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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    Andamo Case

    Uploaded by

    Carmela Lopez

    Copyright:

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

    Andamo Case

    Uploaded by

    Carmela Lopez
    14 views3 pages

    Original Title

    andamo case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    14 views3 pages

    Andamo Case

    Uploaded by

    Carmela Lopez

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    [1] Andamo v.

    IAC
    G.R. No. 74761, November 06, 1990
    Topic: Quasi-delict

    FACTS:
    Spouses Emmanuel and Natividad Andamo are the
    owners of a parcel of land situated in Biga (Biluso) Silang,
    Cavite which is adjacent to that of private respondent,
    Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette, Inc., a religious
    corporation.

    Within the land of respondent corporation, waterpaths and


    contrivances, including an artificial lake, were constructed,
    which allegedly inundated and eroded petitioners' land,
    caused a young man to drown, damaged petitioners' crops
    and plants, washed away costly fences, endangered the
    lives of spouses and their laborers during rainy and stormy
    seasons, and exposed plants and other improvements to
    destruction.

    Spouses Andamo filed a criminal case and after, a


    separate civil action for damages against the respondent.
    The trial court issued an order suspending further hearings
    in the civil case until after judgment in the criminal case.
    The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the order.
    However, the spouses contend that the trial court and the
    Appellate Court erred in dismissing Civil Case since it is
    predicated on a quasi-delict.

    ISSUE: Whether the corporation, which has built through


    its agents, waterpaths, water conductors and contrivances
    within its land, thereby causing inundation and damage to
    an adjacent land, can be held civilly liable for damages
    under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-
    delicts such that the resulting civil case can proceed
    independently of the criminal case

    RULING:
    Yes. The decision of the IAC is reversed and set aside
    and the trial court is ordered to proceed with the civil case
    independently of the criminal case.

    The civil action is one under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the
    Civil Code on quasi-delicts. All the elements of a quasi-
    delict are present, to wit: (a) damages suffered by the
    plaintiff, (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some
    other person for whose acts he must respond; and (c) the
    connection of cause and effect between the fault or
    negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by
    the plaintiff.

    Petitioners' complaint sufficiently alleges that petitioners


    have sustained and will continue to sustain damage due to
    the waterpaths and contrivances built by respondent
    corporation. Indeed, the recitals of the complaint, the
    alleged presence of damage to the petitioners, the act or
    omission of respondent corporation supposedly
    constituting fault or negligence, and the causal connection
    between the act and the damage, with no pre-existing
    contractual obligation between the parties make a clear
    case of a quasi delict or culpa aquiliana. In Azucena vs.
    Potenciano, the Court declared that in quasi-delicts, "(t)he
    civil action is entirely independent of the criminal case
    according to Articles 33 and 2177 of the Civil Code. There
    can be no logical conclusion than this, for to subordinate
    the civil action contemplated in the said articles to the
    result of the criminal prosecution — whether it be
    conviction or acquittal — would render meaningless the
    independent character of the civil action and the clear
    injunction in Article 31, that his action may proceed
    independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless
    of the result of the latter.

    You might also like