Quiz 3 Questions Flashcards
Discussion:
G.R. No. 200444
- Can petitioner claim damages from respondent? If yes, what is the basis?
Yes.
The petitioners’ cause of action was based upon a quasi-delict. As such, their counterclaim against the respondent was based on Article 2184, in relation to Article 2180 and Article 2176, all of the Civil Code.
The bases are the following:
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code could give rise not only to the obligation ex delicto, but also to the obligation based on culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. Under the factual antecedents herein, both obligations rested on the common element of negligence.
Article 2177 of the Civil Code and Section 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court allow the injured party to prosecute both criminal and civil actions simultaneously.
G.R. No. 200444
- In the part of the driver of the respondent, what would be the two (2) bases for his civil obligations?
The two (2) bases for his civil obligations would be:
(1) Obligation ex delicto (crime); and
(2) Culpa aquiliana.
An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender, i.e., ( 1) civil liability ex delicto, under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code; and (2) independent civil liabilities, such as those (a) not arising from an act or omission complained of as a felony, e.g., culpa contractual or obligations arising from law under Article 31 of the Civil Code, intentional torts under Articles 32 and 34, and culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code; or (b) where the injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the criminal action under Article 33 of the Civil Code. Either of these liabilities may be enforced against the offender subject to the caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission or under both causes.
G.R. No. 200444
- Was there double recovery of damages by petitioner?
No.
The petitioners’ allegation that they had not yet recovered damages from the respondent was not controlling considering that the criminal case against the respondent’s driver had already been concluded. It remains for the petitioners to still demonstrate that the RTC as the trial court did not award civil damages in the criminal case. Consequently, Civil Case No. T-2240 should be remanded to the RTC for further proceedings, if only to afford to the petitioners the opportunity to present evidence on their counterclaim subject to the prohibition against double recovery of damages.
G.R. No. 208802
- Does extraordinary care required of common carriers mean absolute safety of the passenger?
No.
While the law requires the highest degree of diligence from common carriers in the safe transport of their passengers and creates a presumption of negligence against them, it does not, however, make the carrier an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers.
Neither the law nor the nature of the business of a transportation company makes it an insurer of the passenger’s safety, but that its liability for personal injuries sustained by its passenger rests upon its negligence, its failure to exercise the degree of diligence that the law requires.
G.R. No. 208802
- In this case, what is the degree of care expected from the common carrier?
Since Battung’s death was caused by a copassenger, the applicable provision is Article 1763 of the Civil Code, which states that “a common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.” Notably, for this obligation, the law provides a lesser degree of diligence, i.e., diligence of a good father of a family, in assessing the existence of any culpability on the common carrier’s part.
Notes:
