2 Torts Nikkii

7/26/2019 2 Torts Nikkii

1/10

Tenchavez vs escano

Escano, 27o, was married with pastor Tenchavez, 32. They planned to elope,

however, it did not materialize because Escano went back to class.

In June on the year that they were married, they were already estraned. Escano

went to !isamis "ccidental to escape the scandal that her marriae has created. #dra$t o$ annulment o$ her marriae to Tenchavez was created, however, the $ormer

did not sin it. The case was dismissed without pre%udice because Escano did not

appear in the hearin.

Escano &ew to '( and souht a divorce decree with the (tate o$ )evada. *er

parents +led $or the petition to the #rchbishop o$ ebu to annul their dauhter-s

marriae.

Escano then married an #merican. (he then acuired an #merican itizenship.

(ome years later, Tenchavez initiated proceedins aainst the parents o$ Escano,

who are chared with havind dissuaded and discouraed Escano $rom %oinin her

husband, alienatin her a/ection and aainst the atholic hurch $or havin

decreed the annulment.

Tenchavez asked $or leal separation and 0! damaes.

Issue1hether icenta and 4astor-s marriae is valid and subsistin

5ulin1

6es. The valid marriae between 4astor Tenchavez and icenta Escao remainedsubsistin and undissolved under 4hilippine law, notwithstandin the decree o$absolute divorce that the wi$e souht and obtained on 20 "ctober 089: $rom the(econd Judicial ;istrict ourt o$ ashoe ounty, (tate o$ )evada, on rounds o$ilipino citizen.

(he was then

sub%ect to 4hilippine law,>or the 4hilippine courts to reconize and ive reconition or e/ect to a $oreindecree o$ absolute divorce between >ilipino citizens could be a patent violation o$the declared public policy o$ the state, especially in view o$ the third pararaph o$

#rticle 07 o$ the ivil ode.

The marriae o$ Echano to the #merican is technically illeal and is considered anintercourse with a person not her husband, and entitles Tenchavez a decree o$ lealseparation ? damaes.

Cogeo vs ca


2/10

Facts:

oeo@ ubao "perators and ;rivers #ssociation took over all %eepneys o$

Aunsod orporation and the operation o$ the service in the company-s oeo@

ubao route, without authority $rom the 4ublic (ervice ommission, as a way to

redress its rievances aainst the company.

Issue1

hether or not there is a violation o$ the riht o$ Aunsod orporation to its

property

5ulin1

6es, there is a violation o$ the riht o$ lunsod orporation to its property. The act

was in complete violation o$ #rticle 20 o$ the ivil ode, which states that B #ny

person who will$ully causes loss or in%ury to another in a manner that is

contrary to morals, ood customs or public policy shall compensate the latter $ordamaesC . The act that was done by the oeo@ubao #ssociation was without any

authorization $rom the 4ublic (ervice ommission and is in violation o$ the riht o$

respondent corporation to operate its services in the said route under its certi+cate

o$ public convenience. The constitutional riht o$ the drivers to redress their

rievances with the company should not undermine public peace and order

nor should it violate the leal rihts o$ other persons.

Manila gas vs ca

>acts1Manila Gas installed additional appliances and gas service connections in Ongsips compound. Since no

gas consumption was registered in the meter, Manila Gas issued instructions to change the gas meter. Coronal then

went to the compound and changed the meter without informing Ongsip. Coronal returned in the afternoon and took

pictures. When Ongsip asked about it, he was told to ust go to the office. !n the office, he was told of the e"istence

of a umper and was threatened with deportation. # complaint for $ualified theft was filed against Ongsip but it was

later dismissed. Ongsip then filed a complaint for damages

!anila as contends that the disconnection was on account o$

respondent "nsip-s $ailure to pay his as consumptions $or more than three

months. "nsip admits havin accounts with petitioner, he denies havin been

noti+ed thereo$ or havin received any warnin o$ the disconnection.

In determinin the propriety o$ the award, it is material to establish that priornotice or warnin had been iven to respondent "nsip be$ore the as service was

disconnected, in accordance with the terms o$ the contract.

Issue1

hether or not there has been a deprivation o$ property by !anila Das aainst

"nsip


3/10

5ulin1

6es, there has been a deprivation o$ property by !anila Das aainst "nsip. !anila

Das invalidly disconnected the meter and service aainst "nsip, which amounts to

deprivation o$ property. The company also +led a case $or uali+ed the$t aainst

"nsip which is capricious, unlaw$ul and without basis.

Manila electric vs ca

FACTS: To recover the damages due to embarrassment, humiliation,

hurt pride, and wounded feelings inicted by M!A"C# $ %AM&A#

during the disconnection of the C'A(S FAM)"%*s electrical service+ the

C'A(S FAM)"%led a complaint at CF)-Manila. The court ordered

M!A"C# $ %AM&A# to pay/0,000 pesos to the C'A(S FAM)"% as

payment for damages. 'ence, M!A"C# $ %AM&A# led an appeal in

the CA, but the CA denied the petition.)t was found that the C'A(S

FAM)"% is a customer of M!A"C#. The C'A(S FAM)"%s claims thatM!A"C# did not provide any notice before the disconnection.

C'A(1 FAM)"% contends that it must be compulsory to issue a

disconnection notice. M!A"C# $ %AM&A# say that they have the

right to disconnect the electric service of the delin2uent customer,

because the C'A(S FAM)"% failed to pay certain bills 3bills in arrears4.

)SS5:

6hether or not, in the absence

of bad faith in disconnecting the service to C'A(S family, M!A"C#

$

%AM&A# could be held liable for damages7

!uling:

%S, M!A"C# $ %AM&A# CA8 & '"9 ")A&". '"9: There is no

abuse of discretion in the part of the CA in arming the assailed

decision of the CF) Manila. The right to disconnect the electric

service of a delin2uent customer shall be accompanied by a given

notice ;< hours in advanced as provided for in Section => of the !evised

#rder 8o. / of the ?ublic Service Commission. )n accordance withthe previous rulings, failure to give such prior notice amounts to a tort.

And since, M!A"C# $ %AM&A# in this particular case disregarded the

rule on ;


4/10

%acts&

'ia( unilaterall) installed a meter to replace another one. *here was a notice of disconnection

and eventuall), the connection was cut. *here was a petition for mandator) inunction to restore

connection. !t was however settled b) wa) of a compromise agreement where the parties agreed to

reduce the respondents claim and to waive the counterclaim and to install the electric service. *here was

no agreement to bar the institution of other action. *hereafter, respondent filed criminal cases for theftagainst the petitioner, hence, a complaint for damages for abuse of right under #rticle +, -CC was filed.

etitioner insisted that the compromise agreement as well as the decision based on it alread) settled the

controversies between them/ )et, '0C instituted the theft case against petitioner, and worse, instituted

another action for violation of .'. 12+, as amended b) 3.. 456. *hus, the onl) conclusion that can be

inferred from the acts of '0C is that the) were designed to harass, embarrass, preudice, and ruin him.

7e further averred that the compromise agreement in civil case completel) erased litigious matters that

could necessaril) arise out of either 8lectric Meter -o. 41595 or 46659:2. Moreover, he asserted that

the evidence he presented is sufficient to prove the damages he suffered b) reason of the malicious

institution of the criminal cases. !n brushing aside his contentions, the SC

!ssue&

Whether or not 'ia( is entitled to damages under #rticles +, ;2, ;+ and ;;+5 and ;;+


5/10

Whatever damages petitioner ma) have suffered would have to be borne b) him alone since it was his

acts which led to the filing of the complaints against him.

elu@ vs ca

>acts1

)ita illanueva, the wi$e o$ "scar lazo, respondent, came to know #ntonio Deluz,

the petitioner and physician, throuh her aunt 4aula 6ambot. )ita became prenant

some time in 089: be$ore she and "scar were leally married. #s advised by her

aunt and to conceal it $rom her parents, she decided to have it aborted by Deluz.

(he had her prenancy aborted aain on "ctober 0893 since she $ound it

inconvenient as she was employed at "!EAE. #$ter two years, on >ebruary 20,

0899, she aain became prenant and was accompanied by her sister 4uri+cacion

and the latter-s dauhter Aucida at Deluz- clinic at arriedo and 4. Domez (treet.

"scar at this time was in the province o$ aayan campainin $or his election to

the provincial board. *e doesn-t have any idea nor iven his consent on theabortion.

I(('E1 hether husband o$ a woman, who voluntarily procured her abortion, could

recover damaes $rom the physician who caused the same.

*EA;1

The (upreme ourt believed that the minimum award +=ed at 43,::: $or the death

o$ a person does not cover cases o$ an unborn $etus that is not endowed with

personality which trial court and ourt o$ #ppeals predicated.

oth trial court and # wasn-t able to +nd any basis $or an award o$ moral damaes

evidently because "scar-s indi/erence to the previous abortions o$ )ita clearly

indicates he was unconcerned with the $rustration o$ his parental a/ections.

Instead o$ +lin an administrative or criminal case aainst Deluz, he turned his

wi$e-s indiscretion to personal pro+t and +led a civil action $or damaes o$ which not

only he but, includin his wi$e would be the bene+ciaries. It shows that he-s a$ter

obtainin a lare money payment since he sued Deluz $or 49:,::: damaes and

43,::: attorney-s $ees that serves as indemnity claim, which under the

circumstances was clearly e=aerated.

&ernardo vs nlrc

Facts:

Petitioner Marilyn Bernardo was employed at the Univet Agricultural Products, Inc., a division

of United Laboratories.


6/10

n !anuary "#$#, the Manufacturing %epartment of the Univet Agricultural as&ed for two filing

cabinets. Accordingly, petitioner prepared the 'apital Appropriations (e)uest *'A(+ for the

purchase of two filing cabinets. he re)uest was signed by %r. -alvador P. 'ailog, department

head, and later approved by five other officers of Univet Agricultural. Before the 'A( was

transmitted to the purchasing department for the procurement of the office e)uipment, it was

discovered that petitioner had included in the order the ac)uisition of one e/ecutive swivel chair.

n 0ebruary "$, "#$#, a memorandum was issued to petitioner, re)uiring her to e/plain within

1$ hours why no disciplinary action should be ta&en against her.

Petitioner admitted ma&ing the insertion in the 'apital Appropriations (e)uest but e/plained that

she had done so in good faith.

Apparently, petitioner2s e/planation was considered not satisfactory, because on March "$, "#$#,

she was given notice of the termination of her employment.

Petitioner wrote %r. %elfin -amson, president of United Laboratories, Inc., as&ing for a 3fair

investigation.4 5etting no favorable response, she filed on April 6, "#$# a complaint for illegal

dismissal against Univet Agricultural Products, Inc.

Petitioner alleged that she made the intercalation in the 'A( in good faith, without any intention

of defrauding the company, because she intended the chair for the manager of her department.

-he claimed that what she did was made with the &nowledge of %r. 'ailog. Petitioner alleged

that she was dismissed because she had e/posed the involvement of two company officers,

'onrado Baylon and %r. Benedicto -antiago, in the rival company, Biomass 'orp. of the

Philippines.

I--U78 9hether or not petitioner is entitled to Moral damages and the payment of attorney2s

fees under Art. ::;$.

(ULI


7/10

lobe macBay vs ca

>#T(1

5estituto !. Tobias was employed by Dlobe !ackay able and 5adio

orporation FDA"E !#G#6H in a dual capacity as a purchasin aent and

administrative assistant to the enineerin operations manaer. In 0872, DA"E

!#G#6 discovered +ctitious purchases and other $raudulent transactions $or which

it lost several thousands o$ pesos. #ccordin to Tobias, it was he who actually

discovered the anomalies and reported them on )ovember 0:, 0872 to his

immediate superior Eduardo T. >erraren and to petitioner *erbert . *endry who

was then the E=ecutive ice@4resident and Deneral !anaer o$ DA"E !#G#6. "n

)ovember 00, 0872, one day a$ter Tobias made the report, petitioner *endry

con$ronted him by statin that he was the number one suspect, and ordered him to

take a one week $orced leave, not to communicate with the oce, to leave his tabledrawers open, and to leave the oce keys. "n )ovember 2:, 0872, when Tobias

returned to work a$ter the $orced leave, petitioner *endry went up to him and called

him a


8/10

repeatin that even rantin that petitioners miht have had the riht to dismiss

Tobias $rom work, the abusive manner in which that riht was e=ercised amounted

to a leal wron $or which petitioners must now be held liable. !oreover, the

damae incurred by Tobias was not only in connection with the abusive manner in

which he was dismissed but was also the result o$ several other uasi@delictual acts

committed by petitioners.*owever, the ourt has already ruled in assmer v. elez, D.5. )o. A@2::K8,

;ecember 2P, 08PN, 02 (5# PNK, P93, that per e=press provision o$ #rticle 2208

F0:H o$ the )ew ivil ode, moral damaes are recoverable in the cases mentioned

in #rticle 20 o$ said ode.< *ence, the ourt o$ #ppeals committed no error in

awardin moral damaes to Tobias.

#lthouh #rticle 2230 o$ the ivil ode provides that #T(1

#t the outbreak o$ the war in 08N0, the de$endant Esther 4eralta she resided with

her sister, !rs. 4edro 4ia, in !aco, Taum, !abini ;avao. (aturnino (ilva, then an

#merican citizen and an ocer o$ the 'nited (tates #rmy and married to one4rescilla Isabel o$ #ustralia, had been ordered to sent to the 4hilippines durin the

enemy occupation to help unite the uerillas in their +ht $or $reedom. *e was the

commandin ocer o$ the 03:th 5eiment eneral headuarters at !aupo,

Taum, ;avao.

(ometime durin the year 08NN, >lorence, a youner sister o$ the de$endant,

was accused o$ havin collaborated with the enemy, and $or this she was arrested,

and accompanied by Esther, brouht to #nibonan and later to the eneral

headuarters at !aupo $or investiation that (ilva +rst met Esther >lorence was

e=onorated o$ the chares made aainst her and was ordered released, but with the

advice that she should not return to !aco $or the time bein. *eedin such advice,

>lorence and her sister, appellee herein, went to live with the spouses !r. and !rs.

amilo ;octolero at Tipas, !aupo, ;avao.

(ilva started to $reuent the house o$ the ;octoleros, and soon pro$essed love $or

Esther. *avin been made to believe that he was sinle, she accepted his marriae

proposalO and the two were married on January 0N, 08N9 by one >ather ote on the

occasion o$ a house blessin. )o documents o$ marriae were prepared nor

e=ecuted, alleedly because there were no available printed $orms $or the purpose.


9/10

*ence, the lovers lived toether as husband and wi$e. >rom the


10/10

#rt. 00:7. In case o$ $raud FdoloH the debtor shall be liable $or all losses and

damaes which clearly arise $rom the $ailure to $ul+ll the obliation.

Documents

2 Torts Nikkii