ATLANTIC GULF and PACIFIC COMPANY OF MANILA, INC. vs. CA

G.R. Nos. 114841-42, October 20, 1995FACTS: The Castillos owned an agricultural land. They filed before the trial court a complaint for damages, alleging that as a result of Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Companys dredging operations; the soil of the Castillos property became infertile, salty, unproductive, and unsuitable for agriculture. They further averred that their land was used as a depot or parking lot of said Companys heavy equipments and trucks. The RTC found in favor of the Castillos and awarded them damages for the damage to the land and unpaid rentals for unauthorized use of said land. This is a Motion for Reconsideration of this Courts judgment dated August 23, 1995.

ISSUE: Whether or not the award is in violation of Article 2177 of the Civil Code, proscribing double recovery of damages for the same act or omission?

HELD: The Court ruled in the negative. The petitioner is guilty of two culpable transgressions on the property rights of private respondents. WORCESTER vs. OCAMPO, ET ALG.R. No. L-5932, February 27, 1912

FACTS: Dean Worcester is a member of the Philippine Civil Commission and the Secretary of the Interior in the Philippine Government. Since the year 1906 until October 30, 1908, herein 12 defendants, who are the owners, directors, writers, editors and administrators of a daily newspaper known as El Renacimiento and Muling Pagsilang, which was published and circulated in Spanish and Tagalog languages in the City of Manila; had been maliciously persecuting and attacking Worcester in said newspaper. In the editorial entitled Birds of Prey, the defendants charged Worcester with the prostitution of his office for personal ends. As a result, said article destroyed public confidence in Worcester and it incited people to obstruct the performance of his official duties. On January 23, 1909, Worcester filed before the CFI of Manila, an action for damages resulting from the libellous publication. Defendants initially filed a Demurrer, which was overruled; thus, in their Answer, they raised the defenses that (1) the editorial in question did not refer to plaintiff, and (2) even if it did, they are not responsible for the writing, printing, or publication of the alleged libellous article. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff and against defendants, ordering the latter to pay jointly and severally the amount of 60,000, and allowed execution on their individual property. Hence, this present petition. ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in holding defendants jointly and severally liable for damages? HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. Because the basis of the present action for damages is a tort. And the universal doctrine that each joint tort feasor is not only individually liable for the tort in which he participates, but is also jointly liable with his tort feasors. As a general rule, joint tort feasors are all the persons who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit. They are each liable as principals, to the same extent and in the same manner as if they had performed the wrongful act themselves. Joint tort feasors are not liable pro rata; the damages cannot be apportioned among them except among themselves. A payment in full of the damage done, by one of the joint tort feasors, satisfies any claim which might exist against the others. Under Section 6 of Act 277 of the Philippine Commission Every author, editor or proprietor...is chargeable with the publication of any words in any part...or number of each newspaper, as fully as if he were the author of the same. SPOUSES AMADOR ONG vs. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT

G.R. No. L-7664, August 29, 9158

FACTS: Defendant MWD owns and operates 3 recreational swimming pools at Balara filters, Diliman, Quezon City; charging an entrance fee. There were appropriate marks to indicate the depths of the water; safety tools such as a ring buoy, toy roof, towing line, saving kit and a resuscitator; and it employed a nurse, a sanitary inspector and six trained lifeguards, two of which are on duty at a time; and a clinic. One of its rules and regulations prohibits anyone from swimming in the pool alone or unattended.

In the afternoon of July 5, 1952, a high school student and boy scout, Dominador Ong and his brothers Ruben and Eusebio went to MWDs swimming pool (small pool). After telling his brothers that he was going to the locker room to get a drink of coke, Dominador later ended up in the bottom of the bigger pool. Some of the bathers called the attention of the lifeguard on patrol, Manuel Abano who immediately jumped into the pool and thereafter applied mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to the victim. The male nurse Armando Rule, and sanitary inspector, Iluminado Vicente then came to render assistance. They injected the boy with camphorated oil and applied the resuscitator until the 2 oxygen tanks were exhausted. Meanwhile Vicente went to fetch Dr. Ayuyao from UP. But, despite such efforts, they failed to revive the boy. Dominador Ong sustained an abrasion on his right elbow and a contusion on the head. Spouses Ong sought to recover P50K as damages, P5K as funeral expenses and P11K as attorneys fees. MWD interposed the defense that it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees and the cause was due to victims own negligence or by unavoidable accident. The trial court dismissed the complaint, hence, this appeal.ISSUE: Whether or not the death of deceased minor can be attributed to the negligence of defendant and/or its employees so as to entitle plaintiffs to recover damages?

HELD: The Court ruled in the negative. The present action is governed by Article 2176 (quasi-delict) in relation to Article 2080 of the new Civil Code. It is a well-settled rule that the owners of resorts are legally bound to exercise ordinary care and prudence in the management and maintenance of such resorts. But since the action for damages is founded on culpable negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the damage is caused by the fault and negligence of the defendant, or of his employees. Nowhere in the police statements of the witnesses do they state that the lifeguard failed to immediately respond to the call for help. In fact Abano immediately jumped into the big pool to retrieve Dominador and immediately applied mouth-to-mouth. Appellants next alleged the doctrine of last clear chance a person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent or the negligence of a third person which is imputed to his opponent, is considered in law solely responsible for the consequences of the accident. This doctrine can never apply where the party charged is required to act instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after the peril is or should have been discovered. Since it is not known how the deceased came into the big pool and it being apparent that he went there without any companion; and that appellee has done what is humanly possible under the circumstances to restore life to the latter; it is unfair to hold it liable for his death.