Anda di halaman 1dari 3

TORTS: MEETING 1 CASES

CASE 1 DULAY VS CA: security guard intentionally killed a lawyer; Art. 2176 includes intentional acts

FACTS Keywords: Barilan sa Big Bang sa Alabang; liability of company for a criminal act done deliberately while on duty FACTS An altercation occurred between Atty. Napoleon Dulay (deceased) and Benigno Torzuela, the security guard on duty, and the latter shot and killed Atty. Dulay with a .38 caliber revolver belonging to his employers, Safeguard Investigation and Security Co., Inc. (Safeguard) and/or Superguard Security Corp. (Superguard) Maria Benita A. Dulay, widow of the deceased, filed an action for damages against Benigno Torzuela, Safeguard and Superguard (as alternative defendants) o The complaint alleged that the incident was due to the concurring negligence Torzuelas wanton and reckless discharge of the firearm issued to him Safeguard and/or Superguards failure to exercise the diligence of a good father in the supervision and control of its employee o Maria Dulay prayed for actual, compensatory, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Superguard filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the complaint does not state a valid cause of action. Safeguard also filed a motion praying that it be excluded as defendant on the ground that defendant Torzuela is not one of its employees. Maria Dulay opposed both motions, stating that their cause of action is based upon their liability under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code: o The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. xxx Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or an industry. xxx Meanwhile, an Information, charging Benigno Torzuela with homicide,was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. RTC Judge Rginogranted Safeguards motion to dismiss and Superguards motion for exclusion. CAAffirmed.

ISSUES AND RATIO ISSUE WoN Maria Dulay has cause of action against Safeguard and/or Superguard to hold them liable for the criminal act of Torzuela. HELD YES. RATIO -Although Torzuela is being prosecuted for homicide, Maria Dulay still has the right to file in independent civil action to recover damages for the fatal shooting of Atty. Dulay. -Section 1, of Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedurei that a civil action may be separately instituted when the party expressly reserves the right to do so or when it is instituted prior to the criminal action. -Yakult Philippines v. Court of Appeals: The filing of an independent civil action before the prosecution in the criminal action presents evidence is even far better than a compliance with the requirement of express reservation. - This is precisely what the Maria Dulay opted to do. However, the Safeguard and/or Superguard opposed the civil action on the ground that the same is founded on a delict and not on a quasi-delict as the shooting was not attended by negligence. - There is no justification for limiting the scope of Article 2176 of the Civil Code ii to acts or omissions resulting from negligence. o Elcano v. Hill (echoed by Andamo v. Intermediate Appellate Court): "Fault or negligence," covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character. A separate civil action lies against the offender, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed to recover damages on both scores. - Private respondents further aver that Article 33 of the Civil Codeiii applies only to injuries intentionally committed1 and that the actions for damages allowed thereunder are ex-delicto. o Physical injuries is discussed in jurisprudence, to wit: It includes bodily injuries causing deathiv. It is not the crime of physical injuries defined in the Revised Penal Code. It includes not only physical injuries but also consummated, frustrated, and attempted homicide.v o Marcia V. CA: No independent civil action may be filed under Article 33 where the crime is the result of criminal negligence. However, since Torzuela is charged with homicide, and not with reckless imprudence, a civil action based on Article 33 lies. -Safeguard and/or Superguard further contend that they are not liable for Torzuela's act which is beyond the scope of his duties as a security guard. And their liability (if any) would only be subsidiary under the Revised Penal Code. -Layugan v. Intermediate Appellate Court: Under Article 2180 of the New Civil Codevi when an injury is caused by the negligence of the employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either in the selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after selection or both. o The liability of the employer under Article 2180 is direct and immediate; it is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior showing of the insolvency of such employee.vii -Therefore, it is incumbent upon Safeguar and/or Superguard to prove that they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employee. -[Side issue] Whether the complaint states a sufficient cause of action o General rule: allegations in a complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants if, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer therein. o Elements of a cause of action: A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;

Marcia v. CA

2.AIR FRANCE VS CARASCOSO

Rafael Carrascoso was part of a group of pilgrims leaving for Lourdes. Air France, through PAL, issued to Carrascoso a first class round trip ticket. On March 28, 1958, the defendant, Air France, through its authorized agent, Philippine Air Lines, Inc., issued to plaintiff a "first class" round trip airplane ticket from Manila to Rome. From Manila to Bangkok, plaintiff travelled in "first class", but at Bangkok, the Manager of the defendant airline forced plaintiff to vacate the "first class" seat that he was occupying because, in the words of the witness Ernesto G. Cuento,there was a "white man", who, the Manager alleged, had a "better right" to the seat. When asked to vacate his "first class" seat, the plaintiff, as was to be expected, refused, and told defendant's Manager that his seat would be taken over his dead body; a commotion ensued, and, according to said Ernesto G. Cuento, "many of the Filipino passengers got nervous in the tourist class; when they found out that Mr. Carrascoso was having a hot discussion with the white man [manager], they came all across to Mr. Carrascoso and pacified Mr. Carrascoso to give his seat to the white man" and plaintiff reluctantly gave his "first class" seat in the plane.

An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and An act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. -The Court finds, that the complaint sufficiently alleged an actionable breach on the part of the defendant Torzuela and Safeguard and/or Superguard. o This does not operate however, to establish that the defendants below are liable. Such question would be better resolved after trial on the merits. Issue and Holding WON Carrascoso was entitled to the first class seat he claims. YES Ratio On CA's decision Air France charges that CA failed to make complete findings of fact on all issues presented. SC says that so long as CA's decision contains the facts necessary to warrant its conclusions, there is nothing wrong in withholding any specific finding of facts with respect to the evidence for the defense. On the seat issue If a first-class ticket holder is not entitled to a corresponding seat, what security can a passenger have? It's very easy to strike out the stipulations in the ticket and say that there was a contrary verbal agreement. There was no explanation as to why he was allowed to take a first class seat before coming to Bangkok if indeed he had no seat or if someone had a better right to it. On contract to transport, QD, etc. This is different in kind and degree from any other contractual obligation because of the relation which an air carrier sustains with the public. Passengers do not contract merely for transportation as they have a right to be treated by the employees with kindness, respect, courtesy, consideration. What happened was a violation of public duty by Air France--a case of QD, so damages are proper. A case was cited wherein it was said that although the relation of passenger and carrier is contractual in origin and nature, the act that breaks the K may be also a tort. On the issue of award of damages Air France assails CA's award of moral damages, claiming that since Carrascoso's action is based on breach of contract, there must be an averment of fraud or bad faith in order to avail of said award. While there was no specific mention of "bad faith," it may be drawn from the facts and circumstances set forth. Deficiency in the complaint, if any, was cured by evidence. Allegations in the complaint on this issue: 1. There was a K to furnish plaintiff a first class passage covering the Bangkok-Teheran leg 2. This K was breached when Air France failed to furnish first class transpo at Bangkok 3. There was bad faith when the manager compelled Carrascoso to leave his seat after he was already seated and to transfer to the tourist class, thereby making him suffer inconvenience, embarrassment, humiliation, etc. bad faith - state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes See NCC 21. Upon the provisions of NCC 2219 (10), moral damages are recoverable. Exemplary damages are well awarded also, since NCC gives the court power to grant such in K and QK, with the condition that the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.

Sec. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action , reserves his right to institute it

separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused. Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
ii

Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. iv Capuno v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the Philippines v Madeja v. Caro vi Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
iii

xxx Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or an industry. vii Kapalaran Bus Lines v. Coronado