Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS v. SPS. GAUDENCIO SARANGAYA III AND PRIMITIVA B. SARANGAYA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 146141 2008-10-17	ERNESTO CANADA v. ALL COMMODITIES MARKETING CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
The exempting circumstance of caso fortuito may be availed of only when: (a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence was independent of the human will; (b) it was impossible to foresee the event which constituted the caso fortuito or, if it could be foreseen, it was impossible to avoid; (c) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible to perform an obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the person tasked to perform the obligation must not have participated in any course of conduct that aggravated the accident.[17]
	GR No. 155604 2007-11-22	COLLEGE ASSURANCE PLAN v. BELFRANLT DEVELOPMENT INC. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Even without the testimony of Fireman Sitchon and the documents he prepared, the finding of the RTC and CA on the negligence of petitioners cannot be overturned by petitioners' bare denial. The CA correctly applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur under which expert testimony may be dispensed with[35] to sustain an allegation of negligence if the following requisites obtain: a) the accident is of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; b) the cause of the injury was under the exclusive control of the person in charge and c) the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured.[36] The fire that damaged Belfranlt Building was not a spontaneous natural occurrence but the outcome of a human act or omission. It originated in the store room which petitioners had possession and control of. Respondent had no hand in the incident. Hence, the convergence of these facts and circumstances speaks for itself: petitioners alone having knowledge of the cause of the fire or the best opportunity to ascertain it, and respondent having no means to find out for itself, it is sufficient for the latter to merely allege that the cause of the fire was the negligence of the former and to rely on the occurrence of the fire as proof of such negligence.[37] It was all up to petitioners to dispel such inference of negligence, but their bare denial only left the matter unanswered.
	GR NO. 146224 2007-01-26	VIRGINIA REAL v. SISENANDO H. BELO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Jurisprudence defines the elements of a "fortuitous event" as follows: (a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence must be independent of human will; (b) it must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid; (c) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor. [30]
	GR NO. 150157 2007-01-25	MAURICIO MANLICLIC v. MODESTO CALAUNAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the selection of prospective employees, employers are required to examine them as to their qualifications, experience and service records. In the supervision of employees, the employer must formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation and impose disciplinary measures for the breach thereof. To fend off vicarious liability, employers must submit concrete proof, including documentary evidence, that they complied with everything that was incumbent on them.[44]