TORTS AND DAMAGES Is the negligence of the employees attributable to their

CASE DIGESTS employer whether the negligence is based on contractual

Based on Atty. Ranizza D. Datukon’s Syllabus obligation or on torts?
Jose Maria College – College of Law
HELD:

I. INTRODUCTION/GENERAL PRINCIPLES YES. It cannot be doubted that the employees of defendant

were guilty of negligence in piling these sacks on the platform
A. Sources of Obligations in the manner stated. It necessarily follows that the defendant
company is liable for the damage thereby occasioned unless
- Civil Code recovery is barred by the plaintiff’s own contributory
> Articles 1156 to 1162 and Article 2176 negligence.

B. Quasi-delict distinguished from other sources of It is to note that the foundation of the legal liability is the
obligations contract of carriage. However Art. 1903 relates only to culpa
aquiliana and not to culpa contractual, as the Court cleared on
- Breach of Contract the case of Rakes v. Atlantic Gulf. It is not accurate to say that
proof of diligence and care in the selection and control of the
Cases: servant relieves the master from liability for the latter’s act.
CANGCO VS. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY The fundamental distinction between obligation of this
G.R. NO. 12191, OCTOBER 14, 1918 character and those which arise from contract, rest upon the
FISHER, J.: fact that in cases of non-contractual obligations it is the
wrongful or negligent act or omission itself which creates the
Negligence by employee attributable to employer even in vinculum juris, whereas in contractual relations the vinculum
contractual breach exists independently of the breach of the voluntary duty
assumed by the parties when entering into the contractual
FACTS: relation. When the source of obligation upon which plaintiff’s
cause of action depends is a negligent act or omission, the
Jose Cangco was an employee of Manila Railroad Company as burden of proof rest upon the plaintiff to prove negligence.
copyist clerk. He lived in San Mateo which is located upon the
line of the defendant railroad company. He used to travel by On the other hand, in contractual undertaking, proof of the
trade to the office located in Manila for free. On January 21, contract and of its nonperformance is sufficient prima facie to
1915, on his way home by rail and when the train drew up to warrant recovery. The negligence of employee cannot be
the station in San Mateo, he arose from his seat and makes his invoked to relieve the employer from liability as it will make
way to the exit while the train is still on travel. When the train juridical persons completely immune from damages arising
has proceeded a little farther Jose Cangco step down into the from breach of their contracts. Defendant was therefore liable
cement platform but unfortunately step in to a sack of for the injury suffered by plaintiff, whether the breach of the
watermelon, fell down and rolled under the platform and was duty was to be regarded as constituting culpa aquiliana or
drawn under the moving car which resulting to his arm to be contractual. As Manresa discussed, whether negligence occurs
crashed and lacerated. He was hospitalized which resulted to as an incident in the course of the performance of a
amputation of his hand. contractual undertaking or is itself the source of an extra-
contractual obligation, its essential characteristics are
He filed the civil suit for damages against defendant in CFI of identical. There is always an act or omission productive of
Manila founding his action upon the negligence of the damage due to carelessness or inattention on the part of the
employees of defendant in placing the watermelons upon the defendant. The contract of defendant to transport plaintiff
platform and in leaving them so placed as to be a menace to carried with it, by implication, the duty to carry him in safety
the security of passengers alighting from the train. The trial and to provide safe means of entering and leaving its trains.
court after having found negligence on the part of defendant, Contributory negligence on the part of petitioner as invoked
adjudged saying that plaintiff failed to use due caution in by defendant is untenable. In determining the question of
alighting from the coach and was therefore precluded from contributory negligence in performing such act- that is to say,
recovering, hence this appeal. whether the passenger acted prudently or recklessly- age, sex,
and physical condition of the passenger are circumstances
ISSUE: necessarily affecting the safety of the passenger, and should
be considered. It is to be noted that the place was perfectly
familiar to plaintiff as it was his daily routine. Our conclusion is

DIGESTED BY: DAHIROC, ERUM, FUENTES, OLACO, PANIZA, RIVERA, TAN, UNAS, VILLAHERMOSA & VILLARIN 1
st
CASE DIGESTS ON TORTS AND DAMAGES – 1 Batch
there is slightly underway characterized by imprudence and It is true that there is no specific mention of the term bad faith
therefore was not guilty of contributory negligence. The in the complaint. But, the inference of bad faith is there, it may
decision of the trial court is REVERSED. be drawn from the facts and circumstances set forth therein.
The contract was averred to establish the relation between the
AIR FRANCE vs. RAFAEL CARRASCOSO parties. But the stress of the action is put on wrongful
G.R. No. L-21438 SEPTEMBER 28, 1966 expulsion.

FACTS: Quite apart from the foregoing is that (a) right the start of the
trial, respondent's counsel placed petitioner on guard on what
Carrascoso was a member of a group of 48 pilgrims that left Carrascoso intended to prove: That while sitting in the plane in
Manila for Lourdes on March 30, 1958. He was issued a first Bangkok, Carrascoso was ousted by petitioner's manager who
class round trip airplane ticket from Manila to Rome. Although gave his seat to a white man; and (b) evidence of bad faith in
he travelled first class from Manila to Bangkok, he was forced the fulfillment of the contract was presented without
to vacate the first class seat in Bangkok because, according to objection on the part of the petitioner. It is, therefore,
the witness, the manager said that a “white man” had a unnecessary to inquire as to whether or not there is sufficient
“better right” to the seat. A commotion ensued, in which his averment in the complaint to justify an award for moral
respondent’s fellow pilgrims helped in pacifying him. After damages. Deficiency in the complaint, if any, was cured by the
which, he reluctantly gave his seat in the said plane. evidence. An amendment thereof to conform to the evidence
is not even required.
The CFI of Manila sentenced petitioner to pay respondent
Rafael Carrascoso P25,000.00 by way of moral damages; The manager not only prevented Carrascoso from enjoying his
P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; P393.20 representing the right to a first class seat; worse, he imposed his arbitrary will;
difference in fare between first class and tourist class for the he forcibly ejected him from his seat, made him suffer the
portion of the trip Bangkok-Rome, these various amounts with humiliation of having to go to the tourist class compartment -
interest at the legal rate, from the date of the filing of the just to give way to another passenger whose right thereto has
complaint until paid; plus P3,000.00 for attorneys' fees; and not been established. Certainly, this is bad faith. Unless, of
the costs of suit. course, bad faith has assumed a meaning different from what
is understood in law. For, "bad faith" contemplates a "state of
Petitioner assails respondent court's award of moral damages. mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some
Petitioner's trenchant claim is that Carrascoso's action is motive of self-interest or will or for ulterior purpose."
planted upon breach of contract; that to authorize an award
for moral damages there must be an averment of fraud or bad The manager not only prevented Carrascoso from enjoying his
faith; and that the decision of the Court of Appeals fails to right to a first class seat; worse, he imposed his arbitrary will;
make a finding of bad faith. he forcibly ejected him from his seat, made him suffer the
humiliation of having to go to the tourist class compartment -
ISSUE: just to give way to another passenger whose right thereto has
not been established. Certainly, this is bad faith. Unless, of
Whether or not respondent is entitled to moral damages course, bad faith has assumed a meaning different from what
despite not having averred fraud or bad faith. is understood in law. For, "bad faith" contemplates a "state of
mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some
RULING: motive of self-interest or will or for ulterior purpose.”

YES. First, That there was a contract to furnish plaintiff a first

class passage covering, amongst others, the Bangkok-Teheran SINGSON V. BPI
leg; Second, That said contract was breached when petitioner G.R. NO. L-24837, JUNE 27, 1968
failed to furnish first class transportation at Bangkok; and
Third, that there was bad faith when petitioner's employee FACTS:
compelled Carrascoso to leave his first class accommodation
berth "after he was already, seated" and to take a seat in the Singson was one of the defendants in a civil case together with
tourist class, by reason of which he suffered inconvenience, Lobregat and Villa-Abrille & Co. They were sentenced to pay
embarrassments and humiliations, thereby causing him P105, 539.56 to Philippine Mining, Co. Singson and Lobregat
mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social timely filed their appeal in said judgment but Villa Abrille did
humiliation, resulting in moral damages. not. As to Villa Abrille, the judgment became final and
executory.

DIGESTED BY: DAHIROC, ERUM, FUENTES, OLACO, PANIZA, RIVERA, TAN, UNAS, VILLAHERMOSA & VILLARIN 2
st
CASE DIGESTS ON TORTS AND DAMAGES – 1 Batch
 The Private respondents are suing under the law on quasi-
A writ of garnishment was served upon BPI in which Singson delicts alleging the school and its officers’ negligence,
had current account insofar as Villa Abrille’s credits against the recklessness and lack of safety precautions before, during, and
Bank were concerned. Subsequently, the clerk of the bank after the attack on the victim.
without reading the body of the Writ, garnished from the
accounts of Singson. Singson upon issuing some checks in favor Petitioners moved to dismiss the suit but were denied by the
of creditors was informed that the checks were dishonored for trial court. CA affirmed.
the reason that the accounts were already garnished.
ISSUE
The bank through its President wrote to apologize to Singson
and informed him that the action of garnishment were already May the PSBA be held liable under quasi-delicts?
removed. A letter was also sent to the sheriff that the Notice
of Garnishment was removed. RULING:

Singson now filed an action against BPI and its President for NO. The circumstances of the present case evince a
DAMAGES in consequence of freezing his account. The lower contractual relation between the PSBA and Carlitos Bautista,
court dismissed the action holding that Singson cannot recover the rules on quasi-delict do not really govern. A perusal of
from BPI upon basis of quasi-delict because the relationship Article 2176 shows that obligations arising from quasi-delicts
between Singson and BPI is contractual in nature. or tort, also known as extra-contractual obligations, arise only
between parties not otherwise bound by contract, whether
ISSUE: express or implied.

Whether Singson can claim damages considering that the When an academic institution accepts students for
relationship between him and the Bank is contractual in enrollment, there is established a contract between them,
nature. resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties are bound
to comply with. For its part, the school undertakes to provide
HELD: the student with an education that would presumably suffice
to equip him with the necessary tools and skills to pursue
YES. The SC repeatedly held that the existence of a contract higher education or a profession. On the other hand, the
between the parties does not bar the commission of a tort by student covenants to abide by the school’s academic
the one against the order and the consequent recovery of requirements and observe its rules and regulations.
damages therefor. Necessarily, the school must ensure that adequate steps are
taken to maintain peace and order within the campus
in the case at bar, the circumstance, that the wrong done to premises and to prevent the breakdown thereof.
the plaintiff was remedied as soon as the President of the bank
realized the mistake he and his subordinate employee had In the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, however,
committed, the Court finds that an award of nominal damages there is, as yet, no finding that the contract between the
— the amount of which need not be proven in the sum of P1, school and Bautista had been breached thru the former’s
000, in addition to attorney's fees in the sum of P500, would negligence in providing proper security measures. This would
suffice to vindicate Singson's rights. be for the trial court to determine. And, even if there be a
finding of negligence, the same could give rise generally to a
PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, vs. breach of contractual obligation only.
COURT OF APPEALS; SEGUNDA R. BAUTISTA and ARSENIA D.
BAUTISTA WHEREFORE, The court of origin (RTC, Manila, Br. 47) is hereby
G.R. NO. 84698 FEBRUARY 4, 1992 ordered to continue proceedings consistent with this ruling of
the Court
FACTS:
MR. & MRS. ENGRACIO FABRE, JR. and PORFIRIO CABIL vs.
Private respondents, Segunda and Arsenia Bautista sought to COURT OF APPEALS, THE WORD FOR THE WORLD CHRISTIAN
adjudge PSBA and its officers liable for the death of Carlitos FELLOWSHIP, INC.
Bautista, a third year commerce student who was stabbed G.R. No. 111127 July 26, 1996
while on the premises of PSBA by elements from outside the
school. FACTS:

DIGESTED BY: DAHIROC, ERUM, FUENTES, OLACO, PANIZA, RIVERA, TAN, UNAS, VILLAHERMOSA & VILLARIN 3
st
CASE DIGESTS ON TORTS AND DAMAGES – 1 Batch
Engracio Fabre, Jr. and his wife were owners of a Mazda defendants which ultimately resulted to the accident subject
minibus. They used the bus as bus service for school children of this case.
which they operated in Manila. The couple had a driver,
Porfirio J. Cabil, whom they hired, after trying him out for two The Court of Appeals sustained the trial court's finding that
weeks. His job was to take school children to and from the St. Cabil failed to exercise due care and precaution in the
Scholastica's College in Malate, Manila. operation of his vehicle considering the time and the place of
the accident. The Court of Appeals held that Sps Fabre were
Word for the World Christian Fellowship Inc. (WWCF) arranged themselves presumptively negligent.
with Sps. Fabre for the transportation of 33 members of its
Young Adults Ministry from Manila to La Union and back. ISSUE:

The group was scheduled to leave at 5:00pm. However, as Were Sps Fabre and, the driver, Cabil negligent and liable
several members of the party were late, the bus leave at against Amyline Antonio for breach of contract of carriage and
around 8:00pm. Porfirio Cabil drove the minibus. for the tort incurred to the latter?

The usual route to Caba, La Union was through Carmen, HELD:

Pangasinan. However, the bridge at Carmen was under repair,
so Cabil, who was unfamiliar with the area (it being his first trip Yes. The finding that Cabil drove his bus negligently, while his
to La Union), was forced to take a detour through the town of employer, Sps Fabre, who owned the bus, failed to exercise the
Baay in Lingayen, Pangasinan. At 11:30 that night, Cabil came diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and
upon a sharp curve on the highway, running on a south to east supervision of their employee is fully supported by the
direction, which he described as "siete." The road was slippery evidence on record. These factual findings of the two courts
because it was raining, causing the bus, which was running at we regard as final and conclusive, supported as they are by the
the speed of 50 kilometers per hour, to skid to the left road evidence. Indeed, it was admitted by Cabil that on the night in
shoulder. The bus hit the left traffic steel brace and sign along question, it was raining, and as a consequence, the road was
the road and rammed the fence of one Jesus Escano, then slippery, and it was dark. He averred these facts to justify his
turned over and landed on its left side, coming to a full stop failure to see that there lay a sharp curve ahead. However, it is
only after a series of impacts. The bus came to rest off the undisputed that Cabil drove his bus at the speed of 50
road. A coconut tree which it had hit fell on it and smashed its kilometers per hour and only slowed down when he noticed
front portion. the curve some 15 to 30 meters ahead. By then it was too late
for him to avoid falling off the road. Given the conditions of the
Several passengers were injured. Amyline Antonio was thrown road and considering that the trip was Cabil's first one outside
on the floor of the bus and pinned down by a wooden seat of Manila, Cabil should have driven his vehicle at a moderate
which came off after being unscrewed. It took three persons speed. There is testimony that the vehicles passing on that
to safely remove her from this portion. She was in great pain portion of the road should only be running 20 kilometers per
and could not move. hour, so that at 50 kilometers per hour, Cabil was running at a
very high speed.
Cabil claimed he did not see the curve until it was too late. He
said he was not familiar with the area and he could not have Considering the foregoing — the fact that it was raining and
seen the curve despite the care he took in driving the bus, the road was slippery, that it was dark, that he drove his bus at
because it was dark and there was no sign on the road. He said 50 kilometers an hour when even on a good day the normal
that he saw the curve when he was already within 15 to 30 speed was only 20 kilometers an hour, and that he was
meters of it. He allegedly slowed down to 30 kilometers per unfamiliar with the terrain, Cabil was grossly negligent and
hour, but it was too late. should be held liable for the injuries suffered by Amyline
Antonio.
Amyline Antonio, who was seriously injured, brought this case
in the RTC of Makati, Metro Manila. As a result of the accident, Pursuant to Arts. 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code his
she is now suffering from paraplegia and is permanently negligence gave rise to the presumption that his employers,
paralyzed from the waist down. Sps Fabre, were themselves negligent in the selection and
The trial court found that no convincing evidence was shown supervisions of their employee.
that the minibus was properly checked for travel to a long
distance trip and that the driver was properly screened and Due diligence in selection of employees is not satisfied by
tested before being admitted for employment. Indeed, all the finding that the applicant possessed a professional driver's
evidence presented have shown the negligent act of the license. The employer should also examine the applicant for
his qualifications, experience and record of service. Due

DIGESTED BY: DAHIROC, ERUM, FUENTES, OLACO, PANIZA, RIVERA, TAN, UNAS, VILLAHERMOSA & VILLARIN 4
st
CASE DIGESTS ON TORTS AND DAMAGES – 1 Batch
diligence in supervision, on the other hand, requires the Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to
formulation of rules and regulations for the guidance of passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the
employees and issuance of proper instructions as well as former's employees although such employees may have acted
actual implementation and monitoring of consistent beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders
compliance with the rules. of the common carriers.

In the case at bar, Sps. Fabre, in allowing Cabil to drive the bus This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof
to La Union, apparently did not consider the fact that Cabil had that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family
been driving for school children only, from their homes to the in the selection and supervision of their employees.
St. Scholastica's College in Metro Manila. They had hired him
only after a two-week apprenticeship. They had hired him only The same circumstances detailed above, supporting the
after a two-week apprenticeship. They had tested him for finding of the trial court and of the appellate court that Sps
certain matters, such as whether he could remember the Fabre are liable under Arts. 2176 and 2180 for quasi delict, fully
names of the children he would be taking to school, which justify findings them guilty of breach of contract of carriage
were irrelevant to his qualification to drive on a long distance under Arts. 1733, 1755 and 1759 of the Civil Code.
travel, especially considering that the trip to La Union was his
first. The existence of hiring procedures and supervisory LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN vs.
policies cannot be casually invoked to overturn the MARJORIE NAVIDAD
presumption of negligence on the part of an employer. G.R. No. 145804, February 6, 2003

Sps Fabre argue that they are not liable because (1) an earlier FACTS:
departure (made impossible by the congregation's delayed
meeting) could have averted the mishap and (2) under the Nicanor Navidad, then drunk, entered the EDSA LRT station
contract, the WWCF was directly responsible for the conduct after purchasing a "token”. While Navidad was standing on the
of the trip. Neither of these contentions hold water. The hour platform near the LRT tracks, Junelito Escartin, the security
of departure had not been fixed. Even if it had been, the delay guard assigned to the area approached Navidad. A
did not bear directly on the cause of the accident. With respect misunderstanding or an altercation between the two
to the second contention, it was held in an early case that: apparently ensued that led to a fist fight. At the exact moment
that Navidad fell, an LRT train, operated by petitioner Rodolfo
[A] person who hires a public automobile and gives the driver Roman, was coming in. Navidad was struck by the moving
directions as to the place to which he wishes to be conveyed, train, and he was killed instantaneously.
but exercises no other control over the conduct of the driver,
is not responsible for acts of negligence of the latter or The widow of Nicanor, herein respondent Marjorie Navidad,
prevented from recovering for injuries suffered from a collision along with her children, filed a complaint for damages against
between the automobile and a train, caused by the negligence Junelito Escartin, Rodolfo Roman, the LRTA, the Metro Transit
or the automobile driver. Organization, Inc. (Metro Transit), and Prudent Security
Aganecy for the death of her husband. Prudent, in its answer,
As already stated, this case actually involves a contract of denied liability and averred that it had exercised due diligence
carriage. Sps Fabre, did not have to be engaged in the business in the selection and supervision of its security guards.
of public transportation for the provisions of the Civil Code on
common carriers to apply to them. As this Court has held: ISSUE:
Art. 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or Should Prudent Security Agency be held liable for the act of its
associations engaged in the business of carrying or employee?
transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or
air for compensation, offering their services to the public. RULING:

As common carriers, Sps. Fabre were found to exercise Yes. If at all, that liability could only be for tort under the
"extraordinary diligence" for the safe transportation of the provisions of Article 2176 and related provisions, in
passengers to their destination. This duty of care is not conjunction with Article 2180, of the Civil Code.
excused by proof that they exercise the diligence of a good
father of the family in the selection and supervision of their The premise, however, for the employer’s liability is
employee. As Art. 1759 of the Code provides: negligence or fault on the part of the employee. Once such
fault is established, the employer can then be made liable on

DIGESTED BY: DAHIROC, ERUM, FUENTES, OLACO, PANIZA, RIVERA, TAN, UNAS, VILLAHERMOSA & VILLARIN 5
st
CASE DIGESTS ON TORTS AND DAMAGES – 1 Batch
the basis of the presumption juris tantum that the employer TMBI, in turn, impleaded Benjamin Manalastas, the proprietor
failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection of BMT, as a third-party defendant. TMBI prayed that in the
and supervision of its employees. The liability is primary and event it is held liable to Mitsui for the loss, it should be
can only be negated by showing due diligence in the selection reimbursed by BMT.
and supervision of the employee, a factual matter that has not
been shown. Absent such a showing, one might ask further, The RTC found TMBI and Benjamin Manalastas jointly and
how then must the liability of the common carrier, on the one solidarily liable to pay Mitsui P7,293,386.23 as actual damages,
hand, and an independent contractor, on the other hand, be attorney’s fees and the costs of the suit. The RTC held that
described? It would be solidary. A contractual obligation can TMBI and Manalastas were common carriers and had acted
be breached by tort and when the same act or omission causes negligently. Both TMBI and BMT appealed the RTC’s verdict.
the injury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the other in
culpa aquiliana, Article 2194 of the Civil Code can well apply. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision but reduced the award of
attorney’s fees. TMBI disagreed with the CA’s ruling and filed
In fine, a liability for tort may arise even under a contract, the present petition for review on certiorari.
where tort is that which breaches the contract. Stated
differently, when an act which constitutes a breach of contract TMBI’s Petition
would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual
liability had no contract existed between the parties, the TMBI insists that the hijacking of the truck was a fortuitous
contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby event. It contests the CA’s finding that neither force nor
allowing the rules on tort to apply. intimidation was used in the taking of the cargo. Considering
Lapesura was never found, the Court should not discount the
TORRES-MADRID BROKERAGE, INC. VS. FEB MITSU MARINE possibility that he was a victim rather than a perpetrator.
INSURANCE CO., INC. AND BENJAMIN P. MANALASTAS
TMBI solely blames BMT as it had full control and custody of
FACTS the cargo when it was lost.22 BMT, as a common carrier, is
presumed negligent and should be responsible for the loss.
On October 7, 2000, a shipment of various electronic goods
from Thailand and Malaysia arrived at the Port of Manila for BMT’s Comment
Sony Philippines, Inc. (Sony). Previous to the arrival, Sony had
engaged the services of TMBI to facilitate, process, withdraw, BMT insists that it observed the required standard of care.23
and deliver the shipment from the port to its warehouse in Like the petitioner, BMT maintains that the hijacking was a
Biñan, Laguna. fortuitous event – a force majeure – that exonerates it from
liability. It points out that Lapesura has never been seen again
TMBI, with the acquiescence of Sony, subcontracted the and his fate remains a mystery. BMT likewise argues that the
services of Benjamin Manalastas’ company, BMT Trucking loss of the cargo necessarily showed that the taking was with
Services (BMT), to transport the shipment from the port to the the use of force or intimidation.
Biñan warehouse.
If there was any attendant negligence, BMT points the finger
On October 9, four trucks set out to deliver the goods but only on TMBI who failed to send a representative to accompany the
three arrived at Sony’s Biñan warehouse. It appeared that the shipment. BMT further blamed TMBI for the latter’s failure to
truck driven by Rufo Reynaldo Lapesura (NSF-391) was adopt security measures to protect Sony’s cargo.
hijacked.
Mitsui’s Comment
TMBI notified Sony of the loss through a letter dated October
10, 2000. It also sent BMT a letter dated March 29, 2001, Mitsui counters that neither TMBI nor BMT alleged or proved
demanding payment for the lost shipment. BMT refused to during the trial that the taking of the cargo was accompanied
pay, insisting that the goods were "hijacked." with grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force. Hence, the
incident cannot be considered "force majeure" and TMBI
In the meantime, Sony filed an insurance claim with the Mitsui, remains liable for breach of contract.
the insurer of the goods. Mitsui paid P7,293,386.23 for the
value of the lost goods and became subrogated to Sony’s Mitsui affirms that TMBI breached the contract of carriage
rights. Mitsui then sent TMBI a demand letter dated August 30, through its negligent handling of the cargo, resulting in its loss.
2001 for payment of the lost goods. TMBI refused to pay
Mitsui’s claim, thus, Mitsui filed a complaint against TMBI. ISSUES:

DIGESTED BY: DAHIROC, ERUM, FUENTES, OLACO, PANIZA, RIVERA, TAN, UNAS, VILLAHERMOSA & VILLARIN 6
st
CASE DIGESTS ON TORTS AND DAMAGES – 1 Batch
1. WON TMBI and BMT are solidarily liable to Mistui (NO)
On the other hand, the plaintiff in culpa aquiliana must clearly
2. WON a third party may recover from a common carrier for establish the defendant’s fault or negligence because this is
quasi-delict (Yes) the very basis of the action. Moreover, if the injury to the
plaintiff resulted from the act or omission of the defendant’s
3. WON BMT is liable to ATMBI for breach of contract of employee or servant, the defendant may absolve himself by
carriage (Yes) proving that he observed the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent the damage.
HELD:
In the present case, Mitsui’s action is solely premised on
1. No. TMBI and BMT are not solidarily liable to Mitsui. TMBI’s breach of contract. Mitsui did not even sue BMT, much
less prove any negligence on its part. If BMT has entered the
We disagree with the lower courts’ ruling that TMBI and BMT picture at all, it is because TMBI sued it for reimbursement for
are solidarily liable to Mitsui for the loss as joint tortfeasors. the liability that TMBI might incur from its contract of carriage
The ruling was based on Article 2194 of the Civil Code: with Sony/Mitsui. Accordingly, there is no basis to directly hold
BMT liable to Mitsui for quasi-delict.
Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are
liable for quasi-delict is solidary. 3. Yes. BMT is liable to TMBI for breach of their contract of
carriage.
Notably, TMBI’s liability to Mitsui does not stem from a quasi-
delict (culpa aquiliana) but from its breach of contract (culpa We do not hereby say that TMBI must absorb the loss. By
contractual). The tie that binds TMBI with Mitsui is contractual, subcontracting the cargo delivery to BMT, TMBI entered into
albeit one that passed on to Mitsui as a result of TMBI’s its own contract of carriage with a fellow common carrier.
contract of carriage with Sony to which Mitsui had been
subrogated as an insurer who had paid Sony’s insurance claim. The cargo was lost after its transfer to BMT' s custody based
The legal reality that results from this contractual tie precludes on its contract of carriage with TMBI. Following Article 1735,
the application of quasi-delict based Article 2194. BMT is presumed to be at fault. Since BMT failed to prove that
it observed extraordinary diligence in the performance of its
2. Yes. A third party may recover from a common carrier for obligation to TMBI, it is liable to TMBI for breach of their
quasi-delict but must prove actual negligence. contract of carriage.

We likewise disagree with the finding that BMT is directly liable In these lights, TMBI is liable to Sony (subrogated by Mitsui) for
to Sony/Mitsui for the loss of the cargo. While it is undisputed breaching the contract of carriage. In tum, TMBI is entitled to
that the cargo was lost under the actual custody of BMT reimbursement from BMT due to the latter's own breach of its
(whose employee is the primary suspect in the hijacking or contract of carriage with TMBI. The proverbial buck stops with
robbery of the shipment), no direct contractual relationship BMT who may either: (a) absorb the loss, or (b) proceed after
existed between Sony/Mitsui and BMT. If at all, Sony/Mitsui’s its missing driver, the suspected culprit, pursuant to Article
cause of action against BMT could only arise from quasi-delict, 2181.
as a third party suffering damage from the action of another
due to the latter’s fault or negligence, pursuant to Article 2176 ORIENT FREIGHT VS KEIHIN-EVERETT
of the Civil Code.
RAUL S. IMPERIAL vs. HEIRS OF NEIL BAYABAN
We have repeatedly distinguished between an action for G.R. No. 197626 October 3, 2018
breach of contract (culpa contractual) and an action for quasi-
delict (culpa aquiliana). FACTS:

In culpa contractual, the plaintiff only needs to establish the On December 14, 2003, at about 3:00 p.m., two (2) vehicles, a
existence of the contract and the obligor’s failure to perform van and a tricycle, figured in an accident along Sumulong
his obligation. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove or Highway, Antipolo City. The Mitsubishi L-300 van owned and
even allege that the obligor’s non-compliance was due to fault registered under Imperial's name, and was driven by Laraga.
or negligence because Article 1735 already presumes that the The tricycle was driven by Gerardo Mercado (Mercado). On
common carrier is negligent. The common carrier can only free board the tricycle were the Bayaban Spouses, who sustained
itself from liability by proving that it observed extraordinary injuries.
diligence. It cannot discharge this liability by shifting the blame
on its agents or servants.

DIGESTED BY: DAHIROC, ERUM, FUENTES, OLACO, PANIZA, RIVERA, TAN, UNAS, VILLAHERMOSA & VILLARIN 7
st
CASE DIGESTS ON TORTS AND DAMAGES – 1 Batch
For the injuries they sustained, the Bayaban Spouses had to account of the employer at the time of the infliction of the
undergo therapy and post-medical treatment. The Bayaban injury or damage."
Spouses demanded compensation from Imperial, Laraga, and
Mercado for the hospital bills and loss of income that they There is no question here that Laraga was petitioner's driver,
sustained while undergoing therapy and post-medical hence, his employee, as this fact was admitted by petitioner.
treatment .When neither Imperial, Laraga, nor Mercado This Court likewise finds that respondents have established
heeded their demand, the Bayaban Spouses filed a Complaint that Laraga was acting within the scope of his assigned tasks at
for damages before the Regional Trial Court impleading the time of the accident. It was 3:00 p.m. and Laraga was
Imperial, Laraga, and Mercado as defendants. driving in Antipolo City, where, as alleged by petitioner, his
greenhouse and garden were located. It is worth noting that
In his Answer, Imperial denied liability, contending that the van according to petitioner, he loaned the van to Pascua for the
was under the custody of one Rosalia Habon Pascua (Pascua). maintenance of his greenhouse and the repair of the water line
According to Imperial, he lent the van to Pascua who needed pipes in his garden. The logical conclusion is that Laraga was
it in fixing the greenhouse and water line pipes in Imperial's driving the van in connection with the upkeep of petitioner's
garden somewhere in Antipolo. Imperial admitted that he had Antipolo greenhouse and garden. Laraga was driving the van
employed Laraga as family driver but contended that he had in furtherance of the interests of petitioner at the time of the
exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of accident.
Laraga. He even allegedly sponsored Laraga's formal driving
lessons. Furthermore, Laraga was allegedly acting outside the Considering that petitioner failed to dispute the presumption
scope of his duties when the accident happened considering of negligence on his part, he was correctly deemed liable for
that it was a Sunday, his rest day. the damages incurred by the Bayaban Spouses when the
tricycle they were riding collided with the van driven by
In its March 15, 2009 Decision,19 the Regional Trial Court ruled petitioner's employee, Laraga. It must be noted that the
in favor of the Bayaban Spouses. It found Laraga negligent and accident happened because Laraga tried to overtake another
the proximate cause of the accident, i.e., overtaking another vehicle and, in doing so, drove to the opposite lane when the
vehicle and, in the process, colliding with the tricycle that van collided with the approaching tricycle. Laraga was
carried the Bayaban Spouses on the other side of the road. As negligent in operating the van.
for Imperial, it ruled that he failed to prove that he had
exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of - Delicts
Laraga, his employee; thus, he was presumed negligent and
was likewise held liable for damages to the Bayaban Spouses. Cases:
FAUSTO BARREDO vs. SEVERINO GARCIA and TIMOTEA
Imperial appealed this Decision to the Court of ALMARIO
Appeals.Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals maintained his G.R. No. L-48006 July 8, 1942
liability, ruling that "the registered owner of a motor vehicle is
primarily and directly responsible for the consequences of its FACTS:
operation, including the negligence of the driver, with respect
to the public and all third persons." He could not escape At about half past one in the morning of May 3, 1936, on the
liability by arguing that it was Laraga's day off when the road between Malabon and Navotas, Province of Rizal, there
accident happened or that the van was in the custody of was a head- on collision between a taxi of the Malate Taxicab
Pascua because neither Laraga nor Pascua was presented in driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a carretela guided by Pedro
court to confirm his assertions.28 Dimapalis.

ISSUE: The carretela was overturned, and one of its passengers, 16-
year-old boy Faustino Garcia, suffered injuries from which he
Did William Laraga was acting within the scope of his assigned died two days later. A criminal action was filed against
task? Fontanilla.

HELD: DECISION OF CFI (CRIMINAL CASE):

YES. Employers are deemed liable or morally responsible for 1. CFI- Rizal – Fontanilla was convicted and sentenced to an
the fault or negligence of their employees but only if the indeterminate sentence of one year and one day to two years
employees are acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. of prision correccional. The court in the criminal case granted
An act is deemed an assigned task if it is "done by an employee,
in furtherance of the interests of the employer or for the

DIGESTED BY: DAHIROC, ERUM, FUENTES, OLACO, PANIZA, RIVERA, TAN, UNAS, VILLAHERMOSA & VILLARIN 8
st
CASE DIGESTS ON TORTS AND DAMAGES – 1 Batch
the petition that the right to bring a separate civil action be
reserved. At this juncture, it should be said that the primary and direct
2. CA: affirmed the sentence of the lower court in the criminal responsibility of employers and their presumed negligence are
case. principles calculated to protect society. Workmen and
employees should be carefully chosen and supervised in order
Severino Garcia and Timotea Almario, parents of the deceased, to avoid injury to the public. It is the masters or employers who
brought an action against Fausto Barredo as the sole principally reap the profits resulting from the services of these
proprietor of the Malate Taxicab and employer of Pedro servants and employees. It is but right that they should
Fontanilla. guarantee the latter's careful conduct for the personnel and
patrimonial safety of others.
In his defense, Fausto Barredo contends that his liability is
governed by the Revised Penal Code; hence, his liability is only Hence, Fausto Barredo, liable in damages for the death of
subsidiary, and as there has been no civil action against Pedro Faustino Garcia caused by the negligence of Pedro Fontanilla,
Fontanilla, the person criminally liable, Barredo cannot be held a taxi driver employed by said Fausto Barredo.
responsible in the case.
PEDRO ELCANO and PATRICIA ELCANO vs. REGINALD HILL,
ISSUE: minor, and MARVIN HILL
G.R. No. L-24803 May 26, 1977
May the plaintiffs bring a separate civil action against Fausto
Barredo making him primarily and directly, responsible under FACTS:
article 1903 of the Civil Code as an employer of Pedro? Reginald Hill was married and a minor who was then still living
in care of his father, Atty. Marvin Hill. Reginald Hill was
RULING: prosecuted criminally for killing Agapito Elcano. Reginald was
acquitted on the ground that his acts were not criminal
Yes. There is a separate individuality of cuasi-delitos or culpa because of “lack of intent to kill, coupled with mistakes”. The
aquiliana under the Civil Code. Specifically they show that father of Agapito Elcano then filed a civil action against
there is a distinction between civil liability arising from criminal Reginald and his father (Marvin Hill) for damages based on
negligence (governed by the Penal Code) and responsibility for Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Hill argued that the civil action is
fault or negligence under articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil barred by his son’s acquittal in the criminal case; and that if
Code, and that the same negligent act may produce either a ever, his civil liability as a parent has been extinguished by the
civil liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or a fact that his son is already an emancipated minor by reason of
separate responsibility for fault or negligence under articles his marriage.
1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code. Thus the employer — in this
case the defendant-petitioner — is primarily and directly liable A motion to dismiss was filed by the defendants. The Court of
under article 1903 of the Civil Code. First Instance of Quezon City denied the motion. Nevertheless,
the civil case was finally dismissed upon motion for
To hold that there is only one way to make defendant's liability reconsideration.
effective, and that is, to sue the driver and exhaust his (the
latter's) property first, would be tantamount to compelling the ISSUES:
plaintiff to follow a devious and cumbersome method of
obtaining relief. True, there is such a remedy under our laws, 1. Is the present civil action for damages barred by the
but there is also a more expeditious way, which is based on the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case wherein the action
primary and direct responsibility of the defendant under for civil liability, was not reversed?
article 1903 of the Civil Code.
2. May Article 2180 (2nd and last paragraphs) of the Civil Code
Our view of the law is more likely to facilitate remedy for civil be applied against Atty. Hill, notwithstanding the undisputed
wrongs, because the procedure indicated by the defendant is fact that at the time of the occurrence complained of Reginald,
wasteful and productive of delay, it being a matter of common though a minor, living with and getting subsistence from his
knowledge that professional drivers of taxis and similar public father, was already legally married?
conveyance usually do not have sufficient means with which
to pay damages. Why, then, should the plaintiff be required in RULING:
all cases to go through this roundabout, unnecessary, and
probably useless procedure? In construing the laws, courts 1. No, the present civil action for damages is not barred
have endeavored to shorten and facilitate the pathways of by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case. Firstly, there
right and justice.

DIGESTED BY: DAHIROC, ERUM, FUENTES, OLACO, PANIZA, RIVERA, TAN, UNAS, VILLAHERMOSA & VILLARIN 9
st
CASE DIGESTS ON TORTS AND DAMAGES – 1 Batch
is a distinction as regards the proof required in a criminal case minor children who live in their company." In the instant case,
and a civil case. To find the accused guilty in a criminal case, it is not controverted that Reginald, although married, was
proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required, while in a living with his father and getting subsistence from him at the
civil case, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make the time of the occurrence in question. Factually, therefore,
defendant pay in damages. Furthermore, a civil case for Reginald was still subservient to and dependent on his father,
damages on the basis of quasi-delict does is independently a situation which is not unusual.
instituted from a criminal act. As such the acquittal of Reginald
Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for Accordingly, Article 2180 applies to Atty. Hill notwithstanding
quasi-delict, hence that acquittal is not a bar to the instant the emancipation by marriage of Reginald. However, inasmuch
action against him. as it is evident that Reginald is now of age, as a matter of
equity, the liability of Atty. Hill has become milling, subsidiary
ART. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the to that of his son.
preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil
liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the ROMEO G. LORENZO vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or G.R. No. 152335 December 19, 2005
omission of the defendant.
FACTS:
According to the Code Commission: "The foregoing provision
(Article 2177) through at first sight startling, is not so novel or Accused ROMEO G. LORENZO and CARMELITA P. LORENZO,
extraordinary when we consider the exact nature of criminal allegedly defrauded MYRNA M. MINGGOY, in the following
and civil negligence. The former is a violation of the criminal manner, to wit: accused, by means of false manifestations and
law, while the latter is a "culpa aquiliana" or quasi-delict, of fraudulent representations that they have the lawful and legal
ancient origin, having always had its own foundation and rights and interest over a house and lot, and simultaneous
individuality, separate from criminal negligence. Such thereto, by means of other similar deceits take and receive the
distinction between criminal negligence and "culpa sum of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱150,000.00),
extracontractual" or "cuasi-delito" has been sustained by Philippine Currency, from MYRLA M. MINGGOY, in
decision of the Supreme Court of Spain and maintained as consideration for the sale of rights and interest over the said
clear, sound and perfectly tenable by Maura, an outstanding house and lot in favor of the latter.
Spanish jurist. Therefore, under the proposed Article 2177,
acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether Petitioner was then found guilty of the crime of Estafa.
on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent However, he argues that he should not have been ordered to
civil action, not for civil liability arising from criminal indemnify complainant in the amount of ₱150,000.00, saying
negligence, but for damages due to a quasi-delict or 'culpa that complainant had instituted a separate civil action for
aquiliana'. But said article forestalls a double recovery." recovery of the ₱150,000.00 plus damages, but the same was
dismissed by the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari
2. Yes. While it is true that parental authority is Hence, petitioner asserts, to award indemnity would be
terminated upon emancipation of the child (Article 327, Civil tantamount to making an award on the basis of civil liability
Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes place "by the which has been subject of a separate case already dismissed
marriage of the minor (child)", it is, however, also clear that with finality.
pursuant to Article 399, emancipation by marriage of the
minor is not really full or absolute. Thus "(E)mancipation by ISSUE:
marriage or by voluntary concession shall terminate parental
authority over the child's person. It shall enable the minor to Whether a separate civil action may be filed by the
administer his property as though he were of age, but he complainant in the case at bar
cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber real property
without the consent of his father or mother, or guardian. He RULING:
can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his
father, mother or guardian." Yes. Our laws allow the filing of a separate civil action for
damages against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not
Now under Article 2180, "The obligation imposed by article such offender is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or
2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if
but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. The he is actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on
father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are both scores. The offended party would be entitled only to the
responsible. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity,
the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the

DIGESTED BY: DAHIROC, ERUM, FUENTES, OLACO, PANIZA, RIVERA, TAN, UNAS, VILLAHERMOSA & VILLARIN 10
st
CASE DIGESTS ON TORTS AND DAMAGES – 1 Batch
bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two
cases vary. On the other hand, MCS contends that it cannot be held liable
for damages simply because of its ownership of the premises
JOHN E.R. REYES and MERWIN JOSEPH REYES vs. ORICO where the shooting incident occurred. It argued that the
DOCTOLERO injuries sustained by petitioners were caused by the acts of
G.R. No. 185597 respondents Doctolero and Avila, for whom respondent
Grandeur should be solely responsible.
FACTS:
On January 18, 1999, the RTC rendered judgment against
The case arose from an altercation between respondent Orico respondents Doctolero and Avila, finding them responsible for
Doctolero, a security guard of respondent Grandeur Security the injuries sustained by petitioners. In reconsidering its
and Services Corporation and petitioners John E.R. Reyes and Decision, the RTC held that it re-evaluated the facts and the
Merwin Joseph Reyes in the parking area of respondent Makati attending circumstances of the present case and was
Cinema Square. The respondents shot the petitioners but both convinced that Grandeur has sufficiently overcome the
parties alleged different version of the incident. presumption of negligence. It gave credence to the testimony
of Grandeur’s witness, Eduardo Ungui, the head of the Human
Grandeur advances a different version, one based on the Initial Resources Department (HRD) of Grandeur, as regards the
Report conducted by Investigator Cosme Giron. While various procedures in its selection and hiring of security
Doctolero was on duty at the ramp of the exit driveway of guards.
MCS's basement parking, John took over the left lane and
insisted entry through the basement parking's exit driveway. ISSUE:
Knowing that this is against traffic rules, Doctolero stopped
John, prompting the latter to alight from his vehicle and Whether Grandeur and MCS may be held vicariously liable for
confront Doctolero. With his wife unable to pacify him, John the damages caused by respondents Doctolero and Avila to
punched and kicked Doctolero, hitting the latter on his left face petitioners John and Mervin Reyes
and stomach. Doctolero tried to step back to avoid his
aggressor but John persisted, causing Doctolero to draw his RULING:
service firearm and fire a warning shot. John ignored this and
continued his attack. MCS is not liable to petitioners. As a general rule, one is only
responsible for his own act or omission. This general rule is laid
He caught up with Doctolero and wrestled with him to get the down in Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which provides:
firearm. This caused the gun to fire off and hit John's leg.
Mervin then ran after Doctolero but was shot on the stomach Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
by security guard Avila, another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
Petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court a complaint for existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a
damages against respondents Doctolero and Avila and their quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
employer Grandeur, charging the latter with negligence in the
selection and supervision of its employees. They likewise The law, however, provides for exceptions when it makes
impleaded MCS on the ground that it was negligent in getting certain persons liable for the act or omission of another. One
Grandeur’s services. In their complaint, petitioners prayed that exception is an employer who is made vicariously liable for the
respondents be ordered, jointly and severally, to pay them tort committed by his employee under paragraph 5 of Article
actual, moral, and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and 2180. Here, although the employer is not the actual tortfeasor,
litigation costs. the law makes him vicariously liable on the basis of the civil law
principle of pater familias for failure to exercise due care and
Respondents Doctolero and Avila failed to file an answer vigilance over the acts of one’s subordinates to prevent
despite service of summons upon them. Thus, they were damage to another.
declared in default in an Order dated December 12, 1997.
It must be stressed, however, that the above rule is applicable
For its part, Grandeur asserted that it exercised the required only if there is an employer-employee relationship. This
diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. It employer-employee relationship cannot be presumed but
likewise averred that the shooting incident was caused by the must be sufficiently proven by the plaintiff. The plaintiff must
unlawful aggression of petitioners who took advantage of their also show that the employee was acting within the scope of his
“martial arts” skills. assigned task when the tort complained of was committed. It
is only then that the defendant, as employer, may find it

DIGESTED BY: DAHIROC, ERUM, FUENTES, OLACO, PANIZA, RIVERA, TAN, UNAS, VILLAHERMOSA & VILLARIN 11
st
CASE DIGESTS ON TORTS AND DAMAGES – 1 Batch
necessary to interpose the defense of due diligence in the father of a family in the selection and supervision of its
selection and supervision of employees. In the absence of such employees.
relationship, vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the Civil
Code cannot be applied. We find no employer-employee Hence, having successfully overcome the legal presumption of
relationship between MCS and respondent guards. The guards negligence, it is relieved of liability from the negligent acts of
were merely assigned by Grandeur to secure MCS’ premises its employees, respondents Doctolero and Avila.
pursuant to their Contract of Guard Services. Thus, MCS
cannot be held vicariously liable for damages caused by these
guards’ acts or omissions. Neither can it be said that a
principal-agency relationship existed between MCS and
Grandeur.

On the other hand, paragraph 5 of Article 2180 of the Civil

Code may be applicable to Grandeur, it being undisputed that
respondent guards were its employees. When the employee
causes damage due to his own negligence while performing his
own duties, there arises the juris tantum presumption that the
employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of observance
of the diligence of a good father of a family. The “diligence of
a good father” referred to in the last paragraph of Article 2180
means diligence in the selection and supervision of employees.

To rebut the presumption of negligence, Grandeur must prove

two things: first, that it had exercised due diligence in the
selection of respondents Doctolero and Avila, and second, that
after hiring Doctolero and Avila, Grandeur had exercised due
diligence in supervising them.

Here, both the RTC and the CA found that Grandeur was able
to sufficiently prove, through testimonial and documentary
evidence, that it had exercised the diligence of a good father
of a family in the selection and hiring of its security guards. As
testified to by its HRD head Ungui, and corroborated by
documentary evidence including clearances from various
government agencies, certificates, and favorable test results in
medical and psychiatric examinations.

The question of diligent supervision, however, depends on the

circumstances of employment. Ordinarily, evidence
demonstrating that the employer has exercised diligent
supervision of its employee during the performance of the
latter’s assigned tasks would be enough to relieve him of the
liability imposed by Article 2180 in relation to Article 2176 of
the Civil Code. Here, Grandeur's HRD head, Ungui, likewise
testified on Grandeur's standard operational procedures,
showing the means by which Grandeur conducts close and
regular supervision over the security guards assigned to their
various clients. Grandeur also submitted as evidence
certificates of the attendance to various seminars and the
memoranda both those commending respondents for their
good works and reprimanding them for violations of various
company policies.

Considering all the evidence borne by the records, we find that

Grandeur has sufficiently exercised the diligence of a good

DIGESTED BY: DAHIROC, ERUM, FUENTES, OLACO, PANIZA, RIVERA, TAN, UNAS, VILLAHERMOSA & VILLARIN 12
st
CASE DIGESTS ON TORTS AND DAMAGES – 1 Batch