Real Vs Belo
Real Vs Belo
Same; Same; What should guide judicial action is that a party litigant is
given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or
defense rather than for him to lose life, honor or property on mere
technicalities.Truly, in dismissing the petition for review, the CA had committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in putting a premium on
technicalities at the expense of a just resolution of the case. The Courts
pronouncement in Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 292 SCRA 243
(1998), is worth echoing: cases should be determined on the merits, after full
opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on
technicality or some procedural imperfections. In that way, the ends of justice would
be better served. Thus, what should guide judicial action is that a party litigant is
given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or defense rather
than for him to lose life, honor or property on mere technicalities.
Torts; Quasi-Delicts; Negligence; Fortuitous Events; Elements; A partys
theory of fortuitous event is unavailing where the circumstances show
that the fire originated from leaking fumes from the LPG stove and tank
installed at a partys fastfood stall and her employees failed to prevent
the fire from spreading and destroying the other fastfood stalls.
Jurisprudence defines the elements of a fortuitous event as follows: (a) the cause
of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence must be independent of human will;
(b) it must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or
if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid; (c) the occurrence must be
such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal
manner; and (d) the obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation
of the injury resulting to the creditor. Article 1174 of the Civil Code provides that no
person shall be responsible for a fortuitous event which could not be foreseen, or
which, though foreseen, was inevitable. In other words, there must be an entire
exclusion of human agency from the cause of injury or loss. It is established by
evidence that the fire originated from leaking fumes from the LPG stove and tank
installed at petitioners fastfood stall and her employees failed to prevent the fire
from spreading and destroying the other fastfood stalls, including respondents
fastfood stall. Such circumstances do not support petitioners theory of fortuitous
event.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Evidence; Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by
evidence, are not equivalent to proof.Petitioners bare allegation is far from
sufficient proof for the Court to rule in her favor. It is basic in the rule of evidence
that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof. In
short, mere allegations are not evidence.
Same; Same; Same; Whenever an employees negligence causes damage
or injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that
the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the
selection (culpa in eligiendo) or supervision (culpa in vigilando) of its
ISSUE:
WON the herein petitioner could be held liable for damages as a result
of the fire that razed not only her own food kiosk but also the adjacent food
stalls at the Food Center premises of the Philippine Womens University,
including that of the respondent.
HELD:
Yes. It is established by evidence that the fire originated from leaking
fumes from the LPG stove and tank installed at petitioners fastfood stall and
her employees failed to prevent the fire from spreading and destroying the
other fastfood stalls, including respondents fastfood stall. Such
circumstances do not support petitioners theory of fortuitous event.
Whenever an employees negligence causes damage or injury to
another, there instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that the employer
failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection or supervision
of its employees. To avoid liability for a quasi-delict committed by his
employee, an employer must overcome the presumption by presenting
convincing proof that he exercised the care and diligence of a good father of
a family in the selection and supervision of his employee.
In this case, petitioner not only failed to show that she submitted proof
that the LPG stove and tank in her fastfood stall were maintained in good
condition and periodically checked for defects but she also failed to submit
proof that she exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of her employees. For failing to prove care and
diligence in the maintenance of her cooking equipment and in the selection
and supervision of her employees, the necessary inference was that
petitioner had been negligent.