted against him but he was
4. That same morning, SPO1 Froilan Bautista got
acquitted on the ground that his act was not
a call from the Valenzuela Emergency Hospital
criminal, because of lack of intent to kill, couple
stating that a man had been shot on the head

Downloaded by Justin Tayaban ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7424173

and was in their hospital. SPO1 Bautista and (1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling
SPO1 Jose Sta. Ana rushed to the hospital and occurrence; (2) the statements were made before
found the still conscious Pelagio lying on a the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and
stretcher. (3) the statements concern the occurrence in
question and its immediately attending
5. SPO1 Bautista took the statement of Pelagio circumstances.
where the latter related how Peña inflicted his
injuries on him, which he took down on two 6. Pelagio’s declaration is admissible as part of
sheets of yellow paper. (N.B. Read the statement the res gestae since it was made shortly after a
or declaration made by Pelagio taken by SPO1 startling occurrence and under the influence
Bautista at the last page) thereof. Under the circumstances, the victim
evidently had no opportunity to contrive his
6. On February 6, 1996, Jimbo Pelagio expired. statement beforehand.
7. For his part, Peña claimed that he was in San 7. In People v. Hernandez, the infliction on a
Isidro, San Luis, Pampanga together with his wife person of a gunshot wound on a vital part of the
on the date of the incident. Peña’s testimony was body should qualify by any standard as a startling
corroborated by his uncle Maximiano Guevarra, occurrence.
the owner of the house where he stayed.
8. In this case, it is clear that the pistol-whipping
8. The trial court found Peña guilty beyond and the gunshot on the head of Pelagio qualified
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. Hence, as a startling occurrence. Notably, Pelagio
the Appeal. constantly complained of pain in his head while
his statement was being taken by SPO1 Bautista,
9. Peña next claims that the evidence relied upon so much so that there was no opportunity for him
by the trial court is hearsay and inadmissible. He to be able to devise or contrive anything other
argues that said evidence does not constitute res than what really happened.
gestae.

Issue
(C) Testimonies or Written Statements of
Whether the statement of the victim Jimbo the Prosecution Witnesses
Pelagio as well as the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses on the victim’s declaration 9. As to the testimonies or the written statements
can be considered as part of the res gestae, of the three prosecution witnesses which were
hence, an exception to the hearsay rule. taken into consideration by the trial court as part
of the res gestae, even if there were intervening
periods between the time the victim gave his
account of the incident to the prosecution
Ruling witnesses and the time the latter first disclosed
(A) Dying Declaration what the victim told them, the same will not
affect the admissibility of the victim’s declaration
1. The requisites for the admissibility of dying or statement as part of res gestae since it is
declarations are: (1) at the time the declaration sufficient that such declaration or statement was
was made, death was imminent and the made by the victim before he had time to
declarant was conscious of that fact; (2) the contrive or devise a falsehood.
declaration refers to the cause and surrounding
circumstances of such death; (3) the declaration 10. As stated by the trial court found, the
straightforward and consistent testimonies of the
relates to facts which the victim was competent
to testify to; (4) the declarant thereafter died; three vital prosecution witnesses bear the
earmarks of credibility. Further, there exists no ill
and (5) the declaration is offered in a criminal
case wherein the declarant’s death is the subject motive on their part to prevaricate, hence their
testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.
of the inquiry.

2. The first element is lacking. It was not (D) Murder or Homicide

established with certainty whether Pelagio 11. However, this Court cannot agree with the
uttered his statement with consciousness of his
trial court that the crime should be murder. While
impending death. While he was in pain when he evident premeditation and treachery were
made his statement, he expressly stated that
alleged in the information, the trial court did not
Peña only pistol-whipped him and almost shot state why the killing was qualified to murder. The
him. The crucial factor to consider is the
prosecution failed to establish the attendance of
contemporaneity of the moment when the the qualifying circumstances with concrete proof.
statement was made and the moment of the
The crime proved was only homicide.
realization of death. The time the statement was
being made must also be the time the victim was 12. Aside from the sentence, Peña was also
aware that he was dying. ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the amount
of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in view of
prevailing jurisprudence and P26,000.00 as actual
damages as supported by receipts.
(B) Res Gestae

4. While it may not qualify as a dying declaration, Equitable Leasing Corporation vs Suyom
Pelagio’s statement may nonetheless be 388 SCRA 445 (2002)
admitted in evidence as part of the res gestae.
Facts:
5. A declaration made spontaneously after a
startling occurrence is deemed as part of the res On July 17, 1994, a Fuso Road Tractor driven by
gestae when Raul Tutor rammed into the house cum store of
Myrna Tamayo in Tondo, Manila. A portion of the

Downloaded by Justin Tayaban ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7424173

house was destroyed which caused death and

injury. Tutor was charged with and later
convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in
multiple homicide and multiple physical injuries.

Upon verification with the Land Transportation

Office, it was known that the registered owner of
the tractor was Equitable Leasing
Corporation/leased to Edwin Lim. On April 15,
1995, respondents filed against Raul Tutor,
Ecatine Corporation (Ecatine) and Equitable
Leasing Corporation (Equitable) a Complaint for
damages.

The petitioner alleged that the vehicle had

already been sold to Ecatine and that the former
was no longer in possession and control thereof
at the time of the incident. It also claimed that
Tutor was an employee, not of Equitable, but of
Ecatine.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner was liable for

damages based on quasi delict for the negligent
acts.

Held:

The Lease Agreement between petitioner and

Edwin Lim stipulated that it is the intention of the
parties to enter into a finance lease agreement.
Ownership of the subject tractor was to be
registered in the name of petitioner, until the
value of the vehicle has been fully paid by Edwin
Lim.

Lim completed the payments to cover the full

price of the tractor. Thus, a Deed of Sale over the
tractor was executed by petitioner in favor of
Ecatine represented by Edwin Lim. However, the
Deed was not registered with the LTO.

Petitioner is liable for the deaths and the injuries

complained of, because it was the registered
owner of the tractor at the time of the
accident.The Court has consistently ruled that,
regardless of sales made of a motor vehicle, the
registered owner is the lawful operator insofar as
the public and third persons are concerned.

Since Equitable remained the registered owner of

the tractor, it could not escape primary liability
for the deaths and the injuries arising from the
negligence of the driver.

Downloaded by Justin Tayaban ([email protected])