Bar Questions TortsAndDamages

8/18/2019 Bar Questions TortsAndDamages

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bar-questions-tortsanddamages 1/15

TORTS AND DAMAGES

Von Claude G. Alingcayon

ACTUAL BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS on TORTS and DAMAGES

COLLAPSE OF STRUCTURES; LAST CLEAR CHANCE

Mr and Mrs R own a burned-out building, the frewall o which collapsed and destroyed theshop occupied by the amily o Mr and Mrs , which resulted in in!uries to said couple andthe death o their daughter. Mr and Mrs had been warned by Mr " Mrs R to #acate theshop in #iew o its pro$imity to the wea%ened wall but the ormer ailed to do so. Mr " Mrs fled against Mr and Mrs R an action or reco#ery o damages the ormer su&ered as a resulto the collapse o the frewall. 'n de ense, Mr and Mrs R rely on the doctrine o last clearchance alleging that Mr and Mrs had the last clear chance to a#oid the accident i onlythey heeded the ormer(s warning to #acate the shop, and there ore Mr and Mrs R(s priornegligence should be disregarded. ' you were the !udge, how would you decide the case)

tate your reasons.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:' would decide in a#or o Mr " Mrs . *he proprietor o a building or structure is

responsible or the damages resulting rom its total or partial collapse, i it should be due tothe lac% o necessary repairs +Art / Ci#il Code0

As regards the de ense o 1last clear chance,2 the same is not tenable becauseaccording to the C in one case De Ro! " CA L#$%&'$( )an *+( '+$$( ',& S &,&- thedoctrine o last clear chance is not applicable to instances co#ered by Art / o the Ci#ilCode.

3urther, in P.oen/0 Cons123c1/on( Inc4 "4 In1e25ed/a1e A66e77a1e Co321 G4R4 L#8,*+,( Ma2c. '%( '+$&4 '9$ SCRA , - the upreme Court held that the role o thecommon law 4last clear chance4 doctrine in relation to Article 5 o the Ci#il Code ismerely to mitigate damages within the conte$t o contributory negligence.

DAMAGES

6n 7anuary 8, , 9onoy obtained a loan o : ,///,///.// rom his riend Ra&y. *hepromissory note did not stipulate any payment or 'nterest. *he note was due on 7anuary 8,

; but be ore this date the two became political enemies. 9onoy, out o spite, deliberatelyde aulted in paying the note, thus orcing Ra&y to sue him.

0 <hat actual damages can Ra&y reco#er)0 Can Ra&y as% or moral damages rom 9onoy)

;0 Can Ra&y as% or nominal damages)=0 Can Ra&y as% or temperate damages)80 Can Ra&y as% or attorney>s ees)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:0 Ra&y may reco#er the amount o the promissory note o : million, together with interest

at the legal rate rom the date o !udicial or e$tra!udicial demand. 'n addition, howe#er, inas much as the debtor is in bad aith, he is liable or all damages which may be reasonablyattributed to the non-per ormance o the obligation. +Art. / + 0 9CC0

0 ?es, under Article /, 9CC moral damages are reco#erable in case o breach o contractwhere the de endant acted raudulently or in bad aith.

;0 9ominal damages may not be reco#erable in this case because Ra&y may already beindemnifed o his losses with the award o actual and compensatory damages. 96M'9A@

AMAGB are ad!udicated only in order that a right o the plainti&, which has been #iolatedor in#aded by the de endant, may be #indicated or recogni ed, and not or the purpose o indemni ying the plainti& or any loss su&ered by him. +Article ; Ci#il Code0

=0 Ra&y may as% or, but would most li%ely not be awarded temperate damages, or thereason that his actual damages may already be compensated upon proo thereo with thepromissory note. *BM:BRA*B AMAGB may be awarded only when the court fnds that



some pecuniary loss has been su&ered but its amount cannot, rom the nature o the case,be pro#ed with certainty. +Article =, Ci#il Code0

80 ?es, under paragraph , Article /D o the Ci#il Code, considering that 9onoy>s act oromission has compelled Ra&y to litigate to protect his interests. 3urthermore, attorneys> eesmay be awarded by the court when it is !ust and eEuitable. +Article /D+ /0 Ci#il Code0

DAMAGES ARISING FROM DEATH OF UNBORN CHILD

6n her third month o pregnancy, Rosemarie, married to Foy, or reasons %nown only to her,

and without in orming Foy, went to the clinic o , a %nown abortionist, who or a ee,remo#ed and e$pelled the etus rom her womb, Foy learned o the abortion si$ +H0 monthslater.

A#ailing o that portion o ection o Article '' o the D5 Constitution which readsI *he tate $ $$ shall eEually protect the li e o the mother and the li e o the unborn romconception, 4$$$4 which he claims con ers a ci#il personality on the unborn rom themoment o conception.

Foy fled a case or damages against the abortionist, praying therein that the latter beordered to pay himJ+a0 :;/,///.// as indemnity or the death o the etus,+b0 : //.///.// as moral damages or the mental anguish and an$iety he su&ered,

+c0 :8/,///.// as e$emplary damages,+d0 : /,///.// as nominal damages, and+e0 : 8,///.// as attorney>s ees.May actual damages be also reco#ered) ' so, what acts should be alleged and pro#ed)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: ?es, pro#ided that the pecuniary loss su&ered should be substantiated and duly pro#ed.

DAMAGES ARISING FROM DEATH OF UNBORN CHILD

' a pregnant woman passenger o a bus were to su&er an abortion ollowing a #ehicularaccident due to the gross negligence o the bus dri#er, may she and her husband claimdamages rom the bus company or the death o their unborn child) B$plain. 8K

SUGGESTED ANSWER:9o, the spouses cannot reco#er actual damages in the orm o indemnity or the loss o li eo the unborn child. *his is because the unborn child is not yet considered a person and thelaw allows indemnity only or loss o li e o person. *he mother howe#er may reco#erdamages or the bodily in!ury she su&ered rom the loss o the etus which is considered parto her internal organ. *he parents may also reco#er damages or in!uries that are inLicteddirectly upon them, e.g., moral damages or mental anguish that attended the loss o theunborn child. ince there is gross negligence, e$emplary damages can also be reco#ered.

Ge73s "4 CA( * SCRA $%' '+8'<-

DEATH INDEMNIT=

7ohnny Maton>s con#iction or homicide was a rmed by the Court o Appeals and in addition,although the prosecution had not appealed at all. *he appellate court increased theindemnity or death rom :;/,///.// to :8/,///.//. 6n his appeal to the upreme Court,among the other things 7ohnny Maton brought to the high court>s attention, was the increaseo indemnity imposed by the Court o Appeals despite the clear act that the :eople had notappealed rom the appellate court(s !udgment. 's 7ohnny Maton correct)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:a0 'n A>e?a5 "4 Co321 o@ A66ea7s , the upreme Court said that e#en i the issue o damages was not raised by the appellant in the Court o Appeals but the Court o Appeals inits fndings increased the damages, the upreme Court will not disturb the fndings o theCourt o Appeals.



b0 9o, the contention o the accused is not correct because upon appeal to the AppellateCourt, the court acEuired !urisdiction o#er the entire case, criminal as well as ci#il. ince thecon#iction o homicide had been appealed, there is no fnality in the amount o indemnitybecause the ci#il liability arising rom the crime and the !udgment on the crime has not yetbecome fnal

c0 ?es. ince the ci#il indemnity is an award in the ci#il action arising rom the criminalo&ense, the rule that a party cannot be granted a rmati#e relie unless he himsel hasappealed should apply. *here ore, it was error or the Court o Appeals to ha#e e$panded theindemnity since the !udgment on the ci#il liability had become fnal.

d0 9o. Courts can re#iew matters not assigned as errors. H!d2o Reso32ce "s4 CA 4 *%9SCRA %+-4

DEFENSE; DUE DILIGENCE IN SELECTION

As a result o a collision between the ta$icab owned by A and another ta$icab owned by F,, a passenger o the frst ta$icab, was seriously in!ured. later fled a criminal action

against both dri#ers. May both ta$icab owners raise the de ense o due diligence in theselection and super#ision o their dri#ers to be absol#ed rom liability or damages to )Reason. 8K

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

't depends. ' the ci#il action is based on a Euasi-delict the ta$icab owners may raise thede ense o diligence o a god ather o a amily in the selection and super#ision o the dri#erIi the action against them is based on culpa contractual or ci#il liability arising rom a crime,they cannot raise the de ense.

FILING OF SEPARATE CI IL ACTION; NEED FOR RESER ATION

As a result o a collision between the ta$icab owned by A and another ta$icab owned by F,, a passenger o the frst ta$icab, was seriously in!ured. later fled a criminal action

against both dri#ers. 's it necessary or to reser#e his right to institute a ci#il action ordamages against both ta$icab owners be ore he can fle a ci#il action or damages againstthem) <hy

SUGGESTED ANSWER: 't depends. ' the separate ci#il action is to reco#er damages

arising rom the criminal act, reser#ation is necessary. ' the ci#il action against the ta$icabowners is based on culpa contractual, or on Euasi-delict, there is no need orreser#ation.

ALTERNATI E ANSWER:9o, such reser#ation is not necessary. Nnder ection o Rule o the /// Rules onCriminal :rocedure, what is deemed instituted2 with the criminal action is only the action toreco#er ci#il liability arising rom the crime or e$ delicto. All the other ci#il actions underArticles ; , ;;, ;= and 5Ho the 9ew Ci#il Code are no longer 1deemed instituted2, andmay be fled separately and prosecuted independently e#en without any reser#ation in thecriminal action + ection ;, Rule , 'bid0. *he ailure to ma%e a reser#ation in the criminalaction is not a wai#er o the right to fle a separate and independent ci#il action based onthese articles o the 9ew Ci#il Code Cas36anan "4 La2o!a GR No4 '9, +'( A3 3s1 *8(*%%*-4

FORTUITOUS E ENT; MECHANICAL DEFECTS

A #an owned by 6rlando and dri#en by iego, while negotiating a downhill slope o a cityroad, suddenly gained speed, ob#iously beyond the authori ed limit in the area, and bumpeda car in ront o it, causing se#ered damage to the care and serious in!uries to itspassengers. 6rlando was not in the car at the time o the incident. *he car owner and thein!ured passengers sued 6rlando and iego or damages caused by iego(s negligence. 'ntheir de ense, iego claims that the downhill slope caused the #an to gain speed and that,as he stepped on the bra%es to chec% the acceleration, the bra%es loc%ed, causing the #an togo e#en aster and e#entually to hit the car in ront o it. 6rlando and iego contend that the

;



sudden mal unction o the #an(s bra%e system is a ortuitous e#en and that, there ore, theyare e$empt rom any liability. 's this contention tenable) B$plain. + K0

SUGGESTED ANSWER:9o. Mechanical de ects o a motor #ehicle do not constitute ortuitous e#ent, since thepresence o such de ects would ha#e been readily detected by diligent maintenance chec%.

*he ailure to maintain the #ehicle in sa e running condition constitutes negligence.

=



LIABILIT=; AIRLINE COMPAN=; NON#PERFORM ANCE OF AN OBLIGATION

* and M* were prominent members o the reEuent tra#elers( club o 3 Airlines. 'n OongPong, the couples were assigned seats in Fusiness Class or which they had bought tic%ets.6n chec%ing in, howe#er, they were told they were upgraded by computer to 3irst Class orthe Light to Manila because the Fusiness ection was o#erboo%ed. Foth re used to trans erdespite better seats, ood, be#erage and other ser#ices in 3irst Class. *hey said they hadguests in Fusiness Class they should attend to. *hey elt humiliated, embarrassed and#e$ed, howe#er, when the stewardess allegedly threatened to oQoad them i they did nota#ail o the upgrade. *hus they ga#e in, but during the trans er o luggage * su&ered pain

in his arm and wrist. A ter arri#al in Manila, they demanded an apology rom 3 (smanagement as well as indemnity payment. <hen none was orthcoming, they sued theairline or a million pesos in damages. 's the airline liable or actual and moral damages)<hy or why not) B$plain brieLy. +8K0

SUGGESTED ANSWER:3 Airlines committed breach o contract when it upgraded * and M*, o#er their ob!ections,to 3irst Class because they had contracted or Fusiness Class passage. Oowe#er, althoughthere is a breach o contract, * and M* are entitled to actual damages only or suchpecuniary losses su&ered by them as a result o such breach. *here seems to be no showingthat they incurred such pecuniary loss. *here is no showing that the pain in *>s arm andwrist resulted directly rom the carrier>s acts complained o . Oence, they are not entitled toactual damages. Moreo#er, * could ha#e a#oided the alleged in!ury by reEuesting the

airline sta& to do the luggage trans er as a matter o duty on their part. *here is also nobasis to award moral damages or such breach o contract because the acts o the problemdo not show bad aith or raud on the part o the airline. Ca1.a! Pac/ c "4 a 3e ( ++SCRA *%& *%% <-4 Oowe#er, they may reco#er moral damages i the cause o action isbased on Article o the Ci#il Code or the humiliation and embarrassment they elt whenthe stewardess threatened to oQoad them i they did not a#ail o the upgrade.

ALTERNATI E ANSWER:' it can be pro#ed that *>s pain in his arm and wrist occasioned by the trans er o luggagewas caused by ault or negligence on the part o the airline>s stewardess, actual damagesmay be reco#ered. *he airline may be liable or moral damages pursuant to Art. + /0 i the cause o action is based on Article or an act contrary to morals in #iew o thehumiliation su&ered by * and M* when they were separated rom their guests and were

threatened to be oQoaded.LIABILIT=; AIRLINE COMPAN=; NON#PERFORM ANCE OF AN OBLIGATION

r. and Mrs. Almeda are prominent citi ens o the country and are reEuent tra#elers abroad.'n H, they boo%ed round-trip business class tic%ets or the Manila-Oong Pong-Manila routeo the :inoy Airlines, where they are holders o Gold Mabalos Class 3reEuent 3lier cards. 6ntheir return Light, :inoy Airlines upgraded their tic%ets to frst class without their consentand, in spite o their protestations to be allowed to remain in the business class so that theycould be with their riends, they were told that the business class was already ully boo%ed,and that they were gi#en priority in upgrading because they are elite members holders o Gold Mabalos Class cards. ince they were embarrassed at the discussions with the Lightattendants, they were orced to ta%e the Light at the frst class section apart rom their

riends who were in the business class. Npon their return to Manila, they demanded a written

apology rom :inoy Airlines. <hen it went unheeded, the couple sued :inoy Airlines orbreach o contract claiming moral and e$emplary damages, as well as attorney(s ees. <illthe action prosper) Gi#e reasons. +8K0

' s1 ALTERNATI E ANSWER: ?es, the action will prosper. Article / o the Ci#il Code entitles the person to reco#erdamages which may be attributed to non-per ormance o an obligation. 'n A7/1a7/a A/2 a!s"4 Co321 o@ A66ea7s G4R4 No4 &&%''( )37! *9( '++%- , when an airline issues tic%et to apassenger confrmed on a particular Light, a contract o carriage arises and the passengere$pects that he would Ly on that day. <hen the airline deliberately o#erboo%ed, it too% theris% o ha#ing to depri#e some passengers o their seat in case all o them would show up.3or the indignity and incon#enience o being re used the confrmed seat, said passenger is

8



fled against Marcia land Fen, see%ing to hold them !ointly and se#erally liable or suchin!uries. May Marcial be held liable) B$plain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:Marcial may not be liable because under Art. D=, 9CC, the owner who is in the #ehicle isnot liable with the dri#er i by the e$ercise o due diligence he could ha#e pre#entedthein!ury. *he law does not reEuire the owner to super#ise the dri#er e#ery minute that hewas dri#ing. 6nly when through his negligence, the owner has lost an opportunity to pre#entthe accident would he be liable + Caedo "4 =11 .e T.a/( *8 SCRA 9'% c/1/n C.a65an"4 Unde2 ood and Man7an /1 "4Ma37e2( *,% SCRA ,8%-4 'n this case, the act that theowner was absorbed in reading a boo% does not conclusi#ely show that he lost theopportunity to pre#ent the accident through his negligence.

ALTERNATI E ANSWER: ?es, Marcial should be held liable. Art. H=. 9CC ma%es an owner o a motor #ehiclesolidarily liable with the dri#er i , being in the #ehicle at the time o the mishap, he couldha#e pre#ented it by the e$ercise o due diligence. *he tra c conditions along B A at anytime o day or night are such as to reEuire the obser#ance o utmost care and total alertnessin #iew o the large number o #ehicles running at great speed. Marcial was negligent in thathe rendered himsel obli#ious to the tra c ha ards by reading a boo% instead o ocusing hisattention on the road and super#ising the manner in which his car was being dri#en. *hus he

ailed to pre#ent his dri#er rom attempting to beat the tra c light at the !unction o Tue onA#enue and B A, which Marcial, without being a dri#er himsel could ha#e easily percei#edas a rec%less course o conduct.

LIABILIT=; OWNER WHO WAS IN THE EHICLE

A Gallant dri#en by 7ohn and owned by Art, and a Corolla dri#en by its owner Gina, collidedsomewhere along Adriatic treet. As a result o the accident, Gina had a concussion.

ubseEuently, Gina brought an action or damages against 7ohn and Art. *here is no doubtthat the collision is due to 7ohn>s negligence. Can Art, who was in the #ehicle at the time o the accident, be held solidarily liable with his dri#er, 7ohn) +8K0

SUGGESTED ANSWER: ?es. Art may be held solidary liable with 7ohn, i it was pro#en that the ormer could ha#e

pre#ented the mis ortune with the use o due diligence. Article D= o the Ci#il Code statesJ4'n motor mishaps, the owner is solidary liable with his dri#er, i the ormer, who was in the#ehicle, could ha#e, by the use o due diligence, pre#ented the mis ortune, $ $ $4

ALTERNATI E ANSWER:. 't depends. *he upreme Court in C.a65an "s( Unde2 ood *& P./7 &9-( heldJ 4An

owner who sits in his automobile, or other #ehicle, and permits his dri#er to continue in a#iolation o law by the per ormance o negligent acts, a ter he has had a reasonableopportunity to obser#e them and to direct that the dri#er cease there rom, becomes himsel responsible or such acts, $ $ $ 6n the other hand, i the dri#er, by a sudden act o negligence, and without the owner ha#ing a reasonable opportunity to pre#ent the act or itscontinuance, in!ures a person or #iolates the criminal law, the owner o the automobile,although present therein at the time the act was committed is not responsible, either ci#illyor criminally, there or. *he act complained o must be continued in the presence o theowner or such a length o time that the owner, by his acEuiescence, ma%es his dri#er>s acthis own.4

LIABILIT=; OWNER WHO WAS IN THE EHICLE

oes the presence o the owner inside the #ehicle causing damage to a third party a&ect hisliability or his dri#er(s negligence) B$plain + K0

SUGGESTED ANSWER:'n motor #ehicle mishaps, the owner is made solidarily liable with his dri#er i he +the owner0was in the #ehicle and could ha#e, by the use o due diligence, pre#ented the mishap.

Caedo "4 =3 .e T.a/( *8 SCRA 9'% '+8$<-45



MORAL DAMAGES ATT= FEES

6rtillo contracts 3abricato, 'nc. to supply and install tile materials in a building he is donatingto his pro#ince. 6rtillo pays 8/K o the contract price as per agreement. 't is also agreedthat the balance would be payable periodically a ter e#ery /K per ormance untilcompleted. A ter per orming about ;K o the contract, or which it has been paid anadditional =/K as per agreement, 3abricato, 'nc. did not complete the pro!ect due to itssudden cessation o operations. 'nstead, 3abricato, 'nc. demands payment o the last /K o the contract despite its non-completion o the pro!ect. 6rtillo re uses to pay, in#o%ing the

stipulation that payment o the last amount /K shall be upon completion. 3abricato, 'nc.brings suit or the entire /K. :lus damages, 6rtillo counters with claims or +a0 moraldamages or 3abricato, 'nc.(s un ounded suit which has damaged his reputation as aphilanthropist and respect businessman in hiscommunity, and +b0 attorney(s ees.A. oes 6rtillo ha#e a legal basis or his claim or moral damages) + K0F. Oow about his claim or attorney(s ees, ha#ing hired a lawyer to de end him) +;K0

SUGGESTED ANSWER:A. *here is no legal basis to 6rtillo(s claim or moral damages. 't does not all under theco#erage o Article o the 9ew Ci#il Code.F. 6rtillo is entitled to attorney(s ees because 3abricato(s complaint is a case o malicious

prosecution or a clearly un ounded ci#il action. +Art. /D U= and U , 9CC0.MORAL DAMAGES; NON#RECO ER= THEREOF

Nnder Article o the Ci#il Code, moral damages may be reco#ered in the casesspecifed therein se#eral o which are enumerated below. Choose the case wherein youcannot reco#er moral damages. B$plain. + .8K0 a0 A criminal o&ense resulting in physicalin!uriesb0 Tuasi-delicts causing physical in!uriesc0 'mmorality or dishonestyd0 'llegal searche0 Malicious prosecution

SUGGESTED ANSWER: 'mmorality and dishonesty, per se, are not among those cases

enumerated in Article which can be the basis o an action or moral damages. *he lawspecifcally mentions adultery or concubinage, etc. but not any and e#ery immoral act.

QUASI#DELICT

As the result o a collision between a public ser#ice passenger bus and a cargo truc% ownedby , sustained physical in!uries and ? died. Foth and ? were passengers o the bus.Foth dri#ers were at ault, and so and S, the only heir and legitimate child o the deceased

?, sued the owners o both #ehicles.a0 May the owner o the bus raise the de ense o ha#ing e$ercised the diligence o a good

ather o a amily)b0 May raise the same de ense)c0 May claim moral damages rom both de endants)d0 May S claim moral damages rom both de endants) Gi#e reasons or all your answers,

SUGGESTED ANSWER:+a0 9o. *he owner o the bus cannot raise the de ense because the carrier>s liability is basedon breach o contract+b0 ?es. can raise the de ense because his liability is based on a Euasi-delict.+c0 Fecause su&ered physical in!uries, can claim moral damages against , but asagainst the owner o the bus. can claim moral damages only i pro#es rec%lessnegligence o the carrier amounting to raud.+d0 S can claim moral damages against both de endants because the rules on damagesarising rom death due to a Euasi-delict are also applicable to death o a passenger caused

D



by breach o contract by a common carrier +Arts. 588. 58H, 5H=, /H and . Ci#ilCode0.

QUASI#DELICT

Nnder the law on Euasi-delict, aside rom the persons who caused in!ury to persons, whoelse are liable under the ollowing circumstancesJ

a- <hen a 5-year old boy in!ures his playmate while playing with his ather>s riLe. B$plain.+ K0

SUGGESTED ANSWER: *he parents o the 5-year old boy who caused in!ury to his playmate are liable under Article o the 3amily Code, in relation to Article D/ o the Ci#il Code since they e$ercise

parental authority o#er the person o the boy. Ta5a2 o "4 Co321 o@ A66ea7s( G4R4 No4$,%99( )3ne ( '++*; E7cano "4 H/77(G4R4 No4 L#*9$% ( Ma! *8( '+&&-

>- <hen a domestic helper, while haggling or a lower price with a fsh #endor in the courseo buying oodstu&s or her employer>s amily, slaps the fsh #endor, causing her to all andsustain in!uries. B$plain. + K0 SUGGESTED ANSWER:

*he employer o the domestic helper who slapped a fsh #endor. Nnder Article D/, par. 8 o the Ci#il Code, 4employers shall be liable or the damages caused by their employees andhousehold helpers acting within the scope o their assigned tas%s, e#en though the ormer

are not engaged in any business or industry.4

c- A carpenter in a construction company accidentally hits the right oot o his co-wor%erwith a hammer. B$plain. + K0 SUGGESTED ANSWER:

*he owner o the construction company. Article D/, paragraph = states that 4the ownersand managers o an establishment or enterprise are li%ewise responsible or damagescaused by their employees in the ser#ice o the branches in which the latter are employed oron the occasion o their unctions.4

d- A 8-year old high school student stabs his classmate who is his ri#al or a girl while theywere going out o the classroom a ter their last class. B$plain. + K0

SUGGESTED ANSWER: *he school, teacher and administrator as they e$ercise special parental authority. +Art. D/,par. 5 in relation to Art. Dand Art. o the 3amily Code0

e- <hat de ense, i any, is a#ailable to them) + K0 SUGGESTED ANSWER:

*he de ense that might be a#ailable to them is the obser#ance o a good ather o the amilyto pre#ent the damage. +@ast par., Art. D/, Ci#il Code0

QUASI#DELICT; ACTS CONTRAR= TO MORALS

Rosa was leasing an apartment in the city. Fecause o the Rent Control @aw, her landlordcould not increase the rental as much as he wanted to, nor terminate her lease as long asshe was paying her rent. 'n order to orce her to lea#e the premises, the landlord stopped

ma%ing repairs on the apartment, and caused the water and electricity ser#ices to bedisconnected. *he di culty o li#ing without electricity and running water resulted in Rosa>ssu&ering a ner#ous brea%down. he sued the landlord or actual and moral damages. <illthe action prosper) B$plain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: ?es, based on Euasi-delict under the human relations pro#isions o the 9ew Ci#il Code+Articles , / and 0 because the act committed by the lessor is contrary to morals. Moraldamages are reco#erable under Article + /0 in relation to Article . Although theaction is based on Euasi-delict and not on contract, actual damages may be reco#ered i thelessee is able to pro#e the losses and e$penses she su&ered.



ALTERNATI E ANSWERS:a0 ?es, based on breach o contract. *he lessor has the obligation to underta%e repairs toma%e the apartment habitable and to maintain the lessee in the peace ul and adeEuateen!oyment o the lease or the entire duration o the contract +Article H8=. 9CC0. incethere was will ul breach o contract by the lessor, the lessee is entitled to moral damagesunder Article ; /, 9CC. he is also entitled to actual damages, e. g. loss o income, medicale$penses, etc., which she can pro#e at the trial.

b0 ?es, based on contract and or on tort. *he lessor will ully breached his obligations underArticle H8=. 9CC, hence, he is liable or breach o contract. 3or such breach, the lessee mayreco#er moral damages under Art. / o the 9CC, and actual damages that she may ha#esu&ered on account thereo . And since the conduct o the lessor was contrary to morals, hemay also be held liable or Euasi-delict. *he lessee may reco#er moral damages underArticle + /0 in relation to Article , and all actual damages which she may ha#esu&ered by reason o such conduct under Articles , /and .

c0 ?es, the action should prosper or both actual and moral damages. 'n act, e#en e$emplarydamages and attorney>s ees can be claimed by Rosa, on the authority o Ma >an3a"s4IAC ' & SCRA *$- , considering that, as gi#en, the lessor>s will ul and illegal act o disconnecting the water and electric ser#ices resulted in Rosa>s su&ering a ner#ousbrea%down. Art. / 9CC and Art, , 9CC authori e the award o damages or such will uland illegal conduct.

/



QUASI#DELICT; MISMANAGEMENT OF DEPOSITOR S ACCOUNT

*ony bought a 3ord B$pedition rom a car dealer in Muntinlupa City. As payment, *onyissued a chec% drawn against his current account with :remium Fan%. ince he has a goodreputation, the car dealer allowed him to immediately dri#e home the #ehicle merely on hisassurance that his chec% is su ciently unded. <hen the car dealer deposited the chec%, itwas dishonored on the ground o 4Account Closed.W A ter an in#estigation, it was ound thatan employee o the ban% misplaced *ony>s account ledger. *hus, the ban% erroneouslyassumed that his account no longer e$ists. @ater it turned out that *ony>s account has morethan su cient unds to co#er the chec%. *he dealer howe#er, immediately fled an action or

reco#ery o possession o the #ehicle against *ony or which he was terribly humiliated andembarrassed. oes *ony ha#e a cause o action against :remium Fan%) B$plain.+8K0

SUGGESTED ANSWER: ?es, *ony may fle an action against :remium Fan% or damages under Art. 5H. B#en i there e$ist a contractual relationship between *ony and :remium Fan%, an action or Euasi-delict may nonetheless prosper. *he upreme Court has consistently ruled that the act thatbrea%s the contract may also be a tort. *here is a fduciary relationship between the ban%and the depositor, imposing utmost diligence in managing the accounts o the depositor. *hedishonor o the chec% ad#ersely a&ected the credit standing o *ony, hence, he is entitled todamages S/n son "4 BPI( G4R4 No4 L#*9+ *( )3ne *&( '+8$; A5e2/can E062essIn1e2na1/ona7( Inc4 "4 IAC( G4R4 No4 &* $ ( No"e5>e2 +( '+$$;Conso7/da1ed BanJ and T23s1 "4 CA( G4R4 No4 L#&%&88No"e5>e2 +('++$-4

ICARIOUS LIABILIT=

Romano was bumped by a mini#an owned by the olomon chool o :ractical Arts + :A0. *he mini#an was dri#en by :eter, a student assistant whose assignment was to clean theschool passageways daily one hour be ore and one hour a ter regular classes, in e$change

or ree tuition. :eter was able to dri#e the school #ehicle a ter persuading the regular dri#er,:aul, to turn o#er the wheel to him +:eter0. Romano su&ered serious physical in!uries. *heaccident happened at night when only one headlight o the #ehicle was unctioning and:eter only had a student dri#er>s permit. As a conseEuence, :eter was con#icted in thecriminal case. *herea ter, Romano sued or damages against :eter and :A. a0 <ill theaction or damages against :eter and :A prosper) b0 <ill your answer be the same i , :aul,the regular dri#er, was impleaded as party de endant or allowing :eter to dri#e the mini#anwithout a regular dri#er(s license. c0 's the e$ercise o due diligence in the selection and

super#ision o :eter and :aul a material issue to be resol#ed in this case)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:A. ?es. 't will prosper +Art, D/0 because at the time he dro#e the #ehicle, he was notper orming his assigned tas%s as pro#ided or by Art. D/. <ith respect to :A, it is notliable or the acts o :eter because the latter was not an employee as held by upremeCourt in F/7a5e2 C.2/s1/anIns1/131e "s4 CA4 '+% SCRA 9$,-4 :eter belongs to a specialcategory o students who render ser#ice to the school in e$change or ree tuition ees.

F. ' would maintain the same answer because the incident did not occur while the employeewas in the per ormance o his duty as such employee. *he incident occurred at night time,and in any case, there was no indication in the problem that he was per orming his duties asa dri#er.

C. 'n the case o :eter, i he were to be considered as employee, the e$ercise o duediligence in the selection and super#ision o peter would not be a material issue since thecon#iction o :eter would result in a subsidiary liability where the de ense would not bea#ailable by the employer. 'n the case o :aul, since the basis o subsidiary liability is thepater amilias rule under Art. D/, the de ense o selection and super#ision o the employeewould be a #alid de ense.

ALTERNATI E ANSWER:C. 'n the case o :eter, i he were to be considered an employee, the e$ercise o duediligence in the selection and super#ision o :eter would not be a material issue since thecon#iction o :eter would result in a subsidiary liability where the de ense would not be



a#ailable by the employer. 'n the case o :aul, since he was in the per ormance o his wor%at the time the incident occurred, the school may beheld subsidiary liable not because o thecon#iction o :eter, but because o the negligence o :aul under Art. D/.



ICARIOUS LIABILIT=

A ter wor%ing o#ertime up to midnight, Alberto, an e$ecuti#e o an insurance company dro#ea company #ehicle to a a#orite Video%e bar where he had some drin%s and sang somesongs with riends to 4unwind4. At J// a.m., he dro#e home, but in doing so, he bumped atricycle, resulting in the death o its dri#er. May the insurance company be held liable or thenegligent act o Alberto) <hy)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: *he insurance company is not liable because when the accident occurred, Alberto was not

acting within the assigned tas%s o his employment. 't is true that under Art. D/ +par. 80,employers are liable or damages caused by their employees who were acting within thescope o their assigned tas%s. Oowe#er, the mere act that Alberto was using a ser#ice#ehicle o the employer at the time o the in!urious accident does not necessarily mean thathe was operating the #ehicle within the scope o his employment. 'n Cas1/7e0 Ind3s12/a7Co264 "4 as 3e )2 *' SCRA + '+++<- .the upreme Court held that notwithstandingthe act that the employee did some o#ertime wor% or the company, the ormer was,ne#ertheless, engaged in his own a&airs or carrying out a personal purpose when he went toa restaurant at J// a.m. a ter coming out rom wor%. *he time o the accident +also J// a.m.0 was outside normal wor%ing hours.

ALTERNATI E ANSWER: *he insurance company is liable i Alberto was negligent in the operation o the car and the

car was assigned to him or the beneft o the insurance company, and e#en though he wasnot within the scope o his assigned tas%s when the accident happened. 'n one case decidedby the upreme Court, where an e$ecuti#e o a pharmaceutical company was gi#en the useo a company car, and a ter o ce hours, the e$ecuti#e made personal use o the car andmet an accidentI the employer was also made liable under Art. D/ o the Ci#il Code or thein!ury caused by the negligent operation o the car by the e$ecuti#e, on the ground that thecar which caused the in!ury was assigned to the e$ecuti#e by the employer or the prestigeo the company. *he insurance company was held liable e#en though the employee was notper orming within the scope o his assigned tas%s when the accident happened a7en 3e7a"4 CA( *, SCRA O '++8-<4

ICARIOUS LIABILIT=

B$plain the concept o #icarious liability in Euasi-delicts.+ K0

SUGGESTED ANSWER: *he doctrine o V'CAR'6N @'AF'@'*? is that which renders a person liable or the negligenceo others or whose acts or omission the law ma%es him responsible on the theory that theyare under his control and super#ision.

ICARIOUS LIABILIT=

67 was employed as pro essional dri#er o MM *ransit bus owned by Mr. F*. 'n the course o his wor%, 67 hit a pedestrian who was seriously in!ured and later died in the hospital as aresult o the accident. *he #ictim(s heirs sued the dri#er and the owner o the bus ordamages. 's there a presumption in this case that Mr. F*, the owner, had been negligent) ' so, is the presumption absolute or not) B$plain. +8K0

SUGGESTED ANSWER: ?es, there is a presumption o negligence on the part o the employer. Oowe#er, suchpresumption is rebuttable. *he liability o the employer shall cease when they pro#e thatthey obser#ed the diligence o a good ather o a amily to pre#ent damage +Article D/,Ci#il Code0.

<hen the employee causes damage due to his own negligence while per orming his ownduties, there arises the juris tantum presumption that the employer is negligent, rebuttableonly by proo o obser#ance o the diligence o a good ather o a amily Me12o Man/7aT2ans/1 "4 CA( ** SCRA ,*' '++ <; De7san T2ans6o21 L/nes "( C 1A Cons123c1/on(9'* SCRA ,*9*%% -4

;



@i%ewise, i the dri#er is charged and con#icted in a criminal case or criminal negligence, F*is subsidiarily liable or the damages arising rom the criminal act.

=



ICARIOUS LIABILIT=

Arturo sold his :a!ero to Fen!amin or : Million. Fen!amin too% the #ehicle but did notregister the sale with the @and *ransportation 6 ce. Oe allowed his son Carlos, a minor whodid not ha#e a dri#er>s license, to dri#e the car to buy pan de sal in a ba%ery. 6n the way,Carlos dri#ing in a rec%less manner sideswiped ennis, then riding a bicycle. As a result, hesu&ered serious physical in!uries. ennis fled a criminal complaint against Carlos orrec%less imprudence resulting in serious physical in!uries.'4 Can ennis fle an independent ci#il action against Carlos and his ather Fen!amin ordamages based on Euasi-delict) B$plain. + .8K0

SUGGESTED ANSWER: ?es, ennis can fle an independent ci#il action against Carlos and his ather or damagesbased on Euasi-delict there being an act or omission causing damage to another withoutcontractual obligation. Nnder ection o Rule o the /// Rules on Criminal :rocedure,what is deemed instituted with the criminal action is only the action to reco#er ci#il liabilityarising rom the act or omission punished by law. An action based on Euasi-delict is nolonger deemed instituted and may be fled separately U ection ;, Rule , Rules o Criminal:rocedure .

*4 Assuming ennis> action is tenable, can Fen!amin raise the de ense that he is not liablebecause the #ehicle is not registered in his name) B$plain. + .8K0 SUGGESTED ANSWER:9o, Fen!amin cannot raise the de ense that the #ehicle is not registered in his name. Ois

liability, #icarious in character, is based on Article D/ because he is the ather o a minorwho caused damage due to negligence. <hile the suit will prosper against the registeredowner, it is the actual owner o the pri#ate #ehicle who is ultimately liable See D3a"/1"4CA( G4R4 No4 L#*+&,+( Ma! '$( '+$+-4 *he purpose o car registration is to reducedi culty in identi ying the party liable incase o accidents /77an3e"a "4 Do5/n o( G4R4No4 '99*&9( Se61e5>e2 '9( *%%9-4

ICARIOUS LIABILIT=; PUBLIC UTILIT=

il#estre leased a car rom A#is-Rent-A-Car Co. at the Mactan 'nternational Airport. 9o soonerhad he dri#en the car outside the airport when, due to his negligence, he bumped an 3 ta$iowned and dri#en by Victor, causing damage to the latter in the amount o : //,///.//.Victor fled an action or damages against both il#estre and A#is, based on Euasi-delict.A#is fled a motion to dismiss the complaint against it on the ground o ailure to state a

cause o action. Resol#e the motion. +;K0

SUGGESTED ANSWER: *he motion to dismiss should be granted, AV' is not the employer o il#estreI hence, thereis no right o action against AV' under Article D/ o the Ci#il Code. 9ot being theemployer, AV' has no duty to super#ise il#estre. 9either has AV' the duty to obser#e duediligence in the selection o its customers. Fesides, it was gi#en in the problem that thecause o the accident was the negligence o il#estre.

ALTERNATI E ANSWER: *he motion should be denied. Nnder the :ublic er#ice @aw, the registered owner o a publicutility is liable or the damages su&ered by third persons through the use o such publicutility. Oence, the cause o action is based in law, the :ublic er#ice @aw.

8

Bar Questions TortsAndDamages

Documents

Transcript of Bar Questions TortsAndDamages