torts week 8 the tortfeasor

8/9/2019 TORTS Week 8 the Tortfeasor

1/67

The tortfeasor

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-5932 February 27, 1912

DEAN C. WORCESTER, plaintiff-appellee,vs.MARTIN OCAMPO, TEODORO M. KALAW, LOPE K.SANTOS, FIDEL A. REYES, FAUSTINO AGUILAR, ET AL.,defendants-appellants.

Felipe Agoncillo for appellants.W. A. Kincaid and Thos. L. Hartigan for appellee.

JOHNSON, J.:

On the 23rd day of January, 1909, the plaintiff commenced anaction against the defendants in the Court of First Instance ofthe city of Manila, for the purpose of recovering damagesresulting from an alleged libelous publication. The complaintwas in the following language:

COMPLAINT.

I.

That the plaintiff as well as the defendants areresidents of the city of Manila, Philippine Islands.

II.

That for a long time before the 30th of October, 1908,the defendants, Martin Ocampo, Teodoro M. Kalaw,

Lope K. Santos, Fidel A. Reyes, Faustino Aguilar,Leoncio G. Liquete , Manuel Palma, Arcadio Arellano,Angel Jose, Galo Lichauco, Felipe Barretto, andGregorio M. Cansipit, were the owners, directors,writers (redactores), editors (editores) andadministrators of a certain daily newspaper known as"El Renacimiento" and "Muling Pagsilang," whichnewspaper during all the time mentioned in thiscomplaint was published and circulated daily in the

Spanish and Tagalog languages in the city of Manila,having a large circulation throughout the PhilippineIslands.

III.

That for a long time the defendants have beenmaliciously persecuting and attacking the plaintiff in

said newspaper, until at last on the 30th of October,1908, with the malicious intention of injuring theplaintiff, who on said date was, and still is a member ofthe Civil Commission of the Philippines and Secretaryof the Interior in the Government of the Philippines,they attacked the honesty and reviled the fame of theplaintiff, not only as a private person but also as anofficial of the Government of the Philippine Islands, andwith the object of exposing him to the odium, contempt,and ridicule of the public, printed, wrote (redactaron),and published in said newspaper in its ordinary numberof the 30th of October, 1908, a malicious defamationand false libel which was injurious (injurioso) to theplaintiff, said libel reading as follows:

"EDITORIAL.


2/67


3/67


4/67


5/67

endeavored to create enormous difficulties for him inthe performance of his official duties, and to make him

so unpopular that he would have to resign his office asmember of the Civil Commission of the Philippines andSecretary of the Interior.

In fact said defendants, by means of said libel andother false statements in said mentioned newspaper,have been deliberately trying to destroy the confidenceof the public in the plaintiff and to incite the people toplace obstacles in his way in the performance of his

official duties, in consequence of which the plaintiff hasmet with a great many difficulties which have increasedto a great extent his labors as a public official in everyone of the Departments.

VI.

And for all these reasons the plaintiff alleges: That he

has been damaged and is entitled to an indemnity forthe additional work to which he has been put, by thesaid defendants, in the compliance of his duties, bothin the past and the future, as well as for the injuries tohis reputation and feelings, in the sum of fifty thousandpesos (P50,000) Philippine currency, and besides thissaid amount he is entitled to collect from thedefendants the additional sum of fifty thousand pesos(P50,000) Philippine currency, in the way of punitivedamages, as a warning to the defendants.

Wherefore the plaintiff files this complaint, praying thecourt:

(1) That the defendants be summoned according tolaw.

(2) That judgment be rendered ordering the defendantsto pay the damages as above stated, and the costs of

the action.

On the 23d of February, 1909, the defendants presented thefollowing demurrer to the said complaint:

DEMURRER.

Now come the defendants, through their undersignedattorney, and demur to the complaint filed herein, uponthe following grounds:

First, That the complaint is vague and unintelligible.

Second. That the facts alleged in the complaint do notconstitute a cause or right of action.

Third. That there is another action pending between

the plaintiff and several of the defendants for the samecause; and

Fourth. That some of the defendants have beenerroneously included therein.

Therefore, they respectfully ask the court to dismiss thecomplaint, with costs against the plaintiff.

On the 27th of February, 1909, the Honorable Charles S.Lobingier, judge, overruled said demurrer in the followingdecision, to which the defendants duly excepted:

ORDER.

The defendant demur upon several grounds:


6/67


7/67


8/67


9/67


10/67


11/67


12/67


13/67


14/67


15/67


16/67


17/67


18/67


19/67


20/67


21/67

of editors and proprietors of newspapers, and isclear enough for all the purposes of this case.

Mr. Justice Carson (5 Phil. Rep. 1551), speaking for ourSupreme Court, says:

"When there is an averment in the complaintthat the defamatory words used refer to theplaintiff, and it is proven that the words do infact refer to him and are capable of bearingsuch special application, an action for libel may

be maintained even though the defamatorypublication does not refer to the plaintiff byname."

And Mr. Justice Willard (12 Phil. Rep., 4282), for thesame high authority, says:

"In an action for libel damages for injury to

feelings and reputation may be recoveredthough no actual pecuniary damages areproven.

"Punitive damages cannot be recovered unlessthe tort is aggravated by evil motive, actualmalice, deliberate violence or oppression."

That is to say, if there is evil motive, or actual malice ordeliberate violence, or oppression then punitivedamages, or "smart money," may be recovered.

And Justice Carson (U.S. vs. Sedano, 14 Phil., Rep.,338), also says:

"Actual or express malice of an alleged libelouspublication may be inferred from the style andtone of the publication.

"The publication of falsehood and calumnyagainst public officers and candidates for publicoffice is specially reprehensible and is anoffense most dangerous to the people and tothe public welfare.

"The interest of society require that immunity

should be granted to the discussion of publicaffairs, and that all acts and matters of a publicnature may be freely published with fittingcomments and strictures; but they do notrequire that the right to criticise public officersshall embrace the right to base such criticismunder false statements of fact, or attack theprivate character of the officer, or to falselyimpute to him malfeasance ormisconductinoffice."

And there are almost numberless English andAmerican authorities in perfect harmony with thesedecisions of our Supreme Court too numerous indeedto be cited here; and it is not necessary.

Among the leading cases, however, in the United

States, is that ofScott vs. Donald(165 U.S., 58) andcases therein cited. In this case the court says:"Damages have been defined to be the compensationwhich law will allow for an injury done, and are said tobe exemplary and allowable in excess of the actualloss when the tort is aggravated by evil motive, actualmalice, deliberate violence or oppression," which is in


22/67


23/67


24/67


25/67


26/67

Wherefore, it is so ordered and adjudged that theplaintiff, Dean C. Worcester, have and recover of thedefendants, Martin Ocampo, Teodoro M. Kalaw, Lope

K. Santos, Manuel Palma, Arcadio Arellano, AngelJose, Galo Lichauco, Felipe Barretto, and Gregorio M.Cansipit, jointly and severally, the sum of sixtythousand (P60,000) pesos, and the costs of suit, forwhich execution may issue.

It is ordered. At Manila, P.I., this 14th day of January ,1910.

From said decision the defendants appealed and made thefollowing assignments of error in this court:

I.

The court erred in overruling our motions forsuspension of this case, in its present state, until final

judgment should be rendered in criminal case No. 4295of the Court of First Instance of Manila, pending appealin the Honorable Supreme Court, for libel based alsoon the editorial, "Birds of Prey."

II.

The court erred in admitting as evidence mere opinionadduced by counsel for the plaintiff with the intention ofdemonstrating to whom the editorial, alleged to thelibelous, refers.

III.

The court erred in giving greater preponderance to theopinions of the witnesses for the plaintiff than to theexpert testimony of the defense.

IV.

The court erred in declaring the editorial on which the

complaint is based to be libelous per se and to refernecessarily to the plaintiff, Dean C. Worcester.

V.

The court erred in declaring the defendants MartinOcampo, Manuel Palma, Arcadio Arellano, Angel Jose,Felipe Barretto, Gregorio M. Cansipit, and Galo

Lichauco to be owners of "El Renacimiento."

VI.

The court erred in not admitting Exhibits 1 and 3presented by counsel for the defendants.

VII.

The court erred in rendering judgment against thedefendants.

VIII.

The court erred in sentencing the defendants jointly"and severally" to pay to the plaintiff, Dean C.

Worcester, the sum of P60,000.

IX.

The court erred in not ordering that execution of thejudgment to be confined to the business known as "ElRenacimiento" and to the defendant Teodoro M.Kalaw, without extending to property of the alleged


27/67


28/67


29/67


30/67


31/67


32/67


33/67


34/67


35/67


36/67


37/67


38/67


39/67


40/67


41/67


42/67


43/67


44/67


45/67


46/67

A. Contusion, with hematoma, scalp, frontal left;abrasions, chest wall, anterior;B. Multiple fractures, ribs, right, lst to 5th

inclusive. Third rib has a double fracture;Subparieto-plaural hematoma; Basal discatelectasis, lung, right lower lobe, secondary;C. Pseudotosis, left, secondary to probablebasal fracture, skull.

JUANA SANGALANG CAEDO:

A. Abrasions, multiple:(1)frontal region, left; (2) apex of nose; (3)

upper eyelid, left; (4) knees.B. Wound, lacerated, irregular, deep, frontal;C. Fracture, simple, 2nd rib posterior, left withdisplacement.D. Fracture, simple, base, proximal phalanxright, big toe.E. Fracture, simple, base, metatarsals III and V

right.F. Concussion, cerebral.

EPHRAIM CAEDO:

A. Abrasions, multiple:(1) left temporal area; (2) left frontal; (3) left

supraorbital

EILEEN CAEDO:

A. Lacerated wound (V-shaped), base, 5thfinger, right, lateral aspect.B. Abrasions, multiple:

(1) dorsum, proximal phalanx middle finger;(2) Knee, anterior, bilateral; (3) shin, lower 1/3.

ROSE ELAINE CAEDO:

A. Abrasions, multiple: (1) upper and lower lids;

(2) left temporal; (3) nasolabial region; (4) leg,lower third, anterior.

MARILYN CAEDO:

A. Abrasions, multiple: (1)shin, lower 1/3 right;(2) arm, lower third

C. Contusion with hematoma, shin, lower 1/3,anterior aspect, right. (See Exhibits D, D-1, D-2,D-3, D-4, and D- 5)

It is our opinion that, considering the nature and extent of theabove-mentioned injuries, the amounts of moral damagesgranted by the trial court are not excessive.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is modified in thesense of declaring defendant-appellant Yu Khe Thai free fromliability, and is otherwise affirmed with respect to defendantRafael Bernardo, with costs against the latter.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez,Castro and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Fernando, J., took no part.

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-10134 June 29, 1957

SABINA EXCONDE, plaintiff-appellant,vs.


47/67


48/67


49/67


50/67


51/67


52/67


53/67


54/67


55/67


56/67


57/67


58/67


59/67


60/67


61/67


62/67


63/67


64/67


65/67


66/67

defendants wrongful act or omission. In this case, theproximate cause of the accident was not attributable to

titi

No costs.


67/67

petitioner.

For the reason that petitioner was not directly liable for theaccident, the decision of the Court of Appeals orderingpetitioner to pay death indemnity to respondent Carpitanosmust be deleted. Moreover, the grant of attorneys fees aspart of damages is the exception rather than the rule. Thepower of the court to award attorneys fees under Article 2208of the Civil Code demands factual, legal and equitable

justification. Thus, the grant of attorneys fees against the

petitioner is likewise deleted.

Incidentally, there was no question that the registered owner ofthe vehicle was respondent Villanueva. He never denied andin fact admitted this fact. We have held that the registeredowner of any vehicle, even if not used for public service, wouldprimarily be responsible to the public or to third persons forinjuries caused the latter while the vehicle was being driven onthe highways or streets.Hence, with the overwhelmingevidence presented by petitioner and the respondent Danielspouses that the accident occurred because of thedetachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep, it is not theschool, but the registered owner of the vehicle who shall beheld responsible for damages for the death of SherwinCarpitanos.

The Fallo

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE thedecision of the Court of Appeals and that of the trial court. TheCourt remands the case to the trial court for determination ofthe liability of defendants, excluding petitioner St. Marys

Academy, Dipolog City.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago,JJ., concur.

Puno, J., in the result.

torts week 8 the tortfeasor

Documents