Tag: Proximate Cause

Electrical Utility Liability: Establishing Negligence in Infrastructure Management

This Supreme Court decision clarifies the liability of electric distribution companies for damages caused by negligently installed facilities. The Court held that Visayan Electric Company, Inc. (VECO) was liable for a fire caused by its haphazardly installed posts and wires, emphasizing that as a public utility, VECO is presumed to have the expertise and resources for safe installations. This ruling underscores the responsibility of utility companies to ensure the safety and integrity of their infrastructure to prevent harm to the public.

When Wires Cross: Who Pays When a Utility’s Negligence Sparks Disaster?

In the case of Visayan Electric Company, Inc. v. Emilio G. Alfeche, et al., the Supreme Court addressed the critical issue of liability when a fire erupted due to the alleged negligence of an electric distribution company. The incident occurred on January 6, 1998, in San Fernando, Cebu, where a fire razed the properties of Emilio and Gilbert Alfeche, along with Emmanuel Manugas’s watch repair shop. The plaintiffs claimed that the fire was caused by the constant abrasion between VECO’s electric wire and M. Lhuillier’s signboard. This case hinges on determining whether VECO or M. Lhuillier was responsible for the conditions leading to the fire.

The Alfeches and Manugas filed a complaint for damages against both VECO and M. Lhuillier, asserting that VECO’s poorly maintained wires caused the fire. VECO countered by arguing that M. Lhuillier’s signage was the primary cause of the incident. The Regional Trial Court initially sided with VECO, finding M. Lhuillier negligent for installing its signage in a manner that interfered with VECO’s power lines. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, attributing the negligence to VECO for failing to ensure the safe relocation of its posts and wires during a road-widening project. This conflicting assessment of facts and liabilities brought the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, emphasized the importance of establishing proximate cause—the direct link between the negligent act and the resulting damages. The Court referenced Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which governs quasi-delicts, stating:

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.

The elements for establishing a quasi-delict include: (1) damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) fault or negligence of the defendant; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred. The Court found that all these elements were present in VECO’s actions.

The Court noted that both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals agreed on the immediate cause of the fire—a short circuit in VECO’s wires, triggered by the abrasion against M. Lhuillier’s signage. The critical point of contention was whether VECO’s or M. Lhuillier’s actions led to this dangerous condition. The Supreme Court sided with the Court of Appeals, pointing out that VECO had relocated its posts and wires closer to M. Lhuillier’s signage due to a road-widening project. This relocation, without adequate safety measures, created the dangerous proximity that led to the fire.

The Court dismissed VECO’s defense that the relocation occurred after the fire, calling it illogical and contrary to the evidence presented. Witnesses testified that M. Lhuillier’s signage was installed without any obstruction in 1995, well before the road-widening project. The testimony of Engr. Lauronal, the Municipal Engineer of San Fernando, Cebu, was particularly compelling. He stated that the relocation of VECO’s posts was necessitated by the drainage project, which was completed before the fire. He further noted that had VECO not moved its posts, the wires would not have touched M. Lhuillier’s signage. The Supreme Court gave considerable weight to Engr. Lauronal’s testimony, recognizing his objectivity and expertise as a municipal engineer.

VECO also attempted to discredit Emilio Alfeche’s testimony by labeling him as a biased witness. However, the Court found no indication that Emilio was actively impeding VECO’s attempt to shift liability to M. Lhuillier. His decision to sue both parties suggested a neutral stance, seeking only compensation for the damages suffered. This underscores the principle that the burden of proof lies with the party alleging negligence. In this case, the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to VECO’s failure to exercise due diligence in maintaining and relocating its electrical infrastructure.

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized the high standard of care required of public utilities like VECO. As the sole electric distribution company in San Fernando, VECO had the responsibility to ensure the safety and security of its transmission lines. By failing to take necessary precautions during the relocation of its posts, VECO demonstrated a clear lack of diligence. The Court stated:

It was utterly negligent of VECO to have allowed the transfer of the posts closer to the households without ensuring that they followed the same safety standards they used during the original installation of the posts. It must be emphasized that VECO, as the only electric distribution company in San Fernando, takes full charge and control of all the electric wires installed in the locality. It has the sole power and responsibility to transfer its wires to safe and secured places for all its consumers. However, they undoubtedly failed to observe the reasonable care and caution required of it under the circumstances. Hence, they are negligent.

This ruling reinforces the concept of corporate social responsibility for public utilities. It is not enough for these companies to provide essential services; they must also ensure that their operations do not pose undue risks to the public. This responsibility extends to proper maintenance, safe installations, and proactive measures to prevent accidents.

The Supreme Court distinguished this case from others where the negligence of the injured party contributed to the damages. In this instance, M. Lhuillier acted reasonably in installing its signage, and there was no evidence to suggest contributory negligence. Therefore, VECO’s negligence was the sole and proximate cause of the fire and the resulting damages. The Court highlighted that:

Proximate cause is defined as “that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred.”

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding VECO liable for the damages suffered by the Alfeches and Manugas. The Court ordered VECO to pay temperate damages to Emilio Alfeche (₱185,000.00), Gilbert Alfeche (₱800,000.00), and Emmanuel Manugas (₱65,000.00). This decision serves as a crucial reminder to public utilities about their obligations to ensure public safety through diligent management of their infrastructure.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was determining which party, VECO or M. Lhuillier, was liable for the fire that damaged the properties of the respondents due to negligence. The central question revolved around whether the electric company took sufficient precautions when relocating their electrical posts.
What is proximate cause in this context?	Proximate cause is the direct cause that leads to an event. In this case, it refers to the action or negligence that directly resulted in the fire, establishing the legal responsibility of the liable party.
Why was VECO found liable by the Supreme Court?	VECO was found liable because it negligently relocated its posts and wires closer to M. Lhuillier’s signage without taking necessary safety measures, causing the wires to abrade against the signage and spark the fire. The court emphasized VECO’s failure to exercise due diligence as a public utility.
What is a quasi-delict?	A quasi-delict is an act or omission that causes damage to another due to fault or negligence, without any pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties. It is governed by Article 2176 of the Civil Code.
What standard of care is expected of public utilities?	Public utilities are expected to exercise a high degree of care to ensure public safety. They are presumed to have the expertise and resources to safely install and maintain their facilities.
What was the significance of Engr. Lauronal’s testimony?	Engr. Lauronal’s testimony was significant because he confirmed that VECO’s posts were relocated before the fire due to a drainage project, and that this relocation brought the wires closer to the signage. His testimony supported the claim that VECO’s negligence caused the fire.
What is the role of the Civil Code in this case?	The Civil Code, particularly Article 2176, provides the legal basis for determining liability in cases of quasi-delict. It establishes that anyone who causes damage to another through fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done.
How does this case affect future liability claims against utility companies?	This case sets a precedent for holding utility companies accountable for damages resulting from their negligent actions in installing and maintaining infrastructure. It reinforces the need for these companies to prioritize public safety and exercise due diligence in their operations.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Visayan Electric Company, Inc. v. Emilio G. Alfeche, et al. serves as a potent reminder of the responsibilities that come with being a public utility. The obligation to provide essential services is inextricably linked to the duty to ensure public safety through diligent infrastructure management. This ruling reinforces the necessity for utility companies to exercise utmost care and caution in their operations, holding them accountable for negligence that leads to damages.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. VS. EMILIO G. ALFECHE, ET AL., G.R. No. 209910, November 29, 2017

November 29, 2017

Breach of Banking Policy: Manager’s Negligence Leads to Civil Liability

In Philippine National Bank v. Pablo V. Raymundo, the Supreme Court addressed the civil liability of a bank manager acquitted of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Court ruled that despite the acquittal, the manager could still be held civilly liable due to gross negligence in approving the encashment of checks against an uncleared foreign deposit, causing financial loss to the bank. This decision underscores the high standard of diligence expected of bank officers and the potential for civil liability even in the absence of criminal culpability.

When Trust Fails: Can a Bank Manager Be Liable for Subordinate Errors?

This case arose from a situation where Pablo V. Raymundo, then a department manager at Philippine National Bank (PNB), approved the deposit of a foreign draft check and subsequently allowed withdrawals against it before the check had cleared. When the foreign draft check turned out to be fraudulent, PNB suffered a loss of P4,000,000.00. Raymundo was charged with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. While Raymundo was acquitted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), PNB appealed the civil aspect of the decision, seeking to recover the financial losses. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied PNB’s appeal, leading to this petition before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court emphasized that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically preclude civil liability. The Court distinguishes between two types of acquittals: one where the accused is found not to be the author of the act or omission, and another where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt. In the latter, the accused may still be held civilly liable if the civil liability is proven by preponderance of evidence. As the Court stated in Dr. Lumantas v. Sps. Calapiz, Jr.:

Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability of the accused. First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of…The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only.

In Raymundo’s case, the acquittal was based on the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC and CA had erroneously concluded that no civil liability could arise from his actions. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that Raymundo’s reliance on his subordinates’ verification of the checks, which later proved to be drawn against uncollected deposits, constituted gross negligence.

The Court noted that both the RTC and the CA had overlooked crucial testimonial and documentary evidence presented by PNB. This evidence demonstrated Raymundo’s negligence in approving the payment of six checks without waiting for the foreign draft check to clear. The Court highlighted Raymundo’s own admissions in affidavits, complaints, and testimonies from other cases he had filed against Ms. Juan and her associates. These admissions, while not violating his right against self-incrimination, revealed the extent of his negligence.

Specifically, Raymundo’s complaint for sum of money against Ms. Juan revealed that he was initially hesitant to approve the account opening and issuance of checks. He allowed the transactions only after receiving assurances that the foreign check was good. His affidavit supporting the estafa complaint further emphasized that he permitted the issuance of six checks based on the promise that they would not be negotiated until the Morgan Guaranty Check had cleared.

The Supreme Court also cited Raymundo’s affidavit:

…having been fully assured that the Morgan check is good and trusting on their respective representations that they are top executives of the C&T Global Futures, Inc., I allowed the issuance of six (6) checks…I allowed the aforecited checks to be issued on the strong and collective undertaking of all the accused, that the same would not be traded until after the Morgan Guaranty Check shall have been cleared.

These admissions, while intended to support his claims against Ms. Juan, inadvertently exposed his gross negligence in disregarding the bank’s established policies for clearing foreign checks. The Court stated that while Raymundo’s prompt filing of criminal and civil cases against Ms. Juan and her cohorts for the recovery of the money negates bad faith in causing undue injury to the PNB, it incidentally revealed Raymundo’s gross negligence (1) in allowing the peso conversion of the foreign check to be credited to her newly-opened peso checking account, even before the lapse of the 21-day clearing period, and (2) in issuing her a check booklet, all on the very same day the said account was opened.

The Court reiterated that banks are required to exercise extraordinary diligence due to the public interest nature of their business. This includes exercising the highest degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees. Bank employees and officials are expected to demonstrate a higher degree of responsibility, care, and trustworthiness than ordinary clerks and employees. By disregarding the bank’s foreign check clearing policy, Raymundo was grossly negligent.

The Supreme Court defined gross negligence as:

negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and unintentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.

The Court concluded that Raymundo’s actions were the proximate cause of the bank’s losses. Had he adhered to the bank’s clearing policy, the six checks would not have been encashed, and PNB would not have suffered financial injury. However, the Court also clarified that actual damages must be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty. While PNB initially claimed damages of P4,000,000.00, the Court found that the bank had only proven losses amounting to P2,100,882.87, based on the accounts receivable ledger and PNB’s own witness testimonies.

The Court ordered Raymundo to pay PNB actual damages of P2,100,882.87, along with legal interest rates. These rates include 12% per annum from the filing of the criminal information until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013, until the finality of the decision. Additionally, a 6% per annum interest rate would be applied from the finality of the decision until the amount is fully paid.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a bank manager, acquitted of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, could still be held civilly liable for losses incurred by the bank due to his actions. The court examined if the manager’s actions constituted gross negligence.
What is the difference between criminal and civil liability in this context?	Criminal liability requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, while civil liability only requires a preponderance of evidence. An acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically preclude civil liability if negligence is proven.
What standard of care is expected of bank employees?	Banks are required to exercise extraordinary diligence, more than that of a good father of a family, in handling transactions. This extends to the selection and supervision of employees, who are expected to demonstrate a high degree of responsibility and trustworthiness.
What constituted gross negligence in this case?	Gross negligence was found in the bank manager’s approval of the deposit and subsequent withdrawals against a foreign check before it had cleared. This was a violation of the bank’s foreign check clearing policy.
How did the court determine the amount of damages?	The court relied on the accounts receivable ledger and the bank’s witness testimonies to determine the actual losses incurred. The initial claim of P4,000,000.00 was reduced to P2,100,882.87 due to lack of sufficient proof for the higher amount.
What is proximate cause?	Proximate cause is the direct cause, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury and without which the result would not have occurred. In this case, the manager’s failure to adhere to clearing policies was deemed the proximate cause.
What interest rates apply to the damages awarded?	The court applied varying legal interest rates: 12% per annum from the filing of the criminal information until June 30, 2013, 6% per annum from July 1, 2013, until the finality of the decision, and 6% per annum from the finality of the decision until full payment.
Is reliance on subordinates a valid defense against negligence?	Generally, no. While managers may delegate tasks, they cannot blindly rely on subordinates without exercising due diligence. In this case, the manager’s reliance on subordinates without ensuring compliance with bank policies was deemed negligent.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Philippine National Bank v. Pablo V. Raymundo serves as a reminder of the high standards of care expected of bank officers and the potential for civil liability even in cases where criminal guilt is not established. It underscores the importance of adhering to established banking policies and exercising due diligence in all transactions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Philippine National Bank v. Pablo V. Raymundo, G.R. No. 208672, December 07, 2016

September 11, 2017

Bank Manager’s Negligence: Civil Liability Despite Acquittal in Anti-Graft Case

This Supreme Court decision clarifies that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically absolve a person of civil liability. The ruling emphasizes that even when an accused is acquitted due to the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, civil liability may still be established through preponderance of evidence. Specifically, the Court found a bank manager civilly liable for gross negligence, despite being acquitted of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. This case underscores the importance of diligence and adherence to banking regulations, especially for bank officers, and illustrates how civil liability can arise from the same set of facts as a criminal charge, even when the latter fails.

From Acquittal to Accountability: When Banking Oversight Leads to Civil Liability

The case revolves around Pablo V. Raymundo, a former Department Manager of Philippine National Bank (PNB) San Pedro Branch, who was charged with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The charge stemmed from Raymundo’s approval of the encashment of six checks drawn against an uncleared foreign check. While Raymundo was acquitted in the criminal case, PNB pursued the civil aspect, seeking to recover the financial losses it incurred as a result of Raymundo’s actions. The central legal question is whether Raymundo can be held civilly liable for negligence, despite his acquittal in the criminal case.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue by distinguishing between two types of acquittals: one based on the finding that the accused did not commit the act, and another based on reasonable doubt. The Court explained:

Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability of the accused. First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission. There being no delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the question… The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only.

In Raymundo’s case, the acquittal was based on reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Court proceeded to evaluate whether he could be held civilly liable based on preponderance of evidence. The Court found that Raymundo was indeed grossly negligent in approving the payment of the six checks without waiting for the foreign draft check to clear.

The Court emphasized that factual findings of the appellate court are generally conclusive. However, this rule does not apply when the lower courts have ignored crucial testimonial and documentary evidence. In this instance, the Supreme Court found that both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) failed to consider evidence demonstrating Raymundo’s negligence.

The Court highlighted Raymundo’s own admissions in previous complaints and affidavits, where he acknowledged relying on the assurances of the account holder, Ms. Juan, and her associates. Specifically, Raymundo admitted that he allowed the issuance of the six checks based on their promise that they would not be negotiated until the foreign check had cleared.

4. That at first, plaintiff herein [Raymundo] was a bit hesitant to immediately accommodate the seemingly hasty manner of opening a current account not only on the fact that the amount involved was quite big but also on account that he was dealing with a foreign check. But when the group, particularly defendant “Cleo” Tan, showed to him the record of a just-concluded overseas call confirming that the said Morgan Guaranty Company check was good, plaintiff allowed the issuance of six (6) checks bearing different dates in the total amount of P4,000,000.00 all payable to herein defendant corporation upon the undertaking of the group that the same would not be “traded” or negotiated until the said Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. check has been finally cleared;

The Court reasoned that these admissions revealed Raymundo’s gross negligence in disregarding the bank’s foreign check clearing policy. By allowing the peso conversion of the foreign check and issuing a check booklet on the same day the account was opened, Raymundo created the opportunity for the fraudulent encashment of the six checks.

The Court also emphasized the high standard of diligence required of banks, given the public interest nature of their business. The Court stated:

Since their business and industry are imbued with public interest, banks are required to exercise extraordinary diligence, which is more than that of a Roman pater familias or a good father of a family, in handling their transactions. Banks are also expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that a bank’s disregard of its own banking policy constitutes gross negligence. It described gross negligence as:

negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and unintentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.

In light of these principles, the Court concluded that Raymundo’s actions were the proximate cause of PNB’s losses. The Court found that had Raymundo adhered to the bank’s foreign check clearing policy, the fraudulent encashment of the checks would not have occurred.

While PNB claimed damages of P4,000,000.00, the Court found that the actual losses proven with certainty amounted to P2,100,882.87. This amount was based on the accounts receivable ledger and PNB’s letter, which showed that Raymundo’s account receivable was reduced to this amount after the application of certain check payments.

Finally, the Court addressed the issue of legal interest. It determined that PNB was entitled to legal interest on the damages awarded, calculated from the filing of the criminal information until full payment, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.

FAQs

What was the central issue in this case?	The central issue was whether a bank manager could be held civilly liable for negligence, even after being acquitted in a criminal case related to the same actions. The case hinged on the difference between the standards of proof required for criminal and civil liability.
What is the difference between acquittal based on reasonable doubt and acquittal based on the accused not committing the act?	An acquittal based on reasonable doubt means the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but civil liability may still exist. An acquittal based on the accused not committing the act means there is no basis for either criminal or civil liability.
What standard of diligence is expected of banks?	Banks are expected to exercise extraordinary diligence, which is more than that of a good father of a family. This high standard is due to the public interest nature of the banking industry.
What constitutes gross negligence in the context of banking?	Gross negligence in banking involves a disregard for even slight care, acting or failing to act with conscious indifference to the consequences. This includes disregarding established banking policies and procedures.
What is proximate cause?	Proximate cause is the direct cause that produces an injury, without which the injury would not have occurred. In this case, the bank manager’s approval of the deposit before clearance was deemed the proximate cause of the bank’s losses.
How did the Court determine the amount of damages?	The Court relied on the accounts receivable ledger and PNB’s letter, which showed the actual losses incurred after applying certain check payments. The Court only awarded damages that were proven with a reasonable degree of certainty.
What is the significance of extra-judicial admissions in this case?	The bank manager’s own complaints and affidavits in previous cases, where he admitted relying on assurances regarding the foreign check, were used as evidence of his negligence. These admissions undermined his defense in the civil case.
What interest rates apply to the damages awarded in this case?	The Court applied a 12% per annum interest rate from the filing of the criminal information until June 30, 2013, and a 6% per annum rate from July 1, 2013, until the finality of the decision. Additionally, a 6% per annum interest rate applies from the finality of the decision until full payment.

This decision serves as a reminder that even in cases where criminal charges do not result in a conviction, civil liability can still arise from negligent acts. Bank officers, in particular, must exercise a high degree of diligence and adhere to established banking policies to avoid potential liability for financial losses.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Philippine National Bank vs. Pablo V. Raymundo, G.R. No. 208672, December 7, 2016

September 11, 2017

Drunk Driving and Negligence: Establishing Liability in Vehicle Accidents

The Supreme Court held that a driver operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and causing an accident is liable for damages due to negligence, even if other factors contributed to the incident. This decision underscores the responsibility of drivers to exercise due care and emphasizes that driving under the influence significantly increases the risk of being held liable for any resulting harm. It serves as a reminder that negligence, particularly when compounded by impaired driving, can have severe legal and financial repercussions.

Road to Responsibility: How Drunk Driving Led to Devastating Consequences

This case revolves around a vehicular accident that occurred on April 1, 1999, involving Al Dela Cruz, the petitioner, and Captain Renato Octaviano, one of the respondents. Captain Octaviano, along with his mother and sister, were riding a tricycle when it was struck by a car driven by Dela Cruz. The impact resulted in severe injuries to Captain Octaviano, ultimately leading to the amputation of his leg. The central legal question is whether Dela Cruz’s actions constituted negligence and if his negligence was the proximate cause of the accident.

The respondents filed a civil case for damages against Dela Cruz, alleging that his negligent driving caused the accident and subsequent injuries. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed the case, finding Dela Cruz’s version of the events more credible. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s decision, concluding that Dela Cruz was indeed negligent, citing a police report indicating that he had an alcoholic breath at the time of the accident. The CA also emphasized that driving under the influence of alcohol is a violation of Republic Act No. 4136, the Land Transportation and Traffic Code.

At the heart of the matter is the concept of negligence, which the Supreme Court defined in Romulo Abrogar, et al. v. Cosmos Bottling Company, et al. as:

Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.

The Court further explained that under Article 1173 of the Civil Code, negligence involves the omission of diligence required by the nature of the obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of the person, time, and place. In the case at hand, determining whether Dela Cruz was negligent involves assessing whether he exercised reasonable care and caution while driving.

To establish negligence, the court applies the time-honored test from Picart v. Smith:

Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.

The determination is not based on the actor’s personal judgment but on what a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence would do. In addition to proving negligence, it must be established that the damage suffered was a direct consequence of that negligence. This principle is echoed in Vda. de Gregorio v. Go Chong Bing, emphasizing the need to show damages, negligence, and a causal connection between the two.

The Supreme Court, siding with the CA, found that Dela Cruz’s negligence was adequately demonstrated. The CA relied on the police report and testimonies from witnesses who stated that Dela Cruz appeared to be intoxicated on the night of the accident. According to the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, specifically Chapter IV, Article V, Section 53, driving under the influence of liquor or narcotic drugs is strictly prohibited:

Republic Act No. 4136, Chapter IV, Article V, Section 53 known as Land Transportation and Traffic Code provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor or narcotic drug.

The Court emphasized the direct link between Dela Cruz’s state of intoxication and the accident, stating that had he exercised due caution, the collision would not have occurred. Moreover, the Court dismissed the argument of contributory negligence on the part of the tricycle driver or Captain Octaviano. Contributory negligence requires a causal link between the injured party’s actions and the resulting harm, which was not sufficiently established in this case.

The Court underscored the importance of proximate cause, which it defined as “that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new cause, produces an event, and without which the event would not have occurred.” The court found that the proximate cause of the accident was Dela Cruz’s negligence, not any alleged fault of the tricycle driver or Captain Octaviano.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision to award moral and exemplary damages to the respondents. Moral damages are intended to compensate for injuries such as physical suffering, mental anguish, and social humiliation, while exemplary damages serve as a deterrent against serious wrongdoing.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Al Dela Cruz was negligent in driving under the influence of alcohol, thereby causing the accident and injuries to Captain Renato Octaviano and his family.
What evidence did the Court rely on to determine negligence?	The Court relied on the police report indicating Dela Cruz had an alcoholic breath, as well as testimonies from witnesses who observed that he appeared to be drunk at the time of the accident.
What is contributory negligence and how did it apply to this case?	Contributory negligence is conduct by the injured party that contributes to the harm suffered. The Court found no causal link between the actions of the tricycle driver or Captain Octaviano and the accident, thus dismissing the claim of contributory negligence.
What is proximate cause and why is it important?	Proximate cause is the direct cause that produces an event without which the event would not have occurred. Establishing proximate cause is crucial in determining liability for damages.
What is Republic Act No. 4136 and how does it relate to this case?	Republic Act No. 4136, the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, prohibits driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotic drugs. This law was critical in establishing Dela Cruz’s negligence.
What are moral and exemplary damages?	Moral damages compensate for non-pecuniary losses such as pain, suffering, and humiliation. Exemplary damages are awarded to deter serious wrongdoings and to punish outrageous conduct.
Why was the initial RTC decision reversed by the CA?	The CA reversed the RTC decision because it found that the RTC had overlooked the fact that Dela Cruz was driving under the influence of alcohol, a clear violation of traffic laws indicating negligence.
What was the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision?	The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, holding Al Dela Cruz liable for damages due to his negligence in driving under the influence of alcohol, which caused the accident and resulting injuries.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case reaffirms the importance of responsible driving and the severe consequences of driving under the influence of alcohol. It emphasizes the duty of care that drivers owe to others on the road and highlights the legal ramifications of failing to uphold this duty. This case serves as a significant precedent, reinforcing the principles of negligence and causation in Philippine law.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: AL DELA CRUZ v. CAPT. RENATO OCTAVIANO, G.R. No. 219649, July 26, 2017

July 26, 2017

Hospital Liability for Nurse Negligence: Ensuring Patient Safety and Diligent Supervision

This landmark Supreme Court case clarifies the extent of a hospital’s liability for the negligence of its nursing staff. The Court affirmed that hospitals can be held accountable for damages resulting from a nurse’s failure to provide timely and adequate care, specifically when there is a demonstrated lack of diligent supervision by the hospital administration. This ruling underscores the critical importance of hospitals not only hiring qualified nurses but also ensuring their continuous and effective supervision to protect patient safety and well-being. It serves as a potent reminder that hospitals must actively monitor and enforce compliance with established medical protocols and standards of care.

When a Delayed Response Leads to Irreversible Damage: Who Pays the Price?

This case revolves around the tragic circumstances of Regina Capanzana, a 40-year-old nurse who suffered irreversible brain damage following a caesarean section at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital. After giving birth, Regina experienced difficulty breathing and exhibited signs of cyanosis. Her niece, who was attending to her, urgently requested assistance from the hospital’s nurses. Critically, there was a significant delay in the nurses’ response and in the administration of oxygen. This delay, the court found, directly led to Regina developing hypoxic encephalopathy, a condition resulting from a lack of oxygen to the brain. The central legal question became whether the hospital could be held liable for the negligence of its nurses, and if so, to what extent?

The spouses Capanzana initially filed a complaint for damages against the hospital, the attending obstetrician/gynecologist Dr. Ramos, the anesthesiologist Dr. Santos, and several nurses, alleging negligence in Regina’s care. They argued that the medical team failed to detect a pre-existing heart condition and provide appropriate medical management. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found no negligence on the part of the doctors, but it did find one nurse, Florita Ballano, liable for contributory negligence due to the delay in administering oxygen. The RTC, however, absolved the hospital, concluding it had exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. This ruling was then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision regarding the doctors but reversed the finding on the hospital’s liability. While acknowledging evidence of diligence in the selection and hiring of nurses, the CA found a lack of evidence demonstrating diligent supervision. The CA emphasized the admitted non-availability of an oxygen unit on the hospital floor as gross negligence, stating the hospital failed to provide an effective system for timely responses to patient distress. It was highlighted that a higher degree of caution and an exacting standard of diligence in patient management and health care are required of a hospital’s staff, as they deal with the lives of patients who seek urgent medical assistance. It is incumbent upon nurses to take precautions or undertake steps to safeguard patients under their care from any possible injury that may arise in the course of the latter’s treatment and care.

The Supreme Court, in its review, upheld the CA’s finding of negligence on the part of the nurses. The Court reiterated the elements necessary to prove medical negligence: duty, breach, injury, and proximate causation. The expert testimony presented demonstrated that the delay in administering oxygen directly contributed to Regina’s hypoxic encephalopathy. The court emphasized the crucial role of nurses in promptly responding to patient needs, especially in emergency situations. “Had the nurses exercised certain degree of promptness and diligence in responding to the patient[‘]s call for help[,] the occurrence of ‘hypoxic encephalopathy’ could have been avoided,” the Court noted, underscoring the direct link between the nurses’ inaction and the patient’s resulting condition.

The Court then turned to the issue of the hospital’s liability for the nurses’ negligence, referencing Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which addresses an employer’s responsibility for the acts of its employees. It was mentioned that, under Article 2180, an employer like petitioner hospital may be held liable for the negligence of its employees based on its responsibility under a relationship of patria potestas. The liability of the employer under this provision is “direct and immediate; it is not conditioned upon a prior recourse against the negligent employee or a prior showing of the insolvency of that employee.” While the RTC was convinced with the hospital’s evidence of the selection and hiring processes of its employees, it failed to adduce evidence showing the degree of supervision it exercised over its nurses, according to the CA. The Supreme Court agreed with the CA’s conclusion that the hospital failed to adequately prove it exercised the required diligence in supervising its nursing staff.

The Supreme Court reiterated that proving due diligence requires more than just establishing supervisory policies and protocols. It necessitates demonstrating actual implementation and monitoring of compliance with these rules. In this case, the hospital’s records showed instances of tardiness and absenteeism among nurses, without any corresponding disciplinary actions. This lack of enforcement, the Court determined, demonstrated a failure in supervision. It was also mentioned that on that fatal night, it was not shown who were the actual nurses on duty and who was supervising these nurses. Inconsistencies in the nurses’ schedules and notes further undermined the hospital’s claim of diligent supervision. Thus, the Court affirmed the hospital’s direct liability for the nurses’ negligence under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

Additionally, the Supreme Court addressed the unpaid hospital bill. The Court decided it was proper to deduct the unpaid hospital bill of P20,141.60 from the total amount of actual damages. An interest of six percent (6%) per annum on the resulting amount from the finality of this judgment until full payment was also imposed.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital could be held liable for the negligence of its nurses that resulted in a patient’s brain damage due to delayed oxygen administration. The court examined the extent of a hospital’s responsibility for its employees’ actions and the standard of care required in supervising medical staff.
What is hypoxic encephalopathy?	Hypoxic encephalopathy is a condition characterized by brain damage caused by a lack of oxygen. In this case, it was the direct result of the delay in administering oxygen to Regina Capanzana when she experienced breathing difficulties after her C-section.
What does Article 2180 of the Civil Code cover?	Article 2180 addresses an employer’s liability for the negligent acts of their employees. It states that employers are responsible for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, provided the employer fails to prove they exercised due diligence in employee selection and supervision.
What is meant by ‘diligence in supervision’ in this context?	Diligence in supervision refers to the active implementation and monitoring of rules and protocols to ensure employees comply with standards of care. It is not enough to merely have supervisory policies; the employer must demonstrate consistent enforcement and oversight.
Why were the attending physicians not found liable?	The courts found no evidence that the attending physicians, Dr. Ramos and Dr. Santos, had deviated from established medical standards in their care of Regina Capanzana. The complications were deemed unforeseeable and not directly attributable to their actions or omissions.
What evidence did the court consider in determining the hospital’s lack of supervision?	The court considered inconsistencies in the nurses’ schedules and notes, as well as the lack of disciplinary actions for documented tardiness and absenteeism among the nursing staff. These factors indicated a failure to actively monitor and enforce compliance with hospital policies.
What is the significance of ‘proximate cause’ in this case?	Proximate cause is the direct and foreseeable cause of an injury. The court determined that the nurses’ negligent delay in administering oxygen was the proximate cause of Regina Capanzana’s hypoxic encephalopathy, as it directly led to her brain damage.
How did the unpaid hospital bill affect the final judgment?	The Supreme Court deducted the unpaid hospital bill of P20,141.60 from the total amount of actual damages awarded to the respondents. Additionally, the court imposed an interest of six percent (6%) per annum on the resulting amount from the finality of the judgment until full payment.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for hospitals?	The ruling emphasizes the need for hospitals to prioritize not only the careful selection and hiring of nurses but also the active and diligent supervision of their performance. This includes implementing effective monitoring systems, enforcing disciplinary measures, and ensuring adequate resources are available to respond to patient needs promptly.

This case serves as a stern reminder of the legal and ethical responsibilities that hospitals bear in ensuring patient safety. It highlights the necessity of diligent supervision and the potential consequences of negligence. The hospital was declared liable for the payment to respondents of the total amount of P299,102.04 as actual damages minus P20,141.60 representing the unpaid hospital bill as of 30 October 1998; P1,950,269.80 as compensatory damages; P100,000.00 as moral damages; P100,000.00 as and by way of attorney’s fees; and the costs of suit, as well as interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on the resulting amount from the finality of this judgment until full payment.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital vs. Spouses Romeo and Regina Capanzana, G.R. No. 189218, March 22, 2017

March 22, 2017

Marathon Mishap: Organizer’s Negligence and Duty of Care to Minors

In Romulo Abrogar and Erlinda Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Company and Intergames, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that Intergames, the organizer of a marathon, was negligent in failing to provide adequate safety measures for participants, leading to the death of a minor runner. The court emphasized the heightened duty of care owed to minors and that the organizer’s negligence, not just the reckless jeepney driver, was the proximate cause of the tragedy. This decision underscores the responsibility of event organizers to protect participants, especially young ones, from foreseeable dangers.

Can a Marathon Organizer Be Held Liable for a Runner’s Death?

This case revolves around the tragic death of Rommel Abrogar, a minor participating in the “1st Pop Cola Junior Marathon.” Rommel was struck by a passenger jeepney during the race, leading his parents to sue Cosmos Bottling Company, the sponsor, and Intergames, Inc., the organizer, for damages. The central legal question is whether Intergames was negligent in its conduct of the marathon, and if so, whether this negligence was the proximate cause of Rommel’s death. This analysis delves into the legal principles of negligence, proximate cause, assumption of risk, and the duty of care owed to minors in the context of organized events.

The Supreme Court, in examining the facts, highlighted several critical failures on the part of Intergames. The Court emphasized that negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. As stated in the decision, “A careful review of the evidence presented, particularly the testimonies of the relevant witnesses, in accordance with the foregoing guidelines reasonably leads to the conclusion that the safety and precautionary measures undertaken by Intergames were short of the diligence demanded by the circumstances of persons, time and place under consideration. Hence, Intergames as the organizer was guilty of negligence.”

One key aspect of the Court’s reasoning focused on the suitability of the marathon route. Intergames chose a route that ran alongside moving vehicular traffic, despite knowing that it was not the only option. While Intergames argued that the police prohibited blocking the road, the Court pointed out that Intergames could have chosen a different location altogether. The Court stated that “Intergames came under no obligation to use such route especially considering that the participants, who were young and inexperienced runners, would be running alongside moving vehicles.” This decision underscores the importance of carefully considering all available options and prioritizing participant safety.

Beyond the route itself, the Court also scrutinized the adequacy of Intergames’ manpower and coordination efforts. Intergames relied heavily on volunteers from various agencies, but failed to provide them with adequate instruction and coordination. The Court said, “Verily, that the volunteers showed up and assumed their proper places or that they were sufficient in number was not really enough. It is worthy to stress that proper coordination in the context of the event did not consist in the mere presence of the volunteers, but included making sure that they had been properly instructed on their duties and tasks in order to ensure the safety of the young runners.” The Court emphasized that the organizer’s duty extends beyond simply deploying personnel; it includes ensuring they are properly trained and supervised.

The Court also addressed the issue of proximate cause, which is defined as “that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new cause, produces an event, and without which the event would not have occurred.” Intergames argued that the jeepney driver’s negligence was the proximate cause of Rommel’s death. However, the Court disagreed, stating that Intergames’ negligence in failing to provide a safe race environment set the stage for the accident. In the words of the Court, “the negligence of Intergames was the proximate cause despite the intervening negligence of the jeepney driver.” The Court reasoned that Intergames’ failure to create a safe environment was the initial act that ultimately led to Rommel’s death.

Another point of contention was the doctrine of assumption of risk. The Court rejected the application of this doctrine, noting that Rommel, being a minor, could not fully appreciate the specific risk of being struck by a vehicle during the race. “Rommel could not have assumed the risk of death when he participated in the race because death was neither a known nor normal risk incident to running a race. Although he had surveyed the route prior to the race and should be presumed to know that he would be running the race alongside moving vehicular traffic, such knowledge of the general danger was not enough.” The Court’s reasoning underscores the heightened duty of care owed to minors, who may not possess the same level of understanding and judgment as adults.

The Court made it very clear that a higher degree of diligence was required in the case of the Pop Cola Junior Marathon because the participants were children or minors. “In that respect, Intergames did not observe the degree of care necessary as the organizer, rendering it liable for negligence. As the Court has emphasized in Corliss v. The Manila Railroad Company, where the danger is great, a high degree of care is necessary, and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care under the circumstances.”

As for Cosmos Bottling Company, the sponsor of the event, the Court found that its role was limited to providing financial assistance. There was no evidence that Cosmos was involved in organizing the race or determining the route and safety measures. “In the absence of evidence showing that Cosmos had a hand in the organization of the race, and took part in the determination of the route for the race and the adoption of the action plan, including the safety and security measures for the benefit of the runners, we cannot but conclude that the requirement for the direct or immediate causal connection between the financial sponsorship of Cosmos and the death of Rommel simply did not exist.” As such, Cosmos was absolved from liability.

In terms of damages, the Court upheld the RTC’s award of actual, moral, and exemplary damages. It also added damages for loss of earning capacity, recognizing that even a non-working minor has the potential to earn. The Court explained that, “damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded to the heirs of a deceased non-working victim simply because earning capacity, not necessarily actual earning, may be lost.” The Court calculated Rommel’s net earning capacity based on his life expectancy and the minimum wage at the time of his death.

This landmark decision underscores the importance of event organizers prioritizing participant safety, especially when minors are involved. It also highlights the limits of the assumption of risk doctrine and the need for organizers to take proactive steps to mitigate foreseeable dangers. The ruling is a clear reminder that negligence in creating a safe environment can have devastating consequences and lead to legal liability. When planning an event, organizers should consider the following precautions:

Conduct a thorough risk assessment
Choose a safe location or route
Implement adequate safety measures
Provide clear instructions and supervision
Secure appropriate insurance coverage

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the marathon organizer, Intergames, was negligent in its conduct of the race and if that negligence was the proximate cause of Rommel Abrogar’s death. The Court scrutinized the safety measures and planning undertaken by Intergames.
What is ‘proximate cause’ in legal terms?	Proximate cause is the primary cause that sets in motion a chain of events leading to an injury or damage. It is the direct cause without which the injury would not have occurred, not necessarily the closest event in time.
Why was Intergames found liable in this case?	Intergames was found liable because it failed to exercise the necessary diligence in ensuring the safety of the marathon participants. Specifically, Intergames chose a dangerous route and did not provide adequate supervision.
What is the ‘assumption of risk’ doctrine?	The assumption of risk doctrine implies that a person who voluntarily exposes themselves to a known danger assumes the risk of injury resulting from that danger. However, this doctrine has limitations, particularly when dealing with minors.
Why did the court reject the ‘assumption of risk’ defense in this case?	The court rejected the defense because Rommel Abrogar, being a minor, could not fully comprehend and voluntarily assume the risk of being hit by a vehicle during the race. The law recognizes a higher standard of care for minors.
What was the role of Cosmos Bottling Company in the marathon?	Cosmos Bottling Company was merely a financial sponsor of the marathon. The court found no evidence that Cosmos was involved in the actual organization or safety planning of the event.
What kind of damages were awarded to the petitioners?	The petitioners were awarded actual damages (medical and burial expenses), moral damages (for grief), exemplary damages (due to gross negligence), and damages for loss of earning capacity (even though Rommel was a minor). The total amount was to be determined with interest from the date of the lower court’s decision.
What is ‘gross negligence’ and why was it relevant in this case?	Gross negligence is a severe form of negligence that implies a reckless disregard for the safety of others. The court found that Intergames’ conduct constituted gross negligence, justifying the award of exemplary damages.
What is the key takeaway for event organizers from this case?	The key takeaway is that event organizers have a significant responsibility to ensure the safety of participants, especially minors. They must conduct risk assessments, implement appropriate safety measures, and provide adequate supervision to prevent foreseeable injuries.

In conclusion, the Abrogar v. Cosmos case serves as a powerful reminder of the legal and ethical obligations of event organizers to protect the safety and well-being of participants. By failing to prioritize safety, Intergames was held liable for the tragic consequences of its negligence. This case sets a precedent for holding event organizers accountable for foreseeable risks, particularly when vulnerable populations like minors are involved. As the Supreme Court decision demonstrates, the law demands a high standard of care, and those who fail to meet it will be held responsible.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Company and Intergames, Inc., G.R. No. 164749, March 15, 2017

March 15, 2017

Accountability for Consequences: Establishing Liability in Robbery with Homicide

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Stanley Buenamer for robbery with homicide, emphasizing that individuals are responsible for all natural and logical consequences of their felonious acts. This decision underscores that even unintended outcomes during the commission of a crime, such as the death of a victim, can lead to severe penalties. This ruling ensures that perpetrators are held fully accountable, reinforcing the principle that actions during a robbery that result in a death will be prosecuted as robbery with homicide, regardless of intent to kill.

When a Hold-Up Turns Deadly: Can a Robber Be Held Liable for Unintentional Homicide?

This case revolves around an incident on October 20, 2009, when Stanley Buenamer and Jerome Lambada staged an armed robbery on a passenger FX taxi in Manila. During the robbery, Ferrarie Tan, a passenger, was killed after Buenamer struck him, causing him to fall from a moving jeepney and be run over. The central legal question is whether Buenamer should be held liable for robbery with homicide, even if the death was not his direct intention. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Buenamer guilty of robbery with homicide, while Lambada was convicted of simple robbery. Buenamer appealed, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that he had no intention of causing such grave harm.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, emphasizing that all elements of robbery with homicide were present. The CA highlighted that the prosecution successfully proved Buenamer’s identity through eyewitness testimonies. Dissatisfied, Buenamer elevated the case to the Supreme Court, continuing to argue that his actions did not warrant a conviction for robbery with homicide. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the CA’s decision, reinforcing the principle that a person is responsible for the consequences of their actions during the commission of a felony.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the elements of robbery with homicide, which include: (1) taking personal property with violence or intimidation; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking is with animo lucrandi (intent to gain); and (4) homicide is committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery. In this case, the prosecution established that Buenamer and Lambada’s primary objective was to rob the passengers of the FX taxi. David, a passenger and victim, positively identified Buenamer as one of the perpetrators. She testified that Buenamer and Lambada, armed with firearms, announced a hold-up, divested passengers of their belongings, and threatened to kill anyone who resisted. This clearly demonstrated the element of violence and intimidation, coupled with the intent to gain, thus satisfying the first three elements.

The critical point of contention was whether the homicide was directly linked to the robbery. Traffic enforcer Mendez testified that he saw Buenamer strike Ferrarie, causing him to fall from the moving jeepney and subsequently be run over. This direct link between the robbery and the resulting death established the final element of robbery with homicide. Buenamer’s defense hinged on the argument that he did not intend to kill Ferrarie, attempting to invoke the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. However, the Court rejected this argument, citing Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which holds individuals responsible for all natural and logical consequences of their felonious acts.

Article 3 of the RPC decrees that every person shall be held responsible for all the natural and logical consequences of his felonious act.

Furthermore, Article 4 of the RPC states that “criminal liability shall be incurred (1) by any person committing a felony, although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.” These provisions underscore that even if Buenamer did not intend to kill Ferrarie, his actions during the commission of the robbery directly led to the victim’s death, thereby establishing his liability for robbery with homicide. The Court emphasized that the intention of the offender must be considered in light of the weapon used, the mode of attack, and the injuries sustained by the victim. In this case, the act of striking Ferrarie, which caused him to fall from a moving vehicle and be run over, was deemed a direct and foreseeable consequence of the robbery.

[T]his mitigating circumstance addresses itself to the intention of the offender at the particular moment when the offender executes or commits the criminal act – an intention that must comport, amongst others, with the weapon/s used by the offender and the mode of attack adopted by the latter, vis-a-vis the injuries sustained by his victim.

The Supreme Court cited People v. Gonzalez, Jr., reinforcing that the intention of the accused is manifested by the weapon used, the mode of attack, and the injury sustained by the victim. The manner in which Buenamer struck Ferrarie, leading to his fatal fall, indicated a level of violence that negated any claim of a lack of intent to cause serious harm. The Court highlighted the legal principle that every person is responsible for the natural and logical consequences of their felonious act, as enshrined in Article 3 of the RPC.

Moreover, the ruling serves as a stern reminder of the severe consequences of committing robbery. It clarifies that if a death occurs during or because of a robbery, the perpetrator will be held accountable for robbery with homicide, regardless of whether the death was intentional. This decision reinforces the State’s commitment to protecting its citizens from violent crimes and ensuring that justice is served when such crimes result in loss of life. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the principle of accountability, ensuring that those who commit felonies are responsible for all resulting harm, even if unintended.

FAQs

What is robbery with homicide?	Robbery with homicide is a crime where the act of robbery results in the death of a person. The death can occur before, during, or after the robbery.
What are the elements of robbery with homicide?	The elements include: (1) taking personal property with violence or intimidation; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking is with intent to gain; and (4) homicide is committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery.
Was the death in this case intentional?	The court found that whether the death was intentional or not is irrelevant. Because the death occurred during the commission of robbery, the crime is robbery with homicide.
*What is animo lucrandi?*	Animo lucrandi is a Latin term meaning intent to gain. It is a key element in proving robbery, as it establishes that the perpetrator’s motive was to profit from the crime.
What does Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code state?	Article 3 of the RPC states that every person is responsible for all the natural and logical consequences of their felonious acts. This means that individuals are liable for the foreseeable outcomes of their criminal behavior.
What damages were awarded in this case?	The appellant was ordered to pay civil damages of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00, and exemplary damages of P75,000.00.
Why was the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent not applied?	The court determined that the actions of the accused, striking the victim leading to his fall from a moving vehicle, indicated a level of violence that negated any claim of a lack of intent to cause serious harm.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling underscores the severe consequences of committing robbery and clarifies that if a death occurs during or because of a robbery, the perpetrator will be held accountable for robbery with homicide, regardless of intent.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Buenamer reaffirms the principle that individuals are accountable for the consequences of their criminal actions, even if those consequences are unintended. The ruling emphasizes the gravity of robbery with homicide and serves as a deterrent against violent crimes. The court’s unwavering stance on accountability sends a clear message that those who engage in criminal activity will be held responsible for all resulting harm.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Buenamer, G.R. No. 206227, August 31, 2016

August 31, 2016

Bank’s Duty of Utmost Diligence: Liability for Forged Manager’s Checks

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that a bank is liable for losses incurred when it clears a forged manager’s check, emphasizing the bank’s duty to exercise the highest degree of diligence in safeguarding depositors’ accounts. The Court found that Land Bank’s failure to recognize the forgery of its own officers’ signatures on a manager’s check constituted a breach of its fiduciary duty, making it responsible for the resulting financial loss to the depositor. This decision underscores the importance of public trust in the banking system and the stringent standards of care expected from financial institutions.

The Case of the Counterfeit Check: Whose Negligence Prevails?

The case revolves around Narciso Kho, a businessman who opened an account with Land Bank to facilitate a lubricant purchase from Red Orange International Trading. Kho obtained a manager’s check for P25,000,000.00 payable to Red Orange but the deal fell through. Subsequently, a spurious copy of the manager’s check was deposited and cleared at another bank, despite the original remaining in Kho’s possession. Land Bank argued that Kho’s negligence in providing a photocopy of the check to Red Orange’s representative contributed to the fraud. However, the Supreme Court focused on Land Bank’s failure to detect the forgery, emphasizing the bank’s responsibility to ensure the validity of instruments drawn upon it.

The heart of the matter lies in determining the proximate cause of the loss. According to the Supreme Court, proximate cause is defined as:

…that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.

The Court found that the Land Bank’s failure to properly examine and verify the authenticity of the manager’s check was the direct and primary cause of the financial loss. The Court highlighted that:

The business of banking is imbued with public interest; it is an industry where the general public’s trust and confidence in the system is of paramount importance. Consequently, banks are expected to exert the highest degree of, if not the utmost, diligence. They are obligated to treat their depositors’ accounts with meticulous care, always keeping in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.

This underscored the heightened responsibility of banks to safeguard depositors’ funds and maintain the integrity of financial transactions. Banks are expected to be experts in verifying the genuineness of checks, especially manager’s checks, which carry an implicit guarantee of validity. Given that the bank’s own officers were signatories on the genuine check, the Court found the failure to detect the forgery inexcusable. The negligence of Kho, such as providing a photocopy of the check, does not excuse the bank’s failure to adhere to the standard of utmost diligence required in its operations.

The Supreme Court also distinguished this case from previous rulings where the depositor’s negligence was a significant factor. For instance, in Gempesaw v. Court of Appeals, the depositor’s complete trust in her bookkeeper, coupled with her failure to review bank statements, contributed substantially to the fraudulent activities. Similarly, in Associated Bank v. Court of Appeals, the province of Tarlac’s negligence in releasing checks to a retired officer without proper verification led to significant losses. In contrast, Kho’s actions did not justify Land Bank’s failure to detect the forgery. The fact that Kho retained possession of the original check reinforced the bank’s responsibility to ensure that any transaction involving the check was legitimate.

The ruling also clarifies the extent of liability for bank officers. The Court agreed with the RTC’s finding that neither Flores nor Cruz were personally liable, as their actions were performed in good faith and within the scope of their official duties. This aspect of the decision protects bank officers from undue liability when acting in accordance with their institution’s policies and directives.

In conclusion, this case serves as a strong reminder to banks of their critical role in maintaining public trust and ensuring the security of financial transactions. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the standard of utmost diligence underscores the importance of robust verification processes and the responsibility of banks to bear the consequences of their failures in this regard.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Land Bank was liable for losses incurred when it cleared a forged manager’s check, despite the depositor’s alleged contributory negligence. The Court focused on whether the bank exercised the required degree of diligence.
What is a manager’s check?	A manager’s check is a check drawn by a bank upon itself, accepted upon issuance. It commits the bank’s resources and integrity, with the manager or authorized officer signing for the bank.
What is the standard of diligence required of banks?	Banks are required to exercise the highest degree of diligence, if not utmost diligence, in handling depositors’ accounts. This stems from the public interest imbued in the banking industry.
What does “proximate cause” mean in this context?	Proximate cause is the cause that, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. It’s about who is mostly responsible for the end result.
Was the depositor, Narciso Kho, found negligent?	While Kho provided a photocopy of the check, the Court held that this did not excuse Land Bank’s failure to recognize the forged check. Kho’s actions were not deemed the proximate cause of the loss.
Were Land Bank’s officers held personally liable?	No, the Court agreed with the RTC that neither Flores nor Cruz were liable in their private capacities. Their actions were made in good faith pursuant to Land Bank’s management directives.
What was the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision?	The Court based its decision on Land Bank’s breach of its duty of diligence in failing to recognize the forged check. The bank assumed the risk of loss due to its failure to verify the authenticity of the check.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for banks?	Banks must implement robust verification processes and exercise utmost diligence in handling financial transactions. They are primarily responsible for losses resulting from forged checks if they fail to meet this standard of care.

This ruling highlights the importance of diligence and security measures within the banking system. It reinforces the idea that banks, due to the public trust placed in them, must prioritize the accuracy and security of their transactions above all else.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. NARCISO L. KHO, G.R. Nos. 205839 & 205840, July 07, 2016

July 7, 2016

Contributory Negligence: Mitigating Damages in Vehicular Accidents Under Philippine Law

In Travel & Tours Advisers, Inc. v. Alberto Cruz, Sr., the Supreme Court addressed the issue of liability in a vehicular accident where both parties were at fault. The Court ruled that when the negligence of the plaintiff (injured party) is contributory to the incident, damages awarded should be mitigated. This means that even if the defendant (the party being sued) was primarily negligent, the compensation they owe can be reduced if the plaintiff also acted carelessly, a principle crucial for understanding responsibility in accident cases.

When Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right Route: Navigating Negligence in a Deadly Collision

The case stemmed from a tragic collision in Magalang, Pampanga, involving a passenger jeepney driven by Edgar Hernandez and a bus owned by Travel & Tours Advisers, Inc. (TTAI). The bus, driven by Edgar Calaycay, rear-ended the jeepney, causing it to crash into an acacia tree. This resulted in the death of Alberto Cruz, Jr., and serious injuries to Virginia Muñoz. The respondents, including Edgar Hernandez, Virginia Muñoz, and Alberto Cruz, Sr., filed a complaint for damages, alleging reckless driving on the part of the bus driver. TTAI countered that Hernandez was driving recklessly and outside his authorized route, contributing to the accident. The central legal question was determining the extent of liability when both drivers were found to be in violation of traffic rules.

Both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) found TTAI and its driver liable. While the lower courts acknowledged that both vehicles were technically “out of line” at the time of the incident, they emphasized that the proximate cause of the collision was the negligence of the bus driver. The CA highlighted that the bus hit the jeepney from behind, and the bus driver, seated in an elevated position, should have been aware of the jeepney’s presence. This aligns with the general presumption in Philippine jurisprudence that drivers who rear-end other vehicles are presumed to be at fault, unless proven otherwise.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court noted that the violation of traffic regulations creates a presumption of negligence, as stated in Article 2185 of the New Civil Code:

Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.

However, the Court also recognized that this presumption can be overturned by evidence. In this case, the lower courts found the bus driver’s negligence to be the primary factor, emphasizing his failure to maintain a safe distance and control his vehicle. Despite this, the Supreme Court also considered the fact that the jeepney was traversing an unauthorized route. This meant that the jeepney driver, Edgar Hernandez, was also negligent. This is where the principle of contributory negligence comes into play.

The Supreme Court referred to Article 2179 of the Civil Code, which addresses situations where the plaintiff’s negligence contributes to their own injury:

When the plaintiff’s negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

Given that Hernandez was also negligent, the Court ruled that the damages awarded to the respondents should be mitigated. This meant reducing the amount TTAI and its driver had to pay to compensate for the accident. The determination of the mitigation percentage depends on the specific circumstances of each case. In this instance, the Court mitigated the liability of TTAI by 50%, meaning that Hernandez would also be responsible for 50% of the damages.

The Supreme Court also addressed the specific damages awarded by the CA. It affirmed the award of actual damages, civil indemnity, and moral damages to the heirs of Alberto Cruz, Jr., but adjusted the amounts to reflect the contributory negligence of Hernandez. Specifically, the Court noted that the certification of the deceased’s income had not been properly presented as evidence, so the claim for loss of earning capacity could not be sustained. The final awards were reduced by 50% to account for Hernandez’s negligence.

Additionally, the Court revisited the award of attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees are typically only awarded in specific circumstances outlined in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. Since the RTC’s justification for awarding attorney’s fees was considered conjectural, the Supreme Court deleted this portion of the award. However, TTAI was still required to pay half of the litigation costs.

Ultimately, this case underscores the importance of adhering to traffic regulations and exercising due care on the road. It clarifies that even if one party is primarily responsible for an accident, the other party’s negligence can significantly affect the amount of damages they are entitled to receive. This ruling serves as a reminder that negligence, whether primary or contributory, has legal and financial consequences in the Philippines.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was determining the liability for damages in a vehicular accident where both drivers were found to be negligent. The Supreme Court addressed how contributory negligence affects the amount of damages to be awarded.
What is contributory negligence?	Contributory negligence refers to a situation where the injured party’s own negligence contributes to the cause of their injury. It does not prevent recovery of damages, but it reduces the amount the injured party can receive.
What is the legal basis for mitigating damages in cases of contributory negligence?	Article 2179 of the Civil Code provides the legal basis, stating that if the plaintiff’s negligence was contributory, the court shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. This acknowledges shared responsibility for the injury.
How did the Court determine the percentage of mitigation in this case?	The Court considered the specific circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that both vehicles were operating outside their authorized routes. Ultimately, the Court decided on a 50% mitigation of damages.
What is the presumption regarding rear-end collisions in the Philippines?	Philippine jurisprudence holds that drivers who rear-end another vehicle are presumed to be the cause of the accident, unless contradicted by other evidence. This places the initial burden of proof on the rear driver.
What evidence did the Court consider in determining liability?	The Court considered the testimonies of witnesses, the physical evidence of the damage to the vehicles, and the fact that the bus driver had a better view of the road. All these factors contributed to determining the proximate cause of the accident.
Why was the award for loss of earning capacity not sustained?	The certification of the deceased’s income was not properly presented and identified during the trial, the court stated that there must be unbiased proof of the deceased’s average income. Without this evidence, the Court could not award damages for lost earning capacity.
What is the difference between actual and moral damages?	Actual damages are compensation for quantifiable losses, such as medical expenses and funeral costs, and they must be proven with documentary evidence. Moral damages are compensation for pain, suffering, and mental anguish.
Why were attorney’s fees not awarded in this case?	Attorney’s fees are only awarded in specific instances outlined in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. Since the RTC’s reasoning for awarding them was considered speculative, the Supreme Court deemed the award unjustified.

This case provides valuable insights into how Philippine courts assess liability and damages in vehicular accident cases involving contributory negligence. It reinforces the importance of both adhering to traffic regulations and exercising due care while driving. The decision highlights that legal responsibility may be shared, and compensation adjusted accordingly, when multiple parties contribute to an accident.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Travel & Tours Advisers, Inc. v. Cruz, G.R. No. 199282, March 14, 2016

March 14, 2016

Proving Medical Negligence: The Necessity of Expert Testimony in Philippine Courts

In cases of alleged medical malpractice, proving negligence is crucial. This involves demonstrating that the medical professional failed to meet the expected standard of care, directly causing harm to the patient. The Supreme Court’s decision in Carlos Borromeo v. Family Care Hospital, Inc. and Ramon S. Inso, M.D. underscores the critical role of expert testimony in establishing this negligence, particularly when the alleged breach of duty isn’t immediately obvious. The Court emphasizes that without qualified expert witnesses, plaintiffs may struggle to prove their claims, highlighting the complex nature of medical standards and causation.

Surgical Suture or Systemic Failure? A Wife’s Death and a Doctor’s Defense

This case revolves around the death of Lilian Borromeo following a routine appendectomy performed by Dr. Ramon Inso at Family Care Hospital. Lilian’s husband, Carlos Borromeo, alleged that Dr. Inso’s negligence during the surgery led to his wife’s death. Specifically, he claimed that the use of a single suture instead of a double suture at the repair site caused internal hemorrhaging. The hospital and Dr. Inso countered that Lilian’s death was due to Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC), a rare blood disorder that prevents normal clotting. The central legal question was whether Dr. Inso’s actions constituted medical negligence and whether this negligence was the proximate cause of Lilian’s death.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of Carlos, finding Dr. Inso negligent and applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself). However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, emphasizing the lack of qualified expert testimony to support Carlos’s claims and giving more weight to the defense’s expert witnesses. The Supreme Court, in reviewing the case, focused on whether the CA erred in its assessment of the evidence, particularly the expert testimonies presented.

The Supreme Court reiterated that in medical malpractice cases, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving four essential elements: duty, breach, injury, and proximate causation. Duty refers to the medical professional’s obligation to adhere to the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent professional in the same field. Breach occurs when the medical professional fails to meet this standard. Injury is the harm suffered by the patient, and proximate causation establishes a direct link between the breach and the injury.

Because medical procedures and standards are often complex and beyond the understanding of laypersons, expert testimony is crucial. The Court emphasized the importance of establishing the standard of care through qualified experts. This means the expert witness must possess similar training and experience in the same field of medicine as the defendant. The expert’s role is to explain the accepted medical practices, assess whether the defendant deviated from these practices, and determine if that deviation directly caused the patient’s injury.

In this case, the RTC relied heavily on the testimony of Dr. Emmanuel Reyes, the medico-legal officer who conducted Lilian’s autopsy. However, the Supreme Court sided with the CA’s assessment that Dr. Reyes was not a qualified expert in pathology or surgery, particularly concerning appendectomies.

Dr. Reyes’s lack of specialized experience in the specific area of surgery at issue significantly undermined the weight of his testimony. His conclusion that a single suture caused Lilian’s hemorrhage was deemed speculative and not supported by sufficient expertise in the relevant field.

The defense, on the other hand, presented Dr. Celso Ramos, an experienced pathologist, and Dr. Herminio Hernandez, a general surgeon. Both experts testified that Lilian’s death was more likely caused by DIC, a condition where the blood’s clotting mechanisms fail, leading to widespread hemorrhaging. They further argued that the alleged single suture would not have caused the extensive bleeding observed in the autopsy. The Court found the testimonies of Dr. Ramos and Dr. Hernandez more credible due to their extensive experience and expertise in the relevant medical fields.

Moreover, the Court found that Dr. Reyes was less than candid about his qualifications. During cross-examination, it was revealed that his training in pathology was limited to observer status and that he had no specialized training in appendectomies. The Court also highlighted the petitioner’s counsel’s own admission that Dr. Reyes was not presented as an expert witness. This further diminished the weight given to his testimony.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court addressed the petitioner’s invocation of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This doctrine allows negligence to be presumed when the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence, the instrumentality causing the injury was under the defendant’s exclusive control, and the injury was not due to the plaintiff’s actions. However, the Court clarified that res ipsa loquitur is not applicable when the alleged negligence is not immediately apparent to a layperson or when the actual cause of the injury has been identified.

In Lilian’s case, the Court found that the alleged negligence – the use of a single suture – was not something readily understood by a layperson. Expert testimony was required to determine whether this constituted a breach of the standard of care. Furthermore, the respondents presented evidence suggesting that DIC was the actual cause of death, thus negating the applicability of res ipsa loquitur. The Supreme Court concluded that the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to establish the respondents’ negligence. The lack of a qualified expert witness was a critical factor in this failure. The Court emphasized that without expert testimony, it was impossible to determine whether Dr. Inso deviated from the accepted standard of care or whether the alleged negligence was the proximate cause of Lilian’s death.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the respondents, Family Care Hospital and Dr. Ramon Inso, were liable for medical negligence in the death of Lilian Borromeo following an appendectomy. The case hinged on whether the petitioner provided sufficient evidence, particularly expert testimony, to prove negligence and causation.
Why was expert testimony so important in this case?	Expert testimony was crucial because the alleged negligence involved medical procedures and standards that are beyond the common knowledge of laypersons. It was needed to establish the standard of care, assess if Dr. Inso breached that standard, and determine if the breach caused Lilian’s death.
What were the qualifications of the expert witnesses presented?	The petitioner presented Dr. Emmanuel Reyes, a medico-legal officer, while the respondents presented Dr. Celso Ramos, a pathologist, and Dr. Herminio Hernandez, a general surgeon. The court ultimately gave more weight to the latter two due to their extensive experience and expertise in the relevant medical fields.
Why was Dr. Reyes’s testimony deemed insufficient?	Dr. Reyes’s testimony was considered insufficient because he lacked specialized training and experience in pathology and surgery, particularly concerning appendectomies. His conclusions were deemed speculative and not supported by sufficient expertise in the relevant field.
*What is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and why didn’t it apply here?*	Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence that presumes negligence when the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence. It didn’t apply here because the alleged negligence (single suture) was not readily apparent to a layperson, and the respondents presented an alternative cause of death (DIC).
What is Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC)?	DIC is a serious blood disorder characterized by abnormal blood clotting throughout the body’s small blood vessels. This process consumes the blood’s clotting factors, leading to uncontrolled bleeding, which the respondents claimed was the cause of Lilian’s death.
What are the four elements needed to prove medical malpractice?	The four elements are: (1) a duty of the defendant to the patient, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) injury to the patient, and (4) proximate causation between the breach and the injury suffered. The plaintiff must prove all four elements by a preponderance of evidence.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the Court of Appeals’ decision that the respondents were not liable for medical negligence. The Court emphasized the lack of qualified expert testimony to support the petitioner’s claims.

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the necessity of presenting qualified expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases. The ruling serves as a crucial reminder that demonstrating medical negligence requires more than just alleging a mistake; it demands establishing a breach of the accepted standard of care through credible and experienced experts. Without such evidence, plaintiffs face a significant challenge in proving their claims and obtaining compensation for their losses.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: CARLOS BORROMEO, VS. FAMILY CARE HOSPITAL, INC. AND RAMON S. INSO, M.D., G.R. No. 191018, January 25, 2016

January 25, 2016