Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY v. MARJORIE NAVIDAD

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 183198 2009-11-25	LUZ PALANCA TAN v. JAM TRANSIT NACHURA, J.
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 section (culpa in eligiendo) or supervision (culpa in vigilando) of its employees.[27] To avoid liability for a quasi-delict committed by its 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.[28]
	GR NO. 157658 2007-10-15	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. CA NACHURA, J.
In view of the foregoing, We will now discuss the liability of petitioner PNR. Article 2180[20] of the New Civil Code discusses the liability of the employer once negligence or fault on the part of the employee has been established. The employer is actually liable on the assumption of juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision of its employees. The liability is primary and can only be negated by showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee, a factual matter that has not been demonstrated.[21] Even the existence of hiring procedures and supervisory employees cannot be incidentally invoked to overturn the presumption of negligence on the part of the employer.[22]
	GR NO. 138550 2005-10-14	AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL v. NOEL CORDERO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In order that an obligation based on quasi-delict may arise, there must be no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. But there are exceptions. There may be an action for quasi-delict notwithstanding that there is a subsisting contract between the parties. A liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the contract. Stated differently, when an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.[11]
	GR No. 156034 2003-10-01	DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES v. C & A CONSTRUCTION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
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. 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. [28]