OBLICON Q1

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

1/32

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

2/32

The dut- of the defendant to refund the mone- "hich he "on fromthe plaintiff at gaming is not an o*ligation from 7contract# e press orimplied9 rather it is a dut- imposed *- statute .pon general principles#recogni ed *oth in civil and common la"# mone- lost at gaming andvoluntaril- paid *- the loser to the "inner cannot# in the a*sence of statute#

*e recovered in a civil action But Act 2o 1;%; of the PhilippineCommission# "hich defines and penali es several forms of gam*ling#containing numerous provisions recogni ing the right to recover mone- lostin gam*ling or in the pla-ing of certain games The o*ligation of thedefendant to restore or refund the mone- "hich he "on from the plaintiff atgaming therefore arises e lege

Ar uro Pe+ayo &s. Mar/e+o Lauro#G.R. No. L-4!" , 0a#uary 1 , 1 !

1 P (+. 45)

FACTS:

$n or a*out $cto*er 16# 150 the plaintiff Arturo Pela-o "as calledto the house of the defendants# Marcelo 'auron and uana A*ella situated inSan 2icolas# and that upon arrival he "as re8uested *- them to rendermedical assistance to their daughter in la" "ho "as a*out to give *irth to achild After consultation "ith the attending ph-sician# Dr /scaEo# the

plaintiff found it necessar- to remove the fetus *- means of an operation# in"hich service he "as occupied until the follo"ing morning# and had visitedthe patient several times The e8uita*le value of the services rendered *- the

plaintiff "as P%00 00# "hich the defendants refused to pa- $n 2ovem*er,6# 150 the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants and pra-edthat the +udgment *e rendered in his favor as against the defendants# or an-of them# for the sum of P%00 and costs# together "ith an- other relief thatma- *e deemed proper )n ans"er# the defendants denied all allegations andalleged as a special defense# that their daughter in la" died as aconse8uence of the said child*irth# and "hen she "as still alive she lived"ith her hus*and independentl- and in a separate house and "ithout an-

relation "hatsoever "ith them# and on the da- she gave *irth she "as in thehouse of the defendants and her sta- there "as accidental and due tofortuitous circumstances Thus# the defendants pra-ed that the- *e a*solvedfrom the complaint "ith costs against the plaintiff

The plaintiff demurred the ans"er and that the lo"er court sustainedthe demurrer directing the defendants to amend their ans"er )n compliance#the defendants amended their ans"er den-ing each and ever- allegationcontained in the complaint The lo"er court rendered +udgment in favor ofthe defendants a*solving them from the complaint

)SS./:The issue is "hether or not the parents in la" are under an- o*ligation to

pa- the fees claimed *- the plaintiff

!/'D:The defendants "ere not# nor are the- no"# under an- o*ligation *-

virtue of an- legal provision# to pa- the fees claimed# nor in conse8uence of an- contract entered into *et"een them and the plaintiff from "hich sucho*ligation might have arisen

The rendering of medical assistance in case of illness is comprisedamong the mutual o*ligations to "hich spouses are *ound *- "a- of mutualsupport hen either of them *- reason of illness should *e in need ofmedical assistance# the other is under the unavoida*le o*ligation to furnishthe necessar- services of a ph-sician in order that the health ma- *erestored@ the part- *ound to furnish such support is therefore# lia*le for allthe e penses# including the fees of the medical e pert for his professionalservices The lia*ilit- arises from the o*ligation# "hich the la" has

e pressl- esta*lished# *et"een married couples )t is therefore the hus*andof the patient "ho is *ound to pa- for the services of the plaintiff The factthat it "as not the hus*and "ho called the plaintiff and re8uested themedical assistance for his "ife is no *ar to his fulfillment of sucho*ligation# as the defendants# in vie" of the imminent danger to "hich thelife of the patient "as at that moment e posed# considered that the medicalassistance "as urgentl- needed Therefore# plaintiff should direct his actionagainst the hus*and of the patient# and not against her parents in la"

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

3/32

ASI CORPORA ION VS. EVANGELIS AG.R No. 15"!"6.

February 14, !!"

FACTS:

Private respondent /vangelista contracted Petitioner ASCorporation for the incu*ation and hatching of eggs and *- products o"ned

*- /vangelista Spouses The contract includes the scheduled pa-ments ofthe service of AS Corporation that the amount of installment shall *e paidafter the deliver- of the chic(s !o"ever# the AS Corporation detained thechic(s *ecause /vangelista Spouses failed to pa- the installment on time

)SS./:

as the detention of the alleged chic(s valid and recogni ed underthe la"

.')23:

2o# *ecause AS Corporation must give due to the /vangelistaSpouses in pa-ing the installment# thus# it must not dela- the deliver- of thechic(s Thus# under the la"# the- are o*liged to pa- damages "ith eachother for the *reach of the o*ligation

Therefore# in a contract of service# each part- must *e in good faithin the performance of their o*ligation# thus "hen the petitioner had detainedthe hatched eggs of the respondents spouses# it is an implication of putting

pre+udice to the *usiness of the spouses due to the dela- of pa-inginstallment to the petitioner

RAMAS VS. 23IAMCOG.R No. 146) . e/e ber 6, !!6

FACTS:

Guiamco has amica*l- settled "ith Davalan# 3a*utero and3eneroso for the crime of ro**er- and that in return# the three hadsurrendered to Guiamco a motorc-cle "ith its registration !o"ever# Att-amas has sold to 3a*utero the motorc-cle in installment *ut "hen thelatter did not a*le to pa- the installment# Davalon continued the pa-ment

*ut "hen he *ecame insolvent# he said that the motorc-cle "as ta(en *-Guiamco

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

4/32

N( o o e+ Ma#(+a Gar8e# &s. Rober o ReyesG.R. No. 154 5 , February ", !!5

45 SCRA 5)

FACTS:

espondent herein o*erto e-es# more popularl- (no"n *- thescreen name 7Ama- Bisa-a#9 alleged that "hile he "as having coffee at thelo**- of !otel 2i((o# he "as spotted *- Dr Hioleta Filart# his friend ofseveral -ears# invited him to +oin her in a part- at the hoteland *eingem*arrassed and humiliated in the process? as he "as a 7gate crasher 9

)SS./:

hether or not !otel 2i((o and u*- 'im are +ointl- and severall-lia*le "ith Dr Filart for damages under Articles 15 and ,1 of the CivilCode

!/'D:The doctrine of volenti non fit in+uria >7to "hich a person assents is

not esteemed in la" as in+ur-9? refers to self inflicted in+ur- or to theconsent to in+ur- "hich precludes the recover- of damages *- one "ho has(no"ingl- and voluntaril- e posed himself to danger# even if he is notnegligent in doing so

The Supreme Court agreed "ith the lo"er court

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

5/32

S . Mary's A/a8e y &s. 9(++(a Car*( a#os a#8 Lu/(a S. Car*( a#osG.R. No. 14))6), February 6, !!

4 6 P (+ "7"

FACTS:

From 16 to ,0 Fe*ruar- 155%# St Mar-respondent? scheduled an initial and final food tasting The partieseventuall- agreed on a final price K P1#1%0 per person $n ul- ,;# ,001#the parties finali ed and signed their contract

Petitioners claim that during the reception# respondent

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

6/32

Petitioners thus sent a letter complaint to the Ma(ati Shangri la !oteland esort# )nc and received an apologetic repl- from Lrister Svensson# thehotel

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

7/32

*e acted in strict compliance there"ith Thus# the CBA in this case is thela" *et"een the emplo-ers and their emplo-ees

Therefore# there "as no overpa-ment "hen there "as an increase of salar- for the mem*ers of the union simultaneous "ith the increasing of minimum "age for "or(ers in the 2ational Capital egion The CBAshould *e follo"ed thus# the senior emplo-ees "ho "ere first promoted asregular emplo-ees shall *e entitled for the increase in their salaries and thesame "ith lo"er ran( "or(ers

Re$(#o &s. Pa#$as(#a# Co++e$es o= S/(e#/e a#8 e/ #o+o$yG.R. No. 1561!

No&e ber ", !!4

FACTS:

Petitioner Lhristine ea M egino "as a first -ear computer

science student of Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technolog- >PCST?eared in a poor famil-# egino "ent to college mainl- through thefinancial support of her relatives She enrolled 'ogic and Statistics su*+ectsunder achelle 3amurot and /lissa Baladad# respectivel- as teachers

)n Fe*ruar- ,00,# PCST held a fund raising campaign du**ed 7Theave Part- and Dance evolution9 the proceeds "hich "ere to go to theconstruction of the school

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

8/32

PS%A &s. Cour o= A**ea+sG.R. No. "46 ", February 4, 1

FACTS:A sta**ing incident on 60 August 15 % "hich caused the death of

Carlitos Bautista "hile on the second floor premises of the PhilippineSchool of Business Administration >PSBA? prompted the parents of thedeceased to file suit in the egional Trial Court of Manila for damagesagainst the said PSBA and its corporate officers At the time of his death#Carlitos "as enrolled in the third -ear commerce course at the PSBA )t "asesta*lished that his assailants "ere not mem*ers of the schoolNs academiccommunit- *ut "ere elements from outside the school Su*stantiall-#the plaintiffs >no" private respondents? sought to ad+udge them lia*le forthe victimNs untimel- demise due to their alleged negligence# rec(lessnessand lac( of securit- precautions# means and methods *efore# during and

after the attac( on the victimDefendants a 8uo >no" petitioners? sought to have the suit dismissed#alleging that since the- are presuma*l- sued under Article ,1 0 of the CivilCode# the complaint states no cause of action against them# as +urisprudenceon the su*+ect is to the effect that academic institutions# such as the PSBA#are *e-ond the am*it of the rule in the afore stated articleThe respondent trial court# ho"ever# overruled petitioners< contention andthru an order dated Decem*er 15 ;# denied their motion to dismiss Saiddecision of the respondent appellate court "as primaril- anchored on thela" of 8uasi delicts# as enunciated in Articles ,1;& and ,1 0 of the CivilCode

Article ,1 0# in con+unction "ith Article ,1;& of the Civil Code#esta*lishes the rule of in loco parentis )t had *een stressed that the la">Article ,1 0? plainl- provides that the damage should have *een caused orinflicted *- pupils or students of the educational institution sought to *eheld lia*le for the acts of its pupils or students "hile in its custod-!o"ever# this material situation does not e ist in the present case for theassailants of Carlitos "ere not students of the PSBA# for "hose acts theschool could *e made lia*le

)SS./:hether or not the appellate courtNs failure to consider such material factsmeans the e culpation of the petitioners from lia*ilit-

!/'D:)t does not necessaril- follo" hen an academic institution accepts

students for enrollment# there is esta*lished a contract *et"een them#resulting in *ilateral o*ligations "hich *oth parties are *ound to compl-"ith For its part# the school underta(es to provide the student "ith aneducation that "ould presuma*l- suffice to e8uip him "ith the necessar-tools and s(ills to pursue higher education or a profession $n the otherhand# the student covenants to a*ide *- the schoolNs academic re8uirementsand o*serve its rules and regulations )nstitutions of learning must also meetthe implicit or O*uilt inO o*ligation of providing their students "ith anatmosphere that promotes or assists in attaining its primar- underta(ing ofimparting (no"ledge Certainl-# no student can a*sor* the intricacies of

ph-sics or higher mathematics or e plore the realm of the arts and other

sciences "here there looms around the school premises a constant threat tolife and lim* 2ecessaril-# the school must ensure that ade8uate steps areta(en to maintain peace and order "ithin the campus premises and to

prevent the *rea(do"n thereof Because the circumstances of the presentcase evince a contractual relation *et"een the PSBA and Carlitos Bautista#the rules on 8uasi delict do not appl-!o"ever# there is# as -et# no finding that the contract *et"een the schooland Bautista had *een *reached thru the formerNs negligence in providing

proper securit- measures /ven if there *e a finding of negligence# the samecould give rise generall- to a *reach of contractual o*ligation onl- .singthe test of Cangco# supra# the negligence of the school "ould not *e relevant

a*sent a contract )n fact# that negligence *ecomes material onl- *ecause ofthe contractual relation *et"een PSBA and Bautista )n other "ords# acontractual relation is a condition sine 8ua non to the schoolNs lia*ilit- Thenegligence of the school cannot e ist independentl- of the contract# unlessthe negligence occurs under the circumstances set out in Article ,1 of theCivil Code

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

9/32

Cos o E# era(# e# Ma#a$e e# , I#/. &s. La V(++e Co er/(a+Cor*ora (o#

G.R. No. 15 "!1, Au$us !, !!44)7 SCRA 145

FACTS:

The respondent# 'a Hille Commercial Corporation# is the registeredo"ner of a parcel of land covered *- TCT 2o 1;=,%0 of the egistr- ofDeeds of Ma(ati Cit- together "ith the commercial *uilding thereonsituated at the corner of Lala-aan and 2eptune Streets in Ma(ati Cit-

$n March 1;# 1556# it entered into a Contract of 'ease "ith petitioner Cosmo /ntertainment Management# )nc over the su*+ect propert-for a period of seven -ears "ith a monthl- rental of P,%0 per s8uare meterof the floor area of the *uilding and a securit- deposit e8uivalent to three

monthl- rentals in the amount of P==;# 000 00 to guarantee the faithfulcompliance of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement .pone ecution of the contract# the petitioner too( possession of the su*+ect

propert-

The petitioner# ho"ever# suffered *usiness reverses and "asconstrained to stop operations in Septem*er 155& Thereafter# the petitioner defaulted in its rental pa-ments Conse8uentl-# the respondent made ademand on the petitioner to vacate the premises as "ell as to pa- theaccrued rentals plus interests "hich# as of anuar- 61# 155;# amounted toP;=0# =; 51 )n repl- to the demand# the petitioner averred that its unpaid

rentals amounted to P&5 # %00 onl- and since it made a securit- deposit ofP=15# 100 "ith the respondent# the said amount should *e applied to theunpaid rentals@ hence# the outstanding accounts pa-a*le "ould onl- *eP,;5# =00 The respondent re8uested that the interest charges *e "aivedand it *e given time to find a solution to its financial pro*lems

After negotiations *et"een the parties failed# the respondent# on Ma-,;# 155;# reiterated its demand on the petitioner to pa- the unpaid rentals as

"ell as to vacate and surrender the premises to the respondent hen the petitioner refused to compl- "ith its demand# the respondent filed "ith theMetropolitan Trial Court of Ma(ati Cit- a complaint for illegal detainerThe petitioner# in its ans"er to the complaint# raised the defense that# underthe contract# it had the right to su*lease the premises upon prior "rittenconsent *- the respondent and pa-ment of transfer fees !o"ever# therespondent# "ithout an- +ustifia*le reason# refused to allo" the petitioner tosu*lease the premises

)SS./:

hether or not the petitioner has the right to su*lease the premises

!/'D:

The Court is convinced that the findings and conclusions of thecourt a 8uo and the TC are in order These courts uniforml- found that#under the terms of the contract of lease# the respondent# as the o"ner lessor

of the premises# had reserved its right to approve the su*lease of the sameThe petitioner# having voluntaril- given its consent thereto# "as *ound *-this stipulation And# having failed to pa- the monthl- rentals# the petitioner is deemed to have violated the terms of the contract# "arranting itse+ectment from the leased premises The Court finds no cogent reason todepart from this factual dis8uisition of the courts *elo" in vie" of the rulethat findings of facts of the trial courts are# as a general rule# *inding on thisCourt

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

10/32

Ayala Corporation vs. Rosa Diana Realty G.R. No. 134284, December 1, 2000

346 CRA 663

FACTS:

Petitioner Ayala Corporation (Ayala) was the

registered owner of a parcel of land located in AlfaroStreet, Salcedo Village, Makati City with an area of 840s !are "eters "ore or less and co#ered $y %C% no& ' 4of the *egister of +eeds of *i al&

-n April '0, ./ 1, Ayala sold the lot to Man!el Sy"arried to Vil"a Po and Sy 2a 2ieng "arried to *osaChan& %he +eed of Sale e3ec!ted $etween Ayala and the$!yers contained Special Conditions of Sale and +eed*estrictions& Man!el Sy and Sy 2a 2ieng failed toconstr!ct the $!ilding in #iolation of the Special Conditionsof Sale& otwithstanding the #iolation, Man!el Sy and Sy2a 2ieng were a$le to sell the lot to respondent *osa5+iana*ealty and +e#elop"ent Corp& with Ayala6s appro#al& As aconsideration for Ayala to release the certi7cate of title of the s!$ ect property, *osa5+iana, e3ec!ted an !ndertakingpro"ising to a$ide $y said Special Condition of Salee3ec!ted $etween Ayala and the original #endees& 9ponthe s!$"ission of the !ndertaking, together with the

$!ilding plans for a condo"ini!" pro ect, known as thePeak, Ayala released title to the lot, there$y ena$ling *osa5+iana to register the +eed of Sale on its fa#or and o$taincerti7cate of %itle in its na"e&

%hereafter, *osa5+iana s!$"itted to the $!ildingo:icial of Makati another set of $!ilding plans which weres!$stantially di:erent fro" those that it earlier s!$"ittedto Ayala for appro#al& +!ring the constr!ction of *osa5+iana6s condo"ini!" pro ect, Ayala 7led an action with the*%C of Makati for speci7c perfor"ance with application fora writ of preli"inary in !nction seeking to co"pel the latterto co"ply with the contract!al o$ligations !nder the +eedof *estriction annotated on the title as well as with the$!ilding plans it s!$"itted to the latter& ;n the alternati#e,

Ayala prayed for rescission of the sale of the s!$ ect lot to*osa5+iana *ealty& %he lower co!rt denied Ayala6s prayerfor in !ncti#e relief< th!s, ena$ling *osa5+iana to co"plete

the constr!ction of the $!ilding& Ayala tried to ca!se theannotation a notice of lis pendens on *osa5+iana6s title $!tthe *egister of +eed of Makati ref!sed registration on thegro!nd that the case pending $efore the trial co!rt $eingan action for speci7c perfor"ance and or rescission is anaction in personam which does not in#ol#e the title, !se orpossession of the property& %he =and *egistration

A!thority re#ersed the r!ling of the *egister of +eeds& %hedecision of the =*A, howe#er, was re#ersed $y the CA&

ISSUE:

%he iss!e is whether or not respondent *osa5+ianahas the o$ligation to enforce the +eed of *estrictionscontained in the contract it entered with Ayala&

HELD:

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

11/32

Contract!al o$ligations $etween parties ha#e theforce of law $etween the" and a$sent any allegation thatthe sa"e are contrary to law, "orals, good c!sto"s, p!$licorder or p!$lic policy, they "!st $e co"plied with in goodfaith& >ence, Article .. / of the new Ci#il Code pro#ides?o$ligations arising fro" contracts ha#e the force of law$etween the contracting parties and sho!ld $e co"pliedwith in good faith&

>ence, respondent *osa5+iana has the o$ligation toenforce the +eed of *estrictions contained in the contractit entered with Ayala&

!ric"to#n Development vs. Amor $ierra DevelopmentG.R. No. 112182, December 12, 1%%4

23% CRA 126

FACTS:

-n . March ./8., petitioner @ricktown+e#elop"ent Corporation e3ec!ted two contracts to sell infa#or of petitioner %ierra Corp& co#ering a total of /1residential lots sit!ated at the M!ltinational VillageS!$di#ision, =a >!erta, Para a !e, Metro Manila& %hetotal price of P'.,1 /,8 &00 was stip!lated to $e paid $ypri#ate respondent in s!ch a"o!nt and "at!rity dates, asfollows< P','00,000&00 on March ., ./8., P , '0/, /1 &on 0 B!ne ./8., P4, '/, /01&' on . +ece"$er ./8.,and the $alance of P.., 00,000&00 to $e paid $y "eans of an ass!"ption $y pri#ate respondent of petitioner6scorporation6s "ortgage lia$ility to the Philippine Sa#ing@ank or, alternati#ely, to $e "ade paya$le in cash& -n e#endate . March ./8., the parties e3ec!ted a s!pple"ental

agree"ent pro#iding that pri#ate respondent wo!ldadditionally pay to petitioner the a"o!nt of P , 14&18 or'. interest on the $alance of downpay"ent for the periodfro" . March to 0 B!ne ./8. and of P /0, 1 &representing interest paid $y petitioner corporation to thePhilippine Sa#ings @ank in !pdating the $ank loan for theperiod fro" . De$r!ary to . March ./8.&

-n .' -cto$er ./8., Petitioner Corporation sentnotice of cancellation of contract to pri#ate respondent onacco!nt of the latter6s contin!ed fail!re to pay theinstall"ent d!e 0 B!ne ./8. and interest on the !npaid$alance of the stip!lated initial pay"ent&

-n '1 Septe"$er ./8 , pri#ate respondentde"anded the ref!nd of its #ario!s pay"ent to petitionera"o!nting to P', 44 , 4/ & .& >owe#er, petitioner did notheed the de"and, so pri#ate respondent 7led an action

with the co!rt a quo &

%he lower co!rt r!led in fa#or of pri#ate respondentand it was a:ir"ed in toto $y the appellate co!rt&

ISSUE:

%he iss!e is whether or not the contracts to sell were #alidly rescinded or cancelled $y Petitioner Corporation&

HELD:

%he contracts to sell were #alidly rescinded $yPetitioner Corporation& ;n 7ne, while we "!st concl!dethat petitioner corporation still acted within its legal rightto declare the contracts to sell rescinded or cancelled,considering, ne#ertheless, the pec!liar circ!"stances

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

12/32

fo!nd to $e e3tant $y the trial co!rt, con7r"ed $y theCo!rt of Appeals, it wo!ld $e !nconsciona$le to likewisesanction the forfeit!re $y petitioner corporation of pay"ents "ade to it $y pri#ate respondent& ;ndeed, theCo!rt has inti"ated that the relationship $etween partiesin any contract "!st always $e characteri ed andp!nct!ated $y good faith and fair dealing& B!dging fro"what the co!rt $elow ha#e said, petitioners did fall well$ehind that standard& %he Co!rt does not 7nd it e !ita$leto ad !dge any interest pay"ent $y petitioners on thea"o!nt to $e th!s ref!nded co"p!ted fro" !dicialde"and, for indeed, pri#ate respondent sho!ld not $eallowed to totally free itself fro" its own $reach&

&ilipinas 'ino vs. Co(rt o) AppealsG.R. No. 126*+0, A( (st 18, 2000

338 CRA 3**

FACTS:

%he plainti:, Pilipinas >ino, ;nc&, is a corporation d!lyorgani ed and e3isting !nder the laws of the Philippines,with o:ice address at PM; @!ilding E+SA, Mandal!yong,Metro Manila, %he plainti: 7led an action for s!" of "oneyand da"ages against the defendants&

%he contract of lease was entered into $etweenherein parties, !nder which the defendants, as lessor,leased real property located at @igaa, @alagtas @!lacan, toplainti: for a ter" of ' years& P!rs!ant to the contract of lease, plainti:5lessee deposited with the defendants5lessorthe a"o!nt of P400, 000&00 to answer for repairs andda"ages that "ay $e ca!sed $y the lessee on the leasedpre"ises d!ring the period of the lease& After thee3piration of the lease contract, the plainti: anddefendants "ade a oint inspection of the pre"ises todeter"ine the e3tent of the da"ages thereon& @oth agreedthat the cost of repairs wo!ld a"o!nt to P10, 000&00 and

that the a"o!nt of P 40, 000&00 shall then $e ret!rned $ythe defendants to plainti:& >owe#er, defendants ret!rnedto plainti: only the a"o!nt of P'00, 000&00 still ha#ing a$alance of P.40, 000&00&

-n A!g!st .0, .//0, plainti: and defendants enteredinto a contract to sell deno"inated as a "e"orand!" of agree"ent to sell where$y the latter agreed to sell to thefor"er the leased property s!$ ect of this s!it in thea"o!nt of P4 , 1..,000&00& %he aforesaid "e"orand!" of agree"ent to sell granted the owner (defendants) theoption to rescind the sa"e !pon fail!re of the $!yer(plainti:) to pay any of the si3 install"ents with thecorresponding o$ligation to ret!rn to the $!yer any a"o!ntpaid $y the $!yer in e3cess of the down pay"ent& P!rs!antto the said "e"orand!" of agree"ent, plainti: re"ittedon A!g!st .0, .//0 to the defendants the a"o!nt of P.,8..,000&00 as down pay"ent& S!$se !ently, plainti: paidthe 7rst and second install"ents in the a"o!nt of P.,

800,000&00 and P , ' 0,000&00 with the total a"o!nt of P ,0 0,000&00& 9nfort!nately, plainti: failed to pay the thirdand s!$se !ent install"ents< and there!pon, defendantsdecided to, and in fact did rescind and ter"inate, thecontract pro"ised to ret!rn to the plainti: all the a"o!ntspaid in e3cess of the down pay"ent after ded!cting theinterest d!e fro" the third to si3th install"ents, incl!si#e&

%he trial co!rt rendered a decision r!ling in fa#or of respondents *eyes, et& al& Petitioner Pilipinas >ino ele#atedthe case to the Co!rt of Appeals& %he appellate co!rt,howe#er, s!stained the 7ndings of the trial co!rt&

ISSUE:

Fhether or not the pri#ate respondent has the rightto retain the interest d!e for the !npaid install"ents,despite the fact that the respondent has e3ercised hisoption to rescind the "e"orand!" of agree"ent&

HELD:

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

13/32

;n !stifying the withholding of the a"o!nt of P/'4,000&00 representing the interest d!e of the !npaidinstall"ents, $oth the trial and the appellate co!rt relied onparagraph 1 of the "e"orand!" of agree"ent entered into$y the parties& >owe#er, $oth co!rts failed to considerparagraph / contained in the sa"e "e"orand!" of agree"ent which pro#ides in #ery clear ter"s that ?whenthe owners e3ercise their option to forfeit the downpay"ent, they shall ret!rn to the $!yer any a"o!nt paid $ythe $!yer in e3cess of the down pay"ent with no o$ligationto pay interest thereon&G %his sho!ld incl!de all a"o!ntspaid, incl!ding interest& >ad it $een the intention of theparties to e3cl!de the interest fro" the a"o!nt to $eret!rned to the $!yer in the e#ent that the owner e3ercisesits option to ter"inate or rescind the agree"ent, then s!chsho!ld ha#e $een stated in categorical ter"s& %h!s, there isno $asis in the concl!sion reached $y the lower co!rts that?interest paidG sho!ld not $e ret!rned to the $!yer&

Moree#er, the pri#ate respondents6 withholding of thea"o!nt corresponding to the interest #iolated the speci7cand clear stip!lation in paragraph / of the "e"orand!" of agree"ent that e3cept for the down pay"ent, all a"o!ntspaid shall $e ret!rned to the $!yer ?with no o$ligation topay interest thereon&G %he parties are $o!nd $y theiragree"ent& %h!s Article .. / of the Ci#il Code e3presslypro#idesH Obligation arising from contracts have the forceof law between the contracting parties and should becomplied with in good faith.

P ILIPPINE REAL < a#8 OL ING CORP. &. LE< CONS . a#8EV. CORP.

G. R. No. 16554", 0u#e 1), !11

FACTS:'e- Construction and Development Corporation >'CDC? "as the

pro+ect contractor for the construction of several *uildings for Philippineealt- J !oldings Corporation >P !C?# the pro+ect o"ner /ngineer

Dennis A*cede >A*cede? "as the pro+ect construction manager of P !C#"hile oselito Santos >Santos? "as its general manager and vice presidentfor operations

Sometime *et"een April 15 and $cto*er 15 5# the t"ocorporations entered into four ma+or construction pro+ects# as evidenced *-four dul- notari ed Oconstruction agreements O These "ere the fourconstruction pro+ects the parties entered into involving a Pro+ect 1# Pro+ect,# Pro+ect 6 >all of "hich involve the Ale andra *uildings? and a Te(titeBuilding 'CDC committed itself to the construction of the *uildingsneeded *- P !C# "hich in turn committed itself to pa- the contract priceagreed upon )n the course of the construction of the Te(tite Building# it

*ecame evident to *oth parties that 'CDC "ould not *e a*le to finish the pro+ect "ithin the agreed period 'CDC e plained that the unanticipateddela- in construction "as due mainl- to the sudden# une pected hi(e in the

prices of cement and other construction materials Both parties agreed toenter into another agreement A*cede as(ed 'CDC to advance the amountnecessar- to complete construction )ts president acceded# on the a*solutecondition that it *e allo"ed to escalate the contract price A*cede replied

that he "ould ta(e this matter up "ith the *oard of directors of P !C The *oard of directors turned do"n the re8uest for an escalation agreement!o"ever# $n 5 August 1551 A*cede sent a formal letter to 'CDC# as(ingfor its conformit-# to the effect that should it infuse P6& million into the

pro+ect# a contract price escalation for the same amount "ould *e granted inits favor *- P !C

'CDC then proceeded "ith the construction of the Te(tite Building#e pending the entire amount necessar- to complete the pro+ect FromAugust to Decem*er 1551# it infused amounts totaling P 6 #,= #=&6 5,These amounts "ere not deposited into the +oint account of 'CDC andP !C# *ut paid directl- to the suppliers upon the instruction of

Santos 'CDC religiousl- su*mitted to P !C monthl- reports thatcontained the amounts of infusion it made from the period August 1551 toDecem*er 1551 P !C never replied to an- of these monthl- reports $n ,0anuar- 155,# 'CDC "rote a letter addressed to Santos stating that it hadalread- complied "ith its commitment as of 61 Decem*er 1551 and "asre8uesting the release of P ,#,= #=&6 5,

)n a letter dated 1 anuar- 1556# 'CDC# through counsel#demanded pa-ment of the agreed escalation price of P 6& million )n its

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

14/32

repl- on 1& Fe*ruar- 1556# P !C suddenl- denied an- lia*ilit- for theescalation price )n the same letter# it claimed that 'CDC had incurred 111da-s of dela- in the construction of the Te(tite Building and demanded thatthe latter pa- P 65#6, 1; 1% as li8uidated damages

)SS./:hether or not 'CDC "as dela-ed in the performance of its

o*ligation to construct the *uildings for P !C

!/'D:The Court held that A su*se8uent escalation agreement "as validl-

entered into *- the parties# *ut onl- to the e tent of P 6& million 'CDC"as a*le to esta*lish that A*cede and Santos# on *ehalf of P !C# hadsigned the letter agreement containing the stipulation on the escalationP !C does not 8uestion the validit- of these agreements@ it there*-effectivel- admits that these t"o individuals had actual authorit- to sign onits *ehalf "ith respect to these construction pro+ects Thus# the lac( ofauthorit- on their part should not *e used to pre+udice it# considering that

the t"o "ere clothed "ith apparent authorit- to e ecute such agreements )naddition# P !C is allegedl- *arred *- promissor- estoppel from den-ingthe claims of the other corporation

The Court further held that 'CDC is not lia*le for li8uidateddamages for dela- in the construction of the *uildings for P !C There isno 8uestion that 'CDC "as not a*le to full- construct the Te(tite Buildingand Pro+ects 1# ,# and 6 on time The shortage in supplies and cement ma-

*e characteri ed as force ma+eure )n the present case# hard"are stores didnot have enough cement availa*le in their supplies or stoc(s at the time ofthe construction in the 1550s

I AN-I:E A VS. PRIME O9NG.R No. 15"76"

February 1 , !!"

FACTS:

The respondent Primeto"n Propert- Corporation entered intocontract "eith the petitioner Titan )(eda Construction Corporation for thestructural "or(s of a 6, store- prime to"er After the construction of theto"er# respondent again a"arded to the petitioner the amount of P160#000#000 00 for the to"er

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

15/32

Petitioner Padcom Condominium Corporation >hereafterPADC$M? o"ns and manages the Padilla $ffice Condominium Building>PADC$M Building? located at /merald Avenue# $rtigas Center# PasigCit- The land on "hich the *uilding stands "as originall- ac8uired fromthe $rtigas J Compan-# 'imited Partnership >$C'P?# *- TierraDevelopment Corporation >TDC? under a Deed of Sale dated = Septem*er15;= Among the terms and conditions in the deed of sale "as there8uirement that the transferee and its successor in interest must *ecomemem*ers of an association for realt- o"ners and long term lessees in thearea later (no"n as the $rtigas Center Su*se8uentl-# the said lot# together"ith improvements thereon# "as conve-ed *- TDC in favor of PADC$M ina Deed of Transfer dated ,% Fe*ruar- 15;%)n 15 ,# respondent $rtigas Center Association# )nc >hereafter theAssociation? "as organi ed to advance the interests and promote thegeneral "elfare of the real estate o"ners and long term lessees of lots in the$rtigas Center )t sought the collection of mem*ership dues in the amountof t"o thousand seven hundred t"ent- four pesos and fort- centavos >P,#;,= =0? per month from PADC$M The corporate *oo(s sho"ed that

PADC$M o"ed the Association P&65# 5&1 =;# representing mem*ershipdues# interests and penalt- charges from April 15 6 to une 1556 Theletters e changed *et"een the parties through the -ears sho"ed repeateddemands for pa-ment# re8uests for e tensions of pa-ment# and even asettlement scheme proposed *- PADC$M in Septem*er 1550)n vie" of PADC$MNs failure and refusal to pa- its arrears in monthl- dues#including interests and penalties thereon# the Association filed a complaintfor collection of sum of mone- *efore the trial court The Associationaverred that purchasers of lands "ithin the $rtigas Center comple from$C'P are o*ligated under their contracts of sale to *ecome mem*ers of theAssociation This o*ligation "as allegedl- passed on to PADC$M "hen it

*ought the lot from TDC# its predecessor in interestThe trial court dismissed the case !o"ever# the Court of Appeals reversedthe same in favor of the Association

)SS./:hether or not PADC$M is a mem*er of the $rtigas Center

Association# )nc

!/'D: As a lot o"ner# PADC$M is a regular mem*er of the Association

2o application for mem*ership is necessar- )f at all# acceptance *- theBoard of Directors is a ministerial function considering that PADC$M isdeemed to *e a regular mem*er upon the ac8uisition of the lot pursuant tothe automatic mem*ership clause annotated in the Certificate of Title of the

propert- and the Deed of Transfer PADC$M

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

16/32

"herein defendant su*contracted to plaintiff the restoration of the *uildingsand land improvement phase of its contract "ith Sucodeco$n anuar- ,# 15 %# plaintiff received from defendant the amount of P1#665#;,0 00 as full pa-ment of the su* contract price# after deducting earlier

pa-ments made *- defendant to plaintiff# as evidenced *- the affidavite ecuted *- plaintiff

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

17/32

PBTC and dis*ursements made therefrom shall *e covered *- vouchers *earing the approval of S)P

S)P and PBTC *ecame dou*tful of the amount of revenues *eingdeposited "ith the *an( as diversions of pa-ments "ere *eing made3regorio Concon of S)P andIor Bacong and amon A an a of PBTCorgani ed SA 3acet )nc to manage and supervise the vessels< operation"ith / e(iel Toeg as its manager A management contract "as entered into

*et"een S)P and 3acet )nc placing the supervision and management of saidvessels in the hands of 3acet for a specified period# rene"a*le at the "ill ofthe parties "ithout ho"ever terminating the *oo(ing agenc- of )nteroceanShipping Corp 3acet and )nterocean# in accordance "ith the managementcontract# contracted services of Ben+amin Pineda doing *usiness in thename and st-le Pioneer )ron or(s to carr- out repairs# fa*rication andinstallation of necessar- parts in said vessels in order to ma(e themsea"orth- and in good "or(ing condition

.na*le to pa- their mortgage inde*tedness to PBTC hich *ecame past due# S)P andIor Bacong sold said vessels to PBTC *- "a- of dacion en pago Pineda filed an action against S)P# 3acet# )nterocean and PBTC for pa-ment and interest of the cost of repairs# fa*rication and installation ofnecessar- parts of the vessels

)SS./:ho should *e lia*le for the pa-ment of the cost of repairs

underta(en in the su*+ect vessels

!/'D:The Deed of Confirmation of $*ligation is *ut a part or corollar- to

the Deeds of Sale of the vessels )n fact# specific reference thereto "asmade *- said Deeds of Sale as to the settlement of o*ligations# among

"hich are repairs in 8uestion The stipulation "ith the Deed ofConfirmation leaves no room for dou*t "hile the *an( ma- indeed pa-certain o*ligations The primar- purpose of the contracts is the protectionof the vessels Among them are liens on the same under "hich theo*ligation to private respondent properl- *elongs

Private respondent "as paid certain sum of mone- and its *alancethrough the issuance of three chec(s *- )nterocean .nder thecircumstances# private respondent has no *asis or necessit- at that time to

e ercise his right of retention under 1;61 of the Civil Code The chec(s"ere dishonored thus the private respondent could not give validit- to

petitioner

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

18/32

espondents e pressed "illingness to pa-# re8uesting that upon pa-ment#the shares of stoc( pledged *e released State denied the re8uest on theground that the loan "hich it had e tended to the spouses ose andMarcelina A8uino has remained unpaid

$n ,5# une 15 =# Att- olando Salonga sent to respondent spousesa 2otice of 2otarial Sale stating that upon re8uest of State and *- virtue ofthe pledge agreement# he "ould sell at pu*lic auction the shares of stoc(

pledged to State This prompted respondents to file a case *efore theegional Trial Court of Gue on Cit- alleging that the intended foreclosuresale "as illegal *ecause from the time the o*ligation under the ,nd Account

*ecame due# the- had *een a*le and "illing to pa- the same# *ut petitionerhad insisted that respondents pa- even the loan account of ose andMarcelino A8uino# "hich had not *een secured *- the pledge )t "as further alleged that their failure to pa- their loan "as e cused *ecause State itselfhad prevented the satisfaction of the o*ligation

$n anuar- ,5# 15 %# the trial court rendered a decision in favor ofthe plaintiff ordering State to immediatel- release the pledge and to deliverto respondents the share of stoc( upon pa-ment of the loan The Court ofAppeals affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court

)SS./S:

hether or not the conditions to *e complied "ith *- the de*tordesirous of *eing released from his o*ligation in cases "here the creditorun+ustl- refuses to accept pa-ment have *een met *- the spouses A8uino

!/'D:

The conditions had not *een complied "ith Article 1,%& of the civilcode states that: 7)f the creditor to "hom tender of pa-ment has *een maderefuses "ithout +ust cause to accept it# the de*tor shall *e released fromresponsi*ilit- *- consignation of the thing or sum due 9 here the creditorun+ustl- refuses to accept pa-ment# the de*tor desirous of *eing releasedfrom his o*ligation must compl- "ith t"o >,? conditions: >a? tender of

pa-ment@ and >*? consignation of the sum due Tender of pa-ment must *e

accompanied or follo"ed *- consignation in order that the effects of pa-ment ma- *e produced )n the instant case# respondent spouses A8uino#"hile the- are properl- regarded as having made a "ritten tender of

pa-ment to petitioner state# failed to consign in court the amount due at thetime of the maturit- of the ,nd Account 2o )t follo"s that their o*ligationto pa- principal cum regular or monetar- interest under the terms andconditions of the said Account "as not e tinguished *- such tender of

pa-ment alone

A%ELLANA V. PEOPLEG.R. No. 174654, Au$us 17, !11

FACTS:

)n 15 %# petitioner Feli *erto A A*ellana e tended a loan to privaterespondents spouses Diaga and Saapia Alonto >spouses Alonto?# secured *-a Deed of eal /state Mortgage over 'ot 2os &=;1 and &=;, located inCe*u Cit- Su*se8uentl-# or in 15 ;# petitioner prepared a Deed of A*soluteSale conve-ing said lots to him The Deed of A*solute Sale "as signed *-spouses Alonto in Manila !o"ever# it "as notari ed in Ce*u Cit-allegedl- "ithout the spouses Alonto appearing *efore the notar- pu*licThereafter# petitioner caused the transfer of the titles to his name and soldthe lots to third persons $n August 1,# 1555# respondent spouses filed acomplaint charging petitioner "ith /stafa through Falsification of Pu*lic

Document

The TC found that petitioner did not intend to defraud thespouses Alonto and that petitioner can onl- *e held guilt- of Falsificationof a Pu*lic Document *- a private individual under Article 1;,>1?in relationto Article 1;1>,? of the evised Penal Code and not /stafa throughfalsification of pu*lic document as charged in the )nformation

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

19/32

Petitioner# upon appeal# raised the issue of "hether anaccused "ho "as ac8uitted of the crime charged ma- nevertheless *econvicted of another crime or offense not specificall- charged and allegedand "hich is not necessaril - included in the crime or offense charged TheCA held that petitioner "ho "as charged "ith and arraigned for estafathrough falsification of pu*lic document under Article 1;1>1? of the PCcould not *e convicted of Falsification of Pu*lic Document *- a Private)ndividual under Article 1;,>1? in relation to Article 1;1>,? Thus# the CAopined that the conviction of the petitioner for an offense not alleged in the)nformation or one not necessaril- included in the offense charged violatedhis constitutional right to *e informed of the nature and cause of theaccusation against him 2onetheless# the CA affirmed the trial courtNsfinding "ith respect to petitionerNs civil lia*ilit-

)SS./:hether or not petitioner could still *e held civill- lia*le

not"ithstanding his ac8uittal

!/'D: 2$ )t is an esta*lished rule in criminal procedure that a

+udgment of ac8uittal shall state "hether the evidence of the prosecutiona*solutel- failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merel- failed to provehis guilt *e-ond reasona*le dou*t The Oe tinction of the penal action doesnot carr- "ith it the e tinction of civil lia*ilit- unless the e tinction

proceeds from a declaration in a final +udgment that the fact from "hich thecivil lia*ilit- might arise did not e ist O

Civil lia*ilit- arises "hen one# *- reason of his o"n act oromission# done intentionall- or negligentl-# causes damage to another

!ence# for petitioner to *e civill- lia*le to spouses Alonto# it must *e proven that the acts he committed had caused damage to the spouses Basedon the records of the case# "e find that the acts allegedl- committed *- the

petitioner did not cause an- damage to spouses Alonto/ven assuming that the spouses Alonto did not personall-

appear *efore the notar- pu*lic for the notari ation of the Deed of A*soluteSale# the same does not necessaril- nullif- or render void a* initio the

partiesN transaction Such non appearance is not sufficient to overcome the

presumption of the truthfulness of the statements contained in the deed Andsince the defective notari ation does not ipso facto invalidate the Deed ofA*solute Sale# the transfer of said properties from spouses Alonto to

petitioner remains valid !ence# "hen on the *asis of said Deed ofA*solute Sale# petitioner caused the cancellation of spouses AlontoNs titleand the issuance of ne" ones under his name# and thereafter sold the sameto third persons# no damage resulted to the spouses Alonto

PEOPLE VS. MALICSIG.R No. 175"))

0a#uary , !!"

FACTS:

The accused appellant "as accused for the crime of rape against hisniece The incident "as repeated trice *- the appellant The appellantcontended that he and the victim "ere s"eethearts *ut the trial court did notgive "eight to that theor-

The trial court found appellant guilt- of the crime of four counts of8ualified rape and "as sentenced to suffer the penalt- of death for each

count of rape# to pa- P600#000 00 as civil indemnit- >P;%#000 00 for eachcount?# and P,00#000 00 as moral damages >P%0#000 00 for each count?The CA ho"ever modified the findings of the TC declaring that appellantis guilt- of four counts of simple rape and to suffer the penalt- of reclusion

perpetua

)SS./:

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

20/32

hether the a"ard of damages "as properl- made

.')23:

2o# *ecause the Supreme Court declared that the crime committed"as four count of simple rape onl- and not 8ualified rape *ecause thespecial aggravating circumstances of minorit- and relationship must *ealleged in the information *ut the prosecution failed to do so Since it is notincluded# four counts of simple rape should *e underta(en The penalt-imposed then should *e reclusion perpetua The appellate court alsocorrectl- affirmed the a"ard *- the trial court of P,00#000 00 for moraldamages Moral damages are automaticall- granted to rape victim!o"ever# the a"ard of civil indemnit- is reduced to P,00#000 00 in theamount of P%0#000 00 for each count of simple rape is automaticall-granted

Peo*+e o= e P (+(**(#es &s. Rosauro S(aG.R. No. 1)7457, No&e ber 1, !!1

)7! SCRA 1 )

FACTS:

This is an automatic revie" of a decision of the egional Trial Courtfinding the accused ohnn- Balalio - De a and imm- Ponce - Tol guilt-

*e-ond reasona*le dou*t as principals *- conspirac- for violation of A&%65 >Anti Carnapping la"? as amended# and sentenced them to suffer the

penalt- of death

Accused are li(e"ise ad+udged +ointl- and severall- lia*le to pa-Agripina Bermude # the mother of the deceased Christian Bermude thesums of: >a? P%0# 000 00 as compensator- damages for the death ofChristian Bermude @ >*? P,00# 000 00 as *urial and other e penses incurredin connection "ith the death of Christian@ and >c? P6# 60;#155 &0 >,I6 Q 0

,;R 600 per da- ,& da-s >e cluding Sunda-s? 1, months? representingthe loss of earning capacit- of Christian Bermude as ta i driver

)SS./:The issue is "hether or not the trial courts< a"ard for damages is

proper

!/'D:

The decision is partl- correct The Court finds the amount of P%0#000 00 as death indemnit- proper# follo"ing prevailing +urisprudence# andin line "ith controlling polic- The a"ard of civil indemnit- ma- *e granted"ithout an- need of proof other than the death of the victim Though nota"arded *- the trial court# the victim,? the rate of the loss sustained *- the heirs ofthe deceased The second varia*le is computed *- multipl-ing the lifee pectanc- *- the net earnings of the deceased meaning total earnings lesse penses necessar- in the creation of such earnings or income less living

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

21/32

and other incidental e penses considering that there is no proof of livinge penses of the deceased# net earnings are computed at fift- percent of thegross earnings

)n this case# the court notes that the victim "as ,; -ears old at thetime of his death and his mother testified that as a driver of the Tamara" Fta i# he "as earning P&%0 00 a da-Based on the foregoing computation# the a"ard of the trial court "ith regardto lost income is thus modified accordingl-The court ordered the accused to pa- the heirs of the victim ChristianBermude the sum of P%0# 000 000 as civil indemnit-# the sum of P%0#000 00 as moral damages# and the sum of P,# 55 &; ,0 representing lostearnings The a"ard of P,00# 000 00 as *urial and other e penses is deletedfor lac( of su*stantial proof

Peo*+e o= e P (+(**(#es &s. Car+os o/ o+ero, SrG.R. No. 1)1"66, Au$us !, !!1

)6) SCRA 4!4

FACTS:

This is an appeal of the accused from the decision of the egionalTrial Court of Baguio Cit- finding him guilt- *e-ond reasona*le dou*t ofthe crime of murder and ordering him to indemnif- the heirs of the victimthe sum of P%0# 000 00 as indemnit- for his death@ the sum of P,,;# 0 0as actual damages for e penses incurred for hospitali ation# doctor

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

22/32

The Supreme Court modified the trial court

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

23/32

G.R. No. L-451 , Mar/ 6, 1 "714" SCRA )

FACTS:

$n Fe*ruar- 1# 15;%# mem*ers of the Batangas Cit- Police together"ith personnel of the Batangas /lectric 'ight S-stem# e8uipped "ith asearch "arrant# searched the premises of the $pulencia Carpena )ce Plantand Cold Storage o"ned and operated *- private respondent Manuel$pulencia The police discovered that electric "iring devices andcontraptions had *een installed "ithout the necessar- authorit- from thecit- government These electric devices "ere designed purposel- to lo"eror decrease the readings of electric consumption in the electric meter of thesaid electric and cold storage ice plant

Conse8uentl-# an Assistant Cit- Fiscal of Batangas filed aninformation against $pulencia for violation of $rdinance 2o 1 Series of15;=# Batangas Cit- !o"ever# su*se8uentl-# the accused filed a motion todismiss the information upon the grounds that the crime there charged hadalread- prescri*ed

Fourteen >1=? da-s later# the Acting Cit- Fiscal of Batangas filed *efore the Court of First )nstance of Batangas another information against$pulencia this time for theft of electric po"er under Article 60 in relationto Article 605 of the evised Penal Code !o"ever# the case "as li(e"isedismissed on the ground of the constitutional right against dou*le +eopard-As regards the civil aspect of the case# no right to file a separate civil action"as filed *- the Batangas Cit- /lectric 'ight S-stem

)SS./:hether or not the e tinction of criminal lia*ilit- "hether *- prescriptionor *- the *ar of dou*le +eopard- carries "ith it the e tinction of civillia*ilit- *ased on the offense charged

!/'D:

)n the present case# accused $pulencia freel- admitted during the police investigation having stolen electric current through the installationand use of unauthori ed electric connections or devices hile the accused

pleaded not guilt- *efore the Cit- Court of Batangas Cit-# he did not den-having appropriated electric po"er !o"ever# there is no evidence in therecord as to the amount or value of the electric po"er appropriated *- theaccused Accordingl-# the civil action "hich has not *een "aived impliedl-or e pressl- should *e remanded to the Court of First )nstance of BatangasCit- for reception of evidence on the amount or value of the electric po"erappropriated and converted *- Manuel $pulencio and rendition of +udgmentconforma*l- "ith such evidence

Ma#a# a# &s. Cour o= A**ea+sG.R. No. 1!71 5, 0a#uary , !!1

)5! SCRA )"7

FACTS:

After going from one place to another and consuming large amountsof *eer# the accused# the deceased# and t"o others *oarded on the car of theaccused "here he "as the driver Driving at a high speed at the middle

portion of the high"a- and tr-ing to overta(e tric-cle At such speed# theaccused "as not a*le to avoid the passenger +eepne- and thus collided "ithit The accused immediatel- tried to s"erve the car to the right and movehis *od- a"a- from the steering "heel *ut he "as not a*le to avoid theoncoming vehicle and the t"o vehicles collided "ith each other at thecenter of the road

The trial court decided in favor of the accused !o"ever# the Courtof Appeals modified the decision of the lo"er court# in that defendantappellee is held civill- lia*le for his negligent and rec(less act of driving hiscar "hich "as the pro imate cause of the vehicular accident and sentencedto indemnif- plaintiff appellants in the amount of P1;=# =00 00 for thedeath of u*en 2icolas

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

24/32

)SS./S:>1? hether or not the trial court erred in finding that petitioner,? hether or not the Court a 8uo erred in finding that petitioner6? hether or not the appellate court committed reversi*le error infinding to appl- the Manchester doctrine

!/'D:

The court of appeals in determining "hether Article ,5 of the CivilCode applied "as not precluded *- the petitioners< ac8uittal# from loo(inginto the 8uestion of petitioners< negligence or rec(less imprudence hat"as elevated to the Court of Appeals *- private respondents "as the civilaspect of Criminal Case 2o 0&& Petitioner "as not charged ane" "ith asecond criminal offense identical to the first offense Therefore# there "asno second +eopard- to spea( of

The decision in Criminal Case 2o 0&& supports the conclusions ofthe appellate court that the ac8uittal "as *ased on reasona*le dou*t@ hence#the civil lia*ilit- "as not e tinguished *- his discharge )t clearl- sho"sthat petitioner

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

25/32

said counsel invo(ed the ruling of the Court of Appeals in People v Castilloand $cfemia "hich held that the criminal lia*ilit- in a criminal case ta(esroot in the criminal lia*ilit-@ and therefore# civil lia*ilit- is e tinguished ifaccused should die *efore final +udgment is rendered

)SS./:hether or not the death of the accused pending appeal of his

conviction e tinguishes his civil lia*ilit-

!/'D:

)n People v Castillo# The Court resolved this issue stating Article 5of the evised Penal Code "hich states that criminal lia*ilit- is totall-e tinguished *- the death of the convict As to the personal penalties and asto the pecuniar- penalties# lia*ilit- therefore is e tinguished onl- "hen thedeath of the offender occurs *efore final +udgment

The legal import of the term final +udgment< is similarl- reflected inthe evised Penal Code Articles ;, and ; of the legal *od- mention theterm final +udgment< in the sense that it is alread- enforcea*le This also

*rings to mind Section ;# ule 11& of the ules of Court "hich states thatthe +udgment in a criminal case *ecomes final after the lapse of the periodfor perfecting an appeal or "hen the sentence has *een partiall- or totall-satisfied or served# or the defendant has e pressl- "aived in "riting hisright to appeal

Since the death of the accused occurred "hile his appeal is pending#

the decision has not -et *ecome final and e ecutor-@ thus# his civil lia*ilit-together "ith his criminal lia*ilit- is e tinguished !o"ever# if the civilo*ligation arises from other sources of o*ligation other than the crimecomplained of# the civil lia*ilit- of the accused survived in spite of hisdeath pending his appeal A preponderance of evidence is sufficient to provehis civil lia*ilit-

Faus o %arre8o &s. Se&er(#o Gar/(aG.R. No. L-4"!!6, 0u+y ", 1 4

7) P IL 6!7

FACTS:

At a*out half past one in the morning of Ma- 6# 156 on the road *et"een Mala*on and 2avotas# Province of i al# there "as a head oncollision *et"een a ta i of the Malate Ta ica* driven *- Pedro Fontanillaand a carretela guided *- Pedro Dimapilis The carretela "as overturned#and one of its passengers# 1& -ear old *o- Faustino 3arcia# suffered in+uriesfrom "hich he died t"o da-s later A criminal action "as filed againstFontanilla in the Court of First )nstance of i al and he "as convicted andsentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one -ear and one da- to t"o -earsof prision correctional The court in the criminal case granted the petitionthat the right to *ring a separate civil action *e reserved The Court of

Appeals affirmed the sentence of the lo"er court in the criminal caseSeverino 3arcia and Timotea Almario# parents of the deceased# *rought anaction in the Court of First )nstance of Manila against Fausto Barredo as thesole proprietor of the Malate Ta ica* and emplo-er of Pedro Fontanilla $nul- # 1565# the Court of First )nstance of Manila a"arded damages infavor of the plaintiffs for P,# 000 00 plus legal interest from the time theaction "as instituted

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

26/32

The main theor- of the defense is that the lia*ilit- of Fausto Barredois governed *- the evised Penal Code@ hence# his lia*ilit- is onl-su*sidiar-# as there has *een no civil action against Pedro Fontanilla# the

person criminall- lia*le# Barredo cannot *e held responsi*le in this case

!o"ever# the decision of the Court of Appeals e pressed that thelia*ilit- sought to *e imposed against Fausto Barredo is not a civilo*ligation arising from a felon- or a misdemeanor# *ut an o*ligationimposed in Article 1506 of the Civil Code *- reason of his negligence in theselection or supervision of his servant or emplo-ee

)SS./:hether or not the plaintiffs ma- *ring this separate civil action againstFausto Barredo# thus ma(ing him primar- and directl- responsi*le underArticle 1506 of the Civil Code as the emplo-er of Pedro Fontanilla

!/'D:

A 8uasi delict or culpa a8uiliana is a separate and distinct legalinstitution under the Civil Code "ith su*stantivit- of it o"n# andindividualit- that is entirel- apart and independent from a delict or crime.pon this principle# the primar- and direct responsi*ilit- of emplo-ers ma-

*e safel- anchored

To hold that there is onl- one "a- to ma(e the emplo-er

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

27/32

)n its Ans"er# petitioner denied lia*ilit- for the vehicular accident#alleging that the immediate and pro imate cause of the accident "as therec(lessness or lac( of caution of Silvino Tan Petitioner asserted that ite ercised the diligence of a good father of the famil- in the selection andsupervision of its emplo-ees# including Margarito Avila

The trial court rendered +udgment against petitioner and defendantMargarito Avila# "herein it ad+udged guilt- of simple negligence )t furtherheld petitioner *us compan- lia*le for failing to e ercise the diligence of agood father of the famil- in the selection and supervision of Avila# havingfailed to sufficientl- inculcate in him discipline and correct *ehavior on theroad The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court "ith modification inthe a"ard of damages

)SS./:

hether or not petitioner is lia*le to respondent for damages

!/'D:

4/S The Court upholds the finding of the trial court and the Courtof Appeals that petitioner is lia*le to respondent# since it failed to e ercisethe diligence of a good father of the famil- in the selection and supervisionof its *us driver# Margarito Avila# for having failed to sufficientl- inculcatein him discipline and correct *ehavior on the road )ndeed# petitionerNs tests"ere concentrated on the a*ilit- to drive and ph-sical fitness to do so )talso did not (no" that Avila had *een previousl- involved in sides"iping

incidents The Court also affirmed the CANs decision in a"arding civilindemnit- for the death of respondentNs hus*and# temperate damages# andmoral damages for the ph-sical in+uries sustained *- respondent in additionto the damages granted *- the trial court to respondent

< E%AN VS. LI%ER < FORESG.R No. 161"!)

February 4, !!"

FACTS:

A Prime Mover Trailer suffered a tire *lo" out during the night ofits travel at a national high"a- The trailer "as o"ned *- the respondent'i*ert- Forest The driver allegedl- put earl "arning devices *ut the onl-evidence *eing "itnessed "as a *anana trun(s and candles Since the car"as placed at the right "ing of the road# thus it cause the s"erving of a

2issan van o"ned *- the petitioner "hen a passenger *us "as coming in *et"een the trailer The 2issan van o"ner claimed for damages against therespondent The trial court found that the pro imate cause of the three U"a-

accident is the negligence and carelessness of driver of the respondent !o"ever reversed the decision of the trial court

)SS./:hether there "as negligence on the part of the respondent

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

28/32

.')23:

4es There "as negligence on the part of the respondent "hen thelatter failed to put and used an earl- "arning device *ecause it "as foundout that there "as no earl- "arning device *eing prescri*ed *- la" that "asused *- the driver in order to "arn incoming vehicle Furthermore# the

pro imate cause of the accident "as due to the position of the trailer "hereit covered a cemented part of the road# thus confused and made tric( "a-for other vehicles to pass *- Thus the respondent is declared lia*le due toviolation of road rules and regulations

SAFEG3AR SEC3RI < VS. ANGCOG.R No. 1657)

e/e ber 14, !!6

FACTS:

The victim /vangeline Tangco "as depositor of /colog- Ban( She"as also a licensed fire arm holder# thus during the incident# she "asentering the *an( to rene" her time deposit and along "ith her "as herfirearm Suddenl-# the securit- guard of the *an(# upon (no"ing that thevictim carries a firearm# the securit- guard shot the victim causing thelatter

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

29/32

hether the o"ner Hillanueva *e held lia*le for the mishap

.')23:

.nder the Motor Hehicle la"# it "as declared that the registeredo"ner of an- vehicle is primar- land directl- lia*le for an- in+ur- it incurs"hile it is *eing operated Thus# even the petitioner claimed that he "as nolonger the present o"ner of the car# still the registr- "as under his name#thus it is presumed that he still possesses the car and that the damagescaused *- the car *e charge against him *eing the registered o"ner The

primar- function of Motor vehicle registration is to identif- the o"ner sothat if an- accident happens# or that an- damage or in+ur- is caused *- thevehicle# responsi*ilit- therefore can *e fi ed on a definite individual# theregistered o"ner

CALALAS VS. CO3R OF APPEALSG.R No. 1 !) May )1, !!!

FACTS:

/li a Sunga "as a passenger of a +eepne- o"ned and operated *-the petitioner Calalas Private respondent Sunga sat in the rear protion of the

+eepne- "here the conductor gave Sunga an e tension seat hen the +eepstopped# Sunga gave "a- to a passenger going outside the +eep !o"ever#

an )su u Truc( driven *- Herene and o"ned *- Salva# accidentall- hitSunga causing the latter to suffer ph-sical in+uries "here the attending ph-sician ordered a three months of rest Sunga filed an action for damagesagainst the petitioner for *reach of contract of common carriage *- the

petitioner

$n the other hand# the petitioner Calalas filed an action againstSalva# *eing the o"ner of the truc( The lo"er court ruled in favor of ther

petitioner# thus the truc( o"ner is lia*le for the damage to the +eep of the petitioner

)SS./:hether the petitionerr is lia*le

.')23:

4es The petitioner is lia*le for the in+ur- suffered *- Sunga.nder Article 1;%& of the 2e" Civil Code# it provides that common carriersare presumed to have *een at fault or to have acted negligentl- unless the-

prove that the- o*served e traordinar- diligence as defined in Arts 1;66and 1;%% of the Code This provision necessaril- shifts to the commoncarrier the *urden of proof

)n this case# the la" presumes that an- in+ur- suffered *- a passenger of the +eep is deemed to *e due to the negligence of the driverThis is a case on Culpa Contractual "here there "as pre e istingo*ligations and that the fault is incidental to the performance of theo*ligation Thus# it "as clearl- o*served that the petitioner has negligencein the conduct of his dut- "hen he allo"ed Sunga to seat in the rear portionof the +eep "hich is prone to accident

L3 O AN L3

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

30/32

Ma- ,1# 1550# "hile MH Miguela "as doc(ing at petitioner

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

31/32

and severall-# to pa- private respondent actual# compensator- ande emplar- damages plus attorne-Ns fees and costs of suit

)SS./:hat are the lia*ilities of *oth parties

.')23:

The driver of the oncoming 2issan Pathfinder vehicle "as lia*le andthe driver of the . turning ta ica* "as contri*utoril- lia*le )t isesta*lished that Castro "as driving at a speed faster than %0 (ilometers perhour *ecause it "as a do"nhill slope But as he allegedl- stepped on the

*ra(e# it loc(ed causing his 2issan Pathfinder to s(id to the left andconse8uentl- hit the ta ica* Malfunction or loss of *ra(e is not a fortuitousevent Bet"een the o"ner and his driver# on the one hand# and third partiessuch as commuters# drivers and pedestrians# on the other# the former is

presumed to (no" a*out the conditions of his vehicle and is dut- *ound tota(e care thereof "ith the diligence of a good father of the famil- Amechanicall- defective vehicle should avoid the streets As petitionerNsvehicle "as moving do"nhill# the driver should have slo"ed do"n since ado"nhill drive "ould naturall- cause the vehicle to accelerate Moreover#the record sho"s that the 2issan Pathfinder "as on the "rong lane "hen thecollision occurred

The ta i driver is contri*utoril- lia*le since he too( a . turn "hereit is not generall- advisa*le The ta i "as hit on its side "hich means that ithad not -et full- made a turn to the other lane The driver of the ta i oughtto have (no"n that vehicles coming from the osario *ridge are on a

do"nhill slope $*viousl-# there "as lac( of foresight on his part# ma(inghim contri*utoril- lia*le Considering the contri*utor- negligence of thedriver of private respondentNs ta i# the a"ard of P=;# %0 00# for the repair of the ta i# should *e reduced in half All other a"ards for damages are deletedfor lac( of merit

AMA O PICAR &s. FRAN: SMI , 0R.G.R. No. L-1 1

MARC 15, 1 1"

FACTS:

The plaintiff# riding on his pon- "as half "a- across the Carlatan *ridge "hen the defendant approached from the opposite direction in anautomo*ile# going at the rate of a*out ten or t"elve miles per hour As thedefendant neared the *ridge he sa" a horseman on it and *le" his horn togive "arning of his approach !e continued his course and after he hadta(en the *ridge he gave t"o more successive *lasts# as it appeared to himthat the man on horse*ac( *efore him "as not o*serving the rule of theroad The plaintiff sa" the automo*ile coming and heard the "arningsignals !o"ever# thin(ing that he has no sufficient time to go to the otherside of the road# he pulled the pon- closel- up against the railing on theright side of the *ridge instead of going to the left The defendant# instead of veering to the right "hile -et some distance a"a- or slo"ing do"n#continued to approach directl- to"ard the horse hen he had gotten 8uitenear# there *eing then no possi*ilit- of the horse getting across to the otherside# the defendant 8uic(l- turned his car sufficientl- to the right to escapehitting the horse alongside of the railing "here it as then standing@ *ut in sodoing the automo*ile passed in such close pro imit- to the animal that it

*ecame frightened and turned its *od- across the *ridge "ith its headto"ard the railing )n so doing# it as struc( on the hoc( of the left hind leg

*- the flange of the car and the lim* "as *ro(en The horse fell and its rider "as thro"n off "ith some violence As a result of its in+uries the horse diedThe plaintiff received contusions "hich caused temporar- unconsciousnessand re8uired medical attention for several da-s

)SS./: hether or not the defendant is guilt- of negligence

.')23:

As the defendant started across the *ridge# he had the right toassume that the horse and the rider "ould pass over to the proper side@ *utas he moved to"ard the center of the *ridge he clearl- sa" that this "ould

8/9/2019 OBLICON Q1

32/32