Digest.docx

1.Facts: On 2 April 1996, the Twin Otter aircraft of Philippine Airways Corporation (PAC) arrived at the Manila International Airport from El Nido, Palawan. Upon touchdown, the Twin Otter taxied along the runway and proceeded to the Soriano Hangar to disembark its passengers. After the last passenger disembarked, PACs pilots started the engine of the Twin Otter in order to proceed to the PAC Hangar located at the other end of the airport.

The Twin Otter was still 350 meters away from runway 13. Upon reaching runway 13, PACs pilots did not make a full stop at the holding point to request clearance right before crossing runway 13. Without such clearance, PACs pilots proceeded to cross runway 13.

Meanwhile, the Philippine Airlines (PAL) Boeing 737, was preparing for take-off along runway 13. The PAL pilots requested clearance to push and start on runway 13 and the ATO issued the clearance. While already on take-off roll, one of the pilot caught a glimpse of the Twin Otter on the left side of the Boeing 737 about to cross runway 13.The PAL pilots attempted to abort the take-off by reversing the thrust of the aircraft. However, the Boeing 737 still collided with the Twin Otter.

Issue: Whether or not among the parties is liable for negligence.

Held: To ascertain who among the parties is liable for negligence, the Rules of the Air of the Air Transportation Office apply to all aircraft registered in the Philippines.

ATO for issuing clearances that turn out to be unsuitable, cannot be blame, because the pilots-in-command have the final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft. It remained the primary responsibility of the

pilots-in-command to see to it that the respective clearances given were suitable.

PALs aircraft had the right of way at the time of collision, because under the Rules of the Air, being on take-off roll undisputedly had the right of way. The fact that PACs pilots disregarded PALs right of way and did not ask for updated clearance right before crossing an active runway was the proximate cause of the collision. Were it not for such gross negligence on the part of PACs pilots, the collision would not have happened.

Gross negligence is one that is characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.

2.gsis bachelor

In the early afternoon of November 6, 1993, respondent Wenifredo Salvaña (Salvaña) was driving the bus owned by respondent Bachelor Express, Inc./Ceres Liner, Inc. with plate number LVD-273 and body

number 4042 (Bus 4042) along the national highway at Magdum, Tagum City bound for Davao City. At about 1:20 in the afternoon, he overtook a Lawin PUJ jeepney while negotiating a blind curve in a descending road at Km. 60, causing him to intrude into the opposite lane and bump the 10-wheeler Hino dump truck of petitioner Cresencio Baño (Baño) running uphill from the opposite direction. The collision resulted in damage to both vehicles, the subsequent death of the truck driver, Amancio Asumbrado (Asumbrado), and serious physical injuries to bus driver Salvaña. On March 11, 1994, Baño and the heirs of Asumbrado (collectively called "petitioners") filed a complaint[4] for quasi-delict, damages and attorney's fees against respondents, accusing Salvaña of negligently driving Bus 4042 causing it to collide with the dump truck. Respondents denied liability, claiming that prior to the collision, Bus 4042 was running out of control because of a problem in the steering wheel system which could not have been avoided despite their maintenance efforts. Instead, they claimed that Asumbrado had the last clear chance to avoid the collision had he not driven the dump truck at a very fast speed.

4.Petitioner: Virginia Real Respondent: Sisenando H. Belo

FACTS: Petitioner owned and operated the Wasabe Fastfood stall located at the Food Center of the Philippine Women’s University along Taft Avenue, Malate, Manila. Sisenando H. Belo (respondent) owned and operated the BS Masters fastfood stall, also located at the Food Center of PWU. Around 7:00 o’clock in the morning of January 25, 1996, a fire broke out at petitioner’s Wasabe Fastfood stall. The fire spread and gutted other fastfood stalls in the area, including respondent’s stall. An investigation on the cause of the fire by Fire Investigator SFO1 Arnel C. Pinca revealed that the fire broke out due to the leaking fumes coming from the Liquefied Petroleum Gas stove and tank installed at petitioner’s stall. For the loss of his fastfood stall due to the fire, respondent demanded compensation from petitioner. However, petitioner refused to accede to respondent’s demand. Hence, respondent filed a complaint for damages against petitioner. Respondent alleged that petitioner failed to exercise due diligence in the upkeep and maintenance of her cooking equipments, as well as the selection and supervision of her employees; that petitioner’s negligence was the proximate cause of the fire that gutted the fastfood stalls. In her Answer, petitioner denied liability on the grounds that the fire was a fortuitous event and that she exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of her employees.

ISSUE: WON the herein petitioner could be held liable for damages as a result of the fire that razed not only her own food kiosk but also the adjacent food stalls at the Food Center premises of the Philippine Women’s University, including that of the respondent.

HELD: Yes. It is established by evidence that the fire originated from leaking fumes from the LPG stove and tank installed at petitioner’s fastfood stall and her employees failed to prevent the fire from spreading and destroying the other fastfood stalls, including respondent’s fastfood stall. Such circumstances do not support petitioner’s theory of fortuitous event. Whenever an employee’s negligence causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection or supervision of its employees. To avoid liability for a quasi-delict committed by his employee, an employer must overcome the presumption by presenting convincing proof that he exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee. In this case, petitioner not only failed to show that she submitted proof that the LPG stove and tank in her fastfood stall were maintained in good condition and periodically checked for defects but she also failed to submit proof that she exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of her employees. For failing to prove care and diligence in the maintenance of her cooking equipment and in the selection and supervision of her employees, the necessary inference was that petitioner had been negligent.

5. South Easternvs CA FACTS: Private respondents are owners of a house near the petitioner’s four-story school building along the same road. During a typhoon, the roof of the petitioner’s building was partly ripped off and blown away by strong winds, landing on and destroying portions of the roofing of private respondents’ house. In the aftermath, an ocular inspection of the

destroyed building was spearheaded by the city building official. In his report, he imputed negligence to the petitioner for the structural defect of the building and improper anchorage of trusses to the roof beams which caused the roof be ripped off the building, thereby causing damage to the property of respondents. Respondents filed an action before the RTC for recovery of damages based on culpa aquiliana. Petitioner contested that it had no liability, attributing the damage to a fortuitous event. RTC ruled in favor of respondents which was affirmed by the CA. Hence present petition.’ ISSUE: Whether or not the damage, in legal sense, can be attributed to a fortuitous event. RULING: Yes. The court ruled that petitioner is not liable, the damage being attributable to a fortuitous event. Art 1174 of the Civil Code states that: “Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable” To be liable for a fortuitous event, the respondent must prove that petitioners were negligent, with which they fall short, merely relying on the report of the city building official. This is the same official that have approved the building plans of petitioner, who made clear that there were no prior complaints regarding the building. Since storms are common in the country, the part of the building in question should have failed against stronger typhoons that preceded said storm, which it had not. Furthermore, petitioner was able to present evidence that regular maintenance was carried out. Respondents also failed to support the claim of the actual loss they suffered, merely relying on estimates without considering that wear and tear of respondents’ home which may have had a contributory effect to the damage. Petition is granted and challenged decision is reversed.