Torts And Damages Case Digest: Bustamante V. CA (1991)G.R. No. 89880February 6, 1991Lessons Applicable:Last Clear Chance (Torts and Damages)

FACTS: April 20, 1983 6:30 am:a collision occurred between a1947 modelgravel and sand truck driven byMontesiano and owned by Del Pilarand a Mazda passenger bus drivenSusulinalong the national road at Calibuyo, Tanza, Cavite front left side portion (barandilla) of the body of the truck sideswiped the left side wall of the passenger bus, ripping off the wall from the driver's seat to the last rear seat several passengers of the bus were thrown out and died as a result of the injuries they sustained:. 1. Rogelio Bustamante, 40, husband of Emma Adriano Bustamante and father of Rossel, Gloria, Yolanda, Ericson, and Ederic, all surnamed Bustamante;2. Maria Corazon Jocson, 16, daughter of spouses Salvador and Patria Jocson;3. Jolet C. Ramos, 16, daughter of spouses Jose and Enriqueta Ramos;4. Enrico Himaya, 18, son of spouses Narciso and Adoracion Himaya; and5. Noel Bersamina, 17, son of spouses Jose and Ma. Commemoracion Bersamina The bus was registered in the name of Novelo but was owned and/or operated as a passenger bus jointly by Magtibay and Serrado before the collision, the cargo truck and the passenger bus were approaching each other, coming from the opposite directions of the highway. While the truck was still about 30 meters away, Susulin, the bus driver, saw the front wheels of the vehicle wiggling. He also observed that the truck was heading towards his lane. Not minding this circumstance due to his belief that the driver of the truck was merely joking, Susulin shifted from fourth to third gear in order to give more power and speed to the bus, which was ascending the inclined part of the road, in order to overtake or pass a Kubota hand tractor being pushed by a person along the shoulder of the highway RTC:liability of the two drivers for their negligence must be solidary CA:owner and driver of the sand and gravel truck appealed was grantedISSUE: W/N thelast clear chance can apply making the bus negligent in failing to avoid the collision and his act in proceeding to overtake the hand tractor was the proximate cause of the collision making him solely liable

HELD: NO. Petition is granted. CA reversed. the doctrine of last clear chance means that even though a person's own acts may have placed him in a position of peril, and an injury results, the injured person is entitled to recovery. a person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent or that of a third person imputed to the opponent is considered in law solely responsible for the consequences of the accident. since the case at bar is not a suit between the owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles but a suit brought by the heirs of the deceased passengers against both owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles the court erred inabsolving the owner and driver of the cargo truck from liabilityTorts And Damages Case Digest: Joaquinita P. Capili V. Sps. Dominador And Rosalita Cardana (2006)

G.R. No. 157906 November 2, 2006

Lessons Applicable:Res ipsa loquitur (Torts and Damages)Laws Applicable:Article 2176 of the Civil Code

FACTS: February 1, 1993:Jasmin Cardaa was walking along the San RoqueElementarySchool when a branch of a caimito tree located within the school premises fell on her, causing her instantaneous death. Her parentsDominador and Rosalita Cardaafiled a case for damages against the school principalJoaquinita Capili knowing that the tree was dead and rotting did not dispose of it RTC: dismissed for failing to show negligence on the part of Capili CA: reversed. AwardedP50,000 as indemnity for the death of Jasmin and P15,010 asreimbursementof her burial expenses, moral damages P50,000 andattorney's fees and litigation P10,000ISSUE: W/N Capili can be held liable for damages underRes ipsa loquitur

HELD: YES. negligent act inadvertent(unintentional) act may be merely carelessly done from a lack of ordinary prudence and may be one which creates a situation involving an unreasonable risk to another because of the expectable action of the other, a third person, an animal, or a force of nature an ordinary prudent person in the actor'sposition, in the same or similar circumstances, would foresee such an appreciable risk of harm to others as to cause him not to do the act or to do it in a more careful manner The probability that thebranchesof a dead and rotting tree could fall and harm someone is clearly a danger that is foreseeable. As school principal, she wastasked to see to the maintenance of the school grounds and safety of the children within the school and its premises. Moreover, even if petitioner had assigned disposal of the tree to another teacher, she exercises supervision over her assignee Jasmin, died as a result of the dead and rotting tree within the school's premises shows that the tree was indeed an obvious danger to anyone passing by and calls for application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur. Once respondents made out a prima facie case of all requisites, the burden shifts to petitioner to explain.The presumption or inference may be rebutted or overcome by other evidence and, under appropriate circumstances a disputable presumption, such as that of due care or innocence, may outweigh the inference Under the circumstances, we have to concede that petitioner was not motivated by bad faith or ill motive vis--vis respondents' daughter's death.The award of moral damages is therefore not proper. McKee vs IAC: Facts: Two boys suddenly darted before McKees car forcing McKee to swerve the car to avoid hitting the boys and in the process entered into the opposite lane and collided with the oncoming cargo truck in the opposite lane.CDCP v ESTRELLAPosted byladymaridelon June 19, 2008Tayabas Bus Co. (BLTB) and Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP) liable for damages.Rebecca G. Estrella and her granddaughter, Rachel E. Fletcher, boarded in San Pablo City, a BLTB bus bound for Pasay City.bus was rammed from behind by a tractor-truck of CDCP in the South Expressway.COMPLAINT damages against CDCP(now PNCC), BLTB, Espiridion Payunan, Jr. and Wilfredo DatinguinooPayunan, Jr. and Datinguinoo, who were the drivers of CDCP and BLTB buses, respectively, were negligent and did not obey traffic laws;CDCP include a third-party complaint against Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, IncTC > CDCP and BLTB and their employees liable for damagesLC> BLTB, as a common carrier, was bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the safety of its passengers.It must carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.Thus, where a passenger dies or is injured, the carrier is presumed to have been at fault or has acted negligently.BLTBs inability to carry respondents to their destination gave rise to an action for breach of contract of carriage while its failure to rebut the presumption of negligence made it liable to respondents for the breach.CDCP, tractor-truck it owned bumped the BLTB bus from behind.Evidence showed that CDCPs driver was reckless and driving very fast at the time of the incident.The gross negligence of its driver raised the presumption that CDCP was negligent either in the selection or in the supervision of its employees which it failed to rebut thus making it and its driver liableCA affirmedactual or compensatory damage sought by respondents for the injuries they sustained in the form of hospital bills were already liquidated and were ascertained. 6% interest per annum and also awarded attorneys fees equivalent to 30%.Respondents are entitled to exemplary and moral damages.Claim of CDCP against Phoenix had already prescribed.The case filed by respondents against petitioner is an action forculpa aquilianaor quasi-delict under Article 2176In this regard, Article 2180 provides that the obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable for the acts or omissions of those persons for whom one is responsible.Consequently, an action based on quasi-delict may be instituted against the employer for an employees act or omission.The liability for the negligent conduct of the subordinate isdirectandprimary,but is subject to the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.TC and CA> solidarily liable with BLTB for the actual damages suffered by respondents because of the injuries they sustained.It was established that Payunan, Jr. was driving recklessly because of the skid marks as shown in the sketch of the police investigator.SC> affirmed with modificationMargarita Afialda vs Basilio Hisole et al85 Phil 67 Civil Law Torts and Damages Liability of possessors or users of animals Assumption of RiskLoreto Afialda was a caretaker of the carabaos owned by Basilio Hisole. In March 1947, without any fault from Afialda or any force majeure, one of the carabaos gored him thereby causing his death. Afialdas sister, Margarita Afialda, sued Hisole arguing that under the Civil Code,The possessor of an animal, or the one who uses the same, is liable for any damages it may cause, even if such animal should escape from him or stray away. This liability shall cease only in case, the damage should arise fromforce majeure or from the fault of the person who may have suffered it.ISSUE:Whether or not Hisole is liable in the case at bar as owner of the carabao which killed Afialda.HELD:No. The law uses the term possessor and user of the animal. Afialda was the caretaker of the animal and he was tasked and paid to tend for the carabaos. He, at the time of the goring, is the possessor and the user of the carabao and therefore he is the one who had custody and control of the animal and was in apositionto prevent the animal from causing damage. It would have been different had Afialda been a stranger. Obviously, it was the caretakers business to try to prevent the animal from causing injury or damage to anyone, including himself. And being injured by the animal under those circumstances was one of the risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the consequences.This action could have been more appropriately raised in court under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act as the risk involve was one of occupational hazards.Ilusorio vs CAFACTS:Ilusorio was a businessman who was in charge of 20 or so corporations. He was a depositor in good standing of Manila Banking Corporation. As he was in charge of a big number of corporations, he was usually out of the country for business. He then entrusted his credit cards, checkbook, blank checks, passbooks, etc to his secretary, Katherine Eugenio. Eugenio was also in charge of verifying and reconciling the statements of Ilusorios checking account.Eugenio was able to encash and deposit to her personal account checks drawn against Ilusorios account with an aggregate amount of 119K. Ilusorio didnt bother to check his statement of account until a business partner informed him that he saw Eugenio using his credit cards. Ilusorio then fired her and instituted criminal case of Estafa thru falsification against Eugenio. Manila Banking Corp. also instituted a complaint of estafa against Eugenio based on the affidavit of Dante Razon, an employee. Razon stated that he personally examined and scrutinized the encashed checks in accordance with their verification procedures.Manila Bank sought the expertise of NBI in determining the genuineness of the checks but Ilusorio failed to submit specimen signatures and thus, NBI could not conduct the examination.Issue: W/N Manila Bank is liable for damages for failing to detect a forged checkHeld:No. To be entitled to damages, Ilusorio has the burden of poving that the bank was negligent in failing to detect the discrepancy in the signatures on the checks. Ilusorio had to establish the fact of forgery which he failed to do by failing to submit his specimen signatures for NBI to conclusively establish forgery.Furthermore, the Bank was not negligent in verifying the checks as they verified the drawers signatures against their specimen signatures and in doubt, referred to more experienced verifier for further verification.On the contrary, it was Ilusorio who was found to be negligent. He accorded his secretary with an unusual degree of trust and unrestricted access to his finances. Furthermore, despite the fact that the bank was regularly sending statements of account, he failed to check them until he found out that his secretary was using his credit cards.Sec. 23 of the Negotiable Instruments law provides that a forged check is inoperative, meaning there was no right to enforce payment against any party. But it also provides an exception: unless the party against whom it is sought enforce such right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority. This case falls under the exception since Ilusorio is precluded from setting up forgery due to his own negligence considering that he allowed his secretary access to his credit cards, checkbook, and allowed his secretary to verify his statements of account.