1 Alburo 'Par. 4.

— Party of the Second Part through the negligence of its guards, after an 3 BEJERANO
investigation has been conducted by the Party of the First Part wherein the Party
SAGRADA ORDEN VS NACOCO, G.R. NO. L-3756, JUNE 30, 1952 of the Second Part has been duly represented shall assume full responsibilities GENERAL PROVISIONS
for any loss or damages that may occur to any property of the Party of the First
FACTS: The land initially was owned by Sagrada Orden before the Japanese Part for which it is accountable, during the watch hours of the Party of the FGU Insurance Corp. vs. GP Sarmiento Trucking Corp. and Lambert M.
Occupation during the World War II. Second Part, provided the same is reported to the Party of the Second Part Eroles
within twenty-four (24) hours of the occurrence, except where such loss or
During the Japanese Occupation, his property which consists a warehouse and a damage is due to force majeure, provided however that after the proper 386 SCRA 312
lot was taken by the Japanese puppet government in its custody and was investigation to be made thereof that the guard on post is found negligent and
registered as Taiwan Tekkosho. Upon Liberation of the US forces of the that the amount of the loss shall not exceed ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00) Facts
Philippine islands, The American government through the United States Alien PESOS per guard post.'
Property Custodian, with the vested power of the Trading with the enemy Act Respondent GP Sarmiento Trucking Company (GTS) undertook to transport
took the property under its jurisdiction which was eventually transferred to the 'Par. 5 — The party of the Second Part assumes the responsibility for the proper cargoes for Concepcion Industries Inc. when it collided with an unidentified truck,
Philippine Alien Property Administrator which occupied the property from 1946 performance by the guards employed, of their duties and be solely responsible causing damage to the cargoes. Petitioner, FGU, insurer of the shipment, paid to
up to 1948. for the acts done during their watch hours, the Party of the First Part being Concepcion Industries the value of the covered cargoes. Then, as subrogee of
specifically released from any and all liabilities to the former's employee or to the Concepcion Industries Inc., petitioner FGU sued GPS for breach of contract of
Prior the acquisition of the PAPA, petitioner filed an action unto the honourable third parties arising from the acts or omissions done by the guard during their carriage for reimbursement. Instead of filing an answer, GPS filed a demurrer to
court for the nullification of the Japanese registration which was eventually tour of evidence, claiming that it could not be held liable as a common carrier because it
granted but still the property was under the custody of PAPA in which eventually duty.' was only a private carrier, being the exclusive hauler only of Concepcion
was transferred to NACOCO. Petitioner demands rental fees for the occupation Industries Inc. since 1988.
of the properties.
ISSUE ; Whether Defendant is liable to indemnify plaintiff for the entire damages
The lower court granted the motion, ruling that plaintiff FGU failed to prove that
ISSUE: W/N defendant is liable to indemnify petitioner of the rental fees for thus incurred
GPS was a common carrier. The CA affirmed the trial court's order
occupying the property?
RULING ; Yes, since under paragraph 5 of their contract it "assumed the Issue
RULING: responsibility for the proper performance by the guards employed of their duties
and be solely responsible for the acts done during their watch hours" and Whether or not GPS is considered a common carrier and may be presumed
No. NACOCO cannot be liable for the occupation of the property since it was "specifically released from any and all liabilities ... to the third parties arising from negligent and therefore liable for damages.
merely in charge of the custody of the property. NACOCO acted in good faith the acts or omissions done by the guards during their tour of duty." As plaintiff
and prescription to law. had duly discharged its liability to the third party, its customer, Joseph Luy, for Ruling
the undisputed damages of P8,489.10 caused said customer, due to the wanton
The supposed obligations must only rise on four sources, namely: law, contracts, and unlawful act of defendant's guard, defendant in turn was clearly liable under The Supreme Court held that GPS cannot be considered a common carrier as it
quasi contracts and criminal offense/ negligence. There was no express the terms of paragraph 5 of their contract to indemnify plaintiff in the same renders service exclusively to Concepcion Industries; that notwithstanding, GPS
agreement for the occupation of the property. The government during its early amount.Plaintiff therefore was in law justified in making good such damages and cannot escape from liability since in culpa contractual, mere proof of the
years of independence took under its custody the property but immediately relying in turn on defendant to honor its contract and indemnify it for such existence of the contract and the failure of its compliance justify prima facie a
returned unto the petitioner upon verification that they are the true owner which undisputed damages, which had been caused directly by the unlawful and corresponding right of relief. Respondent driver, however, who is not a party to
was acquired by intimidation, threat and undue influence by the Japanese wrongful acts of defendant's security guard in breach of their contract. As the contract of carriage, may not be held liable under the agreement without
puppet government during their occupation. ordained in Article 1159, Civil Code, "obligations arising from contracts have the concrete proof of his negligence or fault.
force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good
2 BAIRD faith." Hence, the Supreme Court affirmed the assailed order of the trial court and the
CA insofar as the respondent driver was concerned, but GPS trucking company
PEOPLE'S CAR INC.,  vs.COMMANDO SECURITY SERVICE AGENCY Plaintiff in law could not tell its customer, as per the trial court's view, that "under was ordered to pay the petitioner FGU the value of the damaged and lost
the Guard Service Contract it was not liable for the damage but the defendant" cargoes.
FACTS ; On April 5, 1970 at around 1:00 A.M., however, defendant's security — since the customer could not hold defendant to account for the damages as
guard on duty at plaintiff's premises, "without any authority brought out of the he had no privity of contract with defendant. 5 CHUA
compound of the plaintiff a car belonging to its customer, and drove said car,
abandoning his post as such security guard on duty inside the plaintiff's CASE NO. 4 LRTA vs. Navidad
L.G. FOODS V. AGRAVIADOR
compound, and while so driving said car in one of the City streets lost control of
said car, causing the same to fall into a ditch along J.P. Laurel St., Davao City by FACTS:
reason of which the plaintiff's complaint for qualified theft against said driver. As
a result of these wrongful acts of defendant's security guard, the car of plaintiff's Charles, a 7-year old son of the spouses Vallejera, was hit by a Ford
customer, Joseph Luy, which had been left with plaintiff for servicing and Fiera van owned by the petitioners and driven at the time by their employee,
maintenance, "suffered extensive damage. The Total actual damages incurred Vincent Norman Yeneza y Ferrer. Charles died as a result of the accident. An
by plaintiff in the sum of P8,489.10.Plaintiff claimed that defendant was liable for Information for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide was filed against the
the entire amount under paragraph 5 of their contract where under defendant driver before the MTCC. Before the trial could be concluded, the accused driver
assumed "sole responsibility for the acts done during their watch hours" by its committed suicide, on account thereof, the MTCC dismissed the criminal case.
guards, whereas defendant contended, without questioning the amount of the The spouses Vallejera filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners as
actual damages incurred by plaintiff, that its liability "shall not exceed one employers of the deceased driver, basically alleging that as such employers,
thousand pesos per guard post" under paragraph 4 of their contract. they failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of their
employees. The defendant petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss, principally
arguing that the complaint is basically a "claim for subsidiary liability against an only through its employees. Hence the acts of its employees in receiving and
employer" under the provision of Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. transmitting messages are the acts of the petitioner.
Prescinding therefrom, they contend that there must first be a judgment of RULING:
conviction against their driver as a condition sine qua non to hold them liable, Since negligence may be hard to substantiate in some cases, we may apply the No. In determining the question of contributory negligence in performing such act
since the driver died during the pendency of the criminal action, the sine qua non doctrine of RES IPSALOQUITUR (the thing speaks for itself), by considering the – that is to say, whether the passenger acted prudently or recklessly – the age,
condition for their subsidiary liability was not fulfilled, hence the lack of cause of presence of facts or circumstances surrounding the injury sex, and physical condition of the passenger are circumstances necessarily
action on the part of the plaintiffs. affecting the safety of the passenger, and should be considered.
CASE NO. 7 Caminos vs. People
ISSUE: The place was perfectly familiar to the plaintiff as it was his daily custom to get
Case No. 8 on and off the train at the station. There could, therefore, be no uncertainty in his
Whether there must first be a judgment of conviction against their Cabugao vs. People, G.R. No. 163879 (2014) mind with regard either to the length of the step which he was required to take or
driver as a condition sine qua non to hold L.G. foods liable. the character of the platform where he was alighting. The Supreme Court’s
conclusion was that the conduct of the plaintiff in undertaking to alight while the
RULING: Facts: train was yet slightly under way was not characterized by imprudence and that
Rodolfo Palma Jr. complained of abdominal pains to his mother and he was therefore he was not guilty of contributory negligence.
No, It is clear that the allegations of the complaint that quasi-delict was brought to Dr. Antonio Cabugao’s clinic who referred them to Dr. Clenio Ynzon, a
their choice of remedy against the petitioners. The plaintiff spouses alleged in surgeon, upon results of initial tests showed that there is an initial impression of At the time of the accident, was earning P25 a month as a copyist clerk, and that
their complaint gross fault and negligence on the part of the driver and the failure appendicitis. Dr. Ynzon, placed Rodolfo on observation for 24 hrs and after the injuries he has suffered have permanently disabled him from continuing that
of the petitioners, as employers, to exercise due diligence in the selection and prescribing medicine left and let 2 residents in training monitor Rodolfo. employment. Defendant has not shown that any other gainful occupation is open
supervision of their employees. The spouses further alleged that the petitioners to plaintiff. His expectancy of life, according to the standard mortality tables, is
are civilly liable for the negligence/imprudence of their driver since they failed to The next morning, Rodolfo complained of abdominal pain and had watery bowels approximately thirty-three years. We are of the opinion that a fair compensation
exercise the necessary diligence required of a good father of the family in the that persisted. To remedy the situation, Dr. Ynzon, via phone call merely ordered for the damage suffered by him for his permanent disability is the sum of P2,500,
selection and supervision of their employees, which diligence, if exercised, could to administer more medicine. The next day, Rodolfo was declared dead by Dr. and that he is also entitled to recover of defendant the additional sum of P790.25
have prevented the vehicular accident that resulted to the death of their 7-year Cabugao. for medical attention, hospital services, and other incidental expenditures
old son. connected with the treatment of his injuries.

6 CRUZ Issue: 11 HALID

Whether Cabugao is guilty of reckless imprudence?
RCPI v CA VIRON TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., VS. ALBERTO DELOS SANTOS
Ruling:
143 SCRA 657 No, the referral of Rodolfo to Dr. Ynzon is actually an exercise of precaution as [G.R. No. 138296, November 22, 2000]
he knew that appendicitis is not within his scope of expertise. This showed that
Facts: The basis of the complaint against the defendant corporation is a he employed the best of his knowledge and skill in attending to Rodolfo. The FACTS:
telegram sent through its Manila Office to the offended party, Loreto Dionela, calculated assessment of Dr. Cabugao to refer Rodolfo to a surgeon who has
reading as follows: SA IYO WALANG PAKINABANG DUMATING KA DIYAN- sufficient training and experience belies the finding that he displayed inexcusable Defendant De Los Santos was the driver of defendant Rudy Samidan of a latter’s
WALA-KANG PADALA DITO KAHIT BULBUL MO. Plaintiff-respondent alleges lack of precaution in handling his patient. vehicle, a Forward Cargo Truck. At about 12:30 in the afternoon, he was driving
that the defamatory(libelous) words on the telegram sent to him not only said truck along the national highway within the vicinity if Gerona, Tarlac. The
wounded his feelings but also caused him undue embarrassment and affected CASE NO. 9 Metrobank vs. Rosales Viron Bus, driven by Wilfredo Villanueva, tried to overtake his truck, and he
adversely his business as well because other people have come to know of said swerved to the right shoulder of the highway, but as soon as he occupied the
defamatory words. Defendant corporation as a defense, alleges that the 10 GENON right lane of the road, the Cargo Truck which he was driving was hit by Viron Bus
additional words in Tagalog was a private joke between the sending and Cangco v. MRR, 38 Phil 768 on his left front side, as the bus swerved to his lane to avoid the incoming bus on
receiving operators and that they were not addressed to or intended for plaintiff. its opposite direction. With the driver of another truck dealing likewise in
FACTS: vegetables, dulnuan, the two of them and the driver of the Viron Bus proceeded
Issue: Whether the employer is directly and primarily liable to the civil liability On January 20, 1915, Jose Cangco was riding the train of Manila Railroad to report the incident to the police station.
arising from the criminal act of its employee Company where he was an employee. As the train drew near to his destination,
he arose from his seat. When he was about to alight from the train, Cangco ISSUE:
Ruling: Yes. The action for damages was filed in the lower court directly against accidentally stepped on a sack of watermelons which he failed to notice because
respondent not as an employer subsidiarily liable under the provisions of Article it was already 7:00pm and it was dim when it happened. As a result, he slipped Whether the employer is liable to the negligence of his employee.
1161 of the New Civil Code in relation to Art.103 of the RPC. The cause of action and fell violently on the platform. His right arm was badly crushed and lacerated
of the private respondent is based on Arts. 19 and 20 of the New Civil Code as which was eventually amputated. RULING:
well as on respondent's breach of contract thru the negligence of its own
employees. Cangco sued Manila Railroad Company on the ground of negligence of its As employer of the bus driver, the petitioner is, under Article 2180, of the Civil
employees placing the sacks of melons upon the platform and in leaving them so Code directly and primarily liable for the resulting damages. The presumption
Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of receiving and placed as to be a menace to the security of passenger alighting from the that they are negligent flows from the negligence of their employee. That
transmitting messages. Every time a person transmits a message through the company’s trains. The company’s defense was that granting that its employees presumption, however, is only juris tantum not juris et de jure. Their only possible
facilities of the petitioner, a contract is entered into. There is no question that in were negligent in placing an obstruction upon the platform, the direct and defense is that they exercise all the diligence of a good father of a family to
the case at bar, libelous matters were included in the message transmitted, proximate cause of the injury suffered by plaintiff was his own contributing prevent the damage.
without the consent or knowledge of the sender. There is a clear case of breach negligence.
of contract by the petitioner in adding extraneous and libelous matters in the "The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own
message sent to the private respondent. As a corporation, the petitioner can act ISSUE: acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
Whether or not there was a contributing negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and arranged and tightly secured to withstand the voyage in open seas. They would
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though order the stevedore to rectify any error in its loading and stowing. A foreman's Negligence – Private respondents were not able to disprove the presumption of
the former are not engaged in any business or industry. report, as proof of work done on board the vessel, was prepared by the checkers negligence on their part in the care of Erlinda and their negligence was the
of Mindanao Terminal and concurred in by the Chief Officer of M/V Mistrau after proximate cause of her condition. One need not be an anesthesiologist in order
In fine, when the employee caused damage due to his own negligence while they were satisfied that the cargoes were properly loaded. to tell whether or not the intubation was a success. [res ipsa loquitur applies
performing his own duties, there arises the juris tantum presumption that the here]. The Supreme Court also found that the anesthesiologist only saw Erlinda
employer is negligent, rebuttable only 8y proof of observance of the diligence of 13 JAAFAR for the first time on the day of the operation which indicates unfamiliarity with the
a good father of a family RAMOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS patient and which is an act of negligence and irresponsibility.
G.R. No. 124354. December 29, 1999.
Petitioner, through its witnesses, failed to rebut such legal presumption of The head surgeon, Dr. Hosaka was also negligent. He failed to exercise the
negligence in the selection and supervision of employees, thus, petitioner as the proper authority as the “captain of the ship” in determining if the anesthesiologist
employer is responsible for damages, the basis of the liability being the FACTS: observed the proper protocols. Also, because he was late, he did not have time
relationship of pater familias or on the employer’s own negligence. Hence, with Erlinda Ramos underwent a surgical procedure to remove stone from her gall to confer with the anesthesiologist regarding the anesthesia delivery.
the allegations and subsequent proof of negligence against the bus driver of bladder (cholecystectomy). They hired Dr. Hosaka, a surgeon, to conduct the
petitioner, petitioner (employer) is liable for damage. surgery at the De Los Santos Medical Center (DLSMC). Hosaka assured them The hospital failed to adduce evidence showing that it exercised the diligence of
that he would find a good anesthesiologist. But the operation did not go as a good father of the family in hiring and supervision of its doctors (Art. 2180). The
12 HAMMISANI planned, Dr. Hosaka arrived 3 hours late for the operation, Dra. Gutierrez, the hospital was negligent since they are the one in control of the hiring and firing of
anesthesiologist “botched” the administration of the anesthesia causing Erlinda their “consultants”. While these consultants are not employees, hospitals still
Mindanao Terminal VS Phoenix to go into a coma and suffer brain damage. The botched operation was exert significant controls on the selection and termination of doctors who work
witnessed by Herminda Cruz, sister in law of Erlinda and Dean of College of there which is one of the hallmarks of an employer-employee reationship. Thus,
Facts: Nursing of Capitol Medical Center. the hospital was allocated a share in the liability.
Del Monte Philippines contracted petitioner Mindanao Terminal, a stevedoring
company, to load and stow a shipment of 146,288 cartons fresh green bananas The family of Ramos (petitioners) sued the hospital, the surgeon and the
and 15,202 cartons of fresh pineapples belonging to Del Monte Produce into the anesthesiologist for damages. The petitioners showed expert testimony showing 14 LAKBAO
cargo hold of the vessel M/V Mistrau. The goods were to be transported to the that Erlinda's condition was caused by the anesthesiologist in not exercising
port of Inchon, Korea Del Monte Produce insured the shipment under an "open reasonable care in “intubating” Erlinda. Eyewitnesses heard the anesthesiologist Nogales v. Capitol Medical Center
cargo policy" with private respondent Phoenix, a non-life insurance company, saying “Ang hirap ma-intubate nito, mali yata ang pagkakapasok. O lumalaki ang
and private respondent McGee, the underwriting manager/agent of Phoenix. The tiyan.” Facts: Pregnant with her fourth child, Corazon Nogales, who was then 37 y/o
vessel set sail from the port of Davao City and arrived at the port of Inchon, was under the exclusive prenatal care of Dr. Oscar Estrada beginning on her
Korea. It was then discovered upon discharge that some of the cargo was in bad Diagnostic tests prior to surgery showed that Erlinda was robust and fit to fourth month of pregnancy or as early as December 1975. While Corazon was
condition. In a survey report, it was stated that 16,069 cartons of the banana undergo surgery. on her last trimester of pregnancy, Dr. Estrada noted an increase in her blood
shipment and 2,185 cartons of the pineapple shipment were so damaged that pressure and development of leg edemas indicating preeclampsia which is a
they no longer had commercial value. The RTC held that the anesthesiologist ommitted to exercise due care in dangerous complication of pregnancy. Around midnight of May 26, 1976,
intubating the patient, the surgeon was remiss in his obligation to provide a Corazon started to experience mild labor pains prompting Corazon and Rogelio
Del Monte Produce filed a claim under the open cargo policy for the damages to “good anesthesiologist” and for arriving 3 hours late and the hospital is liable for Nogales to see Dr. Estrada at his home. Upon her admission, an internal
its shipment. Phoenix and McGee instituted an action for damages against the negligence of the doctors and for not cancelling the operation after the examination was conducted upon her by a resident-physician. Based on the
Mindanao Terminal in the RTC of Davao City, Branch 12. The RTC dismissed surgeon failed to arrive on time. The surgeon, anesthesiologist and the DLSMC doctor’s sheet, around 3am, Dr. Estrada advised for 10mg valium to be
the complaint and awarded the counterclaim of Mindanao Terminal. Phoenix and were all held jointly and severally liable for damages to petitioners. The CA administered immediately by intramuscular injection, he later ordered the start of
McGee appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed and set reversed the decision of the Trial Court. intravenous administration of syntociron admixed with dextrose, 5% in lactated
aside the decision of the RTC citing the Summa Insurance Corp.VS CA wherein ringer’s solution, at the rate of 8-10 micro-drops per minute. When asked if he
an arrestre operator is legally liable for the loss of a shipment in its custody and ISSUES: Whether or not the private respondents were negligent and thereby needed the services of anesthesiologist, he refused. Corazon’s bag of water
extent of its liability. Mindanao Terminal filed a motion for reconsideration, which caused the comatose condition of Ramos. ruptured spontaneously and her cervix was fully dilated and she experienced
the Court of Appeals denied in its resolution. Hence, the present petition for convulsions. Dr. Estrada ordered the injection of 10g of magnesium sulfate but
review. HELD: his assisting Doctor, Dr. Villaflor, only administered 2.5g. She also applied low
Yes, private respondents were all negligent and are solidarily liable for the forceps to extract Corazon’s baby. In the process, a 10 x 2.5cm piece of cervical
Issue: damages. tissue was allegedly torn. The baby came out in an apric, cyanatic weak and
Whether Mindanao Terminal duly exercised the required degree of diligence in RATIO: injured condition. Corazon had professed vaginal bleeding where a blood typing
loading and stowing cargoes was ordered and she was supposed to undergo hysterectomy, however, upon
Res ipsa loquitur – a procedural or evidentiary rule which means “the thing or the arrival of the doctor, she was already pronounced dead due to hemorrhage.
Ruling: the transaction speaks for itself.” It is a maxim for the rule that the fact of the
Yes. Article 1173 of the Civil Code is very clear that if the law or contract does occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit Issue: Whether or not in the conduct of child delivery, the doctors and the
not state the degree of diligence which is to be observed in the performance of an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s prima respondent hospital is liable for negligence.
an obligation then that which is expected of a good father of a family or ordinary facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an
diligence shall be required. Mindanao Terminal, had acted merely as a labor explanation, where ordinarily in a medical malpractice case, the complaining Held: Yes. In general, a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an
provider in the case at bar. There is no specific provision of law that imposes a party must present expert testimony to prove that the attending physician was independent contractor-physician. There is, however an exception to this
higher degree of diligence than ordinary diligence for a stevedoring company or negligent. principle. The hospital may be liable if the physician is the ostensible agent of the
one who is charged only with the loading and stowing of cargoes. In the present hospital. This exception is also known as the doctrine of apparent authority.
case, Mindanao Terminal, as a stevedore, was only charged with the loading and This doctrine finds application in this case. On the day of the operation, Erlinda
stowing of the cargoes from the pier to the ship's cargo hold; it was never the Ramos already surrendered her person to the private respondents who had
Under the doctrine of apparent authority a hospital can be held vicariously liable
custodian of the shipment of Del Monte Produce.] The said ship officers would complete and exclusive control over her. Apart from the gallstone problem, she
for the negligent acts of a physician providing care at the hospital, regardless of
not have accepted the cargoes on board the vessel if they were not properly was neurologically sound and fit. Then, after the procedure, she was comatose
and brain damaged—res ipsa loquitur!—the thing speaks for itself!
whether the physician is an independent contractor, unless the patient knows, or supervise all persons who practice medicine within its walls, it also failed to take 3. The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff
should have known, that the physician is an independent contractor. an active step in fixing the negligence committed. This renders PSI, not only responsible is eliminated.
vicariously liable for the negligence of Dr. Ampil under Article 2180 of the Civil
For a hospital to be liable under the doctrine of apparent authority, a plaintiff Code, but also directly liable for its own negligence under Article 2176.
must show that 1.) the hospital, or its agent, acted in a manner that would lead a All of these three requisites were present in the case at bar.
reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be The hospital’s liability based on the theory of negligent supervision. Anent the
negligent was an employee or agent of the hospital; 2.) Where the acts of the corollary issue of whether PSI is solidarily liable with Dr. Ampil for damages, let it
agent create the appearance of authority, the plaintiff must also prove that the be emphasized that PSI, apart from a general denial of its responsibility, failed to
hospital had knowledge of and acquired in them; and 3.) the plaintiff acted in adduce evidence showing that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a CASE No. 17 Phil Hawk vs Tan Lee
reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary family in the accreditation and supervision of the latter. In neglecting to offer such
care and prudence. proof, PSI failed to discharge its burden under the last paragraph of Article 2180 Musa (Case Number 18)
cited earlier, and, therefore, must be adjudged solidarily liable with Dr. Ampil. Rubi Li v. Sps. Soliman
Borrowed servant doctrine provides that once a surgeon enters the operating Moreover, as we have discussed, PSI is also directly liable to the Aganas. June 07, 2011 (651 SCRA 31)
room and takes charge of the acts or omissions of operating room personnel and
any negligence associated with each acts or omissions are imputable to the 16 FACTS:
surgeon, while the assisting physicians and nurses may be employed by the Respondents Spouses Soliman’s 11-year old daughter, Angelica Soliman,
hospital, or engaged by the patient, they normally become the temporary CANTRE V. SPS GO. underwent a biopsy of the mass located in her lower extremity at the St. Luke’s
servants or agents of the surgeon in charge while the operation is in progress, Medical Center (SLMC) and results showed that Angelica was suffering from
and liability may be imposed upon the surgeon for their negligent acts under the GENERAL PROVISIONS osteosarcoma, osteoblastic type, (highly malignant) cancer of the bone.
doctrine of respondeat superior. Amputation was conducted by Dr. Tamayo on Angelica’s right leg in order to
remove the tumor and to prevent the metastasis, chemotherapy was suggested
15 LIM by Dr. Tamayo, which he referred to petitioner Dr. Rubi Li, a medical oncologist.
FACTS: The respondents’ child was admitted to SLMC on August 18, 1993; however, she
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES v. AGANA died eleven (11) days after the (intravenous) administration of chemotherapy first
513 SCRA 478 cycle. Respondents brought their daughter’s body to the Philippine National
Petitioner Cantre was the attending physician of respondent Nora Go who was
Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame for post-mortem examination
admitted in the hospital to give birth to a baby boy. However, at around dawn,
FACTS: On April 4, 1984, Natividad Agana was rushed to the Medical City after the refusal of the hospital to release the death certificate without full
Nora suffered profuse bleeding inside her womb and Nora suffered hypovolemic
General Hospital because of difficulty of bowel movement and bloody anal payment of bills. The Medico-Legal Report showed that the cause of death is
shock resulting in a drop in her blood pressure to 40/0. Petitioner massaged
discharge. After a series of medical examinations, Dr. Miguel Ampil diagnosed "Hypovolemic shock secondary to multiple organ hemorrhages and
Nora’s uterus for it to contract and to stop bleeding and ordered a drop light to
her to be suffering from Cancer of the sigmoid. On April 11, 1984, Dr. Ampil Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation. The respondents filed charges against
warm Nora and her baby. Nora was able to recover. Her husband respondent
assisted by the medical staff of the Medical City Hospital performed an Anterior the SLMC and physicians involve for negligence and failure to observe the
John Go noticed a fresh wound in the inner portion of Nora’s left arm, close to
resection surgery on Natividad. He found that the malignancy on her sigmoid essential precautions in to prevent Angelica’s untimely death. Petitioner denied
the armit. In an investigation filed by John, it was found that the wound is caused
area had spread on her left ovary, necessitating the removal of certain portions the allegation for damages as she observed best known procedures, highest skill
by the blood pressure cuff. However, the medico-legal report states that it was a
of it. Thus, Dr. Ampil obtained the consent of Natividad’s husband, Enrique and knowledge in the administration of chemotherapy drugs despite all efforts,
burn from the drop light when placed near skin for about 10 mins could cause
Agana, to permit Dr. Juan Fuentes to perform hysterectomy on her. After Dr. the patient died. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner and ordered to pay
such burn.
Fuentes had completed the hysterectomy, Dr. Ampil took over, completed the their unpaid hospital bill in the amount of P139, 064.43, but the Court of Appeals
operation, after searching for the missing 2 gauzes as indicated by the assisting reversed the decision supporting the respondents pray.
ISSUE:
nurses but failed to locate it he then closed the incision. After a couple of days,
Natividad complained of excruciating pains in her anal region but Dr. Ampil said ISSUE:
Whether petitioner is liable for the injury caused Whether or not Dr. Rubi Li and the other physicians were negligent and are liable
it is a natural consequence of the operation/surgery and recommended that she
consult an oncologist to examine the cancerous nodes which were not removed for damages.
RULING:
during the operation. Natividad and her husband went to the US to seek further
treatment and she was declared free from cancer. A piece of gauze portruding RULING:
Yes. The Hippocratic oath mandates physicians to give primordial consideration NO. There could be no obligation to pay for damages where the physicians did
from Natividad’s vagina was found by her daughter which was then removed by
to the well-being of their patients. If a doctor fails to live up to his precept, he is their job. There are four essential elements a plaintiff must prove in a malpractice
hand by Dr. Ampil and assured that the pains will vanished. However, it didn’t.
accountable for his acts. This is notwithstanding, courts face a unique restraint in action based upon the doctrine of informed consent: "(1) the physician had a
The pains intensified prompting Natividad to seek treatment at the Polymedic
adjudicating medical negligence cases because physicians are not guardians of duty to disclose material risks; (2) he failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed
General Hospital. While confined there, Dr. Ramon Guttierez detected the
care and they never set out to intentionally cause injury to their patients. those risks; (3) as a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the
presence of another foreign object in her vagina – a foul smelling gauze
However, intent is immaterial in negligence cases because where negligence patient consented to treatment she otherwise would not have consented to; and
measuring 1.5 inches in width which badly infected her vagina. A recto-vaginal
exist and is proven, it automatically gives the injured a right to reparation for the (4) plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment." The gravamen in an
fistula had forced stool to excrete through her vagina. Another surgical operation
damage caused. In cases, involving medical negligence, the doctrine of res ipsa informed consent case requires the plaintiff to "point to significant undisclosed
was needed to remedy the damage.
liquitor allows the mere existence of an injury to justify a presumption of information relating to the treatment which would have altered her decision to
negligence on the part of the person who controls the instrument causing the undergo it.
ISSUE: Whether PSI (Medical City General Hospital) may be held solidarily injury, provided that the following requisites concur:
liable for the negligence of Dr. Ampil

RULING: YES, Corporate entities, like PSI, are capable of acting only through
other individuals, such as physicians. Logically, where negligence mars the 1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the
quality of its services, the hospital should not be allowed to escape liability for the absence of someone’s negligence;
acts of its ostensible agents. The failure of PSI, despite the attending nurses’ 2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the
report, to investigate and inform Natividad regarding the missing gauzes defendant or defendants;
amounts to callous negligence. Not only did PSI breach its duties to oversee or
19 Nicdao borrowed P100,000.00 from Nuguid every month from April to August the Manila Surety Fidelity Co., Inc. to pay to appellant Valentin R. Lim the sum of
Cereno v. CA, 682 SCRA 18 (2012) 1996, until the total amount reached P1,150,000.00. As security, Nicdao gave Php 1,000 in satisfaction of its liability under the preliminary injunction bond, and
Nuguid open-dated Hermosa Savings Bank checks with the assurance that if the in compliance with the writ of execution, the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc.,
FACTS: Raymond was a victim of stabbing incident and rushed to the ER of entire amount is not paid within one year, she can deposit the checks. herein appellee, delivered to the Sheriff of Manila the sum of P1,105.01 in full
Bicol Regional Medical Center, he was attended by Nurse Balares and Dr. satisfaction of the writ of execution and the fees of the Sheriff, of which amount
Realuyo. After giving initial medical treatment to Raymond, Dr. Realuyo When Nuiguid demanded payment of the sums, Nicdao refused to acknowledge the sum of Php 1,000 was delivered by the Sheriff to appellant Valentin R. Lim.
recommended emergency exploratory laparotomy, to which he asked the indebtedness. Hence, Nuiguid deposited all the checks in the bank of Afterwards, it was later declared by the Court of First Instance of Rizal that the
Raymond‘s parents to procure Type O blood required for the operation. Because Samson Ching since all the money given by her to Nicdao came from him, but writs of execution were null and void since they were granted in violation of
there were no other available anaesthesiologists to assist in the operation, the checks were all returned for having been drawn against insufficient funds. A Section 9 of Rule 60 in connection with Section 20 of Rule 59 of the Rules of
Doctors Zafe and Cereno decided to defer the operation. They likewise complaint for violation of BP 22 was filed against Nicdao. The MCTC and RTC Court, which was affirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the
conducted an examination on Raymond and found that the latter‘s blood found her guilty, but the decision was reversed by the CA, thereby acquitting plaintiff-appellee demanded from the defendant-appellant the immediate
pressure was normal and nothing in him was significant. During the operation Nicdao. reimbursement of the payment it made in compliance with said writs. The
and after they opened Raymond‘s thoracic cavity, they found a puncture at the defendant-appellant contended that the plaintiff-appellee has paid voluntarily its
inferior pole of the left lung. In his testimony, Dr. Cereno stated that considering ISSUE: natural obligation and therefore is precluded from recovering that which was
the loss of blood suffered by Raymond, he did not immediately transfuse blood Whether Nicdao remains civilly liable to her for the sum of P1,150,000.00 even delivered to defendant-appellant.
because he had to control the bleeders first. Raymond suffered a cardiac arrest after acquittal.
and was later on pronounced dead. Claiming that there was negligence on the
part of those who attended to their son, the parents filed a complaint for RULING: Issue: Whether the payment by Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., was made
damages against Balares, Realuyo, Zafe and Cereno. The trial court dismissed No. The basic principle of civil liability is that every person criminally liable is also voluntarily
the case against Balares and Realuyo for lack of merit, but ordered Zafe and civilly liable. Article 1157 of the Civil Code provides that crime is one of the five
Cereno to pay damages. The trial court found petitioners negligent in not sources of obligations. In order to be completely free from civil liability, a Ruling:
immediately conducting surgery on Raymond, thus, had the surgery been person's acquittal must be based on the fact that he did not commit the
performed promptly, Raymond would not have lost so much blood and would offense. If the acquittal is based merely on reasonable doubt, the accused may No. Art. 1423 of the Civil Code provides that “Natural obligations, not
have survived. still be held civilly liable since this does not mean he did not commit the act being based on positive law but on equity and natural law, do not grant a right of
complained of. It may only be that the facts proved did not constitute the offense action to enforce their performance, but after voluntary fulfillment by the obligor,
ISSUE: Whether petitioners were grossly negligent in the performance of their charged. they authorize the retention of what has been delivered or rendered by reason
duties. thereof.” Upon careful examination of the foregoing provisions of law and
In the case at bar, the Court finds no reason to ascribe any civil liability to undisputed facts of the case, we find appellants contention to be untenable, for
RULING: No. A claim of medical negligence is which a victim has available to Nicdao. The statements of the appellate court leave no doubt that respondent, the payment made by the herein plaintiff-appellee to defendant-appellant was not
him to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional which has caused who was acquitted from the charges against her, had already been completely voluntary, it was thru a coercive process of the writ of execution issued at the
bodily harm. In order to successfully pursue such claim, a patient must relieved of civil liability. The CA held that no evidence of whatever nature was instant and insistence of the defendant-appellant. Certainly, were it not for said
prove that a health care provider, either failed to do something which a presented by the prosecution to substantiate their claim that there was indeed a writ of execution, plaintiff-appellee would not have paid to defendant-appellant
reasonably prudent provider would not have done and that the failure caused previous obligation involving the same amount for which the demand was given. the amount in question. It should be noted that at the time the said writ of
injury to the patient. The complainant must prove: 1) That the health care execution was issued, the right of defendant-appellant to damages caused unto
provider, either by his act or omission, had been negligent, and 2) That such act him by reason of his inability to collect the rents of the property involved the civil
or omission proximately caused the injury complained of. There is nothing in the CASE NO. 21 Ansay vs. Board of Directors cases, was still pending determination by the Supreme Court, and had
testimonies, or any evidence on the record for that matter, which shows that the defendant-appellant waited for the final decision of the Supreme Court on said
petitioners were aware of a protocol and that there is no evidence that proves 22.Salinas damages, surely he would not have caused the issuance of the writ of execution
that such protocol is being practiced by the hospital‘s surgeons at all. But even Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. v. Lim, in said civil cases and thus compel plaintiff-appellee to pay to him the
if it assumed that the petitioners were aware of such protocol, their failure to G.R. No. L-9343, December 29, 1959 aforementioned sum of P1,105.01.
request for assistance of a standby anaesthesiologist was reasonable when General Provisions
taken in the proper context. Considering Dr. Tatad (anaesthesiologist) was busy Facts: General Provisions (Art 1156-1162)
in another operation, the Court ruled that it is reasonable that petitioners decided 23. Bicol Medical Center v. Botor, G.R. No. 214073, October 4, 2017
to wait for her to finish the prior surgery and not call the standby Valentin R. Lim obtained a judgment against Irineo Facundo, "ordering
anaesthesiologist anymore. There is no evidence to show that a prudent surgeon the latter to vacate the premises described in the complaint (Civil Case No. 32) FACTS: Sometime in 2009, BMC constructed a steel gate along J. Miranda
faced with similar circumstances would decide otherwise. Further, Dr. Cereno and to pay the plaintiff a monthly rental of Php 100 until the defendant vacate the Avenue to control the flow of vehicle and pedestrian traffic entering the hospital
explained that the delay in the transfusion of blood before and during the premises and to pay the costs." Irineo Facundo filed in the Court of First Instance premises. On March 21, 2012, Dr. Efren SJ. Nerva (Dr. Nerva), BMC Chief I,
operation was because they did not then see the need to administer such of Rizal a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition (Case No. 7674) for issued Hospital Memorandum No. 0310, which ordered the rerouting of traffic
transfusion. Even then, immediate blood transfusion was not feasible because prohibition against Lucio M. Tinagco as municipal Judge of Rizal City, and inside the BMC Compound. The gate closure drew a lot of criticism from the
he had to control the bleeders. In medical negligence cases, it is settled that the Valentin R. Lim, with a prayer of a writ of preliminary injunction be issued upon community, and on May 19, 2012, Atty. Noe Botor (Atty. Botor) wrote to Naga
complainant has the burden of establishing breach of duty on the part of the filing a bond of Php 1,000 to prevent Judge Tinagco from issuing an alias writ of City Mayor John Bongat (Mayor Bongat), asking for the reopening or dismantling
doctors. It must be proven that such breach of duty has a causal connection to execution in civil case No. 32. Upon Facundo's filing of the bond, which was of the gate for being a public nuisance. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Naga
the resulting death of the patient. A verdict in malpractice action cannot be based posted by the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. (herein plaintiff-appellee), the City passed a resolution authorizing Mayor Bongat to dismantle the gate.
on speculation or conjecture. court issued the corresponding preliminary injunction. The court dismissed the However, instead of dismantling it, Mayor Bongat filed a Verified Petition with
case and dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction. Lim then filed a petition with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction against BMC.
REYES said court asking for damages sustained by him for failure to collect the rentals
because of the issuance of the aforementioned preliminary injunction. The Court The Court of Appeals opined that the Intervenors were able to prove the public
CASE NO. 20
of First Instance of Rizal allowed the damages sought for, and ordered the character of Road Lot No. 3, considering that "the general public had been using
Nuguid vs. Nicdao, 502 SCRA 93
confiscation of the bond posted by the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc., and it since time immemorial," with even Dr. Nerva admitting that he passed through
directed the latter to pay to Lim the full value of said Court. Thereafter, the Court it when he was young. The Court of Appeals also gave due weight to the 1970s
FACTS:
of First Instance of Rizal, issued a writ of directing the Sheriff of Manila to require Revised Assessor's Tax Mapping Control Roll and its Identification Map, which
support the Intervenors' assertion of the public nature of Road Lot No. 3. The
Court of Appeals concluded that Naga City and the Intervenors were able to ISSUE: W/N respondents are obligated to provide parking spaces in their malls holding that ASTRO was estopped from assailing the cancellation of the PMA
present prima facie evidence of their right to the writ. for the use of their patrons or the public in general, free of charge. and the SCPMA.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in directing the Regional Trial RULING: NO. Since Section 803 of the National Building Code and Rule XIX of
Court to issue a writ of preliminary injunction on the closure of Road Lot No. 3. its IRR do not mention parking fees, then simply, said provisions do not regulate
the collection of the same. The RTC and the Court of Appeals correctly applied 28 Alburo
RULING: The court ruled in the affirmative and reversed the decision of the CA. Article 1158 of the New Civil Code, which states: Art. 1158. Obligations derived
A writ of preliminary injunction is issued to: Preserve the status quo ante, upon from law are not presumed. Only those expressly determined in this Code or in Maritime Company of the Philippines v Reparations Commission, G.R. No.
the applicant's showing of two important requisite conditions, namely: (1) the special laws are demandable, and shall be regulated by the precepts of the law L-29203 July 26, 1971
right to be protected exists prima facie, and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined which establishes them; and as to what has not been foreseen, by the provisions
are violative of that right. It must be proven that the violation sought to be of this Book. FACTS: Petitioner charges defendant for the payment of all the reparation goods
prevented would cause an irreparable injustice. In satisfying these requisites, the and freight charges it delivered unto the defendant which is all in good condition
applicant for the writ need not substantiate his or her claim with complete and Case 26 Bortikey vs AFP which amounts to the total sum of P228,250.58.
conclusive evidence since only prima facie evidence or a sampling is required "to
give the court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction pending the Case 27 Defendant pleads that they are not liable to indemnify the petitioner of the
decision of the case on the merits." Astroland Developers Inc. v. GSIS liabilities it seek because under the signed contract between them through the
G.R. No. 129796, September 20, 2004 Section 11 of Reparations Act in its concluding statement which reads “Nothing
Case No. 24 - TAN herein shall be construed as exempting the end-user from paying in full all the
General Provisions: Articles 1156-1162 Facts: Queen's Row Subdivision, Inc. (QRSI) is the owner of a parcel of land necessary costs, charges and expenses incident to the application for and the
De la Cruz vs. Northern Theatrical Enterprises Inc, 95 Phil. 739 (1954) located in Barangay Molino, Bacoor, Cavite. To finance the development of a procurement, production delivery and acquisition, of, the goods concerned.”
portion of the property into a housing project, QRSI secured a loan from the
FACTS: Domingo De la Cruz was working as a special guard whose station was Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) on May 13, 1971 in the amount Defendant affirms that they are not liable for any liabilities since it is the
outside the cinema of the respondent. Martin wanted to crash the cinema but of P10,000,000. QRSI was to construct 4,493 housing units on a portion of the obligation of the petitioner to supplement their prior insufficiencies in the contract
was infuriated when petitioner refused to let him in because he had no ticket. property, consisting of 100 hectares, and, thereafter, sell the same to qualified and their delivery of the reparation goods merely compliment the prior deficiency
Martin then attacked petitioner with a bolo, but the latter was able to defend members of the GSIS. It secured an additional loan of P4,000,000 from the GSIS of the prior contract.
himself and shot the former resulting to his death. Petitioner was tried for the on February 28, 1972. However, by 1980, only 1,250 housing units had been
killing but was later acquitted. He then claims reimbursement from the constructed. In the interim, the National Housing Authority (NHA) issued a ISSUE: Can the defendant be liable to indemnify petitioner for the freight
respondent for attorney’s fees because he was their agent. He also claims for cease-and-desist order against the QRSI on April 11, 1979. QRSI and the GSIS charges and the delivery of reparation goods?
moral damages for his worry and neglecting the interests of his family during the were also sued by the contractors/suppliers for nonpayment of construction
previous trial. materials and services rendered in the amount of P7,639,768. By September RULING: No. Petitioner is indebted to defendant on the first hand. Petitioner is
1980, QRSI had an outstanding obligation on its loan avail with the GSIS in the liable to supplement the prior agreement and no charges apply to the mere
ISSUE: Whether the employer has an obligation to reimburse the employee for amount of P28,088,661.89. QRSI requested an additional loan from the GSIS in fulfilment of contractual obligation by the obligee to the obligor.
attorney’s fees and moral damages? the amount of P8,000,000 to which the latter agreed, on the condition that a new
project manager be designated by QRSI to continue with the development of the
Well settled rule in Statutory Construction is that there must be no
RULING: No. A claim of an employee against his employer for damages caused property, free from any interference by the QRSI. The latter agreed to this
reinterpretation beyond what is expressly stated that is clear and unambiguous;
to the former by a stranger or outsider while said employee was in the condition, and designated the Astroland Developers, Inc. (ASTRO) as project
there must be no room for reinterpretation. It was encased in the Contractual
performance of his duties, cannot be decided in favor of the employee. While it is manager for the unfinished project. However, QRSI and the GSIS refused to pay
agreement between the petitioner and defendant that the governing law in cases
to the interest of the employer to give legal help to its employees charged the claim of ASTRO. On April 22, 1984 and October 15, 1984, ASTRO again
of dispute or incidents is the Reparations Act.
criminally in court in order to show that he was not guilty of any crime because wrote the GSIS, reiterating its demand for the payment of management fees in
should the employee be finally held guilty and he is found to be insolvent, the the total amount of P21,187,069, inclusive of interest and charges from January
employer would be subsidiary liable, such legal assistance might be regarded as 1, 1983 to October 15, 1984. On February 22, 1985, the GSIS Board of Trustees 29 BAIRD
a moral obligation but it does not at present count with the sanction of man-made approved Resolution No. 216 denying the claim of ASTRO based on the
laws. following recommendation of the Technical Assistant II and Officer-In-Charge of
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND B.P. MATA
the Housing Project Administrative Department.
AND CO., INC.,
Main Point: An employer is not legally obliged to give legal assistance to his
employees and provide the latter with an attorney. Naturally, the employee may Issue: Whether the decision was valid
not recover from his employer the amount he may have paid a lawyer paid by FACTS ;B.P. Mata & Co. Inc. is a private corporation engaged in providing
him. Ruling: The trial court ruled that the cancellation of the PMA and SCPMA made goods and services to shipping companies. Since 1966, it has acted as a
by the GSIS was arbitrary and illegal. It held that the Legal Opinion and manning foreign firms, one of which is Star Kist Foods, Inc., As part of their
TIPOE  Recommendation of the OGCC dated June 28, 1982 was grossly unreasonable agreement, Mata makes advances for the crew's medical expenses, National
Case No. 25 and unreliable, there being no prior consultations between ASTRO and the Seaman's Board fees, Seaman's Welfare fund, and standby fees and for the
Office of the Solicitor General vs. Ayala Land, Incorporated [G.R. No. different sections in the GSIS involved in its housing program. It also held that crew's basic personal needs. Subsequently, Mata sends monthly billings to its
177056 September 18, 2009] the PMA between the GSIS and the CV Management Corporation was foreign principal Star Kist, which in turn reimburses Mata by sending a
manifestly disadvantageous to ASTRO. The trial court gave full credence to the telegraphic transfer through banks for credit to the latter's account.On February
January 23, 1987 consolidation report to the president and general manager of 21, 1975, Security Pacific National Bank of Los Angeles which had an agency
FACTS: Respondents Ayala Land, Robinsons, Shangri-La and SM Prime collect the GSIS. arrangement with Philippine National Bank transmitted a cable message to the
parking fees from the persons making use of their parking facilities, regardless of International Department of PNB to pay the amount of US$14,000 to Mata by
whether said persons are mall patrons or not. The Senate Committees on Trade The GSIS appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals where it asserted that crediting the latter's account with the Insular Bank of Asia and America per order
and Commerce and on Justice and Human Rights conducted a joint investigation the RTC erred in holding that its cancellation of the PMA and the SCPMA was of Star Kist. Upon receipt of this cabled message on PNB's International
and found that the collection of parking fees by shopping malls is contrary to the irregular, and that it was liable for management fees and damages; and in not Department noticed an error and sent a service message to SEPAC Bank. The
National Building Code and is therefore illegal.
latter replied with instructions that the amount of US$14,000 should only be for fees, praying that 10% of the total award for holiday pay differential computed by technicalities, pleadings as well as remedial laws should be liberally construed
US$1,400. TRB at P175,794.32, or the amount of P17,579.43, be declared as his attorney’s so that the litigants may have ample opportunity to prove their respective claims.
fees, and that petitioner union be ordered to pay and remit said amount to him.
On the basis of the cable message dated February 24, 1975 Cashier's Check
No. 269522 in the amount of US$1,400 representing reimbursement from Star Petitioner opposed said motion. LA favoured private respondent. Petitioner
Kist, was issued by the Star Kist for the account of Mata on February 25, 1975 appealed to NLRC but NLRC affirmed LA’s decision. Hence the petition at bar.
through the Insular Bank of Asia and America. However, fourteen days after or
on March 11, 1975, PNB effected another payment through Cashier's Check No.
270271 in the amount of US$14,000 purporting to be another transmittal of
reimbursement from Star Kist. Six years later, or more specifically, on May 13, ISSUE: 33 CRUZ
1981, PNB requested Mata for refund of US$14,000 after it discovered its error Whether or not private respondent entitled to Atty.’s fees aside from his retainer
in effecting the second payment. fee? Air France v Carrascoso

18 SCRA 155 (1996)

On February 4, 1982, PNB filed a civil case for collection and refund of
US$14,000 against Mata arguing that based on a constructive trust under Article RULING:
Yes. There are 2 commonly accepted concepts of attorney’s fees, the so-called Facts: Air France issued to Carrascoso, a civil engineer, a 1st class round trip
1456 of the Civil Code, it has a right to recover the said amount it erroneously
ordinary and extraordinary.  In its ordinary concept, an attorney’s fee is the ticket from Manila - Rome. During the stopover at Bangkok, the Manager of Air
credited to respondent Mata.
reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he France forced plaintiff to vacate the 1st class seat because there was a "white
has rendered to the latter. The basis of this compensation is the fact of his man" who had better right to the seat. As a result, he filed a suit against Air
ISSUE ; whether or not petitioner may still claim the US$14,000 it erroneously employment by and his agreement with the client. In its extraordinary concept, France averring in his complaint the contract of carriage between Air France and
paid private respondent under a constructive trust an attorney’s fee is an indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be paid by himself. Air France claims that to authorize an award for moral damages there
the losing party in a litigation. The basis of this is any of the cases provided by must be an averment of fraud or bad faith, upon which Carrascoso’s complaint is
law where such award can be made, such as those authorized in Article 2208, silent. CFI Manila granted him moral and exemplary damages.
RULING ; No,  It is a well-settled rule now that an action to enforce an implied
trust, whether resulting or constructive, may be barred not only by prescription Civil Code, and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless they have
but also by laches. While prescription is concerned with the fact of delay, laches agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional compensation or Issue: Whether Carrascoso was entitled to the 1st class seat and consequently,
deals with the effect of unreasonable delay. It is amazing that it took petitioner as part thereof. whether he was entitled to the damages awarded.
almost seven years before it discovered that it had erroneously paid private
respondent. It is unbelievable for a bank, and a government bank at that, which Ruling: Yes to both. To achieve stability in the relation between passenger and
regularly publishes its balanced financial statements annually or more frequently, Case 31 Lim vs. Ping air carrier, adherence to the ticket issued is desirable. Evidence of bad faith was
by the quarter, to notice its error only seven years later.  Moreover, as between presented without objection on the part of the Carrascoso. In the case, it could
parties where negligence is imputable to one and not to the other, the former 32 CHUA have been easy for Air France to present its manager to testify at the trial or
must perforce bear the consequences of its neglect. Hence, petitioner should secure his deposition but defendant did neither. There is also no evidence as to
bear the cost of its own negligence. Andamo v. Intermediate Appellate Court whether or not a prior reservation was made by the white man.

FACTS: The respondent corporation, which has built through its agents, The manager not only prevented Carrascoso from enjoying his right to a 1st
30 BEJERANO class seat, worse he imposed his arbitrary will. He forcibly ejected him from his
waterpaths, water conductors and contrivances within its land, thereby causing
inundation and damage to an adjacent land. Petitioners filed an action against seat, made him suffer the humiliation of having to go to tourist class just to give
respondent corporation for damages with prayer for the issuance of a writ of way to another passenger whose right was not established. Certainly, this is bad
GENERAL PROVISIONS preliminary injunction before the same court. faith.
TRB EMPLOYEES UNION-INDEPENDENT v. NLRC
G.R. No. 120592, Mar 14, 1997 Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right to be
ISSUE: Whether, the corporation can be held civilly liable for damages under
Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts such that the resulting treated by the carrier's employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due
civil case can proceed independently of the criminal case. consideration. They are entitled to be protected against injurious language,
FACTS: indignities and abuse from such employees. Any discourteous conduct on the
RULING: Yes, A careful examination of the aforequoted complaint shows that part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages
the civil action is one under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi- against the carrier.
Petitioner and private respondent Atty. Emmanuel Noel A. Cruz entered into a delicts. All the elements of a quasi-delict are present, to wit: (a) damages
suffered by the plaintiff, (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other Exemplary damages were also awarded. The manner of ejectment fits into the
retainer agreement whereby the former obligated itself to pay the latter a monthly
person for whose acts he must respond; and (c) the connection of cause and condition for exemplary damages that defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent,
retainer fee of P3,000.00 in consideration of the undertaking to render the
effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
services enumerated in their contract. During the existence of that agreement,
petitioner union referred to private respondent the claims of its members for incurred by the plaintiff.
holiday, mid-year and year-end bonuses against their employer, Traders Royal
Bank (TRB). A complaint was filed by petitioner. NLRC favored the employees, MAIN POINT: It is axiomatic that the nature of an action filed in court is
awarding them holiday pay differential, mid-year bonus differential, and year-end determined by the facts alleged in the complaint as constituting the cause of CASE NO. 34
bonus differential. TRB challenged the decision of the NLRC before the SC. The action. The purpose of an action or suit and the law to govern it, including the Guanio vs. Makati Shangri-La Hotel, G.R. No. 190601
SC deleted the award of mid-year and year-end bonus differentials while period of prescription, is to be determined not by the claim of the party filing the
affirming the award of holiday pay differential. After private respondent received action, made in his argument or brief, but rather by the complaint itself, its FACTS:
the decision of the SC he notified the petitioner union, the TRB and the NLRC of allegations and prayer for relief. 8 The nature of an action is not necessarily Spouses Guanio booked their wedding reception at Makati Shangri-La Hotel. A
his right to exercise and enforce his attorney’s lien over the award of holiday pay determined or controlled by its title or heading but the body of the pleading or day before the reception, the parties finalized their contract. But upon the actual
differential, he filed a motion before LA for the determination of his attorney’s complaint itself. To avoid possible denial of substantial justice due to legal reception, the hotel representatives did not show up; their guests complained of
the delay in the service of the dinner; certain items were unavailable; the waiters On 31 September 1981, private respondent demanded the refund of its various
were rude and unapologetic when confronted about the delay; and despite the ISSUE: payment to petitioner amounting to P2, 445, 497.71. However, petitioner did not
promise that there would be no charge for the extension of the reception beyond Whether or not respondent Moonwalk Development and Housing Corporation heed the demand, so private respondent filed an action with the court a quo
midnight, they were billed for the same. The petitioners sent a letter-complaint to incurred delay in the performance of its obligation.
the hotel and received an apology from the Executive Assistant Manager in The lower court ruled in favor of private respondent and it was affirmed in toto by
charge of Food and Beverage. Despite this, the spouses filed a complaint for the appellate court.
breach of contract and damages before the RTC of Makati. RULING:
No. Under Article 1169 of the Civil Code, delay begins from the time the obligee ISSUE:
The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners and ordered the hotel to pay for judicially or extrajudicially demands from the obligor the performance of the
damages. However, on appeal, the CA reversed the decision on the ground that obligation. The article provides for three (3) instances when demand in not Whether or not the contracts to sell were validly rescinded or cancelled by
the proximate cause of petitioners’ injury was the unexpected increase in their necessary to render the obligation in default: Petitioner Corporation.
guests. 1. When the obligation or the law expressly so declares;
2. When from the nature and the circumstances of the obligation it appears that RULING:
ISSUES: the designation of the time when the thing is to be delivered or the service to be
1. Whether proximate cause is applicable to actions involving breach of rendered was a controlling motive for the establishment of the contract; The contracts to sell were validly rescinded by Petitioner Corporation; In fine,
contract. 3. When demand would be useless, as when the obligor has rendered it beyond while we must conclude that petitioner corporation still acted within its legal right
2. Whether Makati Shangri-La Hotel may be held liable for damages. his power to perform. to declare the contracts to sell rescinded or cancelled, considering, nevertheless,
the peculiar circumstances found to be extant by the trial court, confirmed by the
RULING: The case at bar does not fall within any of the established exceptions. Hence, Court of Appeals, it would be unconscionable to likewise sanction the forfeiture
1. No. Proximate cause is not applicable in the case since the petitioners’ petitioner is not excused from making a demand. It is true that respondent has by petitioner corporation of payment made to it by private respondent, indeed,
complaint arose from a contract. The doctrine of proximate cause is long been delinquent in meeting its monthly arrears and in paying the full amount the Court has intimated that the relationship between parties in any contract
applicable only in actions for quasi-delicts and not in actions involving of the loan itself as the obligation matured sometime in January, 1977. But mere must always be characterized and punctuated by good faith and fair dealing.
breach of contract. delinquency in payment does not necessarily mean delay in the legal concept. Judging from what the court below have said, petitioners did fall well behind that
Default generally begins from the moment the creditor demands the performance standard. The Court does not find it equitable to adjudge any interest payment by
2. Yes. Although proximate cause is not applicable, Article 1170 of the Civil of the obligation. In the present case, the petitioner never demanded from the petitioners on the amount to be thus refunded computed from judicial demand,
Code is. It provides that, “those who in the performance of their obligations respondents the payment of its monthly amortizations. It was clear that for indeed, private respondent should not be allowed to totally free itself from its
are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who in any manner respondent was never in default because petitioner never compelled own breach.
contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.” In culpa contractual, performance.
the mere proof of the existence of the contract and the failure of its
39 HAMMISANI
compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding right of relief. A breach
upon the contract confers upon the injured party a valid cause for 38 HALID
recovering that which may have been lost or suffered. The Court ruled that Taguba VS De Leon
the hotel could have managed the situation better, it being held in high BRICKTOWN DEVELOPMENT CORP. VS. AMORTIERRA DEVELOPMENT
esteem in the hotel and service industry. Facts:
CORPORATION (G.R. No. 112182 Dec. 12, 1994) Taguba sold a portion of the lot to private respondent De Leon. The deed
evidencing said sale was denominated as "Deed of Conditional Sale", in which it
FACTS: was stated that P3,500 shall be paid upon signing the contract, pay P1,000
CASE 35 Orient Freight Intl vs Keihin-Everett Forwarding
monthly, and failure to pay the whole balance on December 31, 1972, shall be
On March 31 1981, petitioner Bricktown Development Corporation executed two given an extension of 6 months with interest, after which vendor may increase
CASE 36 Agcaoili vs GSIS contracts to sell in favor of petitioner Tierra Corp. covering a total of 96 the purchase price.
residential lots situated at the Multinational Village Subdivision, L a Huerta,
Paranaque, Metro Manila. The total price of P21, 639,875.00 was stipulated to De leon alleged that she had already paid the sum of P12,500 and had tendered
be paid by private respondent in such amount and maturity dates, as follows; P2, payment of the balance of P5,500 to complete the stipulated purchase price of
37 GENON 200,000.00 on March 31, 1981., P3, 209, 965.75 on 30 June 1981., P4, 729, P18,000 to petitioner Berlin Taguba in May 1973 within the grace period but the
906.25 on 31 December 1981, and the balance of P11, 500,000.00 to be paid by latter refused to receive payment. Private respondent instituted a complaint for
SSS v. Moonwalk 221 SCRA 119 means of an assumption by private respondent of petitioner’s corporations Specific Performance with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction with Damages
mortgage liability to the Philippine Saving Bank or, alternatively, to be made against Spouses Berlin Taguba and Sebastiana Domingo. Spouses Taguba
FACTS: payable in cash. on even date 31 March 1981 the parties executed a admitted the sale of the property, but claimed that private respondent failed to
On February 20, 1980, the petitioner Social Security System filed a complaint in supplemental agreement providing that private respondent would additionally comply with her obligation under the Deed of Conditional Sale despite the
the Court of First Instance of Rizal against the respondent Moonwalk pay to petitioner the amount of P55, 364.68 or 21% interest on the balance of several extensions granted her, by reason of which petitioner was compelled but
Development and Housing Corporation. The petitioner alleged that it had down payment for the period from 31 March to 30 June 1981 and of P390, with the express knowledge and consent and even upon the proposal of private
committed an error in failing to compute the 12% interest due on delayed 367.37 representing interest paid by petitioner corporation to the Philippine respondent, to negotiate the sale of a portion of the property sold, to the
payments on the loan of the respondent and also in not reflecting in its statement Savings bank in updating the Bank loan for the period from February to 31 March Spouses Asuncion who were actually in possession thereof.
of account an unpaid balance on the said penalties for delayed payments. The 1981.
respondent answered denying the claims and asserting that the petitioner had Issue: Whether Deed of Conditional Sale was validly rescinded
the opportunity to ascertain the truth but it failed to do so. On 12 October 1981, Petitioner Corporation sent notice of cancellation of
contract to private respondent on account of the latter continued failure to pay Ruling:
The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint on the ground that the the instalment due 30 June 1981 and interest on the unpaid balance of the No. The contract of sale between Taguba and De Leon was absolute in nature.
obligation was already extinguished by the payment by the respondent of its stipulated initial payment. Despite the denomination of the deed as a "Deed of Conditional Sale" Nowhere
indebtedness to the petitioner and by the latter’s cancellation of the real estate in the said contract in question could we find a proviso or stipulation to the effect
mortgages executed in its favor by the defendant. The Motion for that title to the property sold is reserved in the vendor until full payment of the
Reconsideration filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial court. purchase price. There is also no stipulation giving the vendor Taguba the right to
unilaterally rescind the contract the moment the De Leon fails to pay within a Thus, petitioner is of the view that these two documents "cannot be taken The petition was partly granted. The respondents were ordered to pay petitioners
fixed period. Indeed, a reading of the contract in its entirety would show that the separately as if there were two distinct contracts."[32] We do not agree. for actual damages. The actual, exemplary and moral damages laid down by the
only right of petitioner Taguba as vendor was to collect interest at the legal rate if Court of Appeals were retained.
private respondent-vendee fails to pay the full purchase price of P18,000.00 up
to December 31, 1972 and to increase the price if vendee (DeLeon) still fails to Petition is denied. Court of appeals decision is affirmed. Musa (Case Number 45)
pay within the six months grace period from December 31, 1972. Cruz v. Gruspe
693 SCRA 415 (March 13, 2013)
Considering, the nature of the transaction between petitioner Taguba and private CASE 41 BPI vs CA
respondent, in accordance with Article 1592, the sale of immovable property,
even though may have been stipulated that upon failure to pay the price at the Facts:
time agreed upon the rescission of the contract shall of right take place, the The claim arose from an accident when the mini bus owned and
vendee may pay, even after the expiration of the period, as long as no demand operated by Cruz and driven by one Arturo Davin collided with the Toyota
for rescission of the contract has been made upon him either judicially or by Corolla car of Gruspe; Gruspe’s car was a total wreck. The next day,Cruz, along
notarial act. After the demand the court may not grant him a new term. In the with Leon Ardo Q. Ibias went to Gruspe’s office, apologized for the incident, and
case at bar, it is undisputed that petitioner Taguba never notified private executed a Joint Affidavit of Undertaking promising jointly and severally to
respondent by notarial act that he was rescinding the contract, and neither had 41 LIM replace the Gruspe’s damaged car in 20 days, or until November 15, 1999, of the
he filed a suit in court to rescind the sale. same model and of at least the same quality; or, alternatively, they would pay the
ASJ Corporation vs. Sps. Evangelista cost of Gruspe’s car amounting to P350,000.00, with interest at 12% per month
545 SCRA 300 G.R. No. 158086 Feb. 14, 2008 for any delayed payment after November 15, 1999, until fully paid. When Cruz
#40 JAAFAR and Leonardo failed to comply with their undertaking, Gruspe filed a complaint
LORENZO SHIPPING VS. BJ MARTHEL FACTS: This case is a petition for review on certiorari on the decision of the for collection of sum of money against them.
443 SCRA 163 Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Cruz and Leonardo denied Gruspe’s allegation, claiming that Gruspe, a
November 19, 2004 Bulacan Branch 9 in Civil Case No. 745-M-93. Respondents Efren and Maura lawyer, prepared the Joint Affidavit of Undertaking and forced them to affix their
Evangelista are owners of R.M. Sy Chicks, a business engaged in selling chicks signatures thereon, without explaining and informing them of its contents.
FACTS: Petitioner Lorenzo Shipping is engaged in coastwise shipping and owns and egg by-products. For hatching and incubation of eggs, they availed the
the cargo M/V Dadiangas Express. BJ Marthel is engaged in trading, marketing services of ASJ Corp., owned by San Juan and his family. After years of doing Issues:
and business with the ASJ Corp., the respondents delayed payments for the services 1. Whether or not there is an obligation to pay a sum of money based on contract
selling various industrial commodities. Lorenzo Shipping ordered for the second of ASJ Corp, prompting owner San Juan to refuse the release of the hatched arising from the joint affidavit.
time cylinder lines from the respondent stating the term of payment to be 25% egg. The respondents tendered Php 15,000 to San Juan for partial payment
upon delivery, the balance payable in 5 bi-monthly equal installments, no again which San Juan accepted but he still insisted on the full settlement of 2. Whether or not the interest should be computed from Novmber 15, 1999.
stating the date of the cylinder’s delivery. It was allegedly paid through post respondents’ accounts before releasing the chicks and by-products. He also
dated checks but the same was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Despite threated the respondents that he would impound their vehicle and detain them at Held:
due demands by the respondent, petitioner falied contending that time was of the the hatchery compound if they should come back unprepared to fully settle their 1. Yes. Contracts are obligatory no matter what their forms may be, whenever
essence in the delivery of the cylinders and that there was a delay since the accounts with him. the essential requisites for their validity are present. There is also no merit to the
respondent committed said items “ within two months after receipt of fir order”. argument of vitiated consent. An allegation of vitiated consent must be proven by
RTC held respondents bound to the quotation with respect to the term of preponderance of evidence; Cruz and Leonardo failed to support their allegation.
The parties tried to settle amicably before police authorities but failed. The
payment, which was reversed by the Court of appeals ordering appellee to pay
respondents then filed with the RTC an action for damages based on the
appellant P954,000 plus interest. There was no delay since there was no 2. No. In the absence of a finding by the lower courts that Gruspe made a
retention of the chicks and by-products by the petitioners. The RTC held ASJ
demand.  demand prior to the filing of the complaint, the interest cannot be computed from
Corp. and San Juan solidarily liable for the actual and moral damages and
attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision and added November 15, 1999 because until a demand has been made, Cruz and
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent incurred delay in performing its obligation Leonardo could not be said to be in default. "In order that the debtor may be in
exemplary damages. Hence, this petition.
under the contract of sale  default, it is necessary that the following requisites be present: (1) that the
obligation be demandable and already liquidated; (2) that the debtor delays
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner’s retention of the chicks and by-products on
performance; and (3) that the creditor requires the performance judicially and
account of respondents’ failure to pay the corresponding fees justified.
extrajudicially." Default generally begins from the moment the creditor demands
RULING: By accepting the cylinders when they were delivered to the
the performance of the obligation. In this case, demand could be considered to
warehouse, petitioner waived the claimed delay in the delivery of said items. RULING: Yes. The retention has legal basis, although the threats had none.
have been made upon the filing of the complaint on November 19, 1999, and it is
Supreme Court held that time was not of the essence. There having been no Under Article 1248 of the Civil Code, the creditor cannot be compelled to accept
only from this date that the interest should be computed.
failure on the part of the respondent to perform its obligations, the power to partial payments from the debtor, unless there is an express stipulation to that
rescind the contract is unavailing to the petitioner. In determining whether time is effect. It was the respondents who violated the reciprocity in contracts, hence,
of the essence in a contract, the ultimate criterion is the actual or apparent the petitioners have the right of retention. This case is a case on non-
intention of the parties... there must be a sufficient manifestation, either in the 46 Marin v. Adil, 130 SCRA 406
performance of reciprocal obligation.
contract itself or the surrounding... circumstances of that intention.[29] Petitioner
insists that although its purchase orders did not specify the dates when the FACTS: Brothers Manuel and Ariston Armada are first cousins of Mrs. Marin.
Reciprocal obligations are those which arise from the same cause, wherein each
cylinder liners were supposed to be delivered, nevertheless, respondent should They were expecting to inherit some lots from their uncle; however, the property
party is a debtor and a creditor of the other such that the performance of one is
abide by the term of delivery appearing on the... quotation it submitted to was adjudicated to Soledad Elevencionado, the sister of Mrs. Marin, who
conditioned upon the simultaneous fulfillment of the other. Since respondents are
petitioner.[30] Petitioner theorizes that the quotation embodied the offer from claimed to be the sole heir of their uncle. The brothers and the other heirs sued
guilty of delay in the performance of their obligations, they are liable to pay
respondent while the purchase order represented its (petitioner's) acceptance of Soledad, the litigation ending in a compromise to which the brothers were
petitioners actual damages.
the proposed terms of the contract of sale.[31] awarded some lots. The lots were supposed to be exchanged with the lots to be
inherited by Mrs. Marin from her parents’ estate. However, Mrs. Marin, five years
Furthermore, it was respondents who violated the very essence of reciprocity in after the deed, conveyed the lots to her sister Aurora Collado. In an extra-judicial
contracts, consequently giving rise to petitioners’ right of retention. From the partition of her parent’s estate, the share of Mrs. Marin was adjudicated to
moment one of the parties fulfills his obligation, delay by the other party begins.
Aurora. The Armadas filed the instant rescissory action against Mrs. Marin. proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment one of the reached its addressee. Consolacion was interred with only her daughter Sofia in
However, Ariston was not bound by the deed because he was not one of the parties fulfills his obligation, delay by the other begins.” attendance. Neither the husband nor any of the other children of the deceased,
signees. Judge Adil rescinded the deed of exchange and ordered for the then all residing in the United States, returned for the burial. When Sofia returned
restitution and payment of damages by Mrs. Marin, to which she appealed. In the case at bar, since Cortes did not perform his obligation to have the Deed to the United States, she discovered that the wire she had caused the defendant
ISSUE: Whether the deed of exchange is valid. notarized and to surrender the same together with the TCTs, the RTC erred in to send, had not been received. She and the other plaintiffs thereupon brought
concluding that he performed his part in the contract of sale and that it is the action for damages arising from defendant's breach of contract.
RULING: No. It is evident from the deed of exchange that the intention of the corporation alone that was remiss in the performance of its obligation. Actually,
parties relative to the lots, which are the objects of the exchange, cannot be both parties were in delay. Considering that their obligation was reciprocal, Petitioner appeals from the judgment of the appellate court, contending that the
definitely ascertained. This circumstance renders the exchange void or inexistent performance thereof must be simultaneous. The mutual inaction of Cortes and award of moral damages should be eliminated as defendant's negligent act was
(Art. 1378, 2nd par. and Art. 1409 par 6 of Civil Code). It was provided in the corporation therefore gave rise to default on the part of both parties because not motivated by "fraud, malice or recklessness". In other words, under
paragraph 7 of the deed that it should not be construed as an acknowledgment neither has completed their part in their reciprocal obligation. petitioner's theory, it can only be held liable for P31.92, the fee or charges paid
by the Armadas and Mrs. Marin that they are entitled to the properties involved by Sofia C. Crouch for the telegram that was never sent to the addressee
therein and that it was executed “in anticipation of a declaration of” their rights to 48 Phil Export Corp vs Eusebio thereof.
the properties. However, it is stipulated in paragraph 8 that the parties should
take possession and make use of the properties involved in the deed. The two ISSUE: Whether the petitioner's contention is with merit.
provisions are irreconcilable because paragraph 7 contemplates that the 49. SALINAS
properties are still to be awarded or adjudicated to the parties whereas Arrieta v. NARIC, RULING: The court ruled in the negative. Art. 1170 of the Civil Code provides
paragraph 8 envisages a situation where the parties have already control and GR No. 15645, January 31, 1964 that "those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud,
possession thereof. Hence, the trial court’s judgment and the order of execution Nature and Effect of Obligation negligence or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof,
pending appeal were set aside and the deed of exchange was declared void and Facts: are liable for damages". Art. 2176 also provides that "whoever by act or omission
inexistent. The case was dismissed. causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
Mrs. Paz Arrieta participated in public bidding called by NARIC on May the damage done". In the case at bar, petitioner and private respondent Sofia C.
19, 1952 for the supply of 20,000 metric tons of Burmese rice. Her bid was $ Crouch entered into a contract whereby, for a fee, petitioner undertook to send
REYES 203.00 per metric ton, it was the lowest that’s why the contract was awarded to said private respondent's message overseas by telegram. This, petitioner did not
CASE NO. 47 her. On July 1,1952, Arrieta and NARIC entered into contract. Arrieta was do, despite performance by said private respondent of her obligation by paying
Cortes vs. CA, 494 SCRA 570 obligated to deliver 20,000 metric ton of Burmese rice at $203.00 per metric ton the required charges. Petitioner was therefore guilty of contravening its obligation
to NARIC. In return, NARIC committed itself to pay for the imported rice “ by to said private respondent and is thus liable for damages.
FACTS: means of an irrevocable, confirmed and assignable letter of credit in US currency
In 1983, Villa Esperanza Development Cooperation (buyer) and Cortes (seller) in favour of Arrieta and/or supplier in Burma (THIRI SETKYA), immediately.”
entered into a contract of sale over certain lots covered by Transfer Certificate of NARIC took the first step to open the letter of credit on July 30, 1952 by
Title (TCT) for the purchase price of P3,700,000.00. The parties executed a forwarding to the PNB its application for commercial letter of credit. Arrieta with
Deed of Absolute Sale, of which it was agreed that upon execution of the the help of a counsel, advised NARIC of the necessity for the opening of the Case No. 51 - Tan
instrument, the buyer shall pay unto the seller the amount of P2,200,00.00 and letter because she tender her supplier in Ragoon, Burma of 5 % of the price of Nature and Effects of Obligations: Articles 1163 to 1178
the balance of P1,500,000.00 payable within one year from date of execution of 20,000 tons at $180.70 and if she didn’t comply the 5% will be confiscated if the NPC vs. CA, 161 SCRA 334 (1988)
the instrument. The corporation advanced to Cortes the total sum of required letter of credit is not received by them before August 4, 1952. PNB
P1,213,000.00. informed NARIC that their application of credit letter amounting to $3,614,000.00
was approved with the condition of 50% marginal cash be paid. NARIC does not
In 1985, the corporation filed the instant case for specific performance seeking to meet the condition. The allocation of Arrieta’s supplier in Ragoon was cancelled FACTS: Engineering Construction Inc (ECI) executed a contract in Manila with
compel Cortes to deliver the TCTs and the original copy of the Deed of Absolute and the 5% deposit was forfeited. the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA), whereby the
Sale. According to the corporation, despite its readiness and ability to pay the former undertook to construct the proposed Ipo-Bicti Tunnel. On November 4,
purchase price, Cortes refused delivery of the sought documents. Cortes claimed Issue: Whether NARIC is liable for damages. 1967, Typhoon “Welming” hit Central Luzon. Due to the heavy downpour, the
that the owner's duplicate copy of the three TCTs were surrendered to the water in the reservoir of the Angat Dam was rising. To prevent an overflow of
corporation and it is the latter which refused to pay in full the agreed down Ruling: water from the dam, the National Power Corporation (NPC) caused the opening
payment. He added that portion of the subject property is occupied by his lessee of the spillway gates. Extraordinary large volume of water rushed out of the
who agreed to vacate the premises upon payment of disturbance fee. However, Yes, NARIC is liable for damages. The reason of the cancellation of gates, and hit the installations and construction works of ECI at Ipo site with
due to the corporation's failure to pay in full the sum of P2,200,000, he in turn the contract by Arrieta in Ragoon, Burma was the failure of NARIC to open the terrific impact, as a result of which the latter’s stockpile of materials supplies,
failed to fully pay the disturbance fee of the lessee who now refused to pay letter of credit within a specific period of time. One who assumes contractual camp facilities and permanent structures and accessories were either washed
monthly rentals. He thus prayed that the corporation be ordered to pay the obligation and fails to perform in which he knew and was aware when he entered away, lost, or destroyed.
outstanding balance plus interest and in the alternative, to cancel the sale and in the contract, should be liable for his failure to do what is required by a law.
forfeit the P1,213,000 partial down payment, with damages in either case. The Under the Art. 1170 of the Civil Code, not only the debtors guilty of fraud,
RTC ruled in favor of Cortes and rescinded the contract, but upon appeal the CA negligence or default but also a debtor of every, in general, who fails in the ISSUE: Whether the NPC is liable for the destruction of equipment and facilities
ruled in favor of the corporation by specific performance of the contract. performance of his obligation is bound to indemnify for the losses and damages of the ECI?
caused thereby.
RULING: Yes. The NPC will not be exempted from liability. It is clear that the
ISSUE: Nature and Effect of Obligations
NPC was undoubtedly negligent because it opened the spillway gates of the
Whether there is delay in the performance of the parties’ obligation that would 50. Telefast v. Castro, 158 SCRA 752
Angat Dam only at the height of typhoon “Welming” when it knew very well that it
justify the rescission of the contract of sale.
was safer to have opened the same gradually and earlier, as it was also
FACTS: On the same day, her daughter Sofia C. Crouch, who was then
undeniable that NPC knew of the coming typhoon at least four days before it
RULING: vacationing in the Philippines, addressed a telegram to plaintiff Ignacio Castro,
actually struck. Even though the typhoon was an act of God or what we may call
No. Article 1169 of the Civil Code provides that, “in reciprocal obligations, neither Sr. at 685 Wanda, Scottsburg, Indiana, U.S.A., 47170 announcing Consolacion's
force majeure,
party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a death. The telegram was accepted by the defendant in its Dagupan office, for
transmission, after payment of the required fees or charges. The telegram never
Main Point: One cannot escape liability because of its negligence being the In G.R. No. 128834, RCBC seeks right to intervene in the action between Alfredo THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, LUIS A. LUNA and CLARITA S.
proximate cause of the loss and damage even though a calamity is an act of C. Sebastian (the creditor) and GOYU (the debtor), where the subject insurance LUNA
God. policies were attached in favor of Sebastian. RTC and CA endorsements do not
bear the signature of any officer of GOYU concluded that the endorsements
FACTS ; Luis A. Luna applied for, and was accorded, a FAREASTCARD issued
favoring RCBC as defective.
by petitioner Far East Bank and Trust Company ("FEBTC") at its Pasig Branch.
Case No. 52 Upon his request, the bank also issued a supplemental card to private
Legaspi Oil Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 96505 July 1, 1993] Issue: Whether or not RCBC has a right over the insurance proceeds.
respondent Clarita S. Luna. In August 1988, Clarita lost her credit card. FEBTC
was forthwith informed. In order to replace the lost card, Clarita submitted an
FACTS: Private respondent Oseraos’s agent Jose Llover signed a contract for Ruling: RCBC has a right over the insurance proceeds. It is settled that a
affidavit of loss. In cases of this nature, the bank's internal security procedures
the sale of 100 tons of copra at P82.00 per 100 kilos with delivery terms of 20 mortgagor and a mortgagee have separate and distinct insurable interests in the
and policy would appear to be to meanwhile so record the lost card, along with
days effective March 8, 1976. After the period to deliver had lapsed, appellant same mortgaged property, such that each one of them may insure the same
the principal card, as a Hot Card. On 06 October 1988, Luis tendered
sold only 46,334 kilos of copra thus leaving a balance of 53,666 kilos. property for his own sole benefit. There is no question that GOYU could insure
a despedida lunch for a close friend, a Filipino-American, and another guest at
Accordingly, demands were made upon appellant to deliver the balance. The the mortgaged property for its own exclusive benefit. In the present case,
the Bahia Rooftop Restaurant of the Hotel Intercontinental Manila. To pay for the
price at which private respondent sells the copra varies from time to time, although it appears that GOYU obtained the subject insurance policies naming
lunch, Luis presented his FAREASTCARD to the attending waiter who promptly
depending on the prevailing market price when the contract is entered into. itself as the sole payee, the intentions of the parties as shown by their
had it verified through a telephone call to the bank's Credit Card Department.
contemporaneous acts, must be given due consideration in order to better serve
Since the card was not honored, Luis was forced to pay in cash the bill
ISSUE: W/N private respondent is liable for damages arising from fraud or bad the interest of justice and equity.
amounting to P588.13. Naturally, Luis felt embarrassed by this incident.Still
faith in deliberately breaching the contract of sale entered into by the parties. Alburo
evidently feeling aggrieved, private respondents, on 05 December 1988, filed a
Juan C. Syquia v Manila Memorial Park, G.R. No. 98695 January 27, 1993
complaint for damages with the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Pasig against
RULING: YES. The conduct of private respondent clearly manifests his FEBTC. On 30 March 1990, the RTC of Pasig, given the foregoing factual
deliberate fraudulent intent to evade his contractual obligation for the price of FACTS: Juan C. Syquia and his siblings filed a complaint for recovery of settings, rendered a decision ordering FEBTC to pay private respondents (a)
copra had in the meantime more than doubled from P82.00 to P168 per 100 damages arising from breach of contract and/or quasi-delict unto the honourable P300,000.00 moral damages; (b) P50,000.00 exemplary damages; and (c)
kilograms. Under Article 1170 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, those who in court for the alleged negligence of the Manila Memorial Park Inc. to provide a P20,000.00 attorney's fees.On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the appellate
the performance of their obligation are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and proper encased cemented vault for the burial ground of the Syquia siblings’ court affirmed the decision of the trial court.Its motion for reconsideration having
those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. father Vicente Juan Syquia. been denied by the appellate court, FEBTC has come to this Court with this
petition for review.
N.B. In general, fraud may be defined as the voluntary execution of a wrongful Petitioner laments that there was boring of a hole in the left side of the vault in
act, or a willful omission, knowing and intending the effects which naturally and which water entered and filed the vault with silt, water and filth which warped and
necessarily arise from such act or omission; the fraud referred to in Article 1170 corroded the coffin, upon closer inspection, the body was covered with the same ISSUE ; Whether the court a quo erred in awarding moral damages
of the Civil Code of the Philippines is the deliberate and intentional evasion of elements in which they aggrieve that the remains of their father was.
the normal fulfillment of obligation; it is distinguished from negligence by the RULING ; Yes, To award moral damages for breach of contract, therefore,
presence of deliberate intent, which is lacking in the latter. Petitioner contends that there was negligence on the part of MMPi for not fully without proof of bad faith or malice on the part of the defendant, as required by
upholding the provisions of Certificate of Perpetual Care in which, MMPi Art. 2220, would be to violate the clear provisions of the law, and constitute
53 Go vs CA indicated that the coffin will be sealed and protect it from any form of unwarranted judicial legislation.The distinction between fraud, bad faith or malice
degradation. in the sense of deliberate or wanton wrong doing and negligence (as mere
Case 54 carelessness) is too fundamental in our law to be ignored (Arts. 1170-1172); their
Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation V. CA ISSUE: Can the MMPi be liable of Negligence which is classified as a quasi consequences being clearly differentiated by the Code.Nevertheless, the bank's
305 SCRA 449 delict? failure, even perhaps inadvertent, to honor its credit card issued to private
respondent Luis should entitle him to recover a measure of damages sanctioned
FACTS: RCBC Binondo Branch initially granted a credit facility of P30M to Goyu RULING: No. MMPi did not neglect the contractual obligation of Certificate of under Article 2221 of the Civil Code providing thusly: Art. 2221. Nominal
& Sons, Inc. GOYU’s applied again and through Binondo Branch key officer's Perpetual Care. The boring of the hole is part of the preservation of the remains damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been
Uy’s and Lao’s recommendation, RCBC’s executive committee increased its which is done in good faith. MMPi foreseen the natural circumstances that will violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not
credit facility to P50M to P90M and finally to P117M. As security, GOYU prevail and the act of boring the hole was meant to minimize the damages inside for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
executed 2 real estate mortgages and 2 chattel mortgages in favor of RCBC. the vault.
GOYU obtained in its name 10 insurance policy on the mortgaged properties 57 Metrobank vs CA
from Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. (MICO). In February 1992, he was Naturally, the vault will be filled with water due to the MMPi’s maintenance of the
issued 8 insurance policies in favor of RCBC. April 27, 1992: One of GOYU’s memorial park such as the watering of the grass and the intermittent rains that is 58 MMPSEU vs Mitsubishi
factory buildings was burned so he claimed against MICO for the loss who of natural phenomenon. The boring of the hole acted as an exit point for the
denied contending that the insurance policies were either attached pursuant to water to recede inside the vault. It is presumed that if the water do not have
writs of attachments/garnishments or that creditors are claiming to have a better means of exit in the vault, the earth will cave in the coffin and the assumed
right. GOYU filed a complaint for specific performance and damages at the RTC. desecration of the remains will eventually happen. The foreman acted in 59 CHUA
RCBC, one of GOYU’s creditors, also filed with MICO its formal claim over the diligence of the good father, he prevented further damage unto the coffin and the
proceeds of the insurance policies, but said claims were also denied for the remains of the deceased. Jimenez v. City of Manila
same reasons that MICO denied GOYU’s claims. RTC: Confirmed GOYU’s other
creditors (Urban Bank, Alfredo Sebastian, and Philippine Trust Company) FACTS: The plaintiff went to Sta. Ana public market to buy "bagoong" at the time
obtained their writs of attachment covering an aggregate amount of when the public market was flooded with ankle deep rainwater. After purchasing
P14,938,080.23 and ordered that 10 insurance policies be deposited with the 56 BAIRD the "bagoong" he turned around to return home but he stepped on an uncovered
court minus the said amount so MICO deposited P50,505,594.60. Another opening which could not be seen because of the dirty rainwater, causing a dirty
Garnishment of P8, 696,838.75 was handed down. RTC favored GOYU against and rusty four- inch nail, stuck inside the uncovered opening, to pierce the left
MICO for the claim, RCBC for damages and to pay RCBC its loan FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,  leg of plaintiff-petitioner penetrating to a depth of about one and a half inches. He
vs. was then rushed to the Veterans Memorial Hospital where he had to be confined
for 20 days due to high fever and severe pain. Upon his discharge from the  The event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to
hospital, he had to walk around with crutches for 15 days. His injury prevented fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and Facts:
him from attending to the school buses he is operating. As a result, he had to  The debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of the On Aug 1980, a bus owned by Bachelor Express, Inc. (BEI) and driven by
engage the services of one Bienvenido Valdez to supervise his business for an injury to the creditor. Cresencio Rivera came from Davao City on its way to Cagayan de Oro City
aggregate compensation of P900.00. passing Butuan City. While at Tabon-Tabon, Butuan City, the bus picked up a
In the case at bar, although the damage was ultimately caused by the passenger and about 15 mins later, a passenger at the rear portion suddenly
ISSUE: Whether City of Manila and Asiatic Integrated Corporation being joint earthquake which was an act of God, the defects in the construction, as well as stabbed a PC soldier which caused commotion and panic among the
tort-feasors are solidarily liable under Article 2194 of the Civil Code. the deviations in the specifications and plans aggravated the damage, and passengers. When the bus stopped, passengers Ornominio Beter and Narcisa
lessened the preventive measures that the building would otherwise have had. Rautraut were found lying down the road, the former already dead as a result of
RULING: Yes, Petitioner had the right to assume that there were no openings in head injuries and the latter also suffering from severe injuries which caused her
the middle of the passageways and if any, that they were adequately covered. CASE NO. 61 death later. The passenger assailant alighted from the bus and ran toward the
Had the opening been covered, petitioner could not have fallen into it. Thus the Quisumbing vs. CA, 189 SCRA 605 bushes but was killed by the police. Thereafter, the heirs of Ornominio Beter and
negligence of the City of Manila is the proximate cause of the injury suffered, the Narcisa Rautraut, private respondents herein the parents of Beter and Rautraut.
City is therefore liable for the injury suffered by the petioner. FACTS: RTC dismissed the complaint. Upon appeal, the decision was reversed and set
Norberto Quisumbing and Gunther Loffer were on board flight Fokker Friendship aside. CA found BEI and Rivera solidarily liable to pay the private respondents
MAIN POINT: It is the duty of the City of Manila to exercise reasonable care to PIC 536 plane bound from Cebu to Manila. Senior NBI Agent Villarin was also in herein.
keep the public market reasonably safe for people frequenting the place for their the same flight and noticed a certain “Zaldy” who was a suspect of the killing of a
marketing needs. certain Judge Valdez. He was believed to have three companions on board the Issue:
same plane. Villarin tried to scribble a message to the pilot requesting the former Whether the petitioner is liable?
60 CRUZ to contact the NBI duty agents in Manila to meet the said plane because Zaldy
was also on the same flight. The plane captain then informed and explained to Ruling:
Agent Villarin that he could not send the said message because it would be Yes, contractual The liability of Bachelor Express, is anchored on culpa contractual
NATURE AND EFFECT OF OBLIGATIONS (ARTICLES 1163-1178)
heard by all ground aircraft stations. The two men were not able to discuss or breach of contract of carriage. Article 1732 of the Civil Code provides
further when Zaldy and his companions started walking around, acting that “Common carriers arepersons, corporations, firms or associations
Nakpil & Sons v CA 144 SCRA 596; 160 SCRA 334
suspicious and all. Soon thereafter, an exchange of gunshots ensued between engaged in the businessof car ryi ng or transpor ti ng passengers or
the agent and the robbers. The armed men then declared a hold-up and ordered goods or both by l and, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to
Facts: The plaintiff Philippine Bar Association (PBA) decided to construct an the public.” Article 1733 of the Civil Code provides that “Common carriers,
the pilot not to send SOS. They divested the passengers of their belongings.
office building and contracted United Construction Co. Inc. (UCCI). Years after fromthe nature of their business and for reasons of public policy,
Upon landing at MIA, the armed robbers escaped.
its construction, a strong earthquake hit Manila and the building sustained major arebound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over
damage. The plaintiff filed an action for the recovery of damages against the thegoods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them .
Quisumbing was one of the those passengers who was divested of jewelries and
UCCI alleging that the collapse of the building was due to the defects of
cash in the total of P18,650.00 and later suffers shock because a gun had been
construction and the failure of the contractors to follow the plans and
pointed at him by one of the hold-uppers. Loffer was divested of a wrist watch,
specification. The defendant contended that the earthquake is an act of God and
cash and wallet. Demands were then made on PAL by Quisumbing to indemnify 63 NPC vs CA
that they must be relieved from liability. A commissioner was appointed to
them for the loss but the airline company refuse to submit and averred that it is
assess the situation and it was stated in his report that while the damage
not liable to them in law and in fact.
sustained by the PBA building was caused by the earthquake, they were also
caused by the (1) defects in the plans and specifications prepared by the
ISSUE: 64 GENON
architects, (2) deviations from said plans and specifications by United and (3)
Whether PAL is obliged to indemnify Quisumbing.
failure of United to observe the requisite workmanship in construction of the
building and of the contractors and architects to exercise the requisite degree of Southeastern v. CA, 292 SCRA 422
RULING:
supervision in the construction of the said building. The United Architects of the
No. PAL has no obligation to indemnify the petitioners with respect to their loss FACTS:
Philippines, the Association of Civil Engineers, and the Philippine Institute of
due. Under the circumstances of the instant case, the acts of the airline and its Private respondents are owners of a house near the petitioner’s four-story school
Architects filed with the Court a motion to intervene as amicus curiae. In
crew cannot be faulted as negligence.  The hijackers had already shown their building along the same road. During a typhoon, the roof of the petitioner’s
contradiction to the commissioner’s report, the amicus curiae gave the opinion
willingness to kill.  One passenger was in fact killed and another survived building was partly ripped off and blown away by strong winds, landing on and
that the plans and specifications of the Nakpils were not defective. The lower
gunshot wounds.  The lives of the rest of the passengers and crew were more destroying portions of the roofing of private respondents’ house. In the aftermath,
court ruled in favor of the plaintiff stating that even if there is no defect in the
important than their properties.  Cooperation with the hijackers until they an ocular inspection of the destroyed building was spearheaded by the city
plans and specification there exist deficiency on the original design.
released their hostages at the runway end near the South Superhighway was building official. In his report, he imputed negligence to the petitioner for the
dictated by the circumstances. Moreover, the use of firearms and irresistible structural defect of the building and improper anchorage of trusses to the roof
Issue: Whether the earthquake can exempt the defendants from liability force in the hijacking constitutes force majeure. The particular acts singled out by beams which caused the roof be ripped off the building, thereby causing damage
the petitioners as supposedly demonstrative of negligence were, in the light of to the property of respondents. Respondents filed an action before the RTC for
Ruling: No, because the act of God in this case is coupled with gross negligence the circumstances of the case, not in truth negligent acts "sufficient to overcome
and evident bad faith of the defendants. If in act of God there concurs a recovery of damages based on culpa aquiliana. Petitioner contested that it had
the force majeure nature of the armed robbery." no liability, attributing the damage to a fortuitous event. RTC ruled in favor of
corresponding fraud, negligence, delay, or violation in contravention in any
manner of the tenor of the obligation (art.1170 cc) which results to loss or respondents which was affirmed by the CA. Hence present petition.’
The evidence failed to prove that PAL had failed to comply with the applicable
damage, the obligor cannot escape liability. To exempt the obligor from liability regulations or universally-accepted and observed procedures to preclude the
under the act of Got the following requisites must concur: ISSUE:
hijacking. PAL did not fail to take certain steps in assessing a passenger which Whether or not the damage, in legal sense, can be attributed to a fortuitous
may mingle with force majeure as an active and cooperative cause. event.
 The cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the
will of the debtor;
RULING:
 The event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable; Case No. 62 Yes. The court ruled that petitioner is not liable, the damage being attributable to
Bachelor Express vs. CA, 188 SCRA 216 (1990) a fortuitous event. Art. 1174 of the Civil Code states that: “Except in cases
expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or RULING: passenger jeepney was overloaded at the time of the accident. In this case, the
when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence was not independent of the
be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though Both the RTC and the CA found petitioner negligent and thus liable for the loss human will. The accident was caused either through the negligence of the driver
foreseen, were inevitable” or destruction of the leased truck. Both parties may have suffered from the or because of mechanical defects in the tire. Common carriers should teach their
burning of the truck however, as found by both lower courts the negligence of drivers not to overload their vehicles, not to exceed safe and legal speed limits,
petitioner makes it responsible for the loss. In order for a fortuitous event to and to know the correct measures to take when a tire blows up thus insuring the
To be liable for a fortuitous event, the respondent must prove that petitioners exempt one from liability, it is necessary that one has committed no negligence safety of passengers at all times. It is sufficient to reiterate that the source of a
were negligent, with which they fall short, merely relying on the report of the city or misconduct that may have occasioned the loss. An act of God cannot be common carrier's legal liability is the contract of carriage, and by entering into the
building official. This is the same official that have approved the building plans of invoked to protect a person who has failed to take steps to forestall the possible said contract, it binds itself to carry the passengers safely as far as human care
petitioner, who made clear that there were no prior complaints regarding the adverse consequences of such a loss. One’s negligence may have concurred and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person,
building. Since storms are common in the country, the part of the building in with an act of God in producing damage and injury to another; nonetheless, with a due regard for all the circumstances.
question should have failed against stronger typhoons that preceded said storm, showing that the immediate or proximate cause of the damage or injury was a
which it had not. Furthermore, petitioner was able to present evidence that fortuitous event would not exempt one from liability. When the effect is found to
regular maintenance was carried out. Respondents also failed to support the be partly the result of a person’s participation whether by active intervention,
claim of the actual loss they suffered, merely relying on estimates without neglect or failure to act –the whole occurrence is humanized and removed from #67
considering that wear and tear of respondents’ home which may have had a the rules applicable to acts of God. 67 JAAFAR
contributory effect to the damage. Petition is granted and challenged decision is Ace-Agro Development Corp. vs CA
reversed. GR 119729January 21, 1997

65 HALID The records clearly shows that petitioner failed to exercise reasonable care and
caution that an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation. FACTS:
MINDEX RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT VS. EPHRAIM MORILLO Petitioner fell short of ordinary diligence in safeguarding the leased truck against
the accident. Petitioner failed to employ reasonable foresight, diligence and care Ace-Agro had been cleaning soft drink bottles and repairing wooden
(G.R. NO. 138123, MARCH 12, 2002) that would have exempted it from liability resulting from the burning of the truck. shells for Cosmos within its companypremises in San Fernando, Pampanga. On
Negligence, as commonly understood, is that conduct that naturally or April 25, 1990, a fire broke out in the Cosmos plant. As a result, Ace-Agro’s work
FACTS: reasonably creates undue risk or harm to others. It may be a failure to observed stopped. On May 15, 1990, Ace-Agro requested Cosmos to resume its services
that degree of care, precaution or vigilance that the circumstances justly but they were advised that on account of the fire destroying nearly all the bottles
demand; or to do any other act that would be done by a prudent and reasonable and shells, Cosmos was terminating their contract. Ace-Agro requested Cosmos
On February 1991, a verbal agreement was entered into between Ephraim
person, who is guided by considerations that ordinarily regulate the conduct of to reconsider its decision but upon receiving no reply, they informed
Morillo and Mindex Resources Corporation for the lease of the former’s 6 x 6 ten
human affair. the employees of thetermination of their employment, which led the employees
wheeler cargo truck for use in the Mindex mining operations in Binaybay, Bigaan,
to file a complaint for illegal dismissal before the LaborArbiter against both Ace-
San Teodoro, Oriental Mindoro, at the stipulated rental of ‘P300.00 per hour for a
66 HAMMISANI Agro and Cosmos. Ace-Agro sent another letter for reconsideration to Cosmos to
minimum of eight hours a day or a total of P2, 400.00 daily. Mindex had been
whichthey replied that they could resume work but outside company premises.
paying the rentals until April 10, 1991. Unknown to Morillo, on April 11, 1991, the
Juntilla VS Fontanar Ace-Agro refused the offer, claiming thatto work outside would incur additional
truck was burned by unidentified persons while it was parked unattended at Sitio
transportation costs.
Aras, Bigaan, San Teodoro, Oriental Mindoro, due to mechanical trouble. Upon
Facts:  
learning of the burning incident, Morillo offered to sell the truck to Mindex but the
The facts established after trial show that the plaintiff was a passenger of the Cosmos then advised Ace-Agro that they couldresume work inside the
latter refused. Instead, it replaced the vehicle’s burned tires and had it towed to
public utility jeepney. The jeepney was driven by defendant Berfol Camoro. It company premises but then Ace-Agro unjustifiably refused because it wanted
a shop for repair and overhauling
was registered under the franchise of defendant Clemente Fontanar but was andextension of the contract to make up for the period of inactivity.
actually owned by defendant Fernando Banzon. When the jeepney reached
Mandaue City, the right rear tire exploded causing the vehicle to turn turtle. In the ISSUE:
process, the plaintiff who was sitting at the front seat was thrown out of the Because the suspension of work under a contract has been brought
On April 15, 1991, Morillo sent a letter to Mr. Arni Isberg, the finance manager of about by
Mindex thru Mr. Ramoncito Gozar, Project Manager, proposing that he is vehicle. He suffered injuries on his left arm, right thigh and on his back, had a
lacerated wound on his right palm and he discovered that his "Omega" wrist  force majeure, is the period during which work has been suspended justify an
entrusting to Mindex the said vehicle in the amount of P275, 000.00 which is its extension of the term of the contract?
cost price, in four monthly instalment. Morillo then promised to relinquish all the watch was lost. Petitioner Roberto Juntilla filed Civil Case for breach of contract
necessary documents upon full payment of said account. On the other hand, with damages before the City Court of Cebu City, against Clemente Fontanar,
Fernando Banzon and Berfol Camoro. RULING:
Mindex expressed their reservations and make counteroffers that it will pay the No. The suspension of work due to fire does not merit an automatic
truck in the amount of P76,000.00 that the repair and overhaul will be on their extension. The stipulation that in theevent of a fortuitous event or force majeure
expensed and that they will return it in a good running condition after repair. After trial, Judge Romulo R. Senining of the Civil Court of Cebu, the judgment is
rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants and the latter are the contract shall be deemed suspended during the said period doesnot mean
Morillo replied that he will relinquish to Mindex the damaged truck, that he is that it stops the running of the period the contract has been agreed upon to run.
amenable to receive the rental in the amount of P76, 000.00, and that Mindex ordered pay the plaintiff. But Judge Leonardo B. Canares reversed the judgment
of the City Court of Cebu upon a finding that the accident in question was due to The fact that thecontract is subject to a resolutory period, which relieves the
will pay fifty thousand pesos monthly until the balance of P275, 000.00 is fully parties of their respective obligations, does not stopthe running of the period of
paid. On August 1991, Morillo pulled out the truck from the repair shop of Mindex a fortuitous event.
their contract.
and had it repaired elsewhere for which he spent the total amount of P132,  
750.00. Issue:
Whether a tire blowout in this case is a fortuitous event
ISSUE:
Ruling:
No. In the case at bar, there are specific acts of negligence on the part of the 68 LAKBAO
Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding that petitioner failed
respondents. The evidence shows that the passenger jeepney was running at a
to overcome the presumption of negligence against it considering that the facts Philcomsat vs. Globe Telecom
very fast speed before the accident. There is also evidence to show that the
shows that the burning of the truck was a fortuitous event.
FACTS: On 07 May 1991, Philcomsat and Globe entered into an Agreement 9. Other circumstances beyond the control of the parties.
whereby Philcomsat obligated itself to establish, operate and provide an IBS The controversy arose when the herein respondents, despite repeated demand
Standard B earth station (earth station) within Cubi Point for the exclusive use of Article 1174, which exempts an obligor from liability on account of fortuitous from the petitioner, extended the roof of their house to the property line and
the USDCA. The term of the contract was for 60 months, or five (5) years. In events or force majeure, refers not only to events that are unforeseeable, but expanded the second floor of their house to a point directly above the original
turn, Globe promised to pay Philcomsat monthly rentals for each leased circuit also to those which are foreseeable, but inevitable: front wall. Respondent filed before the RTC an action to demolish the
involved. At the time of the execution of the Agreement, both parties knew that unauthorized structures.
the Military Bases Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the Art. 1174. Except in cases specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared
US (RP-US Military Bases Agreement) was to expire. Under Section 25, Article by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of Issues:
XVIII of the 1987 Constitution, foreign military bases, troops or facilities, which risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which, could not be 1. Whether or not the Freedom to Build, Inc. has the obligation to demolish the
include those located at the US Naval Facility in Cubi Point, shall not be allowed foreseen, or which, though foreseen were inevitable. unauthorized structures.
in the Philippines unless a new treaty is duly concurred in by the Senate and
ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum Clearly, the foregoing facts are either unforeseeable, or foreseeable but beyond Ruling:
when the Congress so requires, and such new treaty is recognized as such by the control of the parties. There is nothing in the enumeration that runs contrary Yes. The Court holds that since the extension constructed exceeds the floor area
the US Government. to, or expands, the concept of a fortuitous event under Article 1174. limits of the Restrictive Covenant, petitioner spouses can be required to demolish
the structure to the extent that it exceeds the prescribed floor area limits. Article
Subsequently, Philcomsat installed and established the earth station at Cubi 69 LIM 1168 of the New Civil Code states that: “When the obligation consists in not
Point and the USDCA made use of the same. doing and the obligor does what has been forbidden him, it shall be undone at
his expense.”
LIAM LAW v. OLYMPIC SAWMILL
On 16 September 1991, the Senate passed and adopted a resolution expressing 129 SCRA 439 GR: L-30771 MAY 28, 1984
its decision not to concur in the ratification of the Treaty of Friendship, 73
Cooperation and Security and its Supplementary Agreements that was supposed Pantaleon v. American Express International, GR No. 174269 (August 25,
FACTS: Liam Law loaned P10,000.00 without interest to the Olympic Sawmill
to extend the term of the use by the US of Subic Naval Base, among others. 2010)
Co. and Elino Lee Chi, as the managing partner. When the loan became due, the
debtors asked for extension and another loan was executed, extending the
In a letter dated 06 August 1992, Globe notified Philcomsat of its intention to FACTS: Amex is a corporation engaged in providing credit services through the
payment of the loan and adding P6,000.00 as answer for attorney’s fees, legal
discontinue the use of the earth station in view of the withdrawal of US military operation of a charge card system. Pantaleon was a card holder since 1980.
interest and other cost incident thereto. Law filed a collection case when the
personnel from Subic Naval Base after the termination of the RP-US Military Pantaleon, his wife, daughter, and son went on a guided European tour and
defendants were unable to pay the second time. The CFI of Bulacan decided in
Bases Agreement. Globe invoked as basis for the letter of termination Section 8 arrived in Amsterdam. His wife wanted to purchase some diamond pieces,
favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the Court of Appeals endorsed the case to the
(Default) of the Agreement. amounting to 13, 826 dollars. Pantaleon presented his credit card which was
Supreme Court, stating that the issue involved was one of law.
swiped. He was then asked to sign the charge slip which was electronically
ISSUE: Whether or not the non-ratification by the Senate of the Treaty of transferred to Amex’s Amsterdam office. However, Coster was not able to
ISSUE: Whether the agreement to pay P6,000.00 in addition to the principal receive approval from Amex for the purchase so Pantaleon asked the clerk to
Friendship, Cooperation and Security and its Supplementary Agreements obligation is lawful.
constitutes force majeure (fortuitous event) which exempts Globe from complying cancel the sale. The store manager convinced Pantaelon to wait for a few
with its obligations under the Agreement. minutes and told that Amex was asking for bank references and he responded
RULING: Yes. Article 1354 of the Civil Code states that: by giving names of his Phil. Depository banks. Still, it was not approved but
Coster decided to release the items even without Amex’s approval since the tour
RULING: Yes. Globe asserts that Section 8 of the Agreement is not contrary to Article 1354. Although the cause is not stated in the contract, it is couldn’t go on without them. It took Amex 78minutes to approve. This was
Article 1174 of the Civil Code because said provision does not prohibit parties to presumed that it exists and is lawful, unless the debtor proves the contrary. followed by two similar incidents when the family then had another trip to the US.
a contract from providing for other instances when they would be exempt from
They also experienced inconvenience using the Amex credit card. When they got
fulfilling their contractual obligations. Globe also claims that the termination of the In relation to the case, the agreement of the parties relative to the to Manila, Pantaleon sent a letter to Amex, demanding an apology for the
RP-US Military Bases Agreement constitutes force majeure and exempts it from P6,000.00 obligation, without an evidentiary hearing, it has to be concluded that humiliation and inconvenience. Amex responded that the delay in Amsterdam
complying with its obligations under the Agreement. defendants had not proven that the P6,000.00 obligation was illegal. Hence, it is was due to the amount involved, saying that the purchase deviated from his
presumed that the agreement of the parties relative to the P6,000.00 exists and established charge purchase pattern. Dissatisfied, Pantaleon filed an action for
Philcomsat and Globe agreed in Section 8 of the Agreement that the following is lawful. damages in RTC.
events shall be deemed events constituting force majeure:
ISSUE: Whether Amex is liable for breach of contractual obligation and is liable
1. Any law, order, regulation, direction or request of the Philippine Government; for damages.
70 Vda de Blas vs Blas de Buenaventura
2. Strikes or other labor difficulties; RULING: No. The Court had the occasion to present the nature of credit card
71 Mackay vs Spouses Caswell transactions which involves three contracts: (1) the sales contract between the
3. Insurrection; credit card holder and the merchant; (2) the loan agreement between the credit
Musa (Case Number 72) card issuer and holder; and (3) the promise to pay between the credit card issuer
4. Riots; Fajardo, Jr. v. Freedom to Build, Inc. and the merchant. It took AMEX some time to approve Pantaleon's purchase
G.R. No. 134692, August 1, 2000 requests because it had legitimate concerns on the amount being charged; no
5. National emergencies; malicious intent was ever established here. In the absence of any other
Facts: damages, the award of exemplary damages clearly lacks legal basis.
6. War; Facts: Freedom to Build Inc., an owner-developer and seller of low-cost
housing sold to petitioner-spouses a house and lot in the De La Costa Homes, in REYES
7. Acts of public enemies; Barangka, Marikina, Metro Manila. The Contract to sell executed between the CASE NO. 74
parties, contained a Restrictive Covenant providing certain prohibitions. The Selegna Management and Development Corp. vs. UCPB, G.R. No. 165662
8. Fire, floods, typhoons or other catastrophies or acts of God; restrictions were also contained in Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-115384
covering the lot issued in the name of petitioner-spouses. FACTS:
Petitioners Selegna Management and Development Corporation and Spouses On October 3, 1986, petitioner paid the purchased price of 500 MT of sulfuric completed without issue. The Phase 2 of the project, however, encountered
Edgardo and Zenaida Angeles were granted a credit facility in the amount of P70 acid. Then, it chartered M/T Sultan Kayumanggi to carry the agreed volumes of numerous delays. All negotiations came to a dead end thus a complaint was
million by Respondent United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB). As security for freight from designated loading areas but the vessel was able to withdraw a filed in court. Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation and Dynamic Planners
this credit facility, petitioners executed real estate mortgages over several partial amount of sulfuric acid from Basay and Sangi because it tilted. Later, it and Construction Corporation are ordered jointly and severally to pay Central
parcels of land located in the cities of Muntinlupa, Las Piñas, Antipolo and sank with a total amount of 227.51 MT of sulfuric acid on board. Colleges of the Philippines the total amount ofP13,924,351.47. PCIC moved for
Quezon; and over several condominium units in Makati. Petitioners were likewise the reconsideration of the said decision, but the CA disposed of it with a denial in
required to execute a promissory note in favor of respondent every time they Petitioner sent a demand letter to private respondent for delivery of the 272.49 its November 19, 2007 Resolution. Hence, this petition.
availed of the credit facility. As required in these notes, they paid the interest in MT of sulfuric acid. Petitioner then filed a complaint against private respondent
monthly amortizations. The parties stipulated in their Credit Agreement that for specific performance and/or damages before the Regional Trial Court of ISSUE: Whether Dynamic Planners and Construction Corporation incurred
failure to pay “any availment of the accommodation or interest, or any sum due” Pasig. The private respondent filed an answer with counterclaim and alleged that delay.
shall constitute an event of default, which shall consequently allow respondent it was the petitioner which was remiss in the performance of its obligation in
UCPB to “declare [as immediately due and payable] all outstanding availments of arranging the shipping requirements of its purchases and, hence, should pay RULING: Yes. DPCC incurred delay from the time CCP called its attention that it
the accommodation together with accrued interest and any other sum payable.” damages. Petitioner prevailed in the trial court. However, on appeal, the Court of had breached the contract and extrajudicially demanded the fulfillment of its
Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and instead found petitioner guilty commitment against the bonds. The Court finds itself unable to agree. Article
Petitioners failed to pay the interest amortizations. UCPB sent them demand of delay and therefore, liable for damages. Hence, this petition. 1169 of the New Civil Code provides: Art. 1169. Those obliged to deliver or to do
letters. Petitioners paid only the partial amount of the accrued interests. UCPB something incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially
then filed before the court for the foreclosure of petitioners’ mortgaged Issue: Whether the respondent court err in awarding damages to private demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation. The civil law concept of
properties. respondent delay or default commences from the time the obligor demands, judicially or
extrajudicially, the fulfillment of the obligation from the obligee.
ISSUE: Ruling:
Whether petitioners are in default. No, respondent court did not err in awarding damages to private In legal parlance, demand is the assertion of a legal or procedural right. Hence,
respondent. Where there has been breach of contract by the buyer, the seller DPCC incurred delay from the time CCP called its attention that it had
RULING: has a right of action for damages. Following this rule, a cause of action of the breached the contract and extrajudicially demanded the fulfillment of its
Yes. Article 1169 of the Civil Code provides that those obliged to deliver or to do seller for damages may arise where the buyer refuses to remove the goods, commitment against the bonds. It is the obligor‘s culpable delay, not merely
something incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or extra-judicially such that buyer has to remove them. Article 1170 of Civil Code provides: "Those the time element, which gives the obligee the right to seek the
demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation. Mora solvendi, or debtor’s who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or performance of the obligation. As such, CCP‘s cause of action accrued from
fault, is defined as a delay in the fulfillment of an obligation, by reason of a cause delay and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for the time that DPCC became in culpable delay as contemplated in the surety and
imputable to the debtor. There are three requisites necessary for a finding of damages." Delay begins from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially performance bonds.
default: (1) the obligation is demandable and liquidated; (2) the debtor delays demands from the obligor the performance of the obligation. Art. 1169 states: Case No. 78 - Tan
performance; and (3) the creditor judicially or extra-judicially requires the debtor’s "Art. 1169. Those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from the Nature and Effects of Obligations: Articles 1163 to 1178
performance. time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of Autocorp Group vs. Intra Strata Insurance Corp, 556 SCRA 250 (2008)
their obligation." In order that the debtor may be in default, it is necessary that
In the case at bar, petitioners were clearly in default per provisions laid down in the following requisites be present:
their Credit Agreement with UCPB which is the binding law between the parties. (1) that the obligation be demandable and already
In fact, the parties stipulated in their credit agreements, mortgage contracts and liquidated; FACTS: Autocorp Group secured a re-export bond from Intra Strata Assurance
promissory notes that the respondent was authorized to foreclose on the (2) that the debtor delays performance; and Corp (ISAC) in favor of public Bureau of Customs (BOC), to guarantee the re-
mortgages in case of a default by petitioners; this authority was granted and is (3) that the creditor requires the performance judicially or export of 2 units of cars. Petitioners executed and signed 2 Indemnity
not disputed. It is in fact clear from the agreement of the parties that when the extrajudicially. Agreements with identical stipulations in favor of ISAC, agreeing to act as surety
payment is accelerated due to an event of default, the penalty charge shall be of the subject bonds. ISAC issued the subject bonds to guarantee compliance by
based on the total principal amount outstanding, to be computed from the date of Records reveal that a tanker ship had to pick up sulfuric acid in Basay, then petitioners. In turn, petitioners agreed to indemnify ISAC for the liability the latter
acceleration until the obligation is paid in full. proceed to get the remaining stocks in Sangi, Cebu. A period of three days may incur on the said bonds Autocorp failed to re-export the items guaranteed by
appears to us reasonable for a vessel to travel between Basay and Sangi. the bonds, liquidate the entries or cancel the bonds, and pay the taxes and
Logically, the computation of damages arising from the shipping delay would duties pertaining to the said items. By reason thereof, the BOC considered the
then have to be from December 15, 1986, given said reasonable period after the two bonds forfeited. Petitioner invoke the lack of demand on the part of the ISAC.
75 Maybank Philippines vs Spouses Tarrosa December 12th letter. More important, private respondent was forced to vacate
Basay wharf only on December 15th. Its Basay expenses incurred before
December 15, 1986, were necessary and regular business expenses for which ISSUE: Whether the bonds are demandable even though there is a
the petitioner should not be obliged to pay. recommendation for forfeiture of bonds?
76.SALINAS
Aerospace Chemical Industries, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 77. Phil. Charter Insurance Corp. v. CCP, G.R. Nos. 180631-33 (Notice), July
G.R. No. 108129, September 23, 1999 2, 2014
Nature and Effect of Obligation RULING: Yes. The Indemnity Agreements give ISAC the right to recover from
Facts: FACTS: On Ma 16, 2000, Central Colleges of the Philippines (CCP), an petitioners the face value of the subject bonds at the time ISAC becomes liable
educational institution, contracted the services of Dynamic Planners and on the said bonds to the BOC, regardless whether the BOC had forfeited the
On June 27, 1986, petitioner Aerospace Industries, Inc. purchased five Construction Corporation (DPCC) to be its general contractor for the bonds, demanded payment thereof or received such payment. The principal
hundred metric tons of sulfuric acid from private respondent Philippine construction of its five (5)-storey school building at No. 39 Aurora Boulevard, debtors became liable to indemnify the surety at the same time the bonds issued
Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation. Petitioner agreed to secure the means of Quezon City, with a total contract price ofP248,000,000.00. As embodied in a by the surety were placed at the risk of forfeiture by the Bureau of Customs
transport to pick-up the sulfuric acid from private respondents' loadports in Contract Agreement, the construction of the entire building would be done (BOC).
Basay, Negros Oriental and Sangi, Cebu. in two phases with each phase valued atP124,000,000.00.To guarantee the
fulfillment of the obligation, DPCC posted three (3) bonds, all issued by
the Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation(PCIC).All the bonds were callable
on demand and set to expire on October 30, 2003.Phase 1 of the project was
Main Point: A demand is only necessary in order to put an obligor in a due and as well the intervening circumstance of the flat tire during that time. Knowing the
demandable obligation in delay, which in turn is for the purpose of making the ISSUES: Whether the CA erred in ruling that there was a valid promissory note. nature of his business, he must introduced efficient schemes in his business in
obligor liable for interests or damages for the period of delay. Thus, unless order to fulfil his contractual agreements in time.
stipulated otherwise, an extrajudicial demand is not required before a judicial HELD: Yes. First, [the court] cannot give credence to such a naked claim of
demand. forgery over the testimony of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Ignacio Barzaga already fulfilled his reciprocal obligation by paying the amount in
handwriting expert on the integrity of the promissory note. Indeed, Rivera had the full as to the value of materials and the delivery charge. The negligence of
Case No. 79 burden of proving the material allegations which he sets up in his Answer to the Alvarez caused Ignacio further grief by failing to fulfil the dying wish of her wife.
Acaylar, Jr. vs. Harayo [G.R. No. 176995 July 30, 2008] plaintiff’s claim or cause of action, upon which issue is joined, whether they Ignacio must be awarded Indemnification of the sum he paid, moral damages
relate to the whole case or only to certain issues in the case. In this case, and other pecuniary charges as to the cost of the proceedings.
Rivera’s bare assertion is unsubstantiated and directly disputed by the testimony
FACTS: Respondent alleged that he acquired the subject land property from the of a handwriting expert from the NBI. While it is true that resort to experts is not
spouses Acaylar by virtue of a Deed of Sale. On the same day, respondent took mandatory or indispensable to the examination or the comparison of handwriting,
possession of the subject property but was forcibly deprived thereof by petitioner. the trial courts in this case, on its own, using the handwriting expert testimony
only as an aid, found the disputed document valid.
ISSUE: W/N the petitioner is guilty of forcible entry upon said property. 83 BAIRD
In all, Rivera’s evidence or lack thereof consisted only of a barefaced claim of
RULING: NO. The petitioner was in peaceful possession of the subject property forgery and a discordant defense to assail the authenticity and validity of the SPOUSES ONG V BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK
prior to its sale to respondent. Even if petitioner was not authorized by Zoila Promissory Note. Although the burden of proof rested on the Spouses Chua
Acaylar to possess the subject property as administrator, his possession was not having instituted the civil case and after they established a prima facie case
opposed and was, thus, tolerated by his parents. Petitioner, in gathering the against Rivera, the burden of evidence shifted to the latter to establish his
coconut fruits and other crops, cutting grasses, and domesticating animals on defense. Consequently, Rivera failed to discharge the burden of evidence, refute
the existence of the Promissory Note duly signed by him and subsequently, that FACTS ; Spouses Ong and Spouses Ong Chuan and Esperanza Ong Chuan are
the subject property, even after its sale to respondent on 14 September 2004, engaged in the business of printing under the name and style "MELBROS
was only continuing to exercise acts of possession over the subject property as he did not fail to pay his obligation thereunder. On the whole, there was no
question left on where the respective evidence of the parties preponderated—in PRINTING CENTER". In December 1996, Bank of Southeast Asia's managers,
he had done in years before. Since petitioner was in prior physical possession of Ronnie Denila and Rommel Nayve, discussed the various loan and credit
the subject property, respondent has no cause of action against petitioner for favor of plaintiffs, the Spouses Chua.
facilities offered by their bank. In view of petitioners' business expansion plans
forcible entry. and the assurances made by BSA's managers, they applied for the credit
facilities offered by the latter. In April 1997, they executed a real estate mortgage
80 Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation vs Santos 82 Alburo
over their property situated in Paco, Manila, covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 143457, in favor of BSA as security for a ₱15,000,000.00 term loan and
Ignacio Barzaga v Court Of Appeals, G.R. No. 115129. February 12, 1997 ₱5,000,000.00 credit line or a total of ₱20,000,000.00. With regard to the term
loan, only ₱10,444,271.49 was released by BSA. With regard to the
Case 81 FACTS: Ignacio Barzaga’s wife died in December 21 1990. The wife pleaded in ₱5,000,000.00 credit line, only ₱3,000,000.00 was released. BSA promised to
Rodrigo Rivera vs. Spouses Chua her wishes that she must be laid before Christmas day to spare her grieving release the remaining ₱2,000,000.00 conditioned upon the payment of the
G.R. Nos. 184458/184472. family from the pain of celebrating the birth of the redeemer of Christendom from ₱3,000,000.00 initially released to petitioners. Petitioners acceded to the
her passing away. Immediately, on December 22, petitioner inquired unto the condition and paid the ₱3,000,000.00 in full. However, BSA still refused to
FACTS: Petitioner Rodrigo Rivera obtained a load from his friends Spouses hardware store of Angelito Alviar to purchase the necessary materials to build release the ₱2,000,000.00. Petitioners then refused to pay the amortizations due
Salvador and Violeta Chua a promissory note. In October 1998, Rivera issued the niche of her wife as fast the he could which must be accomplished before on their term loan.Later on, BPI Family Savings Bank (BPI) merged with BSA,
and delivered to the Spouses Chua, as payee, a check numbered 012467, dated December 25 1990; he paid in full amount of P2,110.00 in which private thus, acquired all the latter's rights and assumed its obligations. BPI filed a
30 December 1998, in the amount of 25,000.00 and on 21 December 1998, responded promised in express that the materials will be delivered by 8 am to petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the REM for petitioners' default in the
another check numbered 013224, duly signed and dated, but blank as to payee. the cemetery which is 1 kilometer away from the hardware store. The promise payment of their term loan.In order to enjoin the foreclosure, petitioners instituted
The second check was issued, as per understanding by the parties, n the was delayed by five hours after patient waiting of Ignacio Barzaga in which, he an action for damages with Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
amount of 133,454.00 with “cash” as payee. Both checks were dishonored for inquired two times back at the hardware store if the delivery will still be fulfilled Injunction against BPI praying for ₱23,570,881.32 as actual damages;
the reason “account closed.” Due to Rivera’s unjustified refusal to pay, even at the lapse of the promise time. Upon Ignacio’s realization that the time for ₱1,000,000.00 as moral damages; ₱500,000.00 as attorney's fees, litigation
respondents were constrained to file a suit on 11 June 1999. In his Answer with the day was wasted, he sent the workers home and returned at the hardware expenses and costs of suit. BPI thereafter appealed to the CA averring that the
Compulsory Counterclaim, Rivera countered, among others, that the subject store to cancel his order and he saw the delivery truck just parked adjacent to court a quo erred when it ruled that petitioners were entitled to damages.
Promissory Note was forged and that here was no demand for payment of the the store, earlier, Alvarez interposed that the delivery cannot be fulfilled on time
amount of 120,000.00 prior to the encashment of PCIB Check No. 0132224. due to the flat tire which has to be changed. Ignacio was dissatisfied with the ISSUE ; Whether or not BSA incurred delay in the performance of its obligations
Respondents presented documentary and oral evidence of NBI Senior reasoning and bloterred a complaint in the nearby police station. The cemetery and whether or not petitioners are entitled to damages
Document Examiner Antonio Magbojos who concluded that the questioned was closed in the 25th by the management of the cemetery, it was only reopened
signature appearing in the Promissory Note and the Rivera’s specimen on the 26th in which Ignacio hurried to finish the building of the niche and bury
RULING ; Yes, Loan is a reciprocal obligation, The obligation of one party in a
signatures on other documents written by one and the same person. The MeTC her wife past the deadlock of the wife’s pleading. On the first death anniversary
reciprocal obligation is dependent upon the obligation of the other, and the
ruled in Spouses Chua’s favor. On appeal, the RTC affirmed the MeTC decision of her wife, Ignacio succumbed into grief for not fulfilling the dying wish and filed
performance should ideally be simultaneous. This means that in a loan, the
but deleted the award of attorney’s fees. The CA also affirmed Rivera’s liability a complaint for recovery and damages against the Hardware store; the Cavite
creditor should release the full loan amount and the debtor repays it when it
under the Promissory Note but reduced the imposition of interest on the loan RTC and Court of Appeals dismissed the case for weak merit.
becomes due and demandable. In this case, BSA did not only incur delay in
from 60% to 12% per annum. Both parties appealed before the SC. releasing the pre-agreed credit line of ₱5,000,000.00 but likewise violated the
Respondent’s petition for review on certiorari was denied for failure to show any ISSUE: W/N Alvarez is liable for the negligence in the delay of fulfilment of terms of its agreement with petitioners when it deliberately failed to release the
reversible on the CA ruling concerning the correct rate of interest on Rivera’s obligation? amount of ₱2,000,000.00 after petitioners complied with their terms and paid the
indebtnesses under the Promissory Note. Rivera continued to deny that he first ₱3,000,000.00 in full. The default attributed to petitioners when they stopped
executed the Promissory Note and alleged that the Spouses Chua “never RULING: Yes. Alvarez breached the contract even the time agreed is not paying their amortizations on the term loan cannot be sustained by this Court
demanded payment for the loan nor interest thereof (sic) from [Rivera] for almost stipulated in the receipt which is the basis of the contract. His expressing of time because long before they sent a Letter to BSA informing the latter of their refusal
four (4) years from the time of the alleged default in payment. was premised on the unpredictability of the delivery time of their sole utility truck to continue paying amortizations, BSA had already reneged on its obligation to
release the amount previously agreed upon. the ₱5,000,000.00 covered by the townhouse be transferred to him, but merely asks that the amount or down void for being contrary to public policy in relation to Article 1745 of the Civil
credit line. Article 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are payment he had made be returned to him. Demand is not necessary in the Code.
guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene instant case. Demand by the respondent would be useless because the
the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. impossibility of complying with the petitioner obligation was due to their fault. Issue: Whether a stipulation in a charter party that the owners shall not be
If only they paid their loans with the LBP, the mortgage on the subject townhouse responsible for loss, split, shot-landing, breakages and any kind of damages to
It bears stressing that petitioners entered into a credit agreement with BSA to would not have been foreclosed and thereafter sold to a third person. the cargo is valid
enable them to buy machineries and equipment for their printing business.The
machinery and equipment that were essential to petitioners' business and Ruling: Yes. In a contract of private carriage, the parties may validly stipulate
requisite for its operations had to be procured so late in time and had crippled that responsibility for the cargo rests solely on the charterer, exempting the ship-
the printing of school supplies, hence, petitioners were constrained to cancel 85 United Coconut Planters Bank vs Spouses Beluso owner from liability for loss of or damage to the cargo caused even by the
purchase orders of their clients to petitioners' damage. More, The law allows the negligence of the ship captain. Pursuant to Article 1306 17 of the Civil Code,
grant of exemplary damages to set an example for the public good. The banking such stipulation is valid because it is freely entered into by the parties and the
system has become an indispensable institution in the modem world and plays a same is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.
vital role in the economic life of every civilized society. Whether as mere passive Indeed, their contract of private carriage is not even a contract of adhesion. We
entities for .the safe-keeping and saving of money or as active instruments of stress that in a contract of private carriage, the parties may freely stipulate their
business and commerce, banks have attained an ubiquitous presence among 86 CHUA duties and obligations which perforce would be binding on them. Unlike in a
the people, who have come to regard them with respect and even gratitude and contract involving a common carrier, private carriage does not involve the
most of all, confidence. For this reason, banks should guard against injury general public. Hence, the stringent provisions of the Civil Code on common
Banaga v. Majaducon
attributable to negligence or bad faith on its part.Thus, the Court finds it proper to carriers protecting the general public cannot justifiably be applied to a ship
likewise award exemplary damages in the amount of ₱100,000.00. transporting commercial goods as a private carrier. Consequently, the public
FACTS: An action for redemption of a parcel of land filed by petitioner Banaga
policy embodied therein is not contravened by stipulations in a charter party that
against private respondent Candelario Damalerio before the RTC. The trial court
lessen or remove the protection given by law in contracts involving common
dismissed petitioner’s complaint, prompting her to elevate the matter to the Court
carriers.
of Appeals which reversed the trial court and upheld petitioner’s right to redeem
84 BEJERANO the property. However, petitioner failed to exercise her right to redeem within the
Almocera vs. Johnny Ong given period. Private respondent moved to declare the termination of the 30-day
G.R. No. 170479, February 18, 2008 redemption period, but the trial court denied the same in an Order issued.
CASE NO. 88
Facts: ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court correctly denied petitioner’s notice of Sabena Belgian World Airlines vs. CA, G.R. No. 104685
appeal
Plaintiff Johnny Ong tried to acquire from the defendants a town home in Cebu FACTS:
City. Out of the purchase price, plaintiff was able to pay the partial payment. Plaintiff was a passenger on board flight SN 284 of Sabena Belgian World
RULING: No, in adjudging the plausibility of an explanation, a court shall likewise
Prior to the full payment of this amount, plaintiff claims that defendants Airlines, from Casablanca to Brussels, Belgium. She stayed overnight in
consider the importance of the subject matter of the case or the issues involved
concealed the fact that before and at the time of the perfection of the aforesaid Brussels and her luggage was left on board flight SN 284. When she arrived at
therein, and the prima facie merit of the pleading sought to be expunged for
contract to sell, the property was already mortgaged to and encumbered with the Manila International Airport, she immediately submitted her tag number to
violation of Section 11. The basis of allowing the appellate review of the trial
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). In addition, the construction facilitate the release of her luggage but the luggage was missing. She was
court’s order approving the survey is to afford petitioner the opportunity to prove
of the house has long been delayed and remains unfinished. In 2009 the Lot advised to accomplish and submitted and filed on the same day. She demanded
her claim that she bears the risk of being illegally deprived of a property
covering the unit was advertised in a local tabloid for public auction for from the airline the money value of the luggage and its contents or its exchange
belonging to her. Thus, the dismissal of this petition on a mere technicality will
foreclosure of mortgage. It is the assertion of the plaintiff that had it not for the value, but the airline refused to settle the claim.
ignore the constitutional provision against depriving a person of his property
concealment of the mortgage and encumbrance by defendants, he would have without due process of law. Besides, the proximity between the offices of
not entered into the contract to sell. In trying to recover the amount he paid ISSUE:
opposing counsel had not been clearly established.
as down payment for the townhouse unit, respondent filed a complaint for Whether Sabena Belgian World Airlines is liable for the lost luggage.
Damages before the RTC of Cebu City against defendants alleging that MAIN POINT: Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations.
defendants were guilty of fraudulent concealment and breach of contract when RULING:
Any waiver of an action for future fraud is void.
they sold to him a townhouse unit without divulging that the same, at the time of Yes. Article 1173 of the Civil Code provides that, “the fault or negligence of the
the perfection of their contract, was already mortgaged with the Land Bank of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature
87 CRUZ of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the
Philippines(LBP), with the latter causing the foreclosure of the mortgage and the
eventual sale of the townhouse unit to a third person. RTC decided in favor time and of the place.” When the source of an obligation is derived from a
of Ong. Ordering the defendants to solidarily pay to the plaintiff the down Valenzuela Hardwood & Industrial Supply, Inc. v CA contract, the mere breach or non-fulfillment of the prestation gives rise to the
payment together with a legal interest thereon at 6% per annum from April 21, presumption of fault on the part of the obligor. This rule is not different in the
1999 until its full payment before finality of the judgment. G.R. No. 102316, June 30, 1997 case of common carriers in the carriage of goods which, indeed, are bound to
observe not just the due diligence of a good father of a family but that of
Issues: extraordinary care in the vigilance over the goods.

Whether or not Almocera has incurred in delay. Facts: Valenzuela Hardwood and Industrial Supply, Inc. entered into an In the case at bar, it remained undisputed that the luggage was lost while it was
agreement with the Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation. The latter was to in the custody of petitioner. At first, she was informed that her luggage and its
Ruling: deliver the former’s lauan round logs using its vessel, M/V Seven Ambassador. contents have been found, but later on it was lost for the second time. The Court
According to their charter, the shipping corporation should not be held liable for held that the loss of said baggage not only once but twice underscore the wanton
loss, split, or breakages and any kind of damage to the cargo. On January 25, negligence and lack of care on the part of the carrier. The attendance of gross
Yes. The evidence adduced shows that petitioner failed to fulfil their obligation to
1984, the vessel sank, resulting in the loss of logs. Valenzuela then contended negligence holds the common carrier liable for all damages which can be
complete and deliver the townhouse within the six-month period. With petitioner
that the stipulation in the charter regarding the non-liability of the respondents is reasonably attribute, although unforeseen, to the non-performance of the
and FBMC‘s non-fulfilment of their obligation, respondent refused to pay the
obligation.
balance of the contract price. Respondent does not ask that ownership of the
 FACTS: said truck along the national highway within the vicinity if Gerona, Tarlac. The
Viron Bus, driven by Wilfredo Villanueva, tried to overtake his truck, and he
Cosmos, jointly with Intergames, organized an endurance running contest, “1st swerved to the right shoulder of the highway, but as soon as he occupied the
Case No. 89
Pop Cola Junior Marathon” to promote the sales of Pop Cola. Rommel Abrogar, right lane of the road, the Cargo Truck which he was driving was hit by Viron Bus
Picart vs. Smith, 37 Phil. 809 (1918)
18 years old, was hit by a jeepney that was running along the route of the on his left front side, as the bus swerved to his lane to avoid the incoming bus on
marathon on Don Mariano Marcos Avenue. Despite being brought to Ospital ng its opposite direction. With the driver of another truck dealing likewise in
Facts:
Bagong Lipunan, he died due to severe head injuries. vegetables, dulnuan, the two of them and the driver of the Viron Bus proceeded
The plaintiff was riding on his pony over the Carlatan bridge in La Union. Before
he had gotten half way across, the defendant approached from the opposite to report the incident to the police station.
direction in an automobile, going at the rate of about ten or twelve miles per
hour. As the defendant neared the bridge he saw a horseman on it and blew his ISSUE:
horn to give warning of his approach. He continued his course and after he had Petitioners (parents of Rommel) sued the respondents to recover damages for
taken the bridge he gave two more successive blasts, as it appeared to him that the untimely death of Rommel. Intergames asserted that there could be no cause Whether the employer is liable to the negligence of his employee.
the man on horseback before him was not observing the rule of the road. Seeing of action against it because the acceptance and approval of Rommel’s
that the pony was apparently quiet, the defendant, instead of veering to the right application to join the marathon had been conditioned on his waiver of all rights RULING:
while yet some distance away or slowing down, continued to approach directly and causes of action arising from his participation in the marathon, the jeepney
toward the horse without diminution of speed. driver was the one negligent, and that they exercised due diligence. RTC held
As employer of the bus driver, the petitioner is, under Article 2180, of the Civil
The plaintiff, it appears, saw the automobile coming and heard the warning Cosmos and Intergames jointly and severally liable. Meanwhile, CA held
Code directly and primarily liable for the resulting damages. The presumption
signals. However, being perturbed by the novelty of the apparition or the rapidity respondents not liable because the doctrine of assumption of risk is applicable to
that they are negligent flows from the negligence of their employee. That
of the approach, he pulled the pony closely up against the railing on the right plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk of harm arising from the negligent or
presumption, however, is only juris tantum not juris et de jure. Their only possible
side of the bridge instead of going to the left. He says that the reason he did this reckless conduct of the defendant cannot recover for such harm. Rommel with
defense is that they exercise all the diligence of a good father of a family to
was that he thought he did not have sufficient time to get over to the other side. his parents’ consent and assumed all the risks of the race, surveyed the route
prevent the damage.
The automobile passed in such close proximity to the animal that it became beforehand and attended the briefing and was aware that the marathon would
frightened and turned its body across the bridge with its head toward the railing. pass through a national road and the road would not be blocked off from traffic.
"The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own
The horse fell and its rider was thrown off with some violence. As a result of its acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
injuries the horse died. The plaintiff received contusions which caused temporary ISSUE:
unconsciousness and required medical attention for several days. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and
Whether or not the respondent failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though
Issue: the family in the conduct of the marathon.
the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
Whether the defendant in maneuvering his car in the manner above described
was guilty of negligence such as gives rise to a civil obligation to repair the RULING:
In fine, when the employee caused damage due to his own negligence while
damage done?
performing his own duties, there arises the juris tantum presumption that the
Yes. Under Article 1173 of the Civil Code, Negligence consists of the "omission employer is negligent, rebuttable only 8y proof of observance of the diligence of
Ruling: of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and a good father of a family
Yes, he is liable. The control of the situation had then passed entirely to the corresponds with the circumstances of the person, of the time and of the place." 
defendant; and it was his duty either to bring his car to an immediate stop or,
seeing that there were no other persons on the bridge, to take the other side and Petitioner, through its witnesses, failed to rebut such legal presumption of
A careful review of the evidence presented leads to the conclusion that the
pass sufficiently far away from the horse to avoid the danger of collision. Instead negligence in the selection and supervision of employees, thus, petitioner as the
safety and precautionary measures undertaken by Intergames were short of the
of doing this, the defendant ran straight on until he was almost upon the horse. employer is responsible for damages, the basis of the liability being the
diligence demanded by the circumstances of persons, time and place under
The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to relationship of pater familias or on the employer’s own negligence. Hence, with
consideration. Hence, Intergames as the organizer was guilty of negligence. |The
the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law considers the allegations and subsequent proof of negligence against the bus driver of
Court considered the "safeguards" employed and adopted by Intergames not
what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary petitioner, petitioner (employer) is liable for damage.
adequate to meet the requirement of due diligence. The circumstances of the
intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that. It goes without saying persons, time and place required far more than what Intergames undertook in
that the plaintiff himself was not free from fault, for he was guilty of antecedent 93 HAMMISANI
staging the race. Due diligence would have made a reasonably prudent
negligence in planting himself on the wrong side of the road. But as we have organizer of the race participated in by young, inexperienced or beginner runners
already stated, the defendant was also negligent; and in such case the problem to conduct the race in a route suitably blocked off from vehicular traffic for the Francisco VS Chemical Bulk Carriers, Inc.
always is to discover which agent is immediately and directly responsible. It will safety and security not only of the participants but the motoring public as well. Facts:
be noted that the negligent acts of the two parties were not contemporaneous, Since the marathon would be run alongside moving vehicular traffic, at the very Petitioner Francisco has been the owner and manager of a Caltex Station, who
since the negligence of the defendant succeeded the negligence of the plaintiff least, Intergames ought to have seen to the constant and closer coordination lost his eyesight due to sickness. March 1993, four persons, including Gregorio
by an appreciable interval. Under these circumstances the law is that the person among the personnel manning the route to prevent the foreseen risks from Bacsa, came to Francisco's Caltex station and introduced themselves as
who has the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is befalling the participants. employees of CBCI. Bacsa offered to sell to Francisco a certain quantity of
chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of CBCI's diesel fuel. After checking Bacsa's identification card, Francisco agreed
the other party.  to purchase CBCI's diesel fuel.
92 HALID

90 United States vs Bonifacio The deliveries were made to Francisco. CBCI sent a demand letter to Francisco
VIRON TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., VS. ALBERTO DELOS SANTOS regarding the diesel fuel delivered to him but which had been paid for by CBCI.
CBCI demanded that Francisco pay CBCI P1,053,527 for the diesel fuel or CBCI
91 GENON [G.R. No. 138296, November 22, 2000] would file a complaint against him in court. Francisco rejected CBCI's demand.
CBCI filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against Francisco and
FACTS: other unnamed defendants and argued that Francisco should have known that
Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Co.,
only Petron, Shell and Caltex are authorized to sell and distribute petroleum
Defendant De Los Santos was the driver of defendant Rudy Samidan of a latter’s products in the Philippines, the diesel fuel came from illegitimate, if not illegal or
G.R. No. 164749, March 15, 2017 vehicle, a Forward Cargo Truck. At about 12:30 in the afternoon, he was driving criminal, acts.
 1. NO. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot apply because the Ruling: Yes. The default standard of diligence in the performance of obligations
Francisco claimed that he asked his son, to look into and verify the identity of alleged failure to observe due care in the cause of death of Jorge is "diligence of a good father of a family. Other industries, because of their
Bacsa, who introduced himself as a radio operator and confidential secretary of a was not immediately apparent and required expert opinion. nature, are bound by law to observe higher standards of diligence. Common
certain Mr. Inawat (Inawat), CBCI's manager for operations. Francisco said he carriers, for example, must observe "extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over
was satisfied with the proof presented by Bacsa. Francisco maintained that Ratio:Medical Malpractice, defined and nature the goods and for the safety of [their] passengers"[84] because... it is considered
Bacsa assured him that the diesel fuel was not stolen property and that CBCI Petitioner’s action is for medical malpractice. This is a particular form of a business affected with public interest. "Extraordinary diligence" with respect to
enjoyed a big credit line with Petron. negligence which consists in the failure of a physician or surgeon to apply to his passenger safety is further qualified as "carrying the passengers safely as far as
practice of medicine that degree of care and human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very
Issue: Whether Francisco exercised the required diligence of a blind person in skillwhich is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar condit cautious persons, with... a due regard for all the circumstances.
conducting business ions, and in likesurrounding circumstances. In order to successfully pursue
such a claim, a patient must prove that Similar to common carriers, banking is a business that is impressed with public
Ruling: thephysician or surgeon either failed to do something which a reasonably pruden interest. It affects economies and plays a significant role in businesses and
No. Standard of conduct is the level of expected conduct that is required by the t physician or surgeonwould have done, or that he or she did something that a commerce. The public reposes its faith and confidence upon banks, such that
nature of the obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of the person, reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would not have done, and that the "even the humble... wage-earner has not hesitated to entrust his life's savings to
time and place. The most common standard of conduct is that of a good father of failure or action caused injury to the patient. There are thus four elements the bank of his choice, knowing that they will be safe in its custody and will even
a family or that of a reasonably prudent person. To determine the diligence which involved in medical negligence cases, namely: duty, breach, injury, and earn some interest for him." This is why we have recognized the fiduciary nature
must be required of all persons, we use as basis the abstract average standard proximate causation. In the present case, there is no doubt that a physician- of the banks' functions,... and attached a special standard of diligence for the
corresponding to a normal orderly person. However, one who is physically patient relationship existed between respondent doctors and Jorge exercise of their functions.
disabled is required to use the same degree of care that a reasonably careful Reyes. Respondents were thus duty-bound to use at least the same level of care
person who has the same physical disability would use. Physical handicaps and that any reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a condition petitioners PNB and Aguilar either have no fixed standards for the release of
infirmities, such as blindness or deafness, are treated as part of the underthe same circumstances. Its breach of this duty which constitutes actionabl their deceased clients' deposits or they have standards that they disregard for
circumstances under which a reasonable person must act. Thus, the standard of e malpractice. As to thisaspect of medical malpractice, the determination of the convenience, favor, or upon exercise of discretion. Both are inconsistent with the
conduct for a blind person becomes that of a reasonable person who is blind. reasonable level of care and the breach thereof, expert testimony is essential. required... diligence of banks. These threaten the safety of the depositors'
Inasmuch as the causes of the injuries involved in malpractice actions are accounts as they provide avenues for fraudulent practices by third persons or by
Francisco, despite being blind, had been managing and operating the Caltex determinable only in the light of scientific knowledge, it has been recognized that bank officers themselves.
station for 15 years and this was not a hindrance for him to transact business expert testimony is usually necessary to support the conclusion as to causation.
until this time. In this instance, the court ruled that Francisco failed to exercise 2. No, sisters of Mercy Hospital is not liable for the death of Jorge Petitioner Aguilar was aware that there were other claimants to Angel C. Santos'
the standard of conduct expected of a reasonable person who is blind. Reyes, since there is no showing that the attending physician in this deposit. Respondents had already communicated with petitioner Aguilar
case deviated from the usual course of treatment with respect to regarding Angel C. Santos' account before Manimbo appeared. Petitioner Aguilar
#94 JAAFAR typhoid fever. Jorge was given antibiotic choloromycetin and some even gave respondents the updated passbook of Angel C. Santos' account. Yet,
Reyes v. Sisters of Mercy Hospital dose of triglobe after compatibility test was made by the doctor and petitioners PNB and Aguilar did not think twice before they released the deposit
G.R No. 130547 341 SCRA 760 found that no adverse reactions manifested which would necessitate to Manimbo. They did not doubt why no original death certificate could be
replacement of the medicines. Indeed, the standard contemplated is submitted. They did not doubt why Reyme L. Santos would execute an... affidavit
not what is actually the average merit among all known practitioners of self-adjudication when he, together with others, had previously asked for the
Facts: from the best oto the worst and from the most to the least release of Angel C. Santos' deposit. They also relied on the certificate of time
experienced, but the reasonable average merit among the ordinarily deposit and on Manimbo's representation that the passbook was lost when the
Jorge Reyes was the husband and father of the petitioners. Five days good physicians. Here, the doctors did not depart from the passbook had just been... previously presented to Aguilar for updating
before his death, he sufferedfrom recurring fever with chills. On January 8, 1987, reasonable standard recommended by the experts as they in fact
he was brought to Mercy Community Clinic andwas attended to by Dr. Marlyn observed the due care required under the circumstances. Petitioner PNB and its manager, petitioner Aguilar, failed to meet even the
Rico, the resident and admitting physician on duty. The Doctor confirmed standard of diligence of a good father of a family. Their actions and inactions...
through the widal test that Jorge has typhoid fever. However, he did not respond constitute gross negligence.
to the treatment and died. The cause of his death was “Ventricular arrhythmia 95 LAKBAO
secondary to hyperpyrexia and typhoid fever”. Consequently, petitioner filed the 96 LIM
instant case for damages before the RTC of Cebu city, which was dismissed and Philippine National Bank v. Santos
was affirmed by the CA.
ISAAC v. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO. INC.
They contended that, Jorge did not die of typhoid fever. Instead, his Facts: Sometime in May 1996, respondents discovered that their father GR: L-96711 AUGUST 23, 1957
death was due to the wrongful administration of chloromycetin. They contended maintained a premium savings account with Philippine National Bank (PNB), Sta.
that had respondent doctors exercised due care and diligence, they would not Elena-Marikina City Branch. Respondents went to PNB to withdraw their father's
have recommended and rushed the performance of the Widal test, hastily FACTS: On May 31, 1951, plaintiff boarded said bus as a passenger from Ligao,
deposit. However, Aguilar informed them that the deposit had already "been Albay bound for Pili, Camarines Sur, but before reaching his destination, the bus
conluded that Jorge was suffering from typhoid fever, and administer released to a certain Bernardito Manimbo (Manimbo)... on April 1, 1997.
chloromycetin without first conducting sufficient tests on the patients compatibility collided with a motor vehicle of the pick-up type coming from the opposite
However, Aguilar informed them that the deposit had already "been released to a direction, as a result of which plaintiff’s left arm was completely severed and the
with said drug. certain Bernardito Manimbo (Manimbo)... on April 1, 1997." On May 20, 1998, severed portion fell inside the bus. Due to the multiple operation he was in, he
respondents filed before the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City a complaint for incurred expenses amounting to P623.40, excluding medical fees which were
Issue: sum of money and damages against PNB, Lina B. Aguilar, and a John Doe.
1. Whether or not the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in paid by defendant. Plaintiff then brought an action for damages against the
determining if the respondents were negligent in conducting the tests, defendant.
On May 20, 1998, respondents filed before the Regional Trial Court of Marikina
in their diagnosis, and in administering the chloromycetin. City a complaint for sum of money and damages against PNB, Lina B. Aguilar,
2. Whether or not Sisters of mercy hospital Is liable for the death of Jorge Defendant set up as special defense that the injury suffered by plaintiff was due
and a John Doe.[ entirely to the fault or negligence of the driver of the pick-up car which collided
Reyes?
with the bus driven by its driver and to the contributory negligence of plaintiff
Issue: Whether Philippine National Bank was negligent in releasing the deposit himself. Defendant further claims that the accident which resulted in the injury of
Ruling: to Bernardito Manimbo; plaintiff is one which defendant could not foresee or, though foreseen, was
inevitable. Plaintiff contends in his appeal that when an action is based on a present action is one for damages founded on culpable negligence, substantial breach of their obligation which entitles respondents to seek for
contract of carriage, as in this case, all that is necessary to sustain recovery is the principle to be observed is that the person claiming damages has rescission with payment of damages. The Arbiter also stated that mere economic
proof of the existence of the contract of the breach thereof by act or omission the burden of proving that the damage is caused by the fault or hardship is not an excuse for contractual and legal delay. On appeal, HLURB
negligence of the person from whom the damage is claimed. It has affirmed the Arbiter’s decision. Petitioner’s MR was likewise denied.
ISSUE: Whether defendant should be held liable been shown that the defendant took all necessary precautions to avoid
danger to the lives or to prevent accident ISSUE: Whether the respondent may rescind the contract.
RULING: No.There are three pronouncements of the Court herein, to wit: The
liability of a carrier is contractual and arises upon breach of its obligation. There RULING: Yes. The non-performance of petitioners’ obligation entitles
is breach if it fails to exert extraordinary diligence according to all circumstances 98 DM Consunji vs CA respondents to rescission. The injured party may choose between the fulfilment
of each case; and the rescission of the obligation, with payment of damages in either case. He
Musa (Case Number 99) may also seek rescission, even after he chosen fulfilment, if the latter should
A carrier is obliged to carry its passenger with the utmost diligence of a very Japan Airlines v. CA become impossible.
cautious person, having due regard for all the circumstances; G.R. No. 118664, August 7, 1998
REYES
A carrier is presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in case of death Facts: CASE NO. 101
of, or injury to, passengers, it being its duty to prove that it exercised Jose Miranda boarded a Japan Airlines flight in San Francisco, Gotesco vs. Chatto, 210 SCRA 18
extraordinary diligence; However, the carrier is not an insurer against all risks of California bound for Manila. It included an overnight stopover at Narita, Japan at
travel. Japan Airlines’s expense. Due to the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, private respondent’ FACTS:
trip to Manila was cancelled. JAPAN AIRLINES rebooked all the Manila-bound Gloria Chatto and her 15-year old daughter Lina went to see the movie “Mother
passengers and paid for the hotel expenses of their unexpected overnight stay. Dear” at Superama I theater, owned by Gotesco Investment Corporation. They
The trial court had already found that the bus had already exercised
The flight of private respondent was again cancelled due to NAIA’s indefinite bought balcony tickets but even then were unable to find seats considering the
extraordinary diligence on its judgement in facing the speeding pickup truck on
closure. Japan Airlines informed the respondent that it would no longer defray number of people patronizing the movie. Hardly ten minutes after entering the
the opposite lane. In affirming this view, the Court ruled that where a carrier’s
their hotel and accommodation expense during their stay in Narita. The theater, the ceiling of its balcony collapsed. The theater was plunged into
employee is confronted with a sudden emergency, the fact that he is obliged to
respondent forced Japan Airlines to pay for their accommodations and meal darkness and pandemonium ensued. Shocked and hurt, they managed to crawl
act quickly and without a chance for deliberation must be taken into account, and
expenses for 5 days. under the fallen ceiling and went to the nearby FEU Hospital where they were
he is held to the some degree of care that he would otherwise be required to
confined and treated for a day. The next day, they transferred to the UST
exercise in the absence of such emergency but must exercise only such care as
Issues: Hospital. Due to continuing pain, Gloria went to the US for further treatment.
any ordinary prudent person would exercise under like circumstances and
conditions, and the failure on his part to exercise the best judgement the case Whether or not Japan Airlines has the obligation to shoulder the hotel and meal
expenses even if the delay was caused by force majeure. On the other hand, Gotesco tried to avoid liability by alleging that the collapse of
renders possible does not establish lack of care and skill on his part which
the ceiling of its theater was done due to force majeure. It maintained that its
renders the company liable.
Ruling: theater did not suffer from any structural or construction defect.
97 No. When a party is unable to fulfill his obligation because of force majeure, the
general rule is that he cannot be held liable for damages for non-performance. ISSUE:
When Japan Airlines was prevented from resuming its flight to Manila due to the Whether the collapse of the ceiling of the theater was due to force majeure.
ONG V. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
effects of the eruption, whatever losses or damages in the form of hotel and meal
expenses the stranded passengers incurred cannot be charged to Japan RULING:
NATURE AND EFFECT OF OBLIGATION No. It was held that the collapse of the ceiling of the theater was due to
Airlines. The predicament of the private respondents was not due to the fault or
negligence of Japan Airlines. However, Japan Airlines had the duty to arrange construction defects. It was the burden of defendant-appellant to prove that its
the respondents’ flight back to Manila but it failed to look after the comfort and theater did not suffer from any structural defect when it was built and that it has
convenience of its passengers when it made the passengers arrange their flight been well maintained when the incident occurred. Petitioner's claim that the
FACTS: back to Manila on their own and after waiting in the airport for a whole day, collapse of the ceiling of the theater's balcony was due to force majeure is not
hence, their liability is not totally absolved. even founded on facts because its own witness, Mr. Jesus Lim Ong, admitted
Defendant owns and operates 3 recreational swimming pools to which people that "he could not give any reason why the ceiling collapsed." Having interposed
are invited and for which a nominal fee is charged. 14 year old Dominador Ong 100 it as a defense, it had the burden to prove that the collapse was indeed caused
drowned while swimming in one of those pools. Defendant admits the fact that Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v. Spouses Ronquillo, GR No. 185798 (January by force majeure. It could not have collapsed without a cause. That Mr. Ong
Dominador was drowned in one of their pools but avers that his death was 13, 2014) could not offer any explanation does not imply force majeure.
caused by his own negligence or by unavoidable accident. Defendant also avers
that it exercised due diligence in the selection of and supervision over its FACTS: Spouses Ronquillo purchased from Fil-Estate Properties Inc. a Petitioner could have easily discovered the cause of the collapse if indeed it
employees and that it had observed the diligence required by law under the condominium unit for a contract price of P5, 174, 000.00. Respondents paid the were due to force majeure. To the Court, the real reason why Mr. Ong could not
circumstances. full down payment of P1, 552, 200.00 and had been paying the P63, 363.33 explain the cause or reason is that either he did not actually conduct the
monthly amortizations until September 1998. Upon learning that construction investigation or that he is, as the respondent Court impliedly held,
ISSUE: works had stopped, respondents likewise stopped paying their monthly incompetent. He is not an engineer, but an architect who had not even passed
amortization. Claiming to have paid a total of P2, 198, 949.96 to petitioners, the government's examination. It was not shown that any of the causes
1. Whether the death of the minor can be attributed to the negligence of respondent demanded a full refund of their payment with interest. When their denominated as force majeure obtained immediately before or at the time of the
defendant and/or its employees so as to entitle plaintiffs to recover demands went unheeded, respondents filed a complaint for refund and damages collapse of the ceiling. Such defects could have been easily discovered if only
damages before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. Petitioners, in their answer, petitioner exercised due diligence and care in keeping and maintaining the
RULING: alleged that the delay in construction is due to the 1997 Asian financial crisis. premises. But as disclosed by the testimony of Mr. Ong, there was no adequate
Petitioners denied committing fraud or misrepresentation which could entitle inspection of the premises before the date of the accident.
1. No. Art. 2176 in relation to Art. 2080 of the NCC provides that respondents to an award of moral damages. In its decision, the HLURB ordered
“whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being petitioners to pay respondents the amount of refund and interests. The Arbiter
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damages done.” Since the considered petitioners’ failure to develop the condominium project as a 102 Victorias Planters Association vs Victorias Milling
 103. SALINAS February 24, 1986, the Dizon spouses wrote a note addressed to Ayala case at bench, petitioners stand on a worse situation. They are required to pay
Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America Corporation requesting the holding of the checks. Susan Gomez then left for the stipulated interest rate of 6% per month or 72% per annum which is
G.R. No. 147839, June 8, 2006 Ayala Corporation to work out a postponement of the encashment of the checks. outrageous and inordinate.
Nature and Effect of Obligation Thereafter, Susan deposited the four (4) checks issued to her by Nita Dizon, the
Facts: Dizon spouses having promised to her to make good said checks by March 3,
1986. With respect to the blank check given to her on February 26, 1986, Susan
IMC and Levi Strauss (Phils.) Inc. (LSPI) separately obtained from Gomez did not fill it up even until today. On March 5, 1986, Susan Gomez Main Point: Even if a mortgage or loan is not usurious, it must still be equitable
respondent fire insurance policies with book debt endorsements. The insurance received notice from her bank that all four (4) checks were dishonored as they and conscionable. The SC ruled that only a 12% interest per annum is fair and
policies provide for coverage on "book debts in connection with ready-made were drawn against insufficient funds. She immediately tried to confront the reasonable.
clothing materials which have been sold or delivered to various customers and Dizon spouses. She found out that it was now quite difficult to contact them. It
dealers of the Insured anywhere in the Philippines." was but natural for the Dizon spouses to avoid contact with Susan Gomez as Case No. 106
they were aware that the four (4) checks were bound to bounce as they were Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Family Foods Manufacturing Co.,
Gaisano is a customer and dealer of the products of IMC and LSPI. On aware they had insufficient funds. Sensing she was already swindled, Susan Ltd. [G.R. No. 180458 July 30, 2009]
February 25, 1991, the Gaisano Superstore Complex in Cagayan de Oro City, Gomez referred the matter to her lawyer. Two demand letters were sent to the
owned by petitioner, was consumed by fire. Included in the items lost or Dizon spouses but the latter failed to respond. Eventually these cases were FACTS: Respondent obtained an industrial loan from DBP evidenced by a
destroyed in the fire were stocks of ready-made clothing materials sold and initially filed with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. After preliminary promissory note. The loan carried an interest rate of 18% per annum, and
delivered by IMC and LSPI. investigation, the corresponding 'Information' were filed in court. penalty charge of 8% per annum. As security, a real estate mortgage on the
Insurance of America filed a complaint for damages against Gaisano. It alleges parcels of land was executed. Respondent was granted an additional loan with
that IMC and LSPI were paid for their claims and that the unpaid accounts of ISSUE: Whether the contentions of the spouses are meritorious. interest at 22% per annum and penalty charge of 8%. The loan was, likewise,
petitioner on the sale and delivery of ready-made clothing materials with IMC secured by the same real estate and chattel mortgages. Respondent failed to
was P2,119,205.00 while with LSPI it was P535,613.00. The RTC rendered its RULING: No. The facts of the case, as found by the trial court, were adopted by pay the loans when they became due. Demand to pay was made, but it was not
decision dismissing Insurance's complaint. It held that the fire was purely the Court of Appeals, and a conscientious sifting of record fails to bring to light heeded.
accidental; that the cause of the fire was not attributable to the negligence of the any such fact or circumstance which would militate against the correctness of the
petitioner. Also, it said that IMC and LSPI retained ownership of the delivered findings of fact of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Further, accused- ISSUE: W/N the stipulated penalty charge and interest rates are unreasonable,
goods and must bear the loss. The CA rendered its decision and set aside the appellant argues that no one in his right mind would lend such huge amount iniquitous and unconscionable.
decision of the RTC. It ordered Gaisano to pay Insurance the P 2 million and the without any receipt therefor. This is a specious argument. There was no need for
P 500,000 the latter paid to IMC and Levi Strauss. Hence this petition. the offended party to demand receipts since accused-appellant, in exchange for RULING: NO. Respondents’ own evidence shows that they agreed on the
the money handed over to her by the complainant, issued and delivered the stipulated interest rates of 18% and 22%, and on the penalty charge of 8%, in
Issue: Whether petitioner is liable for the unpaid accounts checks in question. Accused-appellant's checks can but indicate and validate the each promissory note. It is a basic principle in civil law that parties are bound by
loans extended to her by complainant. the stipulations in the contracts voluntarily entered into by them. Parties are free
Ruling: Case No. 105 - TAN to stipulate terms and conditions that they deem convenient, provided these are
Nature and Effect of Obligations: Articles 1163 - 1178 not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.
Yes, petitioner is liable for the accounts. Petitioner's argument that it is Spouses Solangon vs. Salazar, 360 SCRA 379 (2001)
not liable because the fire is a fortuitous event under Article 117432 of the Civil
The enforcement of the penalty can be demanded by the creditor only when the
Code is misplaced. It must be stressed that the insurance in this case is not for
non-performance is due to the fault or fraud of the debtor. The non-performance
loss of goods by fire but for petitioner's accounts with IMC and LSPI that
gives rise to the presumption of fault; in order to avoid the payment of the
remained unpaid 45 days after the fire. Accordingly, petitioner's obligation is for FACTS: The Solangon spouses executed 3 real estate mortgages in which they penalty, the debtor has the burden of proving an excuse — the failure of the
the payment of money. As correctly stated by the CA, where the obligation mortgaged a parcel of land situated Bulacan in favor of the Salazar to secure performance was due to either force majeure or the acts of the creditor himself.
consists in the payment of money, the failure of the debtor to make the payment payment of a loan of 60, 000 payable within a period of 4 months, with interest In this case, respondents failed to discharge the burden.
even by reason of a fortuitous event shall not relieve him of his liability. The thereon at the rate of 6% per month, to secure payment of a loan of 136, 512,
rationale for this is that the rule that an obligor should be held exempt from payable within a period of 1 year, with interest thereon at the legal rate, and to
liability when the loss occurs thru a fortuitous event only holds true when the 107 Anchor Savings Bank vs Furigay
secure payment of a loan in the amount of 230, 000 payable within a period of 4
obligation consists in the delivery of a determinate thing and there is no months, with interest thereon at the legal rate.
stipulation holding him liable even in case of fortuitous event. It does not apply
when the obligation is pecuniary in nature. This action was initiated by the Solangons to prevent the foreclosure of the
Under Article 1263 of the Civil Code, "in an obligation to deliver a generic thing, mortgaged property. They alleged that they obtained only one loan form the
the loss or destruction of anything of the same kind does not extinguish the Salazar, and that was for 60,000. The payment of which was secured by the first
obligation." This rule is based on the principle that the genus of a thing can never of the above-mentioned mortgages. The subsequent mortgages were merely
perish. An obligation to pay money is generic; therefore, it is not excused by continuations of the first one, which is null and void because it provided for
fortuitous loss of any specific property of the debtor. unconscionable rate of interest. They have already paid the him 78,000 and
tendered P47, 000.00 more. The latter has initiated foreclosure proceedings for
their alleged failure to pay the loan P230, 000.00 plus interest.
104. People v. Dizon, G.R. No. 120957, August 22, 1996

FACTS: Dizon spouses informed Susan Gomez that Nita was a victim of a hold- ISSUE: Whether the debts are conscionable?
up and therefore they could not anymore fund the checks issued to her. To
soothe the apparent frustration of Susan, the Dizon spouses again gave her a RULING: No. In Medel v. CA, the SC had ruled on this question. While
check, signed by Nita Dizon with the rest in blank including the amount, with the decreeing that the interest was not usurious, it held that the same must be
Dizon spouses giving her authority to fill it up later to cover their obligations with equitably reduced for being iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant. A
interest of 10% per week as they promised to fund the four (4) checks by March stipulated interest rate of 6% per month or 72% per annum is outrageous and
3, 1986. Remembering the checks for Ayala Corporation, which fell due on inordinate an interest of 12% per annum is deemed fair and reasonable. In the