NA
NATIONAL PTIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PetitOWER CORPORATION, Petitionerioner, vs, vs..
HON. RAMON G. CODILLA, JR., Presiding Judge, RTC of Ceu, !r. "#, HON. RAMON G. CODILLA, JR., Presiding Judge, RTC of Ceu, !r. "#,
!ANGP
!ANGPAI AI $HIPPING $HIPPING COMPCOMPAN%AN%, &nd , &nd WALLEM $HIPPIWALLEM $HIPPING,NG, INCORPORATED, Res'ondents. INCORPORATED, Res'ondents. G.R. No. "()*#"+ A'ri *, -))( G.R. No. "()*#"+ A'ri *, -))( &/ts0 &/ts0
M/V Dibena Win, a vessel of
M/V Dibena Win, a vessel of foreign registrforeign registry owned and operated by y owned and operated by privateprivate respondent Bangpai Shipping, Co., allegedly bumped and damaged
respondent Bangpai Shipping, Co., allegedly bumped and damaged petitioners !ower Bar
petitioners !ower Barge "#$ whi%h ge "#$ whi%h was then moored at was then moored at the Cebuthe Cebu
&nternational !ort. 'hus, petitioner (led before the Cebu )'C a %omplaint for &nternational !ort. 'hus, petitioner (led before the Cebu )'C a %omplaint for damages against private respondent Bangpai Shipping Co., for
damages against private respondent Bangpai Shipping Co., for the allegedthe alleged damages %aused on petitioners power barges.
damages %aused on petitioners power barges. !eti
!etitioner, after addu%ing eviden%e during the trial of tioner, after addu%ing eviden%e during the trial of the %ase, (led a fothe %ase, (led a formalrmal o*er of eviden%e before the
o*er of eviden%e before the lower %ourt. Conse+uently, private respondentslower %ourt. Conse+uently, private respondents Bangpai Shipping
Bangpai Shipping Co. and Wallem Shipping, &n%. (led Co. and Wallem Shipping, &n%. (led their respe%tivetheir respe%tive obe%tions to petitioners formal o*er
obe%tions to petitioners formal o*er of eviden%e.of eviden%e.
!ubli% respondent udge later issued the assailed order denying the !ubli% respondent udge later issued the assailed order denying the admission and e-%luding from the re%ords petitioners -hibits and
admission and e-%luding from the re%ords petitioners -hibits and its subits sub mar0ings. 'he Court (nds merit in the obe%tions raised and the motion to mar0ings. 'he Court (nds merit in the obe%tions raised and the motion to stri0e out (led respe%tively by the defendants. 'he
stri0e out (led respe%tively by the defendants. 'he re%orre%ord shows that d shows that thethe plainti* has been given every opportunity to present the originals of plainti* has been given every opportunity to present the originals of thethe 1er
1ero- or photo%opies of o- or photo%opies of the do%uments it the do%uments it o*ered. &t never produ%ed theo*ered. &t never produ%ed the originals. 'he plainti* attempted to ustify the admission of
originals. 'he plainti* attempted to ustify the admission of the photo%opiesthe photo%opies by %ontending that 2the photo%opies
by %ontending that 2the photo%opies o*ered are e+uivaleo*ered are e+uivalent to the original nt to the original ofof the do%ument3 on the basis
the do%ument3 on the basis of the le%troni% viden%e. 'he information inof the le%troni% viden%e. 'he information in those 1ero- or photo%opies was not re%eived, re%orded, retrieved or
those 1ero- or photo%opies was not re%eived, re%orded, retrieved or produ%ed ele%troni%ally. Moreover, su%h ele%troni% eviden%e must be produ%ed ele%troni%ally. Moreover, su%h ele%troni% eviden%e must be authenti%ated, whi%h the plainti*
authenti%ated, whi%h the plainti* failed to dfailed to do. 4o. 4inally, the re+uired 56davit toinally, the re+uired 56davit to prove the admissibility and evidentiary weight of
prove the admissibility and evidentiary weight of the alleged ele%troni%the alleged ele%troni% eviden%e was not e-e%uted, mu%h less presented in eviden%e. 'he 1ero- or eviden%e was not e-e%uted, mu%h less presented in eviden%e. 'he 1ero- or photo%opies o*ered should, therefore, be stri%0en o* the
photo%opies o*ered should, therefore, be stri%0en o* the re%orre%ord. 5side fd. 5side fromrom their being not properly identi(ed by any %ompetent witness, the loss
their being not properly identi(ed by any %ompetent witness, the loss of theof the prin%ipals thereof was not
'he fo%al point of this entir
'he fo%al point of this entire %ontrovere %ontroversy is petitioners obstinate %ontesy is petitioners obstinate %ontentionntion that the photo%opies it o*ered as f
that the photo%opies it o*ered as formal eviden%e beforormal eviden%e before the trial %ourt aree the trial %ourt are the fun%tional e+uivalent of their original based
the fun%tional e+uivalent of their original based on its inimitableon its inimitable interpre
interpretation of tation of the )ules on the )ules on le%tronile%troni% viden%e.% viden%e. !eti
!etitioner insists that, %ontrary to the tioner insists that, %ontrary to the rulings of both the rulings of both the trial %ourt and thetrial %ourt and the appellate %ourt, the photo%opies it presented as do%umentary eviden%e appellate %ourt, the photo%opies it presented as do%umentary eviden%e a%tually %onstitute ele%troni
a%tually %onstitute ele%troni% eviden%e based on its % eviden%e based on its own premise that anown premise that an 2ele%tro
2ele%troni% do%ument3 as ni% do%ument3 as de(ned under Se%tion de(ned under Se%tion 78h9, )ule " of the 78h9, )ule " of the )ule)ules ons on le%troni
le%troni% viden%e is % viden%e is not limited to not limited to information that is re%eived, re%orded,information that is re%eived, re%orded, retrieved or produ%ed ele%troni%ally. )ather, petitioner maintains that an retrieved or produ%ed ele%troni%ally. )ather, petitioner maintains that an 2ele%tro
2ele%troni% do%ument3 %an ni% do%ument3 %an also refer to other modes also refer to other modes of written e-pressionof written e-pression that is produ%ed ele%troni%ally
that is produ%ed ele%troni%ally, su%h as , su%h as photo%opies, as in%luded in thephoto%opies, as in%luded in the se%tions %at%hall proviso: 2any printout or output,
se%tions %at%hall proviso: 2any printout or output, readable by sight orreadable by sight or other means3.
other means3. Issue0
Issue0
Whether or not the photo%opies are indeed ele%troni% do%uments as Whether or not the photo%opies are indeed ele%troni% do%uments as %ontemplated in )epubli% 5%t ;o. <=$" or the &mplementing )ules and %ontemplated in )epubli% 5%t ;o. <=$" or the &mplementing )ules and )egulations of the le%troni% Commer%e 5%t, as well as the )ules on )egulations of the le%troni% Commer%e 5%t, as well as the )ules on le%troni
le%troni% % viden%e>viden%e> Hed0
Hed0
;o. 5 perusal of the
;o. 5 perusal of the information %ontained in the photo%opies submitted byinformation %ontained in the photo%opies submitted by petitioner will rev
petitioner will reveal that not aeal that not all of the %ontents therein, su%h as ll of the %ontents therein, su%h as thethe signatures of the persons who purportedly signed the
signatures of the persons who purportedly signed the do%uments, may bedo%uments, may be re%orded or produ%ed ele%troni%ally. By no stret%h of the imagination %an a re%orded or produ%ed ele%troni%ally. By no stret%h of the imagination %an a persons signature a6-ed manually be %onsidered as
persons signature a6-ed manually be %onsidered as informationinformation
ele%troni%ally re%eived, re%orded, transmitted, stored, pro%essed, retrieved or ele%troni%ally re%eived, re%orded, transmitted, stored, pro%essed, retrieved or produ%ed. ?en%e, the argument of petitioner that sin%e these paper printouts produ%ed. ?en%e, the argument of petitioner that sin%e these paper printouts were produ%ed through an ele%troni% pro%ess, then these photo%opies are were produ%ed through an ele%troni% pro%ess, then these photo%opies are ele%troni
ele%troni% do%uments as % do%uments as de(ned in the de(ned in the )ules on le%troni% viden%e is)ules on le%troni% viden%e is obviously an erroneous, if not
obviously an erroneous, if not preposterpreposterous, interpretation of the ous, interpretation of the lawlaw. ?aving. ?aving thus de%lared that the
thus de%lared that the o*ered photo%opies are not tantamount to o*ered photo%opies are not tantamount to ele%troniele%troni%% do%uments, it is %onse+uential that the
do%uments, it is %onse+uential that the same may not be %onsidered as thesame may not be %onsidered as the fun%tional e+uivalent of their
G.R.
G.R. No. No. "12)(" "12)(" De/e3er De/e3er "2, "2, -))1-))1 L4CIANO TAN,
L4CIANO TAN, petitioner,petitioner, vs.
vs.
RODIL ENTERPRI$E$,
RODIL ENTERPRI$E$, respondent. respondent.
45C'S: 45C'S:
)odil nterpr
)odil nterprises is a lessee oises is a lessee of the &des @)a%%a Building sin%e 7$A$f the &des @)a%%a Building sin%e 7$A$ whi%h is owned
whi%h is owned by the )epubli% of the by the )epubli% of the !hilippines. )odil and the )epubli%!hilippines. )odil and the )epubli% entered into a )enew
entered into a )enewal of a al of a Conttra%t of ease through the D;). 5Conttra%t of ease through the D;). 5
subse+uent Supplementary Contra%t was similarly entered into e-tending the subse+uent Supplementary Contra%t was similarly entered into e-tending the lease agreement until September 7, 7$$=. 'he Court upheld the validity of lease agreement until September 7, 7$$=. 'he Court upheld the validity of the May 7< and "A, 7$$" %ontra%ts when
the May 7< and "A, 7$$" %ontra%ts when it was pla%ed in sit was pla%ed in several a%tionseveral a%tions involving )odil, &des
involving )odil, &des @)a%%a Building '@)a%%a Building 'enants 5sso%iation, enants 5sso%iation, &n%., however,&n%., however, prior to that the
prior to that the o6%e of the !resident rendero6%e of the !resident rendered a de%ision de%laring theed a de%ision de%laring the )ene
)enewal of Contra%t of wal of Contra%t of ease and the Supplementary Contra%t of no ease and the Supplementary Contra%t of no for%efor%e and e*e%t. )odil appealed the saem to the C5 and SC and was dismissed by and e*e%t. )odil appealed the saem to the C5 and SC and was dismissed by both %ourts. )odil (led a !etition for )ev
both %ourts. )odil (led a !etition for )eview on Certiorari with the C5 on iew on Certiorari with the C5 on thethe @rder of -e%ution in whi%h %ase the C5 annulled the
@rder of -e%ution in whi%h %ase the C5 annulled the @rder and enoined the@rder and enoined the @6%e of the !resident to abide by the de%ision in
@6%e of the !resident to abide by the de%ision in the %onsolidated %asesthe %onsolidated %ases whi%h upholds the validity of
whi%h upholds the validity of the )enewthe )enewal of the al of the Contra%t of ease and theContra%t of ease and the Supplemental Contra%t. 5 subse+uent Contra%t of ease was drawn
Supplemental Contra%t. 5 subse+uent Contra%t of ease was drawn betweenbetween )odil and the
)odil and the )epubli% , )epubli% , the same to be the same to be e*e%tive retroa%tively from Sept 7,e*e%tive retroa%tively from Sept 7, 7$$= to 5ugust "7, "#7" at a
7$$= to 5ugust "7, "#7" at a monthly rental of !A, "#.=, sube%t to themonthly rental of !A, "#.=, sube%t to the adustment upon the approval of the
adustment upon the approval of the new appraisal %overing the building.new appraisal %overing the building. )odil subleased various units to members of the 'enants 5sso%iation among )odil subleased various units to members of the 'enants 5sso%iation among them is 'an who rented a spa%e 0nown as Boti%a Divisoria. )odil (led a
them is 'an who rented a spa%e 0nown as Boti%a Divisoria. )odil (led a %ompliant for nlawful Detainer
%ompliant for nlawful Detainer against 'against 'an for an for not paying the not paying the monthlymonthly rentals despite repeat
rentals despite repeated oral and written demands. ed oral and written demands. 5 payment of rentals in5 payment of rentals in arre
arrears ars was similarly was similarly sought plus the attorsought plus the attorneys fees and litneys fees and litigation %ostsigation %osts in%luding the monthly rentals. '
in%luding the monthly rentals. 'an on an on the other hand the other hand alleged that he alleged that he is ais a legitimate tenant of the government as owner of the
legitimate tenant of the government as owner of the building and not )odil,building and not )odil, and as su%h he has
and as su%h he has the right to lease the said premises pending thethe right to lease the said premises pending the
disposition and sale of the building. ?e based his %laim from the fa%t that the disposition and sale of the building. ?e based his %laim from the fa%t that the @6%e of the
@6%e of the !r!resident had de%lared the esident had de%lared the )ene)enewal Contra%t of wal Contra%t of ease andease and Supplemental Contra%t between )odil and )epubli% to be without
e*e%t. 5%%or
e*e%t. 5%%ordingly thee D;) was dingly thee D;) was dire%tdire%ted to award the lease ed to award the lease %ontra%t on%ontra%t on favor of the 5sso%iation of whi%h 'an is a member. 'hus he prayed for the favor of the 5sso%iation of whi%h 'an is a member. 'hus he prayed for the dismissal of the %omplaint.
dismissal of the %omplaint.
Me'
Me'C issued aC issued an order re%ogniEing the an n order re%ogniEing the an agreement enteragreement entered into in ed into in openopen %ourt by 'an and )odil. 'an also (led a Motion to 5llow Defendant to Deposit %ourt by 'an and )odil. 'an also (led a Motion to 5llow Defendant to Deposit )ent
)entals, averring that he had aals, averring that he had agreed to pay all the rentals due on greed to pay all the rentals due on thethe subse+uent monthly rentals as they fall dueF the
subse+uent monthly rentals as they fall dueF the rental arrrental arrears and that heears and that he would li0e to deposit the amount to the City 'reasurer of Manila. ?owever, would li0e to deposit the amount to the City 'reasurer of Manila. ?owever, the Me'
the Me'C denied su%h deposit C denied su%h deposit and rendered a de%ision in favor of )odil andand rendered a de%ision in favor of )odil and held that '
held that 'an did not an did not %ontest the sublease on a %ontest the sublease on a monthly basis and in monthly basis and in fa%tfa%t admitted the same. 'an appealed the de%ision to the )'C whi%h reversed and admitted the same. 'an appealed the de%ision to the )'C whi%h reversed and dismiss the %omplaint (nding that Me'C err
dismiss the %omplaint (nding that Me'C erred in holding thaed in holding that the o*er tot the o*er to %ompromise by 'ans %ounsel was a0in to an admission of the fa%t. )odil (led %ompromise by 'ans %ounsel was a0in to an admission of the fa%t. )odil (led a !etiiton for )eview with the appellate %ourt whi%h
a !etiiton for )eview with the appellate %ourt whi%h a6rmed and reinstateda6rmed and reinstated the de%ision of the Me'C. 5 motion for )e%onsideration was (led by 'an the de%ision of the Me'C. 5 motion for )e%onsideration was (led by 'an however it was denied.
however it was denied.
&SS: &SS:
Whether or not
Whether or not u%iano 'u%iano 'an made an made a udi%ial admission a udi%ial admission annet his liabilityannet his liability as a sub
as a sub lessee of )odil nterprises>lessee of )odil nterprises>
)&;G: )&;G:
!etit
!etitioner posits that the ioner posits that the aforesaid admission, made in open %ourt, andaforesaid admission, made in open %ourt, and then, reiterated in his Motion to 5llow Defendant to
then, reiterated in his Motion to 5llow Defendant to Deposit )entals, %annotDeposit )entals, %annot be ta0en as an admission of
be ta0en as an admission of his liability, %iting Se%tion "=, )ule 7H# of thehis liability, %iting Se%tion "=, )ule 7H# of the )ule
)ules of Court, s of Court, whi%h states,whi%h states, inter aliainter alia, that an , that an o*er of %ompromise in a %ivilo*er of %ompromise in a %ivil %ase is not a ta%it admission of liability.
'he general rule is
'he general rule is an o*er of an o*er of %ompromise in a %ivil %ase %ompromise in a %ivil %ase is not is not an admissionan admission of liability. &t is not admissible in eviden%e against the o*eror.
of liability. &t is not admissible in eviden%e against the o*eror. 'he
'he rule, rule, however, however, is is not not iron%lad. iron%lad. 'his 'his mu%h mu%h was was elu%idated elu%idated by by this this CourtCourt in
in TTrans-Pacifc Industrial Supprans-Pacifc Industrial Supplies, Inc. lies, Inc. vv. Court . Court o Appealso Appeals, to wit:, to wit: '
'o o determidetermine ne the the admissibility admissibility or or nonadmissibility nonadmissibility of of an an o*er o*er toto %ompromise, the %ir%umstan%es of the %ase and the intent of the party %ompromise, the %ir%umstan%es of the %ase and the intent of the party ma0ing the o*er should be %onsidered. 'hus, if a party denies the ma0ing the o*er should be %onsidered. 'hus, if a party denies the e-isten%e of a debt but o*ers to pay the same for the purpose of e-isten%e of a debt but o*ers to pay the same for the purpose of bu
buyiying ng pepea%a%e e anand d avavoioididing ng lilititigagatitionon, , ththe e o*o*er er of of sesettttlelemement nt isis inadmissible. &f in the %ourse thereof, the party ma0ing the o*er admits inadmissible. &f in the %ourse thereof, the party ma0ing the o*er admits the e-isten%e of an indebtedness %ombined with a proposal to settle the e-isten%e of an indebtedness %ombined with a proposal to settle the %laim ami%ably, then, the admission is admissible to prove su%h the %laim ami%ably, then, the admission is admissible to prove su%h indebtedness 8Moran, Comments on the )ules of Court, Vol. A, p. "HH indebtedness 8Moran, Comments on the )ules of Court, Vol. A, p. "HH I7$<# ed.J9F 4ran%is%o, )ules of Court, Vol. V&&, p. H"A I7$=H ed.J %iting I7$<# ed.J9F 4ran%is%o, )ules of Court, Vol. V&&, p. H"A I7$=H ed.J %iting M%;iel v. ?olbroo0, 7" !a%. 8S9 <K, $ . ed., 7##$9. &ndeed, an o*er of M%;iel v. ?olbroo0, 7" !a%. 8S9 <K, $ . ed., 7##$9. &ndeed, an o*er of settlement is an e*e%tive admission of a borrowers loan balan%e 8.M. settlement is an e*e%tive admission of a borrowers loan balan%e 8.M. ?an
?andi%di%rafraft t ManManufa%ufa%turturing ing CorCorp. p. vv. . CouCourt rt of of 5pp5ppealeals, s, 7<7< SC)SC)5 5 KK## I7$$#J. - - -.
I7$$#J. - - -.
Similarly, in the %ase of
Similarly, in the %ase of Varadero de Manila v. Insular Lumber CoVaradero de Manila v. Insular Lumber Co..H$H$ the Court the Court
applied the e-%eption to the general rule. &n
applied the e-%eption to the general rule. &n VaraderoVaraderoL there was neither anL there was neither an e-pr
e-pressed nor implied denial of liability, but during the essed nor implied denial of liability, but during the %ourse of the abortive%ourse of the abortive neg
negotiotiatiations ons thetherreinein, , the the defdefendendant ant e-e-prpressessed ed a a wilwillinlingnegness ss to to pay pay thethe plainti*. 4inding that there was no denial of liability, and %onsidering that the plainti*. 4inding that there was no denial of liability, and %onsidering that the only +uestion dis%ussed was the amount to be paid, the Court did not apply only +uestion dis%ussed was the amount to be paid, the Court did not apply the rule of
the rule of e-%le-%lusion of usion of %ompromise negotiations.%ompromise negotiations.
&n the %ase at bar, the Me'C and the Court of 5ppeals properly appre%iated &n the %ase at bar, the Me'C and the Court of 5ppeals properly appre%iated petitioners admission as an e-%eption to the general rule of inadmissibility. petitioners admission as an e-%eption to the general rule of inadmissibility. 'he Me'
'he Me'C found that petitioner did not %ontest the e-isten%e of the sublease,C found that petitioner did not %ontest the e-isten%e of the sublease, and his %ounsel made fran0
and his %ounsel made fran0 reprrepresentations anent the formers liability in theesentations anent the formers liability in the form of rentals. 'his e-pressed admission was %oupled with a proposal to form of rentals. 'his e-pressed admission was %oupled with a proposal to li+uidate. 'he Motion to 5llow Defendant to Deposit )entals was deemed by li+uidate. 'he Motion to 5llow Defendant to Deposit )entals was deemed by the
the Me'Me'C C as as an an e-e-plipli%i%it t a%0a%0nownowleledgmdgment ent of of petpetitiitioneoners rs lialiabilbility ity on on thethe subleased premises. 'he Court of 5ppeals agreed with the Me'C. &ndeed, the subleased premises. 'he Court of 5ppeals agreed with the Me'C. &ndeed, the e-isten%e of the Contra%t of ease, dated 7< @%tober 7$$$ was not
e-isten%e of the Contra%t of ease, dated 7< @%tober 7$$$ was not denied bydenied by petitioner.
4inally, we (nd a %ategori%al admission on the part of petitioner, not only as 4inally, we (nd a %ategori%al admission on the part of petitioner, not only as to his liability, but also, as to the amount of indebtedness in the form of to his liability, but also, as to the amount of indebtedness in the form of rentals due. 'he @rder of the Me'C dated "= une "### was %lear that the rentals due. 'he @rder of the Me'C dated "= une "### was %lear that the pe
petitititiononeer r agagrreeed ed iin n opopeen n %%ouourrt t to to papay y tthe he amamouount nt of of !!KK#,###.##,KK#,###.##, representing petitioners unpaid rentals from September 7$$= to une "###F representing petitioners unpaid rentals from September 7$$= to une "###F and that petitioner will pay the monthly rentals %omputed at !
and that petitioner will pay the monthly rentals %omputed at !7H,=A#.## on7H,=A#.## on or before the A
or before the Athth day of ea%h month after H# une "###. 'he petitioners day of ea%h month after H# une "###. 'he petitioners
udi%ial admission
udi%ial admission in in open open %ourt, as %ourt, as found found by by the the Me'Me'C, C, and and a6rmed by a6rmed by thethe Court of 5ppeals (nds parti%ular signi(%an%e when viewed together with his Court of 5ppeals (nds parti%ular signi(%an%e when viewed together with his Motion to 5llow Defendant to Deposit )entals, wherein petitioner stated that Motion to 5llow Defendant to Deposit )entals, wherein petitioner stated that the rentals due on the premises in +uestion from September 7$$= up to the the rentals due on the premises in +uestion from September 7$$= up to the pr
preseesent nt amoamountunted ed to to !!KK=,=,A#A##.#.###, #, as as of of ththe e dadate te of of (l(lining g ththe e MoMotitionon.. !etitioner %annot now be allowed to ree%t the same. 5n admission made in !etitioner %annot now be allowed to ree%t the same. 5n admission made in the pleading %annot be %ontroverted by the party ma0ing su%h admission the pleading %annot be %ontroverted by the party ma0ing su%h admission and are %on%lusiv
and are %on%lusive as e as to him, to him, and that and that all proofs submitall proofs submitted by ted by him %ontrarhim %ontraryy the
therereto to or or in%in%onsonsististent ent thethererewitwith h shoushould ld be be ignignorored ed whewhethether r obobe%te%tion ion isis interposed by a party or not.
interposed by a party or not.K#K# 5 udi%ial admission is an admission made by 5 udi%ial admission is an admission made by
a party in the %ourse of the pro%eedings in the same %ase, for purposes of a party in the %ourse of the pro%eedings in the same %ase, for purposes of the truth of some a
the truth of some alleged fa%t, whi%h said party %annot lleged fa%t, whi%h said party %annot thereafthereafter disprove.ter disprove.K7K7
WHEREORE
WHEREORE, the !etition is, the !etition is DENIEDDENIED. 'he De%ision dated "7 @%tober "##". 'he De%ision dated "7 @%tober "##" and the )esolution dated 7" May "##A in C5G.). S! ;o. ="#7, a6rming and the )esolution dated 7" May "##A in C5G.). S! ;o. ="#7, a6rming and reinstating the @%tober "### De%ision of the Me'C in Civil Case ;o. and reinstating the @%tober "### De%ision of the Me'C in Civil Case ;o. 7A<K are
7A<K are AIRMEDAIRMED. Costs against petitioners.. Costs against petitioners.
G.R.
G.R. No. No. "1#)"1 "1#)"1 J&nu&r5 J&nu&r5 6", 6", -))(-))( CAPITOL WIRELE$$, INC.
CAPITOL WIRELE$$, INC. !etitioner,!etitioner, vs.
vs.
CARLO$ ANTONIO
CARLO$ ANTONIO !ALAGOT!ALAGOT,, )espondent.)espondent. ACT$0
ACT$0
Capitol Wirele
Capitol Wireless, &n%. ss, &n%. 8Capwire8Capwire9 hired Carlos 5ntonio 9 hired Carlos 5ntonio Balagot 8Balagot9 asBalagot 8Balagot9 as
%olle%tor on September 7, 7$<=. Carlos is re+uired to wor0 outside the o6%e %olle%tor on September 7, 7$<=. Carlos is re+uired to wor0 outside the o6%e and Capwire assigned to him a
and Capwire assigned to him a motor%ymotor%y%le as a %le as a servi%e vehi%le, for whi%h itservi%e vehi%le, for whi%h it shouldered e-pense
shouldered e-penses for s for gasoline and gasoline and maintenan%e. Balagot was dis%overedmaintenan%e. Balagot was dis%overed to have been rendering servi%es to China Ban0 a
to have been rendering servi%es to China Ban0 and that sin%e 7$$", Carlosnd that sin%e 7$$", Carlos had been %on%urrently employe
had been %on%urrently employed with Contra%tual Con%epts, &n%. d with Contra%tual Con%epts, &n%. 8CC&9, a8CC&9, a lo%al manpower %ompany, whi%h assigned him to render messengerial lo%al manpower %ompany, whi%h assigned him to render messengerial servi%es to China Ban0
the ground of grave mis%ondu%t and
the ground of grave mis%ondu%t and willful brea%h of trust and %on(den%e.willful brea%h of trust and %on(den%e. Capwire %ontends that the time of wor0 of
Capwire %ontends that the time of wor0 of Balagot to other %ompaniesBalagot to other %ompanies overlaps with his wor0 at Capwire. Balagot admitted the %ha
overlaps with his wor0 at Capwire. Balagot admitted the %harge but he (led arge but he (led a %omplaint for illegal dismissal
%omplaint for illegal dismissal against Capwire and its against Capwire and its !r!resident pifanioesident pifanio Mar+ueE.
Mar+ueE. I$$4E0 I$$4E0
Whether or not Balagot
Whether or not Balagot was illegally dismissedwas illegally dismissed HELD0
HELD0 Ver
Verily, urispruden%e re%ogniEes as a ily, urispruden%e re%ogniEes as a valid ground for dismissal valid ground for dismissal of anof an employees unauthoriEed use of %ompany time. 5nd from the eviden%e employees unauthoriEed use of %ompany time. 5nd from the eviden%e presented, Balagot used the %ompany vehi%le in pursuing his
presented, Balagot used the %ompany vehi%le in pursuing his own interests,own interests, on %ompany time and deviating from his authoriEed route without
on %ompany time and deviating from his authoriEed route without permission. Capwir
permission. Capwire has all e has all the right and reason to %ry the right and reason to %ry foul as this is foul as this is a %leara %lear %ase of moonlighting and
%ase of moonlighting and using the %ompanys time, money, and using the %ompanys time, money, and e+uipmente+uipment to render servi%e to another
to render servi%e to another %ompany%ompany. 'he . 'he %ourt said that %ourt said that there is no there is no denyingdenying that ta0ing on double ob
that ta0ing on double ob per se per se is not illegal a%%ording to the abor Code, asis not illegal a%%ording to the abor Code, as e-tra in%ome would go a long
e-tra in%ome would go a long way for an ordinary wor0er li0e Balagot. 'heway for an ordinary wor0er li0e Balagot. 'he only limitation is where one ob overlaps with the other in
only limitation is where one ob overlaps with the other in terms of timeterms of time and/or poses a %lear %ase of %onNi%t of interest as to the nature of business and/or poses a %lear %ase of %onNi%t of interest as to the nature of business of %omplainants two employers. 'he %ontention of Balagot that he is wor0ing of %omplainants two employers. 'he %ontention of Balagot that he is wor0ing for China Ban0 after A:## pm is untenable be%ause he was sighted by the ?) for China Ban0 after A:## pm is untenable be%ause he was sighted by the ?) dire%tor within the prem
dire%tor within the premises of the ban0 ises of the ban0 at H:HA pm and at H:HA pm and as generalas general 0nowledge, the ban0ing industry follows
0nowledge, the ban0ing industry follows the ordinary wor0ing hours fromthe ordinary wor0ing hours from <:## am to A:## pm and a ban0 has no use
<:## am to A:## pm and a ban0 has no use for an employee who %an only befor an employee who %an only be of servi%e to it after A:## pm.
of servi%e to it after A:## pm.
HEIR$ O PEDRO PA$AG HEIR$ O PEDRO PA$AG v
v..
$PO4$E$ LOREN7O &nd LORENTINA PAROCHA $PO4$E$ LOREN7O &nd LORENTINA PAROCHA ACT$0
ACT$0
5n a%tion for De%laration of
5n a%tion for De%laration of ;ullity of Do%uments and 'itle and )e%overy of;ullity of Do%uments and 'itle and )e%overy of !ossession and @wnership was (led by petitioners against Spouses orenEa !ossession and @wnership was (led by petitioners against Spouses orenEa and 4lorentina !aro%
and 4lorentina !aro%ha. !etitioners, during trial, were given 7# days ha. !etitioners, during trial, were given 7# days toto submit their formal o*er of do%umentary e-hibits and having failed to
submit their formal o*er of do%umentary e-hibits and having failed to do so,do so, the trial %ourt %onsidered su%h as a
the trial %ourt %onsidered su%h as a waiver of their right to ma0e a formalwaiver of their right to ma0e a formal o*er of eviden%e. Court of 5ppeals a
o*er of eviden%e. Court of 5ppeals a6rmed6rmed I$$4E0
Whether or not there was a waiver of
Whether or not there was a waiver of the right to ma0e their formal o*er ofthe right to ma0e their formal o*er of eviden%e.
eviden%e. HELD0 HELD0
mphasis must be had on the ne%essity of a formal o*er of eviden%e to mphasis must be had on the ne%essity of a formal o*er of eviden%e to enable udges to support their (ndings of fa%ts and their udgment only and enable udges to support their (ndings of fa%ts and their udgment only and stri%tly upon the eviden%e o*ered by
stri%tly upon the eviden%e o*ered by the parties at the parties at the trial. 4ailthe trial. 4ailure to submiture to submit within a %onsiderable period of time is
within a %onsiderable period of time is a %onsidered a waivera %onsidered a waiver. 'here is a. 'here is a
%onsiderable di*eren%e between identi(%ation of do%umentary eviden%e and %onsiderable di*eren%e between identi(%ation of do%umentary eviden%e and its formal o*er
its formal o*er. 'he former is done in . 'he former is done in the %ourse of the the %ourse of the pretripretrial, and trial isal, and trial is a%%ompanied by the mar0ing of
a%%ompanied by the mar0ing of the eviden%e as an e-hibitF while the latter isthe eviden%e as an e-hibitF while the latter is done only when the party
done only when the party rests its %ase.rests its %ase.
G.R.
G.R. No. No. "61622 "61622 M&r/8 M&r/8 "*, "*, -))1-))1 ANICIA RAMO$9ANDAN,
ANICIA RAMO$9ANDAN, !etitioner,!etitioner, vs.
vs.
PEOPLE O THE PHILIPPINE$,
PEOPLE O THE PHILIPPINE$, )espondent.)espondent.
&/ts0 &/ts0
!ablito 5ndan alias OBobbyO was a%%used of
!ablito 5ndan alias OBobbyO was a%%used of the %rime of rape withthe %rime of rape with homi%ide.
homi%ide. 'he o*ense was %ommi'he o*ense was %ommitted on 4ebrtted on 4ebruary 7$, 7$$K uary 7$, 7$$K in Baliuag,in Baliuag, Bula%anF the vi%tim being Marianne Guevarra, "" and a "
Bula%anF the vi%tim being Marianne Guevarra, "" and a "ndnd year student at year student at
the 4
the 4atima S%hool of atima S%hool of ;ursing.;ursing. @n said day,
@n said day, vi%tim left her home for her s%hool dormitory invi%tim left her home for her s%hool dormitory in V
ValenEuela. alenEuela. While on her way, appelWhile on her way, appellant invited her to his house. ?e usedlant invited her to his house. ?e used the
prete-the prete-t that prete-the t that the blood pressure of his wifePs grandmother should beblood pressure of his wifePs grandmother should be ta0en. Marianne agree
ta0en. Marianne agreed to do d to do so as the so as the old woman was her distant old woman was her distant relativerelative.. She did not 0now that nobody was inside the house.
She did not 0now that nobody was inside the house. 5ppellant then pun%hed5ppellant then pun%hed her in the abdomen, brought her to
her in the abdomen, brought her to the 0it%hen and raped the 0it%hen and raped herher. By night time,. By night time, Marianne, who was still un%ons%ious, was
Marianne, who was still un%ons%ious, was dragged by appellant to dragged by appellant to theirtheir ba%0yar
ba%0yard that was d that was ada%ent to a va%ant ada%ent to a va%ant lot. 5ppellant was to transferlot. 5ppellant was to transfer Marianne to the va%ant lot
Marianne to the va%ant lot when she moved, prompting appellant to hit herwhen she moved, prompting appellant to hit her head with a pie%
the lot and abandoned her
the lot and abandoned her. . 5t 77am her b5t 77am her body was dis%overeody was dis%overed. 'he autopsyd. 'he autopsy reveale
revealed that she d that she died of Otraumati% inuries.Odied of Otraumati% inuries.O MariannePs gruesome death drew publi% a
MariannePs gruesome death drew publi% attention and promptedttention and prompted Baliuag Mayor Cornelio 'rinidad to form an investigation team. 'he Baliuag Mayor Cornelio 'rinidad to form an investigation team. 'he investigation pointe
investigation pointed to the d to the appellant. appellant. 5ppellantPs near5ppellantPs nearby house wasby house was sear%hed but he w
sear%hed but he was not there. as not there. @n 4@n 4ebruary "K, a poli%e teaebruary "K, a poli%e team led by Mayorm led by Mayor '
'rinidad tra%ed appellant in his parrinidad tra%ed appellant in his parentsP house. 'hey too0 him and brentsP house. 'hey too0 him and broughtought him to the poli%e head+uarte
him to the poli%e head+uarters where he wrs where he was interras interrogated. ogated. &nitially, he&nitially, he denied any 0nowledge
denied any 0nowledge of MariannePs death. of MariannePs death. ?owever, whe?owever, when the poli%en the poli%e %onfronted him with eviden%e, appellant relented but impli%ated two of his %onfronted him with eviden%e, appellant relented but impli%ated two of his neighbours, and that he was mer
neighbours, and that he was merely a loo0out. ely a loo0out. arin and DiEon werarin and DiEon were li0ewisee li0ewise brought ther
brought there by the poli%ee by the poli%e. . 'he following day a 'he following day a physi%al e-amphysi%al e-aminationination %ondu%ted on the suspe%ts revealed that appellant has
%ondu%ted on the suspe%ts revealed that appellant has multiple s%rat%hes onmultiple s%rat%hes on the ne%0, %hest and ba%0.
the ne%0, %hest and ba%0. By that time,
By that time, people and media people and media reprrepresentatives were already at theesentatives were already at the poli%e head+uarters awaiting the re
poli%e head+uarters awaiting the results of the investigation. sults of the investigation. Mayor 'Mayor 'rinidadrinidad arrived.
arrived. pon seeing the mpon seeing the mayor, appellant apprayor, appellant approa%hed him and whispeoa%hed him and whisperedred that they tal0 privatel
that they tal0 privatelyy. . 'he mayor led him to the o6%e of 'he mayor led him to the o6%e of the Chief of !oli%ethe Chief of !oli%e and there, he br
and there, he bro0e down and said OMo0e down and said OMayor, patawarin mo a0ayor, patawarin mo a0oQ oQ & will tell you& will tell you the truth.
the truth. & am & am the one the one who 0illewho 0illed Marianne.O d Marianne.O 'he mayor 'he mayor opened the opened the door of door of the room to let the publi% and
the room to let the publi% and media reprmedia representatives witness the %onfession.esentatives witness the %onfession. Sin%e no lawyer was available he o
Sin%e no lawyer was available he orderrdered the pro%eedings photographed anded the pro%eedings photographed and videotaped.
videotaped. &n the presen%e of the &n the presen%e of the mayor, the poli%e, rmayor, the poli%e, representatiepresentatives of theves of the media and appellantPs ow
media and appellantPs own wife and son, appeln wife and son, appellant %onfessed his guillant %onfessed his guilt. t. ?e?e as0ed for forgiveness from arin and DiEon whom he falsely impli%ated as0ed for forgiveness from arin and DiEon whom he falsely impli%ated saying he
saying he did it did it be%ause of be%ause of illfeelings illfeelings against them. against them. ?e also ?e also said that said that thethe devil entered his mind be%ause of the pornographi% magaEines and tabloid devil entered his mind be%ause of the pornographi% magaEines and tabloid he r
he read almost everydayead almost everyday. . 5fter 5fter his %onfessiohis %onfession, appellant hugged his wife andn, appellant hugged his wife and son and as0ed t
son and as0ed the mayor to hehe mayor to help him. lp him. ?is %onfession was ?is %onfession was %aptured on%aptured on videotape and %overed by the media nationwide.
videotape and %overed by the media nationwide. @n arraignment, however, appellan
@n arraignment, however, appellant entered t entered a plea a plea of Onot guiltyof Onot guilty.O .O ?e?e testi(ed that on said date he was at his parentPs house for the birthday party testi(ed that on said date he was at his parentPs house for the birthday party of his nephew
of his nephew. . ?e, his wife and son went home af?e, his wife and son went home after Apm, slept at <pm, andter Apm, slept at <pm, and wo0e up at am
wo0e up at am the ne-t daythe ne-t day. . 5ppella5ppellant %laimed that after he was pi%0ed upnt %laimed that after he was pi%0ed up by the poli%e on 4ebruary "K, he was %oer%ed to %onfess that
by the poli%e on 4ebruary "K, he was %oer%ed to %onfess that he raped andhe raped and 0illed Marianne.
0illed Marianne. 4e4earing for his life, aring for his life, appellant did as he wappellant did as he was told.as told. 'he trial %ourt %onvi%t
'he trial %ourt %onvi%ted the appellant and senten%ed him to deed the appellant and senten%ed him to death. ath. ?e?e was found guilty of
was found guilty of the %rime %harged in the &nformation 8)ape withthe %rime %harged in the &nformation 8)ape with ?omi%ide9 and
Issue0 Issue0
W/; the appellants %onfession not being assisted by a %ounsel is in W/; the appellants %onfession not being assisted by a %ounsel is in violation of the %onstitution, and
violation of the %onstitution, and is therefore inadmiis therefore inadmissible as eviden%essible as eviden%e against him.
against him. Hed0
Hed0
nder these %ir%umstan%es, it %annot be su%%essfully %laimed that nder these %ir%umstan%es, it %annot be su%%essfully %laimed that appellantPs %onfession befor
appellantPs %onfession before the mayor e the mayor is inadmissible. is inadmissible. &t is true t&t is true that ahat a muni%ipal mayor has Ooperational supervision and %ontrolO over the lo%al muni%ipal mayor has Ooperational supervision and %ontrolO over the lo%al poli%e and may arguably be deemed a
poli%e and may arguably be deemed a law enfor%ement o6%er for purposeslaw enfor%ement o6%er for purposes of applying Se%tion 7
of applying Se%tion 7" 879 and 8H" 879 and 8H9 of 5rti%le 9 of 5rti%le &&& of the Constitution. &&& of the Constitution. ?owever,?owever, appellantPs %onfession to the mayor was not made in response to any
appellantPs %onfession to the mayor was not made in response to any interr
interrogation by the latterogation by the latter. . &n fa%t, the mayor did not +uestion appellant at&n fa%t, the mayor did not +uestion appellant at all. ;o poli%e authority or
all. ;o poli%e authority ordered appellant to tdered appellant to tal0 to the mayoral0 to the mayor. . &t was&t was appellant himself who spontaneously, freely and voluntarily sought the appellant himself who spontaneously, freely and voluntarily sought the mayor for a pr
mayor for a private meetiivate meeting. ng. 'he mayor did 'he mayor did not 0now that appellant not 0now that appellant waswas going to %onfess his guil
going to %onfess his guilt to him. t to him. When appellant tWhen appellant tal0ed with al0ed with the mayor as athe mayor as a %on(dant and not
%on(dant and not as a law as a law enfor%emenfor%ement o6%er, his un%ounseled %onfessionent o6%er, his un%ounseled %onfession to him did not
to him did not violate his %onstitviolate his %onstitutional rights. utional rights. 'hus, it has been h'hus, it has been held thateld that the %onstitutional pro%edur
the %onstitutional pro%edures on %ustodial es on %ustodial investigation do not apply to investigation do not apply to aa spontaneous statement, not eli%ited through +uestioning by the authorities, spontaneous statement, not eli%ited through +uestioning by the authorities, but given in an
but given in an ordinary manner wherordinary manner whereby appellant orally admitted havingeby appellant orally admitted having %ommitted the
%ommitted the %rime. %rime. What the ConstitutioWhat the Constitution bars is the %omn bars is the %ompulsorypulsory dis%losure
dis%losure of in%riminating fa%tof in%riminating fa%ts or %onfessions. s or %onfessions. 'he rights under 'he rights under Se%tion 7"Se%tion 7" are guaranteed to pre%lude the slightest use of %oer%ion by the state a
are guaranteed to pre%lude the slightest use of %oer%ion by the state ass would lead the a%%used to
would lead the a%%used to admit something false, not to admit something false, not to prevent him fromprevent him from freely
freely and voluntarily teand voluntarily telling the truth. lling the truth. ?en%e we ?en%e we hold that appellantPshold that appellantPs %onfession to the mayor was %orre%tly admitted by the trial %ourt.
%onfession to the mayor was %orre%tly admitted by the trial %ourt. 5ppellantPs %onfessions to
5ppellantPs %onfessions to the media were li0ewise properly admitted.the media were li0ewise properly admitted. 'he %onfessions wer
'he %onfessions were made in response to e made in response to +uestions by news repor+uestions by news reporters, notters, not by the
by the poli%e or any poli%e or any other investigatother investigating o6%ering o6%er. . WWe have e have held thatheld that statements spontaneously made by a suspe%t to
statements spontaneously made by a suspe%t to news reporters on anews reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in eviden%e. televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in eviden%e.
'he Court there
'he Court therefore held a%%usedappelfore held a%%usedappellant !ablilant !ablito 5ndan guilty of theto 5ndan guilty of the spe%ial %omple- %rime of rape with
spe%ial %omple- %rime of rape with homi%ide.homi%ide.
&/ts0
&/ts0 @n De%ember =, 7$<<, an alter%ation between Benigno 'orEuela and@n De%ember =, 7$<<, an alter%ation between Benigno 'orEuela and 5tty. ;apoleon Dulay o%%urred at the 2Big Bang Sa 5labang,3 5labang Village, 5tty. ;apoleon Dulay o%%urred at the 2Big Bang Sa 5labang,3 5labang Village,
Muntinlupa as a
Muntinlupa as a result of whi%h Benigno result of whi%h Benigno ''orEuela, the se%urity guard on orEuela, the se%urity guard on dutyduty at the said %arnival, shot and 0illed 5tty. ;apoleon Dulay. !etitioner Maria at the said %arnival, shot and 0illed 5tty. ;apoleon Dulay. !etitioner Maria Benita 5. Dulay, widow of the de%eased ;apoleon Dulay, in her own behalf Benita 5. Dulay, widow of the de%eased ;apoleon Dulay, in her own behalf and in behalf of her minor %hildren, (led an a%tion for damages against and in behalf of her minor %hildren, (led an a%tion for damages against Benigno 'orEuela and private respondents Safeguard and/or Superguard, Benigno 'orEuela and private respondents Safeguard and/or Superguard, alleged employers of defendant 'orEuela. )espondent Superguard (led a alleged employers of defendant 'orEuela. )espondent Superguard (led a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the %omplaint does not state a valid Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the %omplaint does not state a valid %ause of a
%ause of a%tion. Superguard %laimed that '%tion. Superguard %laimed that 'orEuelas a%t of orEuelas a%t of shooting Dulayshooting Dulay was beyond the s%ope of his duties, and that s
was beyond the s%ope of his duties, and that sin%e the alleged a%t ofin%e the alleged a%t of shooting was %ommitted with deliberate intent 8dolo9, the %ivil liability shooting was %ommitted with deliberate intent 8dolo9, the %ivil liability therefor is governed
therefor is governed by 5rti%le 7## by 5rti%le 7## of the )of the )evised !enal evised !enal Code. Code. SuperguardSuperguard further alleged that a %omplaint for
further alleged that a %omplaint for damages based on negligen%e underdamages based on negligen%e under 5rti%le "7= of the ;ew Civil Code, su%h as
5rti%le "7= of the ;ew Civil Code, su%h as the one (led by petitioners,the one (led by petitioners, %annot lie, sin%e the %ivil liability under 5rti%le "7= applies only to +uas %annot lie, sin%e the %ivil liability under 5rti%le "7= applies only to +uasii o*enses under 5rti%le HA of the )evised !
o*enses under 5rti%le HA of the )evised !enal Code. &n enal Code. &n addition, theaddition, the respondent argued that petitioners (ling of
respondent argued that petitioners (ling of the %omplaint is the %omplaint is prematurprematuree %onsidering that the %onvi%tion of 'orEuela in a %riminal %ase is a
%onsidering that the %onvi%tion of 'orEuela in a %riminal %ase is a %ondition
%ondition sine ua nonsine ua non for the employers subsidiary liability. )espondentfor the employers subsidiary liability. )espondent Safeguard also (led a motion praying
Safeguard also (led a motion praying that it be e-%luded as defendant on that it be e-%luded as defendant on thethe ground that defendant 'orEuela is not one of its employees. !etitioners
ground that defendant 'orEuela is not one of its employees. !etitioners
opposed both motions, stating that their %ause of a%tion against the private opposed both motions, stating that their %ause of a%tion against the private respondents is based on their liability under 5rti%le "7<# of the ;ew
respondents is based on their liability under 5rti%le "7<# of the ;ew CivilCivil Code. )espondent udge de%lare
Code. )espondent udge de%lared that the d that the %omplaint was one for damages%omplaint was one for damages founded on %rimes punishable under 5rti%les 7## and
founded on %rimes punishable under 5rti%les 7## and 7#H of the )evised7#H of the )evised !enal Code as distinguished from those
!enal Code as distinguished from those arising from, +uasideli%t.arising from, +uasideli%t. Issues0
Issues0 879
879 Whether or Whether or not 'not 'orEuela s a%orEuela s a%t of shooting t of shooting ;apoleon Dulay %;apoleon Dulay %onstitutes aonstitutes a +uasideli%t a%tionable under 5rti%le "7= of the ;ew Civil CodeF
+uasideli%t a%tionable under 5rti%le "7= of the ;ew Civil CodeF 8"9
8"9 Whether or Whether or not 5rti%le not 5rti%le HH of tHH of the ;ew Cihe ;ew Civil Code vil Code applies only applies only to inuriesto inuries intentionally %ommittedF and
intentionally %ommittedF and 8H9
8H9 Whether or Whether or not the not the liability oliability or rr respondents is espondents is subsidiary undesubsidiary under ther the )evised !enal Code.
)evised !enal Code. Hed0
Hed0
879 Res. 5rti%le "7= of the ;ew Civil Code provides that 2whoever by a%t or 879 Res. 5rti%le "7= of the ;ew Civil Code provides that 2whoever by a%t or omission %auses damage to another, there being fault
omission %auses damage to another, there being fault or negligen%e, isor negligen%e, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Su%h fault or negligen%e, if there is no obliged to pay for the damage done. Su%h fault or negligen%e, if there is no pree
pree-isting %ontra%tual relation between the parties -isting %ontra%tual relation between the parties is %alled a is %alled a +uasideli%t+uasideli%t and is governed by the provisions of this
and is governed by the provisions of this ChapterChapter.3 Contrary to the .3 Contrary to the theory oftheory of private respondents, ther
"7= of the
"7= of the Civil Code to Civil Code to a%ts or omissions a%ts or omissions resulting from negligen%e. Wresulting from negligen%e. Wellell entren%he
entren%hed is the d is the do%trine that arti%le "7= %overs not only a%ts %ommitteddo%trine that arti%le "7= %overs not only a%ts %ommitted with negligen%e, but also a%ts whi%h
with negligen%e, but also a%ts whi%h are voluntary and intentional.are voluntary and intentional.
8"9 ;o. 'he term 2physi%al inuries3 in 5rti%le HH has already been %onstrued 8"9 ;o. 'he term 2physi%al inuries3 in 5rti%le HH has already been %onstrued to in%lude bodily inuries %ausing death. &t
to in%lude bodily inuries %ausing death. &t is not the %rime of physi%al is not the %rime of physi%al inuriesinuries de(ned in the )evised !e
de(ned in the )evised !enal Code. &t nal Code. &t in%ludes not only physi%al inuries butin%ludes not only physi%al inuries but also %onsummated, frustrated, and attempted homi%ide. 5lthough in
also %onsummated, frustrated, and attempted homi%ide. 5lthough in thethe Mar%ia %ase, it was held that no
Mar%ia %ase, it was held that no independent %ivil a%tion may be (led underindependent %ivil a%tion may be (led under 5rti%le HH where the %rime is the result of %riminal negligen%e, it must be 5rti%le HH where the %rime is the result of %riminal negligen%e, it must be noted, however, that '
noted, however, that 'orEuela, the a%%used in orEuela, the a%%used in the %ase at the %ase at bar, is %hargedbar, is %harged with homi%ide, not with
with homi%ide, not with re%0less impruden%e, wherre%0less impruden%e, whereas the defendanteas the defendant in
in MarciaMarcia was %harged with re%0less impruden%e. 'herefore, in this %ase, was %harged with re%0less impruden%e. 'herefore, in this %ase, aa %ivil a%tion based on 5rti%le HH lies.
%ivil a%tion based on 5rti%le HH lies.
8H9 ;o. nder 5rti%le "7<# of the ;ew Civil Code, when
8H9 ;o. nder 5rti%le "7<# of the ;ew Civil Code, when an inury is %aused byan inury is %aused by the negligen%e of the employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law the negligen%e of the employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligen%e on the part of
that there was negligen%e on the part of the master or employer either in thethe master or employer either in the sele%tion of the servant or employee, or in
sele%tion of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him aftersupervision over him after sele%tion or both. 'he liability of
sele%tion or both. 'he liability of the employer under 5rti%le "7<# is dire%tthe employer under 5rti%le "7<# is dire%t and immediateF it is not %onditioned upon
and immediateF it is not %onditioned upon prior re%ourse against theprior re%ourse against the negligent employee and a prior showing of
negligent employee and a prior showing of the insolven%y of su%h employee.the insolven%y of su%h employee. 'herefor
'herefore, it is in%umbent upon the prive, it is in%umbent upon the private respondents to prate respondents to prove that theyove that they
e-e-er%ised the diligen%e of a good faer%ised the diligen%e of a good father of a family in ther of a family in the sele%tion andthe sele%tion and supervision of their employee.
