City of Manila vs. Genaro N. Teotico and CA
G.R. No. L-23052. 29 January 1968.
Appeal by certiorari from a decision of the CA
Concepcion, J.:
Facts: On January 27, 1958, Teotico was at the corner of the Old Luneta and P. Burgos Avenue, Manila, within a "loading and unloading" zone, waiting for a jeepney. As he stepped down from the curb to board the jeepney he hailed, and took a few steps, he fell inside an uncovered and unlighted catch basin or manhole on P. Burgos Avenue. Due to the fall, Teotico suffered injuries. Teotico filed with the CFI Mla complaint against the City which dismissed the same. On appeal, CA sentenced the City of Manila to pay damages.
Issue: WON the City of Manila have control or supervision over P. Burgos Ave making it responsible for the damages suffered by Teotico.
Ruling: Decision affirmed.
In its answer to the complaint, the City, alleged that "the streets aforementioned were and have been constantly kept in good condition…and manholes thereof covered by the defendant City and the officers concerned…" Thus, the City had, in effect, admitted that P. Burgos Avenue was and is under its control and supervision.
Under Article 2189 CC, it is not necessary for the liability therein established to attach that the defective roads or streets belong to the province, city or municipality from which responsibility is exacted. What said article requires is that the province, city or municipality have either "control or supervision" over said street or road. Even if P. Burgos Avenue were, therefore, a national highway, this circumstance would not necessarily detract from the City's "control or supervision."
*Dan'q
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Manlangit vs. Urgel
REYNATO MANLANGIT vs.JUDGE MELITO L. URGEL
A.M. No. MTJ-95-1028 December 4, 1995
Administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law.
Paras, J.:
Facts: On August 13, 1994, the jeepney owned by complainant and driven by Edgardo Castillo, plied its usual route going to Virac, Catanduanes. While approaching a blind curve, the jeepney driver occupied the wrong lane. At the curve, they suddenly saw a parked dump truck and in order to avoid collision driver swerved to the right and accidentally plunged into the river. The passengers sustained some injuries.
Consequently, a criminal complaint against Castillo and complainant was filed before the sala of respondent judge who then issued a warrant for the arrest of both Castillo and complainant.
Issue: WON complainant can be held criminally liable.
Ruling: It has been held in Chapman v. Underwood (G.R. No. 9010, March 28, 1914, 27 Phil 374.) "that An owner who sits in his automobile and permits his driver to continue in a violation of the law by the performance of negligent acts, after he has had reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct that the driver cease therefrom, becomes himself responsible for such acts. On the other hand, if the driver, by a sudden act of negligence, and without the owner having reasonable opportunity to prevent the act or its continuance, injures a person or violates the criminal law, the owner of the automobile, although present therein at the time the act was committed, is not responsible, either criminally or civilly, therefor. The act complained of must be continued in the presence of the owner for such a length of time that the owner, by his acquiescence, makes his driver's acts his own."
In the case at bar, nowhere does it show that complainant participated in abetted or even approved the negligent and reckless manner in which his driver maneuvered the vehicle on that blind curve. Hence, the warrant of arrest issued by respondent judge was erroneous.
*Dan'q
A.M. No. MTJ-95-1028 December 4, 1995
Administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law.
Paras, J.:
Facts: On August 13, 1994, the jeepney owned by complainant and driven by Edgardo Castillo, plied its usual route going to Virac, Catanduanes. While approaching a blind curve, the jeepney driver occupied the wrong lane. At the curve, they suddenly saw a parked dump truck and in order to avoid collision driver swerved to the right and accidentally plunged into the river. The passengers sustained some injuries.
Consequently, a criminal complaint against Castillo and complainant was filed before the sala of respondent judge who then issued a warrant for the arrest of both Castillo and complainant.
Issue: WON complainant can be held criminally liable.
Ruling: It has been held in Chapman v. Underwood (G.R. No. 9010, March 28, 1914, 27 Phil 374.) "that An owner who sits in his automobile and permits his driver to continue in a violation of the law by the performance of negligent acts, after he has had reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct that the driver cease therefrom, becomes himself responsible for such acts. On the other hand, if the driver, by a sudden act of negligence, and without the owner having reasonable opportunity to prevent the act or its continuance, injures a person or violates the criminal law, the owner of the automobile, although present therein at the time the act was committed, is not responsible, either criminally or civilly, therefor. The act complained of must be continued in the presence of the owner for such a length of time that the owner, by his acquiescence, makes his driver's acts his own."
In the case at bar, nowhere does it show that complainant participated in abetted or even approved the negligent and reckless manner in which his driver maneuvered the vehicle on that blind curve. Hence, the warrant of arrest issued by respondent judge was erroneous.
*Dan'q
Monday, December 15, 2008
ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL VS. CA
ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL VS. CA
FACTS: Ferdinand Castillo, a freshman student at the St. Francis High School, wanted to join a school picnic. His parents, respondents spouses Dr. Romulo Castillo and Lilia Cadiz Castillo, because of short notice, did not allow their son to join but merely allowed him to bring food to the teachers for the picnic, with the directive that he should go back home after doing so. However, because of persuasion of the teachers, Ferdinand went on with them to the beach. During the picnic, one of the female teachers was apparently drowning. Some of the students, including Ferdinand, came to her rescue, but in the process, it was Ferdinand himself who drowned. He died. Respondent spouses filed a civil case against petitioner and some of their teachers. Trial court found teachers liable but dismissed complaint against the school.
ISSUE: W/N petitioner school and teachers are liable.
RULING: Petition granted.
RATIO: Before an employer may be held liable for the negligence of his employee, the act or omission which caused damage must have occurred while an employee was in the performance of his assigned tasks. In the case at bar, the teachers/petitioners were not in the actual performance of their assigned tasks. What was held was a purely private affair, a picnic, which did not have permit from the school since it was not a school sanctioned activity. Mere knowledge by petitioner/principal of the planning of the picnic does not in any way consent to the holding of the same.
No negligence could be attributable to the petitioners-teachers to warrant the award of damages to the respondents-spouses. The class adviser of the section where Ferdinand belonged, did her best and exercised diligence of a good father of a family to prevent any untoward incident or damages to all the students who joined the picnic.
*Mia
FACTS: Ferdinand Castillo, a freshman student at the St. Francis High School, wanted to join a school picnic. His parents, respondents spouses Dr. Romulo Castillo and Lilia Cadiz Castillo, because of short notice, did not allow their son to join but merely allowed him to bring food to the teachers for the picnic, with the directive that he should go back home after doing so. However, because of persuasion of the teachers, Ferdinand went on with them to the beach. During the picnic, one of the female teachers was apparently drowning. Some of the students, including Ferdinand, came to her rescue, but in the process, it was Ferdinand himself who drowned. He died. Respondent spouses filed a civil case against petitioner and some of their teachers. Trial court found teachers liable but dismissed complaint against the school.
ISSUE: W/N petitioner school and teachers are liable.
RULING: Petition granted.
RATIO: Before an employer may be held liable for the negligence of his employee, the act or omission which caused damage must have occurred while an employee was in the performance of his assigned tasks. In the case at bar, the teachers/petitioners were not in the actual performance of their assigned tasks. What was held was a purely private affair, a picnic, which did not have permit from the school since it was not a school sanctioned activity. Mere knowledge by petitioner/principal of the planning of the picnic does not in any way consent to the holding of the same.
No negligence could be attributable to the petitioners-teachers to warrant the award of damages to the respondents-spouses. The class adviser of the section where Ferdinand belonged, did her best and exercised diligence of a good father of a family to prevent any untoward incident or damages to all the students who joined the picnic.
*Mia
CARTICIANO VS. NUVAL
CARTICIANO VS. NUVAL
FACTS: Plaintiff Zacarias Carticiano was on his way home to Imus, Cavite. He was driving his father’s Ford Laser car. On the same date and time, defendant Nuval’s owner-type Jeep, then driven by defendant Darwin was traveling on the opposite direction going to Parañaque. When the two cars were about to pass one another, Darwin veered his vehicle to his left going to the center island of the highway an occupied the lane which plaintiff Zacarias was traversing. Zacarias’ Ford Laser collided head-on with Nuval’s Jeep. Darwin immediately fled from the scene. Zacarias suffered multiple fracture. He underwent a leg operation and physical therapy. Nuval offered P100,000.00 as compensation for the injuries caused. Plaintiffs refused to accept it. Plaintiffs filed a criminal suit against Darwin and a civil suit against defendants for damages. Trial court ruled infavor of plaintiffs. CA reversed the decision.
ISSUE: W/N employer Nuval can be held liable.
RULING: Petition granted.
RATIO: Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides that employers shall be liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. The facts established in the case at bar show that Darwin was acting within the scope of the authority given him when the collision occurred. That he had been hired only to bring respondent’s children to and from school must be rejected. True, this may have been one of his assigned tasks, but no convincing proof was presented showing that it was his only task. His authority was to drive Nuval’s vehicle. Once a driver is proven negligent in causing damages, the law presumes the vehicle owner equally negligent and imposes upon the latter the burden of proving proper selection of employee as a defense. Respondent failed to show that he had satisfactorily discharged this burden.
*Mia
FACTS: Plaintiff Zacarias Carticiano was on his way home to Imus, Cavite. He was driving his father’s Ford Laser car. On the same date and time, defendant Nuval’s owner-type Jeep, then driven by defendant Darwin was traveling on the opposite direction going to Parañaque. When the two cars were about to pass one another, Darwin veered his vehicle to his left going to the center island of the highway an occupied the lane which plaintiff Zacarias was traversing. Zacarias’ Ford Laser collided head-on with Nuval’s Jeep. Darwin immediately fled from the scene. Zacarias suffered multiple fracture. He underwent a leg operation and physical therapy. Nuval offered P100,000.00 as compensation for the injuries caused. Plaintiffs refused to accept it. Plaintiffs filed a criminal suit against Darwin and a civil suit against defendants for damages. Trial court ruled infavor of plaintiffs. CA reversed the decision.
ISSUE: W/N employer Nuval can be held liable.
RULING: Petition granted.
RATIO: Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides that employers shall be liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. The facts established in the case at bar show that Darwin was acting within the scope of the authority given him when the collision occurred. That he had been hired only to bring respondent’s children to and from school must be rejected. True, this may have been one of his assigned tasks, but no convincing proof was presented showing that it was his only task. His authority was to drive Nuval’s vehicle. Once a driver is proven negligent in causing damages, the law presumes the vehicle owner equally negligent and imposes upon the latter the burden of proving proper selection of employee as a defense. Respondent failed to show that he had satisfactorily discharged this burden.
*Mia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
