CONCEPT OF FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE

B. G.R. No. 150920 November 25, 2005 - CHILD LEARNING CENTER, INC. and SPOUSES
EDGARDO L. LIMON and SYLVIA S. LIMON, Petitioners,
vs. TIMOTHY TAGARIO, assisted by his parents BASILIO TAGORIO and HERMINIA
TAGORIO, Respondents.

FACTS:

Timothy was a Grade IV student at Marymount School, an academic institution operated and
maintained by Child Learning Center, Inc. (CLC). One afternoon, he went to the third floor to pee but
found himself locked inside and unable to get out. He banged the door and yelled for help out of
panic but no one aided him. He then went to the window and on the processing of opening it, he fell
down three stories and suffered multiple injuries.

His parents (respondents) filed a case against the members of its Board of Directors, namely
Spouses Edgardo and Sylvia Limon, Alfonso Cruz, Carmelo Narciso and Luningning Salvador, and
the Administrative Officer of Marymount School, Ricardo Pilao alleging that the school did not
exercise due care and diligence of a good father of a familyin ensuring that their comfort rooms are
safe for the children. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the respondent, and the CA affirmed
the lower court decision.

Hence, the petition to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not CLC is guilty of negligence under Art 2176 of the Civil Code.

RULING:

Yes, the SC held that the injuries sustained by Timothy from the fall were the product of a natural
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any intervening cause, that originated from CLC’s own
negligence.

In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance
of evidence: (1) the damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or negligence of the defendant or
some other person for whose act he must respond; and (3) the connection of cause and effect
between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred.7

Fault, in general, signifies a voluntary act or omission which causes damage to the right of another
giving rise to an obligation on the part of the actor to repair such damage. Negligence is the failure to
observe for the protection of the interest of another person that degree of care, precaution and
vigilance which the circumstances justly demand. Fault requires the execution of a positive act which
causes damage to another while negligence consists of the omission to do acts which result in
damage to another.

In this case, the SC held petitioner liable for negligence because 1. Despite several cases of
students being locked in the same room, the school did nothing to prevent future scenarios to
happen and or even fix the lock, 2. The window where Timothy opened didn’t have grills – CLC
should have anticipated that student who is locked inside will resort to opening a window so he can
go out. Petitioners, with the due diligence of a good father of the family, should have anticipated that
a student, locked in the toilet by a non-working door, would attempt to use the window to call for help
or even to get out. Considering all the circumstances, therefore, there is sufficient basis to sustain a
finding of liability on petitioners’ part.

G.R. No. L-29889 May 31, 1979 - VICTORINO CUSI and PILAR POBRE, plaintiffs-appellees,

vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:

The Spouses Victorino Cusi and Pilar Pobre went to a birthday party. It was already 11’o clock when
the spouses left the party and decided to go home. Upon reaching the railroad tracks, finding that
the level crossing bar was raised and seeing that there was no flashing red light, and hearing no
whistle from any coming train, Cusi merely slackened his speed and proceeded to cross the tracks.
At the same time, a train bound to for Lucena was traversing the crossing which resulted in a
collision between the two. The impact was so strong that it threw the spouses of their cars and both
was rushed to the nearest hospital where they suffered multiple injuries and bone fractures.

They then filed a case against the defendant. The RTC of Rizal ruled in their favor ordering
defendant-appellant to indemnify the plaintiffs in the total amount P239,648.72 and found that the
defendant is guilty of gross negligence.

The defense averred that the gross negligence of Victorino Cusi was the proximate cause of the
collision: that he should have made a full stop before traversing the crossing as provided by Motor
Vehicle Law.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is existence of negligence on the part of defendant-appellant as found
by the lower court.

RULING:

Yes. The court held defendant-appellant is guilty of gross negligence. The court reiterated the
meaning of negligence in this case; Negligence has been defined by Judge Cooley in his work on
Torts 3d ed sec. 13243 as "the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person
that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such
other person suffers injury."

In this case, the company did not take precautions in warning the travelling public of the impending
danger. On the night of the accident - the signal devices were wholly manually-operated. As it was,
the crossing was left unattended to after eleven o'clock every night, without sending any of its
employees to operate said signal devices so as to warn oncoming motorists of the approach of one
of its locomotives. Thus, it has been held that if a railroad company maintains a signalling device at a
crossing to give warning of the approach of a train, the failure of the device to operate is generally
held to be evidence of negligence, which maybe considered with all the circumstances of the case in
determining whether the railroad company was negligent as a matter of fact.

Also, as observed by the lower court, the locomotive driver did not blow his whistle, thus: "... he
simply sped on without taking an extra precaution of blowing his whistle from a distance of 50 to 10
meters from the crossing. That the train was running at full speed is attested to by the fact that
notwithstanding the application of the emergency brakes, the train did not stop until it reached a
distance of around 100 meters.
Thus, with all the facts in the case, the court held the defendant liable for negligence as it did not
take measures in ensuring the safety of the traveling public, which, as a result, causes injuries to
others.

G.R. No. L-7760 October 1, 1914- E. M. WRIGHT, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MANILA ELECTRIC
R.R. & LIGHT CO., defendant-appellant.

FACTS:

The defendant is a corporation engaged in operating an electric street railway in the city of Manila
and its suburbs. The plaintiff’s residence is located in Caloocan, and in front, is where defendant’s
tracks run. One night, while driving home in his calesa, the plaintiff had to cross the said track and
upon doing so, the horse stumbled, then leaped forward. As a result, the plaintiff fell from the calesa
and suffered injuries.

Upon investigation, the cause of the accident was the rails were above-ground, but that the ties upon
which the rails rested projected from the ground, thus making the tops of the rails some 5 or 6 inches
or more above the level of the street. This led petitioner to file a case against defendant.

The lower court held that both parties were negligent: defendant’s failure to maintain/secure that the
tracks were safe, and petitioner’s intoxication which made him uable to take care of himself at the
night of the accident. But that the plaintiff's negligence was not as great as defendant's and under
the authority of the case of Rakes vs. A. G. & P. Co. (7 Phil. Rep., 359) apportioned the damages
and awarded plaintiff a judgment of P1,000.

ISSUE: Whether or not plaintiff is negligent, and if so, it contributed to his fall and injuries.

RULING:

No. The SC held that the plaintiff was not negligent and intoxication did not contribute to his fall. The
court reiterated that ‘mere intoxication establish a want of ordinary care. It is but a circumstance to
be considered with the other evidence tending to prove negligence. It is the general rule that it is
immaterial whether a man is drunk or sober if no want of ordinary care or prudence can be imputed
to him, and no greater degree of care is required than by a sober one. If one's conduct is
characterized by a proper degree of care and prudence, it is immaterial whether he is drunk or
sober.’

The SC further discussed that the conclusion that if he had been sober he would not have been
injured is not warranted by the facts as found. It is impossible to say that a sober man would not
have fallen from the vehicle under the conditions described. A horse crossing the railroad tracks with
not only the rails but a portion of the ties themselves aboveground, stumbling by reason of the
unsure footing and falling, the vehicle crashing against the rails with such force as to break a wheel,
this might be sufficient to throw a person from the vehicle no matter what his condition; and
to conclude that, under such circumstances, a sober man would not have fallen while a
drunken man did, is to draw a conclusion which enters the realm of speculation and
guesswork.

Simply put, defendant’s intoxication is immaterial to this case. The defendant’s negligence is the
proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. This is because the company did not exercise due diligence
and care in maintaining that the tracks were safe (the ties were properly attached deep on the
ground) especially during night time. Thus, intoxicated or not, it is impossible for the plaintiff to
escape such accident especially when crossing the railroad tracks is the only way to his home.
G.R. No. L-5691 December 27, 1910- S. D. MARTINEZ and his wife, CARMEN ONG DE
MARTINEZ, plaintiffs-appellees,

vs. WILLIAM VAN BUSKIRK, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:

Plaintiff was riding in a carromata with her son on the left side of the road when a delivery wagon
carried by two horses on the opposite side went on their direction. The wagon collided with the
carromata and overturned it, resulting in serious injuries to the driver, the plaintiff, and her son.

The defendant averred that he was not negligent. He tied the horses and was unloading the wagon
when the animals heard some noises which eventually frightened them. They ran in panic and the
cochero was thrown out from the wagon.

The lower court found defendant guilty of negligence and ordered him to pay the plaintiff for the
damages they suffered. However, defendant claimed that he was careful with his acts and
considered as a safe cochero for several years based on the evidence he adduced.

ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant is negligent.

RULING:

No. The court held that there was not enough evidence to prove that the defendant was in fact
negligent.

The act of defendant's driver in leaving the horses in the manner proved was not unreasonable or
imprudent. Acts, the performance of which has not proved destructive or injurious and which have,
therefore, been acquiesced in by society for so long a time that they have ripened into custom, can
not be held to be themselves unreasonable or imprudent. Indeed the very reason why they have
been permitted by society is that they beneficial rather than prejudicial.

Thus, when a person duly proves that he employed all the diligence of a good father of a
family to avoid damage or injury to another, liability will not prosper.

In this case, the driver was known to be a careful and diligent cochero for several years based on
evidence. There was evidence which could have fully justified the jury in finding that the horse was
quite and gentle, and that the driver was upon the sidewalk loading goods on the wagon, at time of
the alleged injury, and that the horse had been used for years in that way without accident. In fact, it
was the custom of all cochero who delivered merchandise to leave the horses and assist in
unloading the merchandise off the wagon.This is the custom in all cities. It has not been productive
of accidents or injuries.

Therefore, the court is convinced that the defendant was not negligent in leaving the horses in the
manner described by the evidence in this case, either under Spanish or American jurisprudence. He
was only doing his job and the accident cannot be attributed to his own negligence without any
evidence to prove the same.