NEGLIGENCE TORTSONG V METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICTFACTS: One afternoon, Dominador Ong, a 14-year old high school student and a boy scout, and his brothers Ruben and Eusebio, went to defendants swimming pools. They immediately went to one of the small pools where the water was shallow. At about 4:35 p.m., Dominador Ong told his brothers that he was going to the locker room in an adjoining building to drink a bottle of coke. Upon hearing this, Ruben and Eusebio went to the bigger pool leaving Dominador in the small pool.Between 4:40 to 4:45 p.m., some boys informed a bather Andres Hagad, Jr., that somebody was swimming under water for quite a long time. Another boy informed lifeguard Manuel Abao of the same happening and Abao immediately jumped into the big swimming pool and retrieved the apparently lifeless body of Dominador Ong from the bottom. Plaintifs spouses seek to recover from defendant damagesfor the death of their son Dominador Ong in one of the swimming pools operated by defendant. Defendant admits the fact that plaintifs son was drowned in one of its swimming pools but avers that his death was caused by his own negligence or by unavoidable accident. Defendant also avers that it had exercised due diligence in the selection of, and supervision over, its employees and that it had observed the diligence required by law under the circumstances. ISSUE: Whether or not defendant is guilty of negligence and hence liable for damages for the death of Dominador OngHELD:No.Defendantisnotguiltyof negligence and is not liable for damages for the death of Dominador Ong. Article 2176Whoever 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 preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. Article 2180The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for ones own acts or omissions, but also for those persons for whom one is responsible. The rule is well settled that the owners of resorts to which people generally are expressly or by implication invited are legally bound to exercise ordinary care and prudence in the management and maintenance of such resorts, to the end of making them reasonably safe for visitors. (Larkin vs. Saltair Beach Co., 30 Utah 86, 83 Pac. 688). Although the proprietor of a natatorium is liable for injuries to a patron, resulting from lack of ordinary care in providing for his safety, without the fault of the patron, he is not, however, in any sense deemed to be the insurer of the safety of patrons. And the death of a patron within his premises does not cast upon him the burden of excusing himself from any presumption of negligence (Bertalot vs. Kinnare, 72 Ill. App. 52, 22 A. L. R. 635; Flora vs. Bimini Water Co., 161 Cal. 495, 119 Pac. 661). Since the present action is one for damages founded on culpable negligence, the principle to be observed is that the person claiming damages has the burden of proving that the damage is caused by the fault or negligence of the person from whom the damage is claimed, or of one of his employees (Walter A. Smith & Co. vs. Cadwallader Gibson Lumber Co., 55 Phil. 517).Have appellants established by sufcient evidence the existence of fault or negligence on the part of appellee so as to render it liable for damages for the death of Dominador Ong? There is sufcient evidence to show that appellee has taken all necessary precautions to avoid danger to the lives of its patrons or prevent accident which may cause their death: The swimming pools are provided with a ring buoy, toy roof, towing line, oxygen resuscitator and a frst aid medicine kit. The bottom of the pools is painted with black colors so as to insure clear visibility. There is on display in a conspicuous place within the area certain rules and regulations governing the use of the pools. Appellee employs six lifeguards who are all trained as they had taken a course for that purpose and were issued certifcates of profciency. These lifeguards work on schedule prepared by their chief and arranged in such a way as to have two guards at a time on duty to look after the safety of the bathers. There is a male nurse and a sanitary inspector with a clinic provided with oxygen resuscitator.There are security guards who are available always in case of emergency. The record also shows that when the body of minor Ong was retrieved from the bottom of the pool, the employees of appellee did everything possible to bring him back to life. He was placed at the edge of the pool, lifeguard Abao immediately gave him manual artifcial respiration. Soon thereafter, nurse Armando Rule arrived, followed by sanitary inspector Iluminado Vicente who brought with him an oxygen resuscitator. When they found that the pulse of the boy was abnormal, the inspector immediately injected him with camphorated oil. When the manual artifcial respiration proved inefective they applied the oxygen resuscitator until its contents were exhausted. And while all these eforts were being made, they sent for Dr. Ayuyao from the University of the Philippines who however came late because upon examining the body found him to be already dead. MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION,, vs. SEBASTIAN M. BAKING FACTS: Respondent went to the clinic of Dr. Cesar Sy for a medical check-up. Finding that respondents blood sugar and triglyceride were above normal levels, Dr. Sy gave respondent two medical prescriptions Diamicron for his blood sugar and Benalize tablets for his triglycerideRespondent then proceeded to petitioner Mercury Drug Corporation to buy the prescribed medicines. However, the saleslady misread the prescription for Diamicron as a prescription for Dormicum. Thus, what was sold to respondent was Dormicum, a potent sleeping tablet.Unaware that what was given to him was the wrong medicine, respondent took one pill of Dormicum on three consecutive days. On the third day he took the medicine, respondent fgured in a vehicular accident. The car he was driving collided with the car of one Josie Peralta. Respondent fell asleep while driving. He could not remember anything about the collision nor felt its impact. ISSUE: Whether petitioner was negligent, and if so, whether such negligence was the proximate cause of respondents accidentYes. Petitioner was negligentTo sustain a claim based Article 2176, the following requisites must concur: (a)damage sufered by the plaintif; (b)fault or negligence of the defendant; and, (c)connection of cause and efect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintif.. In the instant case: There is no dispute that respondent sufered damages Petitioners employee was grossly negligent in selling to respondent Dormicum, instead of the prescribed Diamicron. It is generally recognized that the drugstore business is imbued with public interest. The health and safety of the people will be put into jeopardy if drugstore employees will not exercise the highest degree of care and diligence in selling medicines. Considering that a fatal mistake could be a matter of life and death for a buying patient, the said employee should have been very cautious in dispensing medicines. She should have verifed whether the medicine she gave respondent was indeed the one prescribed by his physician. The care required must be commensurate with the danger involved, and the skill . As a result of the negligent act of petitioner, respondent sufered damage. Yes. The negligence of petitioner was the proximate cause of the damage sufered by respondent. Proximate cause is defned as any cause that produces injury in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efcient intervening cause, such that the result would not have occurred otherwise. Proximate cause is determined from the facts of each case, upon a combined consideration of logic, common sense, policy, and precedent. In the instant case,The vehicular accident could not have occurred had petitioners employee been careful in reading Dr. Sys prescription.Withoutthepotentefectsof Dormicum, a sleeping tablet, it was unlikely that respondent would fall asleep while driving his car, resulting in a collision.LIABILITY OF PETITIONER FOR NEGLIGENT ACTS OF ITS EMPLOYEEART. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for ones own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damageWhen an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there instantly arises a presumption of the law that there has been negligence on the part of the employer, either in the selection of his employee or in the supervision over him, after such selection. The presumption, however, may be rebutted by a clear showing on the part of the employer that he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee. Here, petitioner's failure to prove that it exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employee will make it solidarily liable for damages caused by the latter.SO PING BUN v CAFACTS:Tek Hua TRADINGCo, through its MANAGINGpartner, So Pek Giok, entered into four lease agreements with lessor Dee C. Chuan & Sons Inc. (DCCSI). Subjects of four (4) lease contracts were premises used the areas to store its textiles. When the contracts expired, the parties did not renew the contracts, but Tek Hua continued to occupy the premises. In 1976, Tek Hua TRADINGCo. was dissolved. Later, the original members of Tek Hua TRADING Co. including Manuel C. Tiong, formed Tek Hua Enterprising Corp., herein respondent corporation.So Pek Giok, managing partner of Tek Hua Trading, died in 1986. So Pek Giok's grandson, petitioner So Ping Bun, occupied the warehouse for his own textile business, Trendsetter Marketing.Sometime later, lessor DCCSI sent letters addressed to Tek Hua Enterprises with new lease contracts enclosed for signing. Private respondents did not answer any of these letters. Still, the lease contracts were not rescinded.Private respondent Tiong sent a letter to petitioner requesting him to vacate all his stocks in the subject warehouses since they will be needing the same in their new stock business.Petitioner refused to vacate. Instead, petitioner requested formal contracts of lease with DCCSI in favor Trendsetter Marketing. So Ping Bun claimed that after the death of his grandfather, So Pek Giok, he had been occupying the premises for his textile business and religiously paid rent. DCCSI acceded to petitioner's request. The lease contracts in favor of Trendsetter were executed.Private respondents pressed for the nullifcation of the lease contracts between DCCSI and petitioner. They also claimed damages.Both the trial court and CA found So Ping Bun guilty of tortious interference of contract. The lease contracts were ordered anulled, made permanent the preliminary injunction and awarded attorneys fees in favor of PR. No damages was however awarded.ISSUE: Whether So Ping Bun is guilty of tortious interferenceHELD: Yes. So Ping Bun is guilty of tortious interference. However, he is not liable for damages.Damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from injury, and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage sufered.One becomes liable in an action for damages for a nontrespassory invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of asset if (a)the other has property rights and privileges with respect to the use or enjoyment interfered with, (b)the invasion is substantial, (c) the defendant's conduct is a legal cause of the invasion, and (d) the invasion is either intentional and unreasonable or unintentional and actionable under general negligence rulesTORT INTERFERENCEA duty which the law of torts is concerned with is respect for the property of others, and a cause of action ex delicto may be predicated upon an unlawful interference by one person of the enjoyment by the other of his private property. This may pertain to a situation where a third person induces a party to renege on or violate his undertaking under a contract. The elements of tort interference are: 1.existence of a valid contract; 2.knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of contract; and3.interference of the third person is without legal justifcation or excuse.In the instant case, petitioner's Trendsetter Marketing asked DCCSI to execute lease contracts in its favor, and as a result petitioner deprived respondent corporation of the latter's property right. HOWEVER, interference with the business relations of another may be justifed when the defendant acts for the sole purpose of furthering his own FINANCIALor economic interest. There was no malice in the interference of a contract, and the impulse behind one's conduct lies in a proper business interest rather than in wrongful motives, a party cannot be a malicious interferer.It is not necessary that the interferer's interest outweigh that of the party whose rights are invaded, and that an individual acts under an economic interest that is substantial, not merely de minimis, such that wrongful and malicious motives are negatived, for he acts in self-protection. It is sufcient if the impetus of his conduct lies in a proper business interest rather than in wrongful motivesIn the instant case, it is clear that petitioner So Ping Bun prevailed upon DCCSI to lease the warehouse to his enterprise at the expense of respondent corporation. Though petitioner took interest in the property of respondent corporation and benefted from it, nothing on record imputes deliberate wrongful motives or malice on him.While we do not encourage tort interferers seeking their economic interest to intrude into existing contracts at the expense of others, however, we fnd that the conduct herein complained of did not transcend the limits forbidding an obligatory award for damages in the absence of any malice. The business desire is there to make some gain to the detriment of the contracting parties. Lack of malice, however, precludes damages. But it does not relieve petitioner of the legal liability for entering into contracts and causing breach of existing ones. The respondent appellate court correctly confrmed the permanent injunction and nullifcation of the lease contracts between DCCSI and Trendsetter Marketing, without awarding damages. The injunction saved the respondents from further damage or injury caused by petitioner's interference.