Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
1. Cangco, herein plaintiff, was an employee of the defendant in
this case, Manila Railroad Company.
2. Upon the occasion in question, plaintiff was returning home by
train from his daily labors. As the train drew up to the station,
plaintiff arose from his seat. As the train slowed down,
plaintiff stepped off, but one or both of his feet came in contact
with a sack of watermelons. As a result, his feet slipped from
under him and he fell violently on the platform.
3. The accident occurred between 7-8 oclock on a dark night as
the railroad station was lighted dimly, objects on the platform
were difficult to discern especially to a person emerging from a
lighted car.
4. Plaintiff sued the defendant company for damages.
5. The latter interposed the defense that the direct and proximate
cause of the injury suffered by the plaintiff was his own
contributory negligence in failing to wait until the train had
come to a complete stop before alighting.
ISSUE: Should Manila Railroad be held liable?
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower
court holding that it was important to note that the foundation of the
legal liability of the defendant was the contract of carriage, and that the
obligation to respond for the damage which plaintiff has suffered
arises, if at all, from the breach of that contract by reason of the failure
of defendant to exercise due care in its performance. That was to say,
its liability was direct and immediate, differing essentially, in legal
viewpoint from that presumptive responsibility for the negligence of
its servants, imposed by article 1903 of the Civil Code, which can be
rebutted by proof of the exercise of due care in their selection and
supervision. Article 1903 of the Civil Code is not applicable to
obligations arising ex contractu, but only to extra-contractual
obligations, or to use the technical form of expression, that article
relates only to culpa aquiliana and not to culpa contractual.
TUGADE v. CA
RATIO:
FACTS
1. At about 9:15 o'clock in the morning of January 4, 1972,
Rodolfo [Rayandayan] was driving a Holden Kingswood car
(the [Holden] car), bearing plate No. 52-19V (L-Rizal '71),
owned by the Sta. Ines Mining Corp. and assigned for use of its
manager, on Ayala Avenue in Makati, Rizal, going northwards.
2. At the intersection of Ayala Avenue and Makati Avenue,
Rayandayan was going to turn left on Makati Avenue but he
stopped to wait for the left turn signal and because a jeep in
front of him was also at a stop.
3. While in that stop position, the Holden car was bumped from
behind by Blue Car Taxi, bearing Plate No. 55-71R (TX-QC
'71) and driven by Inocencio Tugade causing damage to the
Holden car, the repairs of which cost P778.10.
4. Tugade was then charged with Reckless Imprudence Resulting
in Damage to Property. He pleaded not guilty and while
admitting that the collision was caused by faulty brakes of his
taxicab, sought to exculpate himself with the explanation that
this fault could not and should not be traced to him.
5. After trial, the lower court held Tugade guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Reckless Imprudence resulting in damage
to property and sentenced him to a fine of 1k and subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and actual damages of
P778.10
6. Tugade appealed the decision reiterating that `the
malfunctioning of the brakes at the time of accident was due to
a mechanical defect which even the exercise of due negligence
of a good father of a family cannot have prevented.
7. CA affirmed TCs decision in toto.
8. Hence this petition.
This element is lacking in the present case. It is not suggested that the
accident in question was due to an act of God or to adverse road
conditions which could not have been foreseen. As far as the record
shows, the accident was caused either by defects in the automobile or
else through the negligence of its driver. This is not a caso fortuito
which would call for an acquittal of the driver.JUNTILLA v.
FONTANAR
FACTS:
1. Herein plaintiff was a passenger of the public utility jeepney on
course from Danao City to Cebu City.
2. The jeepney was driven by driven by defendant Berfol Camoro
and registered under the franchise of Clemente Fontanar.
3. When the jeepney reached Mandaue City, the right rear tire
exploded causing the vehicle to turn turtle.
4. In the process, the plaintiff who was sitting at the front seat was
thrown out of the vehicle.
5. Plaintiff suffered a lacerated wound on his right palm aside
from the injuries he suffered on his left arm, right thigh, and on
his back.
6. Plaintiff filed a case for breach of contract with damages before
the City Court of Cebu City.
7. Defendants, in their answer, alleged that the tire blow out was
beyond their control, taking into account that the tire that
exploded was newly bought and was only slightly used at the
time it blew up.
ISSUE: Whether or not the tire blow-out is a fortuitous event?
HELD: No. In the case at bar, the cause of the unforeseen and
unexpected occurrence was not independent of the human will. The
accident was caused either through the negligence of the driver or
because of mechanical defects in the tire. Common carriers should
teach drivers not to overload their vehicles, not to exceed safe and
legal speed limits, and to know the correct measures to take when a
tire blows up thus insuring the safety of passengers at all
tines.AUSTRIA v. CA
FACTS:
1. Maria G. Abad received from Guillermo Austria a pendant with
diamonds to be sold on a commission basis or to be returned on
demand.
2. While walking home, the purse containing the jewelry and cash
was snatched by two men.
3. A complaint of the incident was filed in the Court of First
Instance against certain persons.
4. Abad failed to return the jewelry or pay for its value despite
demands made by Austria.
5. Austria brought an action against the Abad spouses for the
recovery of the pendant or of its value and damages.
6. Abad spouses set up the defense that the alleged robbery had
extinguished their obligation.
ISSUE: Should the Abad spouse be held liable for the loss of the
pendant?
HELD: No. The Court ruled that the exempting provision of Article
1174 of the Civil Code is applicable in the case. It is a recognized
jurisdiction that to constitute a caso fortuito that would exempt a
person from responsibility, it is necessary that
a. The event must be independent of the human will or of the
obligors will;
b. The occurrence must render it impossible for the debtor to
fulfill the obligation in a normal manner;
c. The obligor must be free of participation in, or aggravation of,
the injury to the creditor.
FACTS:
In 1910, Concepcion Cirer and James Hill donated parcels of
land to the municipality of Tarlac on the condition that it be
used absolutely and exclusively for the erection of a central
school and public parks, the work to commence within six
months. The president of the municipality of Tarlac accepted
and registered the donation.
In 1921, Cirer and Hill sold the same property to George L.
Parks.
Later on the, the municipality of Tarlac transferred their rights
in the property to the Province of Tarlac.
Parks filed a complaint seeking the annulment of the
donation and asking that he be declared the absolute owner
of the property. Parks allege that the conditions of the
donation were not complied with.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the donation was coupled with a condition
precedent? W/N the action to revoke has prescribed?
HELD:
No. The condition to erect a school within six months is not a
condition precedent. The characteristic of a condition
precedent is that the acquisiito of the right is not effected
while said condition is mot complied with or is not deemed
complied with. Meanwhile nothing is acquired and there is
only an expectancy of a right. Consequently, when a
condition is imposed, the compliance of which cannot be
effected except when the right is deemed acquired, such
trust whereby all the remaining notes became due, the court
could enter a decree for the full amount of the mechanic's
lien and of the trust lien, and order a sale of the property to
satisfy the decree." And the District Court of Montana, in the
case of First Trust & Savings Bank vs. Bitter Root Valley Irr.
Co. (251 Federal Reporter, 320), held: "Where an irrigation
company's trust deed to secure its bond was an entire
contract, to be performed in installments, all bonds would
become due upon a default in an installment."
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from must be as it is
hereby, modified, and it is declared that, as the mortgage
installments in question have matured may collect by the
failure of the mortgagor to pay, the mortgagee may collect
the whole debt, with interest thereon, including the
P2,844.88 and the interest upon the last annual installment,
and to proceed to the foreclosure of the mortgage in
accordance with law, without prejudice to the mortgaged
lands, in favor of the North Negros Sugar Co., Inc. Without
special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.
Avancea, C.J., Johnson, Street,
Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
Malcolm,
Ostrand,