17. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. CA and MS.
LYDIA GERONIMO
G.R. No. 110295 October 18, 1993
Petition for review on certiorari (under Rule45) the decision of the CA
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
FACTS: Private respondent was the proprietress of Kindergarten Wonderland Canteen in Dagupan City.
In August 1989, some parents of the students complained to her that the Coke and Sprite soft drinks
sold by her contained fiber-like matter and other foreign substances. She brought the said bottles for
examination to DOH and it was found out that the soft drinks are adulterated. As a result, her per
day sales of soft drinks severely plummeted that she had to close her shop on 12 December 1989 for
losses. She demanded damages from petitioner before the RTC which dismissed the same on motion
by petitioner based on the ground of Prescription. On appeal, the CA annulled the orders of the RTC.
ISSUE: WON the action for damages by the proprietress against the soft drinks manufacturer should
be treated as one for breach of implied warranty under article 1561 of the CC which prescribes after
six months from delivery of the thing sold.
RULING: Petition Denied.
The SC agrees with the CAs conclusion that the cause of action in the case at bar is found on quasidelict under Article 1146 of the CC which prescribes in four years and not on breach of warranty under
article 1562 of the same code. This is supported by the allegations in the complaint which makes
reference to the reckless and negligent manufacture of "adulterated food items intended to be sold for
public consumption."
18.LIGHTRAIL
TRANSIT
AUTHORITY
&
RODOLFO
ROMAN,
versus
MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late NICANOR NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY AGENCY
FACTS:
NicanorNavidad, then drunk, entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a token (representing payment of the
fare). While Navidad was standing on the platform near the LRT tracks, JunelitoEscartin, the security guard assigned
to the area approached him. A misunderstanding or an altercation between the two apparently ensued that led to a
fist fight. No evidence, however, was adduced to indicate how the fight started or who, between the two, delivered
the first blow or how Navidad later fell on the LRT tracks. At the exact moment that Navidad fell, an LRT train,
operated by petitioner Rodolfo Roman, was coming in. Navidad was struck by the moving train, and he was killed
instantaneously. The widow of Nicanor, Marjorie Navidad, along with her children, filed a complaint for damages
against JunelitoEscartin, Rodolfo Roman, the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization, Inc. (Metro Transit), and Prudent
for the death of her husband. Trial court ruled in favor Navidads wife and against the defendants Prudent Security
and JunelitoEscartin . LRTA and Rodolfo Roman were dismissed for lack of merit. CA held LRTA and Roman liable,
hence the petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a perfected contract of carriage between Navidad and LRTA
HELD:
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION but only in that (a) the award of nominal damages is DELETED and (b) petitioner
Rodolfo Roman is absolved from liability
Contract of carriage was deemed created from the moment Navidad paid the fare at the LRT station and entered
the premises of the latter, entitling Navidad to all the rights and protection under a contractual relation. The
appellate court had correctly held LRTA and Roman liable for the death of Navidad in failing to exercise
19.
20.
REGINO VS. PCST Case Digest
REGINO VS. PCST
G.R No. 156109. November 18, 2004
FACTS: Petitioner Kristine Regino was a poor student enrolled at the Pangasinan College of
Science and Technology. Thus, a fund raising project pertaining to a dance party was organized by
PCST, requiring all its students to purchase two tickets in consideration as a prerequisite for the final
exam.
Regino, an underprivileged, failed to purchase the tickets because of her status as well as that
project was against her religious belief, thus, she was not allowed to take the final examination by
her two professors.
ISSUE: Was the refusal of the university to allow Regino to take the final examination valid?
RULING: No, the Supreme Court declared that the act of PCST was not valid, though, it can impose
its administrative policies, necessarily, the amount of tickets or payment shall be included or
expressed in the student handbooks given to every student before the start of the regular classes of
the semester. In this case, the fund raising project was not included in the activities to be undertaken
by the university during the semester. The petitioner is entitled for damages due to her traumatic
experience on the acts of the university causing her to stop studying sand later transfer to another
school.
21.Jose
Cangco vs Manila Railroad Co.
Facts 30 Phil 768 Civil Law Torts and Damages Distinction of Liability of Employers Under Article
2180 and Their Liability for Breach of Contract
On January 20, 1915, Cangco was riding the train of Manila Railroad Co (MRC). He was an employee of the
latter and he was given a pass so that he could ride the train for free. When he was nearing his destination at
about 7pm, he arose from his seat even though the train was not at full stop. When he was about to alight from
the train (which was still slightly moving) he accidentally stepped on a sack of watermelons which he failed to
notice due to the fact that it was dim. This caused him to lose his balance at the door and he fell and his arm
was crushed by the train and he suffered other serious injuries. He was dragged a few meters more as the train
slowed down.
It was established that the employees of MRC were negligent in piling the sacks of watermelons. MRC raised
as a defense the fact that Cangco was also negligent as he failed to exercise diligence in alighting from the
train as he did not wait for it to stop.
ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Railroad Co is liable for damages.
HELD: Yes. Alighting from a moving train while it is slowing down is a common practice and a lot of people
are doing so every day without suffering injury. Cangco has the vigor and agility of young manhood, and it
was by no means so risky for him to get off while the train was yet moving as the same act would have been in
an aged or feeble person. He was also ignorant of the fact that sacks of watermelons were there as there were
no appropriate warnings and the place was dimly lit.
The Court also elucidated on the distinction between the liability of employers under Article 2180 and their
liability for breach of contract [of carriage]:
NOTES: But, if the master has not been guilty of any negligence whatever in the selection and direction of the
servant, he is not liable for the acts of the latter, whatever done within the scope of his employment or not, if
the damage done by the servant does not amount to a breach of the contract between the master and the person
injured.
The liability arising from extra-contractual culpa is always based upon a voluntary act or omission which,
without willful intent, but by mere negligence or inattention, has caused damage to another.
These two fields, figuratively speaking, concentric; that is to say, the mere fact that a person is bound to
another by contract does not relieve him from extra-contractual liability to such person. When such a
contractual relation exists the obligor may break the contract under such conditions that the same act which
constitutes the source of an extra-contractual obligation had no contract existed between the parties.
Manresa: Whether negligence occurs an incident in the course of the performance of a contractual
undertaking or in itself the source of an extra-contractual undertaking obligation, its essential characteristics
are identical.
Vinculum Juris: (def) It means an obligation of law, or the right of the obligee to enforce a civil matter in a
court of law.
22.
23.
24.
