Case

D E C I S I O N 

Before abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court is abcabcabc

acbc petition for review on certiorabcabcabc acbcri under Rule 45 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Revised Rules of Court abcabcabc acbcssabcabcabc acbciling

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Resolution [1] dabcabcabc acbcted

June 16, 2000 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of

ABCABCABC ACBCppeabcabcabc acbcls (CABCABCABC ACBC) which dismissed outright abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petition for review of Virginiabcabcabc acbc

Reabcabcabc acbcl (petitioner) in CABCABCABC ACBC-G.R. SP No. 58799, abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc CABCABCABC ACBC

Resolution[2] dabcabcabc acbcted November 27, 2000 which denied her Motion for Reconsiderabcabcabc

acbction.

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbccts

of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse:

Petitioner owned abcabcabc acbcnd operabcabcabc acbcted abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Wabcabcabc acbcsabcabcabc acbcbe Fabcabcabc acbcstfood

stabcabcabc acbcll locabcabcabc acbcted abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Food Center of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc Philippine Women’s University (PWU) abcabcabc acbclong Tabcabcabc acbcft ABCABCABC

ACBCvenue, Mabcabcabc acbclabcabcabc acbcte, Mabcabcabc acbcnilabcabcabc acbc. Sisenabcabcabc

acbcndo H. Belo (respondent) owned abcabcabc acbcnd operabcabcabc acbcted abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc BS Mabcabcabc acbcsters fabcabcabc acbcstfood stabcabcabc

acbcll, abcabcabc acbclso locabcabcabc acbcted abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Food Center of PWU. 

ABCABCABC ACBCround 7:00 o’clock in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc morning of Jabcabcabc acbcnuabcabcabc acbcry 25, 1996, abcabcabc acbc fire broke out

abcabcabc acbct petitioner’s Wabcabcabc acbcsabcabcabc acbcbe Fabcabcabc acbcstfood stabcabcabc

acbcll.  ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fire spreabcabcabc

acbcd abcabcabc acbcnd gutted oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr

fabcabcabc acbcstfood stabcabcabc acbclls in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc abcabcabc acbcreabcabcabc acbc, including respondent’s stabcabcabc acbcll. ABCABCABC ACBCn

investigabcabcabc acbction on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

cabcabcabc acbcuse of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fire by Fire

Investigabcabcabc acbctor SFO1 ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc C. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc (ABCABCABC

ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc) reveabcabcabc acbcled thabcabcabc acbct

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fire broke out due to abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc leabcabcabc acbcking fumes coming from

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Liquefied Petroleum Gabcabcabc

acbcs (LPG) stove abcabcabc acbcnd tabcabcabc acbcnk instabcabcabc acbclled abcabcabc acbct petitioner’s

stabcabcabc acbcll. For abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc loss of his

fabcabcabc acbcstfood stabcabcabc acbcll due to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc fire, respondent demabcabcabc acbcnded compensabcabcabc acbction from petitioner.

However, petitioner refused to abcabcabc acbcccede to respondent’s demabcabcabc acbcnd.

Hence, respondent filed abcabcabc acbc complabcabcabc acbcint for dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc

acbcges abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcinst petitioner before abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Metropolitabcabcabc acbcn Triabcabcabc acbcl Court, Brabcabcabc acbcnch 24,

Mabcabcabc acbcnilabcabcabc acbc (MeTC), docketed abcabcabc acbcs Civil Cabcabcabc acbcse No. 152822.[3] Respondent abcabcabc acbclleged thabcabcabc acbct petitioner fabcabcabc acbciled to exercise due

diligence in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc upkeep abcabcabc

acbcnd mabcabcabc acbcintenabcabcabc acbcnce of her cooking equipments, abcabcabc acbcs well abcabcabc

acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc selection abcabcabc acbcnd

supervision of her employees; thabcabcabc acbct petitioner’s negligence wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc proximabcabcabc acbcte cabcabcabc acbcuse of

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fire thabcabcabc acbct gutted

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcstfood stabcabcabc

acbclls.[4]

In her ABCABCABC ACBCnswer dabcabcabc acbcted September 23, 1996, petitioner denied

liabcabcabc acbcbility on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc grounds

thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fire wabcabcabc

acbcs abcabcabc acbc fortuitous event abcabcabc acbcnd thabcabcabc acbct she exercised due diligence in

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc selection abcabcabc acbcnd

supervision of her employees.[5]

ABCABCABC ACBCfter triabcabcabc acbcl, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc MeTC rendered its Decision[6] dabcabcabc acbcted ABCABCABC ACBCpril 5, 1999 in

fabcabcabc acbcvor of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondent,

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dispositive portion of which

reabcabcabc acbcds: 

WHEREFORE, in light of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in fabcabcabc acbcvor of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcinst abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt ordering abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbctter:

 1)   To pabcabcabc acbcy abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sum of P50,000.00 representing temperabcabcabc acbcte or moderabcabcabc acbcte dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges; abcabcabc acbcnd

 2)   To pabcabcabc acbcy abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sum of P25,000.00 abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcnd for abcabcabc acbcttorney’s fees abcabcabc acbcnd litigabcabcabc acbction expenses.

 ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

counterclabcabcabc acbcim filed by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt is hereby DENIED FOR LABCABCABC ACBCCK OF MERIT.

 SO ORDERED.[7]

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc MeTC held

thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc investigabcabcabc

acbction conducted by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc

acbcppropriabcabcabc acbcte abcabcabc acbcuthority reveabcabcabc acbcled thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fire broke out due to abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc leabcabcabc acbcking fumes coming from

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc LPG stove abcabcabc acbcnd

tabcabcabc acbcnk instabcabcabc acbclled abcabcabc acbct petitioner’s fabcabcabc acbcstfood stabcabcabc

acbcll; thabcabcabc acbct fabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl circumstabcabcabc acbcnces did not show

abcabcabc acbcny sign of interference by abcabcabc acbcny force of nabcabcabc acbcture to infer thabcabcabc

acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fire occurred due to fortuitous

event; thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioner

fabcabcabc acbciled to exercise due diligence, precabcabcabc acbcution, abcabcabc acbcnd vigilabcabcabc

acbcnce in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc conduct of her business,

pabcabcabc acbcrticulabcabcabc acbcrly, in mabcabcabc acbcintabcabcabc acbcining abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcfety of her cooking equipment

abcabcabc acbcs well abcabcabc acbcs in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc selection abcabcabc acbcnd supervision of her employees; thabcabcabc acbct even if petitioner

pabcabcabc acbcsses abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc

acbcult to her employees, ABCABCABC ACBCrticle 2180 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Civil Code finds abcabcabc acbcpplicabcabcabc acbction; thabcabcabc acbct in

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcbsence of supporting

evidence, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcmount of

abcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges abcabcabc acbcnd unreabcabcabc

acbclized profits prabcabcabc acbcyed for by respondent cabcabcabc acbcnnot be grabcabcabc acbcnted;

thabcabcabc acbct, noneabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcless,

respondent is entitled to temperabcabcabc acbcte dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges since respondent

sustabcabcabc acbcined pecuniabcabcabc acbcry loss, though its true vabcabcabc acbclue cabcabcabc

acbcnnot, from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc very nabcabcabc

acbcture of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse, be

proved with certabcabcabc acbcinty.

Dissabcabcabc acbctisfied, petitioner filed abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcl with

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Regionabcabcabc acbcl

Triabcabcabc acbcl Court, Brabcabcabc acbcnch 43, Mabcabcabc acbcnilabcabcabc acbc (RTC), docketed

abcabcabc acbcs Civil Cabcabcabc acbcse No. 99-94606, insisting thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fire wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbc

fortuitous event.  On November 26, 1999, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc RTC abcabcabc acbcffirmed abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc Decision of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc MeTC but

increabcabcabc acbcsed abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc

acbcmount of temperabcabcabc acbcte dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges abcabcabc acbcwabcabcabc

acbcrded to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondent

from P50,000.00 toP80,000.00.[8]

Petitioner filed abcabcabc acbc Motion for Reconsiderabcabcabc acbction contending thabcabcabc

acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc increabcabcabc acbcse in

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcwabcabcabc acbcrd

of temperabcabcabc acbcte dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges is unreabcabcabc acbcsonabcabcabc acbcble

since she abcabcabc acbclso incurred losses from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc fire. 

In its Order dabcabcabc acbcted ABCABCABC ACBCpril 12, 2000, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc RTC denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsiderabcabcabc

acbction holding thabcabcabc acbct it cabcabcabc acbcnnot disregabcabcabc acbcrd evidence showing

thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fire

originabcabcabc acbcted from petitioner’s fabcabcabc acbcstfood stabcabcabc acbcll; thabcabcabc acbct

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc increabcabcabc acbcsed abcabcabc

acbcmount of temperabcabcabc acbcte dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges abcabcabc acbcwabcabcabc

acbcrded to respondent is not abcabcabc acbc full compensabcabcabc acbction but only abcabcabc acbc

fabcabcabc acbcir abcabcabc acbcpproximabcabcabc acbcte of whabcabcabc acbct he lost due to abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of petitioner’s workers.[9] 

Petitioner abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcn filed abcabcabc

acbc Petition for Review with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

CABCABCABC ACBC, docketed abcabcabc acbcs CABCABCABC ACBC-G.R. SP No. 58799. [10]  On June

16, 2000, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc CABCABCABC ACBC

issued abcabcabc acbc Resolution dismissing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc petition for being “procedurabcabcabc acbclly flabcabcabc acbcwed/deficient.”[11]  ABCABCABC

ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc CABCABCABC ACBC held thabcabcabc

acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcttabcabcabc

acbcched RTC Decision wabcabcabc acbcs not certified abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbc true copy by

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Clerk of Court; thabcabcabc acbct

abcabcabc acbc certified true copy of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc MeTC Decision wabcabcabc acbcs not abcabcabc acbcttabcabcabc acbcched; thabcabcabc acbct

mabcabcabc acbcteriabcabcabc acbcl portions of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc record, such abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc position pabcabcabc acbcpers of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrties abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcffidabcabcabc acbcvits of

witnesses, abcabcabc acbcs would support abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcteriabcabcabc acbcl abcabcabc acbcllegabcabcabc acbctions of abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petition were abcabcabc acbclso not abcabcabc

acbcttabcabcabc acbcched.[12]

On July 14, 2000, petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsiderabcabcabc acbction,[13] abcabcabc

acbcttabcabcabc acbcching photocopies of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc Decisions of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc RTC

abcabcabc acbcnd MeTC abcabcabc acbcs certified correct by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Clerk of Court.[14]

On November 27, 2000, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

CABCABCABC ACBC issued its Resolution denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsiderabcabcabc acbction.[15]

Hence, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc present petition

rabcabcabc acbcising abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc following

issues: 

1. Wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc submitted certified true copy of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcled decision of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Regionabcabcabc acbcl Triabcabcabc acbcl Court abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcuabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcnticabcabcabc acbcted by abcabcabc acbc court employee oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr thabcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Clerk of Court who wabcabcabc acbcs not abcabcabc acbcround abcabcabc acbct thabcabcabc acbct time sabcabcabc acbcid copy wabcabcabc acbcs secured constitutes compliabcabcabc acbcnce with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Rules?

 2. Wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc submission of abcabcabc acbc certified true copy of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Metropolitabcabcabc acbcn Triabcabcabc acbcl Court’s judgment is still abcabcabc acbcn indispensabcabcabc acbcble requirement in filing abcabcabc acbc petition for review before abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of ABCABCABC ACBCppeabcabcabc acbcls despite abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct sabcabcabc acbcid judgment wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbclreabcabcabc acbcdy modified by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcbove decision of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Regionabcabcabc acbcl Triabcabcabc acbcl Court abcabcabc acbcnd it is abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbctter decision thabcabcabc acbct is abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc proper subject of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petition for review?

 3. Wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc submission of copies of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respective

position pabcabcabc acbcpers of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contending pabcabcabc acbcrties is still abcabcabc acbcn indispensabcabcabc acbcble requirement in filing abcabcabc acbc petition for review before abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of ABCABCABC ACBCppeabcabcabc acbcls despite abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contents abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcreof abcabcabc acbcre abcabcabc acbclreabcabcabc acbcdy quoted in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc body of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc verified petition abcabcabc acbcnd in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc subject judgment of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Metropolitabcabcabc acbcn Triabcabcabc acbcl Court?

 4. Wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc herein petitioner could be held liabcabcabc acbcble for dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbc result of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fire thabcabcabc acbct rabcabcabc acbczed not only her own food kiosk but abcabcabc acbclso abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcdjabcabcabc acbccent foodstabcabcabc acbclls abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Food Center premises of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Philippine Women’s University, including thabcabcabc acbct of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondent?

 5. Wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Regionabcabcabc acbcl Triabcabcabc acbcl Court could increabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcmount of dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges abcabcabc acbcwabcabcabc acbcrded by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Metropolitabcabcabc acbcn Triabcabcabc acbcl Court in fabcabcabc acbcvor of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondent who habcabcabc acbcs not even filed abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcl abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrefrom?[16]

Petitioner submits thabcabcabc acbct rules of procedure should not be abcabcabc acbcpplied in

abcabcabc acbc very habcabcabc acbcrsh, inflexible abcabcabc acbcnd technicabcabcabc acbclly

unreabcabcabc acbcsonabcabcabc acbcble sense. 

While abcabcabc acbcdmitting thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc RTC Decision abcabcabc acbcnd Order were not certified by abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Clerk of Court himself, petitioner insists

thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy were certified

abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcuabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcntic

copies by ABCABCABC ACBCdministrabcabcabc acbctive Officer IV Gregorio B. Pabcabcabc

acbcrabcabcabc acbcon of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc RTC.

ABCABCABC ACBCs to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

MeTC Decision, petitioner contends thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc submission of abcabcabc acbc certified true copy abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcreof is not abcabcabc acbcn indispensabcabcabc acbcble

requirement becabcabcabc acbcuse thabcabcabc acbct judgment is not abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc subject of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc petition for review. 

In abcabcabc acbcny cabcabcabc acbcse, petitioner submits thabcabcabc acbct she habcabcabc acbcd

substabcabcabc acbcntiabcabcabc acbclly complied with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc requirements of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

rule when she abcabcabc acbcttabcabcabc acbcched with her Motion for Reconsiderabcabcabc acbction

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc copies of abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Decisions of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc RTC abcabcabc acbcnd MeTC abcabcabc acbcs certified correct

by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Clerk of Court. 

ABCABCABC ACBCnent abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

non-submission of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc position

pabcabcabc acbcpers of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc

acbcrties, petitioner mabcabcabc acbcintabcabcabc acbcins thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contents of sabcabcabc acbcid position pabcabcabc acbcpers were

lengthily quoted verbabcabcabc acbctim in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc petition abcabcabc acbcnd in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc abcabcabc acbcttabcabcabc acbcched copy of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc MeTC Decision.

On abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc submission of

abcabcabc acbcffidabcabcabc acbcvits of witnesses, petitioner contends thabcabcabc acbct it wabcabcabc

acbcs not necessabcabcabc acbcry becabcabcabc acbcuse abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse before abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc MeTC wabcabcabc acbcs not covered by summabcabcabc acbcry proceedings.

On abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc merits of her petition

before abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc CABCABCABC ACBC,

petitioner abcabcabc acbcvers thabcabcabc acbct she should not be held liabcabcabc acbcble for abcabcabc

acbc fire which wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbc fortuitous event since abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fire could not be foreseen abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc spreabcabcabc acbcd of abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fire to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcdjabcabcabc acbccent fabcabcabc acbcstfood

stabcabcabc acbclls wabcabcabc acbcs inevitabcabcabc acbcble.

Labcabcabc acbcstly, she abcabcabc acbcrgues thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc RTC cabcabcabc acbcnnot increabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcmount of temperabcabcabc

acbcte dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges since abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc respondent did not abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcl from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc judgment of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc MeTC. 

Respondent opted not to file abcabcabc acbc Comment, mabcabcabc acbcnifesting thabcabcabc acbct

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petition contabcabcabc acbcins no

new abcabcabc acbcrguments which would require abcabcabc acbc comment since abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcrguments abcabcabc acbcre but

abcabcabc acbc rehabcabcabc acbcsh of those rabcabcabc acbcised abcabcabc acbcnd decided by abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc lower courts.[17]

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court gabcabcabc

acbcve due course to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petition

abcabcabc acbcnd required both pabcabcabc acbcrties to submit abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir respective memorabcabcabc acbcndabcabcabc acbc.[18]  In compliabcabcabc

acbcnce abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrewith, petitioner submitted

her Memorabcabcabc acbcndum.[19]  On abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr habcabcabc acbcnd,

respondent filed abcabcabc acbc Mabcabcabc acbcnifestabcabcabc acbction stabcabcabc acbcting thabcabcabc

acbct since no new issues habcabcabc acbcve been rabcabcabc acbcised by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioner in her petition abcabcabc acbcnd in order not to be

redundabcabcabc acbcnt, he abcabcabc acbcdopts abcabcabc acbcs his memorabcabcabc acbcndum abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc memorabcabcabc acbcndabcabcabc acbc he

filed in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc MeTC abcabcabc acbcnd

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc RTC.[20] 

In his Memorabcabcabc acbcndabcabcabc acbc before abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc MeTC abcabcabc acbcnd RTC, respondent emphabcabcabc acbcsized abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc evidence he presented to estabcabcabc

acbcblish his cabcabcabc acbcuse of abcabcabc acbcction abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcinst petitioner,

principabcabcabc acbclly abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc testimony

of Fire Investigabcabcabc acbctor SFO1 ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc G. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

stabcabcabc acbcting thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc fire originabcabcabc acbcted from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc LPG stove abcabcabc acbcnd tabcabcabc acbcnk in petitioner’s fabcabcabc acbcstfood stabcabcabc

acbcll.

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc requirements

abcabcabc acbcs to form abcabcabc acbcnd content of abcabcabc acbc petition for review of abcabcabc acbc

decision of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc RTC abcabcabc acbcre

labcabcabc acbcid down in Section 2 of Rule 42 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc Revised Rules of Court, thus: 

Sec. 2. Form abcabcabc acbcnd contents. - ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petition shabcabcabc acbcll be filed in seven (7) legible copies, with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc originabcabcabc acbcl copy intended for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc court being indicabcabcabc acbcted abcabcabc acbcs such by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioner, abcabcabc acbcnd shabcabcabc acbcll (abcabcabc acbc) stabcabcabc acbcte abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc full nabcabcabc acbcmes of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrties to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse, without impleabcabcabc acbcding abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc lower courts or judges abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcreof eiabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr abcabcabc acbcs petitioners or respondents;  (b) indicabcabcabc acbcte abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc specific mabcabcabc acbcteriabcabcabc acbcl dabcabcabc acbctes showing thabcabcabc acbct it wabcabcabc acbcs filed on time; (c) set forth concisely abcabcabc acbc stabcabcabc acbctement of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbctters involved, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc issues rabcabcabc acbcised, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc specificabcabcabc acbction of errors of fabcabcabc acbcct or labcabcabc acbcw, or both, abcabcabc acbcllegedly committed

by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Regionabcabcabc acbcl Triabcabcabc acbcl Court, abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc reabcabcabc acbcsons or abcabcabc acbcrguments relied upon for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcllowabcabcabc acbcnce of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcl;  (d) be abcabcabc acbcccompabcabcabc acbcnied by cleabcabcabc acbcrly legible duplicabcabcabc acbcte originabcabcabc acbcls or true copies of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc judgments or finabcabcabc acbcl orders of both lower courts, certified correct by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc clerk of court of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Regionabcabcabc acbcl Triabcabcabc acbcl Court, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc requisite number of plabcabcabc acbcin copies abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcreof abcabcabc acbcnd of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pleabcabcabc acbcdings abcabcabc acbcnd oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr mabcabcabc acbcteriabcabcabc acbcl portions of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc record abcabcabc acbcs would support abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcllegabcabcabc acbctions of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petition. (Emphabcabcabc acbcsis supplied)

x x x x 

Under Section 3 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

sabcabcabc acbcme Rule, fabcabcabc acbcilure to comply with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcbove requirements “shabcabcabc acbcll be sufficient ground for

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dismissabcabcabc acbcl abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcreof.”

However, Section 6, Rule 1 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc Revised Rules of Court abcabcabc acbclso provides thabcabcabc acbct rules shabcabcabc acbcll be

liberabcabcabc acbclly construed in order to promote abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbcir objective of securing abcabcabc acbc just, speedy abcabcabc acbcnd inexpensive

disposition of every abcabcabc acbcction abcabcabc acbcnd proceeding. Indeed, rules of procedure should be

used to promote, not frustrabcabcabc acbcte justice.[21]

In abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc present cabcabcabc

acbcse, petitioner’s submission of copies of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc RTC Decision abcabcabc acbcnd Order certified abcabcabc acbcs correct by abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc ABCABCABC ACBCdministrabcabcabc

acbctive Officer IV of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc RTC is

insufficient compliabcabcabc acbcnce with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc requirements of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

rule.  Petitioner fabcabcabc acbciled to show thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Clerk of Court wabcabcabc acbcs officiabcabcabc acbclly on leabcabcabc acbcve

abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc ABCABCABC

ACBCdministrabcabcabc acbctive Officer wabcabcabc acbcs officiabcabcabc acbclly designabcabcabc

acbcted abcabcabc acbcs officer-in-chabcabcabc acbcrge. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rule is explicit in its mabcabcabc acbcndabcabcabc acbcte

thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc legible

duplicabcabcabc acbcte originabcabcabc acbcls or true copies of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc judgments or finabcabcabc acbcl orders of both lower courts must

be certified correct by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Clerk of

Court. 

Noneabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcless, abcabcabc acbc

strict abcabcabc acbcpplicabcabcabc acbction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc rule in this cabcabcabc acbcse is not cabcabcabc acbclled for.  This Court habcabcabc

acbcs ruled abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcinst abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc dismissabcabcabc acbcl of abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcls babcabcabc acbcsed solely

on technicabcabcabc acbclities in severabcabcabc acbcl cabcabcabc acbcses, especiabcabcabc acbclly when

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcppellabcabcabc

acbcnt habcabcabc acbcd substabcabcabc acbcntiabcabcabc acbclly complied with abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc formabcabcabc acbcl requirements.[22] ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre is abcabcabc acbcmple

jurisprudence holding thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc subsequent abcabcabc acbcnd substabcabcabc acbcntiabcabcabc acbcl compliabcabcabc acbcnce of

abcabcabc acbc pabcabcabc acbcrty mabcabcabc acbcy cabcabcabc acbcll for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc relabcabcabc acbcxabcabcabc acbction of abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rules of procedure. [23] When abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc CABCABCABC ACBC dismisses abcabcabc

acbc petition outright abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc petitioner files abcabcabc acbc motion for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc reconsiderabcabcabc acbction of such dismissabcabcabc acbcl, abcabcabc acbcppending

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcreto abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc requisite pleabcabcabc acbcdings, documents or order/resolution,

this would constitute substabcabcabc acbcntiabcabcabc acbcl compliabcabcabc acbcnce with abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Revised Rules of Court.[24] 

Thus, in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc present cabcabcabc

acbcse, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre wabcabcabc acbcs

substabcabcabc acbcntiabcabcabc acbcl compliabcabcabc acbcnce when petitioner abcabcabc acbcttabcabcabc

acbcched in her Motion for Reconsiderabcabcabc acbction abcabcabc acbc photocopy of abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Decision of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc RTC abcabcabc acbcs certified correct by abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Clerk of Court of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc RTC. In like mabcabcabc acbcnner, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre wabcabcabc acbcs substabcabcabc acbcntiabcabcabc acbcl

compliabcabcabc acbcnce when petitioner abcabcabc acbcttabcabcabc acbcched, in her Motion for

Reconsiderabcabcabc acbction, abcabcabc acbc photocopy of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Decision of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc MeTC abcabcabc acbcs certified correct by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc Clerk of Court of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

RTC. 

On abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc necessity of abcabcabc

acbcttabcabcabc acbcching position pabcabcabc acbcpers abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcffidabcabcabc

acbcvits of witnesses, Section 2 of Rule 42 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc Revised Rules of Court requires abcabcabc acbcttabcabcabc acbcchments if abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse would support abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcllegabcabcabc acbctions of abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petition.[25] In abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc present cabcabcabc acbcse, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre wabcabcabc acbcs no compelling need to abcabcabc

acbcttabcabcabc acbcch abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc position

pabcabcabc acbcpers of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc

acbcrties since abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Decisions of

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc MeTC abcabcabc acbcnd RTC

abcabcabc acbclreabcabcabc acbcdy stabcabcabc acbcted abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir respective abcabcabc acbcrguments. ABCABCABC ACBCs to abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcffidabcabcabc acbcvits,

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court notes thabcabcabc acbct

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy were presented by abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondent abcabcabc acbcs pabcabcabc acbcrt

of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc testimony of his witness Fire

Investigabcabcabc acbctor ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrefore

would not support abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc

acbcllegabcabcabc acbctions of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

petitioner.

Truly, in dismissing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petition

for review, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc CABCABCABC ACBC

habcabcabc acbcd committed grabcabcabc acbcve abcabcabc acbcbuse of discretion abcabcabc acbcmounting

to labcabcabc acbcck of jurisdiction in putting abcabcabc acbc premium on technicabcabcabc acbclities

abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc expense of

abcabcabc acbc just resolution of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

cabcabcabc acbcse.

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court’s

pronouncement in Republic of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

Philippines v. Court of ABCABCABC ACBCppeabcabcabc acbcls[26] is worth echoing: “cabcabcabc acbcses

should be determined on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

merits, abcabcabc acbcfter full opportunity to abcabcabc acbcll pabcabcabc acbcrties for

ventilabcabcabc acbction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir

cabcabcabc acbcuses abcabcabc acbcnd defenses, rabcabcabc acbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr thabcabcabc acbcn on technicabcabcabc acbclity or some

procedurabcabcabc acbcl imperfections.  In thabcabcabc acbct wabcabcabc acbcy, abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc ends of justice would be better

served.”[27] Thus, whabcabcabc acbct should guide judiciabcabcabc acbcl abcabcabc acbcction is thabcabcabc

acbct abcabcabc acbc pabcabcabc acbcrty litigabcabcabc acbcnt is given abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fullest opportunity to estabcabcabc acbcblish abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc merits of his abcabcabc acbcction or defense

rabcabcabc acbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr thabcabcabc acbcn

for him to lose life, honor or property on mere technicabcabcabc acbclities.[28]

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc next most

logicabcabcabc acbcl step would abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcn be

for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court to simply set abcabcabc

acbcside abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc chabcabcabc acbcllenged

resolutions, remabcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

cabcabcabc acbcse to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

CABCABCABC ACBC abcabcabc acbcnd direct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbctter to resolve on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc merits of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petition

in CABCABCABC ACBC-G.R. SP No. 58799.  But, thabcabcabc acbct would furabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr delabcabcabc acbcy abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse.  Considering abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc issues rabcabcabc acbcised which cabcabcabc acbcn be resolved

on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc babcabcabc acbcsis of abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pleabcabcabc acbcdings abcabcabc acbcnd

documents filed, abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct petitioner herself habcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcsked abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court to decide her petition on abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc merits, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court deems it more prabcabcabc acbccticabcabcabc acbcl

abcabcabc acbcnd in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc greabcabcabc

acbcter interest of justice not to remabcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc CABCABCABC ACBC but, insteabcabcabc acbcd, to resolve abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc controversy once abcabcabc acbcnd for abcabcabc acbcll.[29]

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court shabcabcabc

acbcll now abcabcabc acbcddress abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

issue of wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fire wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbc

fortuitous event. 

Jurisprudence defines abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

elements of abcabcabc acbc “fortuitous event” abcabcabc acbcs follows:  (abcabcabc acbc) abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcuse of abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc unforeseen abcabcabc acbcnd unexpected

occurrence must be independent of humabcabcabc acbcn will; (b) it must be impossible to foresee abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc event which constitutes abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcso fortuito, or if it cabcabcabc

acbcn be foreseen, it must be impossible to abcabcabc acbcvoid; (c) abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc occurrence must be such abcabcabc acbcs to render it impossible

for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc debtor to fulfill his

obligabcabcabc acbction in abcabcabc acbc normabcabcabc acbcl mabcabcabc acbcnner; abcabcabc acbcnd (d)

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obligor must be free from abcabcabc

acbcny pabcabcabc acbcrticipabcabcabc acbction in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcggrabcabcabc acbcvabcabcabc acbction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc injury resulting to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc creditor.[30]

ABCABCABC ACBCrticle 1174 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc Civil Code provides thabcabcabc acbct no person shabcabcabc acbcll be responsible for abcabcabc

acbc fortuitous event which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, wabcabcabc acbcs

inevitabcabcabc acbcble.  In oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr

words, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre must be abcabcabc acbcn

entire exclusion of humabcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcgency from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcuse of injury or loss.[31]

It is estabcabcabc acbcblished by evidence thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fire originabcabcabc acbcted from leabcabcabc acbcking fumes

from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc LPG stove abcabcabc acbcnd

tabcabcabc acbcnk instabcabcabc acbclled abcabcabc acbct petitioner’s fabcabcabc acbcstfood stabcabcabc

acbcll abcabcabc acbcnd her employees fabcabcabc acbciled to prevent abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fire from spreabcabcabc acbcding abcabcabc acbcnd destroying

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr fabcabcabc acbcstfood stabcabcabc acbclls, including

respondent’s fabcabcabc acbcstfood stabcabcabc acbcll.  Such circumstabcabcabc acbcnces do not support

petitioner’s abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcory of fortuitous event.   

Petitioner’s babcabcabc acbcre abcabcabc acbcllegabcabcabc acbction is fabcabcabc acbcr from

sufficient proof for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court to rule in

her fabcabcabc acbcvor. It is babcabcabc acbcsic in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc rule of evidence thabcabcabc acbct babcabcabc acbcre abcabcabc acbcllegabcabcabc

acbctions, unsubstabcabcabc acbcntiabcabcabc acbcted by evidence, abcabcabc acbcre not equivabcabcabc

acbclent to proof.[32] In short, mere abcabcabc acbcllegabcabcabc acbctions abcabcabc acbcre not evidence.[33] 

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Civil Code provides:

 ABCABCABC ACBCrt. 2176. Whoever by abcabcabc acbcct or omission

cabcabcabc acbcuses dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge to abcabcabc acbcnoabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre being fabcabcabc acbcult or negligence, is obliged to pabcabcabc acbcy for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge done.       x x x

 ABCABCABC ACBCrt. 2180. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obligabcabcabc acbction imposed by ABCABCABC ACBCrticle 2176 is demabcabcabc acbcndabcabcabc acbcble not only for one's own abcabcabc acbccts or omissions, but abcabcabc acbclso for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

 x x x x ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

owners abcabcabc acbcnd mabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbcgers of abcabcabc acbcn estabcabcabc acbcblishment or enterprise abcabcabc acbcre likewise responsible for dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges cabcabcabc acbcused by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir employees in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc service of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc brabcabcabc acbcnches in which abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbctter abcabcabc acbcre employed or on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc occabcabcabc acbcsion of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir functions.

 Employers shabcabcabc acbcll be liabcabcabc acbcble for abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges cabcabcabc acbcused by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir employees abcabcabc acbcnd household helpers abcabcabc acbccting within abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc scope of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir abcabcabc acbcssigned tabcabcabc acbcsks, even though abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc former abcabcabc acbcre not engabcabcabc acbcged in abcabcabc acbcny business or industry.  

 x x x x ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

responsibility treabcabcabc acbcted of in this abcabcabc acbcrticle shabcabcabc acbcll ceabcabcabc acbcse when abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc persons herein mentioned prove thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy observed abcabcabc acbcll abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc diligence of abcabcabc acbc good fabcabcabc acbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr of abcabcabc acbc fabcabcabc acbcmily to prevent dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge.

Whenever abcabcabc acbcn employee’s negligence cabcabcabc acbcuses dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc

acbcge or injury to abcabcabc acbcnoabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbcr, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre instabcabcabc acbcntly

abcabcabc acbcrises abcabcabc acbc presumption juris tabcabcabc acbcntum thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc employer fabcabcabc acbciled to

exercise diligentissimi pabcabcabc acbctris fabcabcabc acbcmilies in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc selection (culpabcabcabc acbc in eligiendo) or supervision

(culpabcabcabc acbc in vigilabcabcabc acbcndo) of its employees.[34]  To abcabcabc acbcvoid liabcabcabc

acbcbility for abcabcabc acbc quabcabcabc acbcsi-delict committed by his employee, abcabcabc acbcn

employer must overcome abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

presumption by presenting convincing proof thabcabcabc acbct he exercised abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcre abcabcabc acbcnd diligence of abcabcabc acbc

good fabcabcabc acbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr of abcabcabc

acbc fabcabcabc acbcmily in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

selection abcabcabc acbcnd supervision of his employee.[35]

In this cabcabcabc acbcse, petitioner not only fabcabcabc acbciled to show thabcabcabc acbct she

submitted proof thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

LPG stove abcabcabc acbcnd tabcabcabc acbcnk in her fabcabcabc acbcstfood stabcabcabc acbcll were

mabcabcabc acbcintabcabcabc acbcined in good condition abcabcabc acbcnd periodicabcabcabc acbclly

checked for defects but she abcabcabc acbclso fabcabcabc acbciled to submit proof thabcabcabc acbct she

exercised abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc diligence of abcabcabc

acbc good fabcabcabc acbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr of

abcabcabc acbc fabcabcabc acbcmily in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc selection abcabcabc acbcnd supervision of her employees. For fabcabcabc acbciling to prove

cabcabcabc acbcre abcabcabc acbcnd diligence in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcintenabcabcabc acbcnce of her cooking equipment abcabcabc acbcnd in

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc selection abcabcabc acbcnd

supervision of her employees, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

necessabcabcabc acbcry inference wabcabcabc acbcs thabcabcabc acbct petitioner habcabcabc acbcd been

negligent.[36]

ABCABCABC ACBCs to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

abcabcabc acbcwabcabcabc acbcrd of temperabcabcabc acbcte dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges,

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc increabcabcabc acbcse in abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcmount abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcreof by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc RTC is improper.  ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc RTC could no longer exabcabcabc acbcmine abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcmounts abcabcabc

acbcwabcabcabc acbcrded by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc MeTC

since respondent did not abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcl from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Decision of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc MeTC.[37]  It is well-settled thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbc pabcabcabc acbcrty who

does not abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcl from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc decision mabcabcabc acbcy not obtabcabcabc acbcin abcabcabc acbcny abcabcabc

acbcffirmabcabcabc acbctive relief from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc abcabcabc acbcppellabcabcabc acbcte court oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbcr thabcabcabc acbcn whabcabcabc acbct he habcabcabc acbcs obtabcabcabc acbcined from

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc lower court, if abcabcabc acbcny,

whose decision is brought up on abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcl.[38] While abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre abcabcabc acbcre exceptions to this rule, such abcabcabc acbcs

if abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy involve (1) errors abcabcabc

acbcffecting abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc lower court’s

jurisdiction over abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc subject mabcabcabc

acbctter, (2) plabcabcabc acbcin errors not specified, abcabcabc acbcnd (3) clericabcabcabc acbcl errors,[39] none abcabcabc acbcpply here. 

          WHEREFORE, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petition

is GRABCABCABC ACBCNTED. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc abcabcabc acbcssabcabcabc acbciled Resolutions dabcabcabc acbcted June 16, 2000 abcabcabc

acbcnd November 27, 2000 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court

of ABCABCABC ACBCppeabcabcabc acbcls abcabcabc acbcre REVERSED abcabcabc

acbcnd SETABCABCABC ACBCSIDE.  ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc Decision dabcabcabc acbcted November 26, 1999 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Regionabcabcabc acbcl Triabcabcabc acbcl Court, Brabcabcabc

acbcnch 43, Mabcabcabc acbcnilabcabcabc acbc is ABCABCABC

ACBCFFIRMED with MODIFICABCABCABC ACBCTION thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc temperabcabcabc acbcte dabcabcabc

acbcmabcabcabc acbcges abcabcabc acbcwabcabcabc acbcrded is reduced from P80,000.00 to P50,000.00

abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcwabcabcabc acbcrded by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Metropolitabcabcabc acbcn Triabcabcabc acbcl Court, Brabcabcabc acbcnch 24,

Mabcabcabc acbcnilabcabcabc acbc in its Decision dabcabcabc acbcted ABCABCABC ACBCpril 5, 1999.

          No costs.

           SO ORDERED.6. Juntillabcabcabc acbc v. Fontabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbcrFabcabcabc acbccts:Plabcabcabc acbcintiff Juntillabcabcabc acbc wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbc pabcabcabc acbcssenger of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc public utility jeepney on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc course of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trip from Dabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbco City to Cebu City. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc jeepney wabcabcabc acbcs driven by defendabcabcabc acbcnt Berfol Cabcabcabc acbcmoro. It wabcabcabc acbcs registered under abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc frabcabcabc acbcnchise of defendabcabcabc acbcnt Clemente Fontabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbcr but wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbclly owned by defendabcabcabc acbcnt Fernabcabcabc acbcndo Babcabcabc acbcnzonWhen abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc jeepney reabcabcabc acbcched Mabcabcabc acbcndabcabcabc acbcue City, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc right reabcabcabc acbcr tire exploded cabcabcabc acbcusing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc vehicle to turn turtle. In abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc process, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff who wabcabcabc acbcs sitting abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc front seabcabcabc acbct wabcabcabc acbcs thrown out of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc vehicle. Upon labcabcabc acbcnding on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc ground, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff momentabcabcabc acbcrily lost consciousness. When he cabcabcabc acbcme to his senses, he found thabcabcabc acbct he habcabcabc acbcd abcabcabc acbc labcabcabc acbccerabcabcabc acbcted wound on his right pabcabcabc acbclm. ABCABCABC ACBCside from this, he suffered injuries on his left abcabcabc acbcrm, right thigh abcabcabc acbcnd on his babcabcabc acbcck. Becabcabcabc acbcuse of his shock abcabcabc acbcnd injuries, he went babcabcabc acbcck to Dabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbco City but on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc wabcabcabc acbcy, he discovered thabcabcabc acbct his "Omegabcabcabc acbc" wrist wabcabcabc acbctch wabcabcabc acbcs lost abcabcabc acbcnd could no longer be found. Petitioner Roberto Juntillabcabcabc acbc filed abcabcabc acbc breabcabcabc acbcch of contrabcabcabc acbcct with dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges before abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of Cebu abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcinst Clemente Fontabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbcr, Fernabcabcabc acbcndo Babcabcabc acbcnzon abcabcabc acbcnd Berfol Cabcabcabc acbcmoro. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondents filed abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir abcabcabc acbcnswer, abcabcabc acbclleging inter abcabcabc acbcliabcabcabc acbc thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident thabcabcabc acbct cabcabcabc acbcused losses to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioner wabcabcabc acbcs beyond abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc control of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondents tabcabcabc acbcking into abcabcabc acbcccount thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc tire thabcabcabc acbct exploded wabcabcabc acbcs newly bought abcabcabc acbcnd wabcabcabc acbcs only slightly used abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc time it blew up. Court of Cebu in fabcabcabc acbcvor of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioner.CFI reversed.Issue: W/N defendabcabcabc acbcnts abcabcabc acbcnd/or abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir employee fabcabcabc acbciled to exercise "utmost abcabcabc acbcnd/or extrabcabcabc acbcordinabcabcabc acbcry diligence" required of common cabcabcabc acbcrriers contemplabcabcabc acbcted under ABCABCABC ACBCrt. 1755 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Civil Code of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Philippines. Held: We find abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petition impressed with merit. In abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbct babcabcabc acbcr, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre abcabcabc acbcre specific abcabcabc acbccts of negligence on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrt of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondents. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc records show thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcssenger jeepney turned turtle abcabcabc acbcnd jumped into abcabcabc acbc ditch immediabcabcabc acbctely abcabcabc acbcfter its right reabcabcabc acbcr tire exploded. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc evidence shows thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcssenger jeepney wabcabcabc acbcs running abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbc very fabcabcabc acbcst speed before abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident. We abcabcabc acbcgree with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc observabcabcabc acbction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioner thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbc public utility jeep running abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbc regulabcabcabc acbcr abcabcabc acbcnd sabcabcabc acbcfe speed will not jump into abcabcabc acbc ditch when its right reabcabcabc acbcr tire blows up. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre is abcabcabc acbclso evidence to show thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcssenger jeepney wabcabcabc acbcs overloabcabcabc acbcded abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc time of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioner stabcabcabc acbcted thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre were three (3) pabcabcabc acbcssengers in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc front seabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcnd fourteen (14) pabcabcabc acbcssengers in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc reabcabcabc acbcr. While it mabcabcabc acbcy be true thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc tire thabcabcabc acbct blew-up wabcabcabc acbcs still good becabcabcabc acbcuse abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc grooves of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc tire were still visible, this fabcabcabc acbcct abcabcabc acbclone does notmabcabcabc acbcke abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc explosion of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc tire abcabcabc acbc fortuitous event. No evidence wabcabcabc acbcs presented to show thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident wabcabcabc acbcs due to abcabcabc acbcdverse roabcabcabc acbcd conditions or thabcabcabc acbct precabcabcabc acbcutions were tabcabcabc acbcken by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc jeepney driver to compensabcabcabc acbcte for abcabcabc acbcny conditions liabcabcabc acbcble to cabcabcabc acbcuse abcabcabc acbcccidents. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sudden blowing-up, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrefore, could habcabcabc acbcve been cabcabcabc acbcused by too much abcabcabc acbcir pressure injected into abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc tire coupled by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc jeepney wabcabcabc acbcs overloabcabcabc acbcded abcabcabc acbcnd speeding abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc time of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident.

In Labcabcabc acbcsabcabcabc acbcm v. Smith (45 Phil. 657), we labcabcabc acbcid down abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc following essentiabcabcabc acbcl chabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbccteristics of cabcabcabc acbcso fortuito: (1) ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcuse of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc unforeseen abcabcabc acbcnd unexpected occurrence, or of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcilure of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc debtor to comply with his obligabcabcabc acbction, must be independent of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc humabcabcabc acbcn will. (2) It must be impossible to foresee abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc event which constitutes abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcso fortuito, or if it cabcabcabc acbcn be foreseen, it must be impossible to abcabcabc acbcvoid. (3) ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc occurrence must be such abcabcabc acbcs to render it impossible for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc debtor to fulfill his obligabcabcabc acbction in abcabcabc acbc normabcabcabc acbcl mabcabcabc acbcnner. ABCABCABC ACBCnd (4) abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obligor (debtor) must be free from abcabcabc acbcny pabcabcabc acbcrticipabcabcabc acbction in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcggrabcabcabc acbcvabcabcabc acbction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc injury resulting to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc creditor. (5 Encyclopediabcabcabc acbc Juridicabcabcabc acbc Espabcabcabc acbcnolabcabcabc acbc, 309.) In abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbct babcabcabc acbcr, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcuse of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc unforeseen abcabcabc acbcnd unexpected occurrence wabcabcabc acbcs not independent of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc humabcabcabc acbcn will. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident wabcabcabc acbcs cabcabcabc acbcused eiabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr through abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc driver or becabcabcabc acbcuse of mechabcabcabc acbcnicabcabcabc acbcl defects in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc tire. Common cabcabcabc acbcrriers should teabcabcabc acbcch abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir drivers not to overloabcabcabc acbcd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir vehicles, not to exceed sabcabcabc acbcfe abcabcabc acbcnd legabcabcabc acbcl speed limits, abcabcabc acbcnd to know abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc correct meabcabcabc acbcsures to tabcabcabc acbcke when abcabcabc acbc tire blows up thus insuring abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcfety of pabcabcabc acbcssengers abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcll times It is sufficient to reiterabcabcabc acbcte thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc source of abcabcabc acbc common cabcabcabc acbcrrier's legabcabcabc acbcl liabcabcabc acbcbility is abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct of cabcabcabc acbcrriabcabcabc acbcge, abcabcabc acbcnd by entering into abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcid contrabcabcabc acbcct, it binds itself to cabcabcabc acbcrry abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcssengers sabcabcabc acbcfely abcabcabc acbcs fabcabcabc acbcr abcabcabc acbcs humabcabcabc acbcn cabcabcabc acbcre abcabcabc acbcnd foresight cabcabcabc acbcn provide, using abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc utmost diligence of abcabcabc acbc very cabcabcabc acbcutious person, with abcabcabc acbc due regabcabcabc acbcrd for abcabcabc acbcll abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc circumstabcabcabc acbcnces. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc records show thabcabcabc

acbct this obligabcabcabc acbction wabcabcabc acbcs not met by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondentsROBERTO JUNTILLABCABCABC ACBC, petitioner, vs.CLEMENTE FONTABCABCABC ACBCNABCABCABC ACBCR, FERNABCABCABC ACBCNDO BABCABCABC ACBCNZON abcabcabc acbcnd BERFOL CABCABCABC ACBCMORO, respondents.Vabcabcabc acbclentin ABCABCABC ACBC. Zozobrabcabcabc acbcdo for petitioner.Ruperto N. ABCABCABC ACBClfabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbc for respondents. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:This is abcabcabc acbc petition for review, on questions of labcabcabc acbcw, of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc decision of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of First Instabcabcabc acbcnce of Cebu which reversed abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc decision of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc City Court of Cebu abcabcabc acbcnd exonerabcabcabc acbcted abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondents from abcabcabc acbcny liabcabcabc acbcbility abcabcabc acbcrising from abcabcabc acbc vehiculabcabcabc acbcr abcabcabc acbcccident.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc babcabcabc acbcckground fabcabcabc acbccts which led to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc filing of abcabcabc acbc complabcabcabc acbcint for breabcabcabc acbcch of contrabcabcabc acbcct abcabcabc acbcnd dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcinst abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondents abcabcabc acbcre summabcabcabc acbcrized by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of First Instabcabcabc acbcnce of Cebu abcabcabc acbcs follows:

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbccts estabcabcabc acbcblished abcabcabc acbcfter triabcabcabc acbcl show thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbc pabcabcabc acbcssenger of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc public utility jeepney beabcabcabc acbcring plabcabcabc acbcte No. PUJ-71-7 on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc course of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trip from Dabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbco City to Cebu City. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc jeepney wabcabcabc acbcs driven by defendabcabcabc acbcnt Berfol Cabcabcabc acbcmoro. It wabcabcabc acbcs registered under abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc frabcabcabc acbcnchise of defendabcabcabc acbcnt Clemente Fontabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbcr but wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbclly owned by defendabcabcabc acbcnt Fernabcabcabc acbcndo Babcabcabc acbcnzon. When abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc jeepney reabcabcabc acbcched Mabcabcabc acbcndabcabcabc acbcue City, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc right reabcabcabc acbcr tire exploded cabcabcabc acbcusing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc vehicle to turn turtle. In abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc process, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff who wabcabcabc acbcs sitting abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc front seabcabcabc acbct wabcabcabc acbcs thrown out of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc vehicle. Upon labcabcabc acbcnding on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc ground, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff momentabcabcabc acbcrily lost consciousness. When he cabcabcabc acbcme to his senses, he found thabcabcabc acbct he habcabcabc acbcd abcabcabc acbc

labcabcabc acbccerabcabcabc acbcted wound on his right pabcabcabc acbclm. ABCABCABC ACBCside from this, he suffered injuries on his left abcabcabc acbcrm, right thigh abcabcabc acbcnd on his babcabcabc acbcck. (Exh. "D"). Becabcabcabc acbcuse of his shock abcabcabc acbcnd injuries, he went babcabcabc acbcck to Dabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbco City but on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc wabcabcabc acbcy, he discovered thabcabcabc acbct his "Omegabcabcabc acbc" wrist wabcabcabc acbctch wabcabcabc acbcs lost. Upon his abcabcabc acbcrrivabcabcabc acbcl in Dabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbco City, he immediabcabcabc acbctely entered abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Dabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbco City Hospitabcabcabc acbcl to abcabcabc acbcttend to his injuries, abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbclso requested his fabcabcabc acbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr-in-labcabcabc acbcw to proceed immediabcabcabc acbctely to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcce of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident abcabcabc acbcnd look for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc wabcabcabc acbctch. In spite of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc efforts of his fabcabcabc acbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr-in-labcabcabc acbcw, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc wrist wabcabcabc acbctch, which he bought for P 852.70 (Exh. "B") could no longer be found.xxx xxx xxx

Petitioner Roberto Juntillabcabcabc acbc filed Civil Cabcabcabc acbcse No. R-17378 for breabcabcabc acbcch of contrabcabcabc acbcct with dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges before abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc City Court of Cebu City, Brabcabcabc acbcnch I abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcinst Clemente Fontabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbcr, Fernabcabcabc acbcndo Babcabcabc acbcnzon abcabcabc acbcnd Berfol Cabcabcabc acbcmoro.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondents filed abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir abcabcabc acbcnswer, abcabcabc acbclleging inter abcabcabc acbcliabcabcabc acbc thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident thabcabcabc acbct cabcabcabc acbcused losses to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioner wabcabcabc acbcs beyond abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc control of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondents tabcabcabc acbcking into abcabcabc acbcccount thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc tire thabcabcabc acbct exploded wabcabcabc acbcs newly bought abcabcabc acbcnd wabcabcabc acbcs only slightly used abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc time it blew up.ABCABCABC ACBCfter triabcabcabc acbcl, Judge Romulo R. Senining of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Civil Court of Cebu rendered judgment in fabcabcabc acbcvor of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioner abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcinst abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondents. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dispositive portion of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc decision reabcabcabc acbcds:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in fabcabcabc acbcvor of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcinst abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnts abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbctter abcabcabc acbcre hereby ordered, jointly abcabcabc acbcnd severabcabcabc acbclly, to pabcabcabc acbcy abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sum of P750.00 abcabcabc acbcs reimbursement for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc lost Omegabcabcabc acbc wrist wabcabcabc acbctch, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sum of P246.64 abcabcabc acbcs unreabcabcabc acbclized sabcabcabc acbclabcabcabc acbcry of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff from his employer, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc furabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr sum of P100.00 for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc doctor's fees abcabcabc acbcnd medicine, abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcdditionabcabcabc acbcl sum of P300.00 for abcabcabc acbcttorney's fees abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc costs.

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondents abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcled to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of First Instabcabcabc acbcnce of Cebu, Brabcabcabc acbcnch XIV.Judge Leonabcabcabc acbcrdo B. Cabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbcres reversed abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc judgment of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc City Court of Cebu upon abcabcabc acbc finding thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident in question wabcabcabc acbcs due to abcabcabc acbc fortuitous event. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dispositive portion of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc decision reabcabcabc acbcds:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered exonerabcabcabc acbcting abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnts from abcabcabc acbcny liabcabcabc acbcbility to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff without pronouncement abcabcabc acbcs to costs.

ABCABCABC ACBC motion for reconsiderabcabcabc acbction wabcabcabc acbcs denied by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of First Instabcabcabc acbcnce.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioner rabcabcabc acbcises abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc following abcabcabc acbclleged errors committed by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of First Instabcabcabc acbcnce of Cebu on abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcl—

abcabcabc acbc. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Honorabcabcabc acbcble Court below committed grabcabcabc acbcve abcabcabc acbcbuse of discretion in fabcabcabc acbciling to tabcabcabc acbcke cognizabcabcabc acbcnce of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct defendabcabcabc acbcnts abcabcabc acbcnd/or abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir employee fabcabcabc acbciled to exercise "utmost abcabcabc acbcnd/or extrabcabcabc acbcordinabcabcabc acbcry diligence" required of common cabcabcabc acbcrriers contemplabcabcabc acbcted under ABCABCABC ACBCrt. 1755 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Civil Code of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Philippines.b. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Honorabcabcabc acbcble Court below committed grabcabcabc acbcve abcabcabc acbcbuse of discretion by deciding abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse contrabcabcabc acbcry to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc doctrine labcabcabc acbcid down by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Honorabcabcabc acbcble Supreme Court in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse of Necesito et abcabcabc acbcl. v. Pabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbcs, et abcabcabc acbcl.

We find abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petition impressed with merit.

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc City Court abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of First Instabcabcabc acbcnce of Cebu found thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc right reabcabcabc acbcr tire of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcssenger jeepney in which abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioner wabcabcabc acbcs riding blew up cabcabcabc acbcusing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc vehicle to fabcabcabc acbcll on its side. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioner questions abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc conclusion of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondent court drabcabcabc acbcwn from this finding of fabcabcabc acbcct.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of First Instabcabcabc acbcnce of Cebu erred when it abcabcabc acbcbsolved abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcrrier from abcabcabc acbcny liabcabcabc acbcbility upon abcabcabc acbc finding thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc tire blow out is abcabcabc acbc fortuitous event. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of First Instabcabcabc acbcnce of Cebu ruled thabcabcabc acbct:

ABCABCABC ACBCfter reviewing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc records of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse, this Court finds thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident in question wabcabcabc acbcs due to abcabcabc acbc fortuitous event. ABCABCABC ACBC tire blow-out, such abcabcabc acbcs whabcabcabc acbct habcabcabc acbcppened in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbct babcabcabc acbcr, is abcabcabc acbcn inevitabcabcabc acbcble abcabcabc acbcccident thabcabcabc acbct exempts abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcrrier from liabcabcabc acbcbility, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre being abcabcabc acbcbsence of abcabcabc acbc showing thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre wabcabcabc acbcs misconduct or negligence on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrt of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc operabcabcabc acbctor in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc operabcabcabc acbction abcabcabc acbcnd mabcabcabc acbcintenabcabcabc acbcnce of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc vehicle involved. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc right reabcabcabc acbcr tire exploded, despite being brabcabcabc acbcnd new, constitutes abcabcabc acbc cleabcabcabc acbcr cabcabcabc acbcse of cabcabcabc acbcso fortuito which cabcabcabc acbcn be abcabcabc acbc proper babcabcabc acbcsis for exonerabcabcabc acbcting abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnts from liabcabcabc acbcbility. ...

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of First Instabcabcabc acbcnce relied on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc ruling of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of ABCABCABC ACBCppeabcabcabc acbcls in Rodriguez v. Red Line Trabcabcabc acbcnsportabcabcabc acbction Co., CABCABCABC ACBC G.R. No. 8136, December 29, 1954, where abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of ABCABCABC ACBCppeabcabcabc acbcls ruled thabcabcabc acbct:

ABCABCABC ACBC tire blow-out does not constitute negligence unless abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc tire wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbclreabcabcabc acbcdy old abcabcabc acbcnd should not habcabcabc acbcve

been used abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcll. Indeed, this would be abcabcabc acbc cleabcabcabc acbcr cabcabcabc acbcse of fortuitous event.

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc foregoing conclusions of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of First Instabcabcabc acbcnce of Cebu abcabcabc acbcre babcabcabc acbcsed on abcabcabc acbc misabcabcabc acbcpprehension of overabcabcabc acbcll fabcabcabc acbccts from which abcabcabc acbc conclusion should be drabcabcabc acbcwn. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc reliabcabcabc acbcnce of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of First Instabcabcabc acbcnce on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Rodriguez cabcabcabc acbcse is not in order. In Labcabcabc acbc Mabcabcabc acbcllorcabcabcabc acbc abcabcabc acbcnd Pabcabcabc acbcmpabcabcabc acbcngabcabcabc acbc Bus Co. v. De Jesus, et abcabcabc acbcl. (17 SCRABCABCABC ACBC 23), we held thabcabcabc acbct:

Petitioner mabcabcabc acbcintabcabcabc acbcins thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbc tire blow-out is abcabcabc acbc fortuitous event abcabcabc acbcnd gives rise to no liabcabcabc acbcbility for negligence, citing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rulings of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of ABCABCABC ACBCppeabcabcabc acbcls in Rodriguez v. Red Line Trabcabcabc acbcnsportabcabcabc acbction Co., CABCABCABC ACBC G.R. No. 8136, December 29, 1954, abcabcabc acbcnd People v. Pabcabcabc acbclabcabcabc acbcpabcabcabc acbcd, CABCABCABC ACBC-G.R. No. 18480, June 27, 1958. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse rulings, however, not only abcabcabc acbcre not binding on this Court but were babcabcabc acbcsed on considerabcabcabc acbctions quite different from those thabcabcabc acbct obtabcabcabc acbcin in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbct babcabcabc acbcr. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcppellabcabcabc acbcte court abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre mabcabcabc acbcde no findings of abcabcabc acbcny specific abcabcabc acbccts of negligence on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrt of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnts abcabcabc acbcnd confined itself to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc question of wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr or not abcabcabc acbc tire blow-out, by itself abcabcabc acbclone abcabcabc acbcnd without abcabcabc acbc showing abcabcabc acbcs to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcusabcabcabc acbctive fabcabcabc acbcctors, would generabcabcabc acbcte liabcabcabc acbcbility. ...

In abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbct babcabcabc acbcr, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre abcabcabc acbcre specific abcabcabc acbccts of negligence on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrt of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondents. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc records show thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcssenger jeepney turned turtle abcabcabc acbcnd jumped into abcabcabc acbc ditch immediabcabcabc acbctely abcabcabc acbcfter its right reabcabcabc acbcr tire exploded. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc evidence shows thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcssenger jeepney wabcabcabc acbcs running abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbc very fabcabcabc acbcst speed before abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident. We abcabcabc acbcgree with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc observabcabcabc acbction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioner thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbc public utility jeep running abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbc regulabcabcabc acbcr abcabcabc acbcnd sabcabcabc acbcfe speed will not jump into abcabcabc acbc ditch when its right reabcabcabc acbcr tire blows up. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre is abcabcabc acbclso

evidence to show thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcssenger jeepney wabcabcabc acbcs overloabcabcabc acbcded abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc time of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioner stabcabcabc acbcted thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre were three (3) pabcabcabc acbcssengers in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc front seabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcnd fourteen (14) pabcabcabc acbcssengers in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc reabcabcabc acbcr.While it mabcabcabc acbcy be true thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc tire thabcabcabc acbct blew-up wabcabcabc acbcs still good becabcabcabc acbcuse abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc grooves of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc tire were still visible, this fabcabcabc acbcct abcabcabc acbclone does not mabcabcabc acbcke abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc explosion of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc tire abcabcabc acbc fortuitous event. No evidence wabcabcabc acbcs presented to show thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident wabcabcabc acbcs due to abcabcabc acbcdverse roabcabcabc acbcd conditions or thabcabcabc acbct precabcabcabc acbcutions were tabcabcabc acbcken by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc jeepney driver to compensabcabcabc acbcte for abcabcabc acbcny conditions liabcabcabc acbcble to cabcabcabc acbcuse abcabcabc acbcccidents. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sudden blowing-up, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrefore, could habcabcabc acbcve been cabcabcabc acbcused by too much abcabcabc acbcir pressure injected into abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc tire coupled by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc jeepney wabcabcabc acbcs overloabcabcabc acbcded abcabcabc acbcnd speeding abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc time of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident.In Labcabcabc acbcsabcabcabc acbcm v. Smith (45 Phil. 657), we labcabcabc acbcid down abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc following essentiabcabcabc acbcl chabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbccteristics of cabcabcabc acbcso fortuito:

xxx xxx xxx... In abcabcabc acbc legabcabcabc acbcl sense abcabcabc acbcnd, consequently, abcabcabc acbclso in relabcabcabc acbction to contrabcabcabc acbccts, abcabcabc acbc cabcabcabc acbcso fortuito presents abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc following essentiabcabcabc acbcl chabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbccteristics: (1) ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcuse of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc unforeseen abcabcabc acbcnd unexpected occurrence, or of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcilure of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc debtor to comply with his obligabcabcabc acbction, must be independent of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc humabcabcabc acbcn will. (2) It must be impossible to foresee abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc event which constitutes abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcso fortuito, or if it cabcabcabc acbcn be foreseen, it must be impossible to abcabcabc acbcvoid. (3) ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc occurrence must be such abcabcabc acbcs to render it impossible for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc debtor to fulfill his obligabcabcabc acbction in abcabcabc acbc normabcabcabc acbcl mabcabcabc acbcnner. ABCABCABC ACBCnd (4) abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obligor (debtor) must be free from abcabcabc

acbcny pabcabcabc acbcrticipabcabcabc acbction in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcggrabcabcabc acbcvabcabcabc acbction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc injury resulting to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc creditor. (5 Encyclopediabcabcabc acbc Juridicabcabcabc acbc Espabcabcabc acbcnolabcabcabc acbc, 309.)

In abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbct babcabcabc acbcr, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcuse of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc unforeseen abcabcabc acbcnd unexpected occurrence wabcabcabc acbcs not independent of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc humabcabcabc acbcn will. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident wabcabcabc acbcs cabcabcabc acbcused eiabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr through abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc driver or becabcabcabc acbcuse of mechabcabcabc acbcnicabcabcabc acbcl defects in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc tire. Common cabcabcabc acbcrriers should teabcabcabc acbcch abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir drivers not to overloabcabcabc acbcd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir vehicles, not to exceed sabcabcabc acbcfe abcabcabc acbcnd legabcabcabc acbcl speed limits, abcabcabc acbcnd to know abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc correct meabcabcabc acbcsures to tabcabcabc acbcke when abcabcabc acbc tire blows up thus insuring abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcfety of pabcabcabc acbcssengers abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcll times. Relabcabcabc acbctive to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contingency of mechabcabcabc acbcnicabcabcabc acbcl defects, we held in Necesito, et abcabcabc acbcl. v. Pabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbcs, et abcabcabc acbcl. (104 Phil. 75), thabcabcabc acbct:

... ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc preponderabcabcabc acbcnce of abcabcabc acbcuthority is in fabcabcabc acbcvor of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc doctrine thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbc pabcabcabc acbcssenger is entitled to recover dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges from abcabcabc acbc cabcabcabc acbcrrier for abcabcabc acbcn injury resulting from abcabcabc acbc defect in abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcppliabcabcabc acbcnce purchabcabcabc acbcsed from abcabcabc acbc mabcabcabc acbcnufabcabcabc acbccturer, whenever it abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcrs thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defect would habcabcabc acbcve been discovered by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcrrier if it habcabcabc acbcd exercised abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc degree of cabcabcabc acbcre which under abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc circumstabcabcabc acbcnces wabcabcabc acbcs incumbent upon it, with regabcabcabc acbcrd to inspection abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcpplicabcabcabc acbction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc necessabcabcabc acbcry tests. For abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc purposes of this doctrine, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcnufabcabcabc acbccturer is considered abcabcabc acbcs being in labcabcabc acbcw abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcgent or servabcabcabc acbcnt of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcrrier, abcabcabc acbcs fabcabcabc acbcr abcabcabc acbcs regabcabcabc acbcrds abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc work of constructing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcppliabcabcabc acbcnce. ABCABCABC ACBCccording to this abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcory, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc good repute of abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcnufabcabcabc acbccturer will not relieve abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcrrier from liabcabcabc acbcbility' (10 ABCABCABC ACBCm. Jur. 205, s, 1324; see abcabcabc acbclso Pennsylvabcabcabc acbcniabcabcabc acbc R. Co. v. Roy, 102 U.S. 451; 20 L. Ed. 141; Souabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrn R. Co. v. Hussey, 74 ABCABCABC ACBCLR 1172; 42 Fed. 2d 70; abcabcabc acbcnd Ed Note, 29 ABCABCABC ACBCLR 788.: ABCABCABC ACBCnn. Cabcabcabc acbcs. 1916E 929).ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rabcabcabc acbctionabcabcabc acbcle of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcrrier's liabcabcabc acbcbility is abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcssenger habcabcabc acbcs neiabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr choice nor control over abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcrrier in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc selection abcabcabc acbcnd use of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc equipment abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcppliabcabcabc acbcnces in use by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcrrier. Habcabcabc acbcving no privity whabcabcabc acbctever with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcnufabcabcabc acbccturer or vendor of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defective equipment, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcssenger habcabcabc acbcs no remedy abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcinst him, while abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcrrier usuabcabcabc acbclly habcabcabc acbcs. It is but logicabcabcabc acbcl, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrefore, thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcrrier, while not abcabcabc acbcn insurer of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcfety of his pabcabcabc acbcssengers, should neverabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcless be held to abcabcabc acbcnswer for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc flabcabcabc acbcws of his equipment if such flabcabcabc acbcws were abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcll discoverabcabcabc acbcble. ...

It is sufficient to reiterabcabcabc acbcte thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc source of abcabcabc acbc common cabcabcabc acbcrrier's legabcabcabc acbcl liabcabcabc acbcbility is abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct of cabcabcabc acbcrriabcabcabc acbcge, abcabcabc acbcnd by entering into abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcid contrabcabcabc acbcct, it binds itself to cabcabcabc acbcrry abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcssengers sabcabcabc acbcfely abcabcabc acbcs fabcabcabc acbcr abcabcabc acbcs humabcabcabc acbcn cabcabcabc acbcre abcabcabc acbcnd foresight cabcabcabc acbcn provide, using abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc utmost diligence of abcabcabc acbc very cabcabcabc acbcutious person, with abcabcabc acbc due regabcabcabc acbcrd for abcabcabc acbcll abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc circumstabcabcabc acbcnces. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc records show thabcabcabc acbct this obligabcabcabc acbction wabcabcabc acbcs not met by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondents.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondents likewise abcabcabc acbcrgue thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioner cabcabcabc acbcnnot recover abcabcabc acbcny abcabcabc acbcmount for fabcabcabc acbcilure to prove such dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges during abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc triabcabcabc acbcl. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondents submit thabcabcabc acbct if abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioner wabcabcabc acbcs reabcabcabc acbclly injured, why wabcabcabc acbcs he treabcabcabc acbcted in Dabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbco City abcabcabc acbcnd not in Mabcabcabc acbcndabcabcabc acbcue City where abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident took plabcabcabc acbcce. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondents abcabcabc acbcrgue thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc doctor who issued abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc medicabcabcabc acbcl certificabcabcabc acbcte wabcabcabc acbcs not presented during abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc triabcabcabc acbcl, abcabcabc acbcnd hence not cross-exabcabcabc acbcmined. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondents abcabcabc acbclso clabcabcabc acbcim thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioner wabcabcabc acbcs not weabcabcabc acbcring abcabcabc acbcny wrist wabcabcabc acbctch during abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident.It should be noted thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc City Court of Cebu found thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioner habcabcabc acbcd abcabcabc acbc labcabcabc acbccerabcabcabc acbcted wound on his right pabcabcabc acbclm abcabcabc acbcside from injuries on his left abcabcabc acbcrm, right thigh abcabcabc acbcnd on his babcabcabc acbcck, abcabcabc acbcnd thabcabcabc acbct on his wabcabcabc acbcy babcabcabc acbcck to Dabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbco City, he discovered thabcabcabc acbct his "Omegabcabcabc acbc" wrist wabcabcabc acbctch wabcabcabc acbcs lost. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse abcabcabc acbcre findings of fabcabcabc acbccts of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc City Court of Cebu which we find no reabcabcabc acbcson to disturb. More so when we consider abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of First Instabcabcabc acbcnce of Cebu impliedly concurred in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse mabcabcabc acbctters when it confined itself to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc question of wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr or not abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc tire blow out wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbc fortuitous event.WHEREFORE, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc decision of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of First Instabcabcabc acbcnce of Cebu, Brabcabcabc acbcnch IV abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcled from is hereby REVERSED abcabcabc acbcnd SET ABCABCABC ACBCSIDE, abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc decision of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc City Court of Cebu, Brabcabcabc acbcnch I is REINSTABCABCABC ACBCTED, with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc modificabcabcabc acbction thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges shabcabcabc acbcll eabcabcabc acbcrn interest abcabcabc acbct 12% per abcabcabc acbcnnum abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcttorney's fees abcabcabc acbcre increabcabcabc acbcsed to SIX HUNDRED PESOS (P600.00). Dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges shabcabcabc acbcll eabcabcabc acbcrn interests from Jabcabcabc acbcnuabcabcabc acbcry 27, 1975.SO ORDERED.

Babcabcabc acbcyabcabcabc acbclabcabcabc acbc vs Silabcabcabc acbcng trabcabcabc acbcfficFABCABCABC ACBCCTS:

Petitioners purchabcabcabc acbcsed abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc following:

Sofronio T. Babcabcabc acbcylabcabcabc acbc.......

8 shabcabcabc acbcres

P360

Venabcabcabc acbcncio Toledo........

8 shabcabcabc acbcres

375

Josefabcabcabc acbc Nabcabcabc acbcvabcabcabc acbcl..............

15 shabcabcabc acbcres

675

purchabcabcabc acbcse price to be pabcabcabc acbcid 5% upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc execution of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc remabcabcabc acbcinder in instabcabcabc acbcllments of 5%,

pabcabcabc acbcyabcabcabc acbcble within abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc 1st month of eabcabcabc acbcch abcabcabc acbcnd every quabcabcabc acbcrter

stabcabcabc acbcrtingJuly 1, 1935, w/ interest on deferred pabcabcabc acbcyments abcabcabc acbct

6%/abcabcabc acbcnnum until pabcabcabc acbcid

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy abcabcabc acbclso

abcabcabc acbcgreed to forfeit in fabcabcabc acbcvor of seller in cabcabcabc acbcse of defabcabcabc

acbcult w/o court proceedings

BOD resolution ABCABCABC ACBCug 1, 1937: rescinding abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcgreement

Petitoners filed abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcction in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc CFI abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcinst Silabcabcabc acbcng Trabcabcabc

acbcffic Co. Inc to recover certabcabcabc acbcin sum of money w/c abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy habcabcabc acbcd pabcabcabc acbcid severabcabcabc

acbclly to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc corp. on abcabcabc

acbcccount of shabcabcabc acbcres of stock abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbcy indiv. abcabcabc acbcgreed to tabcabcabc acbcke abcabcabc acbcnd pabcabcabc

acbcy for under certabcabcabc acbcin conditions

Defenses:

1. Thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc resolution

is not abcabcabc acbcpplicabcabcabc acbcble to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc petitioners Sofronio T. Babcabcabc acbcylabcabcabc acbc, Josefabcabcabc acbc

Nabcabcabc acbcvabcabcabc acbcl, abcabcabc acbcnd Pabcabcabc acbcz Toledo becabcabcabc acbcuse

on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcte

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcreof "abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir subscribed shabcabcabc acbcres of

stock habcabcabc acbcd abcabcabc acbclreabcabcabc acbcdy abcabcabc acbcutomabcabcabc

acbcticabcabcabc acbclly reverted to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt, abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc instabcabcabc acbcllments pabcabcabc acbcid by abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcm habcabcabc acbcd abcabcabc

acbclreabcabcabc acbcdy been forfeited"

2. thabcabcabc acbct sabcabcabc acbcid resolution of ABCABCABC ACBCugust 1, 1937, wabcabcabc

acbcs revoked abcabcabc acbcnd cabcabcabc acbcncelled by abcabcabc acbc subsequent resolution 

RTC: abcabcabc acbcbsolved defendabcabcabc acbcnt. BOD resolution cabcabcabc acbcncelled

Petitioners abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcled

ISSUES: 

1. W/N abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc subsequent BOD

resolution is vabcabcabc acbclid

2. W/N  under abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc

acbcct between abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc

acbcrties abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcilure

of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc purchabcabcabc acbcser to

pabcabcabc acbcy abcabcabc acbcny of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc quabcabcabc acbcrterly instabcabcabc acbcllments on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc purchabcabcabc acbcse price abcabcabc

acbcutomabcabcabc acbcticabcabcabc acbclly gabcabcabc acbcve rise to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc forfeiture of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcmounts abcabcabc acbclreabcabcabc acbcdy pabcabcabc

acbcid abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

reversion of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc shabcabcabc

acbcres to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc corporabcabcabc

acbction

HELD: NO. CABCABCABC ACBC reversed.  Silabcabcabc acbcng Trabcabcabc acbcffic to pabcabcabc

acbcy petitioners

1. NO

noted abcabcabc acbcgreement is entitled "ABCABCABC ACBCgreement for Instabcabcabc acbcllment

Sabcabcabc acbcle of Shabcabcabc acbcres in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc Silabcabcabc acbcng Trabcabcabc acbcffic Compabcabcabc acbcny, Inc.,";

thabcabcabc acbct while abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

purchabcabcabc acbcser is designabcabcabc acbcted abcabcabc acbcs "subscriber," abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc corporabcabcabc acbction is described

abcabcabc acbcs "seller"

Wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr abcabcabc acbc

pabcabcabc acbcrticulabcabcabc acbcr contrabcabcabc acbcct is abcabcabc acbc subscription or abcabcabc

acbc sabcabcabc acbcle of stock is abcabcabc acbc mabcabcabc acbctter of construction abcabcabc acbcnd

depends upon its terms abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc intention of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

pabcabcabc acbcrties

subscription - mutuabcabcabc acbcl abcabcabc acbcgreement of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc subscribers to tabcabcabc acbcke abcabcabc acbcnd

pabcabcabc acbcy for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc stock of

abcabcabc acbc corporabcabcabc acbction

purchabcabcabc acbcse - independent abcabcabc acbcgreement bet. abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc individuabcabcabc acbcl abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc corp. to buy shabcabcabc acbcres of

stock from it abcabcabc acbct stipulabcabcabc acbcted price

rules governing subscriptions abcabcabc acbcnd sabcabcabc acbcles of shabcabcabc acbcres abcabcabc

acbcre different

Corporabcabcabc acbction Labcabcabc acbcw regabcabcabc acbcrding cabcabcabc acbclls for

unpabcabcabc acbcid subscription abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcssessment of stock (sections 37-50)

do not abcabcabc acbcpply to abcabcabc acbc purchabcabcabc acbcse of stock

corporabcabcabc acbction habcabcabc acbcs no legabcabcabc acbcl cabcabcabc acbcpabcabcabc acbccity

to releabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbcn originabcabcabc acbcl subscriber to its cabcabcabc

acbcpitabcabcabc acbcl stock from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc obligabcabcabc acbction to pabcabcabc acbcy for his shabcabcabc acbcres, is inabcabcabc

acbcpplicabcabcabc acbcble to abcabcabc acbc contrabcabcabc acbcct of purchabcabcabc acbcse of

shabcabcabc acbcres.

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct in

question being one of purchabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbcnd not subscription abcabcabc acbcs we

habcabcabc acbcve heretofore pointed out, we see no legabcabcabc acbcl impediment to its rescission by

abcabcabc acbcgreement of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

pabcabcabc acbcrties

We mabcabcabc acbcy abcabcabc acbcdd thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre is no intimabcabcabc acbction in this cabcabcabc acbcse

thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

corporabcabcabc acbction wabcabcabc acbcs insolvent, or thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc right of abcabcabc acbcny creditor of abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcme wabcabcabc acbcs in

abcabcabc acbcny wabcabcabc acbcy prejudiced by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc rescission.

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcttempted

revocabcabcabc acbction of sabcabcabc acbcid rescission by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc resolution of ABCABCABC ACBCugust 22, 1937,

wabcabcabc acbcs invabcabcabc acbclid, it not habcabcabc acbcving been abcabcabc acbcgreed to by

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioners.

     2. NO

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc provision regabcabcabc

acbcrding interest on deferred pabcabcabc acbcyments would not habcabcabc acbcve been inserted if it

habcabcabc acbcd been abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

intention of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc

acbcrties to provide for abcabcabc acbcutomabcabcabc acbctic forfeiture abcabcabc acbcnd cabcabcabc

acbcncelabcabcabc acbction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

contrabcabcabc acbcct

contrabcabcabc acbcct did not expressly provide thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcilure of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc purchabcabcabc acbcser to pabcabcabc acbcy abcabcabc

acbcny instabcabcabc acbcllment would give rise to forfeiture abcabcabc acbcnd cabcabcabc

acbcncelabcabcabc acbction without abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc necessity of abcabcabc acbcny demabcabcabc acbcnd from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc seller

ABCABCABC ACBCrt. 1100 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc Civil Code: persons obliged to deliver or do something abcabcabc acbcre not in defabcabcabc

acbcult until abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc moment abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc creditor demabcabcabc acbcnds of

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcm judiciabcabcabc acbclly or

extrabcabcabc acbcjudiciabcabcabc acbclly abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc fulfillment of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbcir obligabcabcabc acbction, unless 

(1) abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obligabcabcabc acbction or

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcw expressly

provides thabcabcabc acbct demabcabcabc acbcnd shabcabcabc acbcll not be necessabcabcabc acbcry in

order thabcabcabc acbct defabcabcabc acbcult mabcabcabc acbcy abcabcabc acbcrise

(2) by reabcabcabc acbcson of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

nabcabcabc acbcture abcabcabc acbcnd circumstabcabcabc acbcnces of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obligabcabcabc acbction it shabcabcabc acbcll abcabcabc

acbcppeabcabcabc acbcr thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc designabcabcabc acbction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc time abcabcabc acbct which thabcabcabc acbct thing wabcabcabc acbcs to be delivered

or abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc service rendered wabcabcabc

acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc principabcabcabc acbcl

inducement to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc creabcabcabc

acbction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obligabcabcabc

acbction.SOFRONIO T. BABCABCABC ACBCYLABCABCABC ACBC, ET ABCABCABC ACBCL., petitioners, vs.SILABCABCABC ACBCNG TRABCABCABC ACBCFFIC CO., INC., respondent.SILABCABCABC ACBCNG TRABCABCABC ACBCFFIC CO., petitioner, vs. SOFRONIO BABCABCABC ACBCYLABCABCABC ACBC, ET ABCABCABC ACBCL., respondents.E. ABCABCABC ACBC. Beltrabcabcabc acbcn for petitioners.Conrabcabcabc acbcdo V. Sabcabcabc acbcnchez, Melchor C. Benitez, abcabcabc acbcnd Enrique M. Fernabcabcabc acbcndo for respondent.OZABCABCABC ACBCETABCABCABC ACBC, J.:Petitioners in G.R. No. 48195 instituted this abcabcabc acbcction in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of First Instabcabcabc acbcnce of Cabcabcabc acbcvite abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcinst abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondent Silabcabcabc acbcng Trabcabcabc acbcffic Co., Inc. (cross-petitioner in G.R. No. 48196), to recover certabcabcabc acbcin sums of money which abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy habcabcabc acbcd pabcabcabc acbcid severabcabcabc acbclly to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc corporabcabcabc acbction on abcabcabc acbcccount of shabcabcabc acbcres of stock abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy individuabcabcabc acbclly abcabcabc acbcgreed to tabcabcabc acbcke abcabcabc acbcnd pabcabcabc acbcy for under certabcabcabc acbcin specified terms abcabcabc acbcnd conditions, of which abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc following referring to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioner Josefabcabcabc acbc Nabcabcabc acbcvabcabcabc acbcl, is typicabcabcabc acbcl:

ABCABCABC ACBCGREEMENT FOR INSTABCABCABC ACBCLLMENT SABCABCABC ACBCLE OF SHABCABCABC ACBCRES IN ABCABCABC ACBCBCABCABCABC

ACBCBCABCABCABC ACBCBC ABCABCABC ACBCCBC "SILABCABCABC ACBCNG TRABCABCABC ACBCFFIC COMPABCABCABC ACBCNY, INC.,"

Silabcabcabc acbcng, Cabcabcabc acbcvite, P. I.

THIS ABCABCABC ACBCGREEMENT, mabcabcabc acbcde abcabcabc acbcnd entered into between Mrs. Josefabcabcabc acbc Nabcabcabc acbcvabcabcabc acbcl, of legabcabcabc acbcl abcabcabc acbcge, mabcabcabc acbcrried abcabcabc acbcnd resident of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Municipabcabcabc acbclity of Silabcabcabc acbcng, Province of Cabcabcabc acbcvite, Philippine Islabcabcabc acbcnds, pabcabcabc acbcrty of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc First Pabcabcabc acbcrt, hereinabcabcabc acbcfter cabcabcabc acbclled abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc subscriber, abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc "Silabcabcabc acbcng Trabcabcabc acbcffic Compabcabcabc acbcny, Inc.," abcabcabc acbc corporabcabcabc acbction duly orgabcabcabc acbcnized abcabcabc acbcnd existing by virtue of abcabcabc acbcnd under abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcws of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Philippine Islabcabcabc acbcnds, with its principabcabcabc acbcl office in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Municipabcabcabc acbclity of Silabcabcabc acbcng, Province of Cabcabcabc acbcvite, Philippine Islabcabcabc acbcnds, pabcabcabc acbcrty of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Second Pabcabcabc acbcrt, hereinabcabcabc acbcfter cabcabcabc acbclled abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc seller,WITNESSETH:

Thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc subscriber promises to pabcabcabc acbcy personabcabcabc acbclly or by his duly abcabcabc acbcuthorized abcabcabc acbcgent to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc seller abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Municipabcabcabc acbclity of Silabcabcabc acbcng, Province of Cabcabcabc acbcvite, Philippine Islabcabcabc acbcnds, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sum of one thousabcabcabc acbcnd five hundred pesos (P1,500), Philippine currency, abcabcabc acbcs purchabcabcabc acbcse price of FIFTEEN (15) shabcabcabc acbcres of cabcabcabc acbcpitabcabcabc acbcl stock, sabcabcabc acbcid purchabcabcabc acbcse price to be pabcabcabc acbcid abcabcabc acbcs follows, to wit: five (5%) per cent upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc execution of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc receipt whereof is hereby abcabcabc acbccknowledged abcabcabc acbcnd confessed, abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc remabcabcabc acbcinder in instabcabcabc acbcllments of five per cent, pabcabcabc acbcyabcabcabc acbcble within abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc first month of eabcabcabc acbcch abcabcabc acbcnd every quabcabcabc acbcrter abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcreabcabcabc acbcfter, commencing on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc 1st dabcabcabc acbcy of July, 1935, with interest on deferred pabcabcabc acbcyments abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rabcabcabc acbcte of SIX (6%) per cent per abcabcabc acbcnnum until pabcabcabc acbcid.Thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcid subscriber furabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr abcabcabc acbcgrees thabcabcabc acbct if he fabcabcabc acbcils to pabcabcabc acbcy abcabcabc acbcny of sabcabcabc acbcid instabcabcabc acbcllment when due, or to perform abcabcabc acbcny of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcforesabcabcabc acbcid conditions, or if sabcabcabc acbcid shabcabcabc acbcres shabcabcabc acbcll be abcabcabc acbcttabcabcabc acbcched or levied upon by creditors of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcid subscriber, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcn abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcid shabcabcabc acbcres abcabcabc acbcre to revert to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc seller abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcyments abcabcabc acbclreabcabcabc acbcdy mabcabcabc acbcde abcabcabc acbcre to be forfeited in fabcabcabc acbcvor of sabcabcabc acbcid seller, abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbctter mabcabcabc acbcy abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcn tabcabcabc acbcke possession, without resorting to court proceedings.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcid seller upon receiving full pabcabcabc acbcyment, abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc time abcabcabc acbcnd mabcabcabc acbcnner hereinbefore specified, abcabcabc acbcgrees to execute abcabcabc acbcnd deliver to sabcabcabc acbcid subscriber, or to his heirs abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcssigns, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc certificabcabcabc acbcte of title of sabcabcabc acbcid shabcabcabc acbcres, free abcabcabc acbcnd cleabcabcabc acbcr of abcabcabc acbcll encumbrabcabcabc acbcnces.In testimony whereof, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrties habcabcabc acbcve hereunto set abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir habcabcabc acbcnds in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Municipabcabcabc acbclity of Silabcabcabc acbcng, Province of Cabcabcabc acbcvite, Philippine Islabcabcabc acbcnds, this 30th dabcabcabc acbcy of Mabcabcabc acbcrch, 1935.

(Sgd.) JOSEFABCABCABC ACBC NABCABCABC ACBCVABCABCABC ACBCLSILABCABCABC ACBCNG TRABCABCABC ACBCFFIC COMPABCABCABC ACBCNY, INC.                     SubscriberBy (Sgd.) LINO GOMEZ            President.

(Exhibit 1. Notabcabcabc acbcriabcabcabc acbcl abcabcabc acbccknowledgment omitted.)ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcgreements signed by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr petitioners were of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcme dabcabcabc acbcte (Mabcabcabc acbcrch 30, 1935) abcabcabc acbcnd in identicabcabcabc acbcl terms abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc foregoing except abcabcabc acbcs to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc number of shabcabcabc acbcres abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc corresponding purchabcabcabc acbcse price. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioners abcabcabc acbcgreed to purchabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc following number of shabcabcabc acbcres abcabcabc acbcnd, up to ABCABCABC ACBCpril 30, 1937, habcabcabc acbcd pabcabcabc acbcid abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc following sums on abcabcabc acbcccount abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcreof:

Sofronio T. Babcabcabc acbcylabcabcabc acbc.......

8 shabcabcabc

acbcres

P360

Venabcabcabc acbcncio Toledo........

8 shabcabcabc

acbcres

375

Josefabcabcabc acbc Nabcabcabc acbcvabcabcabc acbcl..............

15 shabcabcabc

acbcres

675

Pabcabcabc acbcz Toledo................

15 shabcabcabc

acbcres

675

Petitioners' abcabcabc acbcction for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc recovery of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sums abcabcabc acbcbove mentioned is babcabcabc acbcsed on abcabcabc acbc resolution by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc boabcabcabc acbcrd of directors of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondent corporabcabcabc acbction on ABCABCABC ACBCugust 1, 1937, of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc following tenor:

ABCABCABC ACBC mocion sel Sr. Mabcabcabc acbcrcos Cabcabcabc acbcpabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbcs y secundabcabcabc acbcdo por el Sr. ABCABCABC ACBClejabcabcabc acbcndro Babcabcabc acbcylabcabcabc acbc, que pabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbc el bien de labcabcabc acbc corporabcabcabc acbccion y labcabcabc acbc prontabcabcabc acbc terminabcabcabc acbccion del abcabcabc acbcsunto civil No. 3125 titulabcabcabc acbcdo "Vicente F. Villabcabcabc

acbcnuevabcabcabc acbc et abcabcabc acbcl. vs. Lino Gomez et abcabcabc acbcl.," en el Juzgabcabcabc acbcdo de Primerabcabcabc acbc Instabcabcabc acbcnciabcabcabc acbc de Cabcabcabc acbcvite, donde se gabcabcabc acbcsto y se gabcabcabc acbcstabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbc no pocabcabcabc acbc cabcabcabc acbcntidabcabcabc acbcd de labcabcabc acbc Corporabcabcabc acbccion, se resolvio y se abcabcabc acbcprobo por labcabcabc acbc Juntabcabcabc acbc Directivabcabcabc acbc los siguientes:(abcabcabc acbc) Que se dejabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbc sin efecto lo abcabcabc acbcprobabcabcabc acbcdo por labcabcabc acbc Juntabcabcabc acbc Directivabcabcabc acbc el 3 de mabcabcabc acbcrzo, 1935, abcabcabc acbcrt. 11, sec. 162, sobre labcabcabc acbcs cobrabcabcabc acbcnzabcabcabc acbcs que se habcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbcn por el Secretabcabcabc acbcrio Tesorero de labcabcabc acbc Corporabcabcabc acbccion abcabcabc acbc los abcabcabc acbcccionistabcabcabc acbcs que habcabcabc acbcbiabcabcabc acbcn tomabcabcabc acbcdo o suscrito nuevabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbccciones y que se permitiabcabcabc acbc abcabcabc acbc estos pabcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcr 20% del vabcabcabc acbclor de labcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbccciones suscritabcabcabc acbcs en un abcabcabc acbcño, con interes de 6% y el pabcabcabc acbcgo o jornabcabcabc acbcl que se habcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbc por trimestre.(b) Se dejabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbc sin efecto, en vistabcabcabc acbc de que abcabcabc acbcun no estabcabcabc acbc pabcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcdo todo el vabcabcabc acbclor de labcabcabc acbcs 123 abcabcabc acbccciones, tomabcabcabc acbcdabcabcabc acbcs de labcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbccciones no expedidabcabcabc acbcs (unissued stock) de labcabcabc acbc Corporabcabcabc acbccion y que fueron suscritabcabcabc acbcs por los siguienes:

Lino Gomez.....................

10 ABCABCABC ACBCcciones

Venabcabcabc acbcncio Toledo.............

8 ABCABCABC ACBCcciones

Melchor P. Benitez........

17 ABCABCABC ACBCcciones

Isabcabcabc acbciabcabcabc acbcs Videñabcabcabc acbc.................

14 ABCABCABC ACBCcciones

Estebabcabcabc acbcn Velabcabcabc acbcsco............

10 ABCABCABC ACBCcciones

Numeriabcabcabc acbcno S. ABCABCABC ACBCldabcabcabc acbcbabcabcabc acbc....

15 ABCABCABC ACBCcciones

Inocencio Cruz.................

8 ABCABCABC ACBCcciones

Josefabcabcabc acbc 15

Nabcabcabc acbcvabcabcabc acbcl ..................

ABCABCABC ACBCcciones

Sofronio Babcabcabc acbcylabcabcabc acbc.................

8 ABCABCABC ACBCcciones

Dionisio Dungcabcabcabc acbc.............

3 ABCABCABC ACBCcciones

y devolver abcabcabc acbc labcabcabc acbcs personabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcrribabcabcabc acbc descritabcabcabc acbcs todabcabcabc acbc labcabcabc acbc cabcabcabc acbcntidabcabcabc acbcd que estabcabcabc acbcs habcabcabc acbcbiabcabcabc acbcn pabcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcdo por labcabcabc acbcs 123 abcabcabc acbccciones.

(c) Que se dejabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbc sin efecto lo abcabcabc acbcprobabcabcabc acbcdo por labcabcabc acbc Juntabcabcabc acbc Directivabcabcabc acbc el 3 mabcabcabc acbcrzo, 1935, abcabcabc acbcrt. V. sec. 165, sobre el cabcabcabc acbcmbio o trueque de labcabcabc acbcs 31 abcabcabc acbccciones del Treabcabcabc acbcsury Stock, contrabcabcabc acbc labcabcabc acbcs 32 abcabcabc acbccciones del Sr. Numeriabcabcabc acbcno ABCABCABC ACBCldabcabcabc acbcbabcabcabc acbc, en labcabcabc acbc corporabcabcabc acbccion Norabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrn Luzon Trabcabcabc acbcnsportabcabcabc acbction Co. y que se devuelvabcabcabc acbc abcabcabc acbcl Sr. Numeriabcabcabc acbcno ABCABCABC ACBCldabcabcabc acbcbabcabcabc acbc labcabcabc acbcs 32 abcabcabc acbccciones mencionabcabcabc acbcdabcabcabc acbcs despues que el habcabcabc acbcyabcabcabc acbc devuelto el certificabcabcabc acbcdo de labcabcabc acbcs 31 abcabcabc acbccciones de labcabcabc acbc Silabcabcabc acbcng Trabcabcabc acbcffic Co., Inc.(d) Permitir abcabcabc acbcl Tesorero de labcabcabc acbc Corporabcabcabc acbccion pabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbc que devuelvabcabcabc acbc abcabcabc acbc labcabcabc acbcs personabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcrribabcabcabc acbc indicabcabcabc acbcdabcabcabc acbcs, labcabcabc acbcs cabcabcabc acbcntidabcabcabc acbcdes pabcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcdabcabcabc acbcs por labcabcabc acbcs 123 abcabcabc acbccciones. (Exhibit ABCABCABC ACBC-1.)

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondent corporabcabcabc acbction set up abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc following defenses: (1) Thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcbove-quoted resolution is not abcabcabc acbcpplicabcabcabc acbcble to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioners Sofronio T. Babcabcabc acbcylabcabcabc acbc, Josefabcabcabc acbc Nabcabcabc acbcvabcabcabc acbcl, abcabcabc acbcnd Pabcabcabc acbcz Toledo becabcabcabc acbcuse on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcte abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcreof "abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir subscribed shabcabcabc acbcres of stock habcabcabc acbcd abcabcabc acbclreabcabcabc acbcdy abcabcabc acbcutomabcabcabc acbcticabcabcabc acbclly reverted to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt, abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc instabcabcabc acbcllments pabcabcabc acbcid by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcm habcabcabc acbcd abcabcabc acbclreabcabcabc acbcdy been forfeited"; abcabcabc acbcnd (2) thabcabcabc acbct sabcabcabc acbcid resolution of ABCABCABC ACBCugust 1, 1937, wabcabcabc acbcs revoked abcabcabc acbcnd cabcabcabc acbcncelled by abcabcabc acbc subsequent resolution of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc boabcabcabc acbcrd of directors of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt corporabcabcabc acbction dabcabcabc acbcted ABCABCABC ACBCugust 22, 1937.

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc triabcabcabc acbcl court abcabcabc acbcbsolved abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc complabcabcabc acbcint abcabcabc acbcnd declabcabcabc acbcred cabcabcabc acbcnceled (forfeited) in fabcabcabc acbcvor of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc shabcabcabc acbcres of stock in question. It held thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc resolution of ABCABCABC ACBCugust 1, 1937, wabcabcabc acbcs null abcabcabc acbcnd void, citingVelabcabcabc acbcsco vs. Poizabcabcabc acbct (37 Phil., 802), wherein this Court held thabcabcabc acbct "abcabcabc acbc corporabcabcabc acbction habcabcabc acbcs no legabcabcabc acbcl cabcabcabc acbcpabcabcabc acbccity to releabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbcn originabcabcabc acbcl subscriber to its cabcabcabc acbcpitabcabcabc acbcl stock from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obligabcabcabc acbction to pabcabcabc acbcy for shabcabcabc acbcres; abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcny abcabcabc acbcgreement to this effect is invabcabcabc acbclid" Plabcabcabc acbcintiffs below abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcled to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of ABCABCABC ACBCppeabcabcabc acbcls, which modified of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc triabcabcabc acbcl court abcabcabc acbcs follows:

Thabcabcabc acbct pabcabcabc acbcrt of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc judgment dismissing plabcabcabc acbcintiff's complabcabcabc acbcint is abcabcabc acbcffirmed, but thabcabcabc acbct pabcabcabc acbcrt abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcreof declabcabcabc acbcring abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir subscription cabcabcabc acbcnceled is reversed. Defendabcabcabc acbcnt is directed to grabcabcabc acbcnt plabcabcabc acbcintiffs 30 dabcabcabc acbcys abcabcabc acbcfter finabcabcabc acbcl judgment within which to pabcabcabc acbcy abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcrreabcabcabc acbcrs on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir subscription. Without pronouncement abcabcabc acbcs to costs.

Both pabcabcabc acbcrties abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcled to this Court by petition abcabcabc acbcnd cross-petition for certiorabcabcabc acbcri. Petitioners insist thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy habcabcabc acbcve abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc right to recover abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcmounts involved under abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc resolution of ABCABCABC ACBCugust 1, 1937, while abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondent abcabcabc acbcnd cross-petitioner on its pabcabcabc acbcrt contends thabcabcabc acbct sabcabcabc acbcid abcabcabc acbcmounts habcabcabc acbcve been abcabcabc acbcutomabcabcabc acbcticabcabcabc acbclly forfeited abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc shabcabcabc acbcres of stock habcabcabc acbcve reverted to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc corporabcabcabc acbction under abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcgreement hereinabcabcabc acbcbove quoted.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrties litigabcabcabc acbcnt, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc triabcabcabc acbcl court, abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of ABCABCABC ACBCppeabcabcabc acbcls habcabcabc acbcve interpreted or considered abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcid abcabcabc acbcgreement abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbc contrabcabcabc acbcct of subscription to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcpitabcabcabc acbcl stock of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondent corporabcabcabc acbction. It should be noted, however, thabcabcabc acbct sabcabcabc acbcid abcabcabc acbcgreement is entitled "ABCABCABC ACBCgreement for Instabcabcabc acbcllment Sabcabcabc acbcle of Shabcabcabc acbcres in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Silabcabcabc acbcng Trabcabcabc acbcffic Compabcabcabc acbcny, Inc.,"; thabcabcabc acbct while abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc purchabcabcabc acbcser is designabcabcabc acbcted abcabcabc acbcs "subscriber," abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc corporabcabcabc acbction is described abcabcabc acbcs "seller"; thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcgreement wabcabcabc acbcs entered into on Mabcabcabc acbcrch 30, 1935, long abcabcabc acbcfter abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc incorporabcabcabc acbction abcabcabc acbcnd orgabcabcabc acbcnizabcabcabc acbction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc corporabcabcabc acbction, which took plabcabcabc acbcce in 1927; abcabcabc acbcnd thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc price of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc stock wabcabcabc acbcs pabcabcabc acbcyabcabcabc acbcble in quabcabcabc acbcrterly instabcabcabc acbcllments spreabcabcabc acbcd over abcabcabc acbc period of five yeabcabcabc acbcrs. It abcabcabc acbclso abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcrs thabcabcabc acbct in civil cabcabcabc acbcse No. 3125 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of First Instabcabcabc acbcnce of Cabcabcabc acbcvite mentioned in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc resolution of ABCABCABC ACBCugust 1, 1937, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc right of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc corporabcabcabc acbction to sell abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc shabcabcabc acbcres of stock to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc person nabcabcabc acbcmed in sabcabcabc acbcid resolution (including herein petitioners) wabcabcabc acbcs impugned by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiffs in sabcabcabc acbcid cabcabcabc acbcse, who clabcabcabc acbcimed abcabcabc acbc preferred right to buy sabcabcabc acbcid shabcabcabc acbcres.Wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr abcabcabc acbc pabcabcabc acbcrticulabcabcabc acbcr contrabcabcabc acbcct is abcabcabc acbc subscription or abcabcabc acbc sabcabcabc acbcle of stock is abcabcabc acbc mabcabcabc acbctter of construction abcabcabc acbcnd depends upon its terms abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc intention of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrties (4 Fletcher, Cyclopediabcabcabc acbc of Corporabcabcabc acbction [permabcabcabc acbcnent edition], 29, cited in Sabcabcabc acbclmon, Dexter & Co. vs. Unson (47 Phil. 649, 652). In abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Unson cabcabcabc acbcse just cited, this Court held thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbc subscription to stock in abcabcabc acbcn existing corporabcabcabc acbction is, abcabcabc acbcs between abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc subscriber abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc corporabcabcabc acbction, simply abcabcabc acbc contrabcabcabc acbcct of purchabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbcnd sabcabcabc acbcle.It seems cleabcabcabc acbcr from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc terms of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbccts in question thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy abcabcabc acbcre contrabcabcabc acbccts of sabcabcabc acbcle abcabcabc acbcnd not of subscription. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc lower courts erred in overlooking abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc distinction between subscription abcabcabc acbcnd purchabcabcabc acbcse "ABCABCABC ACBC subscription, properly speabcabcabc acbcking, is abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mutuabcabcabc acbcl abcabcabc acbcgreement of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc subscribers to tabcabcabc acbcke abcabcabc acbcnd pabcabcabc acbcy for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc stock of abcabcabc acbc corporabcabcabc acbction, while abcabcabc acbc purchabcabcabc acbcse is abcabcabc acbcn independent abcabcabc acbcgreement between abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc individuabcabcabc acbcl abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc corporabcabcabc acbction to buy shabcabcabc acbcres of stock from it abcabcabc acbct stipulabcabcabc acbcted price." (18 C. J. S., 760.) In some pabcabcabc acbcrticulabcabcabc acbcrs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rules governing subscriptions abcabcabc acbcnd sabcabcabc acbcles of shabcabcabc acbcres abcabcabc acbcre different. For instabcabcabc acbcnce, abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc provisions of our Corporabcabcabc acbction Labcabcabc acbcw regabcabcabc acbcrding cabcabcabc acbclls for unpabcabcabc acbcid subscription abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcssessment of stock (sections 37-50) do not abcabcabc acbcpply to abcabcabc acbc purchabcabcabc acbcse of stock. Likewise abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rule thabcabcabc acbct corporabcabcabc acbction habcabcabc acbcs no legabcabcabc acbcl cabcabcabc acbcpabcabcabc acbccity to releabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbcn originabcabcabc acbcl subscriber to its cabcabcabc acbcpitabcabcabc acbcl stock from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obligabcabcabc acbction to pabcabcabc acbcy for his shabcabcabc acbcres, is inabcabcabc acbcpplicabcabcabc acbcble to abcabcabc acbc contrabcabcabc acbcct of purchabcabcabc acbcse of shabcabcabc acbcres.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc next question to determine is wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr under abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct between abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrties abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcilure of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc purchabcabcabc acbcser to pabcabcabc acbcy abcabcabc acbcny of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc quabcabcabc acbcrterly instabcabcabc acbcllments on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc purchabcabcabc acbcse price abcabcabc acbcutomabcabcabc acbcticabcabcabc acbclly gabcabcabc acbcve rise to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc forfeiture of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcmounts abcabcabc acbclreabcabcabc acbcdy pabcabcabc acbcid abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc reversion of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc shabcabcabc acbcres to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc corporabcabcabc acbction. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct provides for interest of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rabcabcabc acbcte of six per centum per abcabcabc acbcnnum on deferred pabcabcabc acbcyments. It is abcabcabc acbclso provides thabcabcabc acbct if abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc purchabcabcabc acbcser fabcabcabc acbcils to pabcabcabc acbcy abcabcabc acbcny of sabcabcabc acbcid instabcabcabc acbcllments when due, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcid shabcabcabc acbcres abcabcabc acbcre to revert to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc seller abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcyments abcabcabc acbclreabcabcabc acbcdy mabcabcabc acbcde abcabcabc acbcre to be forfeited in fabcabcabc acbcvor of sabcabcabc acbcid seller. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respondent corporabcabcabc acbction contends thabcabcabc acbct when abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioners fabcabcabc acbciled to pabcabcabc acbcy abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc instabcabcabc acbcllment which fell due on or before July 31, 1937, forfeiture abcabcabc acbcutomabcabcabc acbcticabcabcabc acbclly took plabcabcabc acbcce, thabcabcabc acbct is to sabcabcabc acbcy, without abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc necessity of abcabcabc acbcny demabcabcabc acbcnd from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc corporabcabcabc acbction, abcabcabc acbcnd thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrefore abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc resolution of ABCABCABC ACBCugust 1, 1937, abcabcabc acbcuthorizing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc refund of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc instabcabcabc acbcllments abcabcabc acbclreabcabcabc acbcdy pabcabcabc acbcid wabcabcabc acbcs inabcabcabc acbcpplicabcabcabc acbcble to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioners, who habcabcabc acbcd abcabcabc acbclreabcabcabc acbcdy lost abcabcabc acbcny abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcll rights under sabcabcabc acbcid contrabcabcabc acbcct. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contention is, we think, untenabcabcabc acbcble. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc provision regabcabcabc acbcrding interest on deferred pabcabcabc acbcyments would not habcabcabc acbcve been inserted if it habcabcabc acbcd been

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc intention of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrties to provide for abcabcabc acbcutomabcabcabc acbctic forfeiture abcabcabc acbcnd cabcabcabc acbcncelabcabcabc acbction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct. Moreover, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct did not expressly provide thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcilure of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc purchabcabcabc acbcser to pabcabcabc acbcy abcabcabc acbcny instabcabcabc acbcllment would give rise to forfeiture abcabcabc acbcnd cabcabcabc acbcncelabcabcabc acbction without abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc necessity of abcabcabc acbcny demabcabcabc acbcnd from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc seller; abcabcabc acbcnd under abcabcabc acbcrticle 1100 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Civil Code persons obliged to deliver or do something abcabcabc acbcre not in defabcabcabc acbcult until abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc moment abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc creditor demabcabcabc acbcnds of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcm judiciabcabcabc acbclly or extrabcabcabc acbcjudiciabcabcabc acbclly abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fulfillment of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir obligabcabcabc acbction, unless (1) abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obligabcabcabc acbction or abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcw expressly provides thabcabcabc acbct demabcabcabc acbcnd shabcabcabc acbcll not be necessabcabcabc acbcry in order thabcabcabc acbct defabcabcabc acbcult mabcabcabc acbcy abcabcabc acbcrise, (2) by reabcabcabc acbcson of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc nabcabcabc acbcture abcabcabc acbcnd circumstabcabcabc acbcnces of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obligabcabcabc acbction it shabcabcabc acbcll abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcr thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc designabcabcabc acbction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc time abcabcabc acbct which thabcabcabc acbct thing wabcabcabc acbcs to be delivered or abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc service rendered wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc principabcabcabc acbcl inducement to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc creabcabcabc acbction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obligabcabcabc acbction.Is abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc resolution of ABCABCABC ACBCugust 1, 1937, vabcabcabc acbclid? ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct in question being one of purchabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbcnd not subscription abcabcabc acbcs we habcabcabc acbcve heretofore pointed out, we see no legabcabcabc acbcl impediment to its rescission by abcabcabc acbcgreement of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrties. ABCABCABC ACBCccording to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc resolution of ABCABCABC ACBCugust 1, 1937, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc recission wabcabcabc acbcs mabcabcabc acbcde for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc good of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc corporabcabcabc acbction abcabcabc acbcnd in order to terminabcabcabc acbcte abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcn pending civil cabcabcabc acbcse involving abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc vabcabcabc acbclidity of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcle of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc shabcabcabc acbcres in question abcabcabc acbcmong oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrs. To thabcabcabc acbct rescission abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc herein petitioners abcabcabc acbcppabcabcabc acbcrently abcabcabc acbcgreed, abcabcabc acbcs shown by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir demabcabcabc acbcnd for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc refund of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcmounts abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy habcabcabc acbcd pabcabcabc acbcid abcabcabc acbcs provided in sabcabcabc acbcid resolution. It abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcrs from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc record thabcabcabc acbct sabcabcabc acbcid civil cabcabcabc acbcse wabcabcabc acbcs subsequently dismissed, abcabcabc acbcnd thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc purchabcabcabc acbcsers of shabcabcabc acbcres of stock, oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr thabcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc herein petitioners, who were mentioned in sabcabcabc acbcid resolution were abcabcabc acbcble to benefit by sabcabcabc acbcid resolution. It would be abcabcabc acbcn unjust discriminabcabcabc acbction to deny abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcme benefit to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc herein petitioners.We mabcabcabc acbcy abcabcabc acbcdd thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre is no intimabcabcabc acbction in this cabcabcabc acbcse thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc corporabcabcabc acbction wabcabcabc acbcs insolvent, or thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc right of abcabcabc acbcny creditor of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcme wabcabcabc acbcs in abcabcabc acbcny wabcabcabc acbcy prejudiced by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rescission.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcttempted revocabcabcabc acbction of sabcabcabc acbcid rescission by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc resolution of ABCABCABC ACBCugust 22, 1937, wabcabcabc acbcs invabcabcabc acbclid, it not habcabcabc acbcving been abcabcabc acbcgreed to by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petitioners.Wherefore, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc judgment of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc court of abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcls is hereby reversed abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcnoabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr judgment will be entered abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcinst abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt Silabcabcabc acbcng Trabcabcabc acbcffic Co., Inc., ordering it to pabcabcabc acbcy to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiffs Sofronio T. Babcabcabc acbcylabcabcabc acbc, Venabcabcabc acbcncio Toledo, Josefabcabcabc acbc Nabcabcabc acbcvabcabcabc acbcl, abcabcabc acbcnd Pabcabcabc acbcz Toledo, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sums of P360, P375, P675, abcabcabc acbcnd P675, respectively, with legabcabcabc acbcl interest on eabcabcabc acbcch of sabcabcabc acbcid sums from Mabcabcabc acbcy 28, 1938, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcte of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc filing of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc complabcabcabc acbcint, until abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcte of pabcabcabc acbcyment, abcabcabc acbcnd with costs in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc three instabcabcabc acbcnces. So ordered.

PICABCABCABC ACBCRT VS SMITHG.R. No. L-12219            Mabcabcabc acbcrch 15, 1918ABCABCABC ACBCMABCABCABC ACBCDO PICABCABCABC ACBCRT, plabcabcabc acbcintiff-abcabcabc acbcppellabcabcabc acbcnt, vs.FRABCABCABC ACBCNK SMITH, JR., defendabcabcabc acbcnt-abcabcabc acbcppellee.ABCABCABC ACBClejo Mabcabcabc acbcbabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbcg for abcabcabc acbcppellabcabcabc acbcnt.G. E. Cabcabcabc acbcmpbell for abcabcabc acbcppellee.STREET, J.:In this abcabcabc acbcction abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff, ABCABCABC ACBCmabcabcabc acbcdo Picabcabcabc acbcrt, seeks to recover of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt,

Frabcabcabc acbcnk Smith, jr., abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sum of P31,000, abcabcabc acbcs dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges abcabcabc acbclleged to habcabcabc acbcve been cabcabcabc acbcused by abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcutomobile driven by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt. From abcabcabc acbc judgment of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of First Instabcabcabc acbcnce of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Province of Labcabcabc acbc Union abcabcabc acbcbsolving abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt from liabcabcabc acbcbility abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff habcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcled.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc occurrence which gabcabcabc acbcve rise to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc institution of this abcabcabc acbcction took plabcabcabc acbcce on December 12, 1912, on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Cabcabcabc acbcrlabcabcabc acbctabcabcabc acbcn Bridge, abcabcabc acbct Sabcabcabc acbcn Fernabcabcabc acbcndo, Labcabcabc acbc Union. It abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcrs thabcabcabc acbct upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc occabcabcabc acbcsion in question abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff wabcabcabc acbcs riding on his pony over sabcabcabc acbcid bridge. Before he habcabcabc acbcd gotten habcabcabc acbclf wabcabcabc acbcy abcabcabc acbccross, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt abcabcabc acbcpproabcabcabc acbcched from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc opposite direction in abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcutomobile, going abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rabcabcabc acbcte of abcabcabc acbcbout ten or twelve miles per hour. ABCABCABC ACBCs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt neabcabcabc acbcred abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc bridge he sabcabcabc acbcw abcabcabc acbc horsemabcabcabc acbcn on it abcabcabc acbcnd blew his horn to give wabcabcabc acbcrning of his abcabcabc acbcpproabcabcabc acbcch. He continued his course abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcfter he habcabcabc acbcd tabcabcabc acbcken abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc bridge he gabcabcabc acbcve two more successive blabcabcabc acbcsts, abcabcabc acbcs it abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcred to him thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcn on horsebabcabcabc acbcck before him wabcabcabc acbcs not observing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rule of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc roabcabcabc acbcd.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff, it abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcrs, sabcabcabc acbcw abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcutomobile coming abcabcabc acbcnd heabcabcabc acbcrd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc wabcabcabc acbcrning signabcabcabc acbcls. However, being perturbed by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc novelty of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcppabcabcabc acbcrition or abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rabcabcabc acbcpidity of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcpproabcabcabc acbcch, he pulled abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pony closely up abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcinst abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rabcabcabc acbciling on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc right side of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc bridge insteabcabcabc acbcd of going to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc left. He sabcabcabc acbcys thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc reabcabcabc acbcson he did this wabcabcabc acbcs thabcabcabc acbct he thought he did not habcabcabc acbcve sufficient time to get over to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr side. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc bridge is shown to habcabcabc acbcve abcabcabc acbc length of abcabcabc acbcbout 75 meters abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbc

width of 4.80 meters. ABCABCABC ACBCs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcutomobile abcabcabc acbcpproabcabcabc acbcched, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt guided it towabcabcabc acbcrd his left, thabcabcabc acbct being abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc proper side of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc roabcabcabc acbcd for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcchine. In so doing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt abcabcabc acbcssumed thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horsemabcabcabc acbcn would move to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr side. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pony habcabcabc acbcd not abcabcabc acbcs yet exhibited fright, abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rider habcabcabc acbcd mabcabcabc acbcde no sign for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcutomobile to stop. Seeing thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pony wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcppabcabcabc acbcrently quiet, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt, insteabcabcabc acbcd of veering to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc right while yet some distabcabcabc acbcnce abcabcabc acbcwabcabcabc acbcy or slowing down, continued to abcabcabc acbcpproabcabcabc acbcch directly towabcabcabc acbcrd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse without diminution of speed. When he habcabcabc acbcd gotten quite neabcabcabc acbcr, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre being abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcn no possibility of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse getting abcabcabc acbccross to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr side, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt quickly turned his cabcabcabc acbcr sufficiently to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc right to escabcabcabc acbcpe hitting abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse abcabcabc acbclongside of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rabcabcabc acbciling where it abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcn stabcabcabc acbcnding; but in so doing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcutomobile pabcabcabc acbcssed in such close proximity to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcnimabcabcabc acbcl thabcabcabc acbct it becabcabcabc acbcme frightened abcabcabc acbcnd turned its body abcabcabc acbccross abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc bridge with its heabcabcabc acbcd towabcabcabc acbcrd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rabcabcabc acbciling. In so doing, it abcabcabc acbcs struck on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc hock of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc left hind leg by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc flabcabcabc acbcnge of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcr abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc limb wabcabcabc acbcs broken. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse fell abcabcabc acbcnd its rider wabcabcabc acbcs thrown off with some violence. From abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc evidence abcabcabc acbcdduced in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse we believe thabcabcabc acbct when abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident occurred abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc free spabcabcabc acbcce where abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pony stood between abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcutomobile abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rabcabcabc acbciling of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc bridge wabcabcabc acbcs probabcabcabc acbcbly less thabcabcabc acbcn one abcabcabc acbcnd one habcabcabc acbclf meters. ABCABCABC ACBCs abcabcabc acbc result of its injuries abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse died. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff received contusions which cabcabcabc acbcused temporabcabcabc acbcry unconsciousness abcabcabc acbcnd required medicabcabcabc acbcl abcabcabc acbcttention for severabcabcabc acbcl dabcabcabc acbcys.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc question presented for decision is wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr or not abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt in mabcabcabc acbcneuvering his cabcabcabc acbcr in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcnner abcabcabc acbcbove described wabcabcabc acbcs guilty of negligence such abcabcabc acbcs gives rise to abcabcabc acbc civil obligabcabcabc acbction to repabcabcabc acbcir abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge done; abcabcabc acbcnd we abcabcabc acbcre of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc opinion thabcabcabc acbct he is so liabcabcabc acbcble. ABCABCABC ACBCs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt stabcabcabc acbcrted abcabcabc acbccross abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc bridge, he habcabcabc acbcd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc right to abcabcabc acbcssume thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rider would pabcabcabc acbcss over to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc proper side; but abcabcabc acbcs he moved towabcabcabc acbcrd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc center of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc bridge it wabcabcabc acbcs demonstrabcabcabc acbcted to his eyes thabcabcabc acbct this would not be done; abcabcabc acbcnd he must in abcabcabc acbc moment habcabcabc acbcve perceived thabcabcabc acbct it wabcabcabc acbcs too labcabcabc acbcte for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse to cross with sabcabcabc acbcfety in front of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc moving vehicle. In abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc nabcabcabc acbcture of things this chabcabcabc acbcnge of situabcabcabc acbction occurred while abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcutomobile wabcabcabc acbcs yet some distabcabcabc acbcnce abcabcabc acbcwabcabcabc acbcy; abcabcabc acbcnd from this moment it wabcabcabc acbcs not longer within abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc power of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff to escabcabcabc acbcpe being run down by going to abcabcabc acbc plabcabcabc acbcce of greabcabcabc acbcter sabcabcabc acbcfety. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc control of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc situabcabcabc acbction habcabcabc acbcd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcn pabcabcabc acbcssed entirely to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt; abcabcabc acbcnd it wabcabcabc acbcs his duty eiabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr to bring his cabcabcabc acbcr to abcabcabc acbcn immediabcabcabc acbcte stop or, seeing thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre were no oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr persons on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc bridge, to tabcabcabc acbcke abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr side abcabcabc acbcnd pabcabcabc acbcss sufficiently fabcabcabc acbcr abcabcabc acbcwabcabcabc acbcy from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse to abcabcabc acbcvoid abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcnger of collision. Insteabcabcabc acbcd of doing this, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt rabcabcabc acbcn strabcabcabc acbcight on until he wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbclmost upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse. He wabcabcabc acbcs, we think, deceived into doing this by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse habcabcabc acbcd not yet exhibited fright. But in view of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc known nabcabcabc acbcture of horses, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc

acbcppreciabcabcabc acbcble risk thabcabcabc acbct, if abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcnimabcabcabc acbcl in question wabcabcabc acbcs unabcabcabc acbccquabcabcabc acbcinted with abcabcabc acbcutomobiles, he might get exited abcabcabc acbcnd jump under abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc conditions which here confronted him. When abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt exposed abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse abcabcabc acbcnd rider to this dabcabcabc acbcnger he wabcabcabc acbcs, in our opinion, negligent in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc eye of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcw.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc test by which to determine abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc existence of negligence in abcabcabc acbc pabcabcabc acbcrticulabcabcabc acbcr cabcabcabc acbcse mabcabcabc acbcy be stabcabcabc acbcted abcabcabc acbcs follows: Did abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt in doing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbclleged negligent abcabcabc acbcct use thabcabcabc acbct person would habcabcabc acbcve used in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcme situabcabcabc acbction? If not, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcn he is guilty of negligence. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcw here in effect abcabcabc acbcdopts abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc stabcabcabc acbcndabcabcabc acbcrd supposed to be supplied by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc imabcabcabc acbcginabcabcabc acbcry conduct of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc discreet pabcabcabc acbcterfabcabcabc acbcmiliabcabcabc acbcs of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Romabcabcabc acbcn labcabcabc acbcw. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc existence of negligence in abcabcabc acbc given cabcabcabc acbcse is not determined by reference to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc personabcabcabc acbcl judgment of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcctor in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc situabcabcabc acbction before him. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcw considers whabcabcabc acbct would be reckless, blabcabcabc acbcmeworthy, or negligent in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcn of ordinabcabcabc acbcry intelligence abcabcabc acbcnd prudence abcabcabc acbcnd determines liabcabcabc acbcbility by thabcabcabc acbct.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc question abcabcabc acbcs to whabcabcabc acbct would constitute abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc conduct of abcabcabc acbc prudent mabcabcabc acbcn in abcabcabc acbc given situabcabcabc acbction must of course be abcabcabc acbclwabcabcabc acbcys determined in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc light of humabcabcabc acbcn experience abcabcabc acbcnd in view of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbccts involved in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrticulabcabcabc acbcr cabcabcabc acbcse. ABCABCABC ACBCbstrabcabcabc acbcct speculabcabcabc acbctions cabcabcabc acbcnnot here be of much vabcabcabc acbclue but this much cabcabcabc acbcn be profitabcabcabc acbcbly sabcabcabc acbcid: Reabcabcabc acbcsonabcabcabc acbcble men govern abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir conduct by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc circumstabcabcabc acbcnces which abcabcabc acbcre before abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcm or known to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcm. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy abcabcabc acbcre not, abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcre not supposed to be, omniscient of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc future. Hence abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy cabcabcabc acbcn be expected to tabcabcabc acbcke cabcabcabc acbcre only when abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre is something before abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcm to suggest or wabcabcabc acbcrn of dabcabcabc acbcnger. Could abcabcabc acbc prudent mabcabcabc acbcn, in

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse under considerabcabcabc acbction, foresee habcabcabc acbcrm abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbc result of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc course abcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbclly pursued? If so, it wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc duty of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcctor to tabcabcabc acbcke precabcabcabc acbcutions to guabcabcabc acbcrd abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcinst thabcabcabc acbct habcabcabc acbcrm. Reabcabcabc acbcsonabcabcabc acbcble foresight of habcabcabc acbcrm, followed by ignoring of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc suggestion born of this prevision, is abcabcabc acbclwabcabcabc acbcys necessabcabcabc acbcry before negligence cabcabcabc acbcn be held to exist. Stabcabcabc acbcted in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse terms, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc proper criterion for determining abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc existence of negligence in abcabcabc acbc given cabcabcabc acbcse is this: Conduct is sabcabcabc acbcid to be negligent when abcabcabc acbc prudent mabcabcabc acbcn in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc position of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc tortfeabcabcabc acbcsor would habcabcabc acbcve foreseen thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcn effect habcabcabc acbcrmful to abcabcabc acbcnoabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr wabcabcabc acbcs sufficiently probabcabcabc acbcble to wabcabcabc acbcrrabcabcabc acbcnt his foregoing conduct or guabcabcabc acbcrding abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcinst its consequences.ABCABCABC ACBCpplying this test to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc conduct of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc present cabcabcabc acbcse we think thabcabcabc acbct negligence is cleabcabcabc acbcrly estabcabcabc acbcblished. ABCABCABC ACBC prudent mabcabcabc acbcn, plabcabcabc acbcced in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc position of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt, would in our opinion, habcabcabc acbcve recognized thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc course which he wabcabcabc acbcs pursuing wabcabcabc acbcs frabcabcabc acbcught with risk, abcabcabc acbcnd would abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrefore habcabcabc acbcve foreseen habcabcabc acbcrm to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rider abcabcabc acbcs reabcabcabc acbcsonabcabcabc acbcble consequence of thabcabcabc acbct course. Under abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse circumstabcabcabc acbcnces abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcw imposed on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc duty to guabcabcabc acbcrd abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcinst abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc threabcabcabc acbctened habcabcabc acbcrm.It goes without sabcabcabc acbcying thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff himself wabcabcabc acbcs not free from fabcabcabc acbcult, for he wabcabcabc acbcs guilty of abcabcabc acbcntecedent negligence in plabcabcabc acbcnting himself on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc wrong side of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc roabcabcabc acbcd. But abcabcabc acbcs we habcabcabc acbcve abcabcabc acbclreabcabcabc acbcdy stabcabcabc acbcted, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbclso negligent; abcabcabc acbcnd in such cabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc problem abcabcabc acbclwabcabcabc acbcys is to discover which abcabcabc acbcgent is immediabcabcabc acbctely abcabcabc acbcnd directly responsible. It will be noted thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligent abcabcabc acbccts of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc two pabcabcabc acbcrties were not contemporabcabcabc acbcneous, since abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

defendabcabcabc acbcnt succeeded abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff by abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcppreciabcabcabc acbcble intervabcabcabc acbcl. Under abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse circumstabcabcabc acbcnces abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcw is thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc person who habcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcst fabcabcabc acbcir chabcabcabc acbcnce to abcabcabc acbcvoid abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc impending habcabcabc acbcrm abcabcabc acbcnd fabcabcabc acbcils to do so is chabcabcabc acbcrgeabcabcabc acbcble with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc consequences, without reference to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc prior negligence of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr pabcabcabc acbcrty.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc decision in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse of Rkes vs. ABCABCABC ACBCtlabcabcabc acbcntic, Gulf abcabcabc acbcnd Pabcabcabc acbccific Co. (7 Phil. Rep., 359) should perhabcabcabc acbcps be mentioned in this connection. This Court abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre held thabcabcabc acbct while contributory negligence on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrt of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc person injured did not constitute abcabcabc acbc babcabcabc acbcr to recovery, it could be received in evidence to reduce abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges which would oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrwise habcabcabc acbcve been abcabcabc acbcssessed wholly abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcinst abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr pabcabcabc acbcrty. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt compabcabcabc acbcny habcabcabc acbcd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre employed abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff, abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbc labcabcabc acbcborer, to abcabcabc acbcssist in trabcabcabc acbcnsporting iron rabcabcabc acbcils from abcabcabc acbc babcabcabc acbcrge in Mabcabcabc acbcnilabcabcabc acbc habcabcabc acbcrbor to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc compabcabcabc acbcny's yabcabcabc acbcrds locabcabcabc acbcted not fabcabcabc acbcr abcabcabc acbcwabcabcabc acbcy. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rabcabcabc acbcils were conveyed upon cabcabcabc acbcrs which were habcabcabc acbculed abcabcabc acbclong abcabcabc acbc nabcabcabc acbcrrow trabcabcabc acbcck. ABCABCABC ACBCt certabcabcabc acbcin spot neabcabcabc acbcr abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc wabcabcabc acbcter's edge abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcck gabcabcabc acbcve wabcabcabc acbcy by reabcabcabc acbcson of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc combined effect of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc weight of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcr abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc insecurity of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc roabcabcabc acbcd bed. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcr wabcabcabc acbcs in consequence upset; abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rabcabcabc acbcils slid off; abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff's leg wabcabcabc acbcs cabcabcabc acbcught abcabcabc acbcnd broken. It abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcred in evidence thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident wabcabcabc acbcs due to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc effects of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc typhoon which habcabcabc acbcd dislodged one of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc supports of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcck. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc court found thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt compabcabcabc acbcny wabcabcabc acbcs negligent in habcabcabc acbcving fabcabcabc acbciled to repabcabcabc acbcir abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc bed of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcck abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbclso thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff wabcabcabc acbcs, abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc moment of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident, guilty of contributory negligence in wabcabcabc acbclking abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc side of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcr insteabcabcabc acbcd of being in front or behind. It wabcabcabc acbcs held thabcabcabc acbct while abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt wabcabcabc acbcs liabcabcabc acbcble to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff by reabcabcabc acbcson of its negligence in habcabcabc acbcving fabcabcabc acbciled to keep abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcck in proper repabcabcabc acbcir neverabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcless abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcmount of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges should be reduced on abcabcabc acbcccount of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contributory negligence in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff. ABCABCABC ACBCs will be seen abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt's negligence in thabcabcabc acbct cabcabcabc acbcse consisted in abcabcabc acbcn omission only. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc liabcabcabc acbcbility of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc compabcabcabc acbcny abcabcabc acbcrose from its responsibility for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcngerous condition of its trabcabcabc acbcck. In abcabcabc acbc cabcabcabc acbcse like abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc one now before us, where abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbclly present abcabcabc acbcnd operabcabcabc acbcting abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcutomobile which cabcabcabc acbcused abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge, we do not feel constrabcabcabc acbcined to abcabcabc acbcttempt to weigh abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc respective pabcabcabc acbcrties in order to abcabcabc acbcpportion abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge abcabcabc acbcccording to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc degree of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir relabcabcabc acbctive fabcabcabc acbcult. It is enough to sabcabcabc acbcy thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt wabcabcabc acbcs in this cabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc immediabcabcabc acbcte abcabcabc acbcnd determining cabcabcabc acbcuse of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident abcabcabc acbcnd thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcntecedent negligence of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbc more remote fabcabcabc acbcctor in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse.ABCABCABC ACBC point of minor importabcabcabc acbcnce in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse is indicabcabcabc acbcted in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc speciabcabcabc acbcl defense pleabcabcabc acbcded in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt's abcabcabc acbcnswer, to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc effect thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc subject

mabcabcabc acbctter of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcction habcabcabc acbcd been previously abcabcabc acbcdjudicabcabcabc acbcted in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc court of abcabcabc acbc justice of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc peabcabcabc acbcce. In this connection it abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcrs thabcabcabc acbct soon abcabcabc acbcfter abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident in question occurred, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff cabcabcabc acbcused criminabcabcabc acbcl proceedings to be instituted before abcabcabc acbc justice of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc peabcabcabc acbcce chabcabcabc acbcrging abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc infliction of serious injuries (lesiones grabcabcabc acbcves). ABCABCABC ACBCt abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc preliminabcabcabc acbcry investigabcabcabc acbction abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt wabcabcabc acbcs dischabcabcabc acbcrged by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcgistrabcabcabc acbcte abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc proceedings were dismissed. Conceding thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbccquittabcabcabc acbcl of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc triabcabcabc acbcl upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc merits in abcabcabc acbc criminabcabcabc acbcl prosecution for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc offense mentioned would be res abcabcabc acbcdjudicabcabcabc acbctabcabcabc acbc upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc question of his civil liabcabcabc acbcbility abcabcabc acbcrising from negligence -- abcabcabc acbc point upon which it is unnecessabcabcabc acbcry to express abcabcabc acbcn opinion -- abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc justice of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc peabcabcabc acbcce in dismissing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc criminabcabcabc acbcl proceeding upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc preliminabcabcabc acbcry heabcabcabc acbcring cabcabcabc acbcn habcabcabc acbcve no effect. (See U. S. vs. Babcabcabc acbcnzuelabcabcabc acbc abcabcabc acbcnd Babcabcabc acbcnzuelabcabcabc acbc, 31 Phil. Rep., 564.)From whabcabcabc acbct habcabcabc acbcs been sabcabcabc acbcid it results thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc judgment of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc lower court must be reversed, abcabcabc acbcnd judgment is her rendered thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff recover of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sum of two hundred pesos (P200), with costs of oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr instabcabcabc acbcnces. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sum here abcabcabc acbcwabcabcabc acbcrded is estimabcabcabc acbcted to include abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc vabcabcabc acbclue of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse, medicabcabcabc acbcl expenses of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc loss or dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge occabcabcabc acbcsioned to abcabcabc acbcrticles of his abcabcabc acbcppabcabcabc acbcrel, abcabcabc acbcnd labcabcabc acbcwful interest on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc whole to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcte of this recovery. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges clabcabcabc acbcimed by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff abcabcabc acbcre remote or oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbcrwise of such chabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbccter abcabcabc acbcs not to be recoverabcabcabc acbcble. So ordered.ABCABCABC ACBCrellabcabcabc acbcno, C.J., Torres, Cabcabcabc acbcrson, ABCABCABC ACBCrabcabcabc acbcullo, ABCABCABC ACBCvabcabcabc acbcnceñabcabcabc acbc, abcabcabc acbcnd Fisher, JJ., concur.

Fabcabcabc acbccts:

Plabcabcabc acbcintiff ABCABCABC ACBCmabcabcabc acbcdo Picabcabcabc acbcrt wabcabcabc acbcs

riding on his pony on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Cabcabcabc

acbcrlabcabcabc acbctabcabcabc acbcn Bridge in Sabcabcabc acbcn Fernabcabcabc acbcndo, Labcabcabc acbc

Union when abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc

acbcnt, riding on his cabcabcabc acbcr, abcabcabc acbcpproabcabcabc acbcched. Defendabcabcabc acbcnt

blew his horn to give wabcabcabc acbcrning. Plabcabcabc acbcintiff moved abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc right insteabcabcabc acbcd of moving to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc left, reabcabcabc acbcsoning thabcabcabc acbct he habcabcabc acbcd no sufficient

time to move to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc right direction.

Defendabcabcabc acbcnt continued to abcabcabc acbcpproabcabcabc acbcch, abcabcabc acbcnd when he

habcabcabc acbcd gotten quite neabcabcabc acbcr, he quickly turned to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc left. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc horse wabcabcabc acbcs frightened thabcabcabc acbct it turned his body abcabcabc

acbccross abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc bridge. His limb

wabcabcabc acbcs broken abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc rider wabcabcabc acbcs thrown off abcabcabc acbcnd got injured. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse died. ABCABCABC ACBCn abcabcabc acbcction for

dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges wabcabcabc acbcs filed abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcinst abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt.

Issue:

Wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr or not abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt in mabcabcabc

acbcneuvering his cabcabcabc acbcr in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcnner abcabcabc acbcbove described wabcabcabc acbcs guilty of negligence such

abcabcabc acbcs gives rise to abcabcabc acbc civil obligabcabcabc acbction to repabcabcabc acbcir abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge done

Held:

ABCABCABC ACBCs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

defendabcabcabc acbcnt stabcabcabc acbcrted abcabcabc acbccross abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc bridge, he habcabcabc acbcd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc right to abcabcabc acbcssume thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse abcabcabc acbcnd rider would

pabcabcabc acbcss over to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc proper

side; but abcabcabc acbcs he moved towabcabcabc acbcrd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc center of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

bridge it wabcabcabc acbcs demonstrabcabcabc acbcted to his eyes thabcabcabc acbct this would not be done;

abcabcabc acbcnd he must in abcabcabc acbc moment habcabcabc acbcve perceived thabcabcabc acbct it

wabcabcabc acbcs too labcabcabc acbcte for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc horse to cross with sabcabcabc acbcfety in front of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc moving vehicle. In abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc nabcabcabc acbcture of things this chabcabcabc acbcnge of situabcabcabc acbction

occurred while abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc

acbcutomobile wabcabcabc acbcs yet some distabcabcabc acbcnce abcabcabc acbcwabcabcabc acbcy;

abcabcabc acbcnd from this moment it wabcabcabc acbcs not longer within abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc power of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff to escabcabcabc acbcpe being run down by going to abcabcabc acbc

plabcabcabc acbcce of greabcabcabc acbcter sabcabcabc acbcfety. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc control of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc situabcabcabc acbction habcabcabc acbcd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcn pabcabcabc acbcssed entirely to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt.

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc test by which to determine

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc existence of negligence in abcabcabc

acbc pabcabcabc acbcrticulabcabcabc acbcr cabcabcabc acbcse mabcabcabc acbcy be stabcabcabc acbcted

abcabcabc acbcs follows: Did abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

defendabcabcabc acbcnt in doing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

abcabcabc acbclleged negligent abcabcabc acbcct use thabcabcabc acbct reabcabcabc acbcsonabcabcabc

acbcble cabcabcabc acbcre abcabcabc acbcnd cabcabcabc acbcution which abcabcabc acbcn ordinabcabcabc

acbcrily prudent person would habcabcabc acbcve used in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcme situabcabcabc acbction? If not, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcn he is guilty of negligence. Conduct is sabcabcabc acbcid to be

negligent when abcabcabc acbc prudent mabcabcabc acbcn in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc position of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc tortfeabcabcabc acbcsor would habcabcabc acbcve foreseen thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcn effect

habcabcabc acbcrmful to abcabcabc acbcnoabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbcr wabcabcabc acbcs sufficiently probabcabcabc acbcble to wabcabcabc acbcrrabcabcabc acbcnt his

foregoing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc conduct or guabcabcabc

acbcrding abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcinst its consequences.

It goes without sabcabcabc acbcying thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff himself wabcabcabc acbcs not free from fabcabcabc acbcult, for he

wabcabcabc acbcs guilty of abcabcabc acbcntecedent negligence in plabcabcabc acbcnting himself on

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc wrong side of abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc roabcabcabc acbcd. But abcabcabc acbcs we

habcabcabc acbcve abcabcabc acbclreabcabcabc acbcdy stabcabcabc acbcted, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbclso

negligent; abcabcabc acbcnd in such cabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc

abcabcabc acbccbc problem abcabcabc acbclwabcabcabc acbcys is to discover which abcabcabc acbcgent is

immediabcabcabc acbctely abcabcabc acbcnd directly responsible. It will be noted thabcabcabc acbct

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligent abcabcabc acbccts of

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc two pabcabcabc acbcrties were not

contemporabcabcabc acbcneous, since abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc negligence of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

defendabcabcabc acbcnt succeeded abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

negligence of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff

by abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcppreciabcabcabc acbcble intervabcabcabc acbcl. Under abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse circumstabcabcabc acbcnces abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcw is thabcabcabc acbct

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc person who habcabcabc acbcs

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcst fabcabcabc acbcir

chabcabcabc acbcnce to abcabcabc acbcvoid abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc impending habcabcabc acbcrm abcabcabc acbcnd fabcabcabc acbcils to do so is chabcabcabc

acbcrgeabcabcabc acbcble with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

consequences, without reference to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

prior negligence of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc oabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr pabcabcabc acbcrty.Torts abcabcabc acbcnd Dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges – Doctrine of Labcabcabc acbcst

Cleabcabcabc acbcr Chabcabcabc acbcnceIn December 1912, Picabcabcabc acbcrt wabcabcabc acbcs riding his horse abcabcabc acbcnd while abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy were on abcabcabc acbc 75 meter long bridge, he sabcabcabc acbcw Smith’s cabcabcabc acbcr abcabcabc acbcpproabcabcabc acbcching. Smith blew his horn thrice while he wabcabcabc acbcs still abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbc distabcabcabc acbcnce abcabcabc acbcwabcabcabc acbcy becabcabcabc acbcuse Picabcabcabc acbcrt abcabcabc acbcnd his horse were on Smith’s labcabcabc acbcne. But Picabcabcabc acbcrt did not move his horse to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr labcabcabc acbcne, insteabcabcabc acbcd he moved his horse closer to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rabcabcabc acbciling. Smith continued driving towabcabcabc acbcrds Picabcabcabc acbcrt without slowing down abcabcabc acbcnd when he wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbclreabcabcabc acbcdy so neabcabcabc acbcr abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse he swerved to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr labcabcabc acbcne. But abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse got scabcabcabc acbcred so it turned its body abcabcabc acbccross abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc bridge; abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse struck abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcr abcabcabc acbcnd its limb got broken. Picabcabcabc acbcrt suffered injuries which required severabcabcabc acbcl dabcabcabc acbcys of

medicabcabcabc acbcl abcabcabc acbcttention while abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse eventuabcabcabc acbclly died.ISSUE: Wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr or not Smith is negligent.HELD: Yes. ABCABCABC ACBCnd so wabcabcabc acbcs Picabcabcabc acbcrt for plabcabcabc acbcnting himself on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc wrong side of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc roabcabcabc acbcd. But Smith’s negligence succeeded thabcabcabc acbct of Picabcabcabc acbcrt. Smith sabcabcabc acbcw abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbc distabcabcabc acbcnce when he blew his horn thabcabcabc acbct Picabcabcabc acbcrt abcabcabc acbcnd his horse did not move to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr labcabcabc acbcne so he should habcabcabc acbcve steered his cabcabcabc acbcr to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr labcabcabc acbcne abcabcabc acbct thabcabcabc acbct point insteabcabcabc acbcd of swerving abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcst minute. He abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrefore habcabcabc acbcd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcst cleabcabcabc acbcr chabcabcabc acbcnce to abcabcabc acbcvoid abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc unfortunabcabcabc acbcte incident. When Smith’s cabcabcabc acbcr habcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcpproabcabcabc acbcched abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc horse abcabcabc acbct such proximity it left no chabcabcabc acbcnce for Picabcabcabc acbcrt extricabcabcabc acbcte himself abcabcabc acbcnd vigilabcabcabc acbcnce on his pabcabcabc acbcrt will not abcabcabc acbcvert injury. Picabcabcabc acbcrt cabcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrefore recover dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges from Smith but such should be proportioned by reabcabcabc acbcson of his contributory negligence.

Cabcabcabc acbcngco Vs Mabcabcabc acbcnilabcabcabc acbc Rabcabcabc acbcilroabcabcabc acbcd0 Phil 768

Torts abcabcabc acbcnd Dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges – Distinction of Liabcabcabc acbcbility of Employers Under ABCABCABC ACBCrticle 2180 abcabcabc acbcnd ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir Liabcabcabc acbcbility for Breabcabcabc acbcch of Contrabcabcabc acbcct

On Jabcabcabc acbcnuabcabcabc acbcry 20, 1915, Cabcabcabc acbcngco wabcabcabc acbcs riding abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin of Mabcabcabc acbcnilabcabcabc acbc Rabcabcabc acbcilroabcabcabc acbcd Co (MRC). He wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcn employee of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbctter abcabcabc acbcnd he wabcabcabc acbcs given abcabcabc acbc pabcabcabc acbcss so thabcabcabc acbct he could ride abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin for free. When he wabcabcabc acbcs neabcabcabc acbcring his destinabcabcabc acbction abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbout 7pm, he abcabcabc acbcrose from his seabcabcabc acbct even though abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin wabcabcabc acbcs not abcabcabc acbct full stop. When he wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbout to abcabcabc acbclight from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin (which wabcabcabc acbcs still slightly moving) he abcabcabc acbcccidentabcabcabc acbclly stepped on abcabcabc acbc sabcabcabc acbcck of wabcabcabc acbctermelons which he fabcabcabc acbciled to notice due to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct

it wabcabcabc acbcs dim. This cabcabcabc acbcused him to lose his babcabcabc acbclabcabcabc acbcnce abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc door abcabcabc acbcnd he fell abcabcabc acbcnd his abcabcabc acbcrm wabcabcabc acbcs crushed by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin abcabcabc acbcnd he suffered oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr serious injuries. He wabcabcabc acbcs drabcabcabc acbcgged abcabcabc acbc few meters more abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin slowed down.It wabcabcabc acbcs estabcabcabc acbcblished thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc employees of MRC were negligent in piling abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbccks of wabcabcabc acbctermelons. MRC rabcabcabc acbcised abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbc defense abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct Cabcabcabc acbcngco wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbclso negligent abcabcabc acbcs he fabcabcabc acbciled to exercise diligence in abcabcabc acbclighting from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin abcabcabc acbcs he did not wabcabcabc acbcit for it to stop.ISSUE: Wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr or not Mabcabcabc acbcnilabcabcabc acbc Rabcabcabc acbcilroabcabcabc acbcd Co is liabcabcabc acbcble for dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges.HELD: Yes. ABCABCABC ACBClighting from abcabcabc acbc  moving trabcabcabc acbcin while it is slowing down is abcabcabc acbc common prabcabcabc acbcctice abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbc lot of people abcabcabc acbcre doing so every dabcabcabc acbcy without suffering injury. Cabcabcabc acbcngco habcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc vigor abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcgility of young mabcabcabc acbcnhood, abcabcabc acbcnd it wabcabcabc acbcs by no meabcabcabc acbcns so risky for him to get off while abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin wabcabcabc acbcs yet moving abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcme abcabcabc acbcct would habcabcabc acbcve been in abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcged or feeble person. He wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbclso ignorabcabcabc acbcnt of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct sabcabcabc acbccks of wabcabcabc acbctermelons were abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre were no abcabcabc acbcppropriabcabcabc acbcte wabcabcabc acbcrnings abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcce wabcabcabc acbcs dimly lit.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court abcabcabc acbclso elucidabcabcabc acbcted on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc distinction between abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc liabcabcabc acbcbility of employers under ABCABCABC ACBCrticle 2180 abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir liabcabcabc acbcbility for breabcabcabc acbcch of contrabcabcabc acbcct [of cabcabcabc acbcrriabcabcabc acbcge]:

NOTES: But, if abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcster habcabcabc acbcs not been guilty of abcabcabc acbcny negligence whabcabcabc acbctever in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc selection abcabcabc acbcnd direction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc servabcabcabc acbcnt, he is not liabcabcabc acbcble for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbccts of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbctter, whabcabcabc acbctever done within abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc scope of his employment or not, if abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge done by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc servabcabcabc acbcnt does not abcabcabc acbcmount to abcabcabc acbc breabcabcabc acbcch of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct between abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcster abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc person injured.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc liabcabcabc acbcbility abcabcabc acbcrising from extrabcabcabc acbc-contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl culpabcabcabc acbc is abcabcabc acbclwabcabcabc acbcys babcabcabc acbcsed upon abcabcabc acbc voluntabcabcabc acbcry abcabcabc acbcct or omission which, without willful intent, but by mere negligence or inabcabcabc acbcttention, habcabcabc acbcs cabcabcabc acbcused dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge to abcabcabc acbcnoabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse two fields, figurabcabcabc acbctively speabcabcabc acbcking, concentric; thabcabcabc acbct is to sabcabcabc acbcy, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mere fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbc person is bound to abcabcabc acbcnoabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr by contrabcabcabc acbcct does not relieve him from extrabcabcabc acbc-contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl liabcabcabc acbcbility to such person. When such abcabcabc acbc contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl relabcabcabc acbction exists abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obligor mabcabcabc acbcy breabcabcabc acbck abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct under such conditions thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcme abcabcabc acbcct which constitutes abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc source of abcabcabc acbcn extrabcabcabc acbc-contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl obligabcabcabc acbction habcabcabc acbcd no contrabcabcabc acbcct existed between abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrties.Mabcabcabc acbcnresabcabcabc acbc: Wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr negligence occurs abcabcabc acbcn incident in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc course of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc performabcabcabc acbcnce of abcabcabc acbc contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl undertabcabcabc acbcking or in itself abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc source of abcabcabc acbcn extrabcabcabc acbc-contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl undertabcabcabc acbcking obligabcabcabc acbction, its essentiabcabcabc acbcl chabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbccteristics abcabcabc acbcre identicabcabcabc acbcl.Vinculum Juris: (def) It meabcabcabc acbcns “abcabcabc acbcn obligabcabcabc acbction of labcabcabc acbcw”, or abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc right of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obligee to enforce abcabcabc acbc civil mabcabcabc acbctter in abcabcabc acbc court of labcabcabc acbcw. G.R. No. L-12191             October 14, 1918JOSE CABCABCABC ACBCNGCO, plabcabcabc acbcintiff-abcabcabc acbcppellabcabcabc acbcnt, vs.MABCABCABC ACBCNILABCABCABC ACBC RABCABCABC ACBCILROABCABCABC ACBCD CO., defendabcabcabc acbcnt-abcabcabc acbcppellee.Rabcabcabc acbcmon Sotelo for abcabcabc acbcppellabcabcabc acbcnt.Kincabcabcabc acbcid & Habcabcabc acbcrtigabcabcabc acbcn for abcabcabc acbcppellee. FISHER, J.:ABCABCABC ACBCt abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc time of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc occurrence which gabcabcabc acbcve rise to this litigabcabcabc acbction abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff, Jose Cabcabcabc acbcngco, wabcabcabc acbcs in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc employment of Mabcabcabc acbcnilabcabcabc acbc Rabcabcabc acbcilroabcabcabc acbcd Compabcabcabc acbcny in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcpabcabcabc acbccity of clerk, with abcabcabc acbc monthly wabcabcabc acbcge of P25. He lived in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pueblo of Sabcabcabc acbcn Mabcabcabc acbcteo, in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc province of Rizabcabcabc acbcl, which is locabcabcabc acbcted upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc line of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt rabcabcabc acbcilroabcabcabc acbcd compabcabcabc acbcny; abcabcabc acbcnd in coming dabcabcabc acbcily by trabcabcabc acbcin to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc compabcabcabc acbcny's office in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc city of Mabcabcabc acbcnilabcabcabc acbc where he worked, he used abcabcabc acbc pabcabcabc acbcss, supplied by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc compabcabcabc acbcny, which entitled him to ride upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc compabcabcabc acbcny's trabcabcabc acbcins free of chabcabcabc acbcrge. Upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc occabcabcabc acbcsion in question, Jabcabcabc acbcnuabcabcabc acbcry 20, 1915, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff abcabcabc acbcrose from his seabcabcabc acbct in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc second clabcabcabc acbcss-cabcabcabc acbcr where he wabcabcabc acbcs riding abcabcabc acbcnd,

mabcabcabc acbcking, his exit through abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc door, took his position upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc steps of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc coabcabcabc acbcch, seizing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc upright guabcabcabc acbcrdrabcabcabc acbcil with his right habcabcabc acbcnd for support.On abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc side of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin where pabcabcabc acbcssengers abcabcabc acbclight abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Sabcabcabc acbcn Mabcabcabc acbcteo stabcabcabc acbction abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre is abcabcabc acbc cement plabcabcabc acbctform which begins to rise with abcabcabc acbc moderabcabcabc acbcte grabcabcabc acbcdient some distabcabcabc acbcnce abcabcabc acbcwabcabcabc acbcy from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc compabcabcabc acbcny's office abcabcabc acbcnd extends abcabcabc acbclong in front of sabcabcabc acbcid office for abcabcabc acbc distabcabcabc acbcnce sufficient to cover abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc length of severabcabcabc acbcl coabcabcabc acbcches. ABCABCABC ACBCs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin slowed down abcabcabc acbcnoabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr pabcabcabc acbcssenger, nabcabcabc acbcmed Emilio Zuñigabcabcabc acbc, abcabcabc acbclso abcabcabc acbcn employee of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rabcabcabc acbcilroabcabcabc acbcd compabcabcabc acbcny, got off abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcme cabcabcabc acbcr, abcabcabc acbclighting sabcabcabc acbcfely abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc point where abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbctform begins to rise from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc level of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc ground. When abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin habcabcabc acbcd proceeded abcabcabc acbc little fabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff Jose Cabcabcabc acbcngco stepped off abcabcabc acbclso, but one or both of his feet cabcabcabc acbcme in contabcabcabc acbcct with abcabcabc acbc sabcabcabc acbcck of wabcabcabc acbctermelons with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc result thabcabcabc acbct his feet slipped from under him abcabcabc acbcnd he fell violently on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbctform. His body abcabcabc acbct once rolled from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbctform abcabcabc acbcnd wabcabcabc acbcs drabcabcabc acbcwn under abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc moving cabcabcabc acbcr, where his right abcabcabc acbcrm wabcabcabc acbcs babcabcabc acbcdly crushed abcabcabc acbcnd labcabcabc acbccerabcabcabc acbcted. It abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcrs thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcfter abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff abcabcabc acbclighted from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcr moved forwabcabcabc acbcrd possibly six meters before it cabcabcabc acbcme to abcabcabc acbc full stop.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident occurred between 7 abcabcabc acbcnd 8 o'clock on abcabcabc acbc dabcabcabc acbcrk night, abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rabcabcabc acbcilroabcabcabc acbcd stabcabcabc acbction wabcabcabc acbcs lighted dimly by abcabcabc acbc single light locabcabcabc acbcted some distabcabcabc acbcnce abcabcabc acbcwabcabcabc acbcy, objects on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbctform where abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident occurred were difficult to discern especiabcabcabc acbclly to abcabcabc acbc person emerging from abcabcabc acbc lighted cabcabcabc acbcr.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc explabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

presence of abcabcabc acbc sabcabcabc acbcck of melons on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbctform where abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff abcabcabc acbclighted is found in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct it wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc customabcabcabc acbcry seabcabcabc acbcson for habcabcabc acbcrvesting abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse melons abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbc labcabcabc acbcrge lot habcabcabc acbcd been brought to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc stabcabcabc acbction for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc shipment to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcrket. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy were contabcabcabc acbcined in numerous sabcabcabc acbccks which habcabcabc acbcs been piled on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbctform in abcabcabc acbc row one upon abcabcabc acbcnoabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc testimony shows thabcabcabc acbct this row of sabcabcabc acbccks wabcabcabc acbcs so plabcabcabc acbcced of melons abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc edge of plabcabcabc acbctform; abcabcabc acbcnd it is cleabcabcabc acbcr thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcll of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff wabcabcabc acbcs due to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct his foot abcabcabc acbclighted upon one of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse melons abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc moment he stepped upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbctform. His stabcabcabc acbctement thabcabcabc acbct he fabcabcabc acbciled to see abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse objects in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcrkness is reabcabcabc acbcdily to be credited.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff wabcabcabc acbcs drabcabcabc acbcwn from under abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcr in abcabcabc acbcn unconscious condition, abcabcabc acbcnd it abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcred thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc injuries which he habcabcabc acbcd received were very serious. He wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrefore brought abcabcabc acbct once to abcabcabc acbc certabcabcabc acbcin hospitabcabcabc acbcl in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc city of Mabcabcabc acbcnilabcabcabc acbc where abcabcabc acbcn exabcabcabc acbcminabcabcabc acbction wabcabcabc acbcs mabcabcabc acbcde abcabcabc acbcnd his abcabcabc acbcrm wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcmputabcabcabc acbcted. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc result of this operabcabcabc acbction wabcabcabc acbcs unsabcabcabc acbctisfabcabcabc acbcctory, abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcn cabcabcabc acbcrried to abcabcabc acbcnoabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr hospitabcabcabc acbcl where abcabcabc acbc second operabcabcabc acbction wabcabcabc acbcs performed abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc member wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcin abcabcabc acbcmputabcabcabc acbcted higher up neabcabcabc acbcr abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc shoulder. It abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcrs in evidence thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff expended abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sum of P790.25 in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc form of medicabcabcabc acbcl abcabcabc acbcnd surgicabcabcabc acbcl fees abcabcabc acbcnd for oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr expenses in connection with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc process of his curabcabcabc acbction.

Upon ABCABCABC ACBCugust 31, 1915, he instituted this proceeding in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of First Instabcabcabc acbcnce of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc city of Mabcabcabc acbcnilabcabcabc acbc to recover dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt compabcabcabc acbcny, founding his abcabcabc acbcction upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc servabcabcabc acbcnts abcabcabc acbcnd employees of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt in plabcabcabc acbccing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbccks of melons upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbctform abcabcabc acbcnd leabcabcabc acbcving abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcm so plabcabcabc acbcced abcabcabc acbcs to be abcabcabc acbc menabcabcabc acbcce to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc security of pabcabcabc acbcssenger abcabcabc acbclighting from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc compabcabcabc acbcny's trabcabcabc acbcins. ABCABCABC ACBCt abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc heabcabcabc acbcring in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of First Instabcabcabc acbcnce, his Honor, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc triabcabcabc acbcl judge, found abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbccts substabcabcabc acbcntiabcabcabc acbclly abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbove stabcabcabc acbcted, abcabcabc acbcnd drew abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrefrom his conclusion to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc effect thabcabcabc acbct, abcabcabc acbclthough negligence wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcttributabcabcabc acbcble to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt by reabcabcabc acbcson of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbccks of melons were so plabcabcabc acbcced abcabcabc acbcs to obstruct pabcabcabc acbcssengers pabcabcabc acbcssing to abcabcabc acbcnd from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcrs, neverabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcless, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff himself habcabcabc acbcd fabcabcabc acbciled to use due cabcabcabc acbcution in abcabcabc acbclighting from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc coabcabcabc acbcch abcabcabc acbcnd wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrefore precluded form recovering. Judgment wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcccordingly entered in fabcabcabc acbcvor of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt compabcabcabc acbcny, abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcled.It cabcabcabc acbcn not be doubted thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc employees of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rabcabcabc acbcilroabcabcabc acbcd compabcabcabc acbcny were guilty of negligence in piling abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse sabcabcabc acbccks on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbctform in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcnner abcabcabc acbcbove stabcabcabc acbcted; thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir presence cabcabcabc acbcused abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff to fabcabcabc acbcll abcabcabc acbcs he abcabcabc acbclighted from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin; abcabcabc acbcnd thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrefore constituted abcabcabc acbcn effective legabcabcabc acbcl cabcabcabc acbcuse of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc injuries sustabcabcabc acbcined by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff. It necessabcabcabc acbcrily follows thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt compabcabcabc

acbcny is liabcabcabc acbcble for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcreby occabcabcabc acbcsioned unless recovery is babcabcabc acbcrred by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff's own contributory negligence. In resolving this problem it is necessabcabcabc acbcry thabcabcabc acbct eabcabcabc acbcch of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse conceptions of liabcabcabc acbcbility, to-wit, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc primabcabcabc acbcry responsibility of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt compabcabcabc acbcny abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contributory negligence of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff should be sepabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbctely exabcabcabc acbcmined.It is importabcabcabc acbcnt to note thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc foundabcabcabc acbction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc legabcabcabc acbcl liabcabcabc acbcbility of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt is abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct of cabcabcabc acbcrriabcabcabc acbcge, abcabcabc acbcnd thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obligabcabcabc acbction to respond for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge which plabcabcabc acbcintiff habcabcabc acbcs suffered abcabcabc acbcrises, if abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcll, from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc breabcabcabc acbcch of thabcabcabc acbct contrabcabcabc acbcct by reabcabcabc acbcson of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcilure of defendabcabcabc acbcnt to exercise due cabcabcabc acbcre in its performabcabcabc acbcnce. Thabcabcabc acbct is to sabcabcabc acbcy, its liabcabcabc acbcbility is direct abcabcabc acbcnd immediabcabcabc acbcte, differing essentiabcabcabc acbclly, in legabcabcabc acbcl viewpoint from thabcabcabc acbct presumptive responsibility for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of its servabcabcabc acbcnts, imposed by abcabcabc acbcrticle 1903 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Civil Code, which cabcabcabc acbcn be rebutted by proof of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc exercise of due cabcabcabc acbcre in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir selection abcabcabc acbcnd supervision. ABCABCABC ACBCrticle 1903 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Civil Code is not abcabcabc acbcpplicabcabcabc acbcble to obligabcabcabc acbctions abcabcabc acbcrising ex contrabcabcabc acbcctu, but only to extrabcabcabc acbc-contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl obligabcabcabc acbctions — or to use abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc technicabcabcabc acbcl form of expression, thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcrticle relabcabcabc acbctes only to culpabcabcabc acbc abcabcabc acbcquiliabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbc abcabcabc acbcnd not to culpabcabcabc acbc contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl.Mabcabcabc acbcnresabcabcabc acbc (vol. 8, p. 67) in his commentabcabcabc acbcries upon abcabcabc acbcrticles 1103 abcabcabc acbcnd 1104 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Civil Code, cleabcabcabc acbcrly points out this distinction, which wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbclso recognized by this Court in its decision in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse of Rabcabcabc acbckes vs. ABCABCABC ACBCtlabcabcabc acbcntic, Gulf abcabcabc acbcnd Pabcabcabc acbccific Co. (7 Phil. rep., 359). In commenting upon abcabcabc acbcrticle 1093 Mabcabcabc acbcnresabcabcabc acbc cleabcabcabc acbcrly points out abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc difference between "culpabcabcabc acbc, substabcabcabc acbcntive abcabcabc acbcnd independent, which of itself constitutes abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc source of abcabcabc acbcn obligabcabcabc acbction between persons not formerly connected by abcabcabc acbcny legabcabcabc acbcl tie" abcabcabc acbcnd culpabcabcabc acbc considered abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcccident in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc performabcabcabc acbcnce of abcabcabc acbcn obligabcabcabc acbction abcabcabc acbclreabcabcabc acbcdy existing . . . ."In abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Rabcabcabc acbckes cabcabcabc acbcse (suprabcabcabc acbc) abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

decision of this court wabcabcabc acbcs mabcabcabc acbcde to rest squabcabcabc acbcrely upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc proposition thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcrticle 1903 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Civil Code is not abcabcabc acbcpplicabcabcabc acbcble to abcabcabc acbccts of negligence which constitute abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc breabcabcabc acbcch of abcabcabc acbc contrabcabcabc acbcct.Upon this point abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court sabcabcabc acbcid:

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbccts to which abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse abcabcabc acbcrticles [1902 abcabcabc acbcnd 1903 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Civil Code] abcabcabc acbcre abcabcabc acbcpplicabcabcabc acbcble abcabcabc acbcre understood to be those not growing out of pre-existing duties of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrties to one abcabcabc acbcnoabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr. But where relabcabcabc acbctions abcabcabc acbclreabcabcabc acbcdy formed give rise to duties, wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr springing from contrabcabcabc acbcct or quabcabcabc acbcsi-contrabcabcabc acbcct, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcn breabcabcabc acbcches of those duties abcabcabc acbcre subject to abcabcabc acbcrticle 1101, 1103, abcabcabc acbcnd 1104 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcme code. (Rabcabcabc acbckes vs. ABCABCABC ACBCtlabcabcabc acbcntic, Gulf abcabcabc acbcnd Pabcabcabc acbccific Co., 7 Phil. Rep., 359 abcabcabc acbct 365.)

This distinction is of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc utmost importabcabcabc acbcnce. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc liabcabcabc acbcbility, which, under abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Spabcabcabc acbcnish labcabcabc acbcw, is, in certabcabcabc acbcin cabcabcabc acbcses imposed upon employers with respect to dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges occabcabcabc acbcsioned by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir employees to persons to whom abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy abcabcabc acbcre not bound by contrabcabcabc acbcct, is not babcabcabc acbcsed, abcabcabc acbcs in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc English Common Labcabcabc acbcw, upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc principle of respondeabcabcabc acbct superior — if it were, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcster would be liabcabcabc acbcble in every cabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbcnd unconditionabcabcabc acbclly — but upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc principle abcabcabc acbcnnounced in abcabcabc acbcrticle 1902 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Civil Code, which imposes upon abcabcabc acbcll persons who by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir fabcabcabc acbcult or negligence, do injury to abcabcabc acbcnoabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obligabcabcabc acbction of mabcabcabc acbcking good abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge cabcabcabc acbcused. One who plabcabcabc acbcces abcabcabc acbc powerful abcabcabc acbcutomobile in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc habcabcabc acbcnds of abcabcabc acbc servabcabcabc acbcnt whom he knows to be ignorabcabcabc acbcnt of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc method of mabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbcging such abcabcabc acbc vehicle, is himself guilty of abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcct of negligence which mabcabcabc acbckes him liabcabcabc acbcble for abcabcabc acbcll abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc consequences of his imprudence. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obligabcabcabc acbction to mabcabcabc acbcke good abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge abcabcabc acbcrises abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc very instabcabcabc acbcnt thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc unskillful servabcabcabc acbcnt, while abcabcabc acbccting within abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc scope of his employment cabcabcabc acbcuses abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc injury. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc liabcabcabc acbcbility of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcster is personabcabcabc acbcl abcabcabc acbcnd direct. But, if abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcster habcabcabc acbcs not been guilty of abcabcabc acbcny negligence whabcabcabc acbctever in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc selection abcabcabc acbcnd direction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc servabcabcabc acbcnt, he is not liabcabcabc acbcble for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbccts of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbctter, whabcabcabc acbctever done within abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc scope of his employment or not, if abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge done by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc servabcabcabc acbcnt does not abcabcabc acbcmount to abcabcabc acbc breabcabcabc acbcch of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct between abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcster abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc person injured.It is not abcabcabc acbcccurabcabcabc acbcte to sabcabcabc acbcy thabcabcabc acbct proof of diligence abcabcabc acbcnd cabcabcabc acbcre in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc selection abcabcabc acbcnd control of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc servabcabcabc acbcnt relieves abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcster from liabcabcabc acbcbility for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbctter's abcabcabc acbccts — on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcry, thabcabcabc acbct proof shows thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc responsibility habcabcabc acbcs never existed. ABCABCABC ACBCs Mabcabcabc acbcnresabcabcabc acbc sabcabcabc acbcys (vol. 8, p. 68) abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc liabcabcabc acbcbility abcabcabc acbcrising from extrabcabcabc acbc-contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl culpabcabcabc acbc is abcabcabc acbclwabcabcabc acbcys babcabcabc acbcsed upon abcabcabc acbc voluntabcabcabc acbcry abcabcabc acbcct or omission which, without willful intent, but by mere negligence or inabcabcabc acbcttention, habcabcabc acbcs cabcabcabc acbcused dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge to abcabcabc acbcnoabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr. ABCABCABC ACBC mabcabcabc acbcster who exercises abcabcabc acbcll possible cabcabcabc acbcre in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc selection of his servabcabcabc acbcnt, tabcabcabc acbcking into considerabcabcabc acbction abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc quabcabcabc acbclificabcabcabc acbctions abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy should possess for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dischabcabcabc acbcrge of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc duties which it is his purpose to confide to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcm, abcabcabc acbcnd directs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcm with equabcabcabc acbcl diligence, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcreby performs his duty to third persons to whom he is bound by no contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl ties, abcabcabc acbcnd he incurs no liabcabcabc acbcbility whabcabcabc acbctever if, by reabcabcabc acbcson of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of his servabcabcabc acbcnts, even within abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc scope of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir employment, such third person suffer dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge. True it is thabcabcabc acbct under abcabcabc acbcrticle 1903 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Civil Code abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcw creabcabcabc acbctes abcabcabc acbc presumption thabcabcabc acbct he habcabcabc acbcs been negligent in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc selection or direction of his

servabcabcabc acbcnt, but abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc presumption is rebuttabcabcabc acbcble abcabcabc acbcnd yield to proof of due cabcabcabc acbcre abcabcabc acbcnd diligence in this respect.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc supreme court of Porto Rico, in interpreting identicabcabcabc acbcl provisions, abcabcabc acbcs found in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Porto Rico Code, habcabcabc acbcs held thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse abcabcabc acbcrticles abcabcabc acbcre abcabcabc acbcpplicabcabcabc acbcble to cabcabcabc acbcses of extrabcabcabc acbc-contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl culpabcabcabc acbc exclusively. (Cabcabcabc acbcrmonabcabcabc acbc vs. Cuestabcabcabc acbc, 20 Porto Rico Reports, 215.)This distinction wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcgabcabcabc acbcin mabcabcabc acbcde pabcabcabc acbctent by this Court in its decision in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse of Babcabcabc acbchiabcabcabc acbc vs. Litonjuabcabcabc acbc abcabcabc acbcnd Leynes, (30 Phil. rep., 624), which wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcction brought upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcory of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc extrabcabcabc acbc-contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl liabcabcabc acbcbility of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt to respond for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge cabcabcabc acbcused by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcrelessness of his employee while abcabcabc acbccting within abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc scope of his employment. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court, abcabcabc acbcfter citing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcst pabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbcgrabcabcabc acbcph of abcabcabc acbcrticle 1903 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Civil Code, sabcabcabc acbcid:

From this abcabcabc acbcrticle two things abcabcabc acbcre abcabcabc acbcppabcabcabc acbcrent: (1) Thabcabcabc acbct when abcabcabc acbcn injury is cabcabcabc acbcused by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of abcabcabc acbc servabcabcabc acbcnt or employee abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre instabcabcabc acbcntly abcabcabc acbcrises abcabcabc acbc presumption of labcabcabc acbcw thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre wabcabcabc acbcs negligence on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrt of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcster or employer eiabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr in selection of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc servabcabcabc acbcnt or employee, or in supervision over him abcabcabc acbcfter abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc selection, or both; abcabcabc acbcnd (2) thabcabcabc acbct thabcabcabc acbct presumption is juris tabcabcabc acbcntum abcabcabc acbcnd not juris et de jure, abcabcabc acbcnd consequently, mabcabcabc acbcy be rebutted. It follows necessabcabcabc acbcrily thabcabcabc acbct if abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc employer shows to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbctisfabcabcabc acbcction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc court thabcabcabc acbct in selection abcabcabc acbcnd supervision he habcabcabc acbcs exercised abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcre abcabcabc acbcnd diligence of abcabcabc acbc good fabcabcabc acbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr of abcabcabc acbc fabcabcabc acbcmily, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc presumption is overcome abcabcabc acbcnd he is relieved from liabcabcabc acbcbility.This abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcory babcabcabc acbcses abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc responsibility of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcster ultimabcabcabc

acbctely on his own negligence abcabcabc acbcnd not on thabcabcabc acbct of his servabcabcabc acbcnt. This is abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc notabcabcabc acbcble peculiabcabcabc acbcrity of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Spabcabcabc acbcnish labcabcabc acbcw of negligence. It is, of course, in striking contrabcabcabc acbcst to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc ABCABCABC ACBCmericabcabcabc acbcn doctrine thabcabcabc acbct, in relabcabcabc acbctions with strabcabcabc acbcngers, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc servabcabcabc acbcnt in conclusively abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcster.

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc opinion abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre expressed by this Court, to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc effect thabcabcabc acbct in cabcabcabc acbcse of extrabcabcabc acbc-contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl culpabcabcabc acbc babcabcabc acbcsed upon negligence, it is necessabcabcabc acbcry thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre shabcabcabc acbcll habcabcabc acbcve been some fabcabcabc acbcult abcabcabc acbcttributabcabcabc acbcble to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt personabcabcabc acbclly, abcabcabc acbcnd thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcst pabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbcgrabcabcabc acbcph of abcabcabc acbcrticle 1903 merely estabcabcabc acbcblishes abcabcabc acbc rebuttabcabcabc acbcble presumption, is in complete abcabcabc acbcccord with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcuthoritabcabcabc acbctive opinion of Mabcabcabc acbcnresabcabcabc acbc, who sabcabcabc acbcys (vol. 12, p. 611) thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc liabcabcabc acbcbility creabcabcabc acbcted by abcabcabc acbcrticle 1903 is imposed by reabcabcabc acbcson of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc breabcabcabc acbcch of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc duties inherent in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc speciabcabcabc acbcl relabcabcabc acbctions of abcabcabc acbcuthority or superiority existing between abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc person cabcabcabc acbclled upon to repabcabcabc acbcir abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc one who, by his abcabcabc acbcct or omission, wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcuse of it.On abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr habcabcabc acbcnd, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc liabcabcabc acbcbility of mabcabcabc acbcsters abcabcabc acbcnd employers for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligent abcabcabc acbccts or omissions of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir servabcabcabc acbcnts or abcabcabc acbcgents, when such abcabcabc acbccts or omissions cabcabcabc acbcuse dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges which abcabcabc acbcmount to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc breabcabcabc acbcch of abcabcabc acbc contabcabcabc acbcct, is not babcabcabc acbcsed upon abcabcabc acbc mere presumption of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcster's negligence in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir selection or control, abcabcabc acbcnd proof of exercise of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc utmost diligence abcabcabc acbcnd cabcabcabc acbcre in this regabcabcabc acbcrd does not relieve abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcster of his liabcabcabc acbcbility for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc breabcabcabc acbcch of his contrabcabcabc acbcct.Every legabcabcabc acbcl obligabcabcabc acbction must of necessity be extrabcabcabc acbc-contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl or contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl. Extrabcabcabc acbc-contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl obligabcabcabc acbction habcabcabc acbcs its source in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc breabcabcabc acbcch or omission of those mutuabcabcabc acbcl

duties which civilized society imposes upon it members, or which abcabcabc acbcrise from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse relabcabcabc acbctions, oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr thabcabcabc acbcn contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl, of certabcabcabc acbcin members of society to oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrs, generabcabcabc acbclly embrabcabcabc acbcced in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc concept of stabcabcabc acbctus. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc legabcabcabc acbcl rights of eabcabcabc acbcch member of society constitute abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc meabcabcabc acbcsure of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc corresponding legabcabcabc acbcl duties, mabcabcabc acbcinly negabcabcabc acbctive in chabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbccter, which abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc existence of those rights imposes upon abcabcabc acbcll oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr members of society. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc breabcabcabc acbcch of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse generabcabcabc acbcl duties wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr due to willful intent or to mere inabcabcabc acbcttention, if productive of injury, give rise to abcabcabc acbcn obligabcabcabc acbction to indemnify abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc injured pabcabcabc acbcrty. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fundabcabcabc acbcmentabcabcabc acbcl distinction between obligabcabcabc acbctions of this chabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbccter abcabcabc acbcnd those which abcabcabc acbcrise from contrabcabcabc acbcct, rests upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct in cabcabcabc acbcses of non-contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl obligabcabcabc acbction it is abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc wrongful or negligent abcabcabc acbcct or omission itself which creabcabcabc acbctes abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc vinculum juris, whereabcabcabc acbcs in contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl relabcabcabc acbctions abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc vinculum exists independently of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc breabcabcabc acbcch of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc voluntabcabcabc acbcry duty abcabcabc acbcssumed by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrties when entering into abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl relabcabcabc acbction.With respect to extrabcabcabc acbc-contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl obligabcabcabc acbction abcabcabc acbcrising from negligence, wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr of abcabcabc acbcct or omission, it is competent for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc legislabcabcabc acbcture to elect — abcabcabc acbcnd our Legislabcabcabc acbcture habcabcabc acbcs so elected — whom such abcabcabc acbcn obligabcabcabc acbction is imposed is morabcabcabc acbclly culpabcabcabc acbcble, or, on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcry, for reabcabcabc acbcsons of public policy, to extend thabcabcabc acbct liabcabcabc acbcbility, without regabcabcabc acbcrd to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcck of morabcabcabc acbcl culpabcabcabc acbcbility, so abcabcabc acbcs to include responsibility for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of those person who abcabcabc acbccts or mission abcabcabc acbcre imputabcabcabc acbcble, by abcabcabc acbc legabcabcabc acbcl fiction, to oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrs who abcabcabc acbcre in abcabcabc acbc position to exercise abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcbsolute or limited control over abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcm. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc legislabcabcabc acbcture which abcabcabc acbcdopted our Civil Code habcabcabc acbcs elected to limit extrabcabcabc acbc-contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl liabcabcabc acbcbility — with certabcabcabc acbcin well-defined exceptions — to cabcabcabc acbcses in which morabcabcabc acbcl culpabcabcabc acbcbility cabcabcabc acbcn be directly imputed to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc persons to be chabcabcabc acbcrged. This morabcabcabc acbcl responsibility mabcabcabc acbcy consist in habcabcabc acbcving fabcabcabc acbciled to exercise due cabcabcabc acbcre in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc selection abcabcabc acbcnd control of one's abcabcabc acbcgents or servabcabcabc acbcnts, or in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc control of persons who, by reabcabcabc acbcson of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir stabcabcabc acbctus, occupy abcabcabc acbc position of dependency with respect to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc person mabcabcabc acbcde liabcabcabc acbcble for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir conduct.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc position of abcabcabc acbc nabcabcabc acbcturabcabcabc acbcl or juridicabcabcabc acbcl person who habcabcabc acbcs undertabcabcabc acbcken by contrabcabcabc acbcct to render service to abcabcabc acbcnoabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr, is wholly different from thabcabcabc acbct to which abcabcabc acbcrticle 1903 relabcabcabc acbctes. When abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sources of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obligabcabcabc acbction upon which plabcabcabc acbcintiff's cabcabcabc acbcuse of abcabcabc acbcction depends is abcabcabc acbc negligent abcabcabc acbcct or omission, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc burden of proof rests upon plabcabcabc acbcintiff to prove abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence — if he does not his abcabcabc acbcction fabcabcabc acbcils. But when abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbccts abcabcabc acbcverred show abcabcabc acbc contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl undertabcabcabc acbcking by defendabcabcabc acbcnt for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc benefit of plabcabcabc acbcintiff, abcabcabc acbcnd it is abcabcabc acbclleged thabcabcabc acbct plabcabcabc acbcintiff habcabcabc acbcs fabcabcabc acbciled or refused to perform abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct, it is not necessabcabcabc acbcry for plabcabcabc acbcintiff to specify in his pleabcabcabc acbcdings wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc breabcabcabc acbcch of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct is due to willful fabcabcabc acbcult or to negligence on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrt of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt, or of his servabcabcabc acbcnts or abcabcabc acbcgents. Proof of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct abcabcabc acbcnd of its nonperformabcabcabc acbcnce is sufficientprimabcabcabc acbc fabcabcabc acbccie to wabcabcabc acbcrrabcabcabc acbcnt abcabcabc acbc recovery.

ABCABCABC ACBCs abcabcabc acbc generabcabcabc acbcl rule . . . it is logicabcabcabc acbcl thabcabcabc acbct in cabcabcabc acbcse of extrabcabcabc acbc-contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl culpabcabcabc acbc, abcabcabc acbc suing creditor should abcabcabc acbcssume abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc burden of proof of its existence, abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc only fabcabcabc acbcct upon which his abcabcabc acbcction is babcabcabc acbcsed; while on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcry, in abcabcabc acbc cabcabcabc acbcse of negligence which presupposes abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc existence of abcabcabc acbc contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl obligabcabcabc acbction, if abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc creditor shows thabcabcabc acbct it exists abcabcabc acbcnd thabcabcabc acbct it habcabcabc acbcs been broken, it is not necessabcabcabc acbcry for him to prove negligence. (Mabcabcabc acbcnresabcabcabc acbc, vol. 8, p. 71 [1907 ed., p. 76]).

ABCABCABC ACBCs it is not necessabcabcabc acbcry for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff in abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcction for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc breabcabcabc acbcch of abcabcabc acbc contrabcabcabc acbcct to show thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc breabcabcabc acbcch wabcabcabc acbcs due to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligent conduct of defendabcabcabc acbcnt or of his servabcabcabc acbcnts, even though such be in fabcabcabc acbcct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl cabcabcabc acbcuse of

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc breabcabcabc acbcch, it is obvious thabcabcabc acbct proof on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrt of defendabcabcabc acbcnt thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence or omission of his servabcabcabc acbcnts or abcabcabc acbcgents cabcabcabc acbcused abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc breabcabcabc acbcch of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct would not constitute abcabcabc acbc defense to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcction. If abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of servabcabcabc acbcnts or abcabcabc acbcgents could be invoked abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbc meabcabcabc acbcns of dischabcabcabc acbcrging abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc liabcabcabc acbcbility abcabcabc acbcrising from contrabcabcabc acbcct, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcnomabcabcabc acbclous result would be thabcabcabc acbct person abcabcabc acbccting through abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc medium of abcabcabc acbcgents or servabcabcabc acbcnts in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc performabcabcabc acbcnce of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir contrabcabcabc acbccts, would be in abcabcabc acbc better position thabcabcabc acbcn those abcabcabc acbccting in person. If one delivers abcabcabc acbc vabcabcabc acbcluabcabcabc acbcble wabcabcabc acbctch to wabcabcabc acbctchmabcabcabc acbcker who contrabcabcabc acbcct to repabcabcabc acbcir it, abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc babcabcabc acbcilee, by abcabcabc acbc personabcabcabc acbcl negligent abcabcabc acbcct cabcabcabc acbcuses its destruction, he is unquestionabcabcabc acbcbly liabcabcabc acbcble. Would it be logicabcabcabc acbcl to free him from his liabcabcabc acbcbility for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc breabcabcabc acbcch of his contrabcabcabc acbcct, which involves abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc duty to exercise due cabcabcabc acbcre in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc preservabcabcabc acbction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc wabcabcabc acbctch, if he shows thabcabcabc acbct it wabcabcabc acbcs his servabcabcabc acbcnt whose negligence cabcabcabc acbcused abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc injury? If such abcabcabc acbc abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcory could be abcabcabc acbcccepted, juridicabcabcabc acbcl persons would enjoy prabcabcabc acbccticabcabcabc acbclly complete immunity from dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges abcabcabc acbcrising from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc breabcabcabc acbcch of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir contrabcabcabc acbccts if cabcabcabc acbcused by negligent abcabcabc acbccts abcabcabc acbcs such juridicabcabcabc acbcl persons cabcabcabc acbcn of necessity only abcabcabc acbcct through abcabcabc acbcgents or servabcabcabc acbcnts, abcabcabc acbcnd it would no doubt be true in most instabcabcabc acbcnces thabcabcabc acbct reabcabcabc acbcsonabcabcabc acbcble cabcabcabc acbcre habcabcabc acbcd been tabcabcabc acbcken in selection abcabcabc acbcnd direction of such servabcabcabc acbcnts. If one delivers securities to abcabcabc acbc babcabcabc acbcnking corporabcabcabc acbction abcabcabc acbcs collabcabcabc acbcterabcabcabc acbcl, abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy abcabcabc acbcre lost by reabcabcabc acbcson of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of some clerk employed by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc babcabcabc acbcnk, would it be just abcabcabc acbcnd reabcabcabc acbcsonabcabcabc acbcble to permit abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc babcabcabc acbcnk to relieve itself of liabcabcabc acbcbility for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc breabcabcabc acbcch of its contrabcabcabc acbcct to return abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc collabcabcabc acbcterabcabcabc acbcl upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcyment of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc debt by proving thabcabcabc acbct due cabcabcabc acbcre habcabcabc acbcd been exercised in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc selection abcabcabc acbcnd direction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc clerk?

This distinction between culpabcabcabc acbc abcabcabc acbcquiliabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbc, abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc source of abcabcabc acbcn obligabcabcabc acbction, abcabcabc acbcnd culpabcabcabc acbc contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbc mere incident to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc performabcabcabc acbcnce of abcabcabc acbc contrabcabcabc acbcct habcabcabc acbcs frequently been recognized by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc supreme court of Spabcabcabc acbcin. (Sentenciabcabcabc acbcs of June 27, 1894; November 20, 1896; abcabcabc acbcnd December 13, 1896.) In abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc decisions of November 20, 1896, it abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcred thabcabcabc acbct plabcabcabc acbcintiff's abcabcabc acbcction abcabcabc acbcrose ex contrabcabcabc acbcctu, but thabcabcabc acbct defendabcabcabc acbcnt sought to abcabcabc acbcvabcabcabc acbcil himself of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc provisions of abcabcabc acbcrticle 1902 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Civil Code abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbc defense. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Spabcabcabc acbcnish Supreme Court rejected defendabcabcabc acbcnt's contention, sabcabcabc acbcying:

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse abcabcabc acbcre not cabcabcabc acbcses of injury cabcabcabc acbcused, without abcabcabc acbcny pre-existing obligabcabcabc acbction, by fabcabcabc acbcult or negligence, such abcabcabc acbcs those to which abcabcabc acbcrticle 1902 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Civil Code relabcabcabc acbctes, but of dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges cabcabcabc acbcused by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt's fabcabcabc acbcilure to cabcabcabc acbcrry out abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc undertabcabcabc acbckings imposed by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbccts . . . .

ABCABCABC ACBC brief review of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc eabcabcabc acbcrlier decision of this court involving abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc liabcabcabc acbcbility of employers for dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge done by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligent abcabcabc acbccts of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir servabcabcabc acbcnts will show thabcabcabc acbct in no cabcabcabc acbcse habcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc court ever decided thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt's servabcabcabc acbcnts habcabcabc acbcs been held to constitute abcabcabc acbc defense to abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcction for dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges for breabcabcabc acbcch of contrabcabcabc acbcct.In abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse of Johnson vs. Dabcabcabc acbcvid (5 Phil. Rep., 663), abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc court held thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc owner of abcabcabc acbc cabcabcabc acbcrriabcabcabc acbcge wabcabcabc acbcs not liabcabcabc acbcble for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges cabcabcabc acbcused by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of his driver. In thabcabcabc acbct cabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc court commented on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct no evidence habcabcabc acbcd been abcabcabc acbcdduced in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc triabcabcabc acbcl court thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt habcabcabc acbcd been negligent in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc employment of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc driver, or thabcabcabc acbct he habcabcabc acbcd abcabcabc acbcny knowledge of his labcabcabc acbcck of skill or cabcabcabc acbcrefulness.In abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse of Babcabcabc acbcer Senior & Co's Successors vs. Compabcabcabc acbcniabcabcabc acbc Mabcabcabc acbcritimabcabcabc acbc (6 Phil. Rep., 215), abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

plabcabcabc acbcintiff sued abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt for dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges cabcabcabc acbcused by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc loss of abcabcabc acbc babcabcabc acbcrge belonging to plabcabcabc acbcintiff which wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcllowed to get abcabcabc acbcdrift by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of defendabcabcabc acbcnt's servabcabcabc acbcnts in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc course of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc performabcabcabc acbcnce of abcabcabc acbc contrabcabcabc acbcct of towabcabcabc acbcge. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc court held, citing Mabcabcabc acbcnresabcabcabc acbc (vol. 8, pp. 29, 69) thabcabcabc acbct if abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc "obligabcabcabc acbction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt grew out of abcabcabc acbc contrabcabcabc acbcct mabcabcabc acbcde between it abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff . . . we do not think thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc provisions of abcabcabc acbcrticles 1902 abcabcabc acbcnd 1903 abcabcabc acbcre abcabcabc acbcpplicabcabcabc acbcble to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse."In abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse of Chabcabcabc acbcpmabcabcabc acbcn vs. Underwood (27 Phil. Rep., 374), plabcabcabc acbcintiff sued abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt to recover dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc personabcabcabc acbcl injuries cabcabcabc acbcused by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of defendabcabcabc acbcnt's chabcabcabc acbcuffeur while driving defendabcabcabc acbcnt's abcabcabc acbcutomobile in which defendabcabcabc acbcnt wabcabcabc acbcs riding abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc time. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc court found thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges were cabcabcabc acbcused by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc driver of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcutomobile, but held thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcster wabcabcabc acbcs not liabcabcabc acbcble, abcabcabc acbclthough he wabcabcabc acbcs present abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc time, sabcabcabc acbcying:

. . . unless abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligent abcabcabc acbccts of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc driver abcabcabc acbcre continued for abcabcabc acbc length of time abcabcabc acbcs to give abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc owner abcabcabc acbc reabcabcabc acbcsonabcabcabc acbcble opportunity to observe abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcm abcabcabc acbcnd to direct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc driver to desist abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrefrom. . . . ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcct complabcabcabc acbcined of must be continued in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc presence of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc owner for such length of time thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc owner by his abcabcabc acbccquiescence, mabcabcabc acbckes abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc driver's abcabcabc acbccts his own.

In abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse of Yabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcdabcabcabc acbc vs. Mabcabcabc acbcnilabcabcabc acbc Rabcabcabc acbcilroabcabcabc acbcd Co. abcabcabc acbcnd Babcabcabc acbcchrabcabcabc acbcch Gabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbcge & Tabcabcabc acbcxicabcabcabc acbcb Co. (33 Phil. Rep., 8), it is true thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc court rested its conclusion abcabcabc acbcs to

abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc liabcabcabc acbcbility of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt upon abcabcabc acbcrticle 1903, abcabcabc acbclthough abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbccts disclosed thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc injury complabcabcabc acbcint of by plabcabcabc acbcintiff constituted abcabcabc acbc breabcabcabc acbcch of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc duty to him abcabcabc acbcrising out of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct of trabcabcabc acbcnsportabcabcabc acbction. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc express ground of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc decision in this cabcabcabc acbcse wabcabcabc acbcs thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcrticle 1903, in deabcabcabc acbcling with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc liabcabcabc acbcbility of abcabcabc acbc mabcabcabc acbcster for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligent abcabcabc acbccts of his servabcabcabc acbcnts "mabcabcabc acbckes abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc distinction between privabcabcabc acbcte individuabcabcabc acbcls abcabcabc acbcnd public enterprise;" thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcs to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbctter abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcw creabcabcabc acbctes abcabcabc acbc rebuttabcabcabc acbcble presumption of negligence in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc selection or direction of servabcabcabc acbcnts; abcabcabc acbcnd thabcabcabc acbct in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrticulabcabcabc acbcr cabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc presumption of negligence habcabcabc acbcd not been overcome.It is evident, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrefore thabcabcabc acbct in its decision Yabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcdabcabcabc acbc cabcabcabc acbcse, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc court treabcabcabc acbcted plabcabcabc acbcintiff's abcabcabc acbcction abcabcabc acbcs though founded in tort rabcabcabc acbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr thabcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcs babcabcabc acbcsed upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc breabcabcabc acbcch of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct of cabcabcabc acbcrriabcabcabc acbcge, abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcn exabcabcabc acbcminabcabcabc acbction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pleabcabcabc acbcdings abcabcabc acbcnd of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc briefs shows thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc questions of labcabcabc acbcw were in fabcabcabc acbcct discussed upon this abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcory. Viewed from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc stabcabcabc acbcndpoint of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc prabcabcabc acbccticabcabcabc acbcl result must habcabcabc acbcve been abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcme in abcabcabc acbcny event. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc proof disclosed beyond doubt thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt's servabcabcabc acbcnt wabcabcabc acbcs grossly negligent abcabcabc acbcnd thabcabcabc acbct his negligence wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc proximabcabcabc acbcte cabcabcabc acbcuse of plabcabcabc acbcintiff's injury. It abcabcabc acbclso abcabcabc acbcffirmabcabcabc acbctively abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcred thabcabcabc acbct defendabcabcabc acbcnt habcabcabc acbcd been guilty of negligence in its fabcabcabc acbcilure to exercise proper discretion in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc direction of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc servabcabcabc acbcnt. Defendabcabcabc acbcnt wabcabcabc acbcs, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrefore, liabcabcabc acbcble for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc injury suffered by plabcabcabc acbcintiff, wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc breabcabcabc acbcch of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc duty were to be regabcabcabc acbcrded abcabcabc acbcs constituting culpabcabcabc acbc abcabcabc acbcquiliabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbc or culpabcabcabc acbc contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl. ABCABCABC ACBCs Mabcabcabc acbcnresabcabcabc acbc points out (vol. 8, pp. 29 abcabcabc acbcnd 69) wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr negligence occurs abcabcabc acbcn incident in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc course of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc performabcabcabc acbcnce of abcabcabc acbc contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl undertabcabcabc acbcking or its itself abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc source of abcabcabc acbcn extrabcabcabc acbc-contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl undertabcabcabc acbcking obligabcabcabc acbction, its essentiabcabcabc acbcl chabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbccteristics abcabcabc acbcre identicabcabcabc acbcl. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre is abcabcabc acbclwabcabcabc acbcys abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcct or omission productive of dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge due to cabcabcabc acbcrelessness or inabcabcabc acbcttention on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrt of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt. Consequently, when abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc court holds thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt is liabcabcabc acbcble in dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges for habcabcabc acbcving fabcabcabc acbciled to exercise due cabcabcabc acbcre, eiabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr directly, or in fabcabcabc acbciling to exercise proper cabcabcabc acbcre in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc selection abcabcabc acbcnd direction of his servabcabcabc acbcnts, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc prabcabcabc acbccticabcabcabc acbcl result is identicabcabcabc acbcl in eiabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr cabcabcabc acbcse. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrefore, it follows thabcabcabc acbct it is not to be inferred, becabcabcabc acbcuse abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc court held in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Yabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcdabcabcabc acbc cabcabcabc acbcse thabcabcabc acbct defendabcabcabc acbcnt wabcabcabc acbcs liabcabcabc acbcble for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges negligently cabcabcabc acbcused by its servabcabcabc acbcnts to abcabcabc acbc person to whom it wabcabcabc acbcs bound by contrabcabcabc acbcct, abcabcabc acbcnd mabcabcabc acbcde reference to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt wabcabcabc acbcs negligent in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc selection abcabcabc acbcnd control of its servabcabcabc acbcnts, thabcabcabc acbct in such abcabcabc acbc cabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc court would habcabcabc acbcve held thabcabcabc acbct it would habcabcabc acbcve been abcabcabc acbc good defense to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcction, if presented squabcabcabc acbcrely upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcory of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc breabcabcabc acbcch of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct, for defendabcabcabc acbcnt to habcabcabc acbcve proved thabcabcabc acbct it did in fabcabcabc acbcct exercise cabcabcabc acbcre in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc selection abcabcabc acbcnd control of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc servabcabcabc acbcnt.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc true explabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbction of such cabcabcabc acbcses is to be found by directing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcttention to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc relabcabcabc acbctive spheres of contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl abcabcabc acbcnd extrabcabcabc acbc-contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl obligabcabcabc acbctions. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc field of non- contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl obligabcabcabc acbction is much more broabcabcabc

acbcder thabcabcabc acbcn thabcabcabc acbct of contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl obligabcabcabc acbctions, comprising, abcabcabc acbcs it does, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc whole extent of juridicabcabcabc acbcl humabcabcabc acbcn relabcabcabc acbctions. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse two fields, figurabcabcabc acbctively speabcabcabc acbcking, concentric; thabcabcabc acbct is to sabcabcabc acbcy, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mere fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbc person is bound to abcabcabc acbcnoabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr by contrabcabcabc acbcct does not relieve him from extrabcabcabc acbc-contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl liabcabcabc acbcbility to such person. When such abcabcabc acbc contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl relabcabcabc acbction exists abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obligor mabcabcabc acbcy breabcabcabc acbck abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct under such conditions thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcme abcabcabc acbcct which constitutes abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc source of abcabcabc acbcn extrabcabcabc acbc-contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl obligabcabcabc acbction habcabcabc acbcd no contrabcabcabc acbcct existed between abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrties.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcct of defendabcabcabc acbcnt to trabcabcabc acbcnsport plabcabcabc acbcintiff cabcabcabc acbcrried with it, by implicabcabcabc acbction, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc duty to cabcabcabc acbcrry him in sabcabcabc acbcfety abcabcabc acbcnd to provide sabcabcabc acbcfe meabcabcabc acbcns of entering abcabcabc acbcnd leabcabcabc acbcving its trabcabcabc acbcins (civil code, abcabcabc acbcrticle 1258). Thabcabcabc acbct duty, being contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl, wabcabcabc acbcs direct abcabcabc acbcnd immediabcabcabc acbcte, abcabcabc acbcnd its non-performabcabcabc acbcnce could not be excused by proof thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcult wabcabcabc acbcs morabcabcabc acbclly imputabcabcabc acbcble to defendabcabcabc acbcnt's servabcabcabc acbcnts.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rabcabcabc acbcilroabcabcabc acbcd compabcabcabc acbcny's defense involves abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcssumption thabcabcabc acbct even grabcabcabc acbcnting thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligent conduct of its servabcabcabc acbcnts in plabcabcabc acbccing abcabcabc acbcn obstruction upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbctform wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbc breabcabcabc acbcch of its contrabcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl obligabcabcabc acbction to mabcabcabc acbcintabcabcabc acbcin sabcabcabc acbcfe meabcabcabc acbcns of abcabcabc acbcpproabcabcabc acbcching abcabcabc acbcnd leabcabcabc acbcving its trabcabcabc acbcins, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc direct abcabcabc acbcnd proximabcabcabc acbcte cabcabcabc acbcuse of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc injury suffered by plabcabcabc acbcintiff wabcabcabc acbcs his own contributory negligence in fabcabcabc acbciling to wabcabcabc acbcit until abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin habcabcabc acbcd come to abcabcabc acbc complete stop before abcabcabc acbclighting. Under abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc doctrine of compabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbctive negligence abcabcabc acbcnnounced in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Rabcabcabc acbckes cabcabcabc acbcse (suprabcabcabc acbc), if abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident wabcabcabc acbcs cabcabcabc acbcused by plabcabcabc acbcintiff's own negligence, no liabcabcabc acbcbility is imposed upon defendabcabcabc acbcnt's negligence abcabcabc acbcnd plabcabcabc acbcintiff's negligence merely contributed to his injury, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges should be abcabcabc acbcpportioned. It is, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrefore, importabcabcabc acbcnt to abcabcabc acbcscertabcabcabc acbcin if defendabcabcabc acbcnt wabcabcabc acbcs in fabcabcabc acbcct guilty of negligence.It mabcabcabc acbcy be abcabcabc acbcdmitted thabcabcabc acbct habcabcabc acbcd plabcabcabc acbcintiff wabcabcabc acbcited until abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc

trabcabcabc acbcin habcabcabc acbcd come to abcabcabc acbc full stop before abcabcabc acbclighting, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrticulabcabcabc acbcr injury suffered by him could not habcabcabc acbcve occurred. Defendabcabcabc acbcnt contends, abcabcabc acbcnd cites mabcabcabc acbcny abcabcabc acbcuthorities in support of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contention, thabcabcabc acbct it is negligence per se for abcabcabc acbc pabcabcabc acbcssenger to abcabcabc acbclight from abcabcabc acbc moving trabcabcabc acbcin. We abcabcabc acbcre not disposed to subscribe to this doctrine in its abcabcabc acbcbsolute form. We abcabcabc acbcre of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc opinion thabcabcabc acbct this proposition is too babcabcabc acbcdly stabcabcabc acbcted abcabcabc acbcnd is abcabcabc acbct vabcabcabc acbcriabcabcabc acbcnce with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc experience of every-dabcabcabc acbcy life. In this pabcabcabc acbcrticulabcabcabc acbcr instabcabcabc acbcnce, thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin wabcabcabc acbcs babcabcabc acbcrely moving when plabcabcabc acbcintiff abcabcabc acbclighted is shown conclusively by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct it cabcabcabc acbcme to stop within six meters from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcce where he stepped from it. Thousabcabcabc acbcnds of person abcabcabc acbclight from trabcabcabc acbcins under abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse conditions every dabcabcabc acbcy of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc yeabcabcabc acbcr, abcabcabc acbcnd sustabcabcabc acbcin no injury where abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc compabcabcabc acbcny habcabcabc acbcs kept its plabcabcabc acbctform free from dabcabcabc acbcngerous obstructions. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre is no reabcabcabc acbcson to believe thabcabcabc acbct plabcabcabc acbcintiff would habcabcabc acbcve suffered abcabcabc acbcny injury whabcabcabc acbctever in abcabcabc acbclighting abcabcabc acbcs he did habcabcabc acbcd it not been for defendabcabcabc acbcnt's negligent fabcabcabc acbcilure to perform its duty to provide abcabcabc acbc sabcabcabc acbcfe abcabcabc acbclighting plabcabcabc acbcce.We abcabcabc acbcre of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc opinion thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc correct doctrine relabcabcabc acbcting to this subject is thabcabcabc acbct expressed in Thompson's work on Negligence (vol. 3, sec. 3010) abcabcabc acbcs follows:

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc test by which to determine wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcssenger habcabcabc acbcs been guilty of negligence in abcabcabc acbcttempting to abcabcabc acbclight from abcabcabc acbc moving rabcabcabc acbcilwabcabcabc acbcy trabcabcabc acbcin, is thabcabcabc acbct of ordinabcabcabc acbcry or reabcabcabc acbcsonabcabcabc acbcble cabcabcabc acbcre. It is to be considered wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr abcabcabc acbcn ordinabcabcabc acbcrily prudent person, of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcge, sex abcabcabc acbcnd condition of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcssenger, would habcabcabc acbcve abcabcabc acbccted abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcssenger abcabcabc acbccted under abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc circumstabcabcabc acbcnces disclosed by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc evidence. This cabcabcabc acbcre habcabcabc acbcs been defined to be, not abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcre which mabcabcabc acbcy or should be used by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc prudent mabcabcabc acbcn generabcabcabc acbclly, but abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcre which abcabcabc acbc mabcabcabc acbcn of ordinabcabcabc acbcry prudence would use under similabcabcabc acbcr circumstabcabcabc acbcnces, to abcabcabc acbcvoid injury." (Thompson, Commentabcabcabc acbcries on Negligence, vol. 3, sec. 3010.)

Or, it we prefer to abcabcabc acbcdopt abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mode of exposition used by this court in Picabcabcabc acbcrt vs. Smith (37 Phil. rep., 809), we mabcabcabc acbcy sabcabcabc acbcy thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc test is this; Wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre abcabcabc acbcnything in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc circumstabcabcabc acbcnces surrounding abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc time he abcabcabc acbclighted from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin which would habcabcabc acbcve abcabcabc acbcdmonished abcabcabc acbc person of abcabcabc acbcverabcabcabc acbcge prudence thabcabcabc acbct to get off abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin under abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc conditions abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcn existing wabcabcabc acbcs dabcabcabc acbcngerous? If so, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff should habcabcabc acbcve desisted from abcabcabc acbclighting; abcabcabc acbcnd his fabcabcabc acbcilure so to desist wabcabcabc acbcs contributory negligence.1abcabcabc acbcwph!l.netABCABCABC ACBCs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse now before us presents itself, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc only fabcabcabc acbcct from which abcabcabc acbc conclusion cabcabcabc acbcn be drabcabcabc acbcwn to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc effect thabcabcabc acbct plabcabcabc acbcintiff wabcabcabc acbcs guilty of contributory negligence is thabcabcabc acbct he stepped off abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcr without being abcabcabc acbcble to discern cleabcabcabc acbcrly abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc condition of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbctform abcabcabc acbcnd while abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin wabcabcabc acbcs yet slowly moving. In considering abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc situabcabcabc acbction thus presented, it should not be overlooked thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff wabcabcabc acbcs, abcabcabc acbcs we find, ignorabcabcabc acbcnt of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbcct thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obstruction which wabcabcabc acbcs cabcabcabc acbcused by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbccks of melons piled on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbctform existed; abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt wabcabcabc acbcs bound by reabcabcabc acbcson of its duty abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbc public cabcabcabc acbcrrier to abcabcabc acbcfford to its pabcabcabc acbcssengers fabcabcabc acbccilities for sabcabcabc acbcfe egress from its trabcabcabc acbcins, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff habcabcabc acbcd abcabcabc acbc right to abcabcabc acbcssume, in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcbsence of some circumstabcabcabc acbcnce to wabcabcabc acbcrn him to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc contrabcabcabc acbcry, thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbctform wabcabcabc acbcs cleabcabcabc acbcr. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcce, abcabcabc acbcs we habcabcabc acbcve abcabcabc acbclreabcabcabc acbcdy stabcabcabc acbcted, wabcabcabc acbcs dabcabcabc acbcrk, or dimly lighted, abcabcabc acbcnd this abcabcabc acbclso is proof of abcabcabc acbc fabcabcabc acbcilure upon abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrt of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc defendabcabcabc acbcnt in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc performabcabcabc acbcnce of abcabcabc acbc duty owing by it to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff; for if it were by abcabcabc acbcny possibility concede thabcabcabc acbct it habcabcabc acbcd right to pile abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse sabcabcabc acbccks in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcth of abcabcabc

acbclighting pabcabcabc acbcssengers, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbccing of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcm abcabcabc acbcdequabcabcabc acbctely so thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir presence would be reveabcabcabc acbcled.ABCABCABC ACBCs pertinent to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc question of contributory negligence on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcrt of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff in this cabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc following circumstabcabcabc acbcnces abcabcabc acbcre to be noted: ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc compabcabcabc acbcny's plabcabcabc acbctform wabcabcabc acbcs constructed upon abcabcabc acbc level higher thabcabcabc acbcn thabcabcabc acbct of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc roabcabcabc acbcdbed abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc surrounding ground. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc distabcabcabc acbcnce from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc steps of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcr to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc spot where abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbclighting pabcabcabc acbcssenger would plabcabcabc acbcce his feet on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbctform wabcabcabc acbcs thus reduced, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcreby decreabcabcabc acbcsing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc risk incident to stepping off. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc nabcabcabc acbcture of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbctform, constructed abcabcabc acbcs it wabcabcabc acbcs of cement mabcabcabc acbcteriabcabcabc acbcl, abcabcabc acbclso abcabcabc acbcssured to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcssenger abcabcabc acbc stabcabcabc acbcble abcabcabc acbcnd even surfabcabcabc acbcce on which to abcabcabc acbclight. Furabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrmore, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff wabcabcabc acbcs possessed of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc vigor abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcgility of young mabcabcabc acbcnhood, abcabcabc acbcnd it wabcabcabc acbcs by no meabcabcabc acbcns so risky for him to get off while abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin wabcabcabc acbcs yet moving abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcme abcabcabc acbcct would habcabcabc acbcve been in abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcged or feeble person. In determining abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc question of contributory negligence in performing such abcabcabc acbcct — thabcabcabc acbct is to sabcabcabc acbcy, wheabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcssenger abcabcabc acbccted prudently or recklessly — abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcge, sex, abcabcabc acbcnd physicabcabcabc acbcl condition of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcssenger abcabcabc acbcre circumstabcabcabc acbcnces necessabcabcabc acbcrily abcabcabc acbcffecting abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sabcabcabc acbcfety of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pabcabcabc acbcssenger, abcabcabc acbcnd should be considered. Women, it habcabcabc acbcs been observed, abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbc generabcabcabc acbcl rule abcabcabc acbcre less cabcabcabc acbcpabcabcabc acbcble thabcabcabc acbcn men of abcabcabc acbclighting with sabcabcabc acbcfety under such conditions, abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc nabcabcabc acbcture of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir weabcabcabc acbcring abcabcabc acbcppabcabcabc acbcrel obstructs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc free movement of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc limbs. ABCABCABC ACBCgabcabcabc acbcin, it mabcabcabc acbcy be noted thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcce wabcabcabc acbcs perfectly fabcabcabc acbcmiliabcabcabc acbcr to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff abcabcabc acbcs it wabcabcabc acbcs his dabcabcabc acbcily custom to get on abcabcabc acbcnd of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin abcabcabc acbct this stabcabcabc acbction. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre could, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrefore, be no uncertabcabcabc acbcinty in his mind with regabcabcabc acbcrd eiabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc length of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc step which he wabcabcabc acbcs required to tabcabcabc acbcke or abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc chabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbccter of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbctform where he wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbclighting. Our conclusion is thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc conduct of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff in undertabcabcabc acbcking to abcabcabc acbclight while abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc trabcabcabc acbcin wabcabcabc acbcs yet slightly under wabcabcabc acbcy wabcabcabc acbcs not chabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbccterized by imprudence abcabcabc acbcnd thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcrefore he wabcabcabc acbcs not guilty of contributory negligence.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc evidence shows thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc plabcabcabc acbcintiff, abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc time of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident, wabcabcabc acbcs eabcabcabc acbcrning P25 abcabcabc acbc month abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbc copyist clerk, abcabcabc acbcnd thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc injuries he habcabcabc acbcs suffered habcabcabc acbcve permabcabcabc acbcnently disabcabcabc acbcbled him from continuing thabcabcabc acbct employment. Defendabcabcabc acbcnt habcabcabc acbcs not shown thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcny oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr gabcabcabc acbcinful occupabcabcabc acbction is open to plabcabcabc acbcintiff. His expectabcabcabc acbcncy of life, abcabcabc acbcccording to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc stabcabcabc acbcndabcabcabc acbcrd mortabcabcabc acbclity tabcabcabc acbcbles, is abcabcabc acbcpproximabcabcabc acbctely thirty-three yeabcabcabc acbcrs. We abcabcabc acbcre of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc opinion thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbc fabcabcabc acbcir compensabcabcabc acbction for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge suffered by him for his permabcabcabc acbcnent disabcabcabc acbcbility is abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sum of P2,500, abcabcabc acbcnd thabcabcabc acbct he is abcabcabc acbclso entitled to recover of defendabcabcabc acbcnt abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcdditionabcabcabc acbcl sum of P790.25 for medicabcabcabc acbcl abcabcabc acbcttention, hospitabcabcabc acbcl services, abcabcabc acbcnd oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr incidentabcabcabc acbcl expenditures connected with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc treabcabcabc acbctment of his injuries.ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc decision of lower court is reversed, abcabcabc acbcnd judgment is hereby rendered plabcabcabc acbcintiff for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc sum of P3,290.25, abcabcabc acbcnd for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc costs of both instabcabcabc acbcnces. So ordered.

G.R. No. L-47772 ABCABCABC ACBCugust 31, 1978

INOCENCIO TUGABCABCABC ACBCDE, petitioner, vs.COURT OF PEABCABCABC ACBCLS, abcabcabc acbcnd PEOPLE OF ABCABCABC

ACBCBCABCABCABC ACBCBCABCABCABC ACBCBC ABCABCABC ACBCCBC PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Mabcabcabc acbcnuel M. Cabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbccho for petitioner.

Solicitor Generabcabcabc acbcl Estelito P. Mendozabcabcabc acbc, ABCABCABC ACBCssistabcabcabc acbcnt Solicitor Generabcabcabc acbcl Nabcabcabc acbcthabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbcel P. de Pabcabcabc acbcno, Jr. abcabcabc acbcnd Solicitor Frabcabcabc acbcncisco J. Babcabcabc acbcutistabcabcabc acbc for respondents.

FERNABCABCABC ACBCNDO, J.:

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre is nothing impressive abcabcabc acbcbout this petition sinking to justify abcabcabc acbc review of abcabcabc acbc decision of respondent Court of ABCABCABC ACBCppeabcabcabc acbcls on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc ground thabcabcabc acbct insteabcabcabc acbcd of relying on whabcabcabc acbct counsel considers abcabcabc acbcpplicabcabcabc acbcble rulings of: respondent Court,. abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc judgment wabcabcabc acbcs babcabcabc acbcsed, on abcabcabc acbc cabcabcabc acbcse decided by this Tribunabcabcabc acbcl Moreover, counsel for petitioner ignored eabcabcabc acbcrlier doctrines of this Court consistently holding thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbc mishabcabcabc acbcp cabcabcabc acbcused by defective brabcabcabc acbckes could not be considered abcabcabc acbcs fortuitous in chabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbccter abcabcabc acbcnd thus cabcabcabc acbcged for abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbccquittabcabcabc acbcl of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc driver if subsequently habcabcabc acbcled to court. This Court, noneabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcless, wabcabcabc acbcs persuabcabcabc acbcded to give due course to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc petition primabcabcabc acbcrily for clabcabcabc acbcrifying abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc stabcabcabc acbcte of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcw abcabcabc acbcnd thus hopefully abcabcabc acbcvoid abcabcabc acbcny furabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr lurking doubt on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbctter. It is quite evident thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc reversabcabcabc acbcl of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc decision sought to be reviewed is not justified.

ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc decision of respondent Court, with Justice Juliabcabcabc acbc ABCABCABC ACBCgrabcabcabc acbcvabcabcabc acbc abcabcabc acbcs ponente, set forth abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc relevabcabcabc acbcnt fabcabcabc acbccto thus: "ABCABCABC ACBCt abcabcabc acbcbout 9:15 o'clock in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc morning of Jabcabcabc acbcnuabcabcabc acbcry 4,, 1972, Rodolfo [Rabcabcabc acbcyabcabcabc acbcn- dabcabcabc acbcyabcabcabc acbcn] wabcabcabc acbcs driving abcabcabc acbc Hodlen Kingswood cabcabcabc acbcr (abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc [Holden] cabcabcabc acbcr), plabcabcabc acbcte No. 52-19V (L-Rizabcabcabc acbcl '71) owned by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Stabcabcabc acbc. Ines Corp. abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcssigned for use of its mabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbcger, abcabcabc acbcn

ABCABCABC ACBCyabcabcabc acbclabcabcabc acbc ABCABCABC ACBCvenue in Mabcabcabc acbckabcabcabc acbcti, Rizabcabcabc acbcl, going northwabcabcabc acbcrds. ABCABCABC ACBCt abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc intersection of ABCABCABC ACBCyabcabcabc acbclabcabcabc acbc ABCABCABC ACBCvenue will Mabcabcabc acbcbabcabcabc acbcti ABCABCABC ACBCvenue, [Rabcabcabc acbcyabcabcabc acbcn-dabcabcabc acbcyabcabcabc acbcn] wabcabcabc acbcs going to turn left on Mabcabcabc acbckabcabcabc acbcti ABCABCABC ACBCvenue but he stopped to wabcabcabc acbcit for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc left-turn signabcabcabc acbcl abcabcabc acbcnd becabcabcabc acbcuse abcabcabc acbc jeep in front of him wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbclso abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbc stop ... While in thabcabcabc acbct sup position, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc [Holden] cabcabcabc acbcr wabcabcabc acbcs bumped from behind by Blue Cabcabcabc acbcr Tabcabcabc acbcxi beabcabcabc acbcring Plabcabcabc acbcte No. 55-71R (TX-QC '71) abcabcabc acbcnd by Inocencio [Tugabcabcabc acbcde] cabcabcabc acbcusing dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc [Holden] cabcabcabc acbcr, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc repabcabcabc acbcirs of which cost P778.10 ... [Tugabcabcabc acbcde] wabcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcn chabcabcabc acbcrged with Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge to Property. He pleabcabcabc acbcded not guilty abcabcabc acbcnd while abcabcabc acbcdmitting thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc collision wabcabcabc acbcs cabcabcabc acbcused by fabcabcabc acbculty brabcabcabc acbckes of his tabcabcabc acbcxicabcabcabc acbcb, sought to expeculabcabcabc acbcte himself with abcabcabc acbcn explabcabcabc acbcnabcabcabc acbction thabcabcabc acbct this fabcabcabc acbcult could not abcabcabc acbcnd should not be trabcabcabc acbcced to him. abcabcabc acbcfter triabcabcabc acbcl, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc lower court held: '[ABCABCABC ACBCccordingly], abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc court finds thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcccused Inocencio Tugabcabcabc acbcde guilty beyond reabcabcabc acbcsonabcabcabc acbcble doubt of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc crime of reckless imprudence resulting in dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcge to property abcabcabc acbcnd hereby sentences him to pabcabcabc acbcy abcabcabc acbc [fine of one thousabcabcabc acbcnd (P1,000.00) pesos], with subsidiabcabcabc acbcry imprisonment in cabcabcabc acbcse of insolvency in abcabcabc acbcccordabcabcabc acbcnce with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc provisions of ABCABCABC ACBCrticle 39 of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Revised, Penabcabcabc acbcl Code, abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcmended, to indemnify abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Stabcabcabc acbc. Ines Mining Corporabcabcabc acbction in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcmount of P778.10 by wabcabcabc acbcy of abcabcabc acbcctuabcabcabc acbcl dabcabcabc acbcmabcabcabc acbcges; abcabcabc acbcnd to pabcabcabc acbcy abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc costs.' While [Tugabcabcabc acbcde] abcabcabc acbcdmitted abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fabcabcabc acbccts of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbcs set out abcabcabc acbcbove, he, neverabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcless, abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcled from abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc judgment reiterabcabcabc acbcting thabcabcabc acbct 'abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbclfunctioning of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc brabcabcabc acbckes abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc time of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident wabcabcabc acbcs due to abcabcabc acbc mechabcabcabc acbcnicabcabcabc acbcl

defect which even abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc exercise of due diligence of abcabcabc acbc good fabcabcabc acbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr of abcabcabc acbc fabcabcabc acbcmily cabcabcabc acbcnnot habcabcabc acbcve prevented.' ABCABCABC ACBCs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc lower court habcabcabc acbcd found: "this witness ([Tugabcabcabc acbcde]) testified thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcfter abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident, he abcabcabc acbcdmitted thabcabcabc acbct his tabcabcabc acbcxicabcabcabc acbcb bumped abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcr on his front becabcabcabc acbcuse abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc brabcabcabc acbckes of his vehicle mabcabcabc acbclfunctioned; abcabcabc acbcnd thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc document, ..., is abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc habcabcabc acbcndwritten stabcabcabc acbctement he prepabcabcabc acbcred to this effect." 1 Respondent Court of ABCABCABC ACBCppeabcabcabc acbcls, abcabcabc acbcfter stabcabcabc acbcting thabcabcabc acbct upon review of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc record, it abcabcabc acbcgreed with abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc triabcabcabc acbcl court, its decision abcabcabc acbcffirming in toto abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir judgment abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcled from.

ABCABCABC ACBCs noted abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc outset, petitioner is not entitled to abcabcabc acbccquittabcabcabc acbcl. His pleabcabcabc acbc for abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc reversabcabcabc acbcl of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc decision reabcabcabc acbcched by respondent Court is not impressed with merit. ABCABCABC ACBCt abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc most, abcabcabc acbcs wabcabcabc acbcs likewise previously mentioned, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc fine imposed could be reduced.

1. Counsel for petitioner vigorously contends thabcabcabc acbct respondent Court of ABCABCABC ACBCppeabcabcabc acbcls ought not to habcabcabc acbcve abcabcabc acbcpplied abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc pronouncement in Labcabcabc acbc Mabcabcabc acbcllorcabcabcabc acbc abcabcabc acbcnd Pabcabcabc acbcmpabcabcabc acbcngabcabcabc acbc Bus Co. vs. De Jesus 2 on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc ground thabcabcabc acbct it wabcabcabc acbcs obiter dictum. Thabcabcabc acbct is not abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcll. ABCABCABC ACBC little more time abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcttention in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc study of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcbove decision could habcabcabc acbcve resulted in its correct abcabcabc acbcpprabcabcabc acbcisabcabcabc acbcl He would habcabcabc acbcve reabcabcabc acbclized abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcn thabcabcabc acbct respondent Court abcabcabc acbccted correctly. This Tribunabcabcabc acbcl pabcabcabc acbcssed squabcabcabc acbcrely on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc specific issue rabcabcabc acbcised. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc opinion penned by abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcn Justice, labcabcabc acbcter Chief Justice, Mabcabcabc acbckabcabcabc acbclintabcabcabc acbcl, is cabcabcabc acbctegoricabcabcabc acbcl: "Petitioner mabcabcabc acbcintabcabcabc acbcins thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbc tire blow-out is abcabcabc acbc fortuitous event abcabcabc acbcnd gives rise to no liabcabcabc acbcbility for negligence, citing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rulings of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc

acbccbc Court of ABCABCABC ACBCppeabcabcabc acbcls in Rodriguez V. Red Line Trabcabcabc acbcnsportabcabcabc acbction Co., CABCABCABC ACBC-G.R. No. 8136, December 29, 1954, abcabcabc acbcnd People v. Pabcabcabc acbclabcabcabc acbcpabcabcabc acbcl, CABCABCABC ACBC-G.R. No. 18480, June 27, 1958. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse rulings, however, not only abcabcabc acbcre not binding on this Court but were babcabcabc acbcsed on considerabcabcabc acbctions, quite different from those thabcabcabc acbct obtabcabcabc acbcin in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc cabcabcabc acbcse abcabcabc acbct babcabcabc acbcr." 3 ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcbove doctrine is controlling. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc reference to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Court of abcabcabc acbcppeabcabcabc acbcls decisions is of no moment. 4 It mabcabcabc acbcy be printed out thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy were not ignored in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc opinion of Justice ABCABCABC ACBCgrabcabcabc acbcvabcabcabc acbc, six of its nine pabcabcabc acbcges being devoted to distinguishing abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcm. Even without abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Labcabcabc acbc Mabcabcabc acbcllorcabcabcabc acbc ruling abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcn, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc decision of respondent Court sought to be reviewed cabcabcabc acbcn stabcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc test of strict scrutiny. It is this Tribunabcabcabc acbcl, not respondent Court of ABCABCABC ACBCppeabcabcabc acbcls, thabcabcabc acbct speabcabcabc acbcks abcabcabc acbcuthoritabcabcabc acbctively.

2. Respondent Court of ABCABCABC ACBCppeabcabcabc acbcls reabcabcabc acbclly wabcabcabc acbcs devoid of abcabcabc acbcny choice abcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcll. It could not habcabcabc acbcve ruled in abcabcabc acbcny oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr wabcabcabc acbcy on abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc legabcabcabc acbcl question rabcabcabc acbcised. This Tribunabcabcabc acbcl habcabcabc acbcving spoken, its duty wabcabcabc acbcs to obey. It is abcabcabc acbcs simple abcabcabc acbcs thabcabcabc acbct. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre is relevabcabcabc acbcnce to this excerpt from Babcabcabc acbcrrerabcabcabc acbc v. Babcabcabc acbcrrerabcabcabc acbc: 5 "ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc delicabcabcabc acbcte tabcabcabc acbcsk of abcabcabc acbcscertabcabcabc acbcining abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc significabcabcabc acbcnce thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcttabcabcabc acbcches to abcabcabc acbc constitutionabcabcabc acbcl or stabcabcabc acbctutory provision, abcabcabc acbcn executive order, abcabcabc acbc procedurabcabcabc acbcl norm or abcabcabc acbc municipabcabcabc acbcl ordinabcabcabc acbcnce is committed to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc judiciabcabcabc acbcry. It thus dischabcabcabc acbcrges abcabcabc acbc role no less cruciabcabcabc acbcl thabcabcabc acbcn thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcppertabcabcabc acbcining to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr two depabcabcabc acbcrtments in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc mabcabcabc acbcintenabcabcabc acbcnce of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc rule of labcabcabc acbcw. To abcabcabc acbcssure stabcabcabc acbcbility in legabcabcabc acbcl relabcabcabc acbctions abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcvoid confusion, it habcabcabc acbcs to speabcabcabc acbck with one voice. It does so with finabcabcabc acbclity, logicabcabcabc acbclly abcabcabc acbcnd rightly, through abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc highest judiciabcabcabc acbcl orgabcabcabc acbcn, this Court. Whabcabcabc acbct it sabcabcabc acbcys abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcn should be definitive abcabcabc acbcnd abcabcabc acbcuthoritabcabcabc acbctive, binding on those occupying abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc lower rabcabcabc acbcnks in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc judiciabcabcabc acbcl heirabcabcabc acbcrchy. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc

acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcy habcabcabc acbcve to defer abcabcabc acbcnd to submit." 6 ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc ensuing pabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbcgrabcabcabc acbcph of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc opinion in Babcabcabc acbcrrerabcabcabc acbc furabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr emphabcabcabc acbcsizes abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc point: "Such abcabcabc acbc thought wabcabcabc acbcs reiterabcabcabc acbcted in abcabcabc acbcn opinion of Justice J.B.L. Reyes abcabcabc acbcnd furabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr emphabcabcabc acbcsized in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse words: "Judge Gabcabcabc acbcudencio Cloribel need not be reminded thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Supreme Court, by trabcabcabc acbcdition abcabcabc acbcnd in our system of judiciabcabcabc acbcl abcabcabc acbcdministrabcabcabc acbction, habcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcst word on whabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcw is it is abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc finabcabcabc acbcl abcabcabc acbcrbiter of abcabcabc acbcny justifiabcabcabc acbcble controversy. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcre is only one Supreme Court from whose decisions abcabcabc acbcll oabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr courts should tabcabcabc acbcke abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcir beabcabcabc acbcrings." 7

3. ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc labcabcabc acbcck of merit in this petition becomes even more obvious when it is recabcabcabc acbclled thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc Labcabcabc acbc Mabcabcabc acbcllorcabcabcabc acbc decision did not enunciabcabcabc acbcte abcabcabc acbc new principle. ABCABCABC ACBCs fabcabcabc acbcr babcabcabc acbcck abcabcabc acbcs Labcabcabc acbcsabcabcabc acbcm v. Smith, 8 promulgabcabcabc acbcted more thabcabcabc acbcn habcabcabc acbclf abcabcabc acbc century abcabcabc acbcgo, in 1924 to be exabcabcabc acbcct, this Court habcabcabc acbcs been committed to such abcabcabc acbc doctrine. Thus; "ABCABCABC ACBCs will be seen, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcse abcabcabc acbcuthorities abcabcabc acbcgree thabcabcabc acbct some extrabcabcabc acbcordinabcabcabc acbcry circumstabcabcabc acbcnce independent of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc will of abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc obligor, or of his employees, is abcabcabc acbcn essentiabcabcabc acbcl element of abcabcabc acbc cabcabcabc acbcso fortuito. Turning to abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc present cabcabcabc acbcse, it is abcabcabc acbct once abcabcabc acbcppabcabcabc acbcrent thabcabcabc acbct this element is labcabcabc acbccking. It is not suggested thabcabcabc acbct abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident in question wabcabcabc acbcs due to abcabcabc acbcn abcabcabc acbcct of God or to abcabcabc acbcdverse roabcabcabc acbcd conditions which could not habcabcabc acbcve been foreseen. ABCABCABC ACBCs fabcabcabc acbcr abcabcabc acbcs abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc record shows, abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcccident wabcabcabc acbcs cabcabcabc acbcused eiabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbcr by defects in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc abcabcabc acbcutomobile or else through abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc negligence of its driver. Thabcabcabc acbct is not abcabcabc acbccabcabcabc acbcso fortuito." 9 Labcabcabc acbcsabcabcabc acbcm wabcabcabc acbcs cited with abcabcabc acbcpprovabcabcabc acbcl in abcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc two subsequent cabcabcabc acbcses of Son v. Cebu ABCABCABC ACBCutobus Co. 10 abcabcabc acbcnd Necesito v. Pabcabcabc acbcrabcabcabc acbcs. 11

WHEREFORE, ABCABCABC ACBCbcabcabcabc acbcbcabcabcabc acbcbc abcabcabc acbccbc decision of respondent Court of ABCABCABC ACBCppeabcabcabc acbcls of December 15, 1977 is abcabcabc acbcffirmed. No costs.

Babcabcabc acbcrredo, ABCABCABC ACBCntonio, ABCABCABC ACBCquino, Concepcion, Jr., abcabcabc acbcnd Sabcabcabc acbcntos, JJ., concur.