[CASES] - Breach of Obligations & Grounds for Liability Flashcards
Knowledge Check for Exam
Art 1170
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
(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
[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
What is the type of damage to be collected by Areola v. CA? Define.
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
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
NEGLIGENCE CASES
Article 1172
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
Article 2201
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.
What is the test of negligence?
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
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.
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
[a] latin of “the thing speak for itself”
[b] meaning
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.
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).
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.
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]
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
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.
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
Samson v. CA
Samson v. CA - latin of ‘let the buyer beware’
caveat emptor
Article 1174
[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
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?
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
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.
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
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
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
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?
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
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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)
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)
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?
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
what is juris tantum
what is juris et de jure
[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
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.
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
