8/12/2019 torts8

1/7

1. UNCHUAN vs. LOZ

(G.R. No. 172671,April 16, 2009)

ACTS:sters Anita Lozada Slaughter and Peregrina Lozada Saribay were the registered co-owners of 2 lots in Cebu City.he sisters who were based in the !nited States sold the lots to their ne"hew Antonio #.P. Lozada under a $eed of Sale. Ath a S"ecial Power of Attorney fro% Anita Peregrina went to the house of their brother $r. Antonio Lozada &$r. Lozada

ozada agreed to ad(ance the "urchase "rice of !S)*+, or P for Antonio his ne"hew. The $eed of Sale wasotarized and authenticated at the Phili""ine Consul/s 0ffice and new TCTs were issued in the na%e of Antonio Lozada.

ending registration of the deed "etitioner 1arissa . !nchuan caused the annotation of an ad(erse clai% on the lots. 1aai%ed that Anita donated an undi(ided share in the lots to her under an unregistered $eed of $onationAntonio and Anita brocase against 1arissa for 3uieting of title with a""lication for "reli%inary in4unction and restraining order. 1arissa filed an acti

eclare the $eed of Sale (oid and to cancel the new TCTs.t the trial res"ondents "resented a notarized and duly authenticated sworn state%ent and a (ideota"e where Anita denied honated land in fa(or of 1arissa. 5n a $ecision dated #une 6 66, TC dis"osed of the consolidated cases ruling a%ong oat:Plaintiff Antonio #.P. Lozada is declared the absolute owner of the "ro"erties in 3uestion7$efendant 1arissa . !nchuan is ordered to "ay Antonio #.P. Lozada and Anita Lozada da%ages.

n %otion for reconsideration by "etitioner the TC issued an 0rder dated A"ril 8 666. Said order declared the $eed of oid ordered the cancellation of the new TCTs in Antonio/s na%e and directed Antonio to "ay 1arissa da%ages Ptorney/s fees and P8 for e9"enses of litigation.es"ondents %o(ed for reconsideration. 0n #uly + 2 Presiding #udge the TC reinstated the $ecision dated #une 6 ut with the %odification that the award of da%ages and attorney/s were disallowed.

etitioner a""ealed to the Court of A""eals. 0n February 2* 2+ the a""ellate court affir%ed with %odification the #uly + rder of the TC.

SS!S:;hether or not the deed of donation e9ecuted in fa(or of the "etitioner is (oid.;hether or not (ideota"ed state%ent is hearsay.

!L5e %ay show that the alteration was %ade by another without his concurrence or was th the consent of the "arties affected by it or was otherwise "ro"erly or innocently %ade or that the alteration did not changeaning or language of the instru%ent. 5f he fails to do that the docu%ent shall as in this case not be ad%issible in e(idence.

0. (idence is hearsaywhen its "robati(e force de"ends in whole or in "art on the co%"etency and credibility of so%e "eher than the witness by who% it is sought to be "roduced. There are three reasons for e9cluding hearsay e(idence: &' abscross-e9a%ination7 &2' absence of de%eanor e(idence7 and &*' absence of oath. 5t is a hornboo? doctrine that an affida

erely hearsay e(idence where its %a?er did not ta?e the witness stand. @erily the sworn state%ent of Anita was of thisecause she did not a""ear in court to affir% her a(er%ents therein. et a %ore circu%s"ect e9a%ination of our rules of e9clll show that they do not co(er ad%issions of a "arty7 the (ideota"ed state%ent of Anita a""ears to belong to this class. Sectioule * "ro(ides that Bthe act declaration or o%ission of a "arty as to a rele(ant fact %ay be gi(en in e(idence against h

as long been settled that these ad%issions are ad%issible e(en if they are hearsay. 5ndeed there is a (ital distinction betwd%issions against interest and declaration against interest. Ad%issions against interest are those %ade by a "arty to a litigatiy one in "ri(ity with or identified in legal interest with such "arty and are ad%issible whether or not the declarant is a(ailabletness. $eclaration against interest are those %ade by a "erson who is neither a "arty nor in "ri(ity with a "arty to the suit

econdary e(idence and constitute an e9ce"tion to the hearsay rule. They are ad%issible only when the declarant is una(ailabwitness. Thus a %an/s acts conduct and declaration wherever made if (oluntary are ad%issible against hi% for the reat it is fair to "resu%e that they corres"ond with the truth and it is his fault if they do not. >owe(er as a further 3ualifica

b4ect e(idence such as the (ideota"e in this case %ust be authenticated by a s"ecial testi%ony showing that it was a fa"roduction. Lac?ing this we are constrained to e9clude as e(idence the (ideota"ed state%ent of Anita. (en so this doe

etract fro% our conclusion concerning "etitioner/s failure to "ro(e by "re"onderant e(idence any right to the lands sub4ect oase.

2. Bank of America vs Philippine Racing Club, 594 SCRA 30 !"009#

ACTS:C5 is a do%estic cor"oration which %aintains se(eral accounts with different ban?s in the 1etro 1anila area. A%ongccounts %aintained was with defendant-a""ellant A. The authorized 4oint signatories with res"ect to said Current Account

8/12/2019 torts8

2/7

aintiff-a""ellee/s President &Antonia eyes' and @ice President for Finance &=regorio eyes'. 0n or about the 2nd weece%ber 6DD the President and @ice President of "laintiff-a""ellee cor"oration were scheduled to go out of the country. 5n ot to disru"t o"erations in their absence they "re-signed se(eral chec?s. These chec?s were entrusted to the accountantstruction to %a?e use of the sa%e as the need arose. The internal arrange%ent was in the e(ent there was need to %a?e ue chec?s the accountant would "re"are the corres"onding (oucher and thereafter co%"lete the entries on the "re-signed che

turned out that on $ece%ber + 6DD a #ohn $oe "resented to A for encash%ent a cou"le of cor"oration/s chec?s witdicated (alue of P . each. The 2 chec?s had si%ilar entries with si%ilar infir%ities and irregularities. 0n the s"ace we na%e of the "ayee should be indicated &Pay To The 0rder 0f' the following 2-line entries were instead ty"ewritten: on the u

ne was the word BCAS>B while the lower line had the following ty"ewritten words (iz: B0!0!SAowe(er the confluence of the irregularities on the face of the chec?s and circu%stances that de"art fro% the usual baactice of res"ondent should ha(e "ut "etitioner/s e%"loyees on guard that the chec?s were "ossibly not issued by the res"ondue course of its business. Petitioner/s subtle so"histry cannot e9cul"ate it fro% beha(ior that fell e9tre%ely short of the hig

egree of care and diligence re3uired of it as a ban?ing institution.

"$ The "ro9i%ate cause of the wrongful encash%ent was due to Petitioner an? but es"ondent PC5 should also sharloss for contributing to the said wrongful encash%ent.

n allocation of +E of the actual da%ages in(ol(ed in this case &re"resented by the a%ount of the chec?s with legal intereetitioner is "ro"er under the "re%ises. es"ondent should in light of its contributory negligence bear forty "ercent &E' wn loss.

etitioner cannot e(ade res"onsibility for the loss by attributing negligence on the "art of res"ondent because e(en if we coat the latter was indeed negligent in "re-signing blan? chec?s the for%er had the last clear chance to a(oid the loss &doctrist clear chance'. To reiterate "etitioner/s own o"erations %anager ad%itted that they could ha(e called u" the clien

erification or confir%ation before honoring the dubious chec?s. @erily "etitioner had the final o""ortunity to a(ert the in4uryefell the res"ondent. Failing to %a?e the necessary (erification due to the (olu%e of ban?ing transactions on that "articular dfli%sy and unacce"table e9cuse considering that the Bban?ing business is so i%"ressed with "ublic interest where the trus

onfidence of the "ublic in general is of "ara%ount i%"ortance such that the a""ro"riate standard of diligence %ust be a egree of diligence if not the ut%ost diligence.B Petitioner/s negligence has been undoubtedly established and thus "ursuart. , of the

8/12/2019 torts8

3/7

so in the interest of fairness howe(er we belie(e it is "ro"er to consider res"ondent/s own negligence to %itigate "etitioability. Article 2,6 of the Ci(il Code "ro(ides:

rt. 2,6. ;hen the "laintiff/s own negligence was the i%%ediate and "ro9i%ate cause of his in4ury he cannot reco(er da%aut if his negligence was only contributory the i%%ediate and "ro9i%ate cause of the in4ury being the defendant/s lac? of due e "laintiff %ay reco(er da%ages but the courts shall %itigate the da%ages to be awarded.

es"ondent/s "ractice of signing chec?s in blan? whene(er its authorized ban? signatories would tra(el abroad was a dangeolicy7 es"ecially considering the lac? of e(idence on record that res"ondent had a""ro"riate safeguards or internal contre(ent the "re-signed blan? chec?s fro% falling into the hands of unscru"ulous indi(iduals and being used to co%%it a f

gainst the co%"any. ;e cannot belie(e that there was no other secure and reasonable way to guarantee the non-disru"ti

s"ondent/s business.

;e also cannot ignore the fact that the "erson who stole the "re-signed chec?s sub4ect of this case fro% res"ondent/s accourned out to be another e%"loyee "ur"ortedly a cler? in res"ondent/s accounting de"art%ent. As the e%"loyer of the Bts"ondent su""osedly had control and su"er(ision o(er its own e%"loyee. This gi(es the Court %ore reason to allocate "art oss to res"ondent.

3. %&R'()*S' A+R+%*Sv$ -*.+% S$ CA'APA%/

6 SCA &26'

y discourteous coduct o the part of the carrier%s employees toward a passe!er !ives the latter a actio for dama!es a!e carrier$

elfin S. Cata"ang re3uested First !nited Tra(el 5nc. &F!T' to issue in his fa(or atic?et that would allow reboo?ing or reroutghts within the !nited States. F!T infor%ed hi% that

8/12/2019 torts8

4/7

osted by ?aye lee on :* P1..

8/12/2019 torts8

5/7

ai%ing to ha(e steroid -induced glauco%a and bla%ing Tuano for the sa%e Peter filed a co%"laint for da%ages against Tu e a(erred that as the direct conse3uence of his"rolonged use of 1a9itrol he suffered fro% steroid induced glauco%a as wcurable i%"air%ent of (ision which %ay lead to "er%anent blindness . They "rayed that "rayed that Tuano be ad4udged liabo%"ensation for his i%"aired (ision actual %oral and e9e%"lary da%ages "lus attorneyGs fees.

his defense Tuano asserted that the drug-induced glauco%a is te%"orary and curable and that Steroids are "rescribed to C. Contrary to PeterGs fallacious clai% he did owecer there was absolute failure o

art of "etitioners to "resent any e9"ert testi%ony to establish: & ' the standard of care to be i%"le%ented by co%"etent "hysi that in his treat%ent of Peter $r. Tuano failed in his duty to e9ercise said standard of care that any other co%"etent "hysould use *' that the in4ury or his glauco%a was the result of his use of 1a9itrol as "rescribed by $r .Tuano. Failure to "ro(st ele%ent alone is already fatal . Petitioners %aintain that $r. Tuano failed to follow in PeterGs case the re3uired "rocedure foolonged use of 1a9itrol .

bsent a definiti(e standard of care or diligence re3uired of $r . Tuano under the circu%stances we ha(e no %eans to deterhether he was able to co%"ly with the sa%e. The Court has no yardstic? u"on which to e(aluate or weigh the attendant facate with confidence that the acts co%"lained of indeed constituted negligence. Critical and clinching factor in a %e

egligence case is "roof of the causal connection between the negligence which the e(idence established and the "laintiffGs in4is necessary to "ro(e not only that he has been in4ured and defendant has been at fault but also that the defendantGs fault cae in4ury. Causation %ust be "ro(en within a reasonable %edical "robability based u"on co%"etent e9"ert testi%ony - "roo

eterGs glauco%a would not ha(e occurred but for $r. TuanoGs su""osed negligent conduct .

8/12/2019 torts8

6/7

;hat constitutes "ro"er %edical treat%ent is a %edical 3uestion that should ha(e been "resented to e9"erts. 5f no standastablished the courts ha(e no standard by which to gauge the basic issue of breach. Absent e9"ert %edical o"inion the could be dangerously engaging in s"eculations.

S0

8/12/2019 torts8

7/7

;ith reference to the first re3uisite defendant &res"ondents herein' in failing to co%"ly with the sti"ulated contractsgreed and signed u"on by both "etitioner and res"ondents which states that failure to co%"ly with due loan obligations"on %aturity date real and chattel %ortgages are thereby sub4ect to foreclosure by default for the "ur"ose of satisfyings credit. >ence res"ondents/ ha(e no legal right to file for da%ages under said article.

egarding the second re3uisite bad faith i%"orts a dishonest "ur"ose or so%e %oral obli3uity or conscious doing of arong that "arta?es the nature of fraud. >owe(er "etitioners ha(e acted on their legal right which res"ondents ha(e dulycognized in signing the contract can not accuse the "etitioners of ha(ing acted in bad faith.

People v$ Amo7io !/$R$ %o$ 1135#

acts:

0n #une 2* at about *: a.%. ichard A(ila oda an Assistant 1anager of e noticed that three of the attac?ers who% he later identified as accu

""ellants A%odia 1arino and Lo-oc were regular custo%ers of their restaurant. >e saw Lo-oc hold the shoulders of the (hile 1arino and A%odia too? turns in beating the (icti%.As a result of the beating the (icti% fell on the ground where

%%ediately a""roached the (icti% and saw blood oozing out of the bac? of his head. 0ne of the %aulers was about to denother blow on the (icti% but oda was able to sto" hi% thereafter the a""ellants then went inside the restaurant and dran?ottle of beer each.ut oda did not i%%ediately re"ort the incident because he was threatened by accused-a""ellants who ill hanging around the area.

Later in the early %orning of the sa%e day there were already so%e barangay tanods and "olice officers in(estigatincident.The (icti% later identified as #ai%e artina was then brought to the uezon City =eneral >os"ital and died at aroucloc? in the afternoon of #une 2*.

!"on the ad(ice of a "erson fro% the La Lo%a Police Station oda went to Ca%" aringal in uezon City to re"ort e had witnessed.The "olice then filed an in(estigation re"ort which beca%e the basis for the filing of an 5nfor%ation ag

ccused-a""ellants.

>owe(er accused-a""ellants "leaded not guilty to the charge against the% by denying in(ol(e%ent in the death octi% and a(erred alibi as their defense.

The egional Trial Court rendered a decision finding accused-a""ellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the cri%urder.

The case was a""ealed to the Court of A""eals which in its decision affir%ed the trial court/s decision.

sue:

;hether or not the ?illing was 3ualified by the circu%stance of abuse of su"erior strengthR

ecision: