Torts 1st Set

8/17/2019 Torts 1st Set

1/33

G.R. No. L-12219 March 15, 1918

AMADO PICART, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.

FRANK SMITH, JR., defendant-appellee.

Alejo Mabanag for appellant.

G. E. Campbell for appellee.

STRT, J.!

In this action the plaintiff, Amado Picart, seeks to recover of the defendant, Frank Smith, jr., the sum

of P31,000, as damaes alleed to have !een caused !" an automo!ile driven !" the defendant.

From a judment of the #ourt of First Instance of the Province of $a %nion a!solvin the defendant

from lia!ilit" the plaintiff has appealed.

&he occurrence 'hich ave rise to the institution of this action took place on (ecem!er 1), 1*1), onthe #arlatan +ride, at San Fernando, $a %nion. It appears that upon the occasion in uestion the

plaintiff 'as ridin on his pon" over said !ride. +efore he had otten half 'a" across, the defendant

approached from the opposite direction in an automo!ile, oin at the rate of a!out ten or t'elve

miles per hour. As the defendant neared the !ride he sa' a horseman on it and !le' his horn to

ive 'arnin of his approach. e continued his course and after he had taken the !ride he ave

t'o more successive !lasts, as it appeared to him that the man on horse!ack !efore him 'as not

o!servin the rule of the road.

&he plaintiff, it appears, sa' the automo!ile comin and heard the 'arnin sinals. o'ever, !ein

pertur!ed !" the novelt" of the apparition or the rapidit" of the approach, he pulled the pon" closel"

up aainst the railin on the riht side of the !ride instead of oin to the left. e sa"s that thereason he did this 'as that he thouht he did not have sufficient time to et over to the other side.

&he !ride is sho'n to have a lenth of a!out / meters and a 'idth of .0 meters. As the

automo!ile approached, the defendant uided it to'ard his left, that !ein the proper side of the

road for the machine. In so doin the defendant assumed that the horseman 'ould move to the

other side. &he pon" had not as "et e2hi!ited friht, and the rider had made no sin for the

automo!ile to stop. Seein that the pon" 'as apparentl" uiet, the defendant, instead of veerin to

the riht 'hile "et some distance a'a" or slo'in do'n, continued to approach directl" to'ard the

horse 'ithout diminution of speed. hen he had otten uite near, there !ein then no possi!ilit" of

the horse ettin across to the other side, the defendant uickl" turned his car sufficientl" to the riht

to escape hittin the horse alonside of the railin 'here it as then standin4 !ut in so doin the

automo!ile passed in such close pro2imit" to the animal that it !ecame frihtened and turned its!od" across the !ride 'ith its head to'ard the railin. In so doin, it as struck on the hock of the left

hind le !" the flane of the car and the lim! 'as !roken. &he horse fell and its rider 'as thro'n off

'ith some violence. From the evidence adduced in the case 'e !elieve that 'hen the accident

occurred the free space 'here the pon" stood !et'een the automo!ile and the railin of the !ride

'as pro!a!l" less than one and one half meters. As a result of its injuries the horse died. &he

plaintiff received contusions 'hich caused temporar" unconsciousness and reuired medical

attention for several da"s.


2/33

&he uestion presented for decision is 'hether or not the defendant in maneuverin his car in the

manner a!ove descri!ed 'as uilt" of nelience such as ives rise to a civil o!liation to repair the

damae done4 and 'e are of the opinion that he is so lia!le. As the defendant started across the

!ride, he had the riht to assume that the horse and the rider 'ould pass over to the proper side4

!ut as he moved to'ard the center of the !ride it 'as demonstrated to his e"es that this 'ould not

!e done4 and he must in a moment have perceived that it 'as too late for the horse to cross 'ithsafet" in front of the movin vehicle. In the nature of thins this chane of situation occurred 'hile

the automo!ile 'as "et some distance a'a"4 and from this moment it 'as not loner 'ithin the

po'er of the plaintiff to escape !ein run do'n !" oin to a place of reater safet". &he control of

the situation had then passed entirel" to the defendant4 and it 'as his dut" either to !rin his car to

an immediate stop or, seein that there 'ere no other persons on the !ride, to take the other side

and pass sufficientl" far a'a" from the horse to avoid the daner of collision. Instead of doin this,

the defendant ran straiht on until he 'as almost upon the horse. e 'as, 'e think, deceived into

doin this !" the fact that the horse had not "et e2hi!ited friht. +ut in vie' of the kno'n nature of

horses, there 'as an apprecia!le risk that, if the animal in uestion 'as unacuainted 'ith

automo!iles, he miht et e2ited and jump under the conditions 'hich here confronted him. hen

the defendant e2posed the horse and rider to this daner he 'as, in our opinion, nelient in the e"eof the la'.

&he test !" 'hich to determine the e2istence of nelience in a particular case ma" !e stated as

follo's5 (id the defendant in doin the alleed nelient act use that person 'ould have used in the

same situation6 If not, then he is uilt" of nelience. &he la' here in effect adopts the standard

supposed to !e supplied !" the imainar" conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the 7oman la'.

&he e2istence of nelience in a iven case is not determined !" reference to the personal judment

of the actor in the situation !efore him. &he la' considers 'hat 'ould !e reckless, !lame'orth", or

nelient in the man of ordinar" intellience and prudence and determines lia!ilit" !" that.

&he uestion as to 'hat 'ould constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a iven situation must ofcourse !e al'a"s determined in the liht of human e2perience and in vie' of the facts involved in

the particular case. A!stract speculations cannot here !e of much value !ut this much can !e

profita!l" said5 7easona!le men overn their conduct !" the circumstances 'hich are !efore them

or kno'n to them. &he" are not, and are not supposed to !e, omniscient of the future. ence the"

can !e e2pected to take care onl" 'hen there is somethin !efore them to suest or 'arn of

daner. #ould a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as a result of the

course actuall" pursued6 If so, it 'as the dut" of the actor to take precautions to uard aainst that

harm. 7easona!le foresiht of harm, follo'ed !" inorin of the suestion !orn of this prevision, is

al'a"s necessar" !efore nelience can !e held to e2ist. Stated in these terms, the proper criterion

for determinin the e2istence of nelience in a iven case is this5 #onduct is said to !e nelient

'hen a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor 'ould have foreseen that an effect harmful toanother 'as sufficientl" pro!a!le to 'arrant his foreoin conduct or uardin aainst its

conseuences.

Appl"in this test to the conduct of the defendant in the present case 'e think that nelience is

clearl" esta!lished. A prudent man, placed in the position of the defendant, 'ould in our opinion,

have reconi8ed that the course 'hich he 'as pursuin 'as frauht 'ith risk, and 'ould therefore

have foreseen harm to the horse and the rider as reasona!le conseuence of that course. %nder


3/33

these circumstances the la' imposed on the defendant the dut" to uard aainst the threatened

harm.

It oes 'ithout sa"in that the plaintiff himself 'as not free from fault, for he 'as uilt" of antecedent

nelience in plantin himself on the 'ron side of the road. +ut as 'e have alread" stated, the

defendant 'as also nelient4 and in such case the pro!lem al'a"s is to discover 'hich aent isimmediatel" and directl" responsi!le. It 'ill !e noted that the nelient acts of the t'o parties 'ere

not contemporaneous, since the nelience of the defendant succeeded the nelience of the

plaintiff !" an apprecia!le interval. %nder these circumstances the la' is that the person 'ho has

the last fair chance to avoid the impendin harm and fails to do so is charea!le 'ith the

conseuences, 'ithout reference to the prior nelience of the other part".

&he decision in the case of 7kes vs. Atlantic, 9ulf and Pacific #o. : Phil. 7ep., 3/*; should perhaps

!e mentioned in this connection. &his #ourt there held that 'hile contri!utor" nelience on the part

of the person injured did not constitute a !ar to recover", it could !e received in evidence to reduce

the damaes 'hich 'ould other'ise have !een assessed 'holl" aainst the other part". &he

defendant compan" had there emplo"ed the plaintiff, as a la!orer, to assist in transportin iron railsfrom a !are in


4/33

the peace in dismissin the criminal proceedin upon the preliminar" hearin can have no effect.

:See %. S. vs. +an8uela and +an8uela, 31 Phil. 7ep., />.;

From 'hat has !een said it results that the judment of the lo'er court must !e reversed, and

judment is her rendered that the plaintiff recover of the defendant the sum of t'o hundred pesos

:P)00;, 'ith costs of other instances. &he sum here a'arded is estimated to include the value of thehorse, medical e2penses of the plaintiff, the loss or damae occasioned to articles of his apparel,

and la'ful interest on the 'hole to the date of this recover". &he other damaes claimed !" the

plaintiff are remote or other'ise of such character as not to !e recovera!le. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson, Araullo, Avanceña, and Fiser, JJ., concur.

Jonson, J., reserves his vote.

G.R. No. L-21"#8 S$%&$'($r 28, 19))

AIR FRANC, petitioner,

vs.

RAFAL CARRASCOSO a*+ &h$ HONORAL CORT OF APPALS, respondents.

!icauco, "ica#o and Agcaoili for petitioner.

$eng#on %illegas and &arraga for respondent '. Carrascoso.

SANCH, J.:

&he #ourt of First Instance of


5/33

Plaintiff, a civil enineer, 'as a mem!er of a roup of Filipino pilrims that left , 1*/*;4 and plaintiff reluctantl" ave his @first

class@ seat in the plane.3

1. &he trust of the relief petitioner no' seeks is that 'e revie' @all the findins@ of respondent #ourt

of Appeals. Petitioner chares that respondent court failed to make complete findins of fact on all

the issues properl" laid !efore it. e are asked to consider facts favora!le to petitioner, and then, to

overturn the appellate court=s decision.

#omin into focus is the constitutional mandate that @Do decision shall !e rendered !" an" court of

record 'ithout e2pressin therein clearl" and distinctl" the facts and the la' on 'hich it is

!ased@. / &his is echoed in the statutor" demand that a judment determinin the merits of the case

shall state @clearl" and distinctl" the facts and the la' on 'hich it is !ased@4 > and that @ver"

decision of the #ourt of Appeals shall contain complete findins of fact on all issues properl" raised

!efore it@.

A decision 'ith a!solutel" nothin to support it is a nullit". It is open to direct attack. &he la',

ho'ever, solel" insists that a decision state the @essential ultimate facts@ upon 'hich the court=s

conclusion is dra'n. * A court of justice is not hide!ound to 'rite in its decision ever" !it and piece of

evidence 10 presented !" one part" and the other upon the issues raised. Deither is it to !e !urdened

'ith the o!liation @to specif" in the sentence the facts@(ic a part) *considered as proved* . 11&his

is !ut a part of the mental process from 'hich the #ourt dra's the essential ultimate facts. A

decision is not to !e so cloed 'ith details such that proli2it", if not confusion, ma" result. So lon

as the decision of the #ourt of Appeals contains the necessar" facts to 'arrant its conclusions, it is

no error for said court to 'ithhold therefrom @an" specific findin of facts 'ith respect to the evidence

for the defense@. +ecause as this #ourt 'ell o!served, @&here is no la' that so [email protected])

Indeed,@the mere failure to specif" :in the decision; the contentions of the appellant and the reasons for

refusin to !elieve them is not sufficient to hold the same contrar" to the reuirements of the

provisions of la' and the #onstitution@. It is in this settin that in Manig+ue, it 'as held that the mere

fact that the findins @'ere !ased entirel" on the evidence for the prosecution 'ithout takin into

consideration or even mentionin the appellant=s side in the controvers" as sho'n !" his o'n

testimon"@, 'ould not vitiate the judment. 13 If the court did not recite in the decision the testimon" of

each 'itness for, or each item of evidence presented !", the defeated part", it does not mean that


6/33

the court has overlooked such testimon" or such item of evidence. 1 At an" rate, the leal

presumptions are that official dut" has !een reularl" performed, and that all the matters 'ithin an

issue in a case 'ere laid !efore the court and passed upon !" it. 1/

Findins of fact, 'hich the #ourt of Appeals is reuired to make, ma"!e defined as @the 'ritten

statement of the ultimate facts as found !" the court ... and essential to support the decision and judment rendered thereon@. 1>&he" consist of the court=s *conclusions* 'ith respect to te

determinative facts in issue@. 1 A uestion of la', upon the other hand, has !een declared as @one

'hich does not call for an e2amination of the pro!ative value of the evidence presented !" the

parties.@ 1

). +" statute, @onl" uestions of la' ma" !e raised@ in an appeal !" certiorari from a judment of the

#ourt of Appeals. 1* &hat judment is conclusive as to the facts. It is not appropriatel" the !usiness of

this #ourt to alter the facts or to revie' the uestions of fact. )0

ith these uideposts, 'e no' face the pro!lem of 'hether the findins of fact of the #ourt of

Appeals support its judment.

3. as #arrascoso entitled to the first class seat he claims6

It is conceded in all uarters that on


7/33

Dot that the #ourt of Appeals is alone. &he trial court similarl" disposed of petitioner=s contention,

thus5

?n the fact that plaintiff paid for, and 'as issued a @First class@ ticket, there can !e no uestion.

Apart from his testimon", see plaintiff=s 2hi!its @A@, @A-1@, @+@, @+-1,@ @+-)@, @#@ and @#-1@, and

defendant=s o'n 'itness, 7afael Altonaa, confirmed plaintiff=s testimon" and testified as follo's5

E. In these tickets there are marks @?..@ From 'hat "ou kno', 'hat does this ? mean6

A. &hat the space is confirmed.

E. #onfirmed for first class6

A. Ges, @first class@. :&ranscript, p. 1>*;

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

(efendant tried to prove !" the testimon" of its 'itnesses $uis Haldariaa and 7afael Altonaa that

althouh plaintiff paid for, and 'as issued a @first class@ airplane ticket, the ticket 'as su!ject to

confirmation in onkon. &he court cannot ive credit to the testimon" of said 'itnesses. ?ral

evidence cannot prevail over 'ritten evidence, and plaintiff=s 2hi!its @A@, @A-l@, @+@, @+-l@, @#@ and @#-

1@ !elie the testimon" of said 'itnesses, and clearl" sho' that the plaintiff 'as issued, and paid for,

a first class ticket 'ithout an" reservation 'hatever.

Furthermore, as hereina!ove sho'n, defendant=s o'n 'itness 7afael Altonaa testified that the

reservation for a @first class@ accommodation for the plaintiff 'as confirmed. &he court cannot !elieve

that after such confirmation defendant had a ver!al understandin 'ith plaintiff that the @first class@

ticket issued to him !" defendant 'ould !e su!ject to confirmation in onkon.)3

e have heretofore adverted to the fact that e2cept for a sliht difference of a fe' pesos in the

amount refunded on #arrascoso=s ticket, the decision of the #ourt of First Instance 'as affirmed !"

the #ourt of Appeals in all oter respects. e hold the vie' that such a judment of affirmance has

mered the judment of the lo'er court. )Implicit in that affirmance is a determination !" the #ourt of

Appeals that the proceedin in the #ourt of First Instance 'as free from prejudicial error and @all

uestions raised !" the assinments of error and all uestions that miht have !een raised are to !e

rearded as finall" adjudicated aainst the appellant@. So also, the judment affirmed @must !e

rearded as free from all error@. )/ e reached this polic" construction !ecause nothin in the

decision of the #ourt of Appeals on this point 'ould suest that its findins of fact are in an" 'a" at

'ar 'ith those of the trial court. Dor 'as said affirmance !" the #ourt of Appeals upon a round orrounds different from those 'hich 'ere made the !asis of the conclusions of the trial court. )>

If, as petitioner underscores, a first-class-ticket holder is not entitled to a first class seat,

not'ithstandin the fact that seat availa!ilit" in specific flihts is therein confirmed, then an air

passener is placed in the hollo' of the hands of an airline. hat securit" then can a passener

have6 It 'ill al'a"s !e an eas" matter for an airline aided !" its emplo"ees, to strike out the ver"

stipulations in the ticket, and sa" that there 'as a ver!al areement to the contrar". hat if the


8/33

passener had a schedule to fulfill6 e have lon learned that, as a rule, a 'ritten document speaks

a uniform lanuae4 that spoken 'ord could !e notoriousl" unrelia!le. If onl" to achieve sta!ilit" in

the relations !et'een passener and air carrier, adherence to the ticket so issued is desira!le. Such

is the case here. &he lo'er courts refused to !elieve the oral evidence intended to defeat the

covenants in the ticket.

&he foreoin are the considerations 'hich point to the conclusion that there are facts upon 'hich

the #ourt of Appeals predicated the findin that respondent #arrascoso had a first class ticket and

'as entitled to a first class seat at +ankok, 'hich is a stopover in the Saion to +eirut le of the

fliht. ) e perceive no @'elter of distortions !" the #ourt of Appeals of petitioner=s statement of its

position@, as chared !" petitioner. ) Dor do 'e su!scri!e to petitioner=s accusation that respondent

#arrascoso @surreptitiousl" took a first class seat to provoke an issue@. )* And this !ecause, as

petitioner states, #arrascoso 'ent to see the . &hat conseuentl", the plaintiff, desirin no repetition of the inconvenience and

em!arrassments !rouht !" defendant=s !reach of contract 'as forced to take a Pan

American orld Air'a"s plane on his return trip from


9/33

). &hat like'ise, as a result of defendant=s failure to furnish First #lass accommodations aforesaid,

plaintiff suffered inconveniences, em!arrassments, and humiliations, there!" causin plaintiff mental

anuish, serious an2iet", 'ounded feelins, social humiliation, and the like injur", resultin in moral

damaes in the amount of P30,000.00. 33

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

&he foreoin, in our opinion, su!stantiall" aver5 First , &hat there 'as a contract to furnish plaintiff a

first class passae coverin, amonst others, the +ankok-&eheran le4 econd , &hat said contract

'as !reached 'hen petitioner failed to furnish first class transportation at +ankok4 and Tird, that

there 'as !ad faith 'hen petitioner=s emplo"ee compelled #arrascoso to leave his first class

accommodation !erth *after e (as alread), seated* and to take a seat in the tourist class, !" reason

of 'hich he suffered inconvenience, em!arrassments and humiliations, there!" causin him mental

anuish, serious an2iet", 'ounded feelins and social humiliation, resultin in moral damaes. It is

true that there is no specific mention of the term bad fait in the complaint. +ut, the inference of !ad

faith is there, it ma" !e dra'n from the facts and circumstances set forth therein. 3 &he contract 'as

averred to esta!lish the relation !et'een the parties. +ut the stress of the action is put on 'ronfule2pulsion.

Euite apart from the foreoin is that :a; riht the start of the trial, respondent=s counsel placed

petitioner on uard on 'hat #arrascoso intended to prove5 &hat 'hile sittin in the plane in +ankok,

#arrascoso 'as ousted !" petitioner=s manaer 'ho ave his seat to a 'hite man4 3/ and :!;

evidence of !ad faith in the fulfillment of the contract 'as presented 'ithout o!jection on the part of

the petitioner. It is, therefore, unnecessar" to inuire as to 'hether or not there is sufficient averment

in the complaint to justif" an a'ard for moral damaes. (eficienc" in the complaint, if an", 'as cured

!" the evidence. An amendment thereof to conform to the evidence is not even reuired. 3> ?n the

uestion of !ad faith, the #ourt of Appeals declared5

&hat the plaintiff 'as forced out of his seat in the first class compartment of the plane

!elonin to the defendant Air France 'hile at +ankok, and 'as transferred to the tourist

class not onl" 'ithout his consent !ut aainst his 'ill, has !een sufficientl" esta!lished !"

plaintiff in his testimon" !efore the court, corro!orated !" the correspondin entr" made !"

the purser of the plane in his note!ook 'hich notation reads as follo's5

@First-class passener 'as forced to o to the tourist class aainst his 'ill, and that

the captain refused to intervene@,

and !" the testimon" of an e"e-'itness, rnesto 9. #uento, 'ho 'as a co-passener. &he

captain of the plane 'ho 'as asked !" the manaer of defendant compan" at +ankok tointervene even refused to do so. It is note'orth" that no one on !ehalf of defendant ever

contradicted or denied this evidence for the plaintiff. It could have !een eas" for defendant to

present its manaer at +ankok to testif" at the trial of the case, or "et to secure his

disposition4 !ut defendant did neither. 3

&he #ourt of appeals further stated J


10/33

Deither is there evidence as to 'hether or not a prior reservation 'as made !" the 'hite

man. ence, if the emplo"ees of the defendant at +ankok sold a first-class ticket to him

'hen all the seats had alread" !een taken, surel" the plaintiff should not have !een picked

out as the one to suffer the conseuences and to !e su!jected to the humiliation and

indinit" of !ein ejected from his seat in the presence of others. Instead of e2plainin to the

'hite man the improvidence committed !" defendant=s emplo"ees, the manaer adopted themore drastic step of oustin the plaintiff 'ho 'as then safel" ensconsced in his rihtful seat.

e are strenthened in our !elief that this pro!a!l" 'as 'hat happened there, !" the

testimon" of defendant=s 'itness 7afael Altonaa 'ho, 'hen asked to e2plain the meanin

of the letters @?..@ appearin on the tickets of plaintiff, said @that the space is confirmed for

first class. $ike'ise, Henaida Faustino, another 'itness for defendant, 'ho 'as the chief of

the 7eservation ?ffice of defendant, testified as follo's5

@E o' does the person in the ticket-issuin office kno' 'hat reservation the

passener has arraned 'ith "ou6

A &he" call us up !" phone and ask for the confirmation.@ :t.s.n., p. ), Kune 1*,1*/*;

In this connection, 'e uote 'ith approval 'hat the trial Kude has said on this point5

h" did the, usin the 'ords of 'itness rnesto 9. #uento, @'hite man@ have a

@!etter riht@ to the seat occupied !"


11/33

And if the foreoin 'ere not "et sufficient, there is the e2press findin of bad fait in the

judment of the #ourt of First Instance, thus5

&he evidence sho's that the defendant violated its contract of transportation 'ith

plaintiff in !ad faith, 'ith the aravatin circumstances that defendant=s


12/33

the Supreme #ourt of South #arolina there held the carrier lia!le for the mental sufferin of said

passener.-a(pl.n/t

Petitioner=s contract 'ith #arrascoso is one attended 'ith pu!lic dut". &he stress of #arrascoso=s

action as 'e have said, is placed upon his 'ronful e2pulsion. &his is a violation of pu!lic dut" !"

the petitioner air carrier J a case of +uasi0delict . (amaes are proper.

. Petitioner dra's our attention to respondent #arrascoso=s testimon", thus J

E Gou mentioned a!out an attendant. ho is that attendant and purser6

A hen 'e left alread" J that 'as alread" in the trip J I could not help it. So one of the

fliht attendants approached me and reuested from me m" ticket and I said, hat for6 and

she said, @e 'ill note that "ou transferred to the tourist class@. I said, @Dothin of that kind.

&hat is tantamount to acceptin m" transfer.@ And I also said, @Gou are not oin to note

an"thin there !ecause I am protestin to this transfer@.

E as she a!le to note it6

A Do, !ecause I did not ive m" ticket.

E A!out that purser6

A ell, the seats there are so close that "ou feel uncomforta!le and "ou don=t have enouh

le room, I stood up and I 'ent to the pantr" that 'as ne2t to me and the purser 'as there.

e told me, @I have recorded the incident in m" note!ook.@ e read it and translated it to me

J !ecause it 'as recorded in French J @First class passener 'as forced to o to the

tourist class aainst his 'ill, and that the captain refused to intervene.@


13/33

+esides, from a readin of the transcript just uoted, 'hen the dialoue happened, the impact of the

startlin occurrence 'as still fresh and continued to !e felt. &he e2citement had not as "et died

do'n. Statements then, in this environment, are admissi!le as part of the res gestae. /0 For, the"

ro' @out of the nervous e2citement and mental and ph"sical condition of the declarant@. /1 &he

utterance of the purser reardin his entr" in the note!ook 'as spontaneous, and related to the

circumstances of the ouster incident. Its trust'orthiness has !een uaranteed.

/)

It thus escapes theoperation of the hearsa" rule. It forms part of the res gestae.

At all events, the entr" 'as made outside the Philippines. And, !" an emplo"ee of petitioner. It 'ould

have !een an eas" matter for petitioner to have contradicted #arrascoso=s testimon". If it 'ere reall"

true that no such entr" 'as made, the deposition of the purser could have cleared up the matter.

e, therefore, hold that the transcri!ed testimon" of #arrascoso is admissi!le in evidence.

. 2emplar" damaes are 'ell a'arded. &he #ivil #ode ives the court ample po'er to rant

e2emplar" damaes J in contracts and uasi- contracts. &he onl" condition is that defendant should

have @acted in a 'anton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.@/3

&he manner ofejectment of respondent #arrascoso from his first class seat fits into this leal precept. And this, in

addition to moral damaes./

*. &he riht to attorne"=s fees is full" esta!lished. &he rant of e2emplar" damaes justifies a similar

judment for attorne"s= fees. &he least that can !e said is that the courts !elo' felt that it is !ut just

and euita!le that attorne"s= fees !e iven. // e do not intend to !reak faith 'ith the tradition that

discretion 'ell e2ercised J as it 'as here J should not !e distur!ed.

10. Euestioned as e2cessive are the amounts decreed !" !oth the trial court and the #ourt of

Appeals, thus5 P)/,000.00 as moral damaes4 P10,000.00, !" 'a" of e2emplar" damaes, and

P3,000.00 as attorne"s= fees. &he task of fi2in these amounts is primaril" 'ith the trial court. />

&he#ourt of Appeals did not interfere 'ith the same. &he dictates of ood sense suest that 'e ive

our imprimatur thereto. +ecause, the facts and circumstances point to the reasona!leness thereof. /

?n !alance, 'e sa" that the judment of the #ourt of Appeals does not suffer from reversi!le error.

e accordinl" vote to affirm the same. #osts aainst petitioner. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., 'e)es, J.$.!., $arrera, 1i#on, 'egala, Ma2alintal, &aldivar and Castro, JJ.,

concur.

$eng#on, J."., J., too2 no part.


14/33

M$&ro Ma*/0a &ra*/& CA

D C I S I O N

QUISUMBING, J .!

?n appeal is the decisionB1C of the #ourt of Appeals promulated on Auust )/, 1*** in #A-

9.7. #L Do. /00), 'hich affirmed in toto the judment of the 7eional &rial #ourt of ), in #ivil #ase Do. 1>0>). &he trial court found herein petitioners lia!le for the death

of Florentina Sa!al!uro in a vehicular accident involvin a passener !us o'ned !" petitioner


15/33

their riht :&ramo; 'hich 'as movin at a fast speed. &he ne2t moment, the left front portion of

the !us hit the victim on the riht side of her head. &he impact 'as of such force that the victims

riht ear 'as slashed off and she thereupon fell on the cement and !ecame unconscious. &he

victim 'as !rouht !" the !us driver, Apolinario Ajoc and the !us conductress to the San Kuan

de (ios ospital 'here she 'as iven medical attention. Florentina Sa!al!uro never reained

consciousness and it 'as on Kanuar" 3, 1* that she succum!ed to her injuries.B3C

?n Fe!ruar" 1>, 1*, private respondents filed a complaint BC for damaes aainst C

:);


16/33

in all other da"s, the" 'ere riidl" inspected and e2amined and properl" certified as road'orth".BC

&he trial court found private respondents version more credi!le and on Auust 1), 1**3,

decided the case as follo's5

7F?7, premises considered, judment is here!" rendered in favor of the plaintiff and

aainst defendants as follo's5

1. ?rderin defendants to jointl" and severall" pa" plaintiff 3,*3. representin the unpaid e2penses of plaintiff in connection 'ith the

death of Florentina Sa!al!uro4

). ?rderin defendants to jointl" and severall" pa" plaintiffs the sum of P10,000.00 for the loss

of the earnin capacit" of the deceased for a period of ten :10; "ears4

3. ?rderin defendants to jointl" and severall" pa" plaintiff . ?rderin defendants jointl" and severall" to pa" plaintiffs the costs of this suit.

S? ?7(7(.B*C

Petitioners seasona!l" appealed to the #ourt of Appeals, 'hich docketed their appeal as

#A-9.7. #L Do. /00). +efore the appellate court, petitioners insisted that the accident 'as

solel" the fault of the victim since she suddenl" crossed a ver" !us" street 'ith complete

disreard for her safet" and in violation of traffic rules and reulations desined to protect

pedestrians.

As earlier stated, the appellate court, in #A-9.7. #L Do. /00), affirmed the trial courts

decision, thus5

ID K%(9


17/33

Petitioners then moved for reconsideration, !ut the appellate court denied their motion in its

resolution of (ecem!er 10, 1***.B11C

ence, the present petition.

Petitioners su!mit as sole issue for our resolution the follo'in5

&7 ?7 D?& A7&I#$ )1*B1)C AS AD M#P&I?D &? A7&I#$ )1>B13C ?F &

#ILI$ #?( IS APP$I#A+$ ID & IDS&AD& #AS.

Petitioners insist that a closer look at the facts esta!lished !" the trial court 'ould sho' that

the incident happened at around 3530 in the afternoon of (ecem!er ), 1*> or !arel" eiht :;

hours !efore #hristmas ve. &hus, the victims thouhts 'ere naturall" directed to'ards

the 3oce $uena. &he victim then crossed !us" Andre' Avenue for the purpose of ettin a

ride to +aclaran to !u" food for the #hristmas ve cele!ration. Since her thouhts 'ere on the

#hristmas ve feast, she crossed 'here there 'as no pedestrian lane and 'hile the reen liht

for vehicular traffic 'as on. Petitioner C or

'here the courts !elo' came up 'ith contradictor" factual findins. B1C

e have thorouhl" perused the records of this case, and no'here do 'e find evidence to

support petitioners claim that the victim 'as so enrossed in thinkin a!out 3oce $uena 'hilecrossin a !us" street. Petitioners stance reardin the victims alleed nelience is non

se+uitur . It simpl" does not follo' that one 'ho is run over !" a vehicle on #hristmas ve :or

an" other holida" for that matter; is nelient !ecause his thouhts 'ere on the holida"

festivities.

Instead, the records support private respondents claim that the


18/33

her companions 'ere standin on the island of Andre' Avenue, 'aitin for the traffic liht to

chane so the" could cross. %pon seein the red liht, the victim and her companions started to

cross. It 'as then 'hen petitioner Ajoc, 'ho 'as tr"in to !eat the red liht, hit the victim. As the

court a +uo noted, Ajocs claim that he failed to see the victim and her companions proves his

recklessness and lack of caution in drivin his vehicle. B1C Findins of fact of the trial court,

especiall" 'hen affirmed !" the #ourt of Appeals, are !indin and conclusive on the Supreme#ourt.B1*C


19/33

#ourt, considerin that shall !e applica!le.

$astl", teachers or heads of esta!lishments of arts and trades shall !e lia!le for damaes

caused !" their pupils and students or apprentices, so lon as the" remain in their custod".

&he responsi!ilit" treated of in this article shall cease 'hen the persons herein mentioned prove

that the" o!served all the dilience of a ood father of a famil" to prevent damae.

&he o'ners of pu!lic utilities fall 'ithin the scope of this article. B)/C As earlier stated,


20/33

G.R. No. 82")5 F$(r4ar 25, 1991

ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL, a r$%r$$*&$+ ( SPS. FRNANDO NANTS AND ROSARIOLACANDLA, NJAMIN ILMIN, TIRSO D CHA6, LISITO 6INAS, CONNI AR7IO ANDPATRIA CADI, petitioners,

vs.TH HONORAL CORT OF APPALS, L6NTH DI6ISION a*+ DR. ROMLO CASTILLOa*+ LILIA CADI, respondents.

Jose C. Flores, Jr. for petitioners.Jovito E. Talabong for private respondents.

PARAS, J.:

&his is a petition for revie' of the decision of the #ourt of Appeals, the dispositive portion of 'hichreads5

7F?7, the decision under appeal is here!" affirmed, 'ith the follo'inmodifications5 :1; 2emplar" damaes in the amount of P)0,000.00 are here!" a'arded toplaintiffs, in addition to the actual damaes of P30,000.00, moral damaes of P)0,000.00and attorne"=s fees in the amount of P1/,000.00 a'arded to plaintiffs in the decision underappeal4 :); St. Francis ih School, represented !" the Spouses Fernando Dantes and7osario $acandula, and +enjamin Illumin, are here!" held jointl" and severall" lia!le 'ithdefendants #onnie Aruio, &irso de #haves, $uisito Linas and Patria #adis for the pa"mentto plaintiffs of the a!ovementioned actual damaes, moral damaes, e2emplar" damaes


21/33

and attorne"=s fees, and for costs4 and :3; (efendants Gol" Karo and Dida Araones arehere!" a!solved from lia!ilit", and the case aainst them, toether 'ith their respectivecounterclaims, is here!" ordered dismissed.

S? ?7(7(. :p. >0, 'ollo;

&he complaint alleed that Ferdinand #astillo, then a freshman student of Section 1-# at the St.Francis ih School, 'anted to join a school picnic undertaken !" #lass I-+ and #lass I-# at &alaan+each, Saria"a, Eue8on. Ferdinand=s parents, respondents spouses (r. 7omulo #astillo and $ilia#adi8 #astillo, !ecause of short notice, did not allo' their son to join !ut merel" allo'ed him to !rinfood to the teachers for the picnic, 'ith the directive that he should o !ack home after doin so.o'ever, !ecause of persuasion of the teachers, Ferdinand 'ent on 'ith them to the !each.

(urin the picnic and 'hile the students, includin Ferdinand, 'ere in the 'ater, one of the femaleteachers 'as apparentl" dro'nin. Some of the students, includin Ferdinand, came to her rescue,!ut in the process, it 'as Ferdinand himself 'ho dro'ned. is !od" 'as recovered !ut efforts toresuscitate him ashore failed. e 'as !rouht to a certain (r. $una in Saria"a, Eue8on and later tothe


22/33

confirmed !" the fact that three persons durin the picnic ot dro'ned at the same time. adthe defendant teachers made an actual and ph"sical o!servation of the 'ater !efore the"allo'ed the students to s'im, the" could have found out that the area 'here the children'ere s'immin 'as indeed danerous. And not onl" that, the male teachers 'ho accordinto the female teachers 'ere there to supervise the children to ensure their safet" 'ere noteven at the area 'here the children 'ere s'immin. &he" 'ere some'here and as testified

to !" plaintiffs= 'itness the" 'ere havin a drinkin spree. :pp. //-/>, 'ollo;

?n the other hand, the trial court dismissed the case aainst the St. Francis ih School, +enjaminIllumin and Aurora #adorna. Said the court a +uo5

As sho'n and adverted to a!ove, this #ourt cannot find sufficient evidence sho'in that thepicnic 'as a school sanctioned one. Similarl" no evidence has !een sho'n to holddefendants +enjamin Illumin and Aurora #adorna responsi!le for the death of Ferdinand#astillo toether 'ith the other defendant teachers. It has !een sufficientl" sho'n that+enjamin Illumin had himself not consented to the picnic and in fact he did not join it. ?n theother hand, defendant Aurora #adorna had then her o'n class to supervise and in fact she'as not amonst those alleedl" invited !" defendant #onnie Aruio to supervise class I-#

to 'hich Ferdinand #astillo !elons. :p. 30, 'ollo;

+oth petitioners and respondents appealed to the #ourt of Appeals. 7espondents-spouses assinedthe follo'in errors committed !" the trial court5

1. &he lo'er court erred in not declarin the defendant St. Francis ih School and itsadministratorprincipal +enjamin Illumin as euall" lia!le not onl" for its approved co-curricular activities !ut also for those 'hich the" unreasona!l" failed to e2ercise control andsupervision like the holdin of picnic in the danerous 'ater of &alaan +each, Saria"a,Eue8on.

). &he lo'er court erred in not declarin the St. Francis ih School and principal +enjaminIllumin as jointl" and solidaril" lia!le 'ith their co-defendants-teachers 7osario $acandula, etals., for the traic death of Ferdinand #astillo in a picnic at &alaan +each, Saria"a, Eue8on,last


23/33

claimed !" plaintiffs-appellants, the school principal had kno'lede of the picnic even fromits plannin stae and had even !een invited to attend the affair4 and "et he did not e2pressan" prohi!ition aainst undertakin the picnic, nor did he prescri!e an" precautionar"measures to !e adopted durin the picnic. At the least, e must find that the school and theresponsi!le school officials, particularl" the principal, +enjamin Illumin, had acuiesced tothe holdin of the picnic.

%nder Article )10, supra, the defendant school and defendant school principal must !efound jointl" and severall" lia!le 'ith the defendants-teachers for the damaes incurred !"the plaintiffs as a result of the death of their son. It is the rule that in cases 'here the a!ove-cited provisions find application, the nelience of the emplo"ees in causin the injur" ordamae ives rise to a presumption of nelience on the part of the o'ner andor manaerof the esta!lishment :in the present case, St. Francis ih School and its principal;4 and'hile this presumption is not conclusive, it ma" !e overthro'n onl" !" clear and convincinproof that the o'ner andor manaer e2ercised the care and dilience of a ood father of afamil" in the selection andor supervision of the emplo"ee or emplo"ees causin the injur" or damae :in this case, the defendants-teachers;. &he record does not disclose such evidenceas 'ould serve to overcome the aforesaid presumption and a!solve the St. Francis ihSchool and its principal from lia!ilit" under the a!ove-cited provisions.

As to the third assined error interposed !" plaintiffs-appellants, 'hile e cannot !utcommiserate 'ith the plaintiffs for the traed" that !efell them in the untimel" death of theirson Ferdinand #astillo and understand their sufferin as parents, especiall" the victim=smother 'ho, accordin to appellants, suffered a nervous !reakdo'n as a result of thetraed", e find that the amounts fi2ed !" the court a +uo as actual damaes and moraldamaes :P30,000.00 and P)0,000.00, respectivel"; are reasona!le and are those 'hichare sustained !" the evidence and the la'.

o'ever, e !elieve that e2emplar" or corrective damaes in the amount of P)0,000.00ma" and should !e, as it is here!", imposed in the present case !" 'a" of e2ample ofcorrection for the pu!lic ood, pursuant to Article )))* of the #ivil #ode. :pp. /-/*, 'ollo;

?n the other hand, petitioners-teachers assined the follo'in errors committed !" the trial court5

1. @. . . in findin the defendants #onnie Aruio, &irso de #have8, $uisito Linas, Dida Araones, Gol" Karo and Patria #adi8 uilt" of nelience and jointl" and severall" lia!le fordamaes such findin not !ein supported !" facts and evidence.

). @. . . in dismissin the counterclaim interposed !" the defendants. :p. /*, 'ollo;

?n this score, respondent #ourt ruled5

&he main thrust of defendants-appellants appeal is that plaintiffs, the parents of the victim

Ferdinand #astillo, 'ere not a!le to prove !" their evidence that the" did not ive their sonconsent to join the picnic in uestion. o'ever, e aree 'ith the trial court in its findin that'hether or not the victim=s parents had iven such permission to their son 'as immaterial tothe determination of the e2istence of lia!ilit" on the part of the defendants for the damaeincurred !" the plaintiffs-appellants as a result of the death of their son. hat is material tosuch a determination is 'hether or not there 'as nelience on the part of defendants vis0a0vis the supervision of the victim=s roup durin the picnic4 and, as correctl" found !" the trialcourt, an affirmative repl" to this uestion has !een satisfactoril" esta!lished !" theevidence, as alread" pointed out.


24/33

o'ever, e sustain defendants-appellants insofar as t'o of the defendants-teachers, Gol"Karo and Dida Araones, are concerned. As to them, the trial court found5

hile it is alleed that 'hen defendants Gol" Karo and Dida Araones arrived at thepicnic site, the dro'nin incident had alread" occurred, such fact does not andcannot e2cuse them from their lia!ilit". In fact, it could !e said that !" comin late,

the" 'ere remiss in their dut" to safeuard the students.

&he evidence sho's that these t'o defendants had satisfactoril" e2plained 'h" the" 'erelate in oin to the picnic site, namel", that the" had to attend to the entrance e2amination!ein conducted !" the school 'hich is part of their dut" as teachers thereof. Since the"'ere not at the picnic site durin the occurrence in uestion, it cannot !e said that the" hadan" participation in the nelience attri!uta!le to the other defendants-teachers 'ho failed toe2ercise dilience in the supervision of the children durin the picnic and 'hich failureresulted in the dro'nin of plaintiffs= son. &hus, e ma" not attri!ute an" act or omission tothe t'o teachers, Gol" Karo and Dida Araones, as to make them lia!le for the injur" causedto the plaintiffs !ecause of the death of their son resultin from his dro'nin at the picnic.

Accordinl", the" must !e a!solved from an" lia!ilit".

As to the second assined error raised !" defendants-appellants, e aree 'ith the court a+uo that the counterclaim must !e dismissed for lack of merit. :pp. /*->0, 'ollo;

ence, this petition.

&he issues presented !" petitioners are5

A; hether or not there 'as nelience attri!uta!le to the defendants 'hich 'ill 'arrant thea'ard of damaes to the plaintiffs4

+; hether or not Art. )10, in relation to Art. )1> of the De' #ivil #ode is applica!le to the

case at !ar4

#; hether or not the a'ard of e2emplar" and moral damaes is proper under thecircumstances surroundin the case at !ar. :pp. 1-), 'ollo;

In the resolution of Kanuar" 1>, 1**, e ave due course to the petition and reuired the parties tosu!mit their respective memoranda.

&he petition is impressed 'ith merit.

If at all petitioners are lia!le for nelience, this is !ecause of their o'n nelience or the nelienceof people under them. In the instant case ho'ever, as 'ill !e sho'n hereunder, petitioners are

neither uilt" of their o'n nelience or uilt" of the nelience of those under them.

ence, it cannot !e said that the" are uilt" at all of an" nelience. #onseuentl" the" cannot !eheld lia!le for damaes of an" kind.

At the outset, it should !e noted that respondent spouses, parents of the victimFerdinand, allo(ed their son to join the e2cursion.

Testimon) of 1r . Castillo on cross e6am. b) Att). Flores


25/33

E Do', 'hen "our son asked "ou for mone" to !u" food, did "ou not ask him 'herehe 'ill !rin this6

A I asked him 'here he 'as oin, he ans'ered, I am oin to the picnic, and 'henI asked him 'here, he did not ans'er, sir.

E And after ivin the mone", "ou did not tell him an"thin more6

A Do more, sir.

E And after that "ou just learned that "our son join the picnic6

A Ges, sir.

E And "ou came to kno' of it after the ne's that "our son 'as dro'ned in the picniccame to "ou, is that correct6

A Ges, sir.

E From 500 o=clock in the mornin up to 1)500 o=clock noon of


26/33

A 7 ave intervie(ed several persons and te patient erself e even felt guilt)about te deat of er son because se coo2ed adobo for im so e could join tee6cursion (ere er son died of dro(ning .

E h" 'ere "ou a!le to sa" she 'as feelin uilt" !ecause she 'as the one 'hopersonall" cooked the ado!o for her son6

A It 'as durin the intervie' that I had athered it from the patient herself. She 'asver" sorr" had she not allo'ed her son to join the e2cursion her son 'ould have notdro'ned. I don=t kno' if she actuall" permitted her son althouh she said se coo2ed adobo so e could join. :mphasis Supplied; :&SD, p. 1*, hearin of April 30, 1*,(r. $a8aro J 'itness;.

7espondent #ourt of Appeals committed an error in appl"in Article )10 of the #ivil #ode inrenderin petitioner school lia!le for the death of respondent=s son.

Article )10, par. states that5

&he o!liation imposed !" article )1> is demanda!le not onl" for one=s o'n acts oromissions, !ut also for those of persons for 'hom one is responsi!le.

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

mplo"ers shall !e lia!le for the damaes caused !" their emplo"ees and householdhelpers actin 'ithin the scope of their assined tasks, even thouh the former are notenaed in an" !usiness or industr".

%nder this pararaph, it is clear that !efore an emplo"er ma" !e held lia!le for the nelience of hisemplo"ee, the act or omission 'hich caused damae or prejudice must have occurred 'hile anemplo"ee 'as in the performance of his assined tasks.

In the case at !ar, the teacherspetitioners 'ere not in the actual performance of their assinedtasks. &he incident happened not 'ithin the school premises, not on a school da" and mostimportantl" 'hile the teachers and students 'ere holdin a purel" private affair, a picnic. It is clearfrom the !einnin that the incident happened 'hile some mem!ers of the I-# class of St. Francisih School 'ere havin a picnic at &alaan +each. &his picnic had no permit from the school heador its principal, +enjamin Illumin !ecause this picnic is not a school sanctioned activit" neither is itconsidered as an e2tra-curricular activit".

As earlier pointed out !" the trial court, mere kno'lede !" petitionerprincipal Illumin of the planninof the picnic !" the students and their teachers does not in an" 'a" or in an" manner sho'acuiescence or consent to the holdin of the same. &he application therefore of Article )10 has no

!asis in la' and neither is it supported !" an" jurisprudence. If 'e 'ere to affirm the findins ofrespondent #ourt on this score, emplo"ers 'i forever !e e2posed to the risk and daner of !einhailed to #ourt to ans'er for the misdeeds or omissions of the emplo"ees even if such act oromission he committed 'hile the" are not in the performance of their duties.

Finall", no nelience could !e attri!uta!le to the petitioners-teachers to 'arrant the a'ard ofdamaes to the respondents-spouses.


27/33

Petitioners #onnie Aruio the class adviser of I-#, the section 'here Ferdinand !eloned, did her!est and e2ercised dilience of a ood father of a famil" to prevent an" unto'ard incident ordamaes to all the students 'ho joined the picnic.

In fact, #onnie invited co-petitioners &irso de #have8 and $uisito Linas 'ho are !oth P.. instructorsand scout masters 'ho have kno'lede in First Aid application and s'immin.


28/33

E Gou mean * to 11 times of havin applied the pressure of "our !od" on the !od" of Ferdinand #astillo6

A Ges, sir.

E ill "ou please descri!e ho' "ou applied a sinle act of !ack to !ack pressure6

A &his has !een done !" placin the !o" la" first do'n'ards, then the face 'as alittle !it facin riht and doin it !" massain the !ack of the child, sir.@ :&SD, pp.3)-3/, hearin of Kul" 30, 1*;

&estimon" of &irso de #have8 on direct e2amination

A&&G. F$?7S5

E ho actuall" applied the first aid or artificial respiration to the child6

A


29/33

Art. ))1.


30/33

pulled him out of the manhole. ?ne of them !rouht &eotico to the Philippine 9eneral ospital,

'here his injuries 'ere treated, after 'hich he 'as taken home. In addition to the lacerated 'ound in

his left upper e"elid, &eotico suffered contusions on the left thih, the left upper arm, the riht le and

the upper lip apart from an a!rasion on the riht infra-patella reion. &hese injuries and the alleric

eruption caused !" anti-tetanus injections administered to him in the hospital, reuired further

medical treatment !" a private practitioner 'ho chared therefor P1,00.00.

As a conseuence of the foreoin occurrence, &eotico filed, 'ith the #ourt of First Instance of

4 that it has al'a"s !een a polic" of the said office, 'hich

is chared 'ith the dut" of installation, repair and care of storm drains in the #it" of


31/33

After appropriate proceedins the #ourt of First Instance of


32/33

As reards the first issue, 'e note that it is !ased upon an alleation of fact not made in the ans'er

of the #it".


33/33

injur) to persons or propert) , and to construct and repair ditces, drains, se(ers, and

culverts alon and under their tracks, so that the natural drainae of the streets and adjacent

propert" shall not !e o!structed.

&his authorit" has !een neither 'ithdra'n nor restricted !" 7epu!lic Act Do. *1 and 2ecutive

?rder Do. 113, dated

Torts 1st Set

Documents

Transcript of Torts 1st Set