FACTS:
Edgar Hernandez owns an Isuzu Passenger Jitney which he was driving along Angeles-Magalang Road. A passenger bus (RCJ Bus Lines) owned by Travel & Tours was driven by Edgar Calaycay. The bus was travelling in the same direction as the jeepney. The bus bumped the rear portion of the jeepney causing it to ram into an acacia tree and resulted in the death of Alberto Cruz and serious physical injuries of Virginia Muñoz.
Hernandez, Muñoz and the father of Alberto Cruz filed a complaint for damages claiming that the Calaycay was negligent in driving the bus. Travel & Tours claimed the exercise of diligence of the good father of the family in hiring Calaycay and further claimed that it was Hernandez’ negligence that caused the accident when the jeep cut across the lane of the bus.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Travel & Tours is liable for damages.
HELD:
YES. Travel & Tours is liable for damages.
As owner of the bus and employer of Calaycay, Travel & Tours is liable.
Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides:
"Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter."
Article 2180 states:
"The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible x x x.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry x x x."
Article 2180, in relation to Article 2176, of the Civil Code provides that the employer of a negligent employee is liable for the damages caused by the latter. When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee there instantly arises a presumption of the law that there was negligence on the part of the employer either in the selection of his employee or in the supervision over him after such selection. The presumption, however, may be rebutted by a clear showing on the part of the employer that it had exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee. Hence, to escape solidary liability for quasi-delict committed by an employee, the employer must adduce sufficient proof that it exercised such degree of care. In this case, the petitioner failed to do so.
Edgar Calaycay was duly authorized by the defendant company to drive the bus at the time of the incident. Petitioner’s claim that it has issued policies, rules and regulations to be followed, conduct seminars and see to it that their drivers and employees imbibe such policies, rules and regulations, have their drivers and conductors medically checked-up and undergo drug-testing, did not show that all these rudiments were applied to Edgar Calaycay. No iota of evidence was presented that Edgar Calaycay had undergone all these activities to ensure that he is a safe and capable driver. In fact, the defendant company did not put up a defense on the said driver. The defendant company did not even secure a counsel to defend the driver.
Travel & Tours did not even know the correct and true name of its drivers. In one of the pieces of evidence presented by Travel & Tours, the name of the driver was Calaycay Francisco. Hence, the liability of the employer for the tortuous acts or negligence of its employer is primary and solidary, direct and immediate, and not conditional upon the insolvency of prior recourse against the negligent employee.
However, both vehicles were not in their authorized routes at the time of the incident the jeepney was in violation of its allowed route as found by the RTC and the CA, hence, the owner and driver of the jeepney likewise, are guilty of negligence as defined under Article 2179 of the Civil Code:
When the plaintiffs negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
Since it has been established that the proximate cause of the death of Alberto Cruz, Jr. is the negligence of Calaycay with the contributory negligence of Hernandez, the heirs of Alberto Cruz, Jr. shall recover damages of only 50% of the award from petitioner and its driver and the other 50% by Hernandez.
Ipinapakita ang mga post na may etiketa na Torts and Damages. Ipakita ang lahat ng mga post
Ipinapakita ang mga post na may etiketa na Torts and Damages. Ipakita ang lahat ng mga post
Miyerkules, Mayo 16, 2018
Biyernes, Marso 1, 2013
China Airlines v CA (G.R. No. 129988)
Facts:
Respondents, Antonio Salvador and Rolando Lao planned to travel to Los Angeles, California to pursue a cable business deal involving the distribution of Filipino films. Initially, Morelia Travel Agency booked their flight with China Airlines (CAL).
Upon discovering that Morelia charged higher rates than American Express Travel (Amexco), they dropped the services of Morelia. Lao called Amexco claiming that he and Salvador had a confirmed booking with CAL. Lao then gave to Amexco the record locator number that CAL issued previously to Morelia. CAL confirmed the booking.
When the respondents were at the airport, CAL prevented them from boarding because their names were not in the passenger's manifest. CAL cancelled the reservations when Morelia revoked the booking. But the respondents were able to get a flight with Northwest Airlines.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not there was a breach in the contract of carriage.
2. Whether or not there there was bad faith.
3. Whether or not there was sufficient claims for damages.
Held:
1. Yes. When an airline issues a ticket to a passenger confirmed for a particular flight on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises. The passenger has every right to expect that he would fly on that flight and on that date.
When CAL did not allow respondents, who were in possession of the confirmed tickets, from boarding its airplane because their names were not in the manifest, it ocnsituted a breach of contract of carriage.
2. No. Bad faith should always be established by clear and convincing evidence since the law always presumes good faith.
In the case, there were three reasons why CAL cancelled the reservations. First was Amexco's unauthorized use of the record locator number. Second was CAL's negligence in confirming the reservations of Amexco. Third was the absence of the correct contact numbers of private respondents. There was no concerted effort on the part of CAL to cancel respondent's reservations in favor of other passengers.
3. Not entitled to moral damages because not every case of mental anguish, fright or anxiety calls for the award of moral damages.
Not entitled to exemplary damages because CAL was not in bad faith and its employees did not act in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
Not entitled to actual damages because respondents did not shell out any money for their CAL tickets. Respondents would have been entitled to the price difference between the tickets of CAL and Northwest had the latter cost more than the former but this was not the case. Evidence shows that Northwest tickets ($625) cost less than CAL tickets ($629). The court cannot order reimbursement of the Northwest tickets because this would have enabled respondents to fly for free. The cost of the tickets were a necessary expense that private respondents could not pass on to CAL.
Entitled to nominal damages of P5,000 when the plaintiff suffers some species of injury not enough to warrant an award of actual damages.
Respondents, Antonio Salvador and Rolando Lao planned to travel to Los Angeles, California to pursue a cable business deal involving the distribution of Filipino films. Initially, Morelia Travel Agency booked their flight with China Airlines (CAL).
Upon discovering that Morelia charged higher rates than American Express Travel (Amexco), they dropped the services of Morelia. Lao called Amexco claiming that he and Salvador had a confirmed booking with CAL. Lao then gave to Amexco the record locator number that CAL issued previously to Morelia. CAL confirmed the booking.
When the respondents were at the airport, CAL prevented them from boarding because their names were not in the passenger's manifest. CAL cancelled the reservations when Morelia revoked the booking. But the respondents were able to get a flight with Northwest Airlines.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not there was a breach in the contract of carriage.
2. Whether or not there there was bad faith.
3. Whether or not there was sufficient claims for damages.
Held:
1. Yes. When an airline issues a ticket to a passenger confirmed for a particular flight on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises. The passenger has every right to expect that he would fly on that flight and on that date.
When CAL did not allow respondents, who were in possession of the confirmed tickets, from boarding its airplane because their names were not in the manifest, it ocnsituted a breach of contract of carriage.
2. No. Bad faith should always be established by clear and convincing evidence since the law always presumes good faith.
In the case, there were three reasons why CAL cancelled the reservations. First was Amexco's unauthorized use of the record locator number. Second was CAL's negligence in confirming the reservations of Amexco. Third was the absence of the correct contact numbers of private respondents. There was no concerted effort on the part of CAL to cancel respondent's reservations in favor of other passengers.
3. Not entitled to moral damages because not every case of mental anguish, fright or anxiety calls for the award of moral damages.
Not entitled to exemplary damages because CAL was not in bad faith and its employees did not act in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
Not entitled to actual damages because respondents did not shell out any money for their CAL tickets. Respondents would have been entitled to the price difference between the tickets of CAL and Northwest had the latter cost more than the former but this was not the case. Evidence shows that Northwest tickets ($625) cost less than CAL tickets ($629). The court cannot order reimbursement of the Northwest tickets because this would have enabled respondents to fly for free. The cost of the tickets were a necessary expense that private respondents could not pass on to CAL.
Entitled to nominal damages of P5,000 when the plaintiff suffers some species of injury not enough to warrant an award of actual damages.
Linggo, Pebrero 10, 2013
Savellano v Northwest Airlines
Facts:
Savellano, ex-Mayor and former Chairman of COMELEC and wife were expected to arrive at NAIA after 12 hours of travel coming from Seattle. The plane made an emergency landing because a fire started in one of the engines.
They passengers were brought to a hotel. At around midnight, they were awakened by a phone call from Northwest's personnel saying that they would be take a Seattle-Tokyo-Manila route on the flight back to Manila the next day. Upon arrival at the airport they were again advised that they would take an alternative and longer route (Seattle - Los Angeles - Seoul- Manila) back to Manila.
Meanwhile, the other passengers took the first route. Upon arrival of Savellano at Manila, they were teased for taking the longer and tiresome route. They also discovered that their luggage had been ransacked and the contents stolen.
Savellano demanded damages on the ground that they suffered inconvenience, embarrassment and humiliation for taking the longer route.
Issue:
1.Whether or not the bump-off was a breach of the air carriage contract
2. Whether or not Savellano is entitled to actual, moral and exemplary damages.
Held:
1. Yes. In the condition of the airline ticket, there is nothing authorizing Northwest to decide unilaterally what other stopping places Savellano should take and when they should fly. Substituting aircraft without notice is entirely different from changing stopping places or connecting cities without notice. Also, Northwest failed to show a case of necessity for changing the stopping place.
2. On moral damages: Northwest is not guilty of bad faith. It appears that the passengers of the distressed flight were randomly divided into 2 groups. One group taking the first route and the other taking the longer route of flight. The selection of who was to take the flight was handled via computer reservation system. Savellano failed to present convincing evidence to back the allegation that Northwest was guilty of bad faith.
On exemplary damages, it is not proper. The unexpected and sudden requirement of having to arrange connecting flights in just a few hours, in addition to the Northwest employees' normal workload was difficult to satisfy perfectly. Northwest is not liable for its imperfection of neglecting to consult with passengers beforehand.
Nominal damages are awarded in this case. The court considered that Savellano suffered the inconvenience of having to wake up early to catch the flight and that they were business class passengers who paid more for better service. It also considered Savellano's social and official status. The court awarded P150,000 as nominal damages in order to vindicate and recognize their right to be notified and consulted.
Notes:
*The rulings of Lopez, Zulueta and Ortigas are not applicable in this case there is no showing that the breach was done with the same entrepreneurial motive as in Lopez or with ill-will as in Zulueta and Ortigas.
*Good faith is presumed while bad faith is a matter of fact that needs to be proved by the party alleging it.
Savellano, ex-Mayor and former Chairman of COMELEC and wife were expected to arrive at NAIA after 12 hours of travel coming from Seattle. The plane made an emergency landing because a fire started in one of the engines.
They passengers were brought to a hotel. At around midnight, they were awakened by a phone call from Northwest's personnel saying that they would be take a Seattle-Tokyo-Manila route on the flight back to Manila the next day. Upon arrival at the airport they were again advised that they would take an alternative and longer route (Seattle - Los Angeles - Seoul- Manila) back to Manila.
Meanwhile, the other passengers took the first route. Upon arrival of Savellano at Manila, they were teased for taking the longer and tiresome route. They also discovered that their luggage had been ransacked and the contents stolen.
Savellano demanded damages on the ground that they suffered inconvenience, embarrassment and humiliation for taking the longer route.
Issue:
1.Whether or not the bump-off was a breach of the air carriage contract
2. Whether or not Savellano is entitled to actual, moral and exemplary damages.
Held:
1. Yes. In the condition of the airline ticket, there is nothing authorizing Northwest to decide unilaterally what other stopping places Savellano should take and when they should fly. Substituting aircraft without notice is entirely different from changing stopping places or connecting cities without notice. Also, Northwest failed to show a case of necessity for changing the stopping place.
2. On moral damages: Northwest is not guilty of bad faith. It appears that the passengers of the distressed flight were randomly divided into 2 groups. One group taking the first route and the other taking the longer route of flight. The selection of who was to take the flight was handled via computer reservation system. Savellano failed to present convincing evidence to back the allegation that Northwest was guilty of bad faith.
On exemplary damages, it is not proper. The unexpected and sudden requirement of having to arrange connecting flights in just a few hours, in addition to the Northwest employees' normal workload was difficult to satisfy perfectly. Northwest is not liable for its imperfection of neglecting to consult with passengers beforehand.
Nominal damages are awarded in this case. The court considered that Savellano suffered the inconvenience of having to wake up early to catch the flight and that they were business class passengers who paid more for better service. It also considered Savellano's social and official status. The court awarded P150,000 as nominal damages in order to vindicate and recognize their right to be notified and consulted.
Notes:
*The rulings of Lopez, Zulueta and Ortigas are not applicable in this case there is no showing that the breach was done with the same entrepreneurial motive as in Lopez or with ill-will as in Zulueta and Ortigas.
*Good faith is presumed while bad faith is a matter of fact that needs to be proved by the party alleging it.
Air France v Carrascoso
Facts:
Air France issued to Carrascoso, a civil engineer, a 1st class round trip ticket from Manila - Rome. During the stopover at Bangkok, the Manager of Air France forced plaintiff to vacate the 1st class seat because there was a "white man" who had better right to the seat.
As a result, he filed a suit against Air France where the CFI Manila granted him moral and exemplary damages.
Issue:
Whether or not Carrascoso was entitled to the 1st class seat and consequently, whether or not he was entitled to the damages awarded.
Held:
Yes to both.
To achieve stability in the relation between passenger and air carrier, adherence to the ticket issued is desirable. Quoting the court, "We cannot understand how a reputable firm like Air France could have the indiscretion to give out tickets it never meant to honor at all. It received the corresponding amount in payment of the tickets and yet it allowed the passenger to be at the mercy of its employees. It is more in keeping with the ordinary course of business that the company should know whether or not the tickets it issues are to be honored or not."
Evidence of bad faith was presented without objection on the part of the Carrascoso. In the case, it could have been easy for Air France to present its manager to testify at the trial or secure his deposition but defendant did neither. There is also no evidence as to whether or not a prior reservation was made by the white man.
The manager not only prevented Carrascoso from enjoying his right to a 1st class seat, worse he imposed his arbitrary will. He forcibly ejected him from his seat, made him suffer the humiliation of having to go to tourist class just to give way to another passenger whose right was not established. Certainly, this is bad faith.
Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carrier's employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against personal is conduct, injurious language, indignities and abuse from such employees. Any discourteous conduct on the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier.
Exemplary damages were also awarded. The manner of ejectment fits into the condition for exemplary damages that defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
*Bad Faith - state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purpose
Air France issued to Carrascoso, a civil engineer, a 1st class round trip ticket from Manila - Rome. During the stopover at Bangkok, the Manager of Air France forced plaintiff to vacate the 1st class seat because there was a "white man" who had better right to the seat.
As a result, he filed a suit against Air France where the CFI Manila granted him moral and exemplary damages.
Issue:
Whether or not Carrascoso was entitled to the 1st class seat and consequently, whether or not he was entitled to the damages awarded.
Held:
Yes to both.
To achieve stability in the relation between passenger and air carrier, adherence to the ticket issued is desirable. Quoting the court, "We cannot understand how a reputable firm like Air France could have the indiscretion to give out tickets it never meant to honor at all. It received the corresponding amount in payment of the tickets and yet it allowed the passenger to be at the mercy of its employees. It is more in keeping with the ordinary course of business that the company should know whether or not the tickets it issues are to be honored or not."
Evidence of bad faith was presented without objection on the part of the Carrascoso. In the case, it could have been easy for Air France to present its manager to testify at the trial or secure his deposition but defendant did neither. There is also no evidence as to whether or not a prior reservation was made by the white man.
The manager not only prevented Carrascoso from enjoying his right to a 1st class seat, worse he imposed his arbitrary will. He forcibly ejected him from his seat, made him suffer the humiliation of having to go to tourist class just to give way to another passenger whose right was not established. Certainly, this is bad faith.
Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carrier's employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against personal is conduct, injurious language, indignities and abuse from such employees. Any discourteous conduct on the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier.
Exemplary damages were also awarded. The manner of ejectment fits into the condition for exemplary damages that defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
*Bad Faith - state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purpose
Lunes, Agosto 20, 2012
Amaro v Sumanguit (G.R. No. L-14986)
DOCTRINE: The
refusal of the Chief of Police to give assistance, which it was his duty to do,
constitutes an actionable dereliction in light of Article 27 of the Civil Code.
Facts:
Jose Amaro was assaulted and shot
at neat the city government building of Silay. The next day, he went with
Cornelio Amaro (his father) to the office of the Ambrosio Sumanguit
(defendant). Instead of obtaining assistance to their complaint, they were harassed
and terrorized. They gave up and renounced their right and interest in the
prosecution of the crime.
Having finished the investigation
of the crime complained of, Sumanguit is now harassing the plaintiffs in their
daily work by ordering them to appear in his office when he is absent and
taking the plaintiiff’s signatures in prepared affidavits exempting the police
from any dereliction of duty in their case.
The plaintiffs filed suit for
damages against Sumanguit (chief of police of Silay City).The complaint was
dismissed on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action.
Issue:
Whether
or not there was an actionable dereliction on the part of the defendant.
Held:
Yes. The
plaintiff’s claim for relief is not based on the fact of harassment but on the
appellee’s refusal to give them assistance, which it was his duty to do as an
officer of the law.
In the case, the
complaint was imperfectly drafted. But the Rules of Court require that there be
a showing , by a statement of ultimate facts, that the plaintiff has a right
and that this right was violated by the defendant. The compliant should not be
dismissed upon mere ambiguity. The remedy is to file a complaint directly with
the city attorney by lodging an administrative charge against Sumanguit.
This suggested
remedy does not preclude the action for damages under Article 27 of the Civil
Code and hence does not justify the dismissal of the complaint.
Mag-subscribe sa:
Mga Post (Atom)