Strict Liability Doctrines

Topic: Strict Liability Case: Milagros Ibardo v. Nava Held: The Court held negative to both. The possessor or user of an animal is liable for the damage caused by the animal even if such damage was not due to his fault or negligence. Only when the damage caused by the animal is due to force maure or fault of the inured party himself that its possessor or user is not liable. In ascertaining the pers person on!s !s liab liable le"" it is esse essent ntia iall to dete determ rmin inee the the poss posses esso sorr or user user of the the anim animal al #ownership is inconse$uential%. &efendants e'ercised control of their yard and they  made use of the dog to guard their copra. They are oint possessors" enoying common use of the same and as such they are ointly and severally liable. Case: (estil v. I)C Held: *es. )rt. +,-. The possessor of an animal or whoever may ma/e use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause" although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force maeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage.  (estils0 contention that they could not be e'pected to e'ercise remote control over the dog is unacceptable. In fact" )rticle +,- of the Civil Code holds the possessor liable even if the animal should 1escape or be lost2 and so be removed from his control. It does not matter either that the dog was tame and was merely provo/ed by the child into  biting her. The law does not spea/ only of vicious animals but covers even tame ones as long as they cause inury.  )ccording to Manresa" the obligation imposed by )rticle +,- of the Civil Code is not  based on the negligence or on the presumed lac/ of vigilance of the possessor or user of  the animal causing the damage. It is based on natural e$uity and on the principle of  social interest that he who possesses animals for his utility" pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such animal may cause. Case: Candano 3hipping v. 3ugata4on Held: Held: No. The Court Court cited" cited" 5lore 5loresca sca v. 6hile' 6hile' Mining Mining Compan Company" y" where where the Court Court declared that employees may invo/e either the 7or/men0s Compensation )ct or the Civil Code" subect to the conse$uence that the choice of one remedy will e'clude the other other and that that the accep acceptan tance ce of the compen compensat sation ion under under the reme remedy dy chose chosen n will will e'clude the other remedy. The e'ception is where the claimant who had already been paid under the 7or/mens Compensation )ct may still sue for damages under the Civil Code on the basis of supervening facts or developments occurring after he opted for the first remedy. In this case" 5lorentina was forced to institute a civil suit for indemnity under  )rticle ,8,, the New Civil Code" after Candano 3hipping refused to compensate compensate her husband0s death.

 )rticle +,99 of the Civil Code provides that one is entitled to an ade$uate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved actual damages;. )rticle ++<< provides that indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered" but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain. The Court deemed it best to adopt the formula for loss of earning capacity  enunciated in the case of (illa =ey v. Court of )ppeals" in computing the amount of  actual damages to be awarded to the claimant under )rticle ,8,, of the New Civil Code. The formula for the computation of unearned income is Net >arning Capacity ? life e'pectancy ' #gross annual income 4 reasonable and necessary living e'penses%. @urisprudence provides that the first factor" i.e." life e'pectancy" shall be computed by  applying the formula #+! ' -< 4 age at death;% adopted in the )merican >'pectancy  Table of Mortality. Case: 6)A v. C)  Held: *es. The diBBy spells" headache and general debility of private respondent 3amson  was an after4effect of the crash4landing. The admitted difficulty of defendant0s #6)A% doctors in determining the cause of the diBBy spells and headache cannot be a sound  basis for finding against the plaintiff and in favor of defendant. 7hatever it might be" the fact is that such diBBy spells" headache and general debility was an after4effect of the crash4landing. e it brain inury or psychosomatic" neurasthenic or psychogenic" there is no gainsaying the fact that it was caused by the crash4landing. )s an effect of the cause" not fabricated or concocted" plaintiff has to be indemnified. The fact is that such effect caused his discharge. The Court believed the testimony of the plaintiff0s doctors. &r. Morales" a surgeon" found that blood was coming from plaintiff0s ears and nose. He testified that plaintiff was suffering from cerebral concussion as a result of  traumatic inury to the brain caused by his head hitting on the windshield of the plane during the crash4landing. &r. Conrado )ramil" a neurologist and psychiatrist with e'perience in two hospitals abroad" found abnormality reflected by the electroencephalogram e'amination in the frontal area on both sides of plaintiff0s head. The opinion of these two specialist renders unnecessary that of plaintiff0s wife  who is a physician in her own right and because of her relation to the plaintiff" her testimony and opinion may not be discussed here" although her testimony is crystalliBed  by the opinions of &r. )dor &ionisio" &r. Mar$ueB" &r. @ose O. Chan" &r. *ambao and &r. 3andico. >ven the doctors presented by 6)A admit vital facts about the brain inury. &r. ernardo and &r. =eyes admits that due to the incident" the plaintiff continuously  complained of his fainting spells" diBBiness and headache every time he flew as a co4pilot and every time he went to the clinic no less than +D times. Court also find the imputation of gross negligence by respondent court to 6)A for having allowed Capt. &elfin ustamante to fly on that fateful day of the accident on @anuary -" ,9D,.

The pilot was sic/. He admittedly had tumor of the nasopharyn' #nose%. He is now in the Ereat eyond. The spot is very near the brain and the eyes. Tumor on the spot will affect the sinus" the breathing" the eyes which are very near it. No one will certify the fitness to fly a plane of one suffering from the disease. The evidence shows that the overshooting of the runway and crash4landing at the mangrove was caused by the pilot for which acts the defendant must answer for damages caused thereby. )nd for this negligence of  defendant0s employee" it is liable. The fact that private respondent suffered physical inuries in the head when the plane crash4 landed due to the negligence of Capt. ustamante is undeniable. The negligence of the latter is clearly a $uasi4delict and therefore )rticle ++,9" #+% New Civil Code is applicable" ustifying the recovery of moral damages. The ustification in the award of  moral damages under )rt. ,9 of the New Civil Code on Human =elations which re$uires that every person must" in the e'ercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties" act with ustice" give everyone his due" and observe honesty and good faith is proper.