Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 146 views

    Maranan Vs Perez 20 SCRA 412

    Uploaded by

    Eunice Serneo
    1) A passenger in a taxicab was stabbed and killed by the driver. 2) The driver was found guilty of homicide and the passenger's mother filed a damages claim against the driver and the taxicab owner. 3) The taxicab owner claimed the death was a "caso fortuito" and exempted him from liability. However, the court ruled against the owner, finding the carrier absolutely liable for assaults committed by employees against passengers under the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Maranan Vs Perez 20 SCRA 412

    Uploaded by

    Eunice Serneo
    146 views1 page
    1) A passenger in a taxicab was stabbed and killed by the driver. 2) The driver was found guilty of homicide and the passenger's mother filed a damages claim against the driver and the taxicab owner. 3) The taxicab owner claimed the death was a "caso fortuito" and exempted him from liability. However, the court ruled against the owner, finding the carrier absolutely liable for assaults committed by employees against passengers under the Civil Code.

    Original Description:

    oo

    Original Title

    16

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) A passenger in a taxicab was stabbed and killed by the driver. 2) The driver was found guilty of homicide and the passenger's mother filed a damages claim against the driver and the taxicab owner. 3) The taxicab owner claimed the death was a "caso fortuito" and exempted him from liability. However, the court ruled against the owner, finding the carrier absolutely liable for assaults committed by employees against passengers under the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    146 views1 page

    Maranan Vs Perez 20 SCRA 412

    Uploaded by

    Eunice Serneo
    1) A passenger in a taxicab was stabbed and killed by the driver. 2) The driver was found guilty of homicide and the passenger's mother filed a damages claim against the driver and the taxicab owner. 3) The taxicab owner claimed the death was a "caso fortuito" and exempted him from liability. However, the court ruled against the owner, finding the carrier absolutely liable for assaults committed by employees against passengers under the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    16.

    MARANAN VS PEREZ
    20 SCRA 412

    FACTS:
    Rogelio Corachea, a passenger in a taxicab owned and operated by Pascual Perez, was stabbed
    and killed by the driver, Simeon Valenzuela. Valenzuela was found guilty for homicide by the
    Court of First Instance and was sentenced to suffer Imprisonment and to indemnify the
    heirs of the deceased in the sum of P6000. While pendingappeal, mother of deceased filed an
    action in the Court of First Instance of Batangas to recover damages from Perez and Valenzuela.
    Defendant Perez claimed that the death was a caso fortuito for which the carrier was not liable.
    The court a quo, after trial, found for the plaintiff and awarded her P3,000 as damages against
    defendant Perez. The claim against defendant Valenzuela was dismissed. From this ruling, both
    plaintiff and defendant Perez appealed to this Court, the former asking for more damages and the
    latter insisting on non-liability.

    Defendant-appellant relied solely on the ruling enunciated in Gillaco vs. Manila Railroad Co.
    that the carrier is under no absolute liability for assaults of its employees upon the passengers.

    ISSUE:

    Was the contention of the defendant valid?

    RULING:

    No. The attendant facts and controlling law of that case and the one at bar were very different. In
    the Gillaco case, the passenger was killed outside the scope and the course of duty of the guilty
    employee. The Gillaco case was decided under the provisions of the Civil Code of 1889
    which, unlike the present Civil Code, did not impose upon common carriers absolute liability for
    the safety of passengers against willful assaults or negligent acts committed by their employees.
    The death of the passenger in the Gillaco case was truly a fortuitous event which exempted the
    carrier from liability. It is true that Art. 1105 of the old Civil Code on fortuitous events has been
    substantially reproduced in Art. 1174 of the Civil Code of the Philippines but both articles
    clearly remove from their exempting effect the case where the law expressly provides for
    liability in spite of the occurrence of force majeure. The Civil Code provisions on the subject of
    Common Carriers are new and were taken from Anglo-American Law. The basis of the carrier's
    liability for assaults on passengers committed by its drivers rested either on the doctrine of
    respondent superior or the principle that it was the carrier's implied duty to transport the
    passenger safely. Under the second view, upheld by the majority and also by the later cases, it
    was enough that the assault happens within the course of the employee's duty. It was no defense
    for the carrier that the act was done in excess of authority or in disobedience of the carrier's
    orders. The carrier's liability here was absolute in the sense that it practically secured the
    passengers from assaults committed by its own employees.

    You might also like