This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-02-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| However, it must be noted that the case at hand does not involve a breach of contract of carriage, as in Tamayo, but a tort or quasi-delict under Article 2176,[25] in relation to Article 2180[26] of the New Civil Code. As such, the liability for which petitioner is being made responsible actually arises not from a pre-existing contractual relation between petitioner and the deceased, but from a damage caused by the negligence of its employee. Petitioner cannot, therefore, rely on our ruling in Tamayo and escape its solidary liability for the liability of the employer for the negligent conduct of its subordinate is direct and primary, subject only to the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.[27] | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Apart from her allegations, the complainant's pieces of evidence consist of TCT Nos. 162632 and 162633;[63] her Motion for Leave to Intervene in Civil Case No. 2902 dated May 17, 2000;[64] the RTC order in Civil Case No. 2902 dated November 6, 2000 fixing the price of just compensation;[65] the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 4, 2001;[66] the spouses Ylaya's Verified Manifestation dated September 2, 2002, filed with the RTC in Civil Case No. 2902, assailing the Motion to Deposit Just Compensation filed by the respondent on behalf of Reynold and manifesting the sale between Laurentino and Reynold;[67] the Provincial Prosecutor's Subpoena to the complainant in connection with the respondent's complaint for libel;[68] the respondent's complaint for libel against the complainant dated August 27, 2003;[69] the complainant's Counter Affidavit dated March 26, 2004 against the charge of libel;[70] and the respondent's letter to the Provincial Attorney of Palawan dated April 5, 2004, requesting for "official information regarding the actual attendance of Atty. ROBERT Y. PENEYRA" at an MCLE seminar.[71] | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Apart from her allegations, the complainant's pieces of evidence consist of TCT Nos. 162632 and 162633;[63] her Motion for Leave to Intervene in Civil Case No. 2902 dated May 17, 2000;[64] the RTC order in Civil Case No. 2902 dated November 6, 2000 fixing the price of just compensation;[65] the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 4, 2001;[66] the spouses Ylaya's Verified Manifestation dated September 2, 2002, filed with the RTC in Civil Case No. 2902, assailing the Motion to Deposit Just Compensation filed by the respondent on behalf of Reynold and manifesting the sale between Laurentino and Reynold;[67] the Provincial Prosecutor's Subpoena to the complainant in connection with the respondent's complaint for libel;[68] the respondent's complaint for libel against the complainant dated August 27, 2003;[69] the complainant's Counter Affidavit dated March 26, 2004 against the charge of libel;[70] and the respondent's letter to the Provincial Attorney of Palawan dated April 5, 2004, requesting for "official information regarding the actual attendance of Atty. ROBERT Y. PENEYRA" at an MCLE seminar.[71] | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Be that as it may, we can no longer correct the foregoing penalty, even if it is erroneous, because, as earlier ruled, the judgment of conviction has become final and executory. We have held that the subsequent discovery of an erroneous penalty will not justify correction of the judgment after it has become final.[66] | |||||
|
2002-09-05 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Code, for civil liability ex quasi delicto.[21] Furthermore, under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, employers may be held subsidiarily liable for felonies committed by their employees in the discharge of the latter's duties.[22] This liability attaches when the employees who are | |||||