Vergara.docx

Vergara Subject This case involves Belmonte who was the driver of Vergara of his cargo truck. The action arose from a vehicular accident in Gapan when Belmonte rammed head on the store residence of Asarco causing damages which were inventoried for 53K. Petitioner’s Contention: That his driver Belmonte was diligent in operating the truck that there was a mechanical defect due to the non-response of the brakes as a result of a blown out tire Therefore, it was an Act of God for which he cant be held liable. Petitioner also filed a 3rd party complaint against Travellers Insurance and Surety Corp alleging that the cargo was insured by them. That they be ordered to pay him whatever amount he may be ordered to pay to Azarcon. TC and CA: rendered judgment in favor of Azarcon which was later affirmed in toto by the CA. It ordered Vergara to pay jointly and severally with Travellers Insurance and Surety corp (50K 3rd party liability) to Azarcon: actual damages, moral damages, exemplary damages and atty’s fees. show that the fact of occurrence of the "vehicular accident" was sufficiently established by the policy report and the testimony of Patrolman Masiclat

a mishap caused by defective brakes can not be consideration as fortuitous in character. Certainly, the defects were curable and the accident preventable.

FGU Insurance This action arose when 2 vehicles both Mitsubishi Colt Lancers cruising along EDSA figured in a traffic accident. One was owned by Soriano at the outer lane of the Hgwy but was driven by Jacildone while the other car was owned by FILCAR transport and driven by DahlJensen as lessee, and was at the centre lane, left of the other car. The car owned by FILCAR swerved to the right hitting the car of Soariano. *At that time, Dahl-Jensen, a danish tourist did not possess a PH’s driver license.

That being said, Soriano which has an insurance contract with FGU paid 25K to Soriano and by way of subrogation, FGU sued Dahl-Jensen and FILCAR as well as Fortune as the insurer of FILCAR for QD before RTC of Makati. But since summons was not served on Dahl-Jensesn because he no longer stay in the same address, he was dropped from the case and subsequently the case was dismissed for failure of FGU to substantiate its claim for subrogation. TC: dismissed the case for failure of FGU to substantiate its claim for subrogation. CA: affirmed the ruling of RTC and held that only the fault or negligence of DahlJensen was sufficiently proved but not that of respondent FILCAR. In other words, petitioner failed to establish its cause of action for sum of money based on quasidelict. SC: It should be noted that the damage caused on the vehicle of Soriano was brought about by the circumstance that Dahl-Jensen swerved to the right while the vehicle that he was driving was at the center lane. It is plain that the negligence was solely attributable to Dahl-Jensen thus making the damage suffered by the other vehicle his personal liability. Respondent FILCAR did not have any participation therein. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible: The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable. Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

The liability imposed by Art. 2180 arises by virtue of a presumption juris tantum of negligence on the part of the persons made responsible thereunder, derived from their failure to exercise due care and vigilance over the acts of subordinates to prevent them from causing damage. [7] Yet, as correctly observed by respondent court, Art. 2180 is hardly applicable because Respondent FILCAR being engaged in a rent-a-car business was only the owner of the car leased to Dahl-Jensen. As such, there was no vinculum juris between them as employer and employee. Respondent FILCAR cannot in any way be responsible for the negligent act of Dahl-Jensen, the former not being an employer of the latter "In motor vehicle mishap, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have by the use of due diligence, prevented the misfortune x x x x If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of article 2180 are applicable." Obviously, this provision of Art. 2184 is neither applicable because of the absence of master-driver relationship between respondent FILCAR and Dahl-Jensen. Clearly, petitioner has no cause of action against respondent FILCAR on the basis of quasi-delict; logically, its claim against respondent FORTUNE can neither prosper.

JULIAN C. SINGSON and RAMONA DEL CASTILLO, plaintiffs, 
vs.
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and SANTIAGO FREIXAS, in his capacity as President of the said Bank, defendants. THE CITY OF MANILA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. THE MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. In the City of Manila, there occurred a collision between a street car of the Manila Electric Company, of which Sixto Eustaquio was the motorman, and a truck belonging to the City of Manila. As a result of the collision, the truck was damaged in the sum of P1,788.27. Sixto Eustaquio was prosecuted for the crime of damage to property and slight injuries through reckless imprudence. He was convicted by final judgment and was sentenced to pay a fine P900, to indemnify the offended party, the City of Manila Not being able to collect the indemnity from the accused, the City of Manila began an action to obtained payment from the Manila Electric Company. An allegation of the complaint was "That the defendant Manila Electric Company as master of the said agent and servant, Sixto Eustaquio, by virtue of its relation with the latter and by express provisions of law, is subsidiarily liable to the herein plaintiff for the sum of P1,788.27 answer to the complaint was that the defendant had used all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage suffered by plaintiff.

. It is provided in article 1903 that the obligation imposed for the damage to another caused by fault or negligence is enforcible against those persons for whom another is responsible. But it is added that "The liability imposed by this article shall cease in case the persons subject thereto prove that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.” THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SEGUNDO BARIAS, Defendant-Appellant. 

 said Segundo Barias was a motorman on street car No. 9, run 7, of the PasayCervantes lines of the Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company should knock down and pass over the body and head of one Fermina Jose, a girl 2 years old, who at said time and place was crossing the said Rizal Avenue, the body of said girl being dragged along the street-car track on said Rizal Avenue for a long distance, thus crushing and destroying her head and causing her sudden death as a result of the injury received; that if the acts executed by the accused had been done with malice, he would be guilty of the serious crime of homicide.” he was driving his car along Rizal Avenue and stopped it near the intersection of that street with Calle Requesen to take on some passengers. When the car stopped, the defendant looked backward, presumably to note whether all the passengers were aboard, and then started his car. At that moment Ferminia Jose, a child about 3 years old, walked or ran in front of the car. She was knocked down and dragged some little distance underneath the car, and was left dead upon the track. The motorman proceeded with his car to the end of the track, some distance from the place of the accident, and apparently knew nothing of it until his return, when he was informed of what had happened.

he was driving his car along Rizal Avenue and stopped it near the intersection of that street with Calle Requesen to take on some passengers. When the car stopped, the defendant looked backward, presumably to note whether all the passengers were aboard, and then started his car. At that moment Ferminia Jose, a child about 3 years old, walked or ran in front of the car. She was knocked down and dragged some little distance underneath the car, and was left dead upon the track. The motorman proceeded with his car to the end of the track, some distance from the place of the accident, and apparently knew nothing of it until his return, when he was informed of what had happened. The body of the old man who was later Identified as Isidoro Casino was immediately brought to the Jose Reyes Memorial Hospital but was (pronounced) dead on arrival.