Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 61 views

    Maranan vs. Perez

    Uploaded by

    Ederic Apao
    1) Rogelio Corachea was stabbed and killed by the driver, Simeon Valenzuela, while riding in a taxicab owned by Pascual Perez. Valenzuela was convicted of homicide. 2) Antonia Maranan, Rogelio's mother, filed a damages case against Perez and Valenzuela. Perez claimed the death was due to self-defense or a caso fortuito, exempting carrier liability. 3) The court held Perez liable, as the New Civil Code makes common carriers liable for intentional assaults by employees on passengers, regardless of authority or orders. Carriers must protect passengers from employee violence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Maranan vs. Perez

    Uploaded by

    Ederic Apao
    61 views1 page
    1) Rogelio Corachea was stabbed and killed by the driver, Simeon Valenzuela, while riding in a taxicab owned by Pascual Perez. Valenzuela was convicted of homicide. 2) Antonia Maranan, Rogelio's mother, filed a damages case against Perez and Valenzuela. Perez claimed the death was due to self-defense or a caso fortuito, exempting carrier liability. 3) The court held Perez liable, as the New Civil Code makes common carriers liable for intentional assaults by employees on passengers, regardless of authority or orders. Carriers must protect passengers from employee violence.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    8. Maranan vs. Perez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Rogelio Corachea was stabbed and killed by the driver, Simeon Valenzuela, while riding in a taxicab owned by Pascual Perez. Valenzuela was convicted of homicide. 2) Antonia Maranan, Rogelio's mother, filed a damages case against Perez and Valenzuela. Perez claimed the death was due to self-defense or a caso fortuito, exempting carrier liability. 3) The court held Perez liable, as the New Civil Code makes common carriers liable for intentional assaults by employees on passengers, regardless of authority or orders. Carriers must protect passengers from employee violence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    61 views1 page

    Maranan vs. Perez

    Uploaded by

    Ederic Apao
    1) Rogelio Corachea was stabbed and killed by the driver, Simeon Valenzuela, while riding in a taxicab owned by Pascual Perez. Valenzuela was convicted of homicide. 2) Antonia Maranan, Rogelio's mother, filed a damages case against Perez and Valenzuela. Perez claimed the death was due to self-defense or a caso fortuito, exempting carrier liability. 3) The court held Perez liable, as the New Civil Code makes common carriers liable for intentional assaults by employees on passengers, regardless of authority or orders. Carriers must protect passengers from employee violence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    8. Maranan vs.

    Perez
    Facts: Rogelio Corachea was a passenger in a taxicab owned and operated by Pascual Perez when he was
    stabbed and killed by the driver, Simeon Valenzuela. Valenzuela was prosecuted for homicide in the Court of
    First Instance of Batangas. Found guilty, he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs
    of the deceased in the sum of P6,000. Appeal from said conviction was taken to the Court of Appeals. On
    December 6, 1961, while appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, Antonia Maranan, Rogelio's mother,
    filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Batangas to recover damages from Perez and Valenzuela for the
    death of her son. Defendants asserted that the deceased was killed in self-defense, since he first assaulted the
    driver by stabbing him from behind. Defendant Perez further claimed that the death was a caso fortuito for
    which the carrier was not liable.Defendant-appellant relies solely on the ruling enunciated in Gillaco v. Manila
    Railroad Co., 97 Phil. 884, that the carrier is under no absolute liability for assaults of its employees upon the
    passengers. The attendant facts and controlling law of that case and the one at bar are very different however.
    In the Gillaco case, the passenger was killed outside the scope and the course of duty of the guilty employee.
    Issue: whether or not the carrier is liable.
    Held: Yes. Unlike the old Civil Code, the New Civil Code expressly makes the common carrier liable for
    intentional assaults committed by its employees upon its passengers (Art. 1759). This rule was adopted from
    Anglo-American law, where the majority view, as distinguished from the minority view based on respondeat
    superior, is that the carrier is liable as long as the assault occurs within the course of the performance of the
    employee's duty. It is no defense for the carrier that the act was done in excess of authority or in disobedience
    of the carrier's orders. The carrier's liability is absolute in the sense that it practically secures the passengers
    from assaults committed by its own employees. The special undertaking of the carrier requires that it furnish
    its passengers that full measure of protection afforded by the exercise of the high degree of care prescribed by
    law, inter alia, from violence and insults at the hands of strangers and other passengers, but above all from the
    acts of the carrier's own servants charged with the passenger's safety. The performance of that undertaking is
    confided by the carrier to its employees. As between the carrier and the passenger, the former must bear the
    risk of wrongful acts of the former's employees against passengers, since the carrier, not the passengers, has
    the power to select and remove them, Where a passenger in a taxicab was killed by the driver, the cab owner
    is liable to the heir of the deceased passenger for damages on the basis of breach of the contract of carriage.
    The driver is not liable to the heir because the driver was not a party to the contract of carriage. His civil
    liability is covered by the judgment of conviction in the criminal case. The case is different from  Gillaco vs.
    Manila Railroad Company, 97 Phil, 884, The minimum amount of compensatory damages, which a common
    carrier should pay for the intentional killing of a passenger committed by its driver while transporting the
    passenger, is P6,000. Moral damages may also be awarded. Interest is due on said damages.

    You might also like