Arturo sold his Pajero to Benjamin for P1 Million.

 Benjamin took the vehicle but did not register

the sale with the Land Transportation Office. He allowed his son Carlos, a minor who did not
have a driver’s license, to drive the car to buy pan de sal in a bakery. On the way, Carlos driving
in a reckless manner, sideswiped Dennis, then riding a bicycle. As a result, he suffered serious
physical injuries. Dennis filed a criminal complaint against Carlos for reckless imprudence
resulting in serious physical injuries.

1. Can Dennis file an independent civil action against Carlos and his father Benjamin for
damages based on quasi-delict? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Dennis can file an independent civil action against Carlos and
his father for damages based on quasi-delict there being an act or omission causing damage to
another without contractual obligation. Under Section 1 of Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on
Criminal Procedure,  what  is  deemed  instituted  with  the  criminal action is only the action to
recover civil liability arising from the act or omission punished by law. An action based on
quasi-delict is no longer deemed instituted and may be filed separately   [Section   3,   Rule  
111,   Rules   of   Criminal Procedure].

2. Assuming Dennis’ action is tenable, can Benjamin raise the defense that he is not liable
because the vehicle is not registered in his name? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Benjamin cannot raise the defense that the vehicle is not registered in his name. His liability,
vicarious in character, is based on Article 2180 because he is the father of a minor who caused
damage due to negligence. While the suit will prosper against the registered owner, it is the
actual owner of the private vehicle who is ultimately liable (See Duavit v. CA, G.R. No. L-
29759, May 18, 1989).The purpose of car registration is to reduce difficulty in identifying the
party liable in case of accidents
(Villanueva v. Domingo, G.R. No. 144274, September 14, 2004).

Vicarious Liability; Public Utility (2000)

Silvestre  leased  a  car  from  Avis-Rent-A-Car  Co.  at  the Mactan International Airport. No

sooner had he driven the car outside the airport when, due to his negligence, he bumped an FX
taxi owned and driven by Victor, causing damage to the latter in the amount of P100,000.00.
Victor filed an action   for damages against both Silvestre and Avis, based on quasi-delict.    Avis
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against it on the ground of failure to state a cause of
action. Resolve the motion.
 1040ez online form
 2014 tax act
 Act
 Appellant
 Appellate
 Breaches

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The motion to dismiss should be granted, AVIS is not the employer of Silvestre; hence, there is
no right of action against AVIS under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Not being  the  employer,
AVIS  has  no  duty  to  supervise Silvestre.  Neither  has  AVIS  the  duty  to  observe  due
diligence in the selection of its customers. Besides, it was given in the problem that the cause of
the accident was the negligence of Silvestre.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The motion should be denied. Under the Public Service Law, the registered owner of a public
utility is liable for the damages suffered by third persons through the use of such public utility.
Hence, the cause of action is based in law, the Public Service Law.

After  working  overtime  up  to  midnight,  Alberto,  an executive  of  an  insurance  company 
drove  a  company vehicle to a favorite Videoke bar where he had some drinks and sang some
songs with friends to “unwind”. At 2:00 a.m., he drove home, but in doing so, he bumped a
tricycle, resulting in the death of its driver. May the insurance company be held liable for the
negligent act of Alberto? Why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The insurance company is not liable because when the accident  occurred,  Alberto  was  not
acting  within  the assigned tasks of his employment.

It is true that under Art. 2180 (par. 5), employers are liable for damages caused by their
employees who were acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. However, the mere fact that
Alberto was using a service vehicle of the employer at the time of the injurious accident does not
necessarily mean that he was operating the vehicle within the scope of his employment. In
Castilex Industrial Corp. v. Vasquez Jr. (321 SCRA 393[1999]). the Supreme Court held that
notwithstanding the fact that the employee did some overtime work for the company, the former
was, nevertheless, engaged in his own affairs or carrying out a personal purpose when he went to
a restaurant at 2:00 a.m. after coming out from work. The time of the accident (also 2:00 a. m.)
was outside normal working hours.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The insurance company is liable if Alberto was negligent in the operation of the car and the car
was assigned to him for the benefit of the insurance company, and even though he was not within
the scope of his assigned tasks when the accident happened. In one case decided by the Supreme
Court, where an executive of a pharmaceutical company was given the use of a company car, and
after office hours, the executive made personal use of the car and met an accident, the employer
was also made liable under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code for the injury caused by the negligent
operation of the car by the executive, on the ground that the car which caused the injury was
assigned to the executive by the employer for the prestige of the company. The insurance
company was held liable even though the employee was not performing within the scope of his
assigned tasks when the accident happened [Valenzuela v. CA, 253 SCRA 3O3(1996)].

Torts
1. Yes ( Article 2176)

2. No (Article 2180, father solidarily liable for damages re torts of his son)

3.i Yes (motor vehicle’s registered owner [still] primary responsible to public for injuries caused by his
vehicle)

3.ii Motion to Dismiss GRANTED. ( Rules of Court, Rule 16 re failure to state the cause of action in the
pleading is a ground for dismissal)

3.iii Yes, (Article 2176 in relation to Article 2180 OR simply doctrine of Vicarious liability but with to be
indemnified under the principle of solutio indebiti)

4. Yes. 5 star hotel + public interest (safety and security of persons and their belongings) = must exercise
reasonable care for its guests) [may case inen kanan Shangri-la]

5. Untenable. Dapat both driver and owner always na check ira kotse (diligence of a good father of the
family always)

6. Yes. Res ipsa loquitur doctrine esp to [public] places where everyone has the right to be, labi nat
National highway.

7. No. Doctrine of ‘bat parang kasalanan ko pa?’ Hehe joke. Balit, damnus absque injuria doctrine.

8. Yes. Gun owner must exercise higher degree of care labi kay firearms iya negosyo

9. Yes. Case shall prosper. BPI was negligent in the selection and supervision of its employees due to lack
of due care required of its managers and employees in handling client’s account. Higher degree of
diligence esp because the banking business involves public interest.

10. Will not prosper. Article 2183. Sala niya waray hiya lalabte han ayam pinanbatak hiya. Waray sala an
tag iya kay hataas man an alad. Tuyo manla guin urit niyan ayam. Paog hiya. Hehehe