Lawyerly

GR No. 161151

2014-03-24

BERSAMIN, J.

For the doctrine to apply, the following requirements must be shown to exist, namely: (a) the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; (b) it is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants; and (c) the possibility of contributing conduct that would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated.[30]

GR No. 170942

2013-08-28

COMSAVINGS BANK v. SPS. DANILO

BERSAMIN, J.

Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one's duties;[22] it is a negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[23] It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[24]

GR No. 173870

2012-04-25

OSCAR DEL CARMEN v. GERONIMO BACOY

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, "[w]here the thing that caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants; and the accident, in the ordinary course of things, would not happen if those who had management or control used proper care, it affords reasonable evidence in the absence of a sufficient, reasonable and logical explanation by defendant that the accident arose from or was caused by the defendant's want of care."[40] Res ipsa loquitur is "merely evidentiary, a mode of proof, or a mere procedural convenience, since it furnishes a substitute for, and relieves a plaintiff of, the burden of producing a specific proof of negligence."[41] It "recognizes that parties may establish prima facie negligence without direct proof, thus, it allows the principle to substitute for specific proof of negligence. It permits the plaintiff to present along with proof of the accident, enough of the attending circumstances to invoke the doctrine, create an inference or presumption of negligence and thereby place on the defendant the burden of proving that there was no negligence on his part."[42] The doctrine is based partly on "the theory that the defendant in charge of the instrumentality which causes the injury either knows the cause of the accident or has the best opportunity of ascertaining it while the plaintiff has no such knowledge, and is therefore compelled to allege negligence in general terms."[43]

GR No. 116121

2011-07-18

HEIRS OF LATE RUBEN REINOSO v. CA

MENDOZA, J.

While ending up on the opposite lane is not conclusive proof of fault in automobile collisions, [22] the position of the two vehicles, as depicted in the sketch of the police officers, clearly shows that it was the truck that hit the jeepney. The evidentiary records disclosed that the truck was speeding along E. Rodriguez, heading towards Santolan Street, while the passenger jeepney was coming from the opposite direction. When the truck reached a certain point near the Meralco Post No. J9-450, the front portion of the truck hit the left middle side portion of the passenger jeepney, causing damage to both vehicles and injuries to the driver and passengers of the jeepney. The truck driver should have been more careful, because, at that time, a portion of E. Rodriguez Avenue was under repair and a wooden barricade was placed in the middle thereof.

GR No. 166869

2010-02-16

PHILIPPINE HAWK CORPORATION v. VIVIAN TAN LEE

PERALTA, J.

Whenever an employee's negligence causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption that the employer failed to exercise the due diligence of a good father of the family in the selection or supervision of its employees.[29] To avoid liability for a quasi-delict committed by his employee, an employer must overcome the presumption by presenting convincing proof that he exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee.[30]

GR No. 183198

2009-11-25

LUZ PALANCA TAN v. JAM TRANSIT

NACHURA, J.

The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated.[10]

GR NO. 146224

2007-01-26

VIRGINIA REAL v. SISENANDO H. BELO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. Whenever an employee's negligence causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection (culpa in eligiendo) or supervision (culpa in vigilando) of its employees.[34] To avoid liability for a quasi-delict committed by his employee, an employer must overcome the presumption by presenting convincing proof that he exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee.[35]

GR NO. 169891

2006-11-02

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. ETHEL BRUNTY

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The relatives of the victim who incurred physical injuries in a quasi-delict are not proscribed from recovering moral damages in meritorious cases.[67] We, therefore, sustain the award of moral damages in favor of the heirs of Rhonda Brunty.

GR NOS. 153760-61

2006-10-16

TEODORICO MANZANARES v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Equally damning for petitioner Manzanares are the photographs of the two vehicles which were presented before the court for they easily contradict his claim with respect to the speed of the Isuzu truck.[51] In the case of Macalinao v. Ong,[52] we had the occasion to discuss the evidentiary value of photographs -

GR NO. 147791

2006-09-08

CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF PHILIPPINES v. REBECCA G. ESTRELLA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Moral damages may be recovered in quasi-delicts causing physical injuries.[21] The award of moral damages in favor of Fletcher and Estrella in the amount of P80,000.00 must be reduced since prevailing jurisprudence fixed the same at P50,000.00.[22] While moral damages are not intended to enrich the plaintiff at the expense of the defendant, the award should nonetheless be commensurate to the suffering inflicted.[23]

	GR No. 161151 2014-03-24	BJDC CONSTRUCTION v. NENA E. LANUZO BERSAMIN, J.
For the doctrine to apply, the following requirements must be shown to exist, namely: (a) the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; (b) it is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants; and (c) the possibility of contributing conduct that would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated.[30]
	GR No. 170942 2013-08-28	COMSAVINGS BANK v. SPS. DANILO BERSAMIN, J.
Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one's duties;[22] it is a negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[23] It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[24]
	GR No. 173870 2012-04-25	OSCAR DEL CARMEN v. GERONIMO BACOY DEL CASTILLO, J.
Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, "[w]here the thing that caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants; and the accident, in the ordinary course of things, would not happen if those who had management or control used proper care, it affords reasonable evidence in the absence of a sufficient, reasonable and logical explanation by defendant that the accident arose from or was caused by the defendant's want of care."[40] Res ipsa loquitur is "merely evidentiary, a mode of proof, or a mere procedural convenience, since it furnishes a substitute for, and relieves a plaintiff of, the burden of producing a specific proof of negligence."[41] It "recognizes that parties may establish prima facie negligence without direct proof, thus, it allows the principle to substitute for specific proof of negligence. It permits the plaintiff to present along with proof of the accident, enough of the attending circumstances to invoke the doctrine, create an inference or presumption of negligence and thereby place on the defendant the burden of proving that there was no negligence on his part."[42] The doctrine is based partly on "the theory that the defendant in charge of the instrumentality which causes the injury either knows the cause of the accident or has the best opportunity of ascertaining it while the plaintiff has no such knowledge, and is therefore compelled to allege negligence in general terms."[43]
	GR No. 116121 2011-07-18	HEIRS OF LATE RUBEN REINOSO v. CA MENDOZA, J.
While ending up on the opposite lane is not conclusive proof of fault in automobile collisions, [22] the position of the two vehicles, as depicted in the sketch of the police officers, clearly shows that it was the truck that hit the jeepney. The evidentiary records disclosed that the truck was speeding along E. Rodriguez, heading towards Santolan Street, while the passenger jeepney was coming from the opposite direction. When the truck reached a certain point near the Meralco Post No. J9-450, the front portion of the truck hit the left middle side portion of the passenger jeepney, causing damage to both vehicles and injuries to the driver and passengers of the jeepney. The truck driver should have been more careful, because, at that time, a portion of E. Rodriguez Avenue was under repair and a wooden barricade was placed in the middle thereof.
	GR No. 166869 2010-02-16	PHILIPPINE HAWK CORPORATION v. VIVIAN TAN LEE PERALTA, J.
Whenever an employee's negligence causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption that the employer failed to exercise the due diligence of a good father of the family in the selection or supervision of its employees.[29] To avoid liability for a quasi-delict committed by his employee, an employer must overcome the presumption by presenting convincing proof that he exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee.[30]
	GR No. 183198 2009-11-25	LUZ PALANCA TAN v. JAM TRANSIT NACHURA, J.
The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated.[10]
	GR NO. 146224 2007-01-26	VIRGINIA REAL v. SISENANDO H. BELO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. Whenever an employee's negligence causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection (culpa in eligiendo) or supervision (culpa in vigilando) of its employees.[34] To avoid liability for a quasi-delict committed by his employee, an employer must overcome the presumption by presenting convincing proof that he exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee.[35]
	GR NO. 169891 2006-11-02	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. ETHEL BRUNTY CALLEJO, SR., J.
The relatives of the victim who incurred physical injuries in a quasi-delict are not proscribed from recovering moral damages in meritorious cases.[67] We, therefore, sustain the award of moral damages in favor of the heirs of Rhonda Brunty.
	GR NOS. 153760-61 2006-10-16	TEODORICO MANZANARES v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Equally damning for petitioner Manzanares are the photographs of the two vehicles which were presented before the court for they easily contradict his claim with respect to the speed of the Isuzu truck.[51] In the case of Macalinao v. Ong,[52] we had the occasion to discuss the evidentiary value of photographs -
	GR NO. 147791 2006-09-08	CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF PHILIPPINES v. REBECCA G. ESTRELLA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Moral damages may be recovered in quasi-delicts causing physical injuries.[21] The award of moral damages in favor of Fletcher and Estrella in the amount of P80,000.00 must be reduced since prevailing jurisprudence fixed the same at P50,000.00.[22] While moral damages are not intended to enrich the plaintiff at the expense of the defendant, the award should nonetheless be commensurate to the suffering inflicted.[23]

MARCELO MACALINAO v. EDDIE MEDECIELO ONG