ALFREDO AND CLEOPATRA D.

PACIS VS JEROME JOVANNE MORALES

FACTS: Sps. Alfredo P. Pacis and Cleopatra D. Pacis filed with the trial court a civil case
for damages against respondent Jerome Jovanne Morales. They are the parents of Alfred
Dennis Pacis, Jr. (Alfred), a 17-year old student who died in a shooting incident inside the
Top Gun Firearms and Ammunitions Store (gun store) in Baguio City owned by Morales.

Alfred Dennis Pacis, died due to a gunshot wound in the head which he sustained while
he was at the Top Gun Firearms and Ammunitions Store located at Upper Mabini Street,
Baguio City. At the time of the shooting, Aristedes Matibag and Jason Herbolario were
present. They were sales agents of the defendant, and at that particular time, the
caretakers of the gun store. The bullet which killed Alfred Dennis Pacis was fired from a
gun brought in by a customer of the gun store for repair. Morales was in Manila at the
time. His employee Armando Jarnague, who was the regular caretaker of the gun store
was also not around. He left earlier and requested sales agents Matibag and Herbolario
to look after the gun store while he and defendant Morales were away. Jarnague
entrusted to Matibag and Herbolario a bunch of keys used in the gun store which included
the key to the drawer where the fatal gun was kept. It appears that Matibag and Herbolario
later brought out the gun from the drawer and placed it on top of the table. Attracted by
the sight of the gun, the young Alfred Dennis Pacis got hold of the same. Matibag asked
Alfred Dennis Pacis to return the gun. The latter followed and handed the gun to Matibag.
It went off, the bullet hitting the young Alfred in the head.

The trial court ruled in favor of Sps. Pacis. It held Morales civilly liable for the death of
Alfred under Article 2180 in relation to Article 2176 of the Civil Code. The trial court held
that the accidental shooting of Alfred which caused his death was partly due to the
negligence of respondents employee Matibag. The CA however reversed the ruling on
the ground of lack of employer-employee relationship due to absence of control. It further
held that even if Morales is considered an employer of Matibag, still respondent cannot
be held liable since no negligence can be attributed to him.

ISSUE: Whether or not Morales, being the owner and employer of Matibag, is not civilly
liable to the death of Alfred Pacis on the ground of absence of negligence on his part.

HELD: 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 quasi-delict and
is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

A higher degree of care is required of someone who has in his possession or under his
control an instrumentality extremely dangerous in character, such as dangerous weapons
or substances. Such person in possession or control of dangerous instrumentalities has
the duty to take exceptional precautions to prevent any injury being done thereby. Unlike
the ordinary affairs of life or business which involve little or no risk, a business dealing
with dangerous weapons requires the exercise of a higher degree of care.
As a gun store owner, he is presumed to be knowledgeable about firearms safety and
should have known never to keep a loaded weapon in his store to avoid unreasonable
risk of harm or injury to others. He has the duty to ensure that all the guns in his store are
not loaded. Firearms should be stored unloaded and separate from ammunition when the
firearms are not needed for ready-access defensive use. Guns accepted by the store for
repair should not be loaded precisely because they are defective and may cause an
accidental discharge such as what happened in this case. He was clearly negligent when
he accepted the gun for repair and placed it inside the drawer without ensuring first that
it was not loaded. In the first place, the defective gun should have been stored in a vault.
Before accepting the defective gun for repair, he should have made sure that it was not
loaded to prevent any untoward accident. Indeed, he should never accept a firearm from
another person, until the cylinder or action is open and he has personally checked that
the weapon is completely unloaded. For failing to insure that the gun was not loaded,
respondent himself was negligent. Furthermore, it was not shown in this case whether
Morales had a License to Repair which authorizes him to repair defective firearms to
restore its original composition or enhance or upgrade firearms.
EULOGIO OCCENA VS. HON JUDGE ICAMINA, CRISTINA VEGAFRIA

FACTS: Eulogio Occena instituted a criminal complaint for Grave Oral Defamation
against Cristina Vegafria for allegedly openly, publicly and maliciously uttering the
following insulting words and statements: "Gago ikaw nga Barangay Captain, montisco,
traidor, malugus, Hudas," which, freely translated, mean: "You are a foolish Barangay
Captain, ignoramus, traitor, tyrant, Judas" and other words and statements of similar
import which caused great and irreparable damage and injury to his person and honor.

During trial, Occena, without reserving his right to file a separate civil action for damages
actively intervened thru a private prosecutor. Vegafria was convicted of the offense of
Slight Oral Defamation and was sentenced to pay a fine of Fifty Pesos (P50.00) with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. No damages were
awarded to petitioner in view of the trial court's opinion that "the facts and circumstances
of the case as adduced by the evidence do not warrant the awarding of moral damages."

ISSUE: Whether or not Occena is entitled to an award of damages arising from the
remarks uttered by private respondent and found by the trial court to be defamatory.

HELD: Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses are governed by Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code which provides that "(E)very person criminally liable for a felony is
also civilly liable," in relation to Article 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delict. It is a legal
principle that a person who is criminally liable is also civilly liable is the view that from the
standpoint of its effects, a crime has dual character: (1) as an offense against the state
because of the disturbance of the social order; and (2) as an offense against the private
person injured by the crime unless it involves the crime of treason, rebellion, espionage,
contempt and others wherein no civil liability arises on the part of the offender either
because there are no damages to be compensated or there is no private person injured
by the crime.

Vegafria was found guilty of slight oral defamation but no civil liability arising from the
felonious act of the accused was adjudged which is incorrect. As a general rule, a person
who is found to be criminally liable offends two (2) entities: the state or society in which
he lives and the individual member of the society or private person who was injured or
damaged by the punishable act or omission.

Article 2219, par. (7) Of the Civil Code allows the recovery of moral damages in case of
libel, slander or any other form of defamation. This provision of law establishes the right
of an offended party in a case for oral defamation to recover from the guilty party damages
for injury to his feelings and reputation. The offended party is likewise allowed to recover
punitive or exemplary damages.

It must be remembered that every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious,

even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. And
malice may be inferred from the style and tone of publication subject to certain exceptions
which are not present in the case at bar.
ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL VS. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: Sps. Castillo filed a complaint for Damages against St Francis High School and
its Principal and teachers allegedly incurred from the death of their 13-year old son,
Ferdinand Castillo. Contending that the death of their son was due to their failure to
exercise the proper diligence of a good father of the family in preventing their son's
drowning, respondents prayed of actual, moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees
and expenses for litigation.

The complaint alleged that Ferdinand Castillo, then a freshman student of Section 1-C at
the St. Francis High School, wanted to join a school picnic undertaken by Class I-B and
Class I-C at Talaan Beach, Sariaya, Quezon. Ferdinand's parents, 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 and while the students, including Ferdinand, were in the water, 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. His body
was recovered but efforts to resuscitate him ashore failed. He was brought to a doctor
and later to the hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival.

The trial court ruled in favor of the Sps. Castillo and rendered the teachers who joined the
picnic solidary liable but dismissed the case against the St. Francis High School and its
Principal for it cannot find sufficient evidence showing that the picnic was a school
sanctioned activity. Bothe the teachers and the Sps. Castillo appealed to the CA where it
ruled that the court a quo found negligence on the part of the six defendants-teachers
who, as such, were charged with the supervision of the children during the picnic, the St.
Francis High School and the school principal are liable under Article 2176 taken together
with the 1st, 4th and 5th paragraphs of Article 2180 of the Civil Code. They cannot escape
liability on the mere excuse that the picnic was not an "extra-curricular activity of the St.
Francis High School". The court find from the evidence that the school principal had
knowledge of the picnic even from its planning stage and had even been invited to attend
the affair; and yet he did not express any prohibition against undertaking the picnic, nor
did he prescribe any precautionary measures to be adopted during the picnic.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not St. Francis High School represented by the Principal is solidary
liable with the teachers
2. Whether or not the teachers are negligent to warrant award of damages

HELD: Article 2180, par. 4 states that:

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.

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 industry.
Under this paragraph, it is clear that before an employer may be held liable for the
negligence of his employee, the act or omission which caused damage or prejudice 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. The incident happened not within the school premises, not on a school
day and most importantly while the teachers and students were holding a purely private
affair, a picnic. This picnic had no permit from the school head or its principal because
this picnic is not a school sanctioned activity neither is it considered as an extra-curricular
activity. For mere knowledge by the principal of the planning of the picnic by the students
and their teachers does not in any way or in any manner show acquiescence or consent
to the holding of the same. The application therefore of Article 2180 has no basis in law
and neither is it supported by any jurisprudence.

Finally, no negligence could be attributable to the petitioners-teachers to warrant the

award of damages to the respondents-spouses. They did their 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. In fact, two of the teachers are P.E. instructors and
scout masters who have knowledge in first aid application and swimming. Moreover, even
respondents-teachers' witness testified that they had life savers especially brought by the
defendants in case of emergency and records also show that they did all what is humanly
possible to save the child.