Bar Q and A #44

1.) In January 2018, Mrs. A, a married woman on her sixth (6th) month of pregnancy, was crossing a street when she was suddenly hit by a car being recklessly driven by Mr. X. As a result, Mrs. A sustained serious injuries and further, suffered an unintentional abortion. Mrs. A was hospitalized for two (2) months, during which she incurred ₱400,000.00 in medical fees. Her expenses were all duly substantiated by official receipts. During the two (2)-month period of her confinement, she was unable to report for work and earn any salary, which was established at the rate of ₱50,000.00 per month. Mrs. A then filed a civil case for damages against Mr. X. A. Based on the case filed by Mrs. A, what is the source of Mr. X's obligation to her as a result of his acts? Explain. B. May Mrs. A claim actual damages from Mr. X? If so, how much can Mrs. A claim? Explain. C. May Mrs. A claim damages on behalf of her unborn baby? Explain. D. What must Mrs. A prove if she wants to recover moral damages from Mr. X?

a. The source of obligation is quasi-delict because there was no pre-existing contractual relations between Mrs. A and Mr. X who are strangers and there was damage done. For Quasi-Delict to become a source of an obligation these elements should concur (1) there was damage to the plaintiff, (2) there is negligence by act or omission of which defendant or some person for whose acts he must respond was guilty, (3) in connection of cause and effect between such negligence and damage, (4) there must be no pre-existing contract. In this case there was a claim for quasi delict because all of the elements mentioned above concur.

b. Yes, Mrs. A can claim actual damages amounting to P500,000. Under Art. 2199 of the NCC it provides that except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to actual or compensatory damages only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. The medical fees totaling P400,000 were duly substantiated by official receipts, Article 2200 of the Civil Code also provides that indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain. The rate of her salary was established at P50,000 per month; thus, her inability to report for work and earn salary for two months entitled her to a total of P100,000. Mrs. A, therefore, can claim her expenses for medical fees and two months’ worth of salary the total of which is P500.000.

c. No, Mrs. A cannot claim damages on behalf of her unborn baby. Birth determines personality. The Court has held that an action for pecuniary damages on account of personal injury or death pertains primarily to the one injured, and if no action for such damages could be instituted on behalf of the unborn child on account of the injuries it received, no such right of action could derivatively accrue to its parents or heirs.

2.) A van owned by Orlando and driven by Diego, while negotiating a downhill slope of a city road, suddenly gained speed, obviously beyond the authorized limit in the area, and bumped a car in front of it, causing severe damage to the care and serious injuries to its passengers. Orlando was not in the car at the time of the incident. The car owner and the injured passengers sued Orlando and Diego for damages caused by Diego’s negligence. In their defense, Diego claims that the downhill slope caused the van to gain speed and that, as he stepped on the brakes to check the acceleration, the brakes locked, causing the van to go even faster and eventually to hit the car in front of it. Orlando and Diego contend that the sudden malfunction of the van’s brake system is a fortuitous even and that, therefore, they are exempt from any liability. Is this contention tenable? Explain.

No. Mechanical defects of a motor vehicle do not constitute fortuitous event, since the presence of such defects would have been readily detected by diligent maintenance check. The failure to maintain the vehicle in safe running condition constitutes negligence.

3.) Liwayway Vinzons-Chato was then the Commissioner of Internal Revenue while Fortune Tobacco Corporation is an entity engaged in the manufacture of different brands of cigarettes, among which are "Champion," "Hope," and "More" cigarettes. Fortune filed a complaint against Vinzons- Chato to recover damages for the alleged violation of its constitutional rights arising from Vinzons-Chato’s issuance of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 37-934 (which re- classified Fortune cigarettes as locally manufactured with foreign brands and thereby imposed higher taxes), which the Supreme Court later declared invalid. Vinzons-Chato filed a Motion to dismiss arguing that she cannot be held liable for damages for acts she performed while in the discharge of her duties as BIR Commissioner. Is she correct? Explain.

Yes. As a general rule, a public officer is not liable for acts performed in the discharge of his duties. The exceptions are when he acted with malice, bad faith, or gross negligence in the performance of his duty, or when his act is in violation of the constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties of a person under Art. 32.

The public officer is not automatically considered to have violated the rights or liberties of a person simply because the rule the public officer issued was declared invalid by the Court. The complainant must still allege and prove the particular injury or prejudice he has suffered from the violation of his constitutional right by the issuance of the invalidated rule.

The problem does not state any fact from which any malice, bad faith or gross negligence on the part of Vinzons-Chato may be inferred, or the particular injury or prejudice the complainant may have suffered as a result of the violation of his constitutional rights. Hence, she cannot be held liable. The facts presented are similar to the facts of the case of Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune, (G.R. No. 141309, December 23, 2008).

4.) Tony bought a Ford Expedition from a car dealer in Muntinlupa City. As payment, Tony issued a check drawn against his current account with Premium Bank. Since he has a good reputation, the car dealer allowed him to immediately drive home the vehicle merely on his assurance that his check is sufficiently funded. When the car dealer deposited the check, it was dishonored on the ground of "Account Closed." After an investigation, it was found that an employee of the bank misplaced Tony's account ledger. Thus, the bank erroneously assumed that his account no longer exists. Later it turned out that Tony's account has more than sufficient funds to cover the check. The dealer however, immediately filed an action for recovery of possession of the vehicle against Tony for which he was terribly humiliated and embarrassed. Does Tony have a cause of action against Premium Bank? Explain.

Yes, Tony may file an action against Premium Bank for damages under Art. 2176. Even if there exists a contractual relationship between Tony and Premium Bank, an action for quasi-delict may nonetheless prosper. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the act that breaks the contract may also be a tort. There is a fiduciary relationship between the bank and the depositor, imposing utmost diligence in managing the accounts of the depositor. The dishonor of the check adversely affected the credit standing of Tony, hence, he is entitled to damages. (Singson v. BPI, G.R. No. L-24932, June 27, 1968; American Express International, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 72383, November 9, 1988; Consolidated Bank and Trust v. CA, G.R.No.L- 70766 November 9,1998)

5.) OJ was employed as professional driver of MM Transit bus owned by Mr. BT. In the course of his work, OJ hit a pedestrian who was seriously injured and later died in the hospital as a result of the accident. The victim’s heirs sued the driver and the owner of the bus for damages. Is there a presumption in this case that Mr. BT, the owner, had been negligent? If so, is the presumption absolute or not? Explain.

Yes, there is a presumption of negligence on the part of the employer. However, such presumption is rebuttable. The liability of the employer shall cease when they prove that they observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (Art. 2180) When the employee causes damage due to his own negligence while performing his own duties, there arises the juris tantum presumption that the employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a family. (Metro Manila Transit v. CA, G.R. No. 104408, June 21, 1993; Delsan Transport Lines v. C&A Construction, G.R. No. 156034, October 1, 2003) Likewise, if the driver is charged and convicted in a criminal case for criminal negligence, BT is subsidiarily liable for the damages arising from the criminal act.

6.) 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.

The motion to dismiss should be granted, AVIS is not the employer of Silvestre; hence, there is no right of action against AVIS under Art. 2180. 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.

7.) Mabuhay Elementary School organized a field trip for its Grade VI students in Fort Santiago, Manila Zoo, and Star City. To be able to join, the parents of the students had to sign a piece of paper that reads as follows: "I allow my child (name of student), Grade – Section, to join the school’s field trip on February 14, 2014. I will not file any claim against the school, administrator or teacher in case something happens to my child during the trip." Joey, a 7-year-old student of Mabuhay Elementary School was bitten by a snake while the group was touring Manila Zoo. The parents of Joey sued the school for damages. The school, as a defense, presented the waiver signed by Joey’s parents. Was there a valid waiver of right to sue the school? Why?

No, there was no valid waiver of the right to sue the school. A waiver to be valid must have three requisites: 1) existence of the right; 2) legal capacity of the person waiving the right and 3) the waiver must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. In the case presented, the waiver may be considered contrary to public policy as it exonerates the school from liability for future negligence. The waiver in effect allows the school to not exercise even ordinary diligence.

8.) 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. 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.

1. 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 Sec. 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. (Sec. 3, Rule 111, Rules of Criminal Procedure)

2. No, Benjamin cannot raise the defense that the vehicle is not registered in his name. His liability, vicarious in character, is based on Art. 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, September14, 2004).

9.) As a result of a collision between the taxicab owned by A and another taxicab owned by B, X, a passenger of the first taxicab, was seriously injured. X later filed a criminal action against both drivers. 1. May both taxicab owners raise the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of their drivers to be absolved from liability for damages to X? Reason. 2. Is it necessary for X to reserve his right to institute a civil action for damages against both taxicab owners before he can file a civil action for damages against them? Why?

1. It depends. If the civil action is based on a quasi-delict the taxicab owners may raise the defense of diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of the driver; if the action against is based on culpa contractual or civil liability arising from a crime, they cannot raise the defense.

2. It depends. If the separate civil action is to recover damages arising from the criminal act, reservation is necessary. If the civil action against the taxicab owners is based on culpa contractual, or on quasi-delict, there is no need for reservation.

10.) Primo owns a pet iguana which he keeps in a man-made pond enclosed by a fence situated in his residential lot. A typhoon knocked down the fence of the pond and the iguana crawled out of the gate of Primo’s residence. N, a neighbor who was passing by, started throwing stones at the iguana, drawing the iguana to move toward him. N panicked and ran but tripped on something and suffered a broken leg. Is anyone liable for N’s injuries? Explain.

No one is liable. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the damage it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage. (Art. 2183)