Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
ISSUES: Whether or not Father De la Peña is liable for the loss of the
funds?
RULLING:
No, he is not liable because there is no negligent act on the part of Fr. De
la Peña. It was so happened that during that time the money was taken
from him by the U.S. military forces which is unforeseen event. Although
the Civil Code states that “a person obliged to give something is also bound
to preserve it with the diligence pertaining to a good father of a family”, it
also provides, following the principle of the Roman law that “no one shall be
liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which having been
foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of the cases expressly
mentioned in the law or those in which the obligation so declares.”
Africa vs. Caltex
G.R. No. L-12986 March 31, 1966
Makalintal, J.
Facts:
In the afternoon of March 18, 1948, a fire broke out at the Caltex service
station at the corner of Antipolo St. and Rizal Avenue, Manila. It started
while gasoline was being hosed from a tank truck into the underground
storage, right at the opening of the receiving tank where the nozzle of the
hose was inserted. The fire spread to and burned several houses. The
owners, among them petitioner spouses Africa and heirs of Ong, sued
respondents Caltex Phil., Inc., the alleged owner of the station, and Mateo
Boquiren, the agent in charge of its operation, for damages. The CFI and
CA found that the petitioners failed to prove negligence of the respondents,
and that there was due care in the premises and with respect to the
supervision of their employees.
Issue: Whether or not, without proof as to the cause and origin of the fire,
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should apply so as to presume negligence
on the part of the respondents.
Held:
Yes. Res ipsa loquitur literally means “the thing or transaction speaks for
itself.” For the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply, the following requisites
should be present: (a) the accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not
occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (b) it is caused by an
instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants;
and (c) the possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff
responsible is eliminated. In the case at bar, the gasoline station, with all its
appliances, equipment and employees, was under the control of
respondents. A fire occurred therein and spread to and burned the
neighboring houses. The persons who knew or could have known how the
fire started were respondents and their employees, but they gave no
explanation thereof whatsoever. It is a fair and reasonable inference that
the incident happened because of want of care. The negligence of the
employees was the proximate cause of the fire, which in the ordinary
course of things does not happen. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to
the award for damages.
FACTS:
The trial court found Bonifacio negligent and declared that PEPSI-COLA
had not sufficiently proved that it exercised the due diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent the damage. PEPSI-COLA and Bonifacio,
solidarily, were ordered to pay the plaintiffs damages.
ISSUE:
HELD:
Petitioners also charge PEPSI-COLA with having violated par. (b) of Sec.
8-A of the Rev. Motor Vehicle Law, alleging that the truck exceeded the
dimensions allowed. It is not enough that the width of the tractor-truck
exceed the limit in Sec. 8-A; in addition, it must also appear that there was
no special permit granted under Sec. 9. Unfortunately for petitioners, that
vital factual link is missing. There was no proof much less any finding to
that effect.
Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the basis of an employer's liability is
his own negligence, not that of his employees. The former is made
responsible for failing to properly and diligently select and supervise his
erring employees. We do not — and have never — followed the respondent
superior rule.8 So, the American rulings cited by petitioners, based as they
are on said doctrine, are not authoritative here.
A Fuso Road tractor driven by Tutor rammed into the house cum of
Tamayo which resulted in the death of Tamayo’s son and Oledan’s
daughter. Failure to claim from a criminal case finding Tutor guilty of
reckless imprudence, respondents filed a civil case based on quasi delict
against Equitable Leasing Corp, the registered owner of the tractor, among
others. Equitable contends that it should not be held liable for such
damages which arose from the negligence of the driver Fuso Road. That
such tractor was already sold to the owner of Fuso Road at the time of the
accident. Thus, not having employed driver Tutor, it could not have
controlled or supervised him.
Issue:
Held:
Yes, Equitable should be held liable because it was the registered owner at
the time of the accident.
The Court has consistently ruled that, regardless of sales made of a motor
vehicle, the registered owner is the lawful operator insofar as the public and
third persons are concerned; consequently, it is directly and primarily
responsible for the consequences of its operation. In contemplation of law,
the owner/operator of record is the employer of the driver, the actual
operator and employer being considered as merely its agent. The same
principle applies even if the registered owner of any vehicle does not use it
for public service.
The main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if
any accident happens, or that any damage or injury is caused by the
vehicle on the public highways, responsibility therefor can be fixed on a
definite individual, the registered owner.
Facts:
Issues:
Held:
2 No, the law does not allow him. The law, with its aim and policy in mind,
does not relieve him directly of the responsibility that the law fixes and
places upon him as an incident or consequence of registration. This may
appear harsh but nevertheless, a registered owner who has already sold or
transferred a vehicle has the recourse to a third-party complaint, in the
same action brought against him to recover for the damage or injury done,
against the vendee or transferee of the vehicle.
While the registered owner is primarily responsible for the damage caused,
he has a right to be indemnified by the real or actual owner of the amount
that he may be required to pay as damage for the injury caused.