Nuffnang

Case Digest - Torts and Damages

It's school time and this is what I've been busy of the previous days. Let me share it with you although there is no music this time. I have 4 case digests below:

=======================================

AIR FRANCE VS CARRASCOSO (GRN L-21438/September 28, 1966)

SANCHEZ, J.:

FACTS:

Carrascoso was a member of a group of 48 Filipino pilgrims that left Manila for Lourdes on March 30, 1958. Air France issued a “first class” round trip ticket from Manila to Rome. From Manila to Bangkok, passenger Carrascoso traveled in first class but at Bangkok, the Manager of Air France forced him to vacate the first class seat because a white man had a better right to it. The purser wrote in his record book “First class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will, and the captain refused to intervene” which was written in French. Petitioner contends that damages must be averred that there was fraud and bad faith in order that claim for damages should set in.

ISSUE:

Whether or not passenger Carrascoso was entitled to damages.

RULING:

Although true that there was no mention of bad faith in the complaint, the inference of bad faith can be drawn from the facts and circumstances therein. The petitioner violated its contract of transportation with the aggravating circumstance committed by its manager when it went to the extent of threatening the plaintiff in the presence of many passengers.



CAEDO vs YU KHE THAI and BERNARDO (G.R. No. L-20392 December 18, 1968)

MAKALINTAL, J.:

FACTS:

Caedo and family were traveling Highway 54 on the way to the airport. Private respondents were traveling on the opposite direction. Bernardo was the personal river of Yu. Both vehicles were running at moderate speeds when a carritela was traveling the same direction as Bernardo’s. The latter overtook the caritella and took the lane Caedos were traveling and caused multiple injuries and damage to the Caedos. Bernardo was held liable.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the owner of the vehicle who was riding with the driver at the time of the accident be held solidarily liable.

RULING:

The court ruled that if the causative factor was the driver’s negligence, the owner of the vehicle who was present is likewise held liable if he could have prevented the mishap by the existence of due diligence. The basis of the master's liability in civil law is not respondent superior but rather the relationship of paterfamilias. The theory is that ultimately the negligence of the servant, if known to the master and susceptible of timely correction by him, reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent injury or damage.


ELCANO VS HILL

GRN L-24803

BARREDO, J.:

FACTS:

Reginald Hill accidentally killed the son of Elcano. He was acquitted from the criminal case due to the efense of minority. Elcano filed a civil case alleging damages against Reginald and his father from whom the latter was receiving subsistence. Hills moved to dismiss the case on the ground that case was barred by res adjudicata and that the father was relieved from guardianship of the defendant through emancipation by marriage. The case was dismissed thus this appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the civil action for damages is barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case.

RULING:

Criminal negligence is in violation of the criminal law while civil negligence is a culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict, of ancient origin, having always had its own foundation and individuality, separate from criminal negligence. Culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law. It results that the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for quasi-delict, hence the acquittal is not a bar to the instant action against him.

Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.

Likewise, emancipation does not carry with it freedom to enter into transactions or do any act that can give rise to judicial litigation. And surely, killing someone else invites judicial action.


PB COM VS CA / ROMMEL’S MARKETING CORP (GRN 97626 MARCH 14, 1997)

HERMOSISIMA, J.:

FACTS:

Rommel Marketing, represented by Manager Lipana, maintains a current account with petitioner. The complaint was based on RMC’s claim for the sum of 304,979.74 representing various deposits it had made which were not credited to its account and were instead deposited to the account of one Cotos, also a depositor of the bank. RMC alleged gross negligence and inexcusable negligence of petitioner bank. Petitioner bank counters the complaint stating that RMCs secretary prepares 2 deposit slips and writes the name of Cotos in the original but writes the name RMC in the duplicate, which she retains to further perpetuate her fraudulent act. Petitioner bank likewise regularly sends statement of account to Lipana but the latter never opened those.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the proximate cause of the loss suffered by RMC due to petitioner’s negligence or that of the Bank.

RULING:

Our law on quasi-delict states that, “Whoever, by act or omission, causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage donw. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contactural relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.”

There are three elements of quasi-delict: damages suffered by the plaintiff; fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond; and the connection of cause and effet between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff.

The bank business is affected with public interest and because of the nature of its functions, the bank I sunder obligation to treat the accounts of its depositor with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. In this case, it is apparent that the bank was remiss in that duty and violated that relationship. Lipana was likewise declared negligent by not checking the monthly SOA sent to it by the bank. His contributory negligence mitigated the damages awarded to RMC.

No comments: