batch 7 lapanday, st marys, guilatco
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/25/2019 Batch 7 Lapanday, St Marys, Guilatco
1/2
G.R. No. 153076 June 21, 2007
LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL and DEVELP!ENT CRPRATIN
"LADEC#, $ENRY %ERENGUEL, and APLNI R.
DECA!P,petitioners,
vs.
!IC$AEL RAY!ND ANGALA,respondent.
&ACT'(
A Datsun crewcab driven by Deo)a*+obumped into a Chevy
pick-up owned by Ana-a(respondent) and driven by %oe/. LADECO
owned the crewcab which was assined to its manaer !ende".
Deocampo was the driver and bodyuard o# !ende". $oth vehic%es were
runnin a%on &a#ae% Casti%%o 't., Adao, Davao City headin north
towards Lanan, Davao City.
&espondent a%%eed that his pick-up was s%owin down to about #ive to ten
ki%ometers per hour (kph) and was makin a %e#t turn preparatory to
turnin south when it was bumped #rom behind by the crewcab which was
runnin at around to * kph. +he crewcab stopped meters #rom the
point o# impact. &espondent testi#ied that $orres made a sina% because
he noticed a b%inkin %iht whi%e %ookin at the speedometer.
Deocampo a%%eed that the pick-up and the crewcab he was drivin were
both runnin at about kph. +he pick-up was runnin a%on the outer
%ane. +he pick-up was about meters away when it made a /-turn
towards the %e#t. Deocampo a%%eed that he tried to avoid the pick-up but
he was unab%e to avoid the co%%ision. Deocampo stated that he did not
app%y the brakes because he knew the co%%ision was unavoidab%e.
Deocampo admitted that he stepped on the brakes on%y a#ter the co%%ision.
0etitioners a%%ee that since $orres was vio%atin a tra##ic ru%e at the time
o# the accident, respondent and $orres were the parties at #au%t.
0etitioners cite Artic%e 12 o# the Civi% Code, thus3
Art. 12. /n%ess there is proo# to the contrary, it is presumed
that a person drivin a motor vehic%e has been ne%ient i# at
the time o# the mishap, he was vio%atin any tra##ic reu%ation.
+he tria% court #ound that the crewcab was runnin very #ast whi%e
#o%%owin the pick-up and that the crewcab4s speed was the pro5imate
cause o# the accident. +he tria% court ru%ed that Deocampo had the %ast
opportunity to avoid the accident.
+he Court o# Appea%s a##irmed in toto the tria% court4s decision. 6t a%so
sustained the so%idary %iabi%ity o# LADECO and Deocampo. +he Court o#
Appea%s ru%ed that under Artic%e 1 o# the Civi% Code, the ne%ience o#
the driver is presumed to be the ne%ience o# the owner o# the vehic%e.
I''UE(. 78E+8E& &E'0O9DE9+ 6' E9+6+LED +O DA!A:E'
RULING:
Both Drivers are Negligent7e ru%e that both parties were ne%ient in this case. $orres
was at the outer %ane when he e5ecuted a /-turn. ;o%%owin 'ection 2(b)
o# &A oint%y and severa%%y
%iab%e with Deocampo because it e5ercised due di%ience in the
supervision and se%ection o# its emp%oyees. LADECO did not show its
po%icy in hirin its drivers, or the manner in which it supervised its drivers.
LADECO #ai%ed to substantiate its a%%eation that it e5ercised due di%ience
in the supervision and se%ection o# its emp%oyees. 8ence, we ho%d
LADECO so%idari%y %iab%e with Deocampo.
Respondent is Entitled to Moral Daages7e sustain the award o# mora% damaes. !oa- da*ae/are
awarded to a%%ow a p%ainti## to obtain means, diversion, or amusement that
wi%% serve to a%%eviate the mora% su##erin he has underone due to the
de#endant4s cu%pab%e action. +he tria% court #ound that respondent, who
was on board the pick-up when the co%%ision took p%ace, su##ered shock,
serious an5iety, and #riht when the crewcab bumped his pick-up. 7e
sustain the tria% court and the Court o# Appea%s in ru%in that respondent
su##icient%y showed that he su##ered shock, serious an5iety, and #riht
which entit%e him to mora% damaes.$oth the tria% court and the Court o# Appea%s #ai%ed to ive any
>usti#ication #or the award o# attorney4s #ees. Awards o# a44one/ ee/
must be based on #indins o# #act and o# %aw and stated in the decision o#
the tria% court. ;urther, no premium shou%d be p%aced on the riht to
%itiate. 8ence, we de%ete the award o# attorney4s #ees.
G.R. No. 183363 &e9ua 6, 2002
'T. !ARY:' ACADE!Y,petitioner,
vs.
;ILLIA! CARPITAN' and LUCIA '. CARPITAN', GUADA
DANIEL, JA!E' DANIEL II, JA!E' DANIEL, 'R., and VIVENCI
VILLANUEVA,respondents.
;AC+'3
't. !ary conducted an enro%ment drive and as part o# this drive,they campain to di##erent schoo%s #or prospective students. On that#ortunate day, one named 'herwin Carpitanos--student o# 't. !ary andpart o# the campain roup went to a particu%ar schoo% with his c%assmatesridin in a mitsubishi >eepney owned by one named =ivencio =i%%anuevaand driven by his c%assmate who was a minor. A%%eed%y the %atter droved
the >eepney in a reck%ess manner and as a resu%t the >eepney turned turt%e.
As a resu%t 'herwin Carpitanos died due to the in>uries hesustained #rom the accident
+he %ower court he%d 't. !ary so%idari%y Liab%e under artic%e 1and ? o# the #ami%y code and the uardians o# the minor driver and theowner o# the >eepney as subsudiari%y %iab%e. on appea% to CA the owner o#the >eepney was #reed #rom %iabi%ities.
6''/E3 () 78E+8E& '+. !A&@ 6' L6A$LE - 9O
() 78E+8E& =6=E9C6O =6LLA9/E=A 6' L6A$LE -@E'
) /nder Artic%e 1 o# the ;ami%y Code, the #o%%owin sha%% have
specia% parenta% authority over a minor chi%d whi%e under their supervision,
instruction or custody3 () the schoo%, its administrators and teachers or() the individua%, entity or institution enaed in chi%d care. +his specia%
parenta% authority and responsibi%ity app%ies to a%% authori"ed activities,
whether inside or outside the premises o# the schoo%, entity or institution.
+hus, such authority and responsibi%ity app%ies to #ie%d trips, e5cursions
and other a##airs o# the pupi%s and students outside the schoo% premises
whenever authori"ed by the schoo% or its teachers.?
/nder Artic%e ? o# the ;ami%y Code, i# the person under custody is a
minor, those e5ercisin specia% parenta% authority are principa%%y and
so%idari%y %iab%e #or damaes caused by the acts or omissions o# the
unemancipated minor whi%e under their supervision, instruction, or
custody.
8owever, #or petitioner to be %iab%e, 4ee *u/4 9e a ndn 4a4 4e a)4o o*//on )on/deed a/ ne-en4 a/ 4e +o
-
7/25/2019 Batch 7 Lapanday, St Marys, Guilatco
2/2
n=u )au/ed 9e)au/e 4e ne-en)e *u/4 a>e a )au/a-
)onne)4on 4o 4e a))den4.
B6n order that there may be a recovery #or an in>ury, however, it must be
shown that the in>ury #or which recovery is souht must be the %eitimate
conseuence o# the wron done the connection between the ne%ience
and the in>ury must be a direct and natura% seuence o# events, unbroken
by intervenin e##icient causes.4 6n other words, 4e ne-en)e *u/4 9e4e +oury, and without which
the resu%t wou%d not have occurred.4B
6n this case, the respondents #ai%ed to show that the ne%ience o#
petitioner was the pro5imate cause o# the death o# the victim. Te
**eda4e )au/e o 4e a))den4 a/ no4 4e ne-en)e o +e44one
o 4e e)?-e// d>n o Ja*e/ Dane- II, 9u4 4e de4a)*en4 o 4e
/4een ee- ude o 4e =ee+.
'ini#icant%y, respondents did not present any evidence to show that the
pro5imate cause o# the accident was the ne%ience o# the schoo%
authorities, or the reck%ess drivin o# ames Danie% 66. there was noevidence that petitioner schoo% a%%owed the minor ames Danie% 66 to drive
the >eep o# respondent =ivencio =i%%anueva. 6t was Ched =i%%anueva,
randson o# respondent =ivencio =i%%anueva, who had possession and
contro% o# the >eep. 8e was drivin the vehic%e and he a%%owed ames
Danie% 66, a minor, to drive the >eep at the time o# the accident.
8ence, %iabi%ity #or the accident, whether caused by the ne%ience o# the
minor driver or mechanica% detachment o# the steerin whee% uide o# the
>eep, must be pinned on the minor4s parents primari%y. Te ne-en)e o
+e44one '4. !a/ A)ade* a/ on- a e*o4e )au/e o 4e
a))den4. %e4een 4e e*o4e )au/e and 4e n=u, 4ee n4e>ened
4e ne-en)e o 4e *no/ +aen4/ o 4e de4a)*en4 o 4e
/4een ee- ude o 4e =ee+.
Conseuent%y, we #ind that petitioner %ikewise cannot be he%d %iab%e #or
mora% damaes in the amount o# 02,.. !oa- da*ae/ *a 9e
e)o>eed 4e ae 4e +oe e-d 4a4 4e e/4eed one o an
>e)-e, e>en no4 u/ed o +u9-) /e>)e, ou-d +*a- 9e
e/+on/9-e 4o 4e +u9-) o 4o 4d +e/on/ o n=ue/ )au/ed 4e
-a44e -e 4e >e)-e a/ 9en d>en on 4e a/ o /4ee4/ .B
8ence, with the overwhe%min evidence presented by petitioner and the
respondent Danie% spouses that the accident occurred because o# the
detachment o# the steerin whee% uide o# the >eep, it is not the schoo%,but 4e e/4eed one o 4e >e)-e o /a-- 9e e-d e/+on/9-e
o da*ae/ o 4e dea4 o 'en Ca+4ano/.
G.R. No. 61516 !a) 21, 1@@
&LRENTINA A. GUILATC, petitioner,
vs.
CITY & DAGUPAN, and 4e $NRA%LE CURT &
APPEAL', respondents.
;%orentina :ui%atco was about to board a tricyc%e at a sidewa%k%ocated at 0ere" $%vd. (a nationa% road) when she accidenta%%y #e%% into anopen manho%e which was partia%%y covered by a concrete #%owerpot and%eavin a apin ho%e. 8er riht %e was #ractured, resu%tin in herhospita%i"ation and continuin di##icu%ty in %ocomotion. $ecause o# heraccident, :ui%atco was unab%e to o to work, thereby %osin her income.'he a%so %ost weiht, and she is now no %oner her #ormer >ovia% se%# sinceshe is unab%e to per#orm her re%iious, socia%, and other activities. 'he#i%ed an action #or damaes aainst the City o# Daupan.
+he City o# Daupan denied %iabi%ity on the round that themanho%e was %ocated on a nationa% road, which was not under the contro%or supervision o# the City o# Daupan thru the City Enineer.
6''/E3 78E+8E& +8E C6+@ O; DA:/0A9 6' L6A$LE +O
:/6LA+CO.
8ELD3
@es, the City o# Daupan is %iab%e. ;or Artic%e 1? to app%y, 4 /no4 ne)e//a o 4e dee)4>e oad o /4ee4 4o 9e-on 4o 4e+o>n)e, )4 o *un)+a-4. Te a4)-e on- eue/ 4a4 e4e)on4o- o /u+e>/on / ee 4e dee)4>e oad o /4ee4 .6n this case, this contro% or supervision is provided #or in the charter o#Daupan and is e5ercised throuh the City Enineer, whose duties
inc%ude the care and custody o# the pub%ic system o# waterworks andsewers. +he charter o# Daupan provides that the %ayin out, construction,and improvement o# streets, avenues, and a%%eys and sidewa%ks and thereu%ation o# the use thereo# may be %eis%ated by the !unicipa% $oard.+hus, the charter c%ear%y indicates that the city indeed has supervision andcontro% over the sidewa%k where the open drainae ho%e is %ocated.
+here is, there#ore, no doubt that the City Enineer e5ercisescontro% or supervision over the pub%ic works in uestion. 8ence, the%iabi%ity o# the city to the petitioner under artic%e ?1 o# the Civi% Code isc%ear.
N DA!AGE'3
$e a%% that as it may, the a)4ua- da*ae/awarded to the petitioner in the
amount o# 0 ,. shou%d be reduced to the proven e5penses o# 01,2ecture or uess workB as to the amount
. 7ithout the actua% proo# o#
%oss, the award o# actua% damaes becomes erroneous.
!oa- da*ae/may be awarded even without proo# o# pecuniary %oss,
inasmuch as the determination o# the amount is discretionary on the court.
+houh incapab%e o# pecuniary estimation, mora% damaes are in the
nature o# an award to compensate the c%aimant #or actua% in>ury su##ered
but which #or some reason can not be proven. 8owever, in awardin
mora% damaes, the #o%%owin shou%d be taken into consideration3
() ;irst, the pro5imate cause o# the in>ury must be the c%aimeeFs
acts.
() 'econd, there must be compensatory or actua% damaes as
satis#actory proo# o# the #actua% basis #or damaes.
(ovia% to
depressed. 'he re#rained #rom attendin socia% and civic activities.
9everthe%ess the award o# mora% damaes at 0 2,. is e5cessive.
8er handicap was not permanent and disab%ed her on%y durin her
treatment which %asted #or one year. +houh evidence o# mora% %oss and
anuish e5isted to warrant the award o# damaes, the moderatin hand o#
the %aw is ca%%ed #or. +he Court has time and aain ca%%ed attention to the
reprehensib%e propensity o# tria% >udes to award damaes without
basis, resu%tin in e5horbitant amounts. +he amount o# mora% damaes
shou%d be reduced to 0 ,. based on >urisprudence.
As #or the aad o eects such as
beauti#ication drives, the end is more important than the manner in which
the work is carried out. $ecause o# this obsession #or showin o##, such
trivia% detai%s as misp%aced #%ower pots betray the care%ess e5ecution o# the
pro>ects, causin pub%ic inconvenience and invitin accidents.