Case Digest - Go v. Cordero

8/17/2019 Case Digest - Go v. Cordero

1/28

ALLAN C. GO, doing business under the name and style “ACG Express Liner,”, petitioner,vsO!"#E! $. CO!%E!O, respondent

G.!. No. &'()*+ay (, *&*

Facts:-ometime in &', ortimer $. Cordero, /i0e12resident o3 2amana ar4eting Corporation 52amana6, venturedinto the business o3 mar4eting inter1island passenger vessels. A3ter 0onta0ting various overseas 3ast 3errymanu3a0turers 3rom all over the 7orld, he 0ame to meet "ony !obinson, an Australian national based in8risbane, Australia, 7ho is the anaging %ire0tor o3 Aluminium $ast $erries Australia 5A$$A6.8et7een 9une and August &), !obinson signed do0uments appointing Cordero as the ex0lusive distributor o3A$$A 0atamaran and other 3ast 3erry vessels in the 2hilippines. As su0h ex0lusive distributor, Cordero o33ered3or sale to prospe0tive buyers the :1meter Aluminium 2assenger 0atamaran 4no7n as the -EACA" :.A3ter negotiations 7ith $elipe Landi0ho and /in0ent "e0son, la7yers o3 Allan C. Go 7ho is the o7ner;operatoro3 ACG Express Liner o3 Cebu City, a single proprietorship, Cordero 7as able to 0lose a deal 3or the pur0haseo3 t7o 56 -EACA" : as eviden0ed by the emorandum o3 Agreement dated August ), &). A00ordingly, the

parties exe0uted -hipbuilding Contra0t No. )+&,:.*& and unpaid0ommission 3or the sale o3 the se0ond vessel in the amount o3 =->+


2/28

authority as ex0lusive distributor in the 2hilippines. On the 0ontrary, they averred it 7as Cordero 7ho stopped0ommuni0ating 7ith Go in 0onne0tion 7ith the pur0hase o3 the 3irst vessel 3rom A$$A and 7as not doing his part in ma4ing progress status reports and airing the 0lientDs grievan0es to his prin0ipal, A$$A, su0h that Goengaged the servi0es o3 Landi0ho to 3ly to Australia and attend to the do0uments needed 3or shipment o3 thevessel to the 2hilippines. As to the inBuiry 3or the 2hilippine pri0e 3or a artsila ship engine 3or A$$ADs otheron1going vessel 0onstru0tion, this 7as merely reBuested by !obinson but 7hi0h Cordero misinterpreted asindi0ation that Go 7as buying a se0ond vessel. oreover, Landi0ho and "e0son had no transa0tion 7hatsoever7ith Cordero 7ho had no do0ument to sho7 any su0h shipbuilding 0ontra0t. As to the supposed meeting to

settle their dispute, this 7as due to the mali0ious demand o3 Cordero to be given =->+,***,*** as other7ise he7ill expose in the media the alleged undervaluation o3 the vessel 7ith the 8OC. #n any 0ase, Cordero no longerhad 0ause o3 a0tion 3or his 0ommission 3or the sale o3 the se0ond vessel under the memorandum o3 agreementdated August ), &) 0onsidering the termination o3 his authority by A$$ADs la7yers on 9une ', &


3/28

Villanueva vs CA

G.R. No. 107624

Su!ect: -ales

"oct#ine: meeting o3 the minds as to pri0e is essential

Facts:

"his is a petition assailing the de0ision o3 the CA dismissing the appeal o3 the petitioners. CA rendered thatthere 7as no 0ontra0t o3 sale.

H #n &


4/28

petitioners and respondents %ela Cru 7as that the 2&*,***.** primarily intended as payment 3or realty tax 7as

going to 3orm part o3 the 0onsideration o3 the sale i3 and 7hen the transa0tion 7ould 3inally be 0onsummated.”

2rivate respondents insist that there “7as no 0lear agreement as to the true amount o3 0onsideration.”

H %ela CruD testimony during the 0ross1examination 3irmly negated any pri0e agreement 7ith petitioners

be0ause he and his 7i3e Buoted the pri0e o3 2:):,***.** and did not agree to redu0e it to 2::*,***.** as

0laimed by petitioner.

H /illanueva on 0ross1examinationF “A3ter the %eed o3 -ale relative to the pur0hase o3 the property 7as

prepared, r. dela Cru 0ame to me and told me that he tal4ed 7ith one o3 the tenants and he o33ered to buy the portion he 7as o00upying i3 # 7ill agree and # 7ill 0ause the partition o3 the property bet7een us.” /illanueva

said that he agreed and that the pri0e ::*,*** 7as to be divided into t7o. 5-abio and /illanueva6 K"he 0ontra0t

7hi0h the appellant is re3erring to 7as not presented to the 0ourt and the appellant did not use all e33ort to

produ0e the said 0ontra0t.

H -CF “"he pri0e o3 the leased land not having been 3ixed, the essential elements 7hi0h give li3e to the 0ontra0t

7ere la04ing. #t 3ollo7s that the lessee 0annot 0ompel the lessor to sell the leased land to him. "he pri0e must be

0ertain, it must be real, not 3i0titious. A 0ontra0t o3 sale is not void 3or un0ertainty 7hen the pri0e, though not

dire0tly stated in terms o3 pesos and 0entavos, 0an be made 0ertain by re3eren0e to existing invoi0es identi3ied in

the agreement. #n this respe0t, the 0ontra0t o3 sale is per3e0ted. "he pri0e must be 0ertain, other7ise there is no

true 0onsent bet7een the parties. "here 0an be no sale 7ithout a pri0e.

H #n the instant 0ase, ho7ever, 7hat is dramati0ally 0lear 3rom the eviden0e is that there 7as no meeting o3 mind

as to the pri0e, expressly or impliedly, dire0tly or indire0tly.

H -ale is a 0onsensual 0ontra0t. @e 7ho alleges it must sho7 its existen0e by 0ompetent proo3. @ere, the very

essential element o3 pri0e has not been proven.

H Lastly, petitionersD 0laim that they are ready to pay private respondents is immaterial and irrelevant as the

latter 0annot be 3or0ed to a00ept su0h payment, there being no per3e0ted 0ontra0t o3 sale in the 3irst pla0e.


5/28

VI'&A CR$(, petitioner, vs. NA)I'NA& &A*'R R%&A)I'NS C'++ISSI'N, N'R-IS "IS)RI*$)'RS,

INC., 'S% RA+IR' A. CAR/I', R., %SSI% $IS$+*ING, and %&I(A&"% A+/A&A', respondents.,

G.!. No. &&'+


6/28

the employerDs de0ision to dismiss him. @aving 3ailed to do the reBuirement, respondents have not given the petitioner due

pro0ess 7hi0h ma4es their a0t illegal and void. $or this, petitioner is entitled to re0over moral and exemplary damages.

G&'*%+AC-A CA*&% 5 RA"I' C'R/'RA)I'N, petitioner vs. G%'RG% G. *ARRI'S AN" '&GA

)H%R%SA CR$(*ARRI'S, respondents

No. L1'*


7/28

RA"I' C'++$NICA)I'NS 'F )H% /HI&I//IN%S, INC. 5!C2#6, petitioner, vs. C'$R) 'F A//%A&S AN"

&'R%)' "I'N%&A, respondents

No. L1(()(


8/28

$NIV%RSI) 'F )H% %AS), petitioner, vs. R'+%' A. A"%R , respondent.

G.!. No. &++((. $ebruary &), ***.

Facts:

2lainti33 !omeo A. 9ader 7as enrolled in the de3endantDs College o3 La7 3rom &


9/28

veri3y 3or himsel3 7hether he has 0ompleted all ne0essary reBuirements to be eligible 3or the bar examinations.

!espondent should have been responsible enough to ensure that all his a33airs, spe0i3i0ally those pertaining to his

a0ademi0 a0hievement, are in order.

)uesda, "ecee# 28, 2012

NI--' H')%& +ANI&A GAR"%N vs R%%S Case "i3est

NI--' H')%& +ANI&A GAR"%N AN" R$* &I+ VS. R'*%R)' R%%S a.9.a. A+A *ISAA;2008 Fe 2<

G.R. No. 18428=

FAC)S: #n the evening o3 O0tober &+, &(, 7hile drin4ing 0o33ee at the lobby o3 @otel Ni44o, respondent 7as invited by a 3riend, %r. $ilart to oin her in a party in 0elebration o3 the birthday o3 the hotelDs manager. %uring the party and 7henrespondent 7as lined1up at the bu33et table, he 7as stopped by !uby Lim, the Exe0utive -e0retary o3 the hotel, and as4edto leave the party. -ho04ed and embarrassed, he tried to explain that he 7as invited by %r. $ilart, 7ho 7as hersel3 a guest. Not long a3ter, a a4ati poli0eman approa0hed him and es0orted him out o3 her party.

s. Lim admitted having as4ed respondent to leave the party but not under the ignominious 0ir0umstan0es painted by r!eyes, that she did the a0t politely and dis0reetly. ind3ul o3 the 7ish o3 the 0elebrant to 4eep the party intimate and

ex0lusive, she spo4e to the respondent hersel3 7hen she sa7 him by the bu33et table 7ith no other guests in the immediatevi0inity. -he as4ed him to leave the party a3ter he 3inished eating. A3ter she had turned to leave, the latter s0reamed andmade a big s0ene.

%r. $ilart testi3ied that she did not 7ant the 0elebrant to thin4 that she invited r. !eyes to the party.

!espondent 3iled an a0tion 3or a0tual, moral and;or exemplary damages and attorneyDs 3ees. "he lo7er 0ourt dismissed the0omplaint. On appeal, the Court o3 Appeals reversed the ruling o3 the trial 0ourt, 0onseBuently imposing upon @otel Ni44omoral and exemplary damages and attorneyDs 3ees. On motion 3or re0onsideration, the Court o3 Appeals a33irmed itsde0ision. "hus, this instant petition 3or revie7.

ISS$%S: hether or not s. !uby Lim is liable under Arti0les & and & o3 the Civil Code in as4ing r. !eyes to leave

the party as he 7as not invited by the 0elebrant thereo3 and 7hether or not @otel Ni44o, as the employer o3 s. Lim, besolidarily liable 7ith her.

R$&ING: "he Court 3ound more 0redible the lo7er 0ourtDs 3indings o3 3a0ts. "here 7as no proo3 o3 motive on the part o3s. Lim to humiliate r. !eyes and to expose him to ridi0ule and shame. r. !eyesD version o3 the story 7asunsupported, 3ailing to present any 7itness to ba04 his story. s. Lim, not having abused her right to as4 r. !eyes toleave the party to 7hi0h he 7as not invited, 0annot be made liable 3or damages under Arti0les & and & o3 the Civil Code Ne0essarily, neither 0an her employer, @otel Ni44o, be held liable as its liability springs 3rom that o3 its employees.

hen a right is exer0ised in a manner 7hi0h does not 0on3orm 7ith the norms enshrined in Arti0le & and results indamage to another, a legal 7rong is thereby 0ommitted 3or 7hi0h the 7rongdoer must be responsible. Arti0le & states thatany person 7ho 7ill3ully 0auses loss or inury to another in a manner that is 0ontrary to morals, good 0ustoms or publi0

poli0y shall 0ompensate the latter 3or the damage.

ithout proo3 o3 any ill1motive on her part, s. LimDs a0t 0annot amount to abusive 0ondu0t.

"he maxim “/olenti Non $it #nuria” 5sel31in3li0ted inury6 7as upheld by the Court, that is, to 7hi0h a person assents isnot esteemed in la7 as inury, that 0onsent to inury pre0ludes the re0overy o3 damages by one 7ho has 4no7ingly andvoluntarily exposed himsel3 to danger.


10/28

He#osisia vs. Cou#t o> A??eals Case "i3est@ *#ie> G.R. No. &1462<

/#ocedu#al Facts: Case 3iled in Court o3 $irst #nstan0e o3 Cebu 7hi0h rendered de0ision in 3avor o3 2

5soledad6. Lo7er CourtDs de0ision 7as modi3ied by the Court o3 Appeals by in0reasing 0ompensatory damagesand moral damages.

Sustantive Facts: -oledad Cagigas, a tea0her and petitioner, 7ho 7as almost ten 5&*6 years younger than she,used to go around together and 7ere regarded as engaged, although he had made no promise o3 marriage priorthereto their intima0y developed among them -oledad advised petitioner that she 7as in the 3amily 7ay,7hereupon he promised to marry her. "heir 0hild, Chris @ermosisima, 7as born. @o7ever de3endant marriedone !omanita 2ere.

ISS$%: hether or not moral damages are re0overable, under our la7s, 3or brea0h o3 promise to marryM

H%&"F hen the 7oman be0omes pregnant and subseBuently delivers. Although she 0annot re0over moraldamages 3or the brea0h, nevertheless she 0an re0over 0ompensatory damages 3or medi0al and hospitaliationexpenses as 7ell as attorneyDs 3ees.

R%AS'NING: 8e0ause o3 de3endant1appellants sedu0tion po7er, plainti331appellee, over7helmed by her love3or him 3inally yielded to his sexual desires in spite o3 her age and sel310ontrol, she being a 7oman a3ter all, 7ehold that said de3endant1appellant is liable 3or sedu0tion and, there3ore, moral damages may be re0overed 3romhim under the provision o3 Arti0le &, paragraph +, o3 the ne7 Civil Code.1 -ee more atF httpF;;studentso3so0rates.blogspot.0om;*&*;*(;hermosisima1vs10ourt1o31appeals10ase.htmlsthash.*)rsgEn.dpu3


11/28

GASH%%+ SH''-A) *A-SH, petitioner, vs. H'N. C'$R) 'F A//%A&S and +ARI&'$ ).G'N(A&%S, respondents

G. !. No. )++'. $ebruary &, &+

Facts: arilou ". Gonales, a year old $ilipina 3iled on !egional "rial Court o3 2angasinan in Lingayen 3ora 0omplaint 3or damages against the petitioner, Gashem -hoo4at 8a4sh 5an #ranian 0itien residing at theLoano Apartments in Guilig, %agupan City and is an ex0hnage student ta4ing a medi0al 0ourse at the Ly0eum North7estern Colleges6, 3or the alleged violation o3 their agreement to get married. 8e3ore August *, &


12/28

8EA"!#P 2. A--E!, plainti33, vs. $!ANC#-CO Q. /ELEP, de3endant%e0ember ', &'(

Facts: $ran0is0o /ele and 8eatri assmer applied 3or a arriage Li0ense on August +, &:(. "he 7edding 7as to ta4e

pla0e on -eptember (, &:(. All the ne0essary preparations 7ere underta4en 3or the said event. @o7ever, t7o days be3orethe 7edding, $ran0is0o le3t a note 3or 8eatri in3orming her that the 7edding 7ill not push through be0ause his motheropposed the union. "he 3ollo7ing day, he sent her a telegram stating that he 7ill be returning very soon. $ran0is0o neversho7ed up and has not been heard sin0e then. 8eatri subseBuently sued $ran0is0o 3or damages. "he trial 0ourt ordered$ran0is0o to pay 8eatri a0tual, moral and exemplary damages.

$ran0is0o 3iled a petition 3or relie3 3rom orders, udgment and pro0eedings and motion 3or ne7 trial and re0onsideration7hi0h 7as denied by the trial 0ourt. $ran0is0o appealed to the -upreme Court, asserting that the udgment is 0ontrary tola7 as there is no provision in the Civil Code authoriing an a0tion 3or brea0h o3 promise to marry.

Issue: ay $ran0is0o be held liable to pay 8eatri damages 3or brea0h o3 promise to marryM

Held: es. $ran0is0o may be held liable under Arti0le & o3 the Civil Code, 7hi0h providesF RAny person 7ho 7il3ully0auses loss or inury to another in a manner that is 0ontrary to morals, good 0ustoms or publi0 poli0y shall 0ompensate thelatter 3or the damage.R

ere brea0h o3 promise to marry is not an a0tionable 7rong. 8ut to 3ormally set a 7edding and go through all the preparation and publi0ity, only to 7al4 out o3 it 7hen the matrimony is about to be solemnied, is Buite di33erent. -urelythis is not a 0ase o3 mere brea0h o3 promise to marry. "his is palpably and unusti3iably 0ontrary to good 0ustoms 3or7hi0h de3endant must be held ans7erable in damages in a00ordan0e 7ith Arti0le &.


13/28

R'"RIG' C'NC%/CI'N, petitioner, v. C'$R) 'F A//%A&S and S/S. N%S)'R NIC'&AS andA&&%+ NIC'&AS, respondents.G.!. No. &*)*'. 9anuary +&, ***

Facts: "he spouses Nestor Ni0olas and Allem Ni0olas, the respondents, 7ere residing in an apartment leased tothem by the o7ner $loren0e “8ing” Con0ep0ion at 2asig City. Nestor Ni0olas 7as engaged in the business o3supplying government agen0ies and private entities 7ith o33i0e eBuipment, applian0es and other 3ixtures$loren0e Con0ep0ion oined a3ter 0ontributing 0apital 7ith the 0ondition that she 7ill re0eive hal3 o3 the pro3itearned.

!odrigo Con0ep0ion, the petitioner and brother o3 the de0eased husband o3 $loren0e, 7ent to NestorDsapartment and a00used him o3 0ommitting adulterous relationship 7ith $loren0e.

Nestor 3elt extreme embarrassment and shame. $loren0e even 0eased to do business 7ith the spouses"he spouses started to Buarrel as Allem be0ame doubt3ul o3 her husbandDs 3idelity. Nestor 3or0ed then !odrigodemanding publi0 apology and payment o3 damages. "he latter ignored that triggered the spouses to 3ile 0ivisuit against !odrigo 3or damages. @e reasoned out that he did su0h to prote0t the name and reputation o3 theCon0ep0ion 3amily.

Issue:

hether there is basis in la7 3or the a7ard o3 damages to private respondents, spouses Ni0olas

Rulin3:

"he petitioners posture that there is no legal provision that supports su0h a7ard o3 damages has beenree0ted. Arti0le ' o3 the ne7 Civil Code stressed the sa0redness o3 human personality, 7hi0h is a 0on0omitant0onsideration o3 every plan 3or human amelioration. "he rights o3 persons are amply prote0ted, and damages are provided 3or violations o3 a personDs dignity, personality, priva0y and pea0e o3 mind. "hus, the petitioner isliable to the spouses 3or 2:*, *** as moral damages, 2:, *** 3or exemplary damages, 2&*, *** 3or attorneyDs3ees, plus 0osts o3 suit.


14/28

S%RGI' A+'N', petitioner, v. S/'$S%S 'S% G$)I%RR%( AN" ANG%&A F'RNI&"A,respondents.

G.!. No. &(*(*. $ebruary &:, **&

Facts:

Amonoy, the petitioner, 7as the 0ounsel o3 $ran0is0a Catolos, Agnes Catolos, Asun0ion 2asamba and

Al3onso $ormilda, 3or the settlement o3 the estate o3 the de0eased 9ulio Cantolos. -u0h estate involves six 5'6 par0els o3 land situated in "anay, !ial. "he 2roe0t o3 2artition 7as approved on & 9anuary &': and t7o o3the said lots 7ere adudi0ated to Asun0ion 2asamba and Al3onso $ormilda. ith regard to the attorneyDs 3ees,Amonoy 0harged 2), '**.**. "o se0ure the payment o3 su0h, on * 9anuary &':, Asun0ion 2asamba andAl3onso $ormilda exe0uted a deed o3 real estate mortgage on the said t7o lots adudi0ated to them.

Asun0ion 2asamba and Al3onso $ormilda passed a7ay on ( $ebruary &' and on 9uly &',respe0tively. Among the heirs o3 Al3onso 7as his daughter, plainti331appellant Angela Gutierre.

On & 9anuary &)*, Amonoy 3iled 3or their 3ore0losure be3ore in the C$# o3 2asig, !ial, sin0e hisattorneyDs 3ees se0ured by the t7o lots 7ere not paid. "he heirs opposed. @o7ever, on < -eptember &) udgement, it 7as rendered in 3avour o3 Amonoy reBuiring the heirs to pay the 2),'**.**by the mortgage2&&,


15/28

)%'"'R' G$ARING, plainti33 vs. C'$R) 'F A//%A&S, de3endant

G.!. No. &*


16/28

G%'RG% +ANAN)AN, petitioner vs. C'$R) 'F A//%A&S, de3endant

G.!. No. &*)&:. 9anuary , **&

Facts:

On or about the :th day o3 -eptember &


17/28

F&'R%NCI' *'NI)%, plainti33 vs (osa, de3endant

G.!. No. L1++)) 9une *, &


18/28

%"$AR"' +. C'$ANGC', R ., petitioner, vs.C'$R) 'F A//%A&S, )H% /HI&I//IN% CHARI) S%%/S)A-%S 'FFIC%

and F%RNAN"' '. CARRASC'S', R ., respondents.G.!. No. &&+


19/28

S'/HIA A&C$A(, %) A&., petitioners vs. /HI&I//IN% SCH''& 'F *$SIN%SS A"+INIS)RA)I'N ueon

Cit *#ancB %) A&, respondents

No. L1)'+:+. ay , &


20/28

2remises 0onsidered, the petition is hereby dismissed.

ARI%& N'N %).A&., petitioners. vs. H'N. SANCH' "A+%S II, in Bis ca?acit as tBe /#esidin3 ud3e o> tBe 8 tB

Re3ional )#ail Cou#t, *#.


21/28

CA)A&IN' /. ARAFI&%S, petitioner, vs. /HI&I//IN% '$RNA&IS)S, INC., R'+ +'RA&%S, +AD *$AN,

R., and +AN$%& C. VI&&AR%A& R., respondents

G.! No. &:*:'. ar0h :, **(

Facts:

About am on April &(, &


22/28

#n 3ine, this 0ourt 3inds that 0ase against respondents has not been su33i0iently established by preponderan0e o3

eviden0e.

INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS AND FRAGRANCES (PHIL) INC., petitioner, vs. MERLIN J.

ARGOS and JAJA C. PINEDA, respondents

G.R. No. 130362. September 10, 2001

Facts:

IFFI is a corporation organized and existing under !i"ippine "a#s. $rgos and ineda

%respondents& are t!e genera" manager and commercia" director respecti'e"( o) t!e Fragrance

*i'ision o) IFFI.

In 1++2, t!e oce o) -anaging *irector #as created to !ead t!e corporations operations

in t!e !i"ippines. /osta #as appointed as t!e -anaging *irector. $rgos and ineda as genera"

managers !a'e to report direct"( to /osta.

ecause o) serious dierences bet#een t!e -anaging *irector and t!e Genera" -anager,

t!e "atter agreed to terminate t!eir ser'ices. !e( signed a Re"ease 4ai'er and 5uit /"aim on

*ecember 10, 1++3. 7n t!e same date, /osta issued a ersonne" $nnouncement #!ic!described respondents as 8persona non grata and urged emp"o(ees not to !a'e )urt!er dea"ings

#it! t!em.

!e respondents 9"ed a "ibe" case in -etropo"itan ria" /ourt o) aguig, -etro -ani"a. 7n

-arc! 31, 1++:, respondents 9"ed a ci'i" case )or damages at Regiona" ria" /ourt o) asig

against /osta and IFFI in its subsidiar( capacit( as emp"o(er. IFFI mo'ed to dismiss t!e

comp"aint.

7n 7ctober 1++:, t!e R/ granted t!e motion to dismiss )or t!e respondents )ai"ure to

reser'e rig!t to institute a separate ci'i" case.

$ motion )or reconsideration #as 9"ed b( t!e respondents and #as granted t!e same

court. IFFI on t!e ot!er !and 9"ed a motion to reconsider t!e said order but #as denied b( t!e

court. !e case #as e"e'ated b( t!e IFFI to t!e /ourt o) $ppea"s reiterating t!e same ground )or

dismissa". ;o#e'er, t!e /a dismissed t!e case.

Issu:

4!et!er t!e pri'ate respondents can sue IFFI )or ci'i" case )or damages in its subsidiar(

capacit( as emp"o(er.

Ru!"n#:

It #as !e"d b( t!e court, based on t!e case o) udged gui"t( o)

t!e #rong)u" act in a crimina" action and )ound to !a'e committed t!e oense in t!e disc!arge o)

!is duties. $n( action broug!t against t!e emp"o(er based on its subsidiar( "iabi"it( be)ore

con'iction o) its emp"o(ee is premature.


23/28

;a'ing estab"is!ed t!at respondents did not based t!eir ci'i" action on IFFIs primar(

"iabi"it( under $rtic"e 33 but c"aimed damages )rom IFFI based on its subsidiar( "iabi"it( as

emp"o(er o) /osta is premature.

!e court granted t!e petition and t!e decisions o) t!e R/ and /a #ere re'ersed and set

aside.

MARCIA, and RENATO $AP, petitioners, vs. CO%RT OF APPREALS, FELARDO PAJE and

VICTOR$ LINER, INC., respondents.

No. ?@3A:2+. e, co""ided #it! a >eep dri'en b( /"emente -arcia, resu"ting in

t!e "atters deat! and in p!(sica" in>uries to petitioner Edgar -arcia and Renato ap. !ereupon,

an in)ormation )or !omicide and serious p!(sica" in>uries t!ru rec"ess imprudence #as 9"ed

against a>e in R/ ampanga.

7n e, a""eging t!at t!e mis!ap due to t!e rec"ess imprudence and

neg"igence o) t!e "atter in dri'ing.

4!i"e t!e ci'i" case #as in progress in Riza", R/ ampanga rendered its decision and

con'icted t!e respondent. ;o#e'er, in t!eir appea" to t!e /a t!e( #ere ac=uitted.

$s conducted b( t!e /$, crimina" neg"igence is #anting in t!e case, and t!at a>e #as not

e'en gui"t( o) /i'i" Neg"igence because it #as a case o) mere accident.

Respondent a>e in t!e /i'i" /ase in Riza" mo'ed )or dismissa" o) t!e comp"aint in'oing

t!e decision o) t!e /$ )or !is ac=uitta". ;o#e'er, t!e Riza" R/ dismissed t!e motion and

t!erea)ter continued t!e tria". !e R/ Riza" dismissed t!e comp"aint against Dictor( and a>e

based on t!e decision o) t!e /$.

!e petitioner appea"ed to t!e /$ in'oing $rtic"e 33 o) t!e Ne# /i'i" /ode and Sec. 2 o)

Ru"e 111 o) t!e Ru"es o) /ourt and not Sec. 3.

!e /$ !e"d t!at pri'ate respondent cannot be !e"d ci'i""( "iab"e a)ter it !ad ru"ed in t!e

crimina" action t!at neg"igence #as #anting and t!at t!e co""ision #as pure accident.

Issu:

4!et!er t!e ci'i" case 9"ed separate"( be dismissed.


24/28

Ru!"n#:

It #as !e"d b( t!e court t!at $rtic"e 33 speas on"( o) de)amation, )raud and p!(sica"

in>uries. !e in>uries suered b( t!e petitioners #ere a""eged to be t!e resu"t o) crimina

neg"igenceH t!e( #ere not inicted #it! ma"ice. ;ence, no independent ci'i" action )or damages

ma(be instituted in connection t!ere#it!. Furt!ermore, Section 3 %c&, Ru"e 111 o) t!e Ru"es o)

/ourt states t!at extinction o) t!e pena" action does not carr( #it! it extinction o) t!e ci'i",

un"ess t!e extinction proceeds )rom #!ic! t!e ci'i" mig!t arise did not exist. 7t!er#ise stated,

un"ess t!e act )rom #!ic! t!e ci'i" "iabi"it( arises is dec"ared to be non@existent in t!e 9na" >udgment, t!e extinction o) t!e crimina" "iabi"it( #i"" not carr( #it! it t!e extinction o) t!e ci'i

"iabi"it(.

G. JES%S &. R%I', petitioner, vs. ENCARNACION %COL and THE CO%RT OF APPEALS,

respondents.

No. ?@A:A0A. $ugust B, 1+CB

Facts:

$gustina agaca, "aundr( #oman )or petitioner $tt(.


25/28

FA%STO &ARREDO, petitioner, 's. SEVERINO GARCIA and TIMOTEO ALMARIO, respondents

No. AC006.


26/28

Ru!"n#:

es.

!e p"aintis ma( bring a separate ci'i" action against Fausto arredo because o) t!e

separate indi'idua"it( o) cuasi delito or culpa aquiliana. !e court !e"d t!at t!is #i"" mae )or t!e

better sa)eguarding o) pri'ate rig!ts and is more "ie"( to secure ade=uate and ecacious

redress.

!e court a"so )ound out t!at de)endant@petitioner is Fontani""as emp"o(er. !ere is no

proo) t!at !e exercised t!e di"igence o) a good )at!er o) a )ami"( to pre'ent t!e damage. It is

s!o#n t!at !e #as care"ess in emp"o(ing Fontani""a #!o !ad been caug!t se'era" times )or

'io"ation o) t!e $utomobi"e ?a# and speeding L 'io"ations #!ic! appeared in t!e Records o) t!e

ureau o) ub"ic 4ors a'ai"ab"e to t!e pub"ic and to !imse"). !ere)ore, !e must indemni)(

p"aintis under t!e pro'isions o) artic"e 1+03 o) t!e /i'i" /ode.

!e >udgment o) t!e /ourt o) $ppea"s is !ereb( armed #!erein t!e p"aintis s!ou"d be

a#arded )or damages b( de)endant@petitioner 1, 000 #it! "ega" interest )rom t!e time t!e

action #as instituted.

ME$NARDO L. &ELTRAN, petitioner, 's. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and HON. J%DGE

FLORENTINO T%A'ON, JR. being t!e udicia" =uestion to t!e determination o) t!e crimina" case. Suc! motion and t!e motion )or

reconsideration #ere denied.

Issu:

Is t!e petitioners contention tenab"eM

Ru!"n#:


27/28

No. !e /ourt a'erred t!at petitioners contention is untenab"e. !e rationa"e be!ind t!e

princip"e o) pre>udicia" =uestion is to a'oid t#o conicting decisions. !e pendenc( o) t!e case

)or dec"aration o) nu""it( o) petitioners marriage is not a pre>udicia" =uestion to t!e concubinage

case because t!e )acts in t!e "atter case are not based on t!e )ormer )or t!e gui"t o) t!e

petitioner@accused to be determined.

A&%NDIO MERCED, petitioner, 's. HON. CLEMENTINO V. DIE'. ETC. ET AL., respondents

No. ?@1:31:. $ugust 26, 1+60

Facts:

$bundio -erced #as married to Eu)riciana an and #it!out suc! marriage !a'ing been

"ega""( disso"'edH !e contracted a second marriage #it! E"izabet! /easar. Facing bigam( c!arges

b( t!e "atter, petitioner a""eged )orce and intimidation b( t!e re"ati'es E"izabet! )orce !im into

marriage and 9"ed )or annu"ment. ;e a"so raised t!e issue o) pre>udicia" =uestion.

Issu:

4!et!er or not t!e action to annu" t!e second marriage is a pre>udicia" =uestion to t!e

prosecution )or bigam(.

Ru!"n#:

!e ci'i" action must be decided 9rst be)ore t!e prosecution )or bigam( can proceed

%be)ore t!e ne# Fami"( /ode too eect&.


28/28

Documents

Case Digest - Go v. Cordero