Pacis v Morales

PACIS v MORALES

Topic: Owners and managers of establishments and enterprises

DOCTRINE:  A higher degree of care is required of someone who has in his possession or under his control an instrumentality extremely dangerous in character, such as dangerous weapons or substances. Such person in possession or control of dangerous instrumentalities has the duty to take exceptional precautions to prevent any injury being done thereby. Unlike the ordinary affairs of life or business which involve little or no risk, a business dealing with dangerous weapons requires the exercise of a higher degree of care.

FACTS: Alfredo Pacis and Cleopatra Pacis filed a civil case for damages against Jerome Jovanne Morales. Spouses Paceis are the parents of Alfred, 17 y.o. who died in a shooting incident inside the Top Gun Firearms and Ammunitions Store (gun store) in Baguio City. Morales is the owner.

Alfred died due to a gunshot wound in the head which he sustained while he was at gunstore. The bullet which killed Alfred was fired from a gun brought in by a customer of the gun store for repair. The gun, was left by Morales in a drawer of a table located inside the gun store.

Morales as in Manila at the time. His employee Armando Jarnague, who was the regular caretaker of the gun store was also not around. Jarnague entrusted to Matibag and Herbolario a bunch of keys which included the key to the drawer where the gun was kept. It appears that Matibag and Herbolario later brought out the gun from the drawer and palced it in top of the table. Attacted by it, Alfred got hold of it. Matibag asked Alfred to return the gun. Alfred followed but it went off the bullet hitting Alfred.

The trial court held Morales civilly liable for the death of Alftred under A2180 in relation to A2176, ruling that the accidental shooting of Alfred which caused his death was partyl due to the negligence of Morales’ emplyee – Matibag. CA reversed, ruling that there was no employee-employer relationship because Matibag was not under the control of Morales with respect to the means and methods in the performance of his worK, thus A2180 cannot apply. And even if Matibag was an employee, Morales still cannot be held civilly liable because there is no negligence can be attributed to Morales because he kept the gun.

ISSUE: WON Morales is civilly liable?

RULING: YES. Respondent was clearly negligent when he accepted the gun for repair and placed it inside the drawer without ensuring first that it was not loaded. For failing to insure that the gun was not loaded, Morales himself was negligent.

Under PNP Circular No. 9, entitled the “Policy on Firearms and Ammunition Dealership/Repair,” a person who is in the business of purchasing and selling of firearms and ammunition must maintain basic security and safety requirements of a gun dealer, otherwise his License to Operate Dealership will be suspended or canceled.

As a gun store owner, Morales is presumed to be knowledgeable about firearms safety and should have known never to keep a loaded weapon in his store to avoid unreasonable risk of harm or injury to others. Morales has the duty to ensure that all the guns in his store are not loaded. Firearms should be stored unloaded and separate from ammunition when the firearms are not needed for ready access defensive use.

In the first place, the defective gun should have been stored in a vault. Before accepting the defective gun for repair, Morales should have made sure that it was not loaded to prevent any untoward accident. Indeed, Morales should never accept a firearm from another person, until the cylinder or action is open and he has personally checked that the weapon is completely unloaded

Clearly, Morales did not exercise the degree of care and diligence required of a good father of a family, much less the The bullet which killed Alfred was fired from a gun brought in by a customer of the gun store for repair.

Choice of claim of petitioners

This case for damages arouse out of the accidental shoting of Alfred.  Under A1161 of the Civil Code petitioners may enforce their claim for damages based on the civil liability arising from the crime under Article 100 of the RPC or they may opt to file an independent civil action for damages under the Civil Code.

In this case, instead of enforcing their claim for damages in the homicide case filed against Matibag, petitioners opted to file an independent civil action for damages against respondent whom they alleged was Matibag’s employer. Petitioners based their claim for damages under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. 

DISPOSITIVE: Morales is civilly liable to petitioners because he was negligent.

Garcia, Jr. v Salvador

GARCIA, JR. V. SALVADOR 

Topic: Owners and Managers of Establishments and Enterprises

DOCTRINE: Owners and operators of clinical laboratories have the duty to comply with statutes, as well as rules and regulations, purposely promulgated to protect and promote the health of the people by preventing the operation of substandard, improperly managed and inadequately supported clinical laboratories and by improving the quality of performance of clinical laboratory examinations. Their business is impressed with public interest, as such, high standards of performance are expected from them.

FACTS: Respondent, Ranida D. Salvador, started working as a trainee in the Accounting Department of Limay Bulk Handling Terminal, Inc. As a prerequisite for regular employment, she underwent a medical examination at the Community Diagnostic Center (CDC). Garcia who is a medical technologist, conducted the HBs Ag (Hepatitis B Surface Antigen) test and issued the test result indicating that Ranida was "HBs Ag: Reactive." The result bore the name and signature of Garcia as examiner and the rubber stamp signature of Castro as pathologist.

When Ranida submitted the test result to Dr. Sto. Domingo, the Company physician, the latter apprised her that the findings indicated that she is suffering from Hepatitis B, a liver disease. Thus, based on the medical report submitted by Sto. Domingo, the Company terminated Ranida’s employment for failing the physical examination.

When Ranida informed her father, Ramon, about her ailment, the latter suffered a heart attack and was confined at the Bataan Doctors Hospital. During Ramon’s confinement, Ranida underwent another HBs Ag test at the said hospital and the result indicated that she is non-reactive. She informed Sto. Domingo of this development but was told that the test conducted by CDC was more reliable because it used the Micro-Elisa Method.

Thus, Ranida went back to CDC for confirmatory testing, and this time, the Anti-HBs test conducted on her indicated a "Negative" result. Ranida also underwent another HBs Ag test at the Bataan Doctors Hospital using the Micro-Elisa Method. The result indicated that she was non-reactive.

Ranida submitted the test results from Bataan Doctors Hospital and CDC to the Executive Officer of the Company who requested her to undergo another similar test before her re-employment would be considered. Thus, CDC conducted another HBs Ag test on Ranida which indicated a "Negative" result. Ma. Ruby G. Calderon, Med-Tech Officer-in-Charge of CDC, issued a Certification correcting the initial result and explaining that the examining medical technologist (Garcia) interpreted the delayed reaction as positive or reactive. Thereafter, the Company rehired Ranida.

Ranida and Ramon filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Garcia and a purportedly unknown pathologist of CDC, claiming that, by reason of the erroneous interpretation of the results of Ranida’s examination, she lost her job and suffered serious mental anxiety, trauma and sleepless nights, while Ramon was hospitalized and lost business opportunities.

Garcia denied the allegations of gross negligence and incompetence and reiterated the scientific explanation for the "false positive" result of the first HBs Ag test. On the other hand, Castro claimed that as pathologist, he rarely went to CDC and only when a case was referred to him; that he did not examine Ranida; and that the test results bore only his rubber-stamp signature.

TC: Dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence.

CA: Reversed the trial court’s ruling. Ordered Garcia to pay Ranida moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. CA also found Garcia liable for damages for negligently issuing an erroneous HBs Ag result. On the other hand, it exonerated Castro for lack of participation in the issuance of the results.

ISSUE: WON Garcia should be held liable liable for damages to the respondents for issuing an incorrect HBsAG test result.

RULING: YES. Owners and operators of clinical laboratories have the duty to comply with statutes, as well as rules and regulations, purposely promulgated to protect and promote the health of the people by preventing the operation of substandard, improperly managed and inadequately supported clinical laboratories and by improving the quality of performance of clinical laboratory examinations. Their business is impressed with public interest, as such, high standards of performance are expected from them.

In fine, violation of a statutory duty is negligence. Where the law imposes upon a person the duty to do something, his omission or non-performance will render him liable to whoever may be injured thereby.

A clinical laboratory must be administered, directed and supervised by a licensed physician authorized by the Secretary of Health, like a pathologist who is specially trained in methods of laboratory medicine; that the medical technologist must be under the supervision of the pathologist or a licensed physician; and that the results of any examination may be released only to the requesting physician or his authorized representative upon the direction of the laboratory pathologist. These rules are intended for the protection of the public by preventing performance of substandard clinical examinations by laboratories whose personnel are not properly supervised. The public demands no less than an effective and efficient performance of clinical laboratory examinations through compliance with the quality standards set by laws and regulations.

The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner Garcia failed to comply with these standards. First, CDC is not administered, directed and supervised by a licensed physician as required by law, but by Ma. Ruby C. Calderon, a licensed Medical Technologist. Second, Garcia conducted the HBsAG test of respondent Ranida without the supervision of defendant-appellee Castro. Last, the disputed HBsAG test result was released to respondent Ranida without the authorization of defendant-appellee Castro.

Garcia may not have intended to cause the consequences which followed after the release of the HBsAG test result. However, his failure to comply with the laws and rules promulgated and issued for the protection of public safety and interest is failure to observe that care which a reasonably prudent health care provider would observe. Thus, his act or omission constitutes a breach of duty.

Indubitably, Ranida suffered injury as a direct consequence of Garcia’s failure to comply with the mandate of the laws and rules aforequoted. She was terminated from the service for failing the physical examination; suffered anxiety because of the diagnosis; and was compelled to undergo several more tests. All these could have been avoided had the proper safeguards been scrupulously followed in conducting the clinical examination and releasing the clinical report.

DISPOSITIVE: Respondents won. Affirmed the CA’s ruling.