GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH, petitioner, device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to

obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the

vs.
award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MARILOU T. GONZALES, of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and
respondents. deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and
reputation which followed thereafter. It is essential,
G.R. No. 97336 however, that such injury should have been committed
February 19, 1993 in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy.

FACTS:
Petitoner’s profession of love and promise to marry
Private respondent is a 22 year old Filipino citizen were empty words directly intended to fool, dupe,
residing in Dagupan City. Petitioner is an Iranian entice, beguile and deceive the poor woman into
medical exchange student at the Lyceum believing that indeed, he loved her and would want her
Northwestern Colleges in Dagupan City. Petitioner to be his life’s partner. His was nothing but pure lust
allegedly courted and proposed to marry her. which he wanted satisfied by a Filipina who honestly
Thereafter, private respondent began living with him. believed that by accepting his offer of love and
She allegedly was a virgin before such arrangement. proposal of marriage, she would be able to enjoy a life
A week before the filing of private respondent’s of ease and security. Petitioner clearly violated the
complaint, petitioner’s attitude towards her started to Filipino’s concept of morality and brazenly defied the
change; he maltreated and threatened to kill her. As a traditional respect Filipinos have for their women. It
result, she sustained injuries. Petitioner repudiated can even be said that the petitioner committed such
their marriage agreement and asked not to live with deplorable acts in blatant disregard of Article 19 of the
her anymore. Civil Code which directs every person to act with
justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and
Private respondent then prayed for judgment ordering good faith in the exercise of his rights and in the
the petitioner to pay her damages in the amount of performance of his obligations.
not less than P45,000.00, reimbursement for actual
expenses amounting to P600.00, attorney’s fees and Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or
costs, and granting her such other relief and remedies injury to another in manner that is contrary to morals,
as may be just and equitable. Petitioner denied the good customs or public policy shall compensate the
claims of private respondent. Accordingly, he never latter for the damage.
proposed marriage to or agreed to be married with Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his
the private respondent nor he forced her to live with rights and in the performance of his duties, act with
him. justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty
The lower court, applying Article 21 of the Civil Code, and good faith.
rendered a decision favoring the private respondent.
The CA affirmed in toto the trial court’s decision.

ISSUE:

WON a breach of promise to marry is actionable under

Article 21 of the Civil Code?

HELD:

Yes. The existing rule is that a breach of promise to

marry per se is not an actionable wrong. However,
where a man’s promise to marry is in fact the
proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a
woman and his representation to fulfill that promise
thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving
of herself unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he
had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that
the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive
Coca Cola vs CA 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."

Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes

damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

Article 1146. The following actions must be instituted

within four years:

(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;

(2) Upon a quasi-delict;

Article 1562. In a sale of goods, there is an implied

warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness of the
goods, as follows:

(1) Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes

known to the seller the particular purpose for which
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. the goods are acquired, and it appears that the buyer
CA and MS. LYDIA GERONIMOG.R. No. 110295
October 18, 1993 relies on the seller's skill or judgment (whether he be
the grower or manufacturer or not), there is an implied
Petition for review on certiorari (under Rule45) the warranty that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such
decision of the CA purpose;

DAVIDE, JR., J.: (2) Where the goods are brought by description from a
seller who deals in goods of that description (whether
FACTS: Private respondent was the proprietress of he be the grower or manufacturer or not), there is an
Kindergarten Wonderland Canteen in Dagupan City. implied warranty that the goods shall be of
In August 1989, some parents of the students merchantable quality.
complained to her that the Coke and Sprite soft
drinks sold by her contained fiber-like matter and Article 1571. Actions arising from the provisions of the
other foreign substances. She brought the said preceding ten articles shall be barred after six months,
bottles for examination to DOH and it was found out
that the soft drinks “are adulterated.” As a result, her from the delivery of the thing sold.
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 CA’s conclusion that the

cause of action in the case at bar is found on quasi-
delict under Article 1146 of the CC which prescribes
LG Foods & Victorino Gabor vs. Hon.
Philadelfa Agraviador & Sps. Florention and HELD:
Theresa Vallejera The Supreme Court ruled that Art. 2180 of the
GR No. 158995 (26 September 2006) Civil Code is to be applied in this case.

FACTS: Under Art. 2180, the liability of the employer is

On 26 Feb. 1996, Charles Vallejera (7 yrs old) direct or immediate. It is not conditioned upon
was hit by a Ford Fiera van owned by LG Foods prior recourse against the negligent employee and a
and driven by Vincent Ferrer (employee). Charles prior showing of insolvency of such
died as a result. employee.

An Information for Reckless Imprudence The complaint of the Spouses Vallejera had
Resulting to Homicide was filed against Ferrer sufficiently alleged that the death of Charles was
before caused by the negligent act of LG Foods’ driver.
the MTCC Bacolod City. However, before the Hence, LG Foods is civilly liable for the
trial could be concluded, Ferrer committed negligence of their driver for failing “to exercise
suicide. The MTCC had dismissed the case. the necessary diligence required of a good
father of the family in the selection and supervision
On 23 June 1999, in the RTC of Bacolod City, the of [their] employee, the driver, which
spouses Vallejera filed a complaint for diligence, if exercised, would have prevented said
damages against LG Foods as employers of the accident.”
deceased Ferrer. They allege that as the
employers, they had failed to exercise the due To add, the Court also stated that “victims of
diligence in the selection and supervision of their negligence or their heirs have a choice between an
employees. action to enforce the civil liability arising from
culpa criminal under Article 100 of the Revised
LG Foods denied liability for the death of Charles. Penal Code, and an action for quasi-delict (culpa
They claimed that they had exercised the aquiliana) under Articles 2176 to 2194 of theCivil
required due diligence in the selection and Code.”
supervision of their employees. They moved for
the Since Ferrer had committed suicide, the Spouses
dismissal of the complaint for lack of cause of Vallejera had no other remedy but to sue LG
action. Foods based on their direct and primary liability
based on quasi-delict.
LG Foods argued that the complaint is a “claim
for subsidiary liability against an employer”
under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code. They The Supreme Court had denied the petition of LG
contend that there must be first a judgment of Foods.
conviction against Ferrer as a condition sine qua
non to hold them liable. And because Ferrer Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176
had died during the pendency of the criminal case, is demandable not only for one's own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
the sine qua non condition for their subsidiary one is responsible.
liability was not fulfilled, hence the lack of cause
of action on the part of the spouses Vallejera. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
mother, are responsible for the damages caused by
On 4 Sept. 2001, the trial court denied the motion the minor children who live in their company.
to dismiss for lack of merit. To add, the case
exacts responsibility for fault or negligence under Guardians are liable for damages caused by the
Art. 2176 of the Civil Code, which is entirely minors or incapacitated persons who are under their
separate and distinct from the civil liability arising authority and live in their company.
from negligence under the Revised Penal
Code. They applied Art. 2180 of the Civil Code in The owners and managers of an establishment or
determining the liability of LG Foods. enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on the
ISSUE: occasion of their functions.
Is the cause of action of the Spouses Vallejera
founded on Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code Employers shall be liable for the damages caused
(as LG Foods assert) or derived from Art. 2180 of by their employees and household helpers acting
the Civil Code? within the scope of their assigned tasks, even
though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry.

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts

through a special agent; but not when the damage
has been caused by the official to whom the task
done properly pertains, in which case what is
provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts

and trades shall be liable for damages caused by
their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as
they remain in their custody.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall

cease when the persons herein mentioned prove
that they observed all the diligence of a good father
of a family to prevent damage. (1903a)

Article 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony.

- Every person criminally liable for a felony is also
civilly liable.

Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons.

- The subsidiary liability established in the next
preceding article shall also apply to employers,
teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any
kind of industry for felonies committed by their
servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or
employees in the discharge of their duties.
 ORIENT FREIGHT INTERNATIONAL INC. VS. KEIHIN-EVERETT complaint, Keihin-Everett alleged that Orient Freight's
FORWARDING COMPANY INC. "misrepresentation, malice, negligence and fraud" caused the
termination of its In-House Brokerage Service Agreement with
G.R. No. 191937, August 9, 2017
Matsushita. Keihin-Everett prayed for compensation for lost
income, with legal interest, exemplary damages, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses, and the costs of the suit. The RTC
rendered a Decision in favor of Keihin-Everett. It found that
FACTS: Orient Freight was "negligent in failing to investigate properly
the incident and make a factual report to Keihin [-Everett] and
On October 16, 2001, Keihin-Everett entered into a Trucking
Matsushita. Orient Freight appealed the said Decision to the
Service Agreement with Matsushita. Under the Trucking
Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals issued its Decision
Service Agreement, Keihin-Everett would provide services for
affirming the trial court's decision.
Matsushita's trucking requirements. These services were
subcontracted by Keihin-Everett to Orient Freight, through ISSUE:
their own Trucking Service Agreement executed on the same
day. Whether or not Article 2176 is applicable in this case

When the Trucking Service Agreement between Keihin-

Everett and Matsushita expired on December 31, 2001,
RULING:
Keihin-Everett executed an In-House Brokerage Service
Agreement for Matsushita's Philippine Economic Zone Negligence may either result in culpa aquiliana or culpa
Authority export operations. Keihin-Everett continued to contractual. Culpa aquiliana is the "the wrongful or negligent
retain the services of Orient Freight, which sub-contracted its act or omission which creates a vinculum juris and gives rise
work to Schmitz Transport and Brokerage Corporation. to an obligation between two persons not formally bound by
any other obligation," and is governed by Article 2176 of the
In April 2002, Matsushita called Keihin-Everett about a
Civil Code:
column in the issue of the tabloid newspaper Tempo. This
news narrated the April 17, 2002 interception by Caloocan Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
City police of a stolen truck filled with shipment of video another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
monitors and CCTV systems owned by Matsushita for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
pre- existing contractual relation between the parties, is
When contacted by Keihin-Everett about this news, Orient
called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of
Freight stated that the tabloid report had blown the incident
this Chapter.
out of proportion. They claimed that the incident simply
involved the breakdown and towing of Keihin-Everett Actions based on contractual negligence and actions based
independently investigated the incident. During its on quasi-delicts differ in terms of conditions, defenses, and
investigation, it obtained a police report from the Caloocan proof. They generally cannot co-exist.
City Police Station. The report stated, among others, that at
around 2:00 p.m. on April 17, 2002, somewhere in Plaza Once a breach of contract is proved, the defendant is
Dilao, Paco Street, Manila, Cudas told Aquino to report presumed negligent and must prove not being at fault. In a
engine trouble to Orient Freight. After Aquino made the quasi-delict, however, the complaining party has the
phone call, he informed Orient Freight that the truck had burden of proving the other party's negligence.
gone missing. When the truck was intercepted by the police
However, there are instances when Article 2176 may apply
along C3 Road near the corner of Dagat-Dagatan Avenue in
even when there is a pre-existing contractual relation. A
Caloocan City, Cudas escaped and became the subject of a
party may still commit a tort or quasi-delict against another,
manhunt. The truck was promptly released and did not miss
despite the existence of a contract between them.
the closing time of the vessel intended for the shipment.

Matsushita terminated its In-House Brokerage Service Here, petitioner denies that it was obliged to disclose the
Agreement with Keihin-Everett, effective July 1, 2002. facts regarding the hijacking incident since this was not
Matsushita cited loss of confidence for terminating the among the provisions of its Trucking Service Agreement with
contract, stating that Keihin-Everett's way of handling the respondent. There being no contractual obligation,
April 17, 2002 incident and its nondisclosure of this incident's respondent had no cause of action against petitioner.
relevant facts "amounted to fraud and signified an utter
disregard of the rule of law. Keihin-Everett sent a letter to The obligation to report what happened during the hijacking
Orient Freight, demanding P2,500,000.00 as indemnity for incident, admittedly, does not appear on the plain text of the
lost income. It argued that Orient Freight's mishandling of Trucking Service Agreement. Petitioner argues that it is
the situation caused the termination of Keihin-Everett's nowhere in the agreement. Respondent does not dispute
contract with Matsushita. this claim. Neither the Regional Trial Court nor the Court of
Appeals relied on the provisions of the Trucking Service
When Orient Freight refused to pay, Keihin-Everett filed a
Agreement to arrive at their respective conclusions. Breach
complaint dated October 2ti, 2002 for damages. In its
of the Trucking Service Agreement was neither alleged nor
proved.

While petitioner and respondent were contractually bound

under the Trucking Service Agreement and the events at the
crux of this controversy occurred during the
performance of this contract, it is apparent that
the duty to investigate and report arose
subsequent to the Trucking Service Agreement.

When respondent discovered the news report

on the hijacking incident, it contacted
petitioner, requesting information on the
incident. Respondent then requested petitioner
to investigate and report on the veracity of the
news report. Pursuant to respondent's request,
petitioner met with respondent and Matsushita
on April 20, 2002 and issued a letter dated April
22, 2002, addressed to Matsushita.
Respondent's claim was based on petitioner's
negligent conduct when it was required to
investigate and report on the incident.

Both the Regional Trial Court and Court of

Appeals erred in finding petitioner's negligence
of its obligation to report to be an action based
on a quasi-delict.

Petitioner's negligence did not create the

vinculum juris or legal relationship with the
respondent, which would have otherwise given
rise to a quasi-delict.

Petitioner's duty to respondent existed prior to

its negligent act. When respondent contacted
petitioner regarding the news report and asked
it to investigate the incident, petitioner's
obligation was created.

Thereafter, petitioner was alleged to have

performed its obligation negligently, causing
damage to respondent.

The doctrine "the act that breaks the contract

may also be a tort," on which the lower courts
relied, is inapplicable here.

Petitioner's negligence, arising as it does from

its performance of its obligation to respondent,
is dependent on this obligation. Neither do the
facts show that Article 21 of the Civil Code
applies, there being no finding that petitioner's
act was a conscious one to cause harm, or be
of such a degree as to approximate fraud or
bad faith.

Consequently, Articles 1170, 1172, and 1173 of

the Civil Code on negligence in the
performance of an obligation should
apply. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The January 21,

2010 Decision and April 21, 2010 Resolution of the

 Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 91fifi9 are
AFFIRMED.

Article 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or
delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. (1101)

Article 1171. Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations. Any waiver of an
action for future fraud is void. (1102a)

Article 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is
also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances.
(1103)

Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is
required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of
the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and
2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.

If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that
which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required. (1104a)
 Topic: /Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the Decision of the affirming the
Decision of RTC of Makati City in Civil Case, dismissing for lack of merit Dr. Genevieve L.
ςrνll

Huang’s Complaint for Damages. Assailed as well is the Court of Appeals Resolutiondenying for
lack of merit petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.

05. DR. HUANG v. PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS, INC.

G.R. No. 180440; December 5, 2012 Second Division
FACTS: A Complaint for Damages was filed by Dr. Huang against Dusit Hotel
alleging negligence of t Hotel’s staff, in the untimely putting out all the lights
within the hotel’s swimming pool area as well as the locking of the main entrance
door of the area, prompting petitioner to grope for a way out. While doing so, a
folding wooden counter top, which she lifted as she reached for a hotel phone, fell
on her head causing her serious brain injury. The trial court ruled that Huang’s own
negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of her injury, she cannot
recover damages. Huang elevated the matter to the CA which affirmed the decision
of trial court. Huang on Appeal contended that an implied contract existed between
them in view of the fact that the hotel guest status extends to all those who avail of
its service sits patrons and invitees. It follows then that all those who patronize the
hotel and its facilities, including those who are invited to partake of those facilities,
like her, are generally regarded as guests of the hotel. As such, Dusit Hotel is
responsible by implied contract for the safety and welfare of Huang while the latter
was inside their premises by exercising due care, which they failed to do. She
argues that a person who goes in a hotel without a "bukol" or hematoma and comes
out of it with a "bukol" or hematoma is a clear case of res ipsa loquitur.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the complaint is one for violation of an Implied Contract so that
res ipsa loquitur is applicable in this case?
2. Whether or not respondents are liable for the injury sustained by the petitioner
based on the theory of quasi-delict?

Ruling:
1. No. The allegations in Huang’s Complaint constitute a cause of action for quasi-
delict, which under the New Civil Code is defined as an act, or omission which
causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence.

2. Huang utterly failed to prove the alleged negligence of Dusit Hotel. Her own
Complaint affirmed that Dusit Hotel afforded medical assistance to her after she
met the unfortunate accident inside the hotel’s swimming pool facility. It was
established that petitioner stayed in the hotel’s swimming pool facility beyond its
closing hours; she lifted the folding counter top that eventually hit her head; and
Dusi Hotelt extended medical assistance to her. As such, no negligence can be
attributed to the respondents or to their staff.

Penned by: Assoc. Justice JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ/Assoc. Justice BRION A.,
Assoc. Justice VELASCO P., Assoc. Justice VILLARAMA M., and Assoc. Justice
PERLAS-BERNABE E. concurred.

Elements of Quasi-Delict