1. E.

M Wright

Popoy is a hard drinker of liquor, however, after several bottles of beer or several glasses of
hard liquor he still remains sober and unaffected by the alcoholic drink. One night after his
regular drinking spree, Popoy mounted his bicycle and went in an eastern direction which was
unfamiliar to him, not far enough he fell to an uncovered hole in the sidewalk of a public highway
causing him injuries. Upon examination, the trial court rendered him liable for negligence due to
his intoxication at the time of the incident. Is Popoy liable for negligence? Explain.

Answer: No, Popoy is not liable for negligence.

The Supreme Court has held that a mere intoxication is not a proof of negligence, but a
circumstance to be considered with the other evidence tending to prove negligence.

In the case, the consequence of Popoy’s negligence is only but little since it was shown that
while it is true that he was intoxicated, he was also sober at the time he fell into the uncovered
hole. The intoxication of Popoy should not be considered as the primary cause of the accident
but the failure of the the entities in control of public spaces bear a significant duty of care to
prevent harm, regardless of the potential contributory negligence of those injured.

Therefore, Popoy is not liable for negligence based on the sole fact that he was intoxicated.

2. Pokora

Epang and Jayson are siblings whose residence in Malate fronts on the street along which the
Philippine National Train Corporation tracks run, so to enter their premises from the street, the
siblings are required to cross the PNTC’s tracks.
One Saturday morning, as the siblings were going home from the market, an enormous bus was
then parked right before the tracks obscuring their view on the oncoming train. Jayson, who was
then the driver, stopped for a moment and listened for any siren and bell but neither was heard.
He immediately stepped on the gas and crossed the track and upon reaching the middle, the
oncoming train banged the car which caused the death of Epang and injuries to the former.
The trial court decided that Jayson should be liable for contributory negligence because it was
his duty as the driver to specifically stop, alight the car and look for the oncoming trains.
However, Jayson argued that it was not a universal law to alight a car to check for oncoming
vehicles. Is Jayson’s argument tenable?

Answer: Jayson’s argument is tenable.

The Supreme Court held in a similar case that requiring a driver to exit the vehicle and inspect
the tracks is not a common precaution and is sometimes even dangerous.
In the case at the bar, the presence of the enormous bus obscuring the view did not
automatically place a legal obligation on Jayson to leave his vehicle for a better view.

Moreover , a rigid standard must exist that each case must be assessed based on its particular
facts and circumstances.

Hence, the argument of Jayson is correct that it is not a universal law to alight a car to check for
oncoming vehicles.

3. Corliss
Venice and Popoy, after attending a debut party in Batac City, were driving home in their Toyota
Corolla car. At a railroad crossing, they observed that the level crossing bar was raised,there
was no flashing blue red light, and they did not hear any bell nor whistle from an approaching
train. Assuming it was safe to cross, Venice slowed down a bit but did not stop completely. The
Paoay-Batac Railroad train traversed the crossing, resulting in a collision which impact threw
both out of their car, causing severe injuries and severe damages to their vehicle. The RTC
ruled that the PBR was negligent in maintaining the warning devices at the railroad crossing,
however, the defendant appealed that it was Venice’s failure to stop which constitutes
negligence as the proximate cause of the collision, hence, a petition for certiorari. Decide.

Answer: Venice’s failure to stop did not constitute negligence as the proximate cause of the
collision.

Jurisprudence provides that a motorist has the right to rely on the proper functioning of warning
devices at railroad crossings. The failure of these devices to operate is generally considered
evidence of negligence.

In the case above, the failure of PBR to provide working warning devices at the railroad, no
guard or flagman present, and the train was on an unscheduled trip without blowing its horn.
The circumstances indicate gross negligence.

On the other hand, given that the level crossing bar was raised, there were no warning
lights or bells, and no whistle from an oncoming train, Venice had no reason to
anticipate danger.

Hence, Venice's action did not constitute negligence by her failure to stop.

4. Martinez Vs. Buskirk

Digong Dutirty and his wife, Sarah Shimenet Dutirty were riding in a calesa traversing on Calle
Malacañang, Pogo, Manila. A wagon used for delivery which belonged to Harry Poke
approached from the opposite direction at a fast speed, prompting the driver of the calesa to
stop and allow the wagon to pass. Surprisingly, the said wagon slammed the calesa with a slight
impact causing it to tumble. Both the plaintiff sustained slight head injuries and the calesa was
damaged. During the trial, the plaintiffs pleaded that Harry Poke was negligent for leaving the
horses unattended while unloading some deliveries. On appeal, the defendant countered that
he was not negligent due to the fact that it was a universal practice for a delivery man to leave
his wagon when unloading, hence, a petition for certiorari. Is Hary Poke liable for negligence
for leaving his wagon unattended while unloading the deliveries?

Answer: No, Hary Poke is not liable for negligence for leaving his wagon unattended while
unloading the deliveries.

In a similar case decided by the Supreme Court, it was held that a driver of the wagon was not
negligent because the practice of leaving horses unattended while unloading
wagons was a long-standing custom in the city.

In the case presented, the act of Hary Poke to leave his wagon unattended while unloading the
deliveries was generally acquiesced in by society for a long time and not proven destructive or
injurious, hence, cannot be deemed as negligence.

Therefore, Hary Poke is not liable for negligence.

5. Negros Navigation

MV Paoay Kumakaway is a passenger ship bound for Currimao City. The ship sailed from the
port of Paoay on schedule. While sailing off the Badoc Strait, it collided with the MT Pagudpud,
a crude tanker owned by the Pagudpud Crude Company. As a result, the MV Paoay sank. Only
350 out of 1,200 passengers survived, including the ship’s officers. Seeking damages for the
death of the passengers, the petitioners as represented by the family members filed a complaint
against MV Paoay. The petitioners alleged that the defendant, after finding that the crew
members were playing tong-its during the voyage failed to exhibit their duties. The trial court
stated that in cases of common carriers, extraordinary diligence is the required degree to ensure
that negligence is avoided. Explain the idea of the principle of extraordinary diligence in
common carriers.

Under Article 1755 of the New Civil Code specifies that the common carrier should “carry the passengers safely as
far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard
for all the circumstances.”

This means that to successfully fend off liability in an action upon the death or injury to a passenger, the common
carrier must prove his or its observance of that extraordinary diligence; otherwise, the legal presumption that he or
she was at fault or acted negligently would stand. No device, whether by stipulation, posting of notices, statements on
tickets, or otherwise, may dispense with or lessen the responsibility of the common carrier.
In relation to the case at bar, a common carrier is required to observe extraordinary diligence,
and is presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in case of the loss of the effects of
the passengers, or the death or injuries to passengers.

6. Sofitel

Sauron went to the Elvendom Hotel with his parents, Elrond and Galadriel to celebrate his 7th
birthday. A kiddie pool with a slide was part of the amenities of the said hotel, hence, the
parents decided to bring Sauron for a quick swim. While swimming, Sauron slipped and hit his
head on the edge of the pool causing him contusion. Elrond filed a complaint with the trial court
for damages against Elvendom Hotel, alleging that the hotel should be liable based on the
doctrines of attractive nuisance and res ipsa loquitor. On the other hand, the defendant hotel
argued that such doctrines are not applicable since they installed precautionary measures
around the pool stating the age limit allowed to swim. Is the trial court correct in applying the
doctrines of attractive nuisance and res ipsa loquitor? Explain.

Answer: Yes, the trial court is correct in applying the doctrines of attractive nuisance and res
ipsa loquitor.

In a similar case decided by the Supreme Court, it was held that the doctrine of attractive
nuisance was applicable taking into consideration the presence of an unusual condition or
artificial feature intended to attract children.

Likewise, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor was applicable. It met the necessary requirements that
the accident is of such character as to warrant an inference that that it would have not have
happened except for the defendant’s negligence; the accident must have been caused by an
agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management of the person charged with the
negligence complained of; and that the accident happened without the voluntary act of the
person injured.

In this case, there was in fact a presence of attractive nuisance although the swimming pool
alone may not be considered as an attractive nuisance, the kiddie pool’s slide formed an
unusual condition or artificial feature intended to attract children and all the requisites of the
latter doctrine were present starting with the undisputed sustained injury of the Sauron within
the premises of the pool, an instrumentality within the control of the hotel; the hotel was duty
bound to provide precautionary measures to ensure safety; and accordingly, the child would
have not voluntarily sustained his injury.

Therefore, in the application of both doctrines, the trial court is correct.

 7. Radio communications

The defendant Damag Ilocandia Inc. (DII) is a telecommunications company while the plaintiff,
Henry Omega Diaz is a regular customer. A telegram placed inside a sealed envelope was sent
to the plaintiff by the company’s manning operator, consisting of defamatory words which
wounded his feelings and caused him undue embarrassment and adversely affected his business
because other people have come to know of said defamatory words.
DII claims that the words were a private joke between the sending and receiving
operators and were not intended for Dionela.
Upon trial, the court favored Dionela, stating that the words were libelous and that
the company is directly liable for the actions of its employees. What is the
liability of the company if there is any? Explain.

Under the law, individuals are required to act with justice, honesty, and good faith,
and hold those who cause damage to others liable for indemnification.

In the case given, DII is a juridical person which can only act through its
employees, and therefore, the acts of its employees in receiving and transmitting
messages are considered the acts of the company, hence, it is directly liable for the
actions of its employees and cannot escape liability by claiming that the employees
acted beyond their assigned tasks.

DII’s negligence in failing to take necessary precautions to avoid the defamatory

incident was the proximate cause of Henry’s injury, therefore is directly liable.

8. Jessica Maitim

Emily Paris was in her vehicle driven by Gabriel Puti along the common driveway jointly used by
her and Madeleine Maya, the plaintiff. Camila Maya, a five-year-old daughter of Madeleine was
sideswiped by Paris’s vehicle while walking in the said driveway and dragged her for about five
meters. Camila suffered serious physical injuries, including a permanent fracture of her left
shoulder. Madeleine filed a complaint for damages against Emily, however, the defendant
argued that the child had a contributory negligence for walking without looking at the driveway
for her safety. Is there contributory negligence on the part of Camila Maya?

Answer: No, there is no contributory negligence on the part of Camila Maya.

It is a rule provided by law that children under nine are conclusively presumed incapable of
contributory negligence. Further, contributory negligence refers to the failure of the plaintiff to
observe reasonable care for his own safety, which contributes to the damage or injury, thus,
cannot recover damages.

In the case above, Camila Maya may not be held liable for contributory negligence because
aside from her tender age, she was dragged in the driveway which was still part of the premises
of her house since it was jointly used by her and the defendant.

Hence, even if Camila was walking without looking at the driveway for her safety, she is not
liable for contributory negligence since there is a considerable safety on her part.

9. Fortune
Dracarys Express, a bus company owned by Khaleesi Targaryen was involved in a fatal
accident resulting in the death of five passengers, including three dornish people. The Redkeep
Constabulary in Kingslanding warned the bus company’s operation that a possible revenge may
occur especially that dornish people are known to be vengeful. Despite the said warning,
Khaleesi assured that necessary precautions would be taken. On a Saturday morning, while the
bus was traversing to Dragonstone City, four armed dornish people, posing as passengers,
seized and burned a bus which resulted in the death of Atty. Tyron Lannister. The heirs of the
said victim filed a complaint for damages for breach of contract of carriage against Dracarys
Express in the RTC. The trial court dismissed, but the CA reversed the decision, leading to the
petition for certiorari for review. Did Dracarys Express breach the contract of
carriage by failing to exercise the required degree of diligence to ensure
the safety of its passengers?

Answer: Yes, Dracarys Express breached the contract of carriage by failing to

exercise the required degree of diligence to ensure the safety of its passengers.

Article 1763 of the New Civil Code states that a common carrier is responsible for
injuries suffered by a passenger due to the willful acts of other passengers if the
carrier's employees could have prevented the act through the exercise of the
diligence of a good father of a family.

In the case, the bus company’s owner and employees failed to prevent the attack
because they did not exercise such diligence. Furthermore, the seizure of the bus
was foreseeable and not a fortuitous event, as the company had been warned of
the potential attack.

Thus, Dracarys Express breached the contract of carriage by failing to exercise the
required degree of diligence to ensure the safety of its passengers.

[Link]
Tom Holland and Leonardo Decaprio visited the Ilocos Norte Electric Company to
see an employee who had promised to make them a cylinder for a school project.
Both of the plaintiffs were 16-year-old boys. While waiting for the said employee,
the boys saw several brass fulminating caps, explosive devices used for blasting
charges of dynamite. They decided to take the caps home and conducted an
experiment with them, however, during their experiments, Tom and Leonardo
attempted to ignite the caps using various methods. Tom cut open one of the caps
and applied a match to its contents, causing an explosion and he suffered serious
injuries, including the loss of an eye. The trial court found that INEC was negligent
in leaving the caps exposed on its premises. In its appeal, the defendant stated
Tom’s own actions were the immediate cause of the accident and his injuries,
therefore should be liable for contributory negligence and could not acquire
damages. A petition for certiorari. Decide.

Answer: Tom is guilty of contributory negligence and cannot acquire damages.

It is jurisprudential that the principle of contributory negligence states that if the

plaintiff's own actions contribute to the accident or injury, they cannot recover
damages.

In the case above, despite his age, Tom was considered mature enough to
understand the dangerous nature of the caps and the potential consequences of his
actions. In fact, INEC did not have a duty to prevent Tom from entering its
premises without express permission, as he was not a young child and was capable
of understanding the risks involved.

His actions were deemed to have contributed to the principal occurrence of the
explosion, therefore he is guilty of contributory negligence and cannot acquire
damages.