[CASES] - Breach of Obligations & Grounds for Liability Flashcards

Knowledge Check for Exam

1
Q

Art 1170

A

Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of [fnd] fraud, negligence, or delay

AND

those who in ANY manner contravene the tenor thereof,

are liable for damages

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

(1) Did the erroneous act of cancelling subject insurance policy entitle petitioner-insured to payment of damages?

(2) Did the subsequent act of reinstating the wrongfully cancelled insurance policy by respondent insurance company, in an effort to rectify such error, obliterate whatever liability for damages it may have to bear, thus absolving it therefrom?

LB

[facts]
On June 29, 1985, seven months after the issuance of petitioner Santos Areola’s Personal Accident Insurance Policy No. PA-20015, respondent insurance company unilaterally cancelled the same since company records revealed that petitioner-insured failed to pay his premiums.

On August 3, 1985, respondent insurance company offered to reinstate same policy it had previously cancelled and even proposed to extend its lifetime to December 17, 1985, upon a finding that the cancellation was erroneous and that the premiums were paid in full by petitioner-insured but were not remitted by Teofilo M. Malapit, respondent insurance company’s branch manager.

These, in brief, are the material facts that gave rise to the action for damages due to breach of contract instituted by petitioner-insured before Branch 40 RTC, Dagupan City against respondent insurance company

A

[1]
Yes, the erroneous act of cancelling subject insurance policy entitles petitioner-insured to damages

In the case of Areola v. CA, the SC ruled that Malapit’s fraudulent act of misappropriating premiums paid is imputable to the respondent insurance company. A corporation such as the respondent insurance company acts solely thru its employees and the latter’s acts are considered their acts.

Article 1910 provides that the principal must comply with ALL the obligations which the agent may have contracted within the scope of his authority

[2]
No, its act of offering the reinstatement does not obliterate the injury inflicted on the petitioner-insured. Reciprocal obligations in a insurance contract results in both parties becoming insurer and insured

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the type of damage to be collected by Areola v. CA? Define.

A

Nominal damages

are recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated (substantiated/absolved) against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind or there is breach of a contract but no substantial injury or actual damages has been shown

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

NEGLIGENCE CASES

  • picart v smith
    -Layugan vs. IAC (107 SCRA 363) -
    PNB vs. CA (315 SCRA 309)
    -PNB vs. Pike (470 SCRA 328)
    -Samson vs. CA (238 SCRA 309)
    -Dioquino vs. Laureano (33 SCRA 65)
    -La Mallorca vs. CA (17 SCRA 739)
    -PAL vs. CA (106 SCRA 391)
    -Philippine National Construction Corporation vs. CA (467 SCRA 569) -Prudential Bank vs. Rapanot, et al., G.R. No. 191536, January 16, 2017
A

NEGLIGENCE CASES

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Article 1172

A

Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of EVERY KIND of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Article 2201

A

Art. 2201.
In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the OBLIGOR who acted in good faith is LIABLE shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, AND which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.

In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for ALL damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is the test of negligence?

A

Did the party, in doing the alleged negligent act, use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation?

if not, then he is guilty of negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

ISSUE
Whether or not the defendant in maneuvering his car in the manner above described was guilty of negligence such as gives rise to a civil obligation to repair the damage done; and we are of the opinion that he is so liable.

The plaintiff was riding on his pony. Before he had gotten half way across, the defendant approached from the opposite direction in an automobile. As the defendant neared the bridge he saw a horseman on it and blew his horn to give warning of his approach. He continued his course and after he had taken the bridge he gave two more successive blasts, as it appeared to him that the man on horseback before him was not observing the rule of the road.

The plaintiff, saw the automobile coming and heard the warning signals. Defendant, instead of veering to the right continued to approach directly toward the horse without diminution of speed.

the defendant quickly turned his car sufficiently to the right to escape hitting the horse alongside of the railing where it was then standing; but in so doing the automobile passed in such close proximity to the animal that it became frightened and turned its body across the bridge with its head toward the railing. As a result defendant suffered injuries and the horse died.

A

Yes, the defendant is guilty

In the case of Picart v Smith, the defendant was driving negligently in spite of the fact that the petitioner was in the wrong lane

the petitioner as well is guilty of negligence for the same.

In situations where the two parties are negligent and the negligence of the other is more appreciable than the other, the law of last clear chance applies where the party who had the last clear chance to avoid the harm and fails to do so is liable for the consequences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

[a] latin of “the thing speak for itself”

[b] meaning

A

res ipsa loquitur

if an accident occurs that wouldn’t normally happen unless someone was negligent and the defendant had control over the situation, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove they were not negligent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Who is negligent

The plaintiff was standing beside the truck while his company was repairing the tire of their cargo truck (was parked, occupying almost half of the right lane, right after the curve; but installed early warning devices 3-4 meters from the truck). The plaintiff was bumped by the defendant’s truck driven recklessly by Daniel Serrano; that as a result, plaintiff was injured and hospitalized; that he spent TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) and will incur more expenses as he recuperates from said injuries; that because of said injuries he would be deprived of a lifetime income in the sum of SEVENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P70,000.00); and that he agreed to pay his lawyer the sum of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00).

A

Under the Civil Code, the employer is negligent

under the RPC, the driver is negligent

the civil liability of the employer is primary

In the case of Layugan v.IAC, the employer failed to prove diligence of a good father of a family in the supervision of his employees.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

ISSUE: WON Pujol should be rewarded for moral and exemplary damages for the negligence of PNB to notify Pujol that her account was not yet operative

WON the award by the trial court of moral damages of P100,000.00 and attorney’s fees of P20,000.00 was inordinately disproportionate and unconscionable.

[facts]
Pujol opened with petitioner Philippine National Bank

Mandaluyong Branch (PNB for brevity), an account denominated as “Combo Account,” a combination of Savings Account and Current Account in private respondent’s business name “Pujol Trading,” under which checks drawn against private respondent’s checking account could be charged against her Savings Account should the funds in her Current Account be insufficient to cover the value of her checks.

private respondent issued a check in the amount of P30,000.00 in favor of her daughter-in-law, Dr. Charisse M. Pujol. And on 24 October 1990 private respondent issued another check in the amount of P30,000.00 in favor of her daughter, Ms. Venus P. De Ocampo. Both checks were dishonored despite private respondent had sufficient funds in her Savings Account.

4 November 1990, after realizing its mistake, petitioner accepted and honored the second check for P30,000.00 and recredited to private respondent’s account the P250.00 previously debited as penalty.

Private respondent Lily S. Pujol filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City a complaint for moral and exemplary damages against petitioner for dishonoring her checks despite sufficiency of her funds in the bank.

Petitioner admitted in its answer that private respondent Pujol opened a “Combo Account,” a combination of Savings Account and Current Account, with its Mandaluyong branch. It however justified the dishonor of the two (2) checks by claiming that at the time of their issuance private respondent Pujol’s account was not yet operational due to lack of documentary requirements

A

[A]
Yes, Pujol should be awarded for moral and exemplary damages

In the case of PNB v. CA, the case outlines that the care that banks must give is an Extraordinary type of care. PNB failed to notify thus such slight negligence makes them liable for negligence thus Pujol can demand damages as outlined in Article 1170

[B]
Insofar as the award is concerned, there is no hard and fast rule when speaking of damages. Damages are NOT intended for the enrichment of the complainant at the expenses of the defendant. Reasonableness depends on the situation and in this case and jurisprudence, considering the reputation and standing of the private Respondent Pujol and jurisprudence, 100k is reasonable and 20k for atty’s fees is proper

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

WON PNB is Negligent in accepting the withdrawal slips without asking for any proof of identification and did not counter check the signature.

WON Pike is entitled for damages.

A

Yes, PNB is negligent
Yes, he is entitled

PNB v. Pike, pre-signed withdrawal slips do NOT constitute normal proceudre

banking is imbued with public interest so must exercise an extraordinary type of care

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q
A

Samson v. CA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Samson v. CA - latin of ‘let the buyer beware’

A

caveat emptor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Article 1174

A

[Except] in cases expressly specific by law, [OR] otherwise declared by stipulation [OR] when nature of obligation requires the assumption of risk

NO PERSON shall be responsible for those events which could NOT be foreseen, or which, foreseen, were inevitable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Atty. Dioquino, a practicing lawyer, went to the office of the MVO, Masbate to register his car. He asked Laureano to introduce him to one of the clerks in the office who could facilitate the registration and the request was attended to. Laureano rode on the car of Atty. Dioquino. While about to reach their destination, the car was stoned by some mischievous boys and the windshield broke. Laureano refused to file any charges against the boy and his parents because he thought that stone-throwing was accidental and was due to force majeure. He refused to pay the damage caused and challenged the case for adjudication. The plaintiff tried to convince the defendant and even the latter’s wife to settle amicably by paying the damages but the defendant refused.

Is there fortuitous events?
is Lauraeno liable for damages?

A

No & No
Dioquino v. Lauraeno, the SC applied Article 1174 which states that no person shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, and if foreseen, inevitable

fortuitous events are NOT foreseeable or avoidable (IMPOSSIBLE to foresee or avoid) and because the there was a possibility of danger, this is NOT a fortuitous event

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Robert De Alban and his family rode a bus owned by Joeben Bus Company. Upon reaching their desired destination, they alighted from the bus but Robert returned to get their baggage. However, his youngest daughter followed him without his knowledge. When he stepped into the bus again, the bus accelerated that resulting to Robert’s daughter death. The bus ran over her.

A

Yes

La Mallorca v. CA

the relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment passenger leaves the carrier’s vehicle but continues until such time that the passenger to leave the current premises

18
Q

co-pilot was seriously physically hurt due to the negligence of the pilot

Co-pilot also entitled to receive extraordinary care

Q: WON PAL exercised utmost diligence required of them as common carriage

A

No
PAL v. CA, there was gross negligence on the part of PAL for allowing Capt. Bustamante to fly even if he was sick, having tumor

19
Q

Under the Civil Code,
- Can the petitioner be considered negligent in taking the warning devices despite the present of few flattened sugarcanes scattered on the road when a person incurred accident because of the scattered sugarcanes?

  • Furthermore, is the respondent barred to claim damages for recklessly driving?
A

PNCC v. CA, PASUDECO & PNCC should be jointly and severally liable for being negligent

PNCC failed to exercise diligence in maintaining the NLEX for motorist oncisdering that the lighted cans were removed and the highway was wet because of the sap. Pet’n could have **foreseen* the danger at night or in the early morning

PASUDECOs negligence in transporting sugarcanes without proper harness/straps

note there were TWO SUCCESSIVE NEGLIGENT ACTS which were the immediate and proximate cause of Latagan’s injuries

20
Q
  1. Whether or not the CA erred when it affirmed the resolution of the OP holding that the Bank cannot be considered a mortgagee in good faith.
  2. WON the bank exercised due diligence before it entered into the Mortgage Agreement with Golden Dragon

[fact pattern]
A real estate developer constructed a condominium in Mandaluyong City, where a buyer purchased a unit. Later, a bank provided a loan to the developer, secured by a mortgage over several condominium units, including the buyer’s. Despite the buyer’s requests, the developer failed to deliver the unit. The buyer filed a complaint with the housing regulatory board, which ruled in favor of the buyer. The bank, as the mortgagee, appealed the decision but was unsuccessful. The appellate court affirmed the board’s ruling, finding the bank negligent for not verifying the status of the properties offered as collateral.

A

Prudential Bank v Rapanot

The bank cannot be considered a mortgagee in good faith because **the nature of petitioner’s business requires it to take further steps to assure that there are NO encumbrances or liens on the mortgaged property especially dealing with a condominium developer

Prudential Bank is also negligent for failing to exercise so an assertion of good faith is untenable.

21
Q

KINDS OF NEGLIGENCE AS GROUND FOR LIABILITY
a.1. Culpa Contractual
a.2. Culpa Aquiliana
a.3. Culpa Criminal -Lasam vs. Smith (45 Phil. 657)
-Ramos vs. Pepsi Cola (L-22533, Feb. 9, 1967)
-Vinluan vs. CA (L-21477-81, April 29, 1966)
-Elcano vs. Hill (77 SCRA 98) -Baliwag Transit vs. CA (262 SCRA 230)
-Metro Manila Transit Corp. vs. CA (223 SCRA 521)
-Calalas vs. CA (332 SCRA 356) -Air France vs. Carrascoso (18 SCRA 155)
-Barredo vs. Garcia (73 Phil. 607)
-Manalo, et al. vs. Robles Trans. Co., Inc. L-8171, August 16,1956)
-Virata vs. Ochoa (81 SCRA 472)
-Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. IAC (189 SCRA 158)
-Macalinao vs. Ong (477 SCRA 740)
-Santos vs. Pizarro (465 SCRA 232)

A

KINDS OF NEGLIGENCE AS GROUND FOR LIABILITY
a.1. Culpa Contractual
a.2. Culpa Aquiliana
a.3. Culpa Criminal -Lasam vs. Smith (45 Phil. 657)
-Ramos vs. Pepsi Cola (L-22533, Feb. 9, 1967)
-Vinluan vs. CA (L-21477-81, April 29, 1966)
-Elcano vs. Hill (77 SCRA 98) -Baliwag Transit vs. CA (262 SCRA 230)
-Metro Manila Transit Corp. vs. CA (223 SCRA 521)
-Calalas vs. CA (332 SCRA 356) -Air France vs. Carrascoso (18 SCRA 155)
-Barredo vs. Garcia (73 Phil. 607)
-Manalo, et al. vs. Robles Trans. Co., Inc. L-8171, August 16,1956)
-Virata vs. Ochoa (81 SCRA 472)
-Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. IAC (189 SCRA 158)
-Macalinao vs. Ong (477 SCRA 740)
-Santos vs. Pizarro (465 SCRA 232)

22
Q

The Smith is engaged in the business of carrying passengers for hire from one point to another. The plaintiffs are husband and wife, customer of the defendant, sustained physical injuries in an automobile accident by driver.

What is the source of the obligation?

Can the defendant recover damages from the plaintiff?

A

Lasam v. Smith

Smith bound himself source is contract of carriage

in Lasam vs. Smith; here the
passengers had no means of avoiding the danger or
escaping the injury. Therefore, they can recover
damages

23
Q

what is juris tantum

what is juris et de jure

A

[presumed by law]
- presumption arising by law but can be rebutted with evidence

[of law and by law]
- presumption arising by law and cannot be rebutted

24
Q

Is PEPSI liable in spite of the exercise of due diligence in the selection of its employee?

The car driven by Augusto Ramos (son of coplaintiff Placido Ramos) collided with the truck of PEPSI, driven by the driver and co-defendant Andres Bonifacio. As a result, the Ramoses sued Bonifacio and Pepsi. Juan T. Anasco, personnel manager of defendant company.

Defendant company, to relieve of his liabilities, contested that they exercised due diligence in the selection of their employees. They allege that defendant driver (Andres Bonifacio) was first hired as a member of the bottle crop in the production department. They testified that when he was hired as a driver, he was asked to submit clearances, previous experience, physical examination and later on, was sent to the pool house to take the usual driver’s examination, consisting of: first, theoretical examination and second, the practical driving examination. Moreover, the defendant company was a member of the Safety Council.

A

Ramos v. Pepsi Cola

NO. The company is not liable in exercising due diligence in its selection of its employee

when injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee there instantly arises a presumption of law [juris tantum] that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either in the selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after the selection, or both;

but this juris tantum is rebutted as PEPSI showed, to the satisfaction of the court, in the selectoin and supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a good fahter of a family, the presumption is overcome and he relieved from liability

25
Q

bus owner 1 and bus driver 1

bus owner 2 and bus driver 2

driver 2 tried to overtake driver 1 but driver 1 didn’t give wy and increased speed and raced with overtaking bus.

driver 1 crashed bus resulted to 7 dead & 13 injured

ISSUE: Whether or not Patricio Hufana and Gregorio Hufana are liable

A

Vinluan v. CA

Yes, owner 2 and driver 2 are jointly and severally liable with bus owner 1

proximate cause was the concurrent negligence of both drivers, they then are equally liable

26
Q

Art 2176

A

Whoever 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 called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this chapter

27
Q

Whether or not Article 2176 or 2179 applies

Whether or not MMTC (the employer) exercised the diligence of a good father of a family

[facts]
girl crossed road on red light and a speeding bus killed her

driver and conductor brought her to hospital

A

MMTC v. CA

2176 on quasi-delict applies due to the negligence of the driver

2179 does not apply because the girl was not negligent

[b]
MMTC did not exercised diligence of a good father when their defense was they brought the girl to the hospital. the negligent act had already happened, and driver attending periodical seminars on road safety. Not satisfying the court, MMTC is liable

28
Q

Art 1733

A

Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to ALL the circumstances of each case.

29
Q

Is Calalas liable on his contract of carriage?

Sunga, took a passenger jeepney owned and operated by petitioner Vicente Calalas. As the jeepney was filled to capacity of about 24 passengers, Sunga was given by the conductor an “extension seat,” a wooden stool at the back of the door at the rear end of the vehicle.

Sunga gave way to the outgoing passenger. Just as she was doing so, an Isuzu truck driven by Iglecerio Verena and owned by Francisco Salva bumped the left rear portion of the jeepney. As a result, Sunga was injured.

A

Calalas v. CA

Yes. Calalas fails to prove that he exercised EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE in Art 1733

  • jeepney was not properly parked
  • driver took more passengers than allowed

It is however immaterial that the proximate cause of the collision between the jeepney and the truck was the negligence of the truck driver. The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasidelict, NOT in actions involving breach of contract.

30
Q

WON Air France is liable in breaching the contract with Carrascoso when it failed to furnish first class transportation at Bangkok.

mr Carrascoso was issue a first class trip from Manila to Rome. Manila to Bangkok (first class)

at the flight of Bangkok, he was asked to vacate his seat for a white man and in the end he reluctantly gave it.

A

Air France v Carrascoso

Yes, not only are passengers contract transportation, they have the right to be treated by the carriers employees with kindness, respect and due consideration.

31
Q

driver killed boy in a carretela

who is liable

A

Barredo v. Garcia

driver and owner (owner fail to prove that he exercised diligence of a good father of a family when employing dirver)

32
Q

driver of cab collieded with a truck. owner is robles transportation

as a result, cab ranover and killed a kid

cab was prosecuted homocide through reckless imprudence

cab driver failed to pay. sheriff certified that no property, real or personal, in driver’s name could be found

Q:
WON Robles Transportation is liable to pay the petitioner by reason of insolvency of Edgardo Hernandez, its driver.

WON Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code were repealed by the New Civil Code, promulgated in 1950.

A

Manalo et al v. Robles Trans. Co.,

Yes, by reason of insolvency, Robles Transportation is liable to pay the petitioner. Employers, in criminal cases are subsidiarily liable (Art 102, 103, RPC)

33
Q

Virita died by driver Borilla employed by Ochoa

they reserved their right to institute a separate civil action and commenced civil action

Whether or not the petitioners, can prosecute an action for damages based on quasi-delict.

A

Virata v. Ochoa

yes, the parties in negligence cases may choose between [a] an action under RPC or [b] quasi-delict under the Civil Code

what is prohibited is recovering twice for the same negligent act

the plaintiff may choose the higher reward but must make sure not to claim the reward

34
Q

jeep owned by Mangune & Carreon

driven by Manalo and Dau

because of the sudden u-turn due to the detached rear tire of the jeep and taking a big portion of the other lane but stopped

BUS driven by Reyes hitting the jeep killing 3

who is liable for the death and physical injuries suffered by the passengers of the jeepney.

WON these will apply:
(1) the doctrine of last clear chance,
(2) the presumption that drivers who bump the rear of another vehicle guilty and the cause of the accident unless contradicted by other evidence, and

A

Philippine Rabbit Bus Line v. IAC

the owners only liable for the death and physical injuries

The driver cannot be held jointly and severally liable with the carrier in case of breach of the contract of carriage. The rationale behind this is readily discernible. Firstly, the contract of carriage is between the carrier and the passenger, and in the event of contractual liability, the carrier is exclusively responsible therefore to the passenger, even if such breach be due to the negligence of his driver (see Viluan v.CA)

35
Q

macalinao & ong employed as utility men of a sole owned proprietorship by Sebastian (Genetron)

both w/ helpers were instructed to deliver an item and hit a private jeepney

both incurred severe danges, passengers physical injuries
macalinao’s body was paaralyzed

he slowly suffered and died

WHO IS LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF MACALINAO?

A

Macalinao v Ong

Ong (driver) and Sebastian (employer) are jointly liable to pay actual, moral, and exemplary damages and civil indemnity for his death

because the others are dead, and the ones alive who testify obviously will not say things to the detriment of their employer or themselves, res ipsa loquitur will apply thus they are considered negligent without direct proof thus putting the burden to prove on the defendant that there was no negligence

note only invoked when there is no direct evidence or not readily available

36
Q

in the same case of macalinao v. ong,

what is the liability insofar as the employer is concerned with the surviving employee

A

Sebastian is solidarily liable to the actions caused by ong under Article 2176 & 2180

37
Q

DELAY

-Bayala vs. Silang Traffic Co. (73 Phil. 557)
-Aerospace Chemical Industries, Inc. vs. CA (315 SCRA 309)
-Binalbaga Tech, Inc. vs. CA (219 SCRA 777)
-Agcaoili vs. GSIS (165 SCRA 1)
-Bricktown Development Corp. vs. Amor Tierra Development
Corp. (239 SCRA 126)
-Enriquez vs. Ramos (73 SCRA 116)
-Leaño vs. CA (369 SCRA 36)
-Lee vs. De Guzman, Jr. (187 SCRA 276)
-Tanguilig vs. CA (G.R. No. 117190, January 2, 1997)
-Vermen Realty vs. CA (224 SCRA 549)
-Hrs. of Luis Bacus vs. CA (371 SCRA 295)
-BSP Monetary Board Circular No. 799, Series of 2013
-Nacar vs. Gallery Frames, GR 189871, August 13, 2013
-University of Pangasinan, Inc. vs. Fernandez, GR 211228,
November 12, 2014
-Republic vs. Hon. Mupas, GR 181892, September 8, 2015
-Odiamar vs. Valencia, GR 213582, September 12, 2018
-Hrs. of Jarque vs. Jarque, GR 196733, November 21, 2018

A

DELAY

-Bayala vs. Silang Traffic Co. (73 Phil. 557)
-Aerospace Chemical Industries, Inc. vs. CA (315 SCRA 309)
-Binalbaga Tech, Inc. vs. CA (219 SCRA 777)
-Agcaoili vs. GSIS (165 SCRA 1)
-Bricktown Development Corp. vs. Amor Tierra Development
Corp. (239 SCRA 126)
-Enriquez vs. Ramos (73 SCRA 116)
-Leaño vs. CA (369 SCRA 36)
-Lee vs. De Guzman, Jr. (187 SCRA 276)
-Tanguilig vs. CA (G.R. No. 117190, January 2, 1997)
-Vermen Realty vs. CA (224 SCRA 549)
-Hrs. of Luis Bacus vs. CA (371 SCRA 295)
-BSP Monetary Board Circular No. 799, Series of 2013
-Nacar vs. Gallery Frames, GR 189871, August 13, 2013
-University of Pangasinan, Inc. vs. Fernandez, GR 211228,
November 12, 2014
-Republic vs. Hon. Mupas, GR 181892, September 8, 2015
-Odiamar vs. Valencia, GR 213582, September 12, 2018
-Hrs. of Jarque vs. Jarque, GR 196733, November 21, 2018

38
Q
A

Pacmac

38
Q

Contravention of tenor of obligations (1170)

-Pacmac vs. IAC (150 SCRA 555)
-Llorente, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan (287 SCRA 382)
-FGU Insurance Corp. vs. G.P. Sarmiento Trucking Corp. (G.R.
No. 141910, August 6, 2002)

A

Contravention of tenor of obligations (1170)

-Pacmac vs. IAC (150 SCRA 555)
-Llorente, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan (287 SCRA 382)
-FGU Insurance Corp. vs. G.P. Sarmiento Trucking Corp. (G.R.
No. 141910, August 6, 2002)

38
Q

Effects of Fortuitous Events in obligations

  • Lasam v. Smith
A

Effects of Fortuitous Events in obligations

  • Lasam v. Smith