This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-09-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners contend that the doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable to this case, because the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the late Arnulfo Ramos in knowingly driving the defective owner-type jeep. When the front wheel of the owner-type jeep was removed, the said jeep suddenly encroached on the western lane and bumped the left side of the passenger jeep driven by Benigno Valdez. Considering that the interval between the time the owner-type jeep encroached on the lane of Valdez to the time of impact was only a matter of seconds, Valdez no longer had the opportunity to avoid the collision. Pantranco North Express Inc. v. Besa[35] held that the doctrine of last clear chance "can never apply where the party charged is required to act instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after the peril is or should have been discovered." | |||||
|
2003-12-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The "diligence of a good father" referred to in the last paragraph of the aforecited statute means diligence in the selection and supervision of employees.[18] Thus, when an employee, while performing his duties, causes damage to persons or property due to his own negligence, there arises the juris tantum presumption that the employer is negligent, either in the selection of the employee or in the supervision over him after the selection.[19] For the employer to avoid the solidary liability for a tort committed by his employee, an employer must rebut the presumption by presenting adequate and convincing proof that in the selection and supervision of his employee, he or she exercises the care and diligence of a good father of a family.[20] In the instant case, we find that petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption of negligence on her part. | |||||
|
2000-11-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The heirs are also entitled to damages for the loss of earning capacity of the deceased Leandro Adawan. The fact that the prosecution did not present documentary evidence to support its claim for damages for loss of earning capacity of the deceased does not preclude recovery of the damages.[46] Testimonial evidence is sufficient to establish a basis for which the court can make a fair and reasonable estimate of the damages for the loss of earning capacity.[47] Moreover, in fixing the damages for loss of earning capacity of a deceased victim, the Court can consider the nature of its occupation, his educational attainment and the state of his health at the time of his death.[48] The testimony of Adawan's father sufficiently established the basis for making such an award. It was shown that Adawan was thirty-seven (37) years old at the time of his death in 1993 and earned P4,000.00 a month as a mechanic. | |||||