Bataclan. By reason of his death, his Facts: widow, Salud Villanueva, in her name and At about 2:00am of September 13, 1952, the in behalf of her five minor children, bus, operated by its owner defendant brought the present suit to recover from Mariano Medina and driven by its regular Mariano Medina compensatory, moral, and chauffeur, Conrado Saylon, left the town exemplary damages and attorney's fees in of Amadeo, Cavite. While on its way to the total amount of P87,150. Pasay City, one of the front tires burst After trial, the CFI Cavite awarded P1,000 and the vehicle began to zig-zag until it to the plaintiffs plus P600 as attorney's fell into a canal or ditch on the right fee, plus P100, the value of the side of the road and turned turtle. merchandise being carried by Bataclan to Some of the passengers managed to leave Pasay City for sale and which was lost in the bus but the three passengers seated the fire. Both plaintiffs and defendants beside the driver, named Bataclan, Lara appealed the case to CA which endorsed the and the Visayan and the woman behind them case to SC. named Natalia Villanueva, could not get Issue: W/N the proximate cause of the death of out of the overturned bus. No evidence to Bataclan was the overturning of the bus or the show that the freed passengers, including fire that burned the bus, including the 4 the driver and the conductor, made any passengers left inside. attempt to pull out or extricate and rescue the four passengers trapped inside the vehicle. Held: After half an hour, came about ten men, The Court held that the proximate cause one of them carrying a lighted torch, was the overturning of the bus because approach the overturned bus, and almost when the vehicle turned not only on its immediately, a fierce fire started, side but completely on its back, the burning and all but consuming the bus, leaking of the gasoline from the tank was including the four passengers trapped not unnatural or unexpected. inside it. The coming of the men with a lighted torch That same day, the charred bodies of the was in response to the call for help, made four passengers inside the bus were not only by the passengers, but most probably, by the driver and the conductor Bataclan safely to his destination, Pasay themselves, and that because it was dark City. There was likewise negligence on the (about 2:30 in the morning), the rescuers part of the defendant, through his agent, had to carry a light with them, and coming the driver Saylon. There is evidence to as they did from a rural area where show that at the time of the blow out, the lanterns and flashlights were not bus was speeding and that the driver available. failed to changed the tires into new ones as instructed by Mariano Medina. In other words, the coming of the men with a torch was to be expected and was a The driver had not been diligent and had natural sequence of the overturning of the not taken the necessary precautions to bus, the trapping of some of its insure the safety of his passengers. Had passengers and the call for outside help. he changed the tires, specially those in front, with new ones, as he had been Moreover, the burning of the bus can also instructed to do, probably, despite his in part be attributed to the negligence of speeding, the blow out would not have the carrier, through its driver and its occurred. conductor. According to the witness, the driver and the conductor were on the road Ratio: walking back and forth. They, or at least, Proximate cause is that cause, which, in the driver should and must have known that in the position in which the overturned natural and continuous sequence, unbroken bus was, gasoline could and must have by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the leaked from the gasoline tank and soaked the area in and around the bus. result would not have occurred.
Comprehensively, 'the proximate legal
The leaked gasoline can be smelt and directed even from a distance, and yet cause is that acting first and producing neither the driver nor the conductor would the injury, either immediately or by appear to have cautioned or taken steps to setting other events in motion, all warn the rescuers not to bring the lighted constituting a natural and continuous torch too near the bus. chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate In addition, the case involves a breach of predecessor, the final event in the chain contract of transportation because the immediately effecting the injury as a Medina Transportation failed to carry natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such the party immediately. He told Lim he was circumstances that the person responsible invited by Dr. Filart however when he was for the first event should, as an ordinary calling for Dr. Filart the latter ignored prudent and intelligent person, have him. Later, he was escorted out of the party reasonable ground to expect at the moment like a common criminal. of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result The trial court ruled in favor of Lim and therefrom. Nikko Hotel. However, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Reyes as it ruled that Lim 2) NIKKO HOTEL v. REYES abused her right and that Reyes deserved to be treated humanely and fairly. It is true One evening in October 1994, an exclusive that Lim had the right to ask Reyes to leave party was being held at the Nikko Hotel the party but she should have done it Manila Garden. The party was being held for respectfully. a prominent Japanese national. The person in charge at the party was Ruby Lim who was also ISSUE: Whether or not Lim acted with abuse the executive secretary of the hotel. Later of rights. during the party, she noticed Robert Reyes HELD: No. The Supreme Court found the version (popularly known as Amay Bisaya). Reyes was of Lim more credible. She has been employed not on the list of exclusive guests. Lim by the hotel for more than 20 years at that first tried to find out who invited Reyes to time. Her job requires her to be polite at the party. When she ascertained that the host all times. It is very unlikely for her to celebrant did not invite Reyes, Lim make a scene in the party she was managing. approached Reyes and told the latter, in a That would only make her look bad. discreet voice, to finish his food and leave the party. Reyes however made a scene and Reyes based his complaint on Articles 19 and began shouting at Lim. Later, a policeman was 21 of the Civil Code. Art. 19 which provides: called to escort Reyes out of the party. Every person must, in the exercise of his Reyes then sued Lim and Nikko Hotel Manila rights and in the performance of his duties, Garden for damages. In his version, he said act with justice, give everyone his due, and that he was invited by another party guest, observe honesty and good faith. Dr. Violeta Filart. He said that while he was not violated by Lim as it appears that was queuing to get his food, Lim approached even Reyes testified in court that when Lim him and ordered him in a loud voice to leave told him to leave, Lim did so very close to him – so close that they could almost kiss. 3) MARGARITA AFIALDA v. BASILIO HISOLE, ET. This only proves that Lim intended that only AL Reyes shall hear whatever is it that she’s going to tell Reyes and exclude other guests Loreto Afialda was a caretaker of the from hearing. carabaos owned by Basilio Hisole. In March 1947, without any fault from Afialda or any Article 21 on the other hand is commonly force majeure, one of the carabaos gored him known as contra bonus mores: thereby causing his death. Afialda’s sister, Margarita Afialda, sued Hisole arguing that Any person who willfully causes loss or under the Civil Code, “The possessor of an injury to another in a manner that is animal, or the one who uses the same, is contrary to morals, good customs or public liable for any damages it may cause, even if policy shall compensate the latter for the such animal should escape from him or stray damage. away. This liability shall cease only in This article is likewise not violated. Lim, case, the damage should arise fromforce as proven by evidence on record, did not majeure or from the fault of the person who demean Reyes. They do not know each other may have suffered it.” personally. She has no reason to treat him ISSUE: Whether or not Hisole is liable in the wrongfully especially so that Reyes himself case at bar as owner of the carabao which is a prominent person. killed Afialda. On the other hand, Reyes brought whatever HELD: No. The law uses the term “possessor damage he incurred upon himself. Under the and user of the animal”. Afialda was the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, by caretaker of the animal and he was tasked and coming to the party uninvited, Reyes opens paid to tend for the carabaos. He, at the himself to the risk of being turned away, and time of the goring, is the possessor and the thus being embarrassed. The injury he user of the carabao and therefore he is the incurred is thus self-inflicted. Evidence one who had custody and control of the animal even shows that Dr. Filart herself denied and was in a position to prevent the animal inviting Reyes into the party and that Reyes from causing damage. It would have been simply gate-crashed. Reyes did not even different had Afialda been a stranger. present any supporting evidence to support Obviously, it was the caretaker’s business any of his claims. Since he brought injury to try to prevent the animal from causing upon himself, neither Lim nor Nikko Hotel can injury or damage to anyone, including be held liable for damages. himself. And being injured by the animal under those circumstances was one of the mechanical ventilation support became risks of the occupation which he had necessary, but there was no vacancy at the voluntarily assumed and for which he must ICU and all the ventilation units were being take the consequences. used by other patients; that a resident physician of NKTI, who was rotating at EAMC, This action could have been more suggested that Logmao be transferred to NKTI; appropriately raised in court under the and that after arrangements were made, Logamo provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act was transferred to NKTI at 10:10am. At the as the risk involve was one of occupational NKTI, the name Angelito Logmao was recorded hazards. as Angelito Lugmoso. Lugmoso was immediately 4) ALANO v. LOGMAO attended to and given the necessary medical treatment. As Lugmoso had no relatives Facts: At around 9:50pm of March 1, 1988, around, Jennifer Misa, transplant Arnelito Logmao then 18 y/o, was brought to coordinator was asked to locate his family the East Avenue Medical Center (EAMC) in by enlisting police and media assistance. Dr. Quezon City by two sidewalk vendors, who Enrique Ona, chairman of the Department of allegedly saw the former fall from the Surgery, observed that severity of the brain overpass near the Farmer’s Market in Cubao, injury of Lugmoso manifested symptoms of Quezon City. The patient’s data sheet brain death. He requested the laboratory identified the patient as Angelito Lugmoso section to conduct tissue typing and tissue of Boni Ave., Mandaluyong. However, the cross-matching examination, so that should clinical abstract prepared by Dr. Paterno F. Lugmoso expire despite the necessary care and Cabrera, the surgical resident on-duty at the medical management and he would be found to emergency room of EAMC, stated the patient be a suitable organ donor and his family is Angelito Logmao. Dr. Cabrera reported that would consent to organ donation, the organs Logmao was drowsy with alcoholic breath, was thus donated could be detached and conscious and coherent; that the skull x-ray transplanted promptly to any compatible showed no fracture; that at around 4:30am of beneficiary. The identity of Lugmoso was March 2, 1988, Logmao developed generalized verified by Misa from EAMC and she was seizures and was managed by the neuro-surgeon furnished the patient’s data sheet. She then resident on-duty; that the condition of contacted several radio and television Logmao progressively deteriorated and he was stations to request for air time for the intubated and ambu-bagging support was purpose of locating the family of Angelito provided; that admission to the ICU and Lugmoso of Boni Ave., Mandaluyong who was confined at NKTI with severe head injury lifeless body be categorically attributed to after allegedly falling from the Cubao petitioner’s conduct. overpass, as well as police station no. 5 Eastern Police District. Lugmoso was Thus, there can be no cavil that petitioners pronounced brain dead on March 3, 1988 employed reasonable means to disseminate 7:00am. Two hours later, Dr. Ona was informed notifications intended to reach the that EEG recording exhibited a flat tracing relatives of the deceased. The only question thereby confirming his brain death. He was that remains pertains to the sufficiency of found to be a suitable donor of the heart, time allotted for notices to reach the relatives of the deceased. kidneys, pancreas, and liver, and after the extensive search, no relatives were found. If respondent failed to immediately receive Dr. Ona then requested the removal of the notice of her son’s death because the notices specific organs of Lugmoso from the herein did not properly state the name or identity petitioners, Dr. Alano, the director of NKTI of the deceased, fault cannot be laid at who thereafter issued a memorandum stating petitioner’s door. The trial and appellate that only after the requirements of RA 349 courts found that it was the EAMC, who as amended by PD 856 was complied, they can recorded the wrong information regarding the remove the specified organs of Lugmoso. deceased’s identity to NKTI. The NKTI could Lugmoso’s remains was brought at La Funeraria not have obtained the information about his Oro. A press release made by NKTI announcing name from the patient, because as found by a double organ transplant led to the findings the lower courts, the deceased was already of the relatives of Lugmoso. unconscious by the time he was brought to Issue: Whether or not the removal of NKTI. Lugmoso’s organs were valid. 5) CASUMPANG v. CORTEJO Held: Yes. The internal organs of the FACTS: deceased were removed only after he had been declared brain dead; thus the emotional pain On April 22, 1988, at about 11:30 in the suffered by respondent due to the death of morning, Mrs. Cortejo brought her 11-year her son cannot be in any way be attributed old son, Edmer, to the Emergency Room of to petitioner. Neither can the court find the San Juan de Dios Hospital (SJDH) evidence or second to show that respondent’s because of difficulty in breathing, chest emotional suffering at the sight of the pain, stomach pain, and fever. Thereafter, pitful state in which she found her son’s she was referred and assigned to Dr. Casumpang, a pediatrician. At 5:30 in the up on Edmer and found that Edmer had a afternoon of the same day, Dr. Casumpang, low-grade fever and rashes. upon examination using only a stethoscope, confirmed the diagnosis of At 3:00 in the afternoon, Edmer once again Bronchopneumonia. Mrs. Cortejo vomited blood. Dr. Miranda then examined immediately advised Dr. Casumpang that Edmer's sputum with blood and noted that Edmer had a high fever, and had no colds he was bleeding. Suspecting that he could or cough but Dr. Casumpang merely told her be afflicted with dengue, Dr. Miranda that her son's bloodpressure is just being conducted a tourniquet test, which turned active and remarked that that's the usual out to be negative. Dr. Miranda then bronchopneumonia, no colds, no phlegm. called up Dr. Casumpang at his clinic and told him about Edmer's condition. Upon Dr. Casumpang next visited the following being informed, Dr. Casumpang ordered day. Mrs. Cortejo again called Dr. several procedures done. Dr. Miranda Casumpang's attention and stated that advised Edmer's parents that the blood Edmer had a fever, throat irritation, as test results showed that Edmer was well as chest and stomach pain. Mrs. suffering from Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever. Cortejo also alerted Dr. Casumpang about Dr. Casumpang recommended Edmer’s the traces of blood in Edmer's sputum. transfer to the ICU, but since the ICU was Despite these pieces of information, then full, the respondent, insisted on however, Dr. Casumpang simply nodded and transferring his son to Makati Medical reassured Mrs. Cortejo that Edmer's Center. illness is bronchopneumonia. At 12:00 midnight, Edmer, accompanied by At around 11:30 in the morning of April his parents and by Dr. Casumpang, was 23, 1988, Edmer vomited phlegm with blood transferred to Makati Medical Center. Upon streak prompting the Edmer's father to examination, the attending physician request for a doctor. Later, Miranda, one diagnosed Dengue Fever Stage IV that was of the resident physicians of SJDH, already in its irreversible stage. Edmer arrived. She claimed that although aware died at 4:00 in the morning of April 24, that Edmer had vomited phlegm with blood 1988. His Death Certificate indicated the streak she failed to examine the blood cause of death as Hypovolemic specimen. She then advised the respondent Shock/hemorrhagic shock/Dengue to preserve the specimen for examination. Hemorrhagic Fever Stage IV. Thereafter, Dr. Miranda conducted a check- Believing that Edmer's death was caused by 1. W/N Casumpang had committed inexcusable the negligent and erroneous diagnosis of lack of precaution in diagnosing and in his doctors, the respondent instituted an treating the patient action for damages against SJDH, and its 2. W/N Miranda had committed inexcusable lack attending physicians: Dr. Casumpang and of precaution in diagnosing and in Dr. Miranda. treating the patient Dr. Casumpang contends that he gave his 3. W/N Whether or not the petitioner hospital patient medical treatment and care to the is solidarity liable with the petitioner best of his abilities, and within the doctors proper standard of care required from physicians under similar circumstances. 4. W/N or not there is a causal connection between the petitioners' negligent Dr. Miranda argued that the function of act/omission and the patient's resulting making the diagnosis and undertaking the death medical treatment devolved upon Dr. Casumpang, the doctor assigned to Edmer. Dr. Miranda also alleged that she HELD/RATIO: exercised prudence in performing her duties as a physician, underscoring that it was her professional intervention that led to the correct diagnosis of Dengue 1. YES, Casumpang was negligent. Hemorrhagic Fever. Even assuming that Edmer's symptoms SJDH, on the other hand, disclaims completely coincided with the diagnosis of liability by asserting that Dr. Casumpang bronchopneumonia, we still find Dr. and Dr. Miranda are mere independent Casumpang guilty of negligence. Wrong contractors and consultants (not diagnosis is not by itself medical employees) of the hospital; hence, Article malpractice. Physicians are generally not 2180 of the Civil Code does not apply. liable for damages resulting from a bona fide error of judgment and from acting according to acceptable medical practice ISSUES: standards. Nonetheless, when the physician's erroneous diagnosis was the result of negligent conduct, it becomes an evidence of medical malpractice. We find that Dr. Miranda was not independently negligent. Although she was In the present case, evidence on record subject to the same standard of care established that in confirming the applicable to attending physicians, as a diagnosis of bronchopneumonia, Dr. resident physician, she merely operates as Casumpang selectively appreciated some a subordinate who usually refer to the and not all of the symptoms presented, and attending physician on the decision to be failed to promptly conduct the appropriate made and on the action to be taken. We tests to confirm his findings. In sum, Dr. also believe that a finding of negligence Casumpang failed to timely detect dengue should also depend on several competing fever, which failure, especially when factors. In this case, before Dr. Miranda reasonable prudence would have shown that attended to Edmer, Dr. Casumpang had indications of dengue were evident and/or diagnosed Edmer with bronchopneumonia. foreseeable, constitutes negligence. There is also evidence supporting Dr. Apart from failing to promptly detect Miranda's claim that she extended diligent dengue fever, Dr. Casumpang also failed to care to Edmer. In fact, when she promptly undertake the proper medical suspected, during Edmer's second episode management needed for this disease. Dr. of bleeding, that Edmer could be suffering Casumpang failed to measure up to the from dengue, she wasted no time in acceptable medical standards in conducting the necessary tests, and diagnosing and treating dengue fever. promptly notified Dr. Casumpang about the Dr. Casumpang's claim that he exercised incident. Indubitably, her medical prudence and due diligence in handling assistance led to the finding of dengue Edmer's case, sside from being self- fever. Dr. Miranda's error was merely an serving, is not supported by competent honest mistake of judgment; hence, she evidence. He failed, as a medical should not be held liable for medical professional, to observe the most prudent negligence. medical procedure under the circumstances in diagnosing and treating Edmer. 3. Yes, causal connection between the petitioners' negligence and the patient's 2. No, Dr. Miranda is not liable for negligence. resulting death was established Casumpang failed to timely diagnose Edmer care and treat his son Edmer. His with dengue fever despite the presence of testimony during trial showed that he and its characteristic symptoms; and as a his wife did not know any doctors at SJDH; consequence of the delayed diagnosis, he they also did not know that Dr. Casumpang also failed to promptly manage Edmer's was an independent contractor. They illness. Had he immediately conducted brought their son to SJDH for diagnosis confirmatory tests, and promptly because of their family doctor's referral. administered the proper care and The referral did not specifically point to management needed for dengue fever, the Dr. Casumpang or even to Dr. Miranda, but risk of complications or even death, could to SJDH. have been substantially reduced. That Mrs. Cortejo accepted Dr. Casumpang's Edmer later died of Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever Stage IV, a severe and fatal form services on the reasonable belief that of dengue fever, established the causal such were being provided by SJDH or its link between Dr. Casumpang's negligence employees, agents, or servants. By and the injury. The element of causation referring Dr. Casumpang to care and treat is successfully proven. for Edmer, SJDH impliedly held out Dr. Casumpang as a member of its medical staff. SJDH cannot now disclaim liability since there is no showing that Mrs. 4. YES, SJDH is solidarily liable. Cortejo or the respondent knew, or should As a rule, hospitals are not liable for have known, that Dr. Casumpang is only an the negligence of its independent independent contractor of the hospital. In contractors. However, it may be found this case, estoppel has already set in. liable if the physician or independent 6) ILOILO ICE AND COLD STORAGE v. MUNICIPAL contractor acts as an ostensible agent of COUNCIL OF ILOILO the hospital. This exception is also known as the doctrine of apparent authority. FACTS: SJDH impliedly held out and clothed Dr. Plaintiff is the owner of an ice and cold Casumpang with apparent authority leading storage plant. Nearby residents made the respondent to believe that he is an complaints regarding the smoke that the plant employee or agent of the hospital. Based emits saying that it was very injurious to on the records, the respondent relied on their health and comfort. The defendant made SJDH rather than upon Dr. Casumpang, to investigations and later on passed a resolution which demands that the decision. City Council cannot, by a mere smokestacks of the said factory be elevated resolution or motion, declare any particular or else the factory operations will be closed thing a nuisance which has not theretofore or suspended. Plaintiff opposed by filing for been pronounced to be such by law, or so injunction. adjudged by judicial determination.
In the present case it is certain that the
ISSUES: ice factory of the plaintiff is not a Whether or not the resolution alone issued nuisance per se. It is a legitimate industry, by the municipal council is sufficient to beneficial to the people and conducive to label and abate the supposed nuisance in this their health and comfort. The resolution is case? obviously not enough to abate the property of the plaintiff.
7) SAN RAFAEL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF
RULING: NO. MANILA There are two kinds of nuisances: nuisances per se and per accidens. The former are recognized as nuisances under any and all 8) AYALA v. BARRETTO circumstances. The latter are such only because of the special circumstances and conditions surrounding them. The former may be abated even by private individuals however 9) CADIENTE v. MACAS the latter is different; it needs a FACTS: Bithuel Macas while standing on the determination of the facts which is a shoulder of the road was bumped and run over by judicial function. a Ford Fiera, driven by Cimafranca which resulted to the amputation of both legs up to The question of nuisance can conclusively be the groins of the victim. Records showed that decided, for all legal uses, by the the Ford Fiera was registered in the name of established courts of law or equity alone, Atty. Cadiente, who However, claimed that when and that the resolution of officers, or of the accident happened, he was no longer the boards organized by force of municipal owner of the Ford Fiera since he already sold charters, cannot, to any degree, control such it to Engr. Jalipa on March 28, 1994. The victim's father, filed a complaint for torts highway. However, the Ford Fiera in this case, and damages against Cimafranca and Cadiente without so much as slowing down, took off from before the RTC of Davao City. Cadiente later the cemented part of the highway, inexplicably filed a third-party complaint against Jalipa. swerved to the shoulder, and recklessly bumped Jalipa, however, filed a fourth-party complaint and ran over an innocent victim. The victim was against Abubakar, to whom Jalipa allegedly sold just where he should be when the unfortunate the vehicle on June 20, 1994. event transpired. The RTC rendered in favor of the plaintiff 2. The registered owner of any vehicle, even declarin Atty. Medardo Ag. Cadiente and Engr. if he had already sold it to someone else, is Rogelio Jalipa jointly and severally liable for primarily responsible to the public for damages to the plaintiff for their own whatever damage or injury the vehicle may cause. negligence. The Court of Appeals denied their appeal and subsequent motion for In the case of Villanueva v. Domingo, we reconsideration. said that the policy behind vehicle registration is the easy identification of the ISSUES: owner who can be held responsible in case of accident, damage or injury caused by the 1. Whether there was contributory negligence vehicle. This is so as not to inconvenience or on the part of the victim, hence not entitled prejudice a third party injured by one whose to recover damages. identity cannot be secured. Therefore, since 2. Whether the petitioner and third-party the Ford Fiera was still registered in the defendant Jalipa are jointly and severally petitioner's name at the time when the liable to the victim. misfortune took place, the petitioner cannot escape liability for the permanent injury it HELD: caused the respondent, who had since stopped 1. NONE. Records show that when the accident schooling and is now forced to face life with happened, the victim was standing on the nary but two remaining limbs. shoulder, which was the uncemented portion of 10) LEDESMA v. CA the highway. As noted the trial court, the shoulde was intended for pedestrian use alone. Facts: Only stationary vehicles, such as those loading or unloading passengers may use the shoulder. A student, Violeta Delmo, was not able to Running vehicles are not supposed to pass graduate as Magna Cum Laude, because the through the said uncemented portion of the president, herein petitioner Jose Ledesma, of the West Visayas College neglected his duty to Yes. The president’s failure to graduate a inform the student on the result of a case student with honors and blatant disregard of against the student which has, as its the student’s rights on the account of him being punishment, the removal of awards or citations embarrassed shows neglect of duty without just of the student. Said case was the extension of cause, rendering him liable for damages under loans to students, which the president contends Article 27 of the Civil Code. Undoubtedly, the to be against the school rules and regulations, student and the student’s parents went through and which the student innocently performed in a painful ordeal brought about by such neglect. her capacity as the treasurer of the Student Thus, moral and exemplary damages under Article Leadership Club and in accordance to the 27 are but proper. Constitution and By-Laws of the club, on the belief that said constitution was presented and approved by the president. The student appealed to the Director of the Bureau of Public Schools after being denied for reconsideration by the president, where upon investigation, it was found out that the student acted in good faith and that her awards be reinstituted. The president, upon receiving said decision, delayed action and even e-mailed the director to reverse his decision. The student therefore graduated as a plain student and without honors and her award as Magna Cum Laude was only entered on the scholastic records weeks after the receipt by the president of the decision and after the graduation.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is liable
for damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.