ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
September-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 46562 September 13, 1939 - BARDWIL BROS. v. PHIL. LABOR UNION

    068 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 46673 September 13, 1939 - ANDRES P. GOSECO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 45596 September 18, 1939 - MARCOS LIPANA v. DOMlNGO LAO Y OTROS

    068 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 46412 September 18, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOJI

    068 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 46497 September 18, 1939 - ANTONIO S. SANAGUSTIN v. CONRADO BARRIOS

    068 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 46170 September 20, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERMIN PUNTO

    068 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 46780 September 20, 1939 - FISCAL OF CAMARINES NORTE v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES NORTE

    068 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 46108 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATU GALANTU MEDTED

    068 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 46109 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS CARPIO

    068 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 46197 September 22, 1939 - KINKWA MERIYASU CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    068 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 46302 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TORIBIO C. COSTES

    068 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 46578 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO MARQUEZ

    068 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 46580 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN

    068 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 46602 September 22, 1939 - YAP TAK WING & CO. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD

    068 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 46686 September 22, 1939 - TRANQUILINO RUBIS v. PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES

    068 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 46715 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO DE JESUS

    068 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 46068 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO CAROZ

    068 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. 46650 September 23, 1939 - MARIO BENGZON v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    068 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. 46652 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO CONCEPCION

    068 Phil 530

  • G.R. Nos. 46802-46812 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESURRECCION B. PEÑAS

    068 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 46739 September 23, 1939 - PAMPANGA BUS CO., INC. v. PAMBUSCO EMPLOYEES UNION

    068 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 46668 September 26, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS

    068 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 46729 September 25, 1939 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGAGAWA SA PANTRANCO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 552

  • Adm. Case No. 879 September 27, 1939 - PEDRO DE GUZMAN v. TOMAS B. TADEO

    068 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 46080 September 27, 1939 - GUILLERMO A. CU UNJIENG v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP.

    068 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 46094 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO C. QUEBRAL

    068 Phil 564

  • G.R. No. 46237 September 27, 1939 - ROSALIO MARQUEZ v. BERNARDO CASTILLO

    068 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. 46350 September 27, 1939 - TAN CHAY v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 46470 September 27, 1939 - JUAN CASTILLO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    068 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 46539 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN DOQUEÑA

    068 Phil 580

  • G.R. Nos. 46553-46555 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON FABILLAR

    068 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 46615 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO AQUINO

    068 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. 46727 September 27, 1939 - PAMBUSCO EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. 46168 September 29, 1939 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN MAHINAY

    068 Phil 597

  • G.R. No. 46336 September 29, 1939 - REVEREND ULRIC ARCAND v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. 46458 September 29, 1939 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. HERMENEGILDO G. ALAGAR

    068 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 46725 September 29, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO AQUINO

    068 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 46023 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS FLORENDO

    068 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 46252 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONOR DE MOLL

    068 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 46298 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATU AMBIS

    068 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 46390 September 30, 1939 - CASIMIRO TIANGCO v. PROCESO FRANCISCO

    068 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 46396 September 30, 1939 - ALEJANDRO DE GUZMAN v. VISAYAN RAPID TRANSIT CO.

    068 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 46451 September 30, 1939 - PAZ CHUA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

    068 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. 46484 September 30, 1939 - SANTIAGO SAMBRANO v. RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    068 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 46724 September 30, 1939 - CRESCENCIO REYNES v. ROSALINA BARRERA

    068 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 46728 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO MONTENEGRO

    068 Phil 659

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 46237   September 27, 1939 - ROSALIO MARQUEZ v. BERNARDO CASTILLO<br /><br />068 Phil 568

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 46237. September 27, 1939.]

    ROSALIO MARQUEZ ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BERNARDO CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

    A. L. Katigbak for Appellant.

    Teodorico Ona for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    DAMAGES THROUGH THE FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE OF A CHAUFFEUR; SUBSIDIARY CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE MASTER. — The subsidiary civil liability of the master, according to the provisions of article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, arises and takes place only when the servant, subordinate or employee commits a punishable criminal act while in the actual performance of his ordinary duties and service, and he is insolvent thereby rendering him incapable of satisfying by himself his own civil liability. The general rule regarding the obligation to repair the damage done, besides the one established in article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, is that he, who by an act or omission causes the damage through his fault or negligence, is the one called upon to repair the same (art. 1902, Civil Code). This rule, which extends only to cases mentioned in articles 1903 to 1910 of said Code, is in no way applicable to the appellant, all the more so because, as the lower court makes clear in its decision, neither was he in his car at the time of the accident for which M. C. was sentenced to pay an indemnity of P500 to the heirs of the deceased M, nor was he negligent in the selection of his chauffeur, since he hired in his service precisely one who is duly licensed to drive a car.


    D E C I S I O N


    DIAZ, J.:


    The plaintiffs and appellees surnamed Marquez sought to collect from the defendant and appellant, in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas, an indemnity in the sum of P4,900 for the death of Fernanda Marquez on whom they claim to be dependent for support, which death was caused by the reckless imprudence of Mariano Capulong, the defendant’s chauffeur who ran over her on April 30,1937, in the barrio of Lusacan of the municipality of Tiaong, Province of Tayabas. The plaintiff and appellee Maria Chomacera, in turn, sought to collect from the same defendant another indemnity in the sum of P100 for certain injuries received by her from the same cause and under the same circumstances which resulted in the death of said Fernanda Marquez.

    The defendant defended himself by alleging that the death of Fernanda Marquez was due to the exclusive fault and negligence of the chauffeur Mariano Capulong, and that in the selection and employment of the latter, as such, in his service, he exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family, so that he should not be made to answer for the damages caused by the imprudence of said employee. To this defense of the defendant, who at the same time alleged in his answer a counterclaim seeking an indemnity in the sum of P300 for the annoyance caused him by the plaintiffs, by compelling him to defend himself in the case, thereby incurring expenses in order to secure the services of an attorney, the plaintiffs and appellees filed a reply contending that it is of no avail to the defendant to have exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and employment of the chauffeur Mariano Capulong, claiming that the latter was duly licensed as such chauffeur, because, under the provisions of article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, he is, at any rate, bound subsidiarily to answer for the civil liability of said servant, subordinate, employee or chauffeur, for the reason that when the latter caused the death of the deceased Marquez, he was in the employ of the defendant.

    During the trial, the parties filed a stipulation of facts which appears inserted in the appealed decision, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That Mariano Capulong is the same accused convicted and sentenced in criminal case No. 7103 of this court, as evidenced by the judgment dated May 6, 1937.

    x       x       x


    "That said Mariano Capulong is insolvent, according to the investigations conducted by us to this date.

    "1. That the defendant Bernardo Castillo has exercised i due diligence as a good father of a family in selecting the chauffeur Mariano Capulong, and the plaintiffs admit that said chauffeur Mariano Capulong possesses an automobile driver’s license which, for purposes of identification, we request to be marked as Exhibit A, as a conclusive evidence of his having exercised due diligence.

    "2. That the defendant Bernardo Castillo is not engaged in any kind of business or industry on or about April 30, 1937, the date of the accident.

    "3. That the defendant Bernardo Castillo was not riding in the car at the time of the accident, and he did not know that his car was taken by the chauffeur Mariano Capulong.

    "4. That, by reason of this complaint, the defendant has suffered damages in the sum of P300 in order to prepare his defense.

    "That Fernanda Marquez, that is, the offended party in criminal case No. 7103, was earning at the rate of P1 a day on the date of her death; and that said Fernanda Marquez was only 50 years old when she died.

    "That the coplaintiff Maria Chomacera was earning at the rate of P1.20 a day at the time she received the injuries mentioned in the above-stated affidavit of Mariano Capulong, and that she incurred for her treatment expenses amounting to P100, as alleged in the complaint, while Fernanda Marquez spent for her burial and funeral the sum of P300, as alleged in the complaint."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It should be noted that in said stipulation, there is a provision appearing in paragraph 3 thereof, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That the defendant Bernardo Castillo was not riding in the car at the time of the accident, and he did not know that his car was taken by the chauffeur Mariano Capulong."cralaw virtua1aw library

    This fact decides the question because it clearly shows that the accident did not occur in the course of the performance of the duties or service for which said chauffeur Mariano Capulong had been hired. The defendant did not hire him to do as he pleased, using the defendant’s car as if it were his own. His duties and service were confined to driving his master’s car as the latter ordered him, and the accident did not take place under said circumstances. The subsidiary civil liability of the master, according to the provisions of article 103 of said Revised Penal Code, arises and takes place only when the servant, subordinate or employee commits a punishable criminal act while in the actual performance of his ordinary duties and service, and he is insolvent thereby rendering him incapable of satisfying by himself his own civil liability.

    The general rule regarding the obligation to repair the damage done, besides the one established in article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, is that he, who by an act or omission causes the damage through his fault or negligence, is the one called upon to repair the same (art. 1902, Civil Code). This rule, which extends only to cases mentioned in articles 1903 to 1910 of said Code, is in no way applicable to the appellant, all the more so because, as the lower court makes clear in its decision, neither was he in his car at the time of the accident for which Mariano Capulong was sentenced to pay an indemnity of P500 to the heirs of the deceased Marquez, nor was he negligent in the selection of his chauffeur, since he hired in his service precisely one who is duly licensed to drive a car.

    For the foregoing reasons, the appealed judgment is reversed, with the costs de oficio. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Laurel, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 46237   September 27, 1939 - ROSALIO MARQUEZ v. BERNARDO CASTILLO<br /><br />068 Phil 568


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED