Case torts

7/25/2019 Case torts

1/40

1

G.R. No. L-65295 March 10, 1987

PHOENIX CONSTRCTION, INC. a!" #RM#N$O

. C#R%ONEL, petitioners,

vs.

THE INTERME$I#TE #PPELL#TE CORT a!"LEON#R$O $IONISIO, respondents.

&ELICI#NO, J:

In the early morning of 15 November 1975 at about

1:3 a.m. private respondent !eonardo "ionisio

#as on his #ay home he lived in 1$1%&' (amora

)treet, 'ang*al, +a*ati from a o*tails&and&dinner

meeting #ith his boss, the general manager of amar*eting orporation. "uring the o*tails phase of

the evening, "ionisio had ta*en -a shot or t#o- of

liuor. "ionisio #as driving his /ol*s#agen ar and

had 0ust rossed the intersetion of eneral !auna

and eneral )antos )treets at 'ang*al, +a*ati, not

far from his home, and #as proeeding do#n eneral

!auna )treet, #hen his ar headlights 2in his

allegation suddenly failed. 4e s#ithed his headlights

on -bright- and thereupon he sa# a ord dump tru*

looming some $&16$ meters a#ay from his ar. he

dump tru*, o#ned by and registered in the name ofpetitioner 8hoeni onstrution In. 2-8hoeni-, #as

par*ed on the right hand side of eneral !auna

)treet 2i.e., on the right hand side of a person faing

in the same diretion to#ard #hih "ionisio;s ar #as

proeeding, faing the onoming traffi. he dump

tru* #as par*ed as*e# 2not parallel to the street

urb in suh a manner as to sti* out onto the street,

partly blo*ing the #ay of onoming traffi. here

#ere no lights nor any so&alled -early #arning-

refletor devies set any#here near the dump tru*,

front or rear. he dump tru* had earlier that eveningbeen driven home by petitioner


2/40

2

plaintiff before the filing of this ase in

ourt for a smaller amount.

25 o pay the plaintiff 0ointly and

severally the sum of 8 %,5. due

as and for attorney;s fees> and

2? he ost of suit. 2@mphasis

supplied

8hoeni and arbonel appealed to the Intermediate


3/40

3

negligene #hih must bear upon the liability, or

etent of liability, of 8hoeni and arbonel.

here are four fatual issues that need to be loo*ed

into: 2a #hether or not private respondent "ionisio

had a urfe# pass valid and effetive for that eventful

night> 2b #hether "ionisio #as driving fast orspeeding 0ust before the ollision #ith the dump tru*>

2 #hether "ionisio had purposely turned off his ar;s

headlights before ontat #ith the dump tru* or

#hether those headlights aidentally malfuntioned

moments before the ollision> and 2d #hether

"ionisio #as intoiated at the time of the aident.


4/40

4

preise veloity at #inh "ionisio #as travelling 0ust

before impat #ith the 8hoeni dump tru*.

< third related issue is #hether "ionisio purposely

turned off his headlights, or #hether his headlights

aidentally malfuntioned, 0ust moments before the

aident. he Intermediate


5/40

5

invaria"ly the case, the latter are the

result of other active forces which

have gone "efore.he defendant #ho

spills gasoline about the premises

reates a -ondition,- but the at may

be ulpable beause of the danger of

fire. Bhen a spar* ignites thegasoline, the ondition has done uite

as muh to bring about the fire as the

spar*> and sine that is the very ris*

#hih the defendant has reated, the

defendant #ill not esape

responsibility. #ven the lapse of a

considera"le tie during which the

$condition$ reains static will not

necessarily affect lia"ility%one #ho

digs a trenh in the high#ay may still

be liable to another #ho fans into it amonth after#ard. $Cause$ and

$condition$ still find occasional

ention in the decisions% "ut the

distinction is now alost entirely

discredited.)o far as it has any

validity at all, it must refer to the type

of ase #here the fores set in

operation by the defendant have ome

to rest in a position of apparent safety,

and some ne# fore intervenes. But

even in such cases, it is not thedistinction "etween $cause$ and

$condition$ which is iportant "ut the

nature of the ris& and the character of

the intervening cause. 9

Be believe, seondly, that the tru* driver;s

negligene far from being a -passive and stati

ondition- #as rather an indispensable and effiient

ause. he ollision bet#een the dump tru* and the

private respondent;s ar #ould in an probability not

have ourred had the dump tru* not been par*edas*e# #ithout any #arning lights or refletor devies.

he improper par*ing of the dump tru* reated an

unreasonable ris* of in0ury for anyone driving do#n

eneral !auna )treet and for having so reated this

ris*, the tru* driver must be held responsible. In our

vie#, "ionisio;s negligene, although later in point of

time than the tru* driver;s negligene and therefore

loser to the aident, #as not an effiient intervening

or independent ause. Bhat the 8etitioners desribe

as an -intervening ause- #as no more than a

foreseeable onseuent manner #hih the tru*

driver had par*ed the dump tru*. In other #ords, the

petitioner tru* driver o#ed a duty to private

respondent "ionisio and others similarly situated not

to impose upon them the very ris* the tru* driver had

reated. "ionisio;s negligene #as not of an

independent and overpo#ering nature as to ut, as it#ere, the hain of ausation in fat bet#een the

improper par*ing of the dump tru* and the aident

nor to sever the 0uris vinulum of liability. It is helpfu

to uote one more from 8rofessor and Eeeton:

'oreseea"le (ntervening Causes. (

the intervening cause is one which in

ordinary huan e)perience is

reasona"ly to "e anticipated or one

which the defendant has reason to

anticipate under the particularcircustances, the defendant ay "e

negligence aong other reasons,

"ecause of failure to guard against it%

or the defendant ay "e negligent

only for that reason.hus one #ho

sets a fire may be reuired to foresee

that an ordinary, usual and ustomary

#ind arising later #ig spread it beyond

the defendant;s o#n property, and

therefore to ta*e preautions to

prevent that event. he person #holeaves the ombustible or eplosive

material eposed in a publi plae

may foresee the ris* of fire from some

independent soure. ... (n all of these

cases there is an intervening cause

co"ining with the defendant*s

conduct to produce the result and in

each case the defendant*s negligence

consists in failure to protect the

plaintiff against that very ris&.

+"viously the defendant cannot "e

relieved fro lia"ility "y the fact that

the ris& or a su"stantial and iportant

part of the ris&, to which the defendant

has su"ected the plaintiff has indeed

coe to pass. 'oreseea"le

intervening forces are within the

scope original ris&, and hence of the

defendant*s negligence. he ourts

are uite generally agreed tha


6/40

6

intervening auses #hih fall fairly in

this ategory #ill not supersede the

defendant;s responsibility.

-hus it has "een heldthat a defendant

#ill be reuired to antiipate the usual

#eather of the viinity, inluding allordinary fores of nature suh as

usual #ind or rain, or sno# or frost or

fog or even lightning>that one who

leaves an o"struction on the road or a

railroad trac& should foresee that a

vehicle or a train will run into it%...

-he ris& created "y the defendant

ay include the intervention of the

foreseea"le negligence of others. ...

-he standard of reasona"le conductay re!uire the defendant to protect

the plaintiff against *that occasional

negligence which is one of the

ordinary incidents of huan life, and

therefore to "e anticipated.* hus, a

defendant #ho blo*s the side#al*

and fores the plaintiff to #al* in a

street #here the plaintiff #ill be

eposed to the ris*s of heavy traffi

beomes liable #hen the plaintiff is

run do#n by a ar, even though thear is negligently driven>and one who

par&s an autoo"ile on the highway

without lights at night is not relieved of

responsi"ility when another

negligently drives into it. /// 10

Be hold that private respondent "ionisio;s negligene

#as -only ontributory,- that the -immediate and

proimate ause- of the in0ury remained the tru*

driver;s -la* of due are- and that onseuently

respondent "ionisio may reover damages thoughsuh damages are sub0et to mitigation by the ourts

2


7/40

7

fundamental priniple of la# that a man must respond

for the forseeable onseuenes of his o#n negligent

at or omission. Cur la# on uasi&delits see*s to

redue the ris*s and burdens of living in soiety and

to alloate them among the members of soiety. o

aept the petitioners; pro&position must tend to

#ea*en the very bonds of soiety.

8etitioner arbonel;s proven negligene reates a

presumption of negligene on the part of his employer

8hoeni16in supervising its employees properly and

adeuately. he respondent appellate ourt in effet

found, orretly in our opinion, that 8hoeni #as not

able to overome this presumption of negligene. he

irumstane that 8hoeni had allo#ed its tru* driver

to bring the dump tru* to his home #henever there

#as #or* to be done early the follo#ing morning,

#hen oupled #ith the failure to sho# any effort onthe part of 8hoeni to supervise the manner in #hih

the dump tru* is par*ed #hen a#ay from ompany

premises, is an affirmative sho#ing of culpa in

vigilandoon the part of 8hoeni.

urning to the a#ard of damages and ta*ing into

aount the omparative negligene of private

respondent "ionisio on one hand and petitioners

arbonel and 8hoeni upon the other hand, 17#e

believe that the demands of substantial 0ustie are

satisfied by alloating most of the damages on a $&G ratio. hus, $H of the damages a#arded by the

respondent appellate ourt, eept the a#ard of

81,. as eemplary damages and 8%,5. as

attorney;s fees and osts, shall be borne by private

respondent "ionisio> only the balane of GH needs

to be paid by petitioners arbonel and 8hoeni #ho

shall be solidarity liable therefor to the former. he

a#ard of eemplary damages and attorney;s fees and

osts shall be borne elusively by the petitioners.

8hoeni is of ourse entitled to reimbursement from

arbonel. 18Be see no suffiient reason fordisturbing the redued a#ard of damages made by

the respondent appellate ourt.

B4@A@CA@, the deision of the respondent

appellate ourt is modified by reduing the aggregate

amount of ompensatory damages, loss of epeted

inome and moral damages private respondent

"ionisio is entitled to by $H of suh amount. osts

against the petitioners.

)C CA"@A@".

G.R. No). 10'((2-(5 Ma* 21, 199'

N#TION#L PO+ER CORPOR#TION, ET

#L., petitioners,vs.

THE CORT O& #PPE#LS, G#$ENCIO C. R#O,

ET #L., respondents.

-he olicitor eneral for plaintiff/appellee.

Ponciano . 2ernande3 for private respondents.

$#I$E, R., J.:

his is a petition for revie# on certiorariunder Aule %5

of the Aevised Aules of ourt urging this ourt to set

aside the 19 $

defendant 'en0amin haveD #as the plant supervisor

at the time of the inident in uestion> 3 despite the

defendants; *no#ledge, as early as $% Ctober 197G,

of the impending entry of typhoon -Eading,- they

failed to eerise due diligene in monitoring the


8/40

8

#ater level at the dam> % #hen the said #ater level

#ent beyond the maimum allo#able limit at the

height of the typhoon, the defendants suddenly,

negligently and re*lessly opened three 23 of the

dam;s spill#ays, thereby releasing a large amount of

#ater #hih inundated the ban*s of the

and 5 as a onseuene, members of the householdof the plaintiffs, together #ith their animals, dro#ned,

and their properties #ere #ashed a#ay in the evening

of $? Ctober and the early hours of $7 Ctober

197G.'

In their $ the N8 eerised the

diligene of a good father in the seletion of its

employees> 3 #ritten noties #ere sent to thedifferent muniipalities of 'ulaan #arning the

residents therein about the impending release of a

large volume of #ater #ith the onset of typhoon

-Eading- and advise them to ta*e the neessary

preautions> % the #ater released during the typhoon

#as needed to prevent the ollapse of the dam and

avoid greater damage to people and property> 5 in

spite of the preautions underta*en and the diligene

eerised, they ould still not ontain or ontrol the

flood that resulted and> ? the damages inurred by

the private respondents #ere aused by a fortuitousevent orforce aeureand are in the nature and

harater of danu a"s!ue inuria. 'y #ay of

speial affirmative defense, the defendants averred

that the N8 annot be sued beause it performs a

purely governmental funtion.(

=pon motion of the defendants, a preliminary hearing

on the speial defense #as onduted. .

5 'ernardino ruD,

Cne 4undred orty


9/40

9

hree housand ive

4undred ifty #o

8esos and ifty

entavos

281%3,55$.5>

? Jose 8alad, ifty)even housand ive

4undred 8esos

2857,5.>

7 +ariano ). ruD,

orty housand 8esos

28%,.>

G !uio a0ardo,

#enty nine housand

@ighty 8esos28$9,G.> and

'. !itigation epenses of en

housand 8esos 281,.>

$. In ivil ase No. )+&951, ordering

defendants&appellees to pay 0ointly

and severally, plaintiff&appellant, #ith

legal interest from the date #hen this

deision shall have beome final and

eeutory, the follo#ing :

. 8laintiff&appellant Aodelio Joauin:

1

$ +oral damages of

Cne 4undred

housand 8esos

281,.> and

". 8laintifsf&appellants litigation

epenses of en housand 8esos

281,.>

%. In ivil ase No. )+&1$%7, ordering

defendants&appellees to pay, 0ointly

and severally, #ith legal interest from

the date #hen this deision shall have

beome final and eeutory :


10/40

10

$ +oral damages of

ifty housand 8esos

285,.>

'. 8laintiff&appellant onsolaion

uDman :

1

$ +oral damages of

ifty housand 8esos

285,.>

. 8laintiff&appellant /irginia uDman :

1

and

". 8laintiffs&appellants litigation

epenses of en housand 8esos

21,..

In addition, in all the four 2% instantases, ordering defendants&appellees

to pay, 0ointly and severally, plaintiffs&

appellants attorney fees in an amount

euivalent to 15H of the total amount

a#arded.

No pronounement as to osts.7

he foregoing 0udgment is based on the publi

respondent;s onlusion that the petitioners #ere

guilty of:

. . . a patent gross and evident la* of

foresight, imprudene and

negligene . . . in the management

and operation of


11/40

11

#ill inevitably be brought by the

oming typhoon.

Cn Ctober $%, 197G, before typhoon

-Eading- entered the 8hilippine area

of responsibility, #ater elevation

ranged from $17.?1 to $17.53, #ithvery little opening of the spill#ays,

ranging from 16$ to 1 meter. Cn

Ctober $5, 197G, #hen typhoon

-Eading- entered the 8hilippine area

of responsibility, and publi storm

signal number one #as hoisted over

'ulaan at 1:%5 a.m., later raised to

number t#o at %:%5 p.m., and then to

number three at 1:%5 p.m., #ater

elevation ranged from $17.%7 to

$17.57, #ith very little opening of thespill#ays, ranging from 16$ to 1 meter.

Cn Ctober $?, 197G, #hen publi

storm signal number three remained

hoisted over 'ulaan, the #ater

elevation still remained at its

maimum level of $17. to $1G.

#ith very little opening of the spill#ays

ranging from 16$ to $ meters, until at

or about midnight, the spill#ays #ere

suddenly opened at 5 meters, then

inreasing s#iftly to G, 1, 1$, 1$.5,13, 13.5, 1%, 1%.5 in the early morning

hours of Ctober $7, 197G, releasing

#ater at the rate of %,5 ubi meters

per seond, more or less. Cn Ctober

$7, 197G, #ater elevation remained at

a range of $1G.3 to $17.5 2ivil

ase No. )+&95, @hibits -"- and

series, -!-, -+-, -N-, and -C- and

@hibits -3- and -%-> ivil ase No.

)+&951, @hibits -4- and -4&1-> ivil

ase No. )+&953, @hibits -I- and -I&1-> ivil ase No. )+ 1$%7, @hibits

-- and -&1-.

rom the mass of evidene etant in

the reord, Be are onvined, and so

hold that the flash flood on Ctober

$7, 197G, #as aused not by rain

#aters 2sic, but by stored #aters 2sic

suddenly and simultaneously released

from the

19G5, pp. 1&1$.

)aid notie is ineffetual, insuffiient

and inadeuate for purposes of the

opening of the spill#ay gates at

midnight of Ctober $?, 197G and on

Ctober $7, 197G. It did not prepare or

#arn the persons so served, for the

volume of #ater to be released, #hih


12/40

12

turned out to be of suh magnitude,

that residents near or along the to a polieman 2ivil ase No. )+&95, pp. 1&1$ and @hibit -$&

IN

8@IICN@A) B@A@IN)=II@N.

III. 4@ C=A C @AA@" IN 4C!"IN 4

resulted in the loss of lives and the destrution to

property in both ases, but also beause of the fatthat on the basis of its metiulous analysis and

evaluation of the evidene addued by the parties in

the ases sub0et of


13/40

13

headlessness, slovenliness, and arelessness.-18Its

findings and onlusions are biding upon =s, there

being no sho#ing of the eistene of any of the

eeptions to the general rule that findings of fat of

the ourt of


14/40

14

G.R. No. 10168' &/rar* 2', 1995

L%C #IR C#RGO, INC. &ERN#N$O M. a!"

#IME T#NO, petitioners,

vs.

HON. CORT O& #PPE#LS, &orh $343)3o!,

SHER+IN MONTEROL# * OON-OON,r/r/)/!/" * P#TROCENI# GRON$I#NO *

MONTEROL#, a!" P#TROCENI# GRON$I#NO *

MONTEROL#, respondents.

ITG, J.:

In this petition for revie#, the appliation of the

dotrines of -proimate ause- and -last lear hane-

is, one again, being put to test. he petitionuestions the deision of the ourt of


15/40

15

1. he ourt of


16/40

16

stopping or turning from a diret l ine,

is alled upon to first see that suh

movement an be made in safety, and

#henever the operation of any other

vehile approahing may be affeted

by suh movement, shall give a signal

plainly visible to the driver of suhother vehiles of the intention to ma*e

suh movement 2)e. %%, A.


17/40

17

as a result of the aident, Aogelio

+onterola;s motoryle #as damaged,

the repair ost of #hih amounted to

87,3?1. 2@h. @&1, for

hospitaliDation, #a*e and burial

epenses, plaintiff spent 815,..

here is li*e#ise no uestion that byreason of Aogelio +onterola;s

untimely death, his only hild 1% years

old )her#in +onterola, suffered

mental anguish, fright, serious aniety,

#ounded feelings and moral sho*

that entitles him to moral damages

#hih #e hereby fi at 8$,..

'eause of defendants; refusal to

indemnify the plaintiff for his father;s

death, the latter #as ompelled to

litigate and engage the servies ofounsel. 4e is therefore entitled to an

additional amount of 81,. for

attorney;s fees and epenses of

litigation.

onsidering, ho#ever, the ontributory

negligene of Aogelio +onterola in

driving at a fast lip despite the fat

that the road #as dusty, #e redue the

aggregate amount of damages to

#hih the plaintiff is entitled by t#entyper ent 28hoeni onstrution In.

vs. Intermediate lan

8eople;s !umber and 4ard#are vs. Intermediate

that ould have afforded the

vitim a last lear opportunity to avoid the ollision.

It is true ho#ever, that the deeased #as not all that

free from negligene in evidently speeding too losely

behind the vehile he #as follo#ing. Be, therefore,

agree #ith the appellate ourt that there indeed #asontributory negligene on the vitim;s part that ould

#arrant a mitigation of petitioners liability for

damages.

B4@A@CA@, the appealed deision is


18/40

18

M##LINT#L., J.:

his ase is before us on a petition for revie# of the

deision of the ourt of


19/40

19

ounsel for eah of respondents on the ground that

they #ere hearsay and that they #ere -irrelevant,

immaterial and impertinent.- Indeed, in the ourt;s

resolution only @hibits J, E, E&5 and K&? #ere

admitted without o"ection> the admission of the

others, inluding the disputed ones, arried no suh

eplanation.

Cn the seond point, although "etetive apaillo did

ta*e the #itness stand, he #as not eamined and he

did not testify as to the fats mentioned in his alleged

report 2signed by "etetive (apanta. and the ontents of the

report, as to #hih he did not testify, did not therebybeome ompetent evidene. 2b that it #as made by the publi

offier in the performane of his duties, or by suh

other person in the performane of a duty speially

en0oined by la#> and 2 that the publi offier or other

person had suffiient *no#ledge of the fats by himstated, #hih must have been auired by him

personally or through offiial information 2+oran,

omments on the Aules of ourt, /ol. 3 1957O p.

39G.

Cf the three reuisites 0ust stated, only the last need

be onsidered here. Cbviously the material fats

reited in the reports as to the ause and

irumstanes of the fire #ere not #ithin the personal

*no#ledge of the offiers #ho onduted the

investigation. Bas *no#ledge of suh fats, ho#ever,

auired by them through offiial informationF to !eandro lores, driver of the tan*

tru* from #hih gasoline #as being transferred at thetime to the underground tan* of the station> and to

respondent +ateo 'ouiren, #ho ould not, aording

to @hibit /& the fats stated therein #ere not

auired by the reporting offiers through offiial

information, not having been given by the informants

pursuant to any duty to do so.

he net uestion is #hether or not, #ithout proof as

to the ause and origin of the fire, the dotrine of res

ipsa lo!uitur should apply so as to presume

negligene on the part of appellees. 'oth the trial

ourt and the appellate ourt refused to apply the

dotrine in the instant ase on the grounds that -as to2its appliability ... in the 8hilippines, there seems to

he nothing definite,- and that #hile the rules do not

prohibit its adoption in appropriate ases, -in the ase

at bar, ho#ever, #e find no pratial use for suh

dotrine.- he uestion deserves more than suh

summary dismissal. he dotrine has atually been

applied in this 0urisdition, in the ase of #spiritu vs.

Philippine Power and =evelopent Co. 2


20/40

20

installed and maintained by the defendant

8hilippine 8o#er and "evelopment o., In.

alongside the road, suddenly parted, and one

of the bro*en ends hit the head of the plaintiff

as he #as about to board the tru*.

159 @ng. Aeprint $99, the leading ase that

established that rule. onseuently, in the

absene of ontributory negligene 2#hih is

admittedly not present, the fat that the #ire

snapped suffies to raise a reasonable

presumption of negligene in its installation,

are and maintenane. hereafter, as

observed by hief 'aron 8ollo*, -if there are

any fats inonsistent #ith negligene, it is forthe defendant to prove.-

It is true of ourse that deisions of the ourt of


21/40

21

0udgment, on the ground the testimony failed

to sho# #ith reasonable ertainty any

negligene on the part of the )hell 8etroleum

orporation or any of its agents or employees.

8laintiff applied to this ourt for a Brit of

Aevie# #hih #as granted, and the ase is

no# before us for [email protected]

In resolving the issue of negligene, the )upreme

ourt of !ouisiana held:

8laintiff;s petition ontains t#o distint harges

of negligene one relating to the ause of

the fire and the other relating to the spreading

of the gasoline about the filling station.

Cther than an epert to assess the damages

aused plaintiff;s building by the fire, no#itnesses #ere plaed on the stand by the

defendant.

a*ing up plaintiff;s harge of negligene

relating to the ause of the fire, #e find it

established by the reord that the filling

station and the tan* tru* #ere under the

ontrol of the defendant and operated by its

agents or employees. Be further find from the

unontradited testimony of plaintiff;s

#itnesses that fire started in the undergroundtan* attahed to the filling station #hile it #as

being filled from the tan* tru* and #hile both

the tan* and the tru* #ere in harge of and

being operated by the agents or employees of

the defendant, etended to the hose and tan*

tru*, and #as ommuniated from the

burning hose, tan* tru*, and esaping

gasoline to the building o#ned by the plaintiff.

8rediated on these irumstanes and the

further irumstane of defendant;s failure toeplain the ause of the fire or to sho# its la*

of *no#ledge of the ause, plaintiff has

evo*ed the dotrine of res ipsa lo!uitur. here

are many ases in #hih the dotrine may be

suessfully invo*ed and this, #e thin*, is one

of them.

Bhere the thing #hih aused the in0ury

omplained of is sho#n to be under the

management of defendant or his servants and

the aident is suh as in the ordinary ourse

of things does not happen if those #ho have

its management or ontrol use proper are, it

affords reasonable evidene, in absene of

eplanation by defendant, that the aident

arose from #ant of are. 2%5 .J. Q7?G, p.

1193.

his statement of the rule of res ipsa

lo!uitur has been #idely approved and

adopted by the ourts of last resort. )ome of

the ases in this 0urisdition in #hih the

dotrine has been applied are the

follo#ing, vi3.: +aus v. 'roderi*, 51 !a. 4ebert v. !a*e harles Ie,

et., o., 111 !a. 5$$, 35 )o. 731, ?% !.A. 'ents v.8age, 115 !a. 5?, 39 )o. 599.

he priniple enuniated in the aforeuoted ase

applies #ith eual fore here. he gasoline station,

#ith all its applianes, euipment and employees,

#as under the ontrol of appellees. < fire ourred

therein and spread to and burned the neighboring

houses. he persons #ho *ne# or ould have *no#n

ho# the fire started #ere appellees and their

employees, but they gave no eplanation thereof

#hatsoever. It is a fair and reasonable inferene thatthe inident happened beause of #ant of are.

In the report submitted by aptain !eonio +ariano of

the +anila 8olie "epartment 2@h. K&1


22/40

22

tever be theBat0vities of these peopleor

lighting a igarette annot be eluded and

this onstitute a seondary haDard to its

operation #hih in turn endangers the entire

neighborhood to onflagration.

urthermore, aside from preautions alreadyta*en by its operator the onrete #alls south

and #est ad0oining the neighborhood are only

$&16$ meters high at most and annot avoid

the flames from leaping over it in ase of fire.

Aeords sho# that there have been t#o ases

of fire #hih aused not only material

damages but desperation and also pani in

the neighborhood.


23/40

23

negligene. < deision of the )upreme ourt of eas,

upon fats analogous to those of the present ase,

states the rule #hih #e find aeptable here. -It is

the rule that those #ho distribute a dangerous artile

or agent, o#e a degree of protetion to the publi

proportionate to and ommensurate #ith a danger

involved ... #e thin* it is the generally aepted ruleas applied to torts that ;if the effets of the ator;s

negligent ondut atively and ontinuously operate

to bring about harm to another, the fat that the ative

and substantially simultaneous operation of the

effets of a third person;s innoent, tortious or riminal

at is also a substantial fator in bringing about the

harm, does not protet the ator from liability.;

2Aestatement of the !a# of orts, vol. $, p. 11G%,

Q%39. )tated in another #ay, -he intention of an

unforeseen and unepeted ause, is not suffiient to

relieve a #rongdoer from onseuenes ofnegligene, if suh negligene diretly and

proimately ooperates #ith the independent ause in

the resulting in0ury.- 2+a 2$ at the time of the fire alte o#ned the

gasoline station and all the euipment therein> 23

alte eerised ontrol over 'ouiren in the

management of the state> 2% the delivery tru* used

in delivering gasoline to the station had the name of

and 25 the liense to store

gasoline at the station #as in the name of alte,

#hih paid the liense fees. 2@hibit & @hibit

=& @hibit K&5 @hibit K&? @hibit&


24/40

24

ondut the business #ith due diligene, in the

0udgment of alte. ermination of the ontrat #as

therefore a right granted only to alte but not to

'ouiren. hese provisions of the ontrat sho# the

etent of the ontrol of alte over 'ouiren. he

ontrol #as suh that the latter #as virtually an

employee of the former.

a*ing into onsideration the fat that the

operator o#ed his position to the ompany

and the latter ould remove him or terminate

his servies at #ill> that the servie station

belonged to the ompany and bore its

tradename and the operator sold only the

produts of the ompany> that the euipment

used by the operator belonged to the

ompany and #ere 0ust loaned to the operator

and the ompany too* harge of their repairand maintenane> that an employee of the

ompany supervised the operator and

onduted periodi inspetion of the

ompany;s gasoline and servie station> that

the prie of the produts sold by the operator

#as fied by the ompany and not by the

operator> and that the reeipts signed by the

operator indiated that he #as a mere agent,

the finding of the ourt of but the ompany #as not satisfied to

allo# suh relationship to eist. he evidene

sho#s that it immediately assumed ontrol,

and proeeded to diret the method by #hih

the #or* ontrated for should be performed.

'y reserving the right to terminate the ontratat #ill, it retained the means of ompelling

submission to its orders. 4aving eleted to

assume ontrol and to diret the means and

methods by #hih the #or* has to be

performed, it must be held liable for the

negligene of those performing servie under

its diretion. Be thin* the evidene #as

suffiient to sustain the verdit of the 0ury.

2ulf Aefining ompany v. Aogers, 57 ).B.

$d, 1G3.

alte further argues that the gasoline stored in the

station belonged to 'ouiren. 'ut no ash invoies

#ere presented to sho# that 'ouiren had bought

said gasoline from alte. Neither #as there a sales

ontrat to prove the same.


25/40

25

appellants, and ordered to pay them the aforesaid

sum of 89,5.G and 81,., respetively, #ith

interest from the filing of the omplaint, and osts.

G.R. No. L-527'2 #:) 29, 1988

&.&. CR; a!" CO., INC., petitioner,vs.

THE CORT O& #PPE#LS, GREGORIO M#%LE a)

))3/" * h3) auricio >. >onta for respondents.

CORTES, J.:

his petition to revie# the deision of the ourt of

$. Crdering the defendant to pay to

the plaintiffs the sum of 85,. for

the loss of plaintiffs; furnitures,

religious images, silver#ares,

hina#ares, 0e#elries, boo*s, *ithen

utensils, lothing and other valuables,

#ith interest of ?H from date of the

filing of the omplaint on January $3,

1975, until fully paid>

3. Crdering the defendant to pay to

the plaintiffs the sum of 85,. as

moral damages, 8$,. as

eemplary damages, and 85,.

as and by #ay of attorney;s fees>

%. Bith osts against the defendant>

5. ounterlaim is ordered dismissed,

for la* of merit. < "eision, pp. 1&$Aollo, pp. $9&3.O

Cn appeal, the ourt of


26/40

26

should be redued to 87,. for

the house and 85,. for the

furniture and other fitures #ith legal

interest from the date of the filing of

the omplaint until full payment

thereof. < "eision, p. 7> Aollo, p.

35.O

< motion for reonsideration #as filed on "eember

3, 1979 but #as denied in a resolution dated ebruary

1G, 19G. 4ene, petitioner filed the instant petition for

revie# on ebruary $$, 19G.


27/40

27

sub0eted to intense heat. =efendant*s

negligence, therefore, was not only

with respect to the cause of the fire

"ut also with respect to the spread

thereof to the neigh"oring

houses. @mphasis supplied.O

In the instant ase, #ith more reason should petitioner

be found guilty of negligene sine it had failed to

onstrut a fire#all bet#een its property and private

respondents; residene #hih suffiiently omplies

#ith the pertinent ity ordinanes. he failure to

omply #ith an ordinane providing for safety

regulations had been ruled by the ourt as an at of

negligene eague v. ernandeD, .A. No. !&$97%5,

June %, 1973, 51 )A< 1G1.O

he ourt of


28/40

28

his right to reimbursement of the 835,. paid to

the insured.

B4@A@CA@, in vie# of the foregoing, the deision

of the ourt of


29/40

29

seretary, the amount of 81,5. as

-professional fee-. . . .

)oon after leaving the 4ospital +rs.

/illegas began to suffer abdominal

pains and omplained of being

feverish. )he also gradually lost herappetite, so she onsulted "r. 'atiuin

at the latter;s polylini #ho presribed

for her ertain mediines. . . #hih she

had been ta*ing up to "eember,

19GG.

In the meantime, +rs. /illegas #as

given a +edial ertifiate by "r.

'atiuin on Ctober 31, 19GG. . .

ertifying to her physial fitness to

return to her #or* on November 7,19GG. )o, on the seond #ee* of

November, 19GG +rs. /illegas

returned to her #or* at the Aural 'an*

of


30/40

30

hand *no#ledge- thereof,16as ould be gleaned from

her statement, thus:

< . . . I have heard

somebody that sicO

says sicO there is sicO

a foreign body thatgoes #ith the tissues

but unlu*ily I don;t

*no# #here the rubber

#as.17

he trial ourt deemed vital "r. /itoria 'atiuin;s

testimony that #hen she onfronted "r. Eho regarding

the piee of rubber, -"r. Eho ans#ered that there #as

rubber indeed but that she thre# it a#ay.-18his

statement, the trial ourt noted, #as never denied nor

disputed by "r. Eho, leading it to onlude:

here are no# t#o different versions

on the #hereabouts of that offending

-rubber- 21 that it #as sent to the

8athologist in ebu as testified to in

ourt by "r. Eho and 2$ that "r. Eho

thre# it a#ay as told by her to

"efendant. he failure of the 8laintiffs

to reonile these t#o different

versions serve only to #ea*en their

laim against "efendant 'atiuin.19

that she eamined the

portion she operated on before losing

the same. . . 4ad she eerised due

diligene, appellee "r. 'atiuin #ould

have found the rubber and removed it

before losing the operating area.20

he appellate ourt then ruled:


31/40

31

B4@A@CA@, the appealed

0udgment, dismissing the omplaint for

damages is A@/@A)@" and )@


32/40

32

uterus it #as very dirty,

it #as full of pus.


33/40

33


34/40

34

intended to and does

not dispense #ith the

reuirement of proof of

ulpable negligene on

the party harged. It

merely determines and

regulates #hat shallbepria

facieevidene thereof

and failitates the

burden of plaintiff of

proving a breah of the

duty of due are. he

dotrine an be

invo*ed #hen and only

#hen, under the

irumstanes

involved, diretevidene is absent and

not readily available.'6

In the instant ase, all the reuisites for reourse to

the dotrine are present. irst, the entire proeedings

of the aesarean setion #ere under the elusive

ontrol of "r. 'atiuin. In this light, the private

respondents #ere bereft of diret evidene as to the

atual ulprit or the eat ause of the foreign ob0et

finding its #ay into private respondent /illegas;s body,

#hih, needless to say, does not our unless throughthe intersetion of negligene. )eond, sine aside

from the aesarean setion, private respondent

/illegas under#ent no other operation #hih ould

have aused the offending piee of rubber to appear

in her uterus, it stands to reason that suh ould only

have been a by&produt of the aesarean setion

performed by "r. 'atiuin. he petitioners, in this

regard, failed to overome the presumption of

negligene arising from resort to the dotrine of res

ipsa lo!uitur. "r. 'atiuin is therefore liable for

negligently leaving behind a piee of rubber in privaterespondent /illegas;s abdomen and for all the

adverse effets thereof.


35/40

35

$40%/05.% ith intere!t from the filing ofthe complaint.

Said Ci&il Ca!e '5 a! filed pur!uant to are!er&ation made b the plaintiff! to file a ci&ilaction !eparatel from the criminal ca!ein!tituted again!t the +. ,. -. +. bu! dri&erSergio de ,una in the Court of ir!t "n!tance of,aguna% for homicide and multiple ph!icalinjurie! and damage to propert throughrec1le!! imprudence% in connection ith the!ame &ehicular accident. -he ,aguna Court hadcon&icted de ,una of the criminal charge% butthe judgment% a! appealed and i! pending inthe Court of Appeal!.

2f the detailed finding! of fact! of the trialcourt% e affirm the folloing a! either non*contro&erted or preponderantl e!tabli!hed bthe e&idence3jgc3chanroble!.com.ph

+efore ebruar % /64% 7o&ito +onifacio%Sr.% together ith hi! ife (plaintiff Ro!arioSanto! de +onifacio) and neighbor Agu!tinAngele!% u!ed to bathe in the $an!ol hot!pring! at ,o! +a8o!% ,aguna% tice a ee1.-he made !uch trip! in hi! /6 9ercede!+en# car ith plaintiff Alberto Concepcion a!hi! dri&er% a dul licen!ed dri&er !ince /46.

About 4300 o:cloc1 in the morning of ebruar% /64% the four of them left +arrioSumilang% $a!ig% bound for the $an!ol hot!pring! in ,o! +a8o!% ,aguna. 7o&ito% Sr. a!!eated be!ide hi! dri&er Alberto Concepcion;hile Agu!tin Angele! a! !eated on the left!ide of the rear !eat ith plaintiff Ro!arioSanto!


36/40

36

the court belo correctl held that theproBimate cau!e of the accident a! thenegligence of the ,.-.+. bu! dri&er% de ,una%ho failed to ta1e the nece!!ar precaution!demanded b the circum!tance!. @e admittedthat hen the mi!hap occurred% it a! !tilldar1% and a! it a! raining% reGui!ite prudencereGuired that de ,una !hould be more carefulthan u!ual% and !lac1en hi! pace% for the ethigha could be eBpected to be !lipper. &ena!!uming that the pre!ence of the par1edcargo truc1 did con!titute an emergenc%although it a! in plain &ie% !till% if de ,unahad not been dri&ing unrea!onabl fa!t% hi!bu! ould not ha&e !1idded to the left andin&aded the lane of the oncoming car hen heapplied hi! bra1e!. @i! ha&ing failed to !ee thepar1ed cargo truc1 until he a! onl 50 meter!from it al!o ju!tifie! the inference that he a!inattenti&e to hi! re!pon!ibilit a! a dri&er. -hathe did not 1no that anone el!e a! u!ingthe road i! no defen!e to hi! negligentoperation of hi! &ehicle% !ince he !hould bee!peciall atchful in anticipation of other!ho ma be u!ing the higha; and hi! failureto 1eep a proper loo1out for per!on! andobject! in the line to be tra&er!ed con!titute!negligence ( Am. 7ur. d /0). urthermore%in intruding into the lane re!er&ed for &ehicle!coming from the oppo!ite direction% it a!incumbent upon the bu! dri&er to ma1e !urethat be could do !o ithout danger.

Confirmator of the foregoing con!ideration! i!the fact that de ,una him!elf admitted% in the!tatement% Bhibit A% ta1en b the chief ofpolice% and !ub!cribed and !orn to before the9aor of San $edro% ,aguna% at '300 o:cloc1 inthe !ame morning of the accident% and hilethe fact! ere fre!h in hi! mind% that hen he(de ,una) noticed the par1ed cargo truc1 he!lammed on hi! bra1e! and becau!e of thi!%the bu! !1idded to the left and hit the9ercede! +en# car (. . . ang ginaa 1o po anagpreno a1o ng a1ing !a!a1angminamaneho at dahil po dito a umi!lad anga1ing tra1 na papuntang 1alia% !ubalit !ia ponamang pagdaan ng i!ang atong 9ercede!+en# na a1ing nabunggo . . .)

-he &er!ion at the trial of defendant*appellantSergio de ,una% and hi! itne!!e!% i! thathen the former !a the par1ed cargo truc1he !loed don% !er&ed a little to the left%

then completel !topped hi! &ehicle; that rightthen% the 9ercede! +en# car hit hi! bu!% ith!uch force that the bu! turned to the directionhere it came from. Not onl i! thi! &er!ionbelied b de ,una:! original and !pontaneou!!tatement to the San $edro $olice% but it a!infirmed b ph!ical fact!.

"t i! incredible% and contrar to commoneBperience and ob!er&ation% that the bu!%admittedl three (=) time! bigger than the car%and loaded ith about fort(40) pa!!enger!%could be turned around hile !tanding !till bthe impact of the much !maller car. Nor a!hi! !er&ing to the left ju!tifiable if he ere incontrol of hi! &ehicle% !ince he had a clear &ieof the left lane and the oncoming 9ercede!+en# from the dri&er:! !eat of the bu!.&idence% to be belie&ed% mu!t not onlproceed from the mouth of a credible itne!!%but it mu!t be credible in it!elf ($eople &.+aGuiran% ,*05=% / 7une /6% 0 SCRA45).

-here a! no negligence on the part of thedri&er of the 9ercede! car% Alberto Concepcion.

A motori!t ho i! properl proceeding on hi!on !ide of the higha% e&en after he !ee! anapproaching motori!t coming toard him onthe rong !ide% i! generall entitled to a!!umethat the other motori!t ill return to hi! properlane of traffic% . . . (' Am. 7ur. d =/)

-hat the ,.-.+. bu! a! damaged near thefront right heel and fender pro&e! that the9ercede! a! alread &er clo!e to the placeof colli!ion hen it occurred% !o that the cardri&er had no chance to e&ade it. Nor did !aiddri&er% Concepcion% po!!e!! an mean! of1noing that the bu! intruding into hi! line oftra&el a! !1idding out of control% and couldnot dra bac1 to it! proper lane.

Appellant! pretend that the 9ercede! car a!proceeding at rec1le!! !peed% but thi! chargere!t! on nothing more !ub!tantial than analleged !tatement b 9r!. +onifacio at theho!pital that her dri&er a! dri&ing fa!t. -hecourt belo% in our opinion% correctldi!credited thi! e&idence% for at the time it a!!uppo!edl made% 9r!. +onifacio a! !till in a!tate of !hoc1% ith &i!itor! barred b doctor:!order!; and% moreo&er% defen!e itne!!% eB*


37/40

37

Cpl. Ca!antu!an% did not e&en ta1e don orreport the pretended !tatement%notith!tanding it! patent importance; therea! no corroboration thereof% and it a!contradicted b the car dri&er and b 9r!.+onifacio her!elf. -he rule% too ell*1non toreGuire citation of authoritie!% i! that in theab!ence of clear error (and none i! !hon inthe pre!ent in!tance) a trial court:! e!timateon the credibilit of itne!!e!% ho!edemeanor it had unparalleled opportunit toob!er&e% ill not be di!turbed on appeal.

At an rate% !o long a! the 9ercede! carremained in it! proper lane% it! !peed could notha&e been the proBimate cau!e of the mi!hap.

2n the !econd i!!ue po!ed% the rule underArticle '0 of the Ci&il Code of the $hilippine!ma1e! an emploer liable for damage cau!edb hi! emploee in the di!charge of hi! dutie!%unle!! the former adeGuatel pro&e! ha&ingeBerci!ed due care in the !election and!uper&i!ion of the emploee.

Appellant compan defend! that it hadob!er&ed all the diligence of a good father of afamil to pre&ent damage% conformabl to thela!t paragraph of !aid Article '0. "t adducede&idence to !ho that in hiring dri&er de ,una%the latter a! te!ted on hi! proficienc a! adri&er; that he pa!!ed the te!t gi&en b thecompan:! board of eBaminer!% compo!ed ofthe office manager% the medical director% thechief of the legal department and the job!uperintendent% a!ide from the orientation te!tgi&en b eBperienced dri&er! along thedifferent line! of the compan; that thecompan i!!ued !er&ice manual! to it!emploee!% a!ide from memorandum circular!and dut order! to go&ern the conduct of it!dri&er!; that it a!!ign! in!pector! interlin1edith one another along the different line! ofthe compan to !ee to it that the rule! andregulation! are complied ith b all thedri&er!; that it mete! out penaltie!% !uch a!fine!% to erring dri&er!; that it maintain! !hop!at different !tation! here !e&eral mechanic!are a!!igned to !ee to it that no truc1 lea&e!on the line ithout being thoroughl chec1ed;that it 1eep! a !ummar of !er&ice record! ofit! dri&er! to help in determining theirefficienc and fitne!!; that it conduct!!eminar! on !afe*dri&ing and pre&ention of

accident!; that it had recei&ed an aard ofappreciation in /6= b the National -rafficSafet Committee; that it u!ed the be!ta&ailable bra1e lining on +u! No. =6 and that!aid bu! a! completel chec1ed for roadorthine!! the da before the accident.

Het the e&idence of appellant compan al!oe!tabli!hed fact! that demoli!hed it! &erdefen!e of diligence of a good father of afamil% for it plainl !ho! ineBcu!able laBitin the !uper&i!ion of it! dri&er and in themaintenance of it! &ehicle!. Salient amongthe!e fact! are the folloing3chanrobe!&irtual a librar

(a) Defen!e itne!! Cue&a! a!!erted that thebra1e lining of the bu! a! changed on 07anuar /64% o&er a month prior to theaccident% although bra1e lining! la!t about =0da! onl. -he change in lining a! o&erduebut the appellant bu! compan tried to hidethi! fact. Said the trialcourt3jgc3chanroble!.com.ph

. . . -he job !heet for the change of bra1elining appear! dated 7an. 0% /64% in in1.-here a! an attempt to change it b cro!!ingout 7an. and !uper*impo!ing the ord eb.in pencil (!ee page 5/'% rec.). -here a! anattempt to ma1e eb. 0% /64 a! alteredappear a! the correct date I in!tead of7anuar 0% /64 I b not arrangingchronologicall the &ariou! order! andJor job!heet! for !aid bu! No. =6 in !aid folder% Bh.% and b placing the !aid !mall job !heet a!page of the !aid folder% Bhibit % hichha! for it! fir!t page an order for bu! No. =6dated ebruar =% /64 (p. of Bhibit orBh. 5*+% p. /0% rec.). (Rec. on Appeal% p.=.)

+ re!orting to the!e documentar alteration!%the compan indicated it! aarene!! that it!ca!e i! ea1 or unfounded and from that mabe inferred that it! ca!e of appellant lac1! truthand merit. -he claim on appeal that thealteration in the riting a! innocent% or thatthe compan !hould ha&e been gi&en anopportunit to eBplain becau!e it a! caughtunaare that the court belo ould ta1e theincident again!t them a! it did% i! untenable.-he rule reGuire! that a part% producing ariting a! genuine but hich a! found altered


38/40

38

after it! eBecution% in a part material to theGue!tion in di!pute% !hould account for thealteration% and if he do that% he ma gi&e theriting in e&idence% but not otheri!e.(Section =% Rule =% Re&i!ed Rule! of Court.)"n other ord!% the compan !hould ha&eaccounted for the alteration hen it introducedthe job !heet in e&idence% and not endea&or toeBplain the alteration afterard!.

(b) -he record of dri&er de ,una !ho! that% onthe a&erage% he a! at the heel and on theroad for ele&en () hour! and thirt*fi&e (=5)minute! per da% from $aete to 9anila andbac1% and $aete to San Antonio and bac1%!tarting before dan until the e&ening. @e ha!been in the $aete*9anila route for four (4)ear! (-.!.n.% No&ember /65% page! ='*=/). @e a! paid b the hour% !o that the moretime he dro&e% the greater compen!ation herecei&ed. -hat emploer compan thu!abetted% ob&iou!l for the !a1e of greaterprofit% the gruelling !chedule% unmindful of theharmful con!eGuence that eBce!!i&e or1ingtime ould regi!ter upon the dri&er:! health%and% particularl% on hi! refleBe!. -he pa*offcame hen dri&er de ,una% becau!e of hi!accumulated fatigue and inattenti&ene!! failedto notice !ea!onabl the pre!ence of thepar1ed cargo truc1 upon hi! lane of traffic%impelling him to bra1e !uddenl in an effort toa&oid hitting it% -he bra1ing made the bu! !lideand encroach upon the other lane% re!ulting init! colli!ion ith the oncoming automobile.

(c) Sergio de ,una had repeatedl &iolatedcompan rule!. De!pite hi! numerou!infraction!% = in all !ince /5% and includinga colli!ion ith a carretela% the compan too1no more dra!tic action again!t him other thanrepeated arning! and impo!ing to1en fine!%hich on the hole amount! to tolerance ofthe &iolation! or laBit or negligence in theenforcement of the compan rule!.

(d) 2n it! bu! in&ol&ed in the accident (No.=6)% the appellant compan a! al!onegligent. -he bu! a! la!t o&erhauled on 67anuar /6= but a! u!uall o&erhaulede&er !iB month!; it! o&erhauling therefore%a! o&erdue b !iB month!. "n addition% a!heretofore ob!er&ed% it! bra1e lining! ere la!tchanged on 0 7anuar /64% but ere u!uallchanged e&er =0 da!; the changing a!

therefore% o&erdue b one () month and!e&enteen () da! at the time of the mi!hap%and mu!t ha&e contributed to the dri&er:!inabilit to control the !1idding that led to thecolli!ion.

"n the face of the!e plain in!tance! of laB!uper&i!ion% the trial court ha! aptlremar1ed3jgc3chanroble!.com.ph

-he mere i!!uance of numerou! rule! andregulation!% ithout the corre!ponding periodicchec1! a! to hether !uch rule! andregulation! are being complied ith% i! not!ufficient to eBempt the defendant bu! firmfrom liabilit ari!ing from the negligence of it!emploee!. Neither the e!tabli!hment ofmaintenance and repair !hop!% hich do notregularl !er&ice it! bu!e!% ould !uffice todemon!trate the diligence of the emploer inthe !election and !uper&i!ion of it! emploee!and in !er&icing and maintaining the bu!e! ingood running condition.crala &irtuaalibrar

-he minor error! charged again!t the appealeddeci!ion do not !uffice to o&errule the finding!of negligence of both the dri&er and thecompan% mea!ured b the reGuirement! ofordinar diligence. Appellant!: complaint intheir brief% that the loer court applied the lareGuiring carrier! to ob!er&e eBtraordinardiligence ith re!pect to pa!!enger!% and notordinar diligence ith re!pect to third partie!a! in the pre!ent ca!e% i! ithout ba!i!.

2n the Gue!tion of damage!% the trial courtproperl too1 into account that the late 7o&ito+onifacio% Sr.% a! alread a !ucce!!fulbu!ine!!man hen hi! life a! cut !hort% at theage of 4/% b the higha accident. @e a!trea!urer of +onifacio +ro!.% "nc.% a firm onedb him!elf and hi! brother% and hich i!engaged in the bu!ine!! of repairing motor&ehicle!. -he a!!et! of !aid firm in /6 ereorth $%05/%54.5=; it had 0 emploee!recei&ing a !alar of $%'00.00 or more% perannum; in /6=% it! a!!et! ere orth$//5%''5.' (Bhibit! * K *=). "nApril% /6=% the decea!ed founded 7. +onifacio+ro!.% "nc.% hich al!o engaged in the !ameline of bu!ine!!% ith principal office at 6 $.Ca!al% 9anila% and of hich he a! pre!ident a%the time of hi! demi!e. -he decea!ed had a


39/40

39

net income of $==%='.6 and $4%000.00 in/6 and /6=% re!pecti&el. -he loercourt% therefore% fairl a!!e!!ed that% had heli&ed to the age of 55% he ould ha&e earned atotal net income of $44%000.00. -he !iB*earlife eBpectanc alloed b the trial court i!!horter than that !hon b in!urance mortalittable!% but the aard a! not appealed.

+onifacio:! famil incurred eBpen!e! of$=%64.05% a! follo!; coffin I $600.00;burial lot I $/0.00; co!t of publication ofdeath notice! I $0.00; tomb I $4%'50.00;food and ga!oline during &igil I $%'.00;other eBpen!e! I $500.00; compen!ation to apri&ate in&e!tigator to loo1 into the record ofdefendant dri&er Sergio de ,una I $.05;and damage to 9ercede! +en# car% not co&eredb in!urance I $5%000.00.

Defendant!*appellant! Gue!tion the actual andlitigation eBpen!e! becau!e the ere paid bthe firm 7. +onifacio +ro!.% "nc.% arguing that!aid firm% not the plaintiff!% ha! the right toclaim the damage! b &irtue of !ubrogation%per Article! =0 and =0= of the Ci&il Code.-hi! i! a defen!e that% e&en if true (hich eneed not rule upon) !hould ha&e been in&o1edin the court belo% and it! interpo!ition come!too late on appeal. 9oreo&er% !uch a technicaldefen!e de!er&e! !cant con!ideration% becau!ethe firm i! a famil corporation and a!ubrogation of partie! ill neither dimini!h theeBpen!e! nor eBculpate defendant!*appellant!from liabilit therefor.

$laintiff*appellee Ro!ario Santo!


40/40

40

aarded% de!pite the lac1 of praer for intere!tin the plaintiff!: complaint. -he grant ofintere!t i! not nece!!aril error% for under theCi&il Code I

AR-. . "n crime! and Gua!i*delict!%intere!t a! a part of the damage! ma% in aproper ca!e% be adjudicated in the di!cretion ofthe court.crala &irtuaa librar

-he finding! and conclu!ion! of negligence onthe part of the defendant!*appellant!% and noton the part of the plaintiff!*appellee!% !ho thelac1 of merit of the la!t a!!ignment of errorabout the denial of appellant!: counterclaim forthe fee! of their on coun!el.

Appellant! !tre!! that the trial court !hould beheld di!Gualified becau!e the coun!el forplaintiff!*appellee! had been a cla!!mate ofthe trial judge. Admittedl% thi! i! not a legal

ground for di!Gualification. -o allo it ouldunnece!!aril burden other trial judge! tohom the ca!e ould be tran!ferred.?ltimatel% confu!ion ould re!ult% for underthe rule ad&ocated% a judge ould be barredfrom !itting in a ca!e hene&er one of hi!former cla!!mate! (and he could ha&e man)appeared. Nor ha&e the appellant! !ucce!!full!hon here that bia! di!torted the judgment orconduct of the challenged trier of the ca!e.-hat he !hould Gue!tion defen!e itne!!e!more clo!el than tho!e of the plaintiff! i! butnatural% !ince defendant!: e&idence &arie! fromproof alread on record. A de!ire to get at thetruth i! no proof of bia! or prejudice.

"ND"NM N2 R

Case torts

Documents

Transcript of Case torts