digested 5th assignment

7/30/2019 Digested 5th Assignment

1/8

Case Facts Issues Ruling

Southeastern

College vs CA

The roof of petitioners

building was partly

ripped of and blown

away, landing on anddestroying portion of

the roofing of private

respondents house,

when a powerful

typhoon hit metro

Manila

Typhoon Saling

Upon ocular

funnel-like

structure

Improper

anchorage of the

said trusses to the

roof beams

Whether the

damage on the

roof of the

building ofprivate

respondents

resulting from

the impact of

the falling

portions of the

school

buildings

roof ripped

off by thestrong winds

of typhoon

saling was

within the

legal

contemplation

due to

fortuitous

event?

In order to be

exempt from the

liability due to

fortuitous event ,there should have

been no human

participation

amounting to

negligent act.

A person claiming

damages for

negligence of

another has the

burden of proving

such (Only relied

on the report

submitted by a

team that made the

ocular inspection)

Did no

prove that

they have

deviatedfrom the

approved

plans and

specification

s Prima Facie evidence

of regular and proper

construction of

subject building

(building permit andcertificate of

occupancy) (Nocomplaint regarding

any defect)


2/8

Case Facts Issues Ruling

Dioquino vs

Laureano

A barge owned by LSC

was being towed down

the Pasig River by twoof its TUgBoats, when

it rammed against one

of the wooden piles of

the Nagtahan Bailey

bridge, smashing the

post and causing the

bridge to list. The river

at that time was swollen

on the account of the

heavy downpour fortwo days before

Contention

of defendant it

assigned two of

its most powerful

tugboats and

more competent

and experience

patrons

WON the

collision of

LSCs bargewith the

supports or

piers of the

Nagtahan

bridge was ,

in law, caused

by fortuitous

event or force

majeure?

Precautions adopted

by LSCs showed

risk anticipated It is not

enough that

the event

should not

have been

foreseen or

anticipated

but it must

be

impossible

to foresee

LSC assumed the

risks although the

precautions they have

adopted were

insufficient

LSC presumed

negligent considering

that the Nagtahan bridgewas an immovable and

stationary object and

provided with adequate

openings for the passage

of watercraft

Happening of the

vent was clearly

foreseen.


3/8

Case Facts Issue Ruling

Dioquino vs

Laureano

B borrowed the car of

L. While about to reach

his destination, the cardriven by Ls driver and

with B as the sole

passenger, was

accidentally stoned by

some mischievous boys

playing along the road

and its windshield was

broken

Did B assume

the risk of the

car beingstoned?

No. What happened was

clearly unforeseen. The

risk was not evident ascompared with the

Republic vs Luzon

Stevedoring case.

In 1174,what is therein

contemplated is the

resulting liability even if

caused by a fortuitous

event where the party

charged may be assumedto have considered the

risk incident in the nature

of the obligation to be

performed..


4/8


Ylarde vs Aquino The teacher-in-charge,

after bringing pupils to

an excavation site dug by

them, where severalconcrete blocks were to

be buried, left them all

by themselves, and one

of the pupils fell into the

pit

School littered

with several

concrete blocks

which were

remnants from

WWII (Being

Buried)

One meter and

40cm deep

Respondent will

get some rope.

Told the studentsnot to touch the

stones

W,X,Y playfully

jumped into the

pit and Z jumped

on top of the

concrete block

causing it to slide

Were the acts and

omissions on the

part of EA

amounted to falt ornegligence which

have direct causal

relation to the

death of his pupil

Y?

EA acted with

fault and gross

negligence. 1)

Failed to avail

himself

services of

adult laborers

2)required the

children to

remain on the

pit knowing a

concrete block

as nearby 3)

level the soil

were it was

apparent that

the huge stone

is on the brink

of falling

4)went to a

place where he

could have not

checked on thechildren

5)close to an

excavation

site, attractive

nuisance

Negligent act

has a direct

causal

connection tothe death

(Playful and

adventurous

instinct)

Y cannot be


5/8

charged with

reckless

imprudence

(age and

maturity must

be considered)

Defendant

should have

foreseen the

danger (loco

parentis)


6/8


Sanitary Steam

Laundry vs CA

At the time of the

accident , the driver of

the vehicle whose

three passengers andseveral others were

injured, was in

violation of the Land

Transportation and

traffic code.

Collision of a

Mercedes

Benz panel

truck andCimarron

vehicle

(3deaths, 7

injured)

Contention of

respondent 1)

overloaded 2)

front seat

occupied by 4persons 3) had

only one

headlight 4)

Last chear

chance

WON the driver of the

Cimarron was

negligent considering

at the time of theaccident he was guilty

of the traffic rules?

Not been

shown that the

negligence of

the Cimarrondriver

contributed to

the collision of

the vehicles

(without legal

consequence

unless it is a

contributing

cause)

Either driver

could have not

avoided the

accident

(Contentions

no basis)

Negligence of

petitioners

driver was the

proximate

cause of

accident

(swerving at

the opposite

lane, not only

mean high

speed but

tailgating the

passenger

jeepney ahead

of it as well)Tried to avoid the

jeepney (60miles

per hour)



7/8

FF Cruz vs CA Petitioner,owner of a

furniture

manufacturing plant

failed to construct afirewall as required by

a city ordinance, as a

result of which the

fire that broke out in

the shop spread to an

adjacent lot

Request was

repeated

several timesbut fell on

deaf ears

Is the doctrine res ipsa

loquitur applicable to

the instant case?

Would the failure of

the petitioner to

construct a firewall in

accordance with city

ordinances suffice to

support a finding of

negligence?

Yes. Where

the thing

which caused

the injurycomplained of

is shown to be

under the

management

of the

defendant and

the accident is

such as in the

ordinary

course of

things does not

happen if

those who

have its

management

or control use

proper care, it

affords

reasonableevidence, in

the absence of

explanation.

Failure to

construct a

firewall was an

act of

negligence(alc

ohol andgasoline were

stored,

workers smoke

inside the

premises)



8/8

FF Cruz vs CA

digested 5th assignment

Documents