OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

No. Cases

GENERAL PRINCIPLES
1 Ocampo III v. People
2 Leung Ben v. O’Brien
3 Pelayo v. Lauron
4 ASI Corporation v. Evangelista
5 Ramas v. Quiamco
6 Hotel Nikko v. Reyes
7 St. Mary’s Academy v. Carpitanos
8 Spouses Guanio v. Makati Shangri-la Hotel
9 TSPI, Inc. v. TSPOC Employees Union
10 Regino v. Pangasinan College
11 PSBA v. Court of Appeals
12 Cosmo Entertainment v. La Ville
13 Ayala Corporation v. Rosa Diana Realty
14 Bricktown Development v. Amor Tierra Development
15 Pilipinas Hino v. Court of Appeals
16 Philippine Realty and Holding Corporation v. Ley Construction and Development
17 Titan-Ikeda Construction v. Primetown Property
18 PADCOM v. Ortigas
19 MC Engineering v. Court of Appeals
20 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Pineda
21 State Investment v. Court of Appeals
22 Abellana v. People
23 People v. Malicsi
24 People v. Sia
25 People v. Doctolero
26 People v. Abulencia
27 Bermudez v. Melecio-Herrera
28 People v. Relova
29 Manantan v. Court of Appeals
30 People v. Bayotas
31 Barredo v. Garcia
32 Philippine Hawk Corporation v. Lee
33 Dy Teban v. Ching
34 Safeguard Security v. Tiangco
35 Villanueva v. Domingo
36 Calalas v. Court of Appeals
37 Ludo & Luym Corporation v. Court of Appeals
38 Thermochem v. Naval
39 Picart v. Smith

1|Page KT Tegio
 OCAMPO III. VS. PEOPLE
G.R Nos. 156547-51. February 4, 2008

FACTS:

The Department of Budget and Management released the amount of Php 100 Million for the
support of the local government unit of the province of Tarlac. However, petitioner Ocampo,
governor of Tarlac, loaned out more than P 56.6 million in which he contracted with Lingkod Tarlac
Foundation, Inc.. thus, it was the subject of 25 criminal charges against the petitioner.

The Sandiganbayan convicted the petitioner of the crime of malversation of public funds.
However, the petitioner contended that the loan was private in character since it was a loan
contracted with the Taralc Foundation.

ISSUE:

Whether the amount loaned out was private in nature.

Leung Ben vs. O’Brien

G.R. No. L-13602, April 6, 1918
38 Phil. 182

FACTS:

On December 12, 1917 an action was instituted in the CFI of Manila by O’Brien to recover
from Leung Ben the sum of P15, 000.00 alleged to have been lost by the plaintiff to the defendant in
a series of gambling, banking and percentage games conducted during the two or three months
prior to the institution of the suit. In his verified complaint the plaintiff asked for an attachment,
under sections 424 and 412 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the property of the defendant
on the ground that the latter was about to depart from the Philippine Island with intent to defraud
his creditors. The attachment was issued and acting on the authority thereof, the sheriff attached
the sum of P15, 000.00 which had been deposited by the defendant with the International Banking
Corporation.

The defendant moved to quash the attachment; the court however, dismissed said motion.
On January 8, 1918, petitioner Leung Ben, the defendant in that action filed his petition for writ of
certiorari directed against O’Brien and the judges of CFI. The prayer is that, the honorable James
A. Ostrand be required to certify the records for review and that the order of attachment that had
been issued should be revoked and discharged with cost.

ISSUE:

The issue is whether or not the statutory obligation to restore money won at gaming is an
obligation from “contract, express or implied.”

Arturo Pelayo vs. Marcelo Lauron

G.R. No. L-4089, January 12, 1909
12 Phil. 453

FACTS:

On or about October 13, 1906, the plaintiff Arturo Pelayo was called to the house of the
defendants, Marcelo Lauron and Juana Abella situated in San Nicolas, and that upon arrival he
was requested by them to render medical assistance to their daughter-in-law who was about to give
birth to a child. After consultation with the attending physician, Dr. Escaño, the plaintiff found it
necessary to remove the fetus by means of an operation, in which service he was occupied until the
following morning, and had visited the patient several times. The equitable value of the services
rendered by the plaintiff was P500.00, which the defendants refused to pay. On November 23, 1906,
the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants and prayed that the judgment be rendered in
his favor as against the defendants, or any of them, for the sum of P500 and costs, together with
any other relief that may be deemed proper. In answer, the defendants denied all allegations and

2|Page KT Tegio
alleged as a special defense, that their daughter-in-law died as a consequence of the said childbirth,
and when she was still alive she lived with her husband independently and in a separate house and
without any relation whatsoever with them, and on the day she gave birth she was in the house of
the defendants and her stay there was accidental and due to fortuitous circumstances. Thus, the
defendants prayed that they be absolved from the complaint with costs against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff demurred the answer and that the lower court sustained the demurrer directing
the defendants to amend their answer. In compliance, the defendants amended their answer
denying each and every allegation contained in the complaint. The lower court rendered judgment
in favor of the defendants absolving them from the complaint.

ISSUE:
The issue is whether or not the parents-in-law are under any obligation to pay the fees claimed by
the plaintiff.

ASI CORPORATION VS. EVANGELISTA

G.R No. 158086.
February 14, 2008

FACTS:

Private respondent Evangelista contracted Petitioner ASJ Corporation for the incubation and
hatching of eggs and by products owned by Evangelista Spouses. The contract includes the
scheduled payments of the service of ASJ Corporation that the amount of installment shall be paid
after the delivery of the chicks. However, the ASJ Corporation detained the chicks because
Evangelista Spouses failed to pay the installment on time.

ISSUE:

Was the detention of the alleged chicks valid and recognized under the law?

RAMAS VS. QUIAMCO

G.R No. 146322. December 6, 2006

FACTS:

Quiamco has amicably settled with Davalan, Gabutero and Generoso for the crime of robbery
and that in return, the three had surrendered to Quiamco a motorcycle with its registration.
However, Atty. Ramas has sold to Gabutero the motorcycle in installment but when the latter did
not able to pay the installment, Davalon continued the payment but when he became insolvent, he
said that the motorcycle was taken by Quiamco’s men. However, after several years, the petitioner
Ramas together with policemen took the motorcycle without the respondent’s permit and shouted
that the respondent Quiamco is a thief of motorcycle. Respondent then filed an action for damages
against petitioner alleging that petitioner is liable for unlawful taking of the motorcycle and
utterance of a defamatory remark and filing a baseless complaint. Also, petitioners claim that they
should not be held liable for petitioner’s exercise of its right as seller-mortgagee to recover the
mortgaged motorcycle preliminary to the enforcement of its right to foreclose on the mortgage in
case of default.

ISSUE:

Whether the act of the petitioner is correct.

Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Roberto Reyes

3|Page KT Tegio
 G.R. No. 154259, February 28, 2005
452 SCRA 532

FACTS:

Respondent herein Roberto Reyes, more popularly known by the screen name “Amay Bisaya,”
alleged that while he was having coffee at the lobby of Hotel Nikko, he was spotted by Dr. Violeta
Filart, his friend of several years, invited him to join her in a party at the hotel’s penthouse in
celebration of the natal day of the hotel’s manager, Mr. Masakazu Tsuruoka. Mr. Reyes asked if she
could vouch for him for whom she replied: “of course.” Reyes then went up with the party of Dr.
Filart carrying the basket of fruits which was the latter’s present for the celebrant. At the
penthouse, they first had their picture taken with the celebrant after which Reyes sat with the party
of Dr. Filart. After a couple of hours, when the buffet dinner was ready, Mr. Reyes lined-up at the
buffet table but, to his great shock, shame and embarrassment, he was stopped by Ruby Lim, the
Executive Secretary of Hotel Nikko. Reyes alleged that Ruby Lim, in a loud voice and within the
presence and hearing of the other guests who were making a queue at the buffet table, told him to
leave the party because he was not invited. Mr. Reyes tried to explain that he was invited by Dr.
Filart but the latter, who was within hearing distance, completely ignored him thus adding to his
shame and humiliation. Afterwards, while he was still recovering from the traumatic experience, a
Makati policeman approached and asked him to step out of the hotel. Like a common criminal, he
was escorted out of the party by the policeman. Claiming damages, Mr. Reyes asked for One Million
Pesos actual damages, One Million Pesos moral and/or exemplary damages and Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos attorney’s fees.

Petitioners Lim and Hotel Nikko contend that pursuant to the doctrine of volenti non fit
injuria, they cannot be made liable for damages as respondent Reyes assumed the risk of being
asked to leave (and being embarrassed and humiliated in the process) as he was a “gate-crasher.”

ISSUE:
Whether or not Hotel Nikko and Ruby Lim are jointly and severally liable with Dr. Filart for
damages under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code.

St. Mary’s Academy vs. William Carpitanos and Lucia S. Carpitanos

G.R. No. 143363, February 6, 2002
426 Phil 878

FACTS:

From 13 to 20 February 1995, St. Mary’s Academy of Dipolog City conducted an enrollment
drive for the school year 1995-1996. A facet of the enrollment campaign was the visitation of
schools from where prospective enrollees were studying. As a student of St. Mary’s Academy,
Sherwin Carpitanos was part of the campaigning group. Accordingly, on the fateful day, Sherwin,
along with other high school students were riding in a Mitsubishi jeep owned by defendant Vivencio
Villanueva on their way to Larayan Elementary School, Larayan, Dapitan City. The jeep was driven
by James Daniel II then 15 years old and a student of the same school. Allegedly, the latter drove
the jeep in a reckless manner and as a result the jeep turned turtle.Sherwin Carpitanos died as a
result of the injuries he sustained from the accident.

ISSUE:

Whether the petitioner is liable for damages for the death of Sherwin Carpitanos.

SPS. GUANIO v. MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL

GR No. 190601, February 7 2011

FACTS:

For their wedding reception on July 28, 2001, spouses Luigi M. Guanio and Anna
Hernandez-Guanio (petitioners) booked at the Shangri-la Hotel Makati.Prior to the event, Makati

4|Page KT Tegio
Shangri-La Hotel & Resort, Inc. (respondent) scheduled an initial and final food tasting. The parties
eventually agreed on a final price ─ P1,150 per person.On July 27, 2001, the parties finalized and
signed their contract.

Petitioners claim that during the reception, respondent’s representatives, Catering Director
Bea Marquez and Sales Manager Tessa Alvarez, did not show up despite their assurance that they
would; their guests complained of the delay in the service of the dinner; certain items listed in the
published menu were unavailable; the hotel’s waiters were rude and unapologetic when confronted
about the delay; and despite Alvarez’s promise that there would be no charge for the extension of
the reception beyond 12:00 midnight, they were billed and paid P8,000 per hour for the three-hour
extension of the event up to 4:00 A.M. the next day. They further claim that they brought wine and
liquor in accordance with their open bar arrangement, but these were not served to the guests who
were forced to pay for their drinks.

Petitioners thus sent a letter-complaint to the Makati Shangri-la Hotel and Resort, Inc.and
received an apologetic reply from Krister Svensson, the hotel’s Executive Assistant Manager in
charge of Food and Beverage. They nevertheless filed a complaint for breach of contract and
damages before the RTC of Makati City. Respondents averred that it was the increase in number of
the unexpected guests that led to the shortage claimed by the petitioners.

The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs and was reversed by the CA, upon
appeal, the latter holding that the proximate cause of petitioners’ injury was an unexpected
increase in their guests.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA correctly held that the proximate cause of petitioners’ injury was an
unexpected increase in their guests.

TSPIC CORPORATION VS. TSPIC EMPLOYEES UNION

G.R No. 163419. February 13, 2008

FACTS:

TSPI Corporation entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the corporation Union
for the increase of salary for the latter’s members for the year 2000 to 2002 starting from January
2000. thus, the increased in salary was materialized on January 1, 2000. However, on October 6,
2000, the Regional Tripartite Wage and production Board raised daily minimum wage from P
223.50 to P 250.00 starting November 1, 2000. Conformably, the wages of the 17 probationary
employees were increased to P250.00 and became regular employees therefore receiving another
10% increase in salary. In January 2001, TSPIC implemented the new wage rates as mandated by
the CBA. As a result, the nine employees who were senior to the 17 recently regularized employees,
received less wages. On January 19, 2001, TSPIC’s HRD notified the 24 employees who are private
respondents, that due to an error in the automated payroll system, they were overpaid and the
overpayment would be deducted from their salaries starting February 2001. The Union on the other
hand, asserted that there was no error and the deduction of the alleged overpayment constituted
diminution of pay.

ISSUE:

Whether the alleged overpayment constitutes diminution of pay as alleged by the Union.

Regino vs. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology

G.R. No. 156109
November 8, 2004

FACTS:

Petitioner Khristine Rea M. Regino was a first year computer science student of Pangasinan
Colleges of Science and Technology (PCST). Reared in a poor family, Regino went to college mainly

5|Page KT Tegio
through the financial support of her relatives. She enrolled Logic and Statistics subjects under
Rachelle Gamurot and Elissa Baladad, respectively as teachers.

In February 2002, PCST held a fund raising campaign dubbed “The Rave Party and Dance
Revolution” the proceeds which were to go to the construction of the school’s tennis and volleyball
courts. Each student was required to pay for two tickets at the price of P100.00 each. The project
was allegedly implemented by recompensing students who purchased tickets with additional points
in their test scores; those who refused to pay were denied the opportunity to take the final
examinations.

Financially strapped and prohibited by her religion from attending dance parties and
celebration, Regino refused to pay tickets. On March 14 and 15, 2002, the scheduled dates of
examinations in Logics and Statistics, the teachers allegedly disallowed her from taking the tests.
Petitioner then filed as pauper litigant, a complaint for damages against PCST. She prayed for
P500,000.00 as nominal; P500,000.00 as moral and at least P1,000,000.00 as exemplary damages,
P250,000.00 as actual damages & cost of litigation and attorney’s fees.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. It ruled that Commission on
Higher Education, not the court, has jurisdiction over the controversy.

ISSUES:

Whether or not court has jurisdiction over the controversy.

Whether or not there was a breach of contract and liability of tort.

PSBA vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 84698, February 4, 1992

FACTS:
A stabbing incident on 30 August 1985 which caused the death of Carlitos Bautista while on
the second-floor premises of the Philippine School of Business Administration (PSBA) prompted the
parents of the deceased to file suit in the Regional Trial Court of Manila for damages against the
said PSBA and its corporate officers. At the time of his death, Carlitos was enrolled in the third year
commerce course at the PSBA. It was established that his assailants were not members of the
school's academic community but were elements from outside the school. Substantially, the
plaintiffs (now private respondents) sought to adjudge them liable for the victim's untimely demise
due to their alleged negligence, recklessness and lack of security precautions, means and methods
before, during and after the attack on the victim.
Defendants a quo (now petitioners) sought to have the suit dismissed, alleging that since they are
presumably sued under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the complaint states no cause of action
against them, as jurisprudence on the subject is to the effect that academic institutions, such as
the PSBA, are beyond the ambit of the rule in the afore-stated article.
The respondent trial court, however, overruled petitioners’ contention and thru an order dated 8
December 1987, denied their motion to dismiss. Said decision of the respondent appellate court was
primarily anchored on the law of quasi-delicts, as enunciated in Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil
Code.
Article 2180, in conjunction with Article 2176 of the Civil Code, establishes the rule of in loco
parentis. It had been stressed that the law (Article 2180) plainly provides that the damage should
have been caused or inflicted by pupils or students of the educational institution sought to be held
liable for the acts of its pupils or students while in its custody. However, this material situation
does not exist in the present case for the assailants of Carlitos were not students of the PSBA, for
whose acts the school could be made liable.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellate court's failure to consider such material facts means the exculpation
of the petitioners from liability.

Cosmo Entertainment Management, Inc. vs. La Ville Commercial Corporation

G.R. No. 152801, August 20, 2004
437 SCRA 145

6|Page KT Tegio
FACTS:

The respondent, La Ville Commercial Corporation, is the registered owner of a parcel of land
covered by TCT No. 174250 of the Registry of Deeds of Makati City together with the commercial
building thereon situated at the corner of Kalayaan and Neptune Streets in Makati City.

On March 17, 1993, it entered into a Contract of Lease with petitioner Cosmo Entertainment
Management, Inc. over the subject property for a period of seven years with a monthly rental of
P250 per square meter of the floor area of the building and a security deposit equivalent to three
monthly rentals in the amount of P447, 000.00 to guarantee the faithful compliance of the terms
and conditions of the lease agreement. Upon execution of the contract, the petitioner took
possession of the subject property.

The petitioner, however, suffered business reverses and was constrained to stop operations
in September 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner defaulted in its rental payments. Consequently, the
respondent made a demand on the petitioner to vacate the premises as well as to pay the accrued
rentals plus interests which, as of January 31, 1997, amounted to P740, 478.91. In reply to the
demand, the petitioner averred that its unpaid rentals amounted to P698, 500 only and since it
made a security deposit of P419, 100 with the respondent, the said amount should be applied to the
unpaid rentals; hence, the outstanding accounts payable would only be P279, 400. The respondent
requested that the interest charges be waived and it be given time to find a solution to its financial
problems.

After negotiations between the parties failed, the respondent, on May 27, 1997, reiterated its
demand on the petitioner to pay the unpaid rentals as well as to vacate and surrender the premises
to the respondent. When the petitioner refused to comply with its demand, the respondent filed
with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City a complaint for illegal detainer. The petitioner, in
its answer to the complaint, raised the defense that, under the contract, it had the right to sublease
the premises upon prior written consent by the respondent and payment of transfer fees. However,
the respondent, without any justifiable reason, refused to allow the petitioner to sublease the
premises.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner has the right to sublease the premises.

Ayala Corporation vs. Rosa Diana Realty

G.R. No. 134284, December 1, 2000
346 SCRA 663

FACTS:

Petitioner Ayala Corporation (Ayala) was the registered owner of a parcel of land located in
Alfaro Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City with an area of 840 square meters more or less and
covered by TCT no. 233435 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal.

On April 20, 1976, Ayala sold the lot to Manuel Sy married to Vilma Po and Sy Ka Kieng
married to Rosa Chan. The Deed of Sale executed between Ayala and the buyers contained Special
Conditions of Sale and Deed Restrictions. Manuel Sy and Sy Ka Kieng failed to construct the
building in violation of the Special Conditions of Sale. Notwithstanding the violation, Manuel Sy
and Sy Ka Kieng were able to sell the lot to respondent Rosa-Diana Realty and Development Corp.
with Ayala’s approval. As a consideration for Ayala to release the certificate of title of the subject
property, Rosa-Diana, executed an undertaking promising to abide by said Special Condition of Sale
executed between Ayala and the original vendees. Upon the submission of the undertaking,
together with the building plans for a condominium project, known as the Peak, Ayala released title
to the lot, thereby enabling Rosa-Diana to register the Deed of Sale on its favor and obtain
certificate of Title in its name.

Thereafter, Rosa-Diana submitted to the building official of Makati another set of building
plans which were substantially different from those that it earlier submitted to Ayala for approval.
During the construction of Rosa-Diana’s condominium project, Ayala filed an action with the RTC of
Makati for specific performance with application for a writ of preliminary injunction seeking to

7|Page KT Tegio
compel the latter to comply with the contractual obligations under the Deed of Restriction
annotated on the title as well as with the building plans it submitted to the latter. In the
alternative, Ayala prayed for rescission of the sale of the subject lot to Rosa-Diana Realty. The
lower court denied Ayala’s prayer for injunctive relief; thus, enabling Rosa-Diana to complete the
construction of the building. Ayala tried to cause the annotation a notice of lis pendens on Rosa-
Diana’s title but the Register of Deed of Makati refused registration on the ground that the case
pending before the trial court being an action for specific performance and or rescission is an action
in personam which does not involve the title, use or possession of the property. The Land
Registration Authority reversed the ruling of the Register of Deeds. The decision of the LRA,
however, was reversed by the CA.

ISSUE:

The issue is whether or not respondent Rosa-Diana has the obligation to enforce the Deed of
Restrictions contained in the contract it entered with Ayala.

Bricktown Development vs. Amor Tierra Development

G.R. No. 112182, December 12, 1994
239 SCRA 126

FACTS:

On 31 March 1981, petitioner Bricktown Development Corporation executed two contracts to

sell in favor of petitioner Tierra Corp. covering a total of 96 residential lots situated at the
Multinational Village Subdivision, La Huerta, Parañaque, Metro Manila. The total price of
P21,639,875.00 was stipulated to be paid by private respondent in such amount and maturity
dates, as follows; P2,200,000.00 on March 31, 1981, P3, 209, 965.75 on 30 June 1981, P4, 729,
906.25 on 31 December 1981, and the balance of P11, 500,000.00 to be paid by means of an
assumption by private respondent of petitioner’s corporation’s mortgage liability to the Philippine
Saving Bank or, alternatively, to be made payable in cash. On even date 31 March 1981, the
parties executed a supplemental agreement providing that private respondent would additionally
pay to petitioner the amount of P55, 364.68 or 21% interest on the balance of downpayment for the
period from 31 March to 30 June 1981 and of P390, 367.37 representing interest paid by petitioner
corporation to the Philippine Savings Bank in updating the bank loan for the period from 1
February to 31 March 1981.

On 12 October 1981, Petitioner Corporation sent notice of cancellation of contract to private

respondent on account of the latter’s continued failure to pay the installment due 30 June 1981
and interest on the unpaid balance of the stipulated initial payment.

On 26 September 1983, private respondent demanded the refund of its various payment to
petitioner amounting to P2, 445, 497.71. However, petitioner did not heed the demand, so private
respondent filed an action with the court a quo.

The lower court ruled in favor of private respondent and it was affirmed in toto by the
appellate court.

ISSUE:

The issue is whether or not the contracts to sell were validly rescinded or cancelled by
Petitioner Corporation.

Pilipinas Hino vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 126570, August 18, 2000
338 SCRA 355

FACTS:

8|Page KT Tegio
 The plaintiff, Pilipinas Hino, Inc., is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws
of the Philippines, with office address at PMI Building EDSA, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, The
plaintiff filed an action for sum of money and damages against the defendants.
The contract of lease was entered into between herein parties, under which the defendants,
as lessor, leased real property located at Bigaa, Balagtas Bulacan, to plaintiff for a term of 2 years.
Pursuant to the contract of lease, plaintiff-lessee deposited with the defendants-lessor the amount
of P400, 000.00 to answer for repairs and damages that may be caused by the lessee on the leased
premises during the period of the lease. After the expiration of the lease contract, the plaintiff and
defendants made a joint inspection of the premises to determine the extent of the damages thereon.
Both agreed that the cost of repairs would amount to P60, 000.00 and that the amount of P340,
000.00 shall then be returned by the defendants to plaintiff. However, defendants returned to
plaintiff only the amount of P200, 000.00 still having a balance of P140, 000.00.
On August 10, 1990, plaintiff and defendants entered into a contract to sell denominated as
a memorandum of agreement to sell whereby the latter agreed to sell to the former the leased
property subject of this suit in the amount of P45, 611,000.00. The aforesaid memorandum of
agreement to sell granted the owner (defendants) the option to rescind the same upon failure of the
buyer (plaintiff) to pay any of the six installments with the corresponding obligation to return to the
buyer any amount paid by the buyer in excess of the down payment. Pursuant to the said
memorandum of agreement, plaintiff remitted on August 10, 1990 to the defendants the amount of
P1, 811,000.00 as down payment. Subsequently, plaintiff paid the first and second installments in
the amount of P1, 800,000.00 and P5, 250,000.00 with the total amount of P7, 050,000.00.
Unfortunately, plaintiff failed to pay the third and subsequent installments; and thereupon,
defendants decided to, and in fact did rescind and terminate, the contract promised to return to the
plaintiff all the amounts paid in excess of the down payment after deducting the interest due from
the third to sixth installments, inclusive.
The trial court rendered a decision ruling in favor of respondents Reyes, et. al. Petitioner
Pilipinas Hino elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, however, sustained
the findings of the trial court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the private respondent has the right to retain the interest due for the unpaid
installments, despite the fact that the respondent has exercised his option to rescind the
memorandum of agreement.

PHILIPPINE REALTY and HOLDING CORP. v. LEY CONST. and DEV. CORP.
G. R. No. 165548, June 13, 2011

FACTS:
Ley Construction and Development Corporation (LCDC) was the project contractor for the
construction of several buildings for Philippine Realty & Holdings Corporation (PRHC), the project
owner. Engineer Dennis Abcede (Abcede) was the project construction manager of PRHC, while
Joselito Santos (Santos) was its general manager and vice-president for operations.
Sometime between April 1988 and October 1989, the two corporations entered into four
major construction projects, as evidenced by four duly notarized "construction agreements." These
were the four construction projects the parties entered into involving a Project 1, Project 2, Project 3
(all of which involve the Alexandra buildings) and a Tektite Building. LCDC committed itself to the
construction of the buildings needed by PRHC, which in turn committed itself to pay the contract
price agreed upon. In the course of the construction of the Tektite Building, it became evident to
both parties that LCDC would not be able to finish the project within the agreed period. LCDC
explained that the unanticipated delay in construction was due mainly to the sudden, unexpected
hike in the prices of cement and other construction materials. Both parties agreed to enter into
another agreement. Abcede asked LCDC to advance the amount necessary to complete
construction. Its president acceded, on the absolute condition that it be allowed to escalate the
contract price. Abcede replied that he would take this matter up with the board of directors of
PRHC.The board of directors turned down the request for an escalation agreement. However, On 9
August 1991 Abcede sent a formal letter to LCDC, asking for its conformity, to the effect that should
it infuse P36 million into the project, a contract price escalation for the same amount would be
granted in its favor by PRHC.
LCDC then proceeded with the construction of the Tektite Building, expending the entire
amount necessary to complete the project. From August to December 1991, it infused amounts
totaling P 38,248,463.92. These amounts were not deposited into the joint account of LCDC and
PRHC, but paid directly to the suppliers upon the instruction of Santos.LCDC religiously submitted
to PRHC monthly reports that contained the amounts of infusion it made from the period August
1991 to December 1991. PRHC never replied to any of these monthly reports.On 20 January 1992,
LCDC wrote a letter addressed to Santos stating that it had already complied with its commitment
as of 31 December 1991 and was requesting the release of P 2,248,463.92.

9|Page KT Tegio
 In a letter dated 18 January 1993, LCDC, through counsel, demanded payment of the agreed
escalation price of P 36 million. In its reply on 16 February 1993, PRHC suddenly denied any
liability for the escalation price. In the same letter, it claimed that LCDC had incurred 111 days of
delay in the construction of the Tektite Building and demanded that the latter pay P 39,326,817.15
as liquidated damages.

ISSUE:
Whether or not LCDC was delayed in the performance of its obligation to construct the
buildings for PRHC .

TITAN-IKEDA VS. PRIMETOWN

G.R No. 158768
February 12, 2008

FACTS:

The respondent Primetown Property Corporation entered into contract weith the petitioner
Titan-Ikeda Construction Corporation for the structural works of a 32-storey prime tower. After the
construction of the tower, respondent again awarded to the petitioner the amount of P
130,000,000.00 for the tower’s architectural design and structure. Howevere, in 1994, the
respondent entered inot a contract of sale of the tower in favor of the petitioner in a manner called
full-swapping. Since the respondent had allegedly constructed almost one third of the project as
weel as selling some units to third persons unknown to the petitioner. Integrated Inc. took over the
project, thus the petitioner is demanding for the return of its advanced payment in the amount of
P2, 000,000.00 as weel as the keys of the unit.

ISSUE:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to damages.

PADCOM Condominium Corporation vs. Ortigas Center Association, Inc.,

G.R. No. 146807, May 9, 2002

FACTS:
Petitioner Padcom Condominium Corporation (hereafter PADCOM) owns and manages the
Padilla Office Condominium Building (PADCOM Building) located at Emerald Avenue, Ortigas
Center, Pasig City. The land on which the building stands was originally acquired from the Ortigas
& Company, Limited Partnership (OCLP), by Tierra Development Corporation (TDC) under a Deed of
Sale dated 4 September 1974. Among the terms and conditions in the deed of sale was the
requirement that the transferee and its successor-in-interest must become members of an
association for realty owners and long-term lessees in the area later known as the Ortigas Center.
Subsequently, the said lot, together with improvements thereon, was conveyed by TDC in favor of
PADCOM in a Deed of Transfer dated 25 February 1975.
In 1982, respondent Ortigas Center Association, Inc. (hereafter the Association) was organized to
advance the interests and promote the general welfare of the real estate owners and long-term
lessees of lots in the Ortigas Center. It sought the collection of membership dues in the amount of
two thousand seven hundred twenty-four pesos and forty centavos (P2, 724.40) per month from
PADCOM. The corporate books showed that PADCOM owed the Association P639, 961.47,
representing membership dues, interests and penalty charges from April 1983 to June 1993. The
letters exchanged between the parties through the years showed repeated demands for payment,
requests for extensions of payment, and even a settlement scheme proposed by PADCOM in
September 1990.
In view of PADCOM's failure and refusal to pay its arrears in monthly dues, including interests and
penalties thereon, the Association filed a complaint for collection of sum of money before the trial
court. The Association averred that purchasers of lands within the Ortigas Center complex from
OCLP are obligated under their contracts of sale to become members of the Association. This
obligation was allegedly passed on to PADCOM when it bought the lot from TDC, its predecessor-in-
interest.
The trial court dismissed the case. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the same in favor of the
Association.

10 | P a g e KT Tegio
ISSUE:
Whether or not PADCOM is a member of the Ortigas Center Association, Inc.

MC Engineering, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 104047, April 3, 2002
380 SCRA 116

FACTS:
Mc Engineering, Inc. and Surigao Coconut Development Corporation signed a contract, for
the restoration of the latter’s building, land improvement, electrical, and mechanical equipment
located at Lipata, Surigao City, which was damaged by typhoon Nitang. Defendant Mc Engineering
and plaintiff Gerent Builders, Inc. entered into an agreement wherein defendant subcontracted to
plaintiff the restoration of the buildings and land improvement phase of its contract with Sucodeco.
On January 2, 1985, plaintiff received from defendant the amount of P1, 339,720.00 as full
payment of the sub-contract price, after deducting earlier payments made by defendant to plaintiff,
as evidenced by the affidavit executed by plaintiff’s president, Mr. Narciso C. Roque, wherein the
latter acknowledged complete satisfaction for such payment on the basis of the Statement of
Account which plaintiff had earlier forwarded to defendant.
Nevertheless, plaintiff is still claiming from defendant the sum of P632, 590.13 as its share in the
adjusted contract cost in the amount of P854, 851.51, alleging that the sub-contract is subject to
the readjustment provided for in Section VII of the agreement, and also the sum of P166, 252.00 in
payment for additional electrical and civil works outside the scope of the sub-contract. Petitioner
refused to pay respondent Gerent. Thus, on March 21, 1985, respondent Gerent filed the complaint
against petitioner. On March 28, 1985, the trial court issued the corresponding writ of preliminary
attachment upon the filing by respondent Gerent of a P632, 590.13 bond issued by respondent
Surety. On April 24, 1985, petitioner moved to quash the writ on the ground that it was improperly
issued. The trial court denied the motion.
On July 13, 1987, the trial court ordered the return of petitioner’s properties that deputy sheriff
Cristobal C. Florendo attached and seized. The sheriff reported to the court that he never seized a
single property of petitioner but merely conducted a “paper levy”.
On January 5, 1988, petitioner filed an application against the attachment bond to recover
damages it suffered due to the wrongful issuance of the writ of attachment. Respondent Surety
opposed the application.
In its Answer, petitioner vigorously denied respondent Gerent’s causes of action. Petitioner
counterclaimed for damages and attorney’s fees due to the improper issuance of the writ of
attachment.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is entitled to actual moral and exemplary damages due to the
wrongful issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment.

Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Benjamin Pineda

G.R.No. L-62441, December 14, 1987
156 SCRA 404

FACTS:
Through financing of Peoples Bank and Trust Company, now BPI, three vessels were bought
by Southern Industrial Project (SIP) and/or Bacong Shipping Company. SIP is a corporation whose
majority stockholder belongs to Concon Family. Bacong Shipping Company is a Panamanian
corporation. The said vessels were mortgaged to the bank as a security of their payment of their
bank loans.
Interocean Shipping Corporation, a booking agency, handled the operation of said vessels. It
undertook the freight revenues from their charter and operation which shall be deposited with Trust
Department of PBTC and disbursements made therefrom shall be covered by vouchers bearing the
approval of SIP.
SIP and PBTC became doubtful of the amount of revenues being deposited with the bank as
diversions of payments were being made. Gregorio Concon of SIP and/or Bacong and Ramon
Azanza of PBTC organized SA Gacet Inc. to manage and supervise the vessels’ operation with
Ezekiel Toeg as its manager. A management contract was entered into between SIP and Gacet Inc.
placing the supervision and management of said vessels in the hands of Gacet for a specified
period, renewable at the will of the parties without however terminating the booking agency of
Interocean Shipping Corp. Gacet and Interocean, in accordance with the management contract,
contracted services of Benjamin Pineda doing business in the name and style Pioneer Iron Works to

11 | P a g e KT Tegio
carry out repairs, fabrication and installation of necessary parts in said vessels in order to make
them seaworthy and in good working condition.
Unable to pay their mortgage indebtedness to PBTC hich became past due, SIP and/or
Bacong sold said vessels to PBTC by way of dacion en pago.Pineda filed an action against SIP,
Gacet, Interocean and PBTC for payment and interest of the cost of repairs, fabrication and
installation of necessary parts of the vessels.

ISSUE:
Who should be liable for the payment of the cost of repairs undertaken in the subject
vessels?

State Investment vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 90676, June 19, 1991
198 SCRA 392

FACTS:

Respondent spouses Rafael and Refugio Aquino pledged certain shares of stock to petitioner
State Investment House Inc. in order to secure a loan of P120, 000.00. Prior to the execution of the
pledge, respondent spouses Jose and Marcelina Aquino signed an agreement with Petitioner for the
latter’s purchase of receivables amounting to P375, 000.00. When the 1st Account fell due,
respondent spouses paid the same partly with their own funds and partly from the proceeds of
another loan which they obtained also from Petitioner designated as the 2nd Account. This new
loan was secured by the same pledge agreement executed in relation to the 1st Account. When the
new loan matured, State demanded payment. Respondents expressed willingness to pay, requesting
that upon payment, the shares of stock pledged be released. State denied the request on the ground
that the loan which it had extended to the spouses Jose and Marcelina Aquino has remained
unpaid.

On 29, June 1984, Atty. Rolando Salonga sent to respondent spouses a Notice of Notarial
Sale stating that upon request of State and by virtue of the pledge agreement, he would sell at
public auction the shares of stock pledged to State. This prompted respondents to file a case before
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City alleging that the intended foreclosure sale was illegal
because from the time the obligation under the 2nd Account became due, they had been able and
willing to pay the same, but petitioner had insisted that respondents pay even the loan account of
Jose and Marcelino Aquino, which had not been secured by the pledge. It was further alleged that
their failure to pay their loan was excused because State itself had prevented the satisfaction of the
obligation.

On January 29, 1985, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff ordering
State to immediately release the pledge and to deliver to respondents the share of stock upon
payment of the loan. The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the conditions to be complied with by the debtor desirous of being released
from his obligation in cases where the creditor unjustly refuses to accept payment have been met by
the spouses Aquino.

ABELLANA V. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 174654, August 17, 2011

FACTS:

In 1985, petitioner Felixberto A. Abellana extended a loan to private respondents spouses

Diaga and Saapia Alonto (spouses Alonto), secured by a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over Lot Nos.
6471 and 6472 located in Cebu City.Subsequently, or in 1987, petitioner prepared a Deed of
Absolute Sale conveying said lots to him. The Deed of Absolute Sale was signed by spouses Alonto
in Manila. However, it was notarized in Cebu City allegedly without the spouses Alonto appearing
before the notary public. Thereafter, petitioner caused the transfer of the titles to his name and sold
the lots to third persons.On August 12, 1999, respondent spouses filed a complaint charging
petitioner with Estafa through Falsification of Public Document.

12 | P a g e KT Tegio
 The RTC found that petitioner did not intend to defraud the spouses Alonto and that
petitioner can only be held guilty of Falsification of a Public Document by a private individual under
Article 172(1)in relation to Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code and not Estafa through
falsification of public document as charged in the Information.

Petitioner, upon appeal, raised the issue of whether an accused who was acquitted of
the crime charged may nevertheless be convicted of another crime or offense not specifically
charged and alleged and which is not necessarily included in the crime or offense charged. The CA
held that petitioner who was charged with and arraigned for estafa through falsification of public
document under Article 171(1) of the RPC could not be convicted of Falsification of Public
Document by a Private Individual under Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171(2). Thus, the CA
opined that the conviction of the petitioner for an offense not alleged in the Information or one not
necessarily included in the offense charged violated his constitutional right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him. Nonetheless, the CA affirmed the trial court's
finding with respect to petitioner's civil liability.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner could still be held civilly liable notwithstanding his acquittal.

PEOPLE VS. MALICSI

G.R No. 175833
January 29, 2008

FACTS:

The accused-appellant was accused for the crime of rape against his niece. The incident was
repeated trice by the appellant. The appellant contended that he and the victim were sweethearts
but the trial court did not give weight to that theory.

The trial court found appellant guilty of the crime of four counts of qualified rape and was
sentenced to suffer the penalty of death for each count of rape, to pay P300,000.00 as civil
indemnity (P75,000.00 for each count), and P200,000.00 as moral damages (P50,000.00 for each
count). The CA however modified the findings of the RTC declaring that appellant is guilty of four
counts of simple rape and to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE:

Whether the award of damages was properly made.

People of the Philippines vs. Rosauro Sia

G.R. No. 137457, November 21, 2001
370 SCRA 123

FACTS:

This is an automatic review of a decision of the Regional Trial Court finding the accused
Johnny Balalio y Deza and Jimmy Ponce y Tol guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals by
conspiracy for violation of RA 6539 (Anti- Carnapping law) as amended, and sentenced them to
suffer the penalty of death.

Accused are likewise adjudged jointly and severally liable to pay Agripina Bermudez, the
mother of the deceased Christian Bermudez the sums of: (a) P50, 000.00 as compensatory damages
for the death of Christian Bermudez; (b) P200, 000.00 as burial and other expenses incurred in
connection with the death of Christian; and (c) P3, 307,199.60 (2/3 x [80-27] x 300 per day x 26
days (excluding Sundays) x 12 months) representing the loss of earning capacity of Christian
Bermudez as taxi driver.

ISSUE:

13 | P a g e KT Tegio
 The issue is whether or not the trial courts’ award for damages is proper.

People of the Philippines vs. Carlos Doctolero, Sr

G.R. No. 131866, August 20, 2001
363 SCRA 404

FACTS:

This is an appeal of the accused from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City
finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and ordering him to indemnify
the heirs of the victim the sum of P50, 000.00 as indemnity for his death; the sum of P227, 808.80
as actual damages for expenses incurred for hospitalization, doctor’s fees, funeral expenses, vigil
and burial as a result of his death, and P300, 000.00 as moral damages for the pain and mental
anguish suffered by the heirs by reason of his death, all indemnifications being without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court’s award of damages is proper.

People of the Philippines vs. Rolly Abulencia

G.R. No. 138403, August 22, 2001
363 SCRA 496

FACTS:

This is an automatic review of a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City,
Pangasinan finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Aggravated Rape
with Homicide sentencing the accused to suffer the penalty of death, and ordering him to indemnify
the heirs of the victim, the sum of P75, 000.00 damages, and another sum of P20, 000.00 for
exemplary damages plus P6, 425.00 as actual damages.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court’s award for damages is proper.

Reynaldo Bermudez vs. Hon. Judge A. Melencio-Herrera

G.R. No. L-32055, February 26, 1988
158 SCRA 168

FACTS:

A cargo truck driven by Domingo Pontino and owned by Cordova Ng Sun Kwan bumped a
jeep on which Rogelio, a six-year old son of plaintiff-appellants, was riding. The boy sustained
injuries which caused his death. As a result, a criminal case for Homicide through Reckless
Imprudence was filed against Domingo Pontino by the Manila City Fiscal’s Office. Plaintiff-
appellants filed in the said criminal case “A Reservation to File Separate Civil Action.”

Subsequently, the plaintiff-appellants filed a civil case for damages with the Court of First
Instance of Manila. Finding that the plaintiffs instituted the action “on the assumption that
defendant Pontino’s negligence in the accident constituted a quasi-delict,” the trial court stated that
the plaintiffs had already elected to treat the accident as a “crime” by reserving in the criminal case
the right to file a separate civil action. That being so, the trial court decided to order the dismissal of
the complaint against defendant Cordova Ng Sun Kwan and to suspend the hearing of the case

14 | P a g e KT Tegio
against Domingo Pontino until after the criminal case for Homicide Through Reckless Imprudence is
finally terminated. From said order, plaintiffs filed the present appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the plaintiff-appellants had already elected to treat the accident as a “crime”
by reserving in the criminal case the right to file a separate civil action.

People of the Philippines vs. Relova

G.R. No. L-45129, March 6, 1987
148 SCRA 293

FACTS:

On February 1, 1975, members of the Batangas City Police together with personnel of the
Batangas Electric Light System, equipped with a search warrant, searched the premises of the
Opulencia Carpena Ice Plant and Cold Storage owned and operated by private respondent Manuel
Opulencia. The police discovered that electric wiring devices and contraptions had been installed
without the necessary authority from the city government. These electric devices were designed
purposely to lower or decrease the readings of electric consumption in the electric meter of the said
electric and cold storage ice plant.

Consequently, an Assistant City Fiscal of Batangas filed an information against Opulencia for
violation of Ordinance No. 1 Series of 1974, Batangas City. However, subsequently, the accused
filed a motion to dismiss the information upon the grounds that the crime there charged had
already prescribed.

Fourteen (14) days later, the Acting City Fiscal of Batangas filed before the Court of First
Instance of Batangas another information against Opulencia this time for theft of electric power
under Article 308 in relation to Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code. However, the case was
likewise dismissed on the ground of the constitutional right against double jeopardy. As regards
the civil aspect of the case, no right to file a separate civil action was filed by the Batangas City
Electric Light System.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the extinction of criminal liability whether by prescription or by the bar of double
jeopardy carries with it the extinction of civil liability based on the offense charged.

Manantan vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 107125, January 29, 2001
350 SCRA 387

FACTS:

After going from one place to another and consuming large amounts of beer, the accused, the
deceased, and two others boarded on the car of the accused where he was the driver. Driving at a
high speed at the middle portion of the highway and trying to overtake tricycle. At such speed, the
accused was not able to avoid the passenger jeepney and thus collided with it. The accused
immediately tried to swerve the car to the right and move his body away from the steering wheel but
he was not able to avoid the oncoming vehicle and the two vehicles collided with each other at the
center of the road.

The trial court decided in favor of the accused. However, the Court of Appeals modified the
decision of the lower court, in that defendant-appellee is held civilly liable for his negligent and
reckless act of driving his car which was the proximate cause of the vehicular accident and
sentenced to indemnify plaintiff-appellants in the amount of P174, 400.00 for the death of Ruben
Nicolas

ISSUES:

15 | P a g e KT Tegio
(1) Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that petitioner’s acquittal did not extinguish
his civil liability.
(2) Whether or not the Court a quo erred in finding that petitioner’s acquittal did not extinguish
his civil liability.
(3) Whether or not the appellate court committed reversible error in finding to apply the
Manchester doctrine.

People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio Bayotas

G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994
236 SCRA 239

FACTS:

Rogelio Bayotas was charged with rape and eventually convicted thereof on June 19, 1991 in
a decision penned by Judge Manuel Autajay. Pending appeal of his conviction, Bayotas died on
February 4, 1992 at the National Bilibid Hospital due to cardio respiratory arrest. Consequently, the
Supreme Court in its resolution of May 20, 1992, dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal.
However, it required the Solicitor General to file its comment with regard to Bayotas civil liability
arising from his commission of the offense charged.

In his comment, the Solicitor General expressed his view that the death of the accused did
not extinguish his civil liability as a result of his commission of the offense charged. The Solicitor
General insists that the appeal should still be resolved for the purpose of reviewing his conviction
by the lower court on which the civil liability is based.

Counsel of the accused, on the other hand, opposed the view of the Solicitor General arguing
that the death of the accused while pending appeal extinguishes both his criminal and civil
penalties. In support of his position, said counsel invoked the ruling of the Court of Appeals in
People v. Castillo and Ocfemia which held that the criminal liability in a criminal case takes root in
the criminal liability; and therefore, civil liability is extinguished if accused should die before final
judgment is rendered.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his
civil liability.

Fausto Barredo vs. Severino Garcia

G.R. No. L-48006, July 8, 1942
73 PHIL 607

FACTS:

At about half past one in the morning of May 3, 1936, on the road between Malabon and
Navotas, Province of Rizal, there was a head-on collision between a taxi of the Malate Taxicab driven
by Pedro Fontanilla and a carretela guided by Pedro Dimapilis. The carretela was overturned, and
one of its passengers, 16-year-old boy Faustino Garcia, suffered injuries from which he died two
days later. A criminal action was filed against Fontanilla in the Court of First Instance of Rizal and
he was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one year and one day to two years
of prision correctional. The court in the criminal case granted the petition that the right to bring a
separate civil action be reserved. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence of the lower court in
the criminal case. Severino Garcia and Timotea Almario, parents of the deceased, brought an action
in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Fausto Barredo as the sole proprietor of the Malate
Taxicab and employer of Pedro Fontanilla. On July 8, 1939, the Court of First Instance of Manila
awarded damages in favor of the plaintiffs for P2, 000.00 plus legal interest from the time the action
was instituted.

The main theory of the defense is that the liability of Fausto Barredo is governed by the
Revised Penal Code; hence, his liability is only subsidiary, as there has been no civil action against
Pedro Fontanilla, the person criminally liable, Barredo cannot be held responsible in this case.

16 | P a g e KT Tegio
 However, the decision of the Court of Appeals expressed that the liability sought to be
imposed against Fausto Barredo is not a civil obligation arising from a felony or a misdemeanor, but
an obligation imposed in Article 1903 of the Civil Code by reason of his negligence in the selection
or supervision of his servant or employee.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action against Fausto Barredo, thus
making him primary and directly responsible under Article 1903 of the Civil Code as the employer
of Pedro Fontanilla.

PHILIPPINE HAWK CORP. v. TAN LEE

G.R. No. 166869
February 16, 2010

FACTS:

On March 15, 2005, respondent Vivian Tan Lee filed before the RTC of Quezon City a
Complaint against petitioner Philippine Hawk Corporation and defendant Margarito Avila for
damages based on quasi-delict, arising from a vehicular accident that occurred on March 17, 1991
in Barangay Buensoceso, Gumaca, Quezon. The accident resulted in the death of respondent's
husband, Silvino Tan, and caused respondent physical injuries. The accident involved a motorcycle,
a passenger jeep, and a bus with Body No. 119. The bus was owned by petitioner Philippine Hawk
Corporation, and was then being driven by Margarito Avila.

On June 18, 1992, respondent filed an Amended Complaint, in her own behalf and in behalf
of her children, in the civil case for damages against petitioner. Respondent sought the payment of
indemnity for the death of Silvino Tan, moral and exemplary damages, funeral and interment
expenses, medical and hospitalization expenses, the cost of the motorcycle's repair, attorney's fees,
and other just and equitable reliefs.

In its Answer, petitioner denied liability for the vehicular accident, alleging that the
immediate and proximate cause of the accident was the recklessness or lack of caution of Silvino
Tan. Petitioner asserted that it exercised the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection
and supervision of its employees, including Margarito Avila.

The trial court rendered judgment against petitioner and defendant Margarito Avila, wherein
it adjudged guilty of simple negligence. It further held petitioner bus company liable for failing to
exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of Avila, having
failed to sufficiently inculcate in him discipline and correct behavior on the road. The CA affirmed
the decision of the trial court with modification in the award of damages.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner is liable to respondent for damages.

DY TEBAN VS. LIBERTY FOREST

G.R No. 161803
February 4, 2008

FACTS:

A Prime Mover Trailer suffered a tire blow out during the night of its travel at a national
highway. The trailer was owned by the respondent Liberty Forest. The driver allegedly put earl
warning devices but the only evidence being witnessed was a banana trunks and candles. Since the
car was placed at the right wing of the road, thus it cause the swerving of a Nissan van owned by
the petitioner when a passenger bus was coming in between the trailer. The Nissan van owner
claimed for damages against the respondent. The trial court found that the proximate cause of the

17 | P a g e KT Tegio
three –way accident is the negligence and carelessness of driver of the respondent . However
reversed the decision of the trial court.

ISSUE:
Whether there was negligence on the part of the respondent.

SAFEGUARD SECURITY VS. TANGCO

G.R No. 165732
December 14, 2006

FACTS:

The victim Evangeline Tangco was depositor of Ecology Bank. She was also a licensed-fire
arm holder, thus during the incident, she was entering the bank to renew her time deposit and
along with her was her firearm. Suddenly, the security guard of the bank, upon knowing that the
victim carries a firearm, the security guard shot the victim causing the latter’s instant death. The
heirs of the victim filed a criminal case against security guard and an action against Safeguard
Security for failure to observe diligence of a goof father implied upon the act of its agent.

ISSUE:

Whether Safeguard Security can be held liable for the acts of its agent.

VILLANUEVA VS. DOMINGO

G.R No. 144274
September 20, 2004

FACTS:

In 1991, a collision was made by a green Mitsubishi lancer owned by Ocfemia against a silver
Mitsubishi lancer driven by Leandro Domingo and owned by petitioner Priscilla Domingo. The
incident caused the car of Domingo bumped another two parked vehicles. A charged was filed
against Ocfemia and the owner Villanueva. Villanueva claimed that he must not be held liable for
the incident because he is no longer the owner of the car, that it was already swapped to another
car . however, the trial court ordered the petitioner to pay the damages incurred by the silver
Mitsubishi lancer car.

ISSUE:
Whether the owner Villanueva be held liable for the mishap.

CALALAS VS. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R No. 122039
May 31, 2000

FACTS:

Eliza Sunga was a passenger of a jeepney owned and operated by the petitioner Calalas.
Private respondent Sunga sat in the rear protion of the jeepney where the conductor gave Sunga an
extension seat. When the jeep stopped, Sunga gave way to a passenger going outside the jeep.
However, an Isuzu Truck driven by Verene and owned by Salva, accidentally hit Sunga causing the
latter to suffer physical injuries where the attending physician ordered a three months of rest.
Sunga filed an action for damages against the petitioner for breach of contract of common carriage
by the petitioner.

18 | P a g e KT Tegio
 On the other hand, the petitioner Calalas filed an action against Salva, being the owner of the
truck. The lower court ruled in favor of ther petitioner, thus the truck owner is liable for the damage
to the jeep of the petitioner.

ISSUE:
Whether the petitionerr is liable.

LUDO AND LUYM CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 125483
FEBRUARY 1, 2001

FACTS:
Ludo &
Luym Corporation is a domestic corporation engaged in copra processing. Private Respondent
Gabisan Shipping Lines was the registered owner and operator of the motor vessel MV Miguela,
while the other private respondent, Anselmo Olasiman, was its captain. On May 21, 1990, while MV
Miguela was docking at petitioner’s wharf, it rammed and destroyed a fender pile cluster. Ireneo
Naval, petitioner’s employee, guided the vessel to its docking place. After the small rope was thrown
from the vessel and while the petitioner’s security guard was pulling the big rope to be tied to the
bolar, MV Miguela did not slow down. The crew did not release the vessel’s anchor. Naval shouted
“Reverse” to the vessel’s crew, but it was too late when the latter responded, for the vessel already
rammed the pile cluster. Petitioner demanded for damages but private respondents denied the
incident and the damage. Their witnesses claimed that the damage, if any, must have occurred
prior to their arrival and caused by another vessel or by ordinary wear and tear.

ISSUE:
Is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable to this case?

THERMOCHEM INCORPORATED vs. LEONORA NAVAL

G.R. No. 131541
OCTOBER 20, 2000

FACTS:

"On May 10, 1992, at around 12:00 o'clock midnight, Eduardo Edem was driving a "Luring
Taxi" along Ortigas Avenue, near Rosario, Pasig, going towards Cainta. Thereafter, the driver
executed a U-turn to traverse the same road, going to the direction of EDSA. At this point, the
Nissan Pathfinder traveling along the same road going to the direction of Cainta collided with the
taxicab. The point of impact was so great that the taxicab was hit in the middle portion and was
pushed sideward, causing the driver to lose control of the vehicle. The taxicab was then dragged
into the nearby Question Tailoring Shop, thus, causing damage to the said tailoring shop, and its
driver, Eduardo Eden, sustained injuries as a result of the incident."

Private respondent, as owner of the taxi, filed a damage suit against petitioner, Thermochem
Incorporated, as the owner of the Nissan Pathfinder, and its driver, petitioner Jerome Castro. After
trial, the lower court adjudged petitioner Castro negligent and ordered petitioners, jointly and
severally, to pay private respondent actual, compensatory and exemplary damages plus attorney's
fees and costs of suit.

ISSUE:
What are the liabilities of both parties?

AMADO PICART vs. FRANK SMITH, JR.

G.R. No. L-12219
MARCH 15, 1918

19 | P a g e KT Tegio
FACTS:

The plaintiff, riding on his pony was half way across the Carlatan bridge when the defendant
approached from the opposite direction in an automobile, going at the rate of about ten or twelve
miles per hour. As the defendant neared the bridge he saw a horseman on it and blew his horn to
give warning of his approach. He continued his course and after he had taken the bridge he gave
two more successive blasts, as it appeared to him that the man on horseback before him was not
observing the rule of the road. The plaintiff saw the automobile coming and heard the warning
signals. However, thinking that he has no sufficient time to go to the other side of the road, he
pulled the pony closely up against the railing on the right side of the bridge instead of going to the
left. The defendant, instead of veering to the right while yet some distance away or slowing down,
continued to approach directly toward the horse. When he had gotten quite near, there being then
no possibility of the horse getting across to the other side, the defendant quickly turned his car
sufficiently to the right to escape hitting the horse alongside of the railing where it as then standing;
but in so doing the automobile passed in such close proximity to the animal that it became
frightened and turned its body across the bridge with its head toward the railing. In so doing, it as
struck on the hock of the left hind leg by the flange of the car and the limb was broken. The horse
fell and its rider was thrown off with some violence. As a result of its injuries the horse died. The
plaintiff received contusions which caused temporary unconsciousness and required medical
attention for several days.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendant is guilty of negligence.

20 | P a g e KT Tegio