G.R. No.

153591             February 23, 2004 In intentional crimes, the act itself is punished; in negligence or imprudence, what
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee vs. RENATO GARCIA y ROMANO, appellant. is principally penalized is the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous
Facts: recklessness, lack of care or foresight, the imprudencia punible. Article 365 of the Revised
Penal Code states that reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice,
Siblings Bently Billon and Sanily Billon were on their way to their school. While doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable
Sanily was crossing the street, a passenger jeepney driven by appellant, hit her on the left lack of precaution on the part of the person performing such act. Compared to intentional
side of the body. Sanily fell and was thrown to the ground a meter away from the vehicle. felonies, such as homicide or murder, what takes the place of the element of malice or
The jeepney stopped. But as Bentley was running towards his sister, the vehicle suddenly intention to commit a wrong or evil is the failure of the offender to take precautions due to
accelerated with its front tire running over Sanily’s stomach. Bentley and appellant pulled lack of skill taking into account his employment, or occupation, degree of intelligence,
Sanily from underneath the vehicle and brought her to the Sta. Lucia Hospital but due to lack physical condition, and other circumstances regarding persons, time, and place.
of medical facilities, she was transferred to the Quezon City General Hospital (QCGH) where
she was operated. However, she died four days later. Appellant admitted having ran over the Appellant showed an inexcusable lack of precaution when he disregarded a traffic
victim, but claimed that it was an accident.  the trial court rendered judgment, finding sign cautioning motorists to slow down and drove his vehicle in full speed despite being
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder. aware that he was traversing a school zone and pedestrians were crossing the street. He
should have observed due diligence of a reasonably prudent man by slackening his speed and
Issue: proceeding cautiously while passing the area.

Whether or not appellant is guilty of murder or reckless imprudence resulting in The trial court correctly awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. However, the
homicide. award of moral damages in the amount of P500,000.00 should be reduced to
P50,000.00.13 The award of P30,000.00 as actual damages must likewise be modified. The
Ruling: mother of the victim presented receipts that they, in fact, spent P58,257.9014 for hospital
bills and funeral expenses. The fact that she received P40,000.00 from insurance will not
Appellant is guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide defined in Article
affect the award of actual damages.15 The award of exemplary damages is deleted for lack of
365 of the RPC.
factual basis.
The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must
be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal
intent, during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. These circumstances
do not obtain in the case at bar.

Appellant could have reacted on instinct and relied on sheer impulse to respond to
the situation at hand. While it is possible that appellant deliberately ran over the victim, it is
equally possible, if not more probable, that the vehicle moved forward because appellant
failed to control its momentum. Indeed, this is more consistent with the unrebutted evidence
that the jeepney, which had no handbrake, was moving fast and that appellant became
confused when the accident occurred. Furthermore, appellant’s act of bringing the victim to
the hospital despite numerous opportunities to flee from the scene is more compatible with
a state of mind devoid of criminal intent. Our own evaluation of the evidence reveals that
appellant had no intention to kill the victim. As such, he cannot be held liable for an
intentional felony. All reasonable doubt intended to demonstrate negligence, and not
criminal intent, must be resolved in favor of appellant.

1
 G.R. No. 160795             June 27, 2008 premium on negligence. Corinthian was not organized solely for the defendants Cuasos. It is
CORINTHIAN GARDENS ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner, vs. also the subdivision of the plaintiffs-spouses Tanjangcos - and of all others who have their
SPOUSES REYNALDO and MARIA LUISA TANJANGCO, and SPOUSES FRANK and TERESITA dwelling units or abodes therein. Pertinently, its Manual of Rules and Regulations stipulates
CUASO, respondent. in Section 3 thereof (under the heading Construction), thus:

Facts: A. Rules and Regulations

Respondents-spouses Reynaldo and Maria Luisa Tanjangco own Lots 68 and 69
No new construction can be started unless the building plans are approved by the
located at Corinthian Gardens Subdivision which is managed by petitioner Corinthian
Association and the appropriate Builder’s cash bond and pre-construction fees are
Gardens Association, Inc. On the other hand, respondents-spouses Frank and Teresita Cuaso
paid. The Association will not allow the entry of construction materials and process
own Lot 65 which is adjacent to the Tanjangcos’ lots. Before the Cuasos constructed their
identification cards for workers if the above conditions are not complied with.
house on Lot 65, a relocation survey was necessary. As Geodetic Engineer Democrito De Dios
Likewise, all renovations, repairs, additions and improvements to a finished house
conducted all the previous surveys for the subdivision's developer, Corinthian referred Engr.
except electrical wiring, will have to be approved by the Association. Water service
De Dios to the Cuasos. Before, during and after the construction of the said house, Corinthian
connection of a homeowner who undertakes construction work without prior
conducted periodic ocular inspections in order to determine compliance with the approved
approval of the Association will be cut-off in addition to the sanctions previously
plans pursuant to the Manual of Rules and Regulations of Corinthian. Unfortunately, after the
mentioned.
Cuasos constructed their house, their perimeter fence encroached on the Tanjangcos’ Lot 69
by 87 square meters. No amicable settlement was reached between the parties. Thus, the
By its Manual of Rules and Regulations, it is reasonable to assume that Corinthian, through its
Tanjangcos demanded that the Cuasos demolish the perimeter fence but the latter failed and
representative, in the approval of building plans, and in the conduct of periodic inspections
refused, prompting the Tanjangcos to file with the RTC a suit against the Cuasos for Recovery
of on-going construction projects within the subdivision, is responsible in insuring compliance
of Possession with Damages. Eventually, the Cuasos filed a Third-Party Complaint against
with the approved plans, inclusive of the construction of perimeter walls, which in this case is
Corinthian The Cuasos faulted Corinthian for approving their relocation survey and building
the subject of dispute between the Tanjangcos and the Cuasos. It is not just or equitable to
plans without verifying their accuracy and in making representations as to Engr. De Dios'
relieve Corinthian of any liability when, by its very own rules, it imposes its authority over all
integrity and competence. The Cuasos alleged that had Corinthian exercised diligence in
its members to the end that "no new construction can be started unless the plans are
performing its duty, they would not have been involved in a boundary dispute with the
approved by the Association and the appropriate cash bond and pre-construction fees are
Tanjangcos. Thus, the Cuasos opined that Corinthian should also be held answerable for any
paid." Moreover, Corinthian can impose sanctions for violating these rules. Thus, the
damages that they might incur as a result of such construction.
proposition that the inspection is merely a "table inspection" and, therefore, should exempt
Corinthian from liability, is unacceptable. After all, if the supposed inspection is merely a
Issue:
"table inspection" and the approval granted to every member is a mere formality, then the
Whether Corinthian was negligent under the circumstances and, if so, whether purpose of the rules would be defeated. Compliance therewith would not be mandatory, and
such negligence contributed to the injury suffered by the Tanjangcos. sanctions imposed for violations could be disregarded. Corinthian's imprimatur on the
construction of the Cuasos' perimeter wall over the property of the Tanjangcos assured the
Ruling: Cuasos that everything was in order.

Yes. Corinthian’s failure to prevent the encroachment of the Cuasos’ perimeter wall Rationale:
into Tanjangcos’ property – despite the inspection conducted – constitutes negligence and,
at the very least, contributed to the injury suffered by the Tanjangcos.

Corinthian cannot and should not be allowed to justify or excuse its negligence by
claiming that its approval of the Cuasos’ building plans was only limited to a so-called "table
inspection;" and not actual site measurement. To accept some such postulate is to put a

2
 A negligent act is an inadvertent act; it may be merely carelessly done from a lack gasoline tank on the side of the chassis, spreading over and permeating the body of the bus
of ordinary prudence and may be one which creates a situation involving an unreasonable and the ground under and around it, and that the lighted torch brought by one of the men
risk to another because of the expectable action of the other, a third person, an animal, or a who answered the call for help set it on fire.
force of nature. A negligent act is one from which an ordinary prudent person in the actor's
position, in the same or similar circumstances, would foresee such an appreciable risk of The charred bodies of the four deemed passengers inside the bus were removed
harm to others as to cause him not to do the act or to do it in a more careful manner. and duly identified that of Juan Bataclan. His widow, Salud Villanueva, in her name and in
behalf of her five minor children, brought the present suit to recover from Mariano Medina
The test to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney's fees in the total amount of
stated as follows: Did the defendant in committing the alleged negligent act use that P87,150. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Cavite awarded P1,000 to the plaintiffs plus
reasonable care and caution which an ordinary person would have used in the same P600 as attorney's fee, plus P100, the value of the merchandise being carried by Bataclan to
situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law, in effect, adopts the standard Pasay City for sale and which was lost in the fire. The plaintiffs and the defendants appealed
supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias in Roman law. The existence the decision to the Court of Appeals but the latter endorsed the appeal to us because of the
of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the value involved in the claim in the complaint.
actor in the situation before him. The law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or
negligent in a man of ordinary intelligence and prudence, and determines liability according Issue:
to that standard. Whether or not defendant was negligent.
Ruling:
Yes, there was negligence on the part of the defendant, through his agent, the
driver Saylon.
ART. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of
G.R. No. L-10126           October 22, 1957
public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the
SALUD VILLANUEVA VDA. DE BATACLAN and the minors NORMA, LUZVIMINDA, ELENITA,
goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all
OSCAR and ALFREDO BATACLAN, represented by their Natural guardian, SALUD
the circumstances of each case.
VILLANUEVA VDA. DE BATACLAN, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
ART. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers
MARIANO MEDINA, defendant-appellant.
through the negligence or willful acts of the former's employees, although such
Facts:
employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of
the order of the common carriers.
Shortly after midnight, bus no. 30 of the Medina Transpportation that was driven
Conrado Saylon, was on its way to Pasay City from Amadeo, Cavite. At about 2am, one of the
ART. 1763. A common carrier responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on
front tires burst and the vehicle began to zig-zag until it fell into a canal or ditch on the right
account of the willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the
side of the road and turned turtle. Some of the passengers managed to leave the bus while
common carrier's employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father
the three passengers seated beside the driver, named Bataclan, Lara and the Visayan and the
of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.
woman behind them named Natalia Villanueva, could not get out of the overturned bus.
Some of the passengers, after they had clambered up to the road, heard groans and moans There is evidence to show that at the time of the blow out, the bus was speeding,
from inside the bus, particularly, shouts for help from Bataclan and Lara, who said they could as testified to by one of the passengers, and as shown by the fact that according to the
not get out of the bus. After half an hour, came about ten men, one of them carrying a testimony of the witnesses, including that of the defense, from the point where one of the
lighted torch made of bamboo with a wick on one end, evidently fueled with petroleum. front tires burst up to the canal where the bus overturned after zig-zaging, there was a
These men presumably approach the overturned bus, and almost immediately, a fierce fire distance of about 150 meters.
started, burning and all but consuming the bus, including the four passengers trapped inside
it. It would appear that as the bus overturned, gasoline began to leak and escape from the

3
 The proximate cause was the overturning of the bus, this for the reason that when expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably
the vehicle turned not only on its side but completely on its back, the leaking of the gasoline result therefrom."
from the tank was not unnatural or unexpected; that the coming of the men with a lighted
torch was in response to the call for help, made not only by the passengers, but most
probably, by the driver and the conductor themselves, and that because it was dark, the
rescuers had to carry a light with them, and coming as they did from a rural area where
G.R. No. L-13541             January 28, 1961
lanterns and flashlights were not available; and what was more natural than that said
EDUARDO TUASON, plaintiff-appellant,
rescuers should innocently approach the vehicle to extend the aid and effect the rescue
vs.
requested from them. In other words, the coming of the men with a torch was to be
LUZON STEVEDORING; CO., INC. and JULIAN RAMOS, defendants-appellees.
expected and was a natural sequence of the overturning of the bus, the trapping of some of
Facts:
its passengers and the call for outside help. What is more, the burning of the bus can also in
part be attributed to the negligence of the carrier, through is driver and its conductor. They,
At around 5:10 o'clock in the morning at the municipality of Capas, Tarlac, the car
or at least, the driver should and must have known that in the position in which the
driven by Eduardo Tuason with three passengers, namely, Olivia de Leon, Francisco de Leon
overturned bus was, gasoline could and must have leaked from the gasoline tank and soaked
and Manuel de Leon, and a truck-trailer driven by Julian Ramos, an employee of the Luzon
the area in and around the bus, this aside from the fact that gasoline when spilled, specially
Stevedoring Co., Inc., together with a mechanic, Graciano Bautista, and a laborer, Zoilo
over a large area, can be smelt and directed even from a distance, and yet neither the driver
Tolentino, collided. As a result of the collision, Eduardo Tuason's left leg was pinned down by
nor the conductor would appear to have cautioned or taken steps to warn the rescuers not
the door of his car. After he was extricated from his seat, he was taken to the clinic of Dr.
to bring the lighted torch too near the bus. Said negligence on the part of the agents of the
Pineda at Capas, and later, on that same day, brought to the National Orthopedic Hospital in
carrier come under the codal provisions above-reproduced, particularly, Articles 1733, 1759
Manila. His companions in the car, who were also injured were, likewise, taken to the clinic at
and 1763.
Capas.

Damages:
After almost three years from the date of the collision, Eduardo Tuason filed with the Court
of First Instance of Manila a complaint against the Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc., and Julian
As regard the damages to which plaintiffs are entitled, considering the earning capacity of
Ramos for the recovery of damages suffered by him as a result of the collision above referred
the deceased, as well as the other elements entering into a damage award, we are satisfied
to. The complaint alleges, among other things, that plaintiff was driving at a moderate speed
that the amount of SIX THOUSAND (P6,000) PESOS would constitute satisfactory
— 35 to 40 kilometers per hour — with headlights on, when the truck-trailer driven by the
compensation, this to include compensatory, moral, and other damages. We also believe
defendant Julian Ramos struck his car; that the collision completely wrecked plaintiff's car
that plaintiffs are entitled to attorney's fees, and assessing the legal services rendered by
and caused serious physical injuries to him and his companions; and that defendant Julian
plaintiffs' attorneys not only in the trial court, but also in the course of the appeal, and the
Ramos was then driving recklessly and negligently at a high rate of speed. Plaintiff, therefore,
attorney's fees may well be fixed at EIGHT HUNDRED (P800) PESOS for the loss of
claims and prays for actual and compensatory damages in the sum of P200,000, moral
merchandise carried by the deceased in the bus, is adequate and will not be disturbed.
damages in the amount of P25,000, and exemplary or corrective damages in the sum of
Rationale: P25,000, plus attorney's fees.

The proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either The defendants, in their separate answers, denied any liability for damages, alleging by way
immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous of special defenses that the truck trailer driven by the defendant Julian Ramos was traveling
chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the at low-speed, with lights on, along the right side of the road when it was hit by the Packard
final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of car driven by plaintiff recklessly and negligently at a high speed; that after the accident, both
the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the plaintiff and defendant Julian Ramos were charged criminally before the Justice of the Peace
first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to Court of Capas, Tarlac, and upon the case being forwarded to the Court of First Instance of
the same province, the information as against the defendant Julian Ramos was dismissed;

4
and that the collision was due to the fault and negligence of plaintiff as defendant Julian COURT OF APPEALS, DELOS SANTOS MEDICAL CENTER, DR. ORLINO HOSAKA and DRA.
Ramos exercised due care and diligence in the performance of his duties as driver of the PERFECTA GUTIERREZ, respondents.
truck-trailer. The defendant company, in addition, alleged that it exercised the care and Facts:
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of Julian Ramos as its Plaintiff Erlinda Ramos was experiencing occasional pains allegedly caused by
driver. stones in her gall bladder. She was told to undergo an operation and after some tests and
exams, she was indicated fit for surgery.
Issue:

Whether or not defendants are liable for damages. Defendant Dr. Orlino Hozaka decided that Erlinda should undergo a “cholecystectomy”
operation. Rogelio, husband of Erlinda, asked Dr. Hosaka to look for a good anesthesiologist.
Ruling:
Around 7:30 AM of June 17, 1985, Herminda (sister-in-law of Erlinda) accompanied Erlinda to
the operating room and saw Dr. Gutierrez, the other defendant, who was to administer
No, defendants were not negligent and are therefore not liable for damages.
anesthesia. Dr. Hosaka only arrived around 12:15 PM, three hours late. Nonetheless, the
As correctly found by the court below, it is evident from the facts, which are not operation continued and Herminda then saw Dr. Gutierrez intubating the patient and heard
disputed, that plaintiff drove his car at great speed and in excess of the speed limits along the her saying “and hirap ma-intubate nito, mali yata ang pagkakapasok”. Thereafter, bluish
national highway. discoloration of the nailbeds appeared on the patient. Hence, Dr. Hosaka issued an order for
someone to call Dr. Calderon, another anesthesiologist. The patient was placed in a
Plaintiff claims that the truck-trailer, which weighed 10 tons, was traveling at the trendelenburg position for decrease of blood supply in her brain. At 3:00 PM, the patient was
rate of 60 kilometers per hour when the collision occurred, but if such were the case, the car taken to the ICU. Four months after, the patient was released from the hospital. However,
he was driving would have been sent flying, or, at least, carried and pushed back by virtue of the patient has been in a comatose condition.
the truck's momentum and weight. There were, however, no indications on the surface of
the road at the scene of the collision showing that the Packard car was carried and dragged Hence, the petition filed a civil case for damages against herein private respondents
by the truck-trailer. Indeed, none of the witnesses testified to this fact. On the contrary, alleging negligence in the management and care of Erlinda Ramos.Petitioners contended that
Salvador Baun, chief of police, and Jesus Baluyot, patrolman, both of Capas, and other the faulty management of her airway casused the lack of oxygen in the patient’s brain. On
witnesses for the defendants testified that the skid marks present at the scene of the the respondent’s part, they contended that the brain damage was Erlinda's allergic reaction
collision were those made by the tires of the Packard car. No skid marks made by the tires of to the anesthetic agent.
the truck-trailer existed or were present at the scene of the collision.
Issues:
It might not be amiss to mention here that plaintiff's complaint was filed only after
(1) Will the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply in this case? and
the lapse of almost three years from the date of the accident. This, in itself, is indicative of
the weakness of plaintiff's cause of action. And considering the established fact that said
(2) Did the negligence of the respondents cause the unfortunate comatose
plaintiff was really the proximate cause of the accident, we find no valid reason to disturb the
condition of petitioner Erlinda Ramos?
decision complained of denying his claim for damages.

Ruling: 
G.R. No. 124354 December 29, 1999
ROGELIO E. RAMOS and ERLINDA RAMOS, in their own behalf and as natural guardians of (1) Yes. The Court finds the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur appropriate in the case at bar.
the minors, ROMMEL RAMOS, ROY RODERICK RAMOS and RON RAYMOND
RAMOS, petitioners, The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is where the thing which caused the injury
vs. complained of is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants and

5
the accident is such as in ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have its the patient. Furthermore, it does not escape the court that respondent Dr. Hosaka had
management or control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of scheduled another procedure in a different hospital at the same time as Erlinda's operation,
explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from or was caused by the defendant's and was in fact over three hours late for the latter's operation. Because of this, he had little
want of care. or no time to confer with his anesthesiologist regarding the anesthesia delivery. This
indicates that he was remiss in his professional duties towards his patient.

Thus, he shares equal responsibility for the events which resulted in Erlindas
In cases where the res ipsa loquitur is applicable, the court is permitted to find a condition.
physician negligent upon proper proof of injury to the patient, without the aid of expert
testimony, where the court from its fund of common knowledge can determine the proper As for the hospital (employer) itself, the Court ruled that for the purpose of
standard of care. Erlinda submitted herself soundly and fit for surgery. However, during the allocating responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer-employee relationship in
administration of anesthesia and prior to the performance of cholecystectomy she suffered effect exists between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians.
irreparable damage to her brain. Thus, without undergoing surgery, she went out of the
operating room already decerebrate and totally incapacitated. Obviously, brain damage, In the instant case, respondent hospital, apart from a general denial of its
which Erlinda sustained, is an injury which does not normally occur in the process of a gall responsibility over respondent physicians, failed to adduce evidence showing that it
bladder operation. Considering that a sound and unaffected member of the body (the brain) exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the hiring and supervision of the latter.
is injured or destroyed while the patient is unconscious and under the immediate and It failed to adduce evidence with regard to the degree of supervision which it exercised over
exclusive control of the physicians, we hold that a practical administration of justice dictates its physicians. In neglecting to offer such proof, or proof of a similar nature, respondent
the application of res ipsa loquitur. hospital thereby failed to discharge its burden under the last paragraph of Article 2180.

Having failed to do this, respondent hospital is consequently solidarily responsible

with its physicians for Erlindas condition.
(2) Yes.

With regard to Dra. Gutierrez, the court find her negligent during the anesthesia
phase. As borne by the records, respondent Dra. Gutierrez failed to properly intubate the G.R. No. 154469             December 6, 2006
patient which she admitted. METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, petitioners,
vs.
During intubation, such distention indicates that air has entered the gastrointestinal tract RENATO D. CABILZO, respondent.
through the esophagus instead of the lungs through the trachea. Entry into the esophagus Facts:
would certainly cause some delay in oxygen delivery into the lungs as the tube which carries
oxygen is in the wrong place. Even granting that the tube was successfully inserted during the On 12 November 1994, Cabilzo issued a Metrobank Check payable to "CASH" and
second attempt, it was obviously too late. An experienced anesthesiologist, adequately postdated on 24 November 1994 in the amount of P1,000.00. The check was drawn against
alerted by a thorough pre-operative evaluation, would have had little difficulty going around Cabilzo’s account and was paid by Cabilzo to a certain Mr. Marquez, as his sales commission.
the short neck and protruding teeth. Hence, she was negligent. Subsequently, the check was presented to Westmont Bank for payment. Westmont Bank, in
turn, indorsed the check to Metrobank for appropriate clearing. After the entries thereon
For Dr. Orlino Hosaka, as the head of the surgical team and as the so-called captain were examined, including the availability of funds and the authenticity of the signature of the
of the ship, it is the surgeons responsibility to see to it that those under him perform their drawer, Metrobank cleared the check for encashment in accordance with the Philippine
task in the proper manner. Respondent Dr. Hosakas negligence can be found in his failure to Clearing House Corporation (PCHC) Rules.
exercise the proper authority (as the captain of the operative team) in not determining if his
anesthesiologist observed proper anesthesia protocols. In fact, no evidence on record exists On 16 November 1994, Cabilzo’s representative was at Metrobank Pasong Tamo
to show that respondent Dr. Hosaka verified if respondent Dra. Gutierrez properly intubated Branch to make some transaction when he was asked by a bank personnel if Cabilzo had
6
issued a check in the amount of P91,000.00 to which the former replied in the negative. On and to whomever he directs. The point is that as a business affected with public interest
the afternoon of the same date, Cabilzo himself called Metrobank to reiterate that he did not and because of the nature of its functions, the bank is under obligation to treat the
issue a check in the amount of P91,000.00 and requested that the questioned check be accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature
returned to him for verification, to which Metrobank complied. Upon receipt of the check, of their relationship. The appropriate degree of diligence required of a bank must be a high
Cabilzo discovered that the check which he issued on 12 November 1994 in the amount degree of diligence, if not the utmost diligence.
of P1,000.00 was altered to P91,000.00 and the date 24 November 1994 was changed to 14
November 1994. Hence, Cabilzo demanded that Metrobank re-credit the amount In the present case, it is obvious that Metrobank was remiss in that duty and
of P91,000.00 to his account. Metrobank, however, refused. Repeated verbal demands violated that relationship. As observed by the Court of Appeals, there are material alterations
followed but Metrobank still failed to re-credit the amount of P91,000.00 to Cabilzo’s on the check that are visible to the naked eye. Thus:
account. Cabilzo, thru counsel, finally sent a letter-demand to Metrobank for the payment
x x x The number "1" in the date is clearly imposed on a white figure in the shape of
of P90,000.00, after deducting the original value of the check in the amount of  P1,000.00.
the number "2". The appellant’s employees who examined the said check should
Such written demand notwithstanding, Metrobank still failed or refused to comply with its
have likewise been put on guard as to why at the end of the amount in words, i.e.,
obligation.
after the word "ONLY", there are 4 asterisks, while at the beginning of the line or
Cabilzo then instituted a civil action for damages against Metrobank before the RTC before said phrase, there is none, even as 4 asterisks have been placed before and
of Manila. Cabilzo prayed that in addition to his claim for reimbursement, actual and moral after the word "CASH" in the space for payee. In addition, the 4 asterisks before the
damages plus costs of the suit be awarded in his favor. words "ONE THOUSAND PESOS ONLY" have noticeably been erased with typing
correction paper, leaving white marks, over which the word "NINETY" was
RTC rendered a Decision in favor of Cabilzo and thereby ordered Metrobank to pay superimposed. The same can be said of the numeral "9" in the amount "91,000",
the sum of P90,000.00, the amount of the check. In stressing the fiduciary nature of the which is superimposed over a whitish mark, obviously an erasure, in lieu of the
relationship between the bank and its clients and the negligence of the drawee bank in failing asterisk which was deleted to insert the said figure. The appellant’s employees
to detect an apparent alteration on the check, the trial court ordered for the payment of should have again noticed why only 2 asterisks were placed before the amount in
exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and cost of litigation. CA affirmed. figures, while 3 asterisks were placed after such amount. The word "NINETY" is also
typed differently and with a lighter ink, when compared with the words "ONE
Issue: THOUSAND PESOS ONLY." The letters of the word "NINETY" are likewise a little
Whether or not Metrobank was negligent. bigger when compared with the letters of the words "ONE THOUSAND PESOS
Ruling: ONLY".

Yes. Metrobank’s negligence consisted in the omission of that degree of diligence Surprisingly, however, Metrobank failed to detect the above alterations which
required of a bank owing to the fiduciary nature of its relationship with its client. could not escape the attention of even an ordinary person. This negligence was exacerbated
by the fact that, as found by the trial court, the check in question was examined by the
Article 1173 of the Civil Code provides: cash custodian whose functions do not include the examinations of checks indorsed for
The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence payment against drawer’s accounts. Obviously, the employee allowed by Metrobank to
which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the examine the check was not verse and competent to handle such duty.
circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place.
We need to reiterate that by the very nature of their work the degree of
In every case, the depositor expects the bank to treat his account with the utmost responsibility, care and trustworthiness expected of their employees and officials is far better
fidelity, whether such account consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions. The bank than those of ordinary clerks and employees. Banks are expected to exercise the highest
must record every single transaction accurately, down to the last centavo, and as promptly as degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.
possible. This has to be done if the account is to reflect at any given time the amount of
money the depositor can dispose of as he sees fit, confident that the bank will deliver it as

7
We find no justifiable reason therefore why Metrobank did not immediately reimburse his the jewelry from the bank. Respondent Lulu then requested petitioner Sicam to prepare the
account. Such ineptness comes within the concept of wanton manner contemplated under pawned jewelry for withdrawal but petitioner Sicam failed to return the jewelry.
the Civil Code which warrants the imposition of exemplary damages, "by way of example or
correction for the public good," in the words of the law. It is expected that this ruling will Respondent Lulu joined by her husband, Cesar Jorge, filed a complaint against petitioner
serve as a stern warning in order to deter the repetition of similar acts of negligence, lest the Sicam with the Regional Trial Court of Makati seeking indemnification for the loss of pawned
confidence of the public in the banking system be further eroded.  jewelry and payment of actual, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees.
Petitioners insist that they are not liable since robbery is a fortuitous event and they were
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 8 not negligent. RTC dismissed respondents’ complaint based on fortuitous event. CA reversed
March 2002 and the Resolution dated 26 July 2002 of the Court of Appeals the RTC and ordered the appellees to pay appellants the actual value of the lost jewelry
are AFFIRMED with modification that exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00 be amounting to P272,000.00, and attorney' fees of P27,200.00
awarded. Costs against the petitioner.
Issue:

Whether or not petitioners are not liable because of fortuitous event.

Ruling:

Petitioners are liable. Robbery per se, is not a fortuitous event. It does not
foreclose the possibility of negligence on the part of herein petitioners.

Article 1174 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise
declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not
be foreseen or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.
G.R. No. 159617             August 8, 2007
ROBERTO C. SICAM and AGENCIA de R.C. SICAM, INC., petitioners, Fortuitous events by definition are extraordinary events not foreseeable or avoidable. It is
vs. therefore, not enough that the event should not have been foreseen or anticipated, as is
LULU V. JORGE and CESAR JORGE, respondents. commonly believed but it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. The mere difficulty
Facts: to foresee the happening is not impossibility to foresee the same. The burden of proving that
the loss was due to a fortuitous event rests on him who invokes it. And, in order for a
Respondent Lulu V. Jorge pawned several pieces of jewelry with Agencia de R. C. fortuitous event to exempt one from liability, it is necessary that one has committed no
Sicam to secure a loan in the total amount of P59,500.00. On October 19, 1987, two armed negligence or misconduct that may have occasioned the loss.
men entered the pawnshop and took away whatever cash and jewelry were found inside the
pawnshop vault. Suspects fled after taking the money and jewelries. The CA did not err in finding that petitioners are guilty of concurrent or
contributory negligence as provided in Article 1170 of the Civil Code, to wit:
Petitioner Sicam sent respondent Lulu a letter informing her of the loss of her jewelry due to
the robbery incident in the pawnshop. Rspondent Lulu then wrote a letter to petitioner Sicam Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud,
expressing disbelief stating that when the robbery happened, all jewelry pawned were negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof,
deposited with Far East Bank near the pawnshop since it had been the practice that before are liable for damages.
they could withdraw, advance notice must be given to the pawnshop so it could withdraw

8
The provision on pledge, particularly Article 2099 of the Civil Code, provides that the creditor obligations in a normal manner; and, (d) the obligor must be free from any participation in
shall take care of the thing pledged with the diligence of a good father of a family. This the aggravation of the injury or loss. 
means that petitioners must take care of the pawns the way a prudent person would as to his
own property.

In this connection, Article 1173 of the Civil Code further provides: G.R. No. 159132             December 18, 2008
FE CAYAO-LASAM, petitioner, vs.SPOUSES CLARO and EDITHA RAMOLETE, respondents.
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that Facts:
diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with
the circumstances of the persons, of time and of the place. Respondents Editha and her husband Claro Ramolete filed a complaint for Gross
Negligence and Malpractice against petitioner Dr. Fe Cayao-Lasam before the Professional
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those Regulations Commission (PRC).
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do; or the
doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. It is want of care Respondent Editha Ramolete was 3 months pregnant when she was brought to the
required by the circumstances. Lorma Medical Center due to vaginal bleeding. Upon advice of petitioner Dr. Fe Cayao-Lasam
which was relayed via telephone, Editha was admitted to the LMC on the same day. Editha’s
Evidently, no sufficient precaution and vigilance were adopted by petitioners to repeated pelvic sonogram showed that aside from the fetus’ weak cardiac pulsation, no fetal
protect the pawnshop from unlawful intrusion. There was no clear showing that there was movement was also appreciated. Due to persistent and profuse vaginal bleeding, petitioner
any security guard at all. Or if there was one, that he had sufficient training in securing a advised Editha to undergo a Dilatation and Curettage Procedure (D&C) or "raspa. On July 30,
pawnshop. Further, there is no showing that the alleged security guard exercised all that was 1994, petitioner performed the D&C procedure. Upon Editha’s insistence, she was discharged
necessary to prevent any untoward incident or to ensure that no suspicious individuals were from the hospital the following day. She was advised to return for a check-up on but failed to
allowed to enter the premises. In fact, it is even doubtful that there was a security guard, do so. On September 16, 1994, Editha was once again brought at the LMC, as she was
since it is quite impossible that he would not have noticed that the robbers were armed with suffering from vomiting and severe abdominal pains. Editha was attended by Dr. Beatriz de la
caliber .45 pistols each, which were allegedly poked at the employees. Significantly, the Cruz, Dr. Victor B. Mayo and Dr. Juan V. Komiya. Dr. Mayo allegedly informed Editha that
alleged security guard was not presented at all to corroborate petitioner Sicam's claim; not there was a dead fetus in the latter’s womb. After, Editha underwent laparotomy, she was
one of petitioners' employees who were present during the robbery incident testified in found to have a massive intra-abdominal hemorrhage and a ruptured uterus. Thus, Editha
court. had to undergo a procedure for hysterectomy and as a result, she has no more chance to
bear a child.
Furthermore, petitioner Sicam's admission that the vault was open at the time of robbery is
clearly a proof of petitioners' failure to observe the care, precaution and vigilance that the The Board of Mediine of the PRC exonerated petitioner from the charges.
circumstances justly demanded. Responedents went to PRC on appeal. PRC reversed the findings of the Board and revoked
petitioner’s licence to practice her profession. Hence this petition. Petitioner questions the
PRC decision for being without an expert testimony to support its conclusion and to establish
the cause of Editha’s injury. Petitioner avers that in cases of medical malpractice, expert
Rationale:
testimony is necessary to support the conclusion as to the cause of the injury.
To constitute a fortuitous event, the following elements must concur: (a) the cause of the
Issue:
unforeseen and unexpected occurrence or of the failure of the debtor to comply with
obligations must be independent of human will; (b) it must be impossible to foresee the
Whether or not petitioner is liable for medical malpractice.
event that constitutes the caso fortuito or, if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to
avoid; (c) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill Ruling:

9
 No. The D&G procedure performed by petitioner was not the proximate cause. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC OF
MANILA, BRANCH XXXIV (34) and UNISIA MERCHANDISING CO., INC., respondents.
No negligence can be attributed to the petitioner, the immediate cause of the
accident resulting in Editha’s injury was her own omission when she did not return for a
follow-up check up, in defiance of petitioner’s orders. The immediate cause of Editha’s injury Facts:
was her own act; thus, she cannot recover damages from the injury.
Petitioner, the exclusive distributor of the House of Mayfair wallcovering products
Medical malpractice is a particular form of negligence which consists in the failure in the Philippines, cried foul when his former dealer of the same goods, herein private
of a physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill respondent, purchased the merchandise from the House of Mayfair in England through FNF
which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions, and in like Trading in West Germany and sold said merchandise in the Philippines.
surrounding circumstances. In order to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient must prove
that the physician or surgeon either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent In the suit for injunction which petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court, petitioner
physician or surgeon would not have done, and that the failure or action caused injury to the pressed the idea that he was practically by-passed and that private respondent acted in
patient. There are four elements involved in medical negligence cases: duty, breach, injury concert with the FNF Trading in misleading Mayfair into believing that the goods ordered by
and proximate causation. the trading firm were intended for shipment to Nigeria although they were actually shipped
to and sold in the Philippines. Petitioner impressed before the lower court that he is seeking
From the testimony of the expert witness and the reasons given by him, it is to enjoin the sale and distribution by private respondent of the same goods in the market.
evident that the D&C procedure was not the proximate cause of the rupture of Editha’s The lower court however denied the motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
uterus. It is clear that the D&C procedure was conducted in accordance with the standard injunction on the ground that there would be no legal justification because there is no privity
practice, with the same level of care that any reasonably competent doctor would use to of contract between petitioner and defendant. CA concurred. Hence this petition. Petitioner
treat a condition under the same circumstances, and that there was nothing irregular in the anchors his plea for redress on his perception that private respondent has distributed and
way the petitioner dealt with Editha. continues to sell Mayfair covering products in contravention of petitioner's exclusive right
conferred by the covenant with the House of Mayfair.
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only Issue:
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the
defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts Whether or not the respondent court erred in denying the injuction.
shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

Proximate cause has been defined as that which, in natural and continuous sequence,
Ruling:
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury, and without which the result
would not have occurred. An injury or damage is proximately caused by an act or a failure to
Yes.
act, whenever it appears from the evidence in the case that the act or omission played a
substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury or damage; and that the Injunction is the appropriate remedy to prevent a wrongful interference with
injury or damage was either a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the act contracts by strangers to such contracts where the legal remedy is insufficient and the
or omission. resulting injury is irreparable. The liability of private respondent, if any, does not emanate
from the four corners of the contract for undoubtedly, Unisia Merchandising Co., Inc. is not a
party thereto but its accountability is "an independent act generative of civil liability"
G.R. No. 86683 January 21, 1993
PHILIP S. YU, petitioner, The right to perform an exclusive distributorship agreement and to reap the profits
vs. resulting from such performance are proprietary rights which a party may protect which may

10
otherwise not be diminished, nay, rendered illusory by the expedient act of utilizing or of P350 for the film for the same period. Espejo admitted that he knew that Cuddy was the
interposing a person or firm to obtain goods from the supplier to defeat the very purpose for owner of the film. He received a letter from his agents in Manila dated April 26, assuring him
which the exclusive distributorship was conceptualized, at the expense of the sole authorized that he could not get the film for about six weeks. The arrangement between Cuddy and the
distributor. appellants for the exhibition of the film by the latter on the 26th of May were perfected after
April 26, so that the six weeks would include and extend beyond May 26. The appellants
Another circumstance which respondent court overlooked was petitioner's must necessarily have known at the time they made their offer to Cuddy that the latter had
suggestion, which was not disputed by herein private respondent in its comment, that the booked or contracted the film for six weeks from April 26. Therefore, the inevitable
House of Mayfair in England was duped into believing that the goods ordered through the conclusion is that the appellants knowingly induced Cuddy to violate his contract with
FNF Trading were to be shipped to Nigeria only, but the goods were actually sent to and sold another person. But there is no specific finding that the appellants knew the identity of the
in the Philippines. A ploy of this character is akin to the scenario of a third person who other party. So we must assume that they did not know that Gilchrist was the person who
induces a party to renege on or violate his undertaking under a contract, thereby entitling had contracted for the film. Furthermore, appellants contends that there was no valid and
the other contracting party to relief therefrom (Article 1314, New Civil Code). The breach binding contract between Cuddy and Gilchrist and that, therefore, they had a right to
caused by private respondent was even aggravated by the consequent diversion of trade compete with Gilchrist for the lease of the film, the right to compete being a justification for
from the business of petitioner to that of private respondent caused by the latter's species of their acts.
unfair competition as demonstrated no less by the sales effected inspite of this Court's
restraining order. This brings Us to the irreparable mischief which respondent court Issues:
misappreciated when it refused to grant the relief simply because of the observation that
petitioner can be fully compensated for the damage. A contrario, the injury is irreparable Whether or not Espejo and Zaldarriaga are liable for interfering with the contract
where it is continuous and repeated since from its constant and frequent recurrence, no fair between Gilchrist and Cuddy.
and reasonable redress can be had therefor by petitioner insofar as his goodwill and business
Ruling:
reputation as sole distributor are concerned.
Yes, appellants are liable.
Case is remanded to the court of origin for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
If there had been no contract between Cuddy and Gilchrist the defense that they
had the right to compete would be tenable, but the mere right to compete could not justify
the appellants in intentionally inducing Cuddy to take away the appellee's contractual rights.

Chief Justice Wells in Walker vs. Cronin (107 Mass., 555), said: "Everyone has a
right to enjoy the fruits and advantages of his own enterprise, industry, skill and
G.R. No. L-9356             February 18, 1915 credit. He has no right to be free from malicious and wanton interference,
C. S. GILCHRIST, plaintiff-appellee, disturbance or annoyance. If disturbance or loss come as a result of competition, or
vs. the exercise of like rights by others, it is damnum absque injuria, unless some
E. A. CUDDY, ET AL., defendants. superior right by contract or otherwise is interfered with."
JOSE FERNANDEZ ESPEJO and MARIANO ZALDARRIAGA, appellants.
Facts: In the case at bar the only motive for the interference with the Gilchrist — Cuddy
contract on the part of the appellants was a desire to make a profit by exhibiting the film in
Defendant Cuddy was the owner of the "Zigomar;" that petitioner Gilchrist was the owner of their theater. There was no malice beyond this desire; but this fact does not relieve them of
a cinematograph theater in Iloilo; that in accordance with the terms of the contract entered the legal liability for interfering with that contract and causing its breach. It is, therefore,
into between Cuddy and Gilchrist the former leased to the latter the "Zigomar" for exhibition clear, that they were liable to Gilchrist for the damages caused by their acts, unless they are
in his (Gilchrist's) theater for the week beginning May 26, 1913; and that Cuddy willfully relieved from such liability by reason of the fact that they did not know at the time the
violate his contract in order that he might accept the appellant Espejo and Zaldarriaga's offer identity of the original lessee (Gilchrist) of the film.
11
 The liability of the appellants arises from unlawful acts and not from contractual Yes, they are liable.
obligations, as they were under no such obligations to induce Cuddy to violate his contract  Article 2180 of the Civil Code which provides:
with Gilchrist. So that if the action of Gilchrist had been one for damages, it would be ‘The father, and in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for
governed by chapter 2, title 16, book 4 of the Civil Code. the damages caused by their minor children who live in their company.’

Article 1902 of that code provides that “a person who, by act or omission, causes The diligence of a good father of a family required by law in a parent and child
damages to another when there is fault or negligence, shall be obliged to repair the damage relationship consists, to a large extent, of the instruction and supervision of the child.
do done.” Petitioners were gravely remiss in their duties as parents in not diligently supervising the
activities of their son, despite his minority and immaturity, so much so that it was only at the
There is nothing in this article which requires as a condition precedent to the
time of Wendell’s death that they allegedly discovered that he was a CANU agent and that
liability of a tort-feasor that he must know the identity of a person to whom he causes
Cresencio’s gun was missing from the safety deposit box. Both parents were sadly wanting in
damages. In fact, the chapter wherein this article is found clearly shows that no such
their duty and responsibility in monitoring and knowing the activities of their children who,
knowledge is required in order that the injured party may recover for the damage suffered.
for all they know, may be engaged in dangerous work such as being drug informers, or even
drug users.

It is still the duty of parents to know the activity of their children who may be
engaged in this dangerous activity involving the menace of drugs. Had the defendants-
appellees been diligent in supervising the activities of their son, Wendell, and in keeping said
gun from his reach, they could have prevented Wendell from killing Julie Ann Gotiong.
[G.R. No. 70890. September 18, 1992.] Therefore, appellants are liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
CRESENCIO LIBI * and AMELIA YAP LIBI, Petitioners, v. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT, FELIPE GOTIONG and SHIRLEY GOTIONG, Respondents. Having been grossly negligent in preventing Wendell Libi from having access to said
gun which was allegedly kept in a safety deposit box, defendants-appellees are subsidiarily
Facts: liable for the natural consequence of the criminal act of said minor who was living in their
Julie Ann Gotiong and Wendell Libi were sweethearts until the former broke up company.
with the latter after she found out the Wendell were irresponsible and sadistic. Wendell
wanted reconciliation but was not granted by Julie so it prompted him to resort to threats.
One day, they were found dead each from a single gunshot wound inflicted with the same
firearm, a Smith and Wesson revolver licensed in the name of petitioner Cresencio Libi, which
was recovered from the scene of the crime inside the residence of private respondents The
parents of Julie herein private respondents filed a civil case against the parents of Wendell to
recover damages. Trial court dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence but was
set aside by CA. Petitioners raised as a defense that they had exercised the due diligence of a
good father of a family, hence they should not be civilly liable for the crime committed by
their minor son.

Issue:

Whether or not the parents of Wendell are liable for vicarious liability.

Ruling:

12