Torts Reviewer

(1)

Concept of a tort Naguiat v. NLRC Taxi drivers claiming separation pay; operation of taxi services within Clark Air Base

TORT: consists in the violation of a right given or the omission of a duty imposed by law; breach of a legal duty

Not bound by the definition because it is OBITER; definition is very broad - any crime or breach of contract may be included; we cannot consider every crime a tort because in some crimes, no single individual is injured whereas in tort, there should be a person injured

Concept of a tort Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune

Re-classification of cigarettes

TORT: a wrong, a tortious act which has been defined as the commission or omission of an act by one, without right, whereby another receives some injury, directly or indirectly, in person, property, or reputation

Definition is overly broad; also OBITER

Concept of a QD Barredo v. Garcia Collision of taxi and caretela; employer of taxi driver sued for civil liability

A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from delict or crime

The same negligent act causing damages may produce civil liability arising from a crime under article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, or create an action for cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code.

Barredo doctrine not needed anymore because of Article 2177:

Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.

Concept of a QD Elcano v. Hill Minor killed another; parents of victim sued both minor and father

Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or negligence" covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent

The Court so holds to make the father liable. The doctrine is intended to plug the hole in Article 2180

Concept of a QD Cinco v. Canonoy Recovery of damages due to vehicular accident; suspension of civil case pending final determination of criminal case

The concept of quasi-delict as enunciated in Article 2176 of the Civil Code, is so broad that it includes not only injuries to persons but also damage to property. It makes no distinction between "damage to persons" on the one hand and "damage to property" on the other

Court used Article 2191(2) to illustrate damage to property but said Article pertains to Strict Liability, not QD - Strict Liab because whether or not there is negligence, proprietor is still liable

Concept of a QD Baksh v. CA Action for damages for breach of promise to marry against Iranian

Article 2176 is limited to negligent acts or omissions and excludes the notion of willfulness or intent

Not necessary because discussion is an OBITER. QD still includes intentional acts

(2)

Concept of a QD Coca-Cola Bottlers v. CA

Discovery of fiber-like material and other foreign substances in Coke and Sprite

Article 2176 is homologous but not identical to tort under the common law, which includes not only negligence, but also intentional criminal acts, such as assault and battery, false imprisonment and deceit

Elements of QD and Tort

Andamo v. IAC Works made by the Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette caused damage to adjacent land of the Andamos

ELEMENTS of QD:

1) damages suffered by the plaintiff 2) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond

3) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff The acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case, unless in the event of an acquittal where the court has declared that the fact from which the civil action arose did not exist, in which case the extinction of the criminal liability would carry with it the extinction of the civil liability

Elements part of RATIO

#1 and 3 elements should be DAMAGE, not DAMAGES

#2 element contemplates Article 2180

PNR v. Brunty Rhonda Brunty going to Baguio, the car she was riding collided with PNR train

REQUISITES of QD must concur: 1) damage to plaintiff

2) negligence, by act or omission, of which defendant, or some person for whose acts he must respond was guilty

3) connection of cause and effect between such negligence and damage

Tama na yong word - DAMAGE

BPI v. Lifetime After the deposit slips were machine-validated, agent requested teller to reverse the transactions ELEMENTS of QD:

1) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond

2) damages suffered by the plaintiff

3) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff

Same with Andamo - bumalik sa DAMAGES SC equated Tort with QD

(3)

Garcia v. Salvador Wrong result from Hepatitis test

ELEMENTS of an ACTIONABLE CONDUCT: 1) duty

2) breach 3) injury

4) proximate causation

Elements of an actionable conduct, not of QD

Gregorio v. CA Gregorio charged with 3 counts of violation of BP 22; complainant desisted because Gregorio was not one of the signatories

In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of evidence:

1) damages suffered by him

2) fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person to whose act he must respond

3) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred

4) that there must be no preexisting contractual relation between the parties

Actions filed under Article 2176 considered as a tort case

Added another element - no preexisting contractual relation between the parties

These are the elements of QD

Ocean Builders v. Spouses Antonio

Employee contracted chicken pox and died

To successfully prosecute an action anchored on torts, three ELEMENTS must be present: 1) duty

2) breach

3) injury and proximate causation

Lumped two elements in #3

These elements are usually for medical negligence cases

No statutory support to sue based on Torts Article 2176 only and correctly applies to QD; pwede may tort sa Article 2176 first sentece but the problem is the elements

Distinguishing Tort, QD from Delict

Barredo v. Garcia See Crime vs QD tab See Crime vs QD tab

Elcano v. Hill See Crime vs QD tab See Crime vs QD tab

(4)

L.G. Foods v. Philadelfa Driver committed suicide after hitting a 7-year old child; parents of victim sued LG Foods (employer)

An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender: 1) civil liability ex delicto

2) independent civil liabilities: (a) not arising from an act or omission complained of as felony (e.g. culpa contractual or obligations arising from law; intentional torts; culpa aquiliana)

(b) where the injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the criminal action

Victims of negligence or their heirs have a choice between an action to enforce the civil liability arising from culpa criminal under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and an action for quasi-delict under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code

Distinguishing Tort, QD from BoC Cangco v. Manila Railroad Clerk of Manila Railroad Company; slipped from the train, feet hit a sack of watermelon; arm was amputated

See QD vs BoC tab

The field of non-contractual obligation is broader than that of contractual obligations, it comprising the whole extent of juridical human relations. Two fields are concentric - the mere fact that a person is bound to another by contract does not relieve him from extra-contractual liability to such person. When such a contractual relation exists the obligor may break the contract under such conditions that the same act which constitutes the source of an extra-contractual obligation had no contract existed between the parties. Duty of defendant, being contractual, was direct and immediate, and its

non-performance could not be excused by proof that the fault was morally imputable to defendant's servants

Negligence of employees should not be employer's defense because even if it is proven that

employees are negligent, that will not absolve employer. Once negligence of employees is proven, the presumption that employer is negligent immediately attaches. Employer should prove that it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.

It is possible to have BoC and Culpa Aquiliana at the same time.

(5)

Distinguishing Tort, QD from BoC FGU Insurance v. Sarmiento Delivery of refrigerators

CULPA CONTRACTUAL: mere proof of the existence of the contract and the failure of its compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding right of relief.

Remedy serves to preserve the interests of the promisee:

1) expectation interest - interest in having the benefit of his bargain by being put in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract been performed

2) reliance interest - interest in being reimbursed for loss caused by reliance on the contract by being put in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract not been made

3) restitution interest - interest in having restored to him any benefit that he has conferred on the other party

DEFENSE:

1) proof of his exercise of due diligence (diligence of a good father of a family or by stipulation or by law, that of extraordinary diligence)

2) attendance of fortuitous event, to excuse him from his ensuing liability

Due diligence different from due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees

Distinguishing Tort, QD from BoC

Batal v. San Pedro Survey of land; spouses Batal contracted to

determine boundaries of lot; placed the wrong markings

See QD vs BoC tab Frank's negligence could be beyond contract. It could have been culpa aquiliana

(6)

Calalas v. CA Extension seat Doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-delict, not in actions involving breach of contract. The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a person where there is no relation between him and another party. In such a case, the obligation is created by law itself. But, where there is a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, it is the parties

themselves who create the obligation, and the function of the law is merely to regulate the relation thus created.

Common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence.

Fores v. Miranda Moral damages in breach of contract

See QD vs BoC tab Culpa contractual easy in terms of proof, but difficult for moral damages to be awarded Distinguishing Tort,

QD from BoC

Air France v. Carrascoso

Filipino ousted from first class seat to accommodate white man

The act that breaks the contract may be also a tort

Does not contradict Article 2176 because this is a tort, not QD

Far East v. CA Credit card became hot card; restaurant did not honor the credit card payment

TEST whether a QD can be deemed to underlie the BoC:

Where, without a pre-existing contract between two parties, an act or omission can nonetheless amount to an actionable tort by itself, the fact that the parties are contractually bound is no bar to the application of quasi-delict provisions to the case

See QD vs BoC tab

Far East qualified Air France doctrine - QD should be independent of BoC

PSBA v. CA Student stabbed to death inside PSBA

Should the act which breaches a contract be done in bad faith and be violative of Article 21, then there is a cause to view the act as constituting a quasi-delict

SC tried to temper the Air France doctrine by limiting its applicability by these tests:

1) Was it done in bad faith which will limit it to NCC Art 21?

2) Can the negligence still subsist without the contract?

(7)

Syquia v. CA Vault containing the coffin had a hole at the bottom

RULE: There may be culpa aquiliana in a

contractual obligation, but if there is a contract and negligence is proven, then it's culpa contractual. It would only be culpa aquiliana if there was no contract

Rule of priority - kung may contract, sue based on contract muna

Light Rail Transit v. Navidad

Drunk LRT

passenger; fist fight with security guard; fell on the LRT tracks, killed by moving train

When an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed between the parties, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.

A common carrier is liable for death of or injury to passengers

a) through the negligence or wilful acts of its employees

b) on account of wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission

Distinguishing Tort, QD from BoC Consolidated Bank v. CA Passbook given to another person

See QD vs BoC tab

The law on QD is generally applicable when there is no pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties

Petitioner bound by the negligence of its employees under the principle of respondeat superior or command responsibility

(8)

Concept of Negligence

PNR v. Brunty NEGLIGENCE: the omission to do

something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do; want of the care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or

comparative, not an absolute, term and its application depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require Employed PICART Test 1

Concept of Negligence

PNR v. CA Driver of car stopped then proceeded accordingly; defective "Stop, Look and Listen" sign

NEGLIGENCE: failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury

No hard and fast rule whereby such degree of care and vigilance is calibrated; it is dependent upon the circumstances in which a person finds himself. All that the law requires is that it is perpetually compelling upon a person to use that care and diligence expected of sensible men under

(9)

Degrees of Diligence Amedo v. Rio Seaman jumped into the water to retrieve 2-peso bill

"Notorious negligence" has been held to be tantamount to "gross negligence"

GROSS NEGLIGENCE:

1) want of even slight care and diligence 2) such entire want of care as to raise a presumption that the person in fault is conscious of the probable consequences of carelessness, and is indifferent, or worse, to the danger of injury to person or property of others; the negligence must amount to a reckless disregard of the safety of person or property

If the act is dangerous per se and he still did it, it's gross negligence

What determines if an act is negligent is the danger of an act - the nature of the act of jumping into the sea involves danger

Degrees of Diligence Marinduque v. Workmen’s

Hitched a ride in the company's hauling truck which hit a coconut tree

Notorious negligence = gross negligence GROSS NEGLIGENCE: implying 1) conscious indifference to consequences

2) pursuing a course of conduct which would naturally and probably result in injury

3) utter disregard of consequences Violation of a rule promulgated by a

commission or board is not negligence per se; but it may be evidence of negligence

(10)

Degrees of Diligence Ilao-Oreta v. Ronquillo Doctor did not arrive on time to perform operation; just got back from

honeymoon in Hawaii

GROSS NEGLIGENCE: implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them. It is characterized by want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to

consequences in so far as other persons may be affected

Same with Amedo: whether the act in question is dangerous per se (here, operation was only to determine infertility, not to cure a life-threatening disease)

Standard of Conduct - In General

Picart v. Smith Horse on the wrong side of the bridge

STANDARD supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet

paterfamilias of the Roman law

Conduct of a prudent man determined in the light of human experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular case

TESTS:

1) Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation? 2) Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding against its consequences

Paterfamilias - one of many standards

Sicam v. Jorge Pawnshop robbed The diligence with which the law requires the individual at all times to govern his conduct varies with the nature of the situation in which he is placed and the importance of the act which he is to perform

(11)

Corinthian Gardens v. Spouses Tanjangco

Subdivsion lot owners built house on a lot owned by another

Same standard as in Picart v. Smith = discreet paterfamilias

Standard of Conduct - Special Circumstance

Heirs of Completo v. Albayda

Collision of taxi and bicycle

The bicycle occupies a legal position that is at least equal to that of other vehicles lawfully on the highway, and it is fortified by the fact that usually more will be required of a motorist than a bicyclist in discharging his duty of care to the other because of the physical

advantages the automobile has over the bicycle

Standard of Conduct - Special Circumstance

Pacis v. Morales Accidental discharge of a defective firearm inside a gun store

A higher degree of care is required of someone who has in his possession or under his control an instrumentality extremely dangerous in character, such as dangerous weapons or substances

Standard of Conduct - Children

Taylor v. Manila Railroad

Child lost his eye due to explosion of fulminating caps found in the premises of Manila Railroad

The care and caution required of a child is according to his maturity and capacity only, and this is to be determined in each case by the circumstances of the case

Jarco Marketing v. CA Gift-wrapping counter fell on a 6-year old child

Conclusive presumption that favors children below nine years old in that they are incapable of contributory negligence

Ylarde v. Aquino Child was pinned by a boulder

The standard of conduct to which a child must conform for his own protection is that degree of care ordinarily exercised by children of the same age, capacity, discretion,

knowledge and experience under the same or similar circumstances

Standard of Conduct - Experts in General

Culion v. Philippine Motors

Back fire occurred in the cylinder chamber

When a person holds himself out as being competent to do things requiring

professional skill, he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular work which he attempts to do

(12)

Standard of Conduct - Pharmacists

US v. Pineda Pineda sold barium chlorate (poisonous) instead of potassium chlorate which killed two horses

The profession of pharmacy is one

demanding care and skill. The responsibility of the druggist to use care has been variously qualified as "ordinary care," "care of a special high degree," "the highest degree of care known to practical men."

The care required must be commensurate with the danger involved, and the skill employed must correspond with the superior knowledge of the business which the law demands

Mistake is negligence and care is no defense

Standard of Conduct - Pharmacists

Mercury Drug v. De Leon

Mercury Drug gave ear drops instead of eye drops

Druggists must exercise the highest practicable degree of prudence and vigilance, and the most exact and reliable safeguards consistent with the

reasonable conduct of the business, so that human life may not constantly be exposed to the danger flowing from the substitution of deadly poisons for harmless medicines

Standard of Conduct - Medical

Professionals

Cruz v. CA Clinic untidy, no antibiotics, no blood supply, no oxygen supply

Whether or not a physician has committed an "inexcusable lack of precaution" in the treatment of his patient is to be determined according to the standard of care observed by other members of the profession in good standing under similar

circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state of the profession at the time of

treatment or the present state of medical science.

For whether a physician or surgeon has exercised the requisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of his patient is, in the generality of cases, a matter of expert opinion.

Needs expert testimony to establish the standard of care exercised by doctors in good standing, to determine if medical procedure perfromed according to the standard, to determine if the breach of duty is the proximate causation of the injury

(13)

Professionals

Professional Services v. Agana

Left 2 sponges in the body of Agana; doctor did not inform her

To successfully pursue this kind of case, a patient must only prove that a health care provider either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and that failure or action caused injury to the patient. The emerging trend is to hold the hospital responsible where the hospital has failed to monitor and review medical services being provided within its walls.

No need for expert testimony because it is already obvious (RIL) Standard of Conduct - Medical Professionals Cayao-Lasam v. Spouses Ramolete Ectopic pregnancy; patient did not return for a follow up check up

Medical malpractice is a particular form of negligence which consists in the failure of a physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions, and in like surrounding circumstances

Professionals

Lucas v. Dr. Tuano Eye problem; was given Maxitrol; no expert testimony

In treating his patient, a physician is under a duty to exercise that degree of care, skill and diligence which physicians in the same general neighborhood and in the same general line of practice ordinarily possess and exercise in like cases. Stated otherwise, the physician has the duty to use at least the same level of care that any other reasonably competent physician would use to treat the condition under similar

(14)

Res Ipsa Loquitor Layugan v. IAC Repairing tire of cargo truck which was parked along the right side of the national highway; hit by another truck; RIL not applicable because there is direct evidence

Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the

defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care. RIL - rule of evidence peculiar to the law of negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence; not a rule of substantive law but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience.

The one who usually raises RIL is the party injured, not the defendant (in this case, it was defendant who raised the doctrine)

Can defendant really raise RIL? IMPOSSIBLE Notes of KatM: Only allowed if the defendant is pursuing a counterclaim

RIL - can only be invoked when direct evidence is absent and not readily available; cannot be availed of, or is overcome

1) where plaintiff has knowledge and testifies or presents evidence as to the specific act of negligence which is the cause of the injury complained of

2) where there is direct evidence as to the precise cause of the accident and all the facts and circumstances attendant on the occurrence clearly appear

3) once the actual cause of injury is established beyond controversy

(15)

Res Ipsa Loquitor Ramos v. CA Doctor late; wrong intubation by anaesthesiologist

RIL - the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation

Simply a recognition that, as a matter of common knowledge and experience, the very nature of certain types of occurrences may justify an inference of negligence on the part of the person who controls the instrumentality causing the injury in the absence of some explanation by the defendant who is charged with negligence; applied in conjunction with the doctrine of common knowledge

What is involved here is pre-operation - no operation happened; the qualifications of the physician was not involved

Similar with Voss vs. Bridwell - this is how you draw the line:

1) delivered his person over to the care, custody and control of his physician

2) physician had complete and exclusive control over him

3) operation was never performed

4) at the time of submission he was neurologically sound and physically fit in mind and body

5) injury was one which does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence

(16)

REQUISITES OF RIL:

1) The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence;

2) It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or

defendants; and

3) The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated

When RIL is availed by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence

When RIL is appropriate, all that the patient must do is prove a nexus between the particular act or omission complained of and the injury sustained while under the custody and management of the defendant without need to produce expert medical testimony to establish the standard of care

Malpractice suits:

General Rule: Expert testimony needed

Exception: Case can be gleaned from knowledge

Res Ipsa Loquitor Tan v. JAM Transit Jitney loaded with quail eggs and duck eggs; JAM Transit collided with jitney

Requisites - pls see above RIL should not have been applied here; need only establish that the driver of JAM was negligent because he was violating traffic regulation

Even if there is evidence, provided it is not clear and convincing to say that a person is

negligent, RIL still applies

Res Ipsa Loquitor Cantre v. Go Gave birth; fresh gaping wound on the arm; caused by burn from droplight

Requisites - pls see above Why expert testimony was dispensed with? Because injury was not connected to the procedure, merely incidental

Application for #3 requisite (could not have contributed to the injury because she was unconscious) - not a proper application; decisions you make prior to operation constitutes contribution

(17)

Res Ipsa Loquitor Batiquin v. CA Caesarian operation; doctor left rubber glove inside the body

Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the

defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen in those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.

Why is there no expert testimony when this pertains to a medical operation? Leaving a foreign thing inside the human body speaks for itself that doctor in charge is negligent. RIL applies

Res Ipsa Loquitor Professional Services v. Agana

See above REQUISITES for the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur:

1) the occurrence of an injury

2) the thing which caused the injury was under the control and management of the defendant

3) the occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things, would not have happened if those who had control or management used proper care 4) the absence of explanation by the defendant

Of the foregoing requisites, the most instrumental is the “control and management of the thing which caused the injury"

(18)

Res Ipsa Loquitor DM Consunji v. CA Construction worker fell 14 floors

The inference which the doctrine permits is grounded upon the fact that the chief evidence of the true cause, whether culpable or innocent, is practically accessible to the defendant but inaccessible to the injured person.

Some courts add to the three prerequisites for the application of the RIL doctrine the further requirement that for the doctrine to apply, it must appear that the injured party had no knowledge or means of knowledge as to the cause of the accident, or that the party to be charged with negligence has

superior knowledge or opportunity for explanation of the accident.

Once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of all the elements, the burden then shifts to defendant to explain. The

presumption or inference may be rebutted or overcome by other evidence and, under appropriate circumstances a disputable presumption, such as that of due care or innocence, may outweigh the inference. It is not for the defendant to explain or prove its defense to prevent the presumption or inference from arising. Evidence by the defendant of say, due care, comes into play only after the circumstances for the

application of the doctrine has been established.

(19)

Res Ipsa Loquitor College Assurance v. Belfranlt

Fire due to coffee perculator

Requisites - pls see above Merong testimony/evidence - why is RIL applied?

The evidence pertains to the source of the fire, not proof of negligence. As long as there's no direct evidence as to the negligence of the defendant, RIL still applies

If direct evidence of negligence is present, RIL will not apply

Defenses against charge of negligence - plaintiff's negligence is proximate cause

Bernardo v. Legaspi Where the plaintiff in a negligence action, by his own carelessness contributes to the principal occurrence, that is, to the accident, as one of the determining causes thereof, he cannot recover. This is equally true of the defendant; and as both of them, by their negligent acts, contributed to the determining cause of the accident, neither can recover.ch Defenses against

charge of negligence - plaintiff's negligence is proximate cause

PLDT v. CA Plaintiffs' jeep ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open trench; they pass the area/road frequently; accident caused by the abrupt swerving of the jeep from the inside lane

Where the plaintiff's negligence was not merely contributory but goes to the very cause of the accident, he has no right to recover damages for the injuries he suffered

(20)

Defenses against charge of negligence - plaintiff's negligence is proximate cause Manila Electric v. Remoquillo

Repair of the media agua

A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would not have happened but for such condition or occasion. If no danger existed in the condition except because of the

independent cause, such condition was not the proximate cause. And if an independent negligent act or defective condition sets into operation the circumstances which result in injury because of the prior defective condition, such subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause.

Remote cause - would have been the proximate cause if not for the intervening cause

(21)

Defenses against charge of negligence - contributory negligence of plaintiff NPC v. Heirs of Casionan

Pocket miner carrying bamboo electrocuted

Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard which he is required to conform for his own protection. There is contributory negligence when the party’s act showed lack of ordinary care and foresight that such act could cause him harm or put his life in danger. It is an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the person injured which, concurring with the defendant’s

negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury.

On warning signs (Ma-ao Sugar Central ): To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warnings or signs on an impending danger to health and body.

Definition of CN problematic because it makes CN proximate cause

Defenses against charge of negligence - contributory

negligence of plaintiff

Genobiagon v. CA Rig overtaking another rig hit an old woman; defense was old woman's

negligence was the proximate cause of the accident

The defense of contributory negligence does not apply in criminal cases committed through reckless imprudence, since one cannot allege the negligence of another to evade the effects of his own negligence

What about proximate cause? Can it be a defense? YES, citing Cruz v. CA

Defenses against charge of negligence - contributory negligence of plaintiff M.H. Rakes v. The Atlantic

Where he contributes to the principal occurrence, as one of its determining factors, he can not recover. Where, in conjunction with the occurrence, he contributes only to his own injury, he may recover the amount that the defendant responsible for the event should pay for such injury, less a sum deemed a suitable equivalent for his own imprudence.

Proximate cause - negligence which caused the accident

(22)

Lambert v. Heirs of Ray Castillon

Riding a motorcycle; speeding, tailgating Tamaraw; imbibed one or two bottles of beer

The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence. The defendant must thus be held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence. The determination of the mitigation of the defendant’s liability varies depending on the circumstances of each case.

The court held 50-50. It would make CN equal to proximate cause

PNR v. Brunty See above Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection. To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warning or signs of an impending danger to health and body. To prove contributory negligence, it is still necessary to establish a causal link, although not proximate, between the negligence of the party and the

succeeding injury. In a legal sense, negligence is contributory only when it contributes proximately to the injury, and not simply a condition for its occurrence. The only effect such contributory negligence could have is to mitigate liability

Doctrine is contradictory Hindi si Rhonda ang may CN

(23)

Defenses against charge of negligence - fortuitous event

Juntilla v. Fontanar Tire of jeep blew up causing the vehicle to fall on its side

Essential characteristics of caso fortuito: 1) The cause of the unforeseen and

unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will

2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid

3) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner

4) The obligor (debtor) must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor

Necesito, et al. v. Paras, et al.:

A passenger is entitled to recover damages from a carrier for an injury...whenever it appears that the defect would have been discovered by the carrier if it had exercised the degree of care which under the circumstances was incumbent upon it, with regard to inspection and application of the necessary tests

All the requisites must concur before defense of FE is available

Southeastern College Due to a storm, roof of school was ripped off and blown away, destroying the roof of Dimaanos

FE may be produced by two general causes: (1) by nature, such as earthquakes, storms, floods, epidemics, fires, or (2) by the act of man, such as an armed invasion, attack by bandits, governmental prohibitions, robbery In order that a fortuitous event may exempt a person from liability, it is necessary that he be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by reason of which the loss may have been occasioned. An act of God cannot be invoked for the protection of a person who has been guilty of gross negligence in not trying to forestall its possible adverse consequences...When the effect is found to be partly the result of the participation of man — whether it be from active intervention, or neglect, or failure to act — the whole occurrence is hereby humanized, and removed from the rules applicable to acts of God.

Not necessary previous negligence, could be simultaneous negligence

(24)

Sicam v. Jorge See above Fortuitous events by definition are extraordinary events not foreseeable or avoidable. It is therefore, not enough that the event should not have been foreseen or anticipated, as is commonly believed but it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. The mere difficulty to foresee the happening is not impossibility to foresee the same.

The very measures which petitioners had allegedly adopted show that to them the possibility of robbery was not only foreseeable, but actually foreseen and anticipated. Petitioner Sicam’s testimony

contradicts petitioners’ defense of fortuitous event. SIR:

Act of taking measures should not bar the defense of FE - only makes the defense available to the negligent which in effect makes it impossible to raise as a defense

Robbery is a FE but the defense of FE may or may not be available

Defenses against charge of negligence - plaintiff's assumption of risk / volenti non fit injuria

Afialda v. Hisole Caretaker of carabaos gored by one of them and died

It was the caretaker's business to try to prevent the animal from causing injury or damage to anyone, including himself. And being injured by the animal under those circumstances, was one of the risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the consequences.

Ilocos Norte v. CA Old woman electrocuted while she was going to her store to check her merchandise

A person is excused from the force of the rule, that when he voluntarily assents to a known danger he must abide by the consequences:

1) if an emergency is found to exist 2) if the life or property of another is in peril

3) when he seeks to rescue his endangered property

VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA - applies to non-contractual relations

REQUISITES:

1) plaintiff had actual knowledge of the damage 2) he understood and appreciated the risk from danger

3) he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk

Calalas v. CA See above Hard to give serious thought to contention that taking an "extension seat" amounted to an implied assumption of risk. It is akin to arguing that the injuries to the many victims of the tragedies in our seas should not be compensated merely because those passengers assumed a greater risk of drowning by boarding an overloaded ferry.

(25)

Nikko Hotel v. Roberto Reyes

Gatecrasher during the birthday party of the manager of Nikko Hotel

The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria ("to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury") refers to self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury which precludes the recovery of damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing so. As formulated by petitioners, however, this doctrine does not find

application to the case at bar because even if respondent Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave the party, petitioners, under Articles 19 and 21 of the New Civil Code, were still under obligation to treat him fairly in order not to expose him to unnecessary ridicule and shame.

Pantaleon v. American Express

European tour; credit card company took long to approve transaction; other tourists got irritated

Same with Nikko Hotel but in this case, the doctrine is applicable

Why different from Nikko Hotel? Pantaleon's cause of action is BoC, not Articles 19-21

Defenses against charge of negligence - prescription

Kramer v. CA Collision of two sea vessels

Under Article 1146 of the Civil Code, an action based upon a quasi-delict must be instituted within four years. The prescriptive period begins from the day the quasi-delict is committed.

Prescriptive period must be counted from the time of the commission of an act or omission violative of the right of the plaintiff, which is the time when the cause of action arises.

If multiple collision or oil spill where there are many ships - it is reasonable to wait for the BMI's findings

(26)

Proximate Cause Bataclan v. Medina Bus turned turtle; gasoline leaked; caught fire;

passengers who were stuck inside were charred to death

PROXIMATE CAUSE: that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred

PROXIMATE LEGAL CAUSE: that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal

connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom

Regardless of proximate cause, carrier is still liable. Proximate cause does not matter is BoC

Why did Court discuss proximate cause? Because under BoC, defendant would only be liable for physical injuries. They had to discuss proximate cause to make carrier liable for the death of the victims - to increase damages

Proximate Cause Mercury Drug v. Baking Given a potent sleeping tablet

Proximate cause is determined from the facts of each case, upon a combined consideration of logic, common sense, policy, and precedent.

Proximate Cause Pilipinas Bank v. CA Wrong account number; deposit posted in another account

PROXIMATE CAUSE: any cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the result complained of and without which would not have occurred and from which it ought to have been forseen or reasonably anticipated by a person of ordinary case that the injury complained of or some similar injury, would result therefrom as a natural and probable consequence.

Foreseeability should not be a factor

If there's a case similar to Pilipinas Bank, apply Pilipinas Bank definition

(27)

Concurrent Cause Far Eastern v. CA Berthing of vessel Where several causes combine to produce injuries, a person is not relieved from liability because he is responsible for only one of them, it being sufficient that the negligence of the person charged with injury is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have resulted to as great an extent, and that such cause is not attributable to the person injured. It is no defense to one of the concurrent tortfeasors that the injury would not have resulted from his negligence alone, without the negligence or wrongful acts of the other concurrent tortfeasor. Where several causes producing an injury are concurrent and each is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have happened, the injury may be attributed to all or any of the causes and recovery may be had against any or all of the responsible persons although under the circumstances of the case, it may appear that one of them was more culpable, and that the duty owed by them to the injured person was not the same.

If the concurrent act was the proximate cause, the degree of participation does not matter

What is the rule on liability? Liability is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury

No actor's negligence ceases to be a proximate cause merely because it does not exceed the negligence of other actors. Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of the injury.

Remote Cause Gabeto v. Araneta Horse nakawala An appreciable interval of time elapsed before the horse started on his career up the street. It is therefore evident that the stopping of the rig by Agaton Araneta in the middle of the street was too remote from the accident that presently ensued to be considered the legal or proximate cause thereof.

It was broken by an efficient intervening cause Prove chronology of events to determine proximate cause

Remote Cause Manila Electric v. Remoquillo

(28)

Intervening Cause Phoenix Construction v. IAC

Came home from a cocktail party; no headlights probably because driver has no pass; truck parked askew

If the intervening cause is one which in ordinary human experience is reasonably to be anticipated or one which the defendant has reason to anticipate under the particular circumstances, the defendant may be negligence among other reasons, because of failure to guard against it; or the defendant may be negligent only for that reason. The defendant cannot be relieved from liability by the fact that the risk or a

substantial and important part of the risk, to which the defendant has subjected the plaintiff has indeed come to pass.

Foreseeable intervening forces are within the scope original risk, and hence of the

defendant's negligence.

When does it become an efficient intervening cause? Should not be foreseeable

Tests to Determine Proximate Cause

Dy Teban v. Jose Ching Prime mover parked askew

There is no exact mathematical formula to determine proximate cause. It is based upon mixed considerations of logic, common sense, policy and precedent. Plaintiff must, however, establish a sufficient link between the act or omission and the damage or injury. That link must not be remote or far-fetched; otherwise, no liability will attach. The damage or injury must be a natural and probable result of the act or omission.

(29)

Tests to Determine Proximate Cause

Phoenix Construction v. IAC

See above The distinctions between "cause" and "condition" have already been "almost entirely discredited." It is quite impossible to

distinguish between active forces and passive situations, particularly since, as is invariably the case, the latter are the result of other active forces which have gone before. Even the lapse of a considerable time during which the "condition" remains static will not

necessarily affect liability.

It is not the distinction between "cause" and "condition" which is important but the nature of the risk and the character of the intervening cause.

Last Clear Chance Picart v. Smith See above The person who has the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the other party.

(30)

Last Clear Chance Bustamante v. CA Collision between truck and bus; heirs of passengers sued owners of colliding vehicles

The principle of LCC applies in a suit between the owners and drivers of

colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence. As between defendants, the doctrine cannot be extended into the field of joint

tortfeasors as a test of whether only one of them should be held liable to the injured person by reason of his discovery of the latter's peril, and it cannot be invoked as between defendants concurrently negligent. As against third persons, a negligent actor cannot defend by pleading that another had negligently failed to take action which could have avoided the injury.

This is not a suit between the owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles but a suit brought by the heirs of the deceased passengers against both owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles

Last Clear Chance Phoenix Construction v. IAC

See above Under Article 2179, the task of a court, in technical terms, is to determine whose negligence was the legal or proximate cause of the injury. That task is not simply or even primarily an exercise in chronology or physics, as the petitioners seem to imply by the use of terms like "last" or "intervening" or "immediate." The relative location in the continuum of time of the plaintiff's and the defendant's negligent acts or omissions, is only one of the relevant factors that may be taken into account. Of more fundamental importance are the nature of the negligent act or omission of each party and the character and gravity of the risks created by such act or omission for the rest of the community.

Common law - LCC tempers contributory negligence of plaintiff such that he can recover provided defendant has the last clear chance to avoid the accident (sa US kasi, kapag may CN plaintiff cannot recover)

LCC not applicable in our jurisdiction because of Article 2179 - reason for the rule does not exist in our jurisdiction

LCC - sort of back up to determine proximate cause; if you cannot BUT-FOR to determine PC, use LCC

Issue of control is secondary, first is nature of negligent act. If nature of negligent act is relatively the same, person who is last in control may be applied

(31)

Last Clear Chance Phil Bank of Commerce v. CA

Secretary entrusted with funds deposits money in the bank account of husband; accomplished two deposit slips, altered the second one

LCC states that where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof. The rule would also mean that an antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages for the

supervening negligence of, or bar a defense against liability sought by another, if the latter, who had the last fair chance, could have avoided the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.

Commercial transactions are repetitive - difficult to determine what's the first negligent act

Problematic:

1) there was already a breach of contract 2) Court already determined proximate cause 3) they still applied CN after applying LCC

Last Clear Chance Glan v. IAC Collision between jeep and truck

The doctrine of the last clear chance provides as valid and complete a defense to accident liability today as it did when invoked and applied in the 1918 case of Picart vs. Smith.

Doctrine here counteracts Phoenix - LCC applicable in our jurisdiction

Last Clear Chance Pantrangco v. Baesa Two families on their way to celebrate wedding anniversary of the other couple

For LCC to be applicable, it is necessary to show that the person who allegedly had the last opportunity to avert the accident was aware of the existence of the peril or should, with the exercise of due care, have been aware of it

Vda de Bonifacio - motorist in proper lane entitled to assume that approaching vehicle coming from wrong side will return to proper lane

(32)

Last Clear Chance Canlas v. CA Mortgage executed by impostor

LCC - where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the

impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom.

The rule is that the antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude recovery of damages caused by the supervening negligence of the latter, who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.

Last Clear Chance Consolidated Bank v. CA

See above In culpa contractual, neither the contributory negligence of the plaintiff nor his last clear chance to avoid the loss, would exonerate the defendant from liability. Such contributory negligence or last clear chance by the plaintiff merely serves to reduce the recovery of damages by the plaintiff but does not exculpate the defendant from his breach of contract.

LCC does not apply in BoC

Last Clear Chance Engada v. CA Emergency rule EMERGENCY RULE - a person who is confronted with a sudden emergency might have no time for thought, and he must make a prompt decision based largely upon impulse or instinct. Thus, he cannot be held to the same standard of conduct as one who had an opportunity to reflect, even though it later appears that he made the wrong decision. Last Clear Chance PNR v. Brunty See above The proximate cause of the injury having

been established to be the negligence of petitioner, we hold that the above doctrine finds no application in the instant case.

(33)

Last Clear Chance Lapanday v. Angala Why was LCC applied here when the Court ruled that both were equally negligent? Shouldn't there have been concurrent negligence?

Persons Vicariously Liable - Persons Exercising Parental Authority

Libi v. IAC Sweethearts killed; boyfriend killed ex-girlfriend and also killed himself using gun of the father

Parents are and should be held primarily liable for the civil liability arising from criminal offenses committed by their minor children under their legal authority or control, or who live in their company, unless it is proven that the former acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent such damages. Under Article 2180, the enforcement of such liability shall be effected against the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother. This was amplified by the Child and Youth Welfare Code which provides that the same shall devolve upon the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, upon the mother or, in case of her death or incapacity, upon the guardian, but the liability may also be voluntarily assumed by a relative or family friend of the youthful offender. However, under the Family Code, this civil liability is now, without such alternative

qualification, the responsibility of the parents and those who exercise parental authority over the minor offender.

Family Code amended Article 2180 such that parents are equally liable, not alternative

(34)

Persons Vicariously Liable - Persons Exercising Parental Authority

Tamargo v. CA Parental authority contested if it lies with adoptive or natural parents

The civil liability imposed upon parents for the torts of their minor children living with them, may be seen to be based upon the parental authority vested by the Civil Code upon such parents. The civil law assumes that when an unemancipated child living with its parents commits a tortious acts, the parents were negligent in the performance of their legal and natural duty to closely supervise the child who is in their custody and control. Parental liability is, in other words, anchored upon parental authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of the duties accompanying such authority. The parental dereliction is, of course, only presumed and the presumption can be overtuned under Article 2180 of the Civil Code by proof that the parents had exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.

Law presumes minor living with parent is under the control of parent

Article 221 of the FC has similarly insisted upon the requisite that the child, doer of the tortious act, shall have been in the actual custody of the parents sought to be held liable for the ensuing damage.

Persons Vicariously Liable -

Teachers/School

Palisoc v. Brillantes Contention was students were not living and boarding with teacher or school official (based on Mercado ruling)

"so long as (the students) remain in their custody" means the protective and

supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as long as they are at attendance in the school, including recess time

(35)

Teachers/School

Amadora v. CA About to graduate; shot by fellow student

Teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their students except where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable.

"in the custody" - as long as he is under

the control and influence of the school and within its premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended.

Issue should be custody over the person causing the injury, not over the person injured

Teachers/School

Salvosa v. IAC Student and at the same time armorer

A student not "at attendance in the school" cannot be in "recess" thereat

RECESS - contemplates a situation of temporary adjournment of school activities where the student still remains within call of his mentor and is not permitted to leave the school premises, or the area within which the school activity is conducted

The mere fact of being enrolled or being in the premises of a school without more does not constitute "attending school" or being in the "protective and supervisory custody" of the school. Persons Vicariously Liable - Teachers/School St. Mary’s Academy v. Carpitanos Enrolment campaign drive

There must be a finding that the act or omission considered as negligent was the proximate cause of the injury caused because the negligence must have a causal

connection to the accident

Applying Article 218, QD because it requires proximate cause

To determine when liability arises: 1) Look at person who caused the injury 2) Is he within custody?

3) Was he negligent?

(36)

Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers

Lampesa v. De Vera Left middle finger cut off

Once negligence on the part of the employee is established, a presumption instantly arises that the employer was negligent in the selection and/or supervision of said employee. To rebut this presumption, the employer must present adequate and convincing proof that he exercised care and diligence in the selection and supervision of his employees.

Proximate cause should go into the the negligence of the actor, not of the employer

Persons Vicariously Liable - Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Spouses Jayme v. Apostol Mayor on board vehicle on their way to airport; driver employee of the municipality; vehicle owned by another person

Doctrine of vicarious liability is not applicable in cases wherein there is no employer-employee relationship

REQUISITES to sustain claims against employers for the acts of their employees: 1) That the employee was chosen by the employer personally or through another 2) That the service to be rendered in accordance with orders which the employer has the authority to give at all times

3) That the illicit act of the employee was on the occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted to him

To make the employer liable under

paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 2180, it must be established that the injurious or tortuous act was committed at the time the employee was performing his functions

Four-fold Test to determine the existence of an employment relationship:

1) the employer’s power of selection 2) payment of wages or other remuneration 3) the employer’s right to control the method of doing the work

4) the employer’s right of suspension or dismissal

(37)

Castilex v. Vasquez Fuente Osmena Rotunda in Cebu

Filamer doctrine

Operation of Employer’s Motor Vehicle in Going to or from Meals

NOT ordinarily acting within the scope of his employment in the absence of evidence of some special business benefit to the employer (Example: by using the employer’s vehicle to go to and from meals, an employee is enabled to reduce his time-off and so devote more time to the performance of his duties)

Operation of Employer’s Vehicle in Going to or from Work

In the absence of some special benefit to the employer other than the mere performance of the services available at the place where he is needed, the employee is not acting within the scope of his employment.

When employer liable:

1) As when the employer benefits from having the employee at work earlier and,

presumably, spending more time at his actual duties

2) Where the employee’s duties require him to circulate in a general area with no fixed place or hours of work, or to go to and from his home to various outside places of work, and his employer furnishes him with a vehicle to use in his work (“special errand” or “roving commission” rule) under which it can be found that the employee continues in the service of his employer until he actually reaches home

(38)

However, even if the employee be deemed to be acting within the scope of his employment in going to or from work in his employer’s vehicle, the employer is not liable for his negligence where at the time of the accident, the employee has left the direct route to his work or back home and is pursuing a personal errand of his own.

Use of Employer’s Vehicle Outside Regular Working Hours

Generally not liable for the employee’s negligent operation of the vehicle during the period of permissive use, even where the employer contemplates that a regularly assigned motor vehicle will be used by the employee for personal as well as business purposes and there is some incidental benefit to the employer Persons Vicariously Liable - Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers

Filamer v. IAC "within the scope of their assigned tasks"

for purposes of raising the presumption of liability of an employer, includes any act done by an employee, in furtherance of the interests of the employer or for the

account of the employer at the time of the infliction of the injury or damage

NPC v. CA Labor only Article 2180 of the Civil Code and not the Labor Code will determine the liability of a principal contractor in a civil suit for damages instituted by an injured person for any negligent act of the employees of the "labor only" contractor. This is consistent with the ruling that a finding that a contractor was a "labor-only" contractor is equivalent to a finding that an employer-employee relationship existed between the owner (principal contractor) and the "labor-only" contractor, including the latter's workers.

To give laborers relief in cases of labor disputes kaya sila considered as employees

(39)

Valenzuela v. CA Flat tire Company-issued car serves important business purpose:

1) Related to the image of success an entity intends to present to its clients and to the public in general

2) For practical and utilitarian reasons - to enable its managerial and other employees of rank or its sales agents to reach clients conveniently

Since important business transactions and decisions may occur at all hours in all sorts of situations and under all kinds of guises, the provision for the unlimited use of a company car therefore principally serves the business and goodwill of a company and only incidentally the private purposes of the individual who actually uses the car, the managerial employee or company sales agent.

As such, in providing for a company car for business use and/or for the purpose of furthering the company’s image, a company owes a responsibility to the public to see to it that the managerial or other

employees to whom it entrusts virtually unlimited use of a company issued car are able to use the company issue capably and responsibly. Persons Vicariously Liable - Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Professional Services v. Agana

See above Refer to KatM's notes Ramos ruling - there is ER-EE relationship between Medical City and Dr. Ampil

Persons Vicariously Liable - Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Professional Services v. Agana