Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DRA. LEILA A. DELA LLANA v. REBECCA BIONG

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 198627 2016-01-13	DST MOVERS CORPORATION v. PEOPLE'S GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
In Dela Llana v. Biong,[37] this court conducted its own (re-) examination of the evidence as the findings of the Regional Trial Court conflicted with those of the Court of Appeals. The Regional Trial Court held that the proximate cause of the injuries suffered by the petitioner was the supposed reckless driving of the respondent's employee; the Court of Appeals held otherwise. On review, this court sustained the findings of the Court of Appeals.
	GR No. 199886 2014-12-03	CAGAYAN II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. ALLAN RAPANAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interest of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.[12] Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that "[w]hoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is a quasi-delict." Under this provision, the elements necessary to establish a quasi-delict case are: (1) damages to the plaintiff; (2) negligence, by act or omission, of the defendant or by some person for whose acts the defendant must respond, was guilty; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between such negligence and the damages.[13]
	GR No. 182705 2014-07-18	VICENTE JOSEFA v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY BRION, J.
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur Contrary to the CA's opinion, the finding that it was the truck that hit the electricity post would not immediately result in Josefa's liability. It is a basic rule that it is essentially the wrongful or negligent act or omission that creates the vinculum juris in extra-contractual obligations.[46] In turn, the employee's negligence established to be the proximate cause of the damage would give rise to the disputable presumption that the employer did not exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of the erring employee.[47]