Boy filed a case for damages against the abortionist, praying therein that the latter be ordered to

Mr and Mrs R own a burned-out building, the firewall of which collapsed and destroyed the shop occupied by the family of Mr and Mrs S, which resulted in injuries to said couple and the death of their daughter. Mr and Mrs S had been warned by Mr Mrs R to vacate the shop in view of its proximity isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation to the weakened wall but the former failed to do so.
Mr Mrs S filed against Mr and  Mrs R  an  action  for recovery of damages the former suffered as a result of the collapse of the firewall. In defense, isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation Mr and Mrs R rely on the doctrine of last clear chance alleging that Mr and Mrs S had the last clear chance to avoid the accident if only they heeded the former's warning to vacate the shop, and therefore Mr and Mrs R's prior negligence should be disregarded.
I would decide in favor of Mr Mrs S. The proprietor of a building   or   structure   is   responsible   for   the   damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs (Art 2190 Civil Code)
As regards the defense of "last clear chance," the same is not tenable because according to the SC in one case  (De  Roy  v.  CA  L-80718,  Jan.  29,  1988,  157  S  757)  the doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable to instances covered by Art 2190 of the Civil Code.
Further, in Phoenix Construction, Inc. v.s IAC (G.R. No. L-65295, March 10, 1987, 148 SCRA 353) , the Supreme Court held that the role of the common law last clear chance doctrine in relation isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation to Article 2179 of the Civil Code is merely to mitigate damages within the context of contributory negligence.
On   January   5,   1992,   Nonoy   obtained   a   loan   of Pl,000,000.00 isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation from his friend Raffy. The promissory note did not stipulate any payment for Interest. The note was due on January 5, 1993 but before this date the two became political enemies. Nonoy, out of spite, deliberately defaulted in paying the note, thus forcing Raffy to sue him.
1)   Raffy may recover the amount of the promissory note of P1 million, together with interest at the legal rate from the date of judicial or extrajudicial demand.    In addition, however, inasmuch as the debtor is in bad faith, he is liable for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. (Art. 2201(2). NCC).
3)   Nominal damages may not be recoverable in this case because Raffy may already be indemnified of his losses with the  award  of  actual  and  compensatory  damages. NOMINAL DAMAGES are adjudicated only in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. (Article 2231. Civil Code)
4)  Raffy  may  ask  for,  but  would  most  likely  not  be awarded temperate damages, for the reason that his actual damages may already be compensated upon proof thereof with the promissory note.      TEMPERATE DAMAGES may be awarded only when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation from  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  proved  with  certainty. (Article 2224, Civil Code)
5)  Yes, under paragraph 2, Article 2208 of the Civil Code, considering that Nonoy s act or omission has compelled Raffy to litigate to protect his interests. Furthermore. attorneys fees may be awarded by the court when it is just and equitable. (Article 2208(110) Civil Code).
On her third month of pregnancy, Rosemarie, married to Boy, for reasons known only to her, and without informing Boy, went to the clinic of X, a known abortionist, who for a fee, removed and expelled the fetus from her womb, Boy learned of the abortion six (6) months later.
Boy filed a case for damages against the abortionist, praying therein that the latter be ordered isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation to pay him: (a) P30,000.00 as indemnity for the death of the fetus, (b) P100.000.00 as moral damages for the mental anguish and anxiety isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation he suffered, (c) P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, (d) P20,000.00 as nominal damages, and (e) P25,000.00 as attorney s fees.
If a pregnant woman passenger of a bus were to suffer an abortion following a vehicular accident due to the gross negligence of the bus driver,   may she and her husband claim damages from the bus company for the death of their unborn child? Explain.
No, the spouses cannot recover isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation actual damages isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation in the form of indemnity for the loss of life of the unborn child. This is because the unborn child is not yet considered a person and the law allows indemnity only for loss of life of person.  The mother, however may recover damages for the bodily injury she suffered from the loss of the fetus which is considered part of her internal organ.   The parents may also recover damages isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation for injuries that are inflicted directly upon them, e.g., moral damages for mental anguish that attended the loss of the unborn child.   Since there is gross negligence, exemplary damages can also be recovered.   (G elus  v. CA,  2  SCRA   801   [1961])
isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation Johnny Maton s conviction for homicide was affirmed isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation by the Court of Appeals and in addition, although the prosecution isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation had not appealed at all. The appellate court increased the indemnity for death from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00. On his appeal to the Supreme Court, isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation among the other things Johnny Maton brought to the high court s attention, was the increase of indemnity imposed by the Court of Appeals despite the clear fact that the People had not appealed from the appellate court s judgment.
a) In Abejam isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation v .  Court  of  Appeals isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation , the Supreme Court said that even if the issue of damages were not raised by the appellant in the Court of Appeals but the Court of Appeals in its findings increased the damages, the Supreme Court will not disturb the findings of the Court of Appeals.
b) No, the contention of the accused is not correct because upon appeal to the Appellate Court, the court acquired isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation jurisdiction over the entire isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation case, criminal as well as civil. Since the conviction of homicide had been appealed, there is no finality in the amount of indemnity because the civil liability arising from the crime and the judgment on the crime has not yet become final
c)  Yes. Since the civil indemnity is an award in the civil action arising from the criminal offense, the rule that a party cannot be granted affirmative relief unless he himself has appealed should apply. Therefore, it was error for the Court of Appeals to have expanded the indemnity since the judgment on the civil liability had become final.
As a result of a collision between the taxicab owned by A and another taxicab owned by B, X, a passenger of the first taxicab, was seriously injured. X later filed a criminal action against both drivers.
It depends. If the civil action is based on a quasi-delict the taxicab owners may raise the defense of diligence of a good father isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation of a family in the selection and supervision of the driver; if the action against them is based on culpa contractual or civil liability arising from a crime, they cannot raise the defense.
As a result of a collision between the taxicab owned by A and another taxicab owned by B, X, a passenger of the first taxicab, was seriously injured. X later filed a criminal action against both drivers.
It depends. If the separate civil action is to recover damages arising from the criminal act, reservation is necessary. If the civil action against the taxicab owners is based on culpa contractual, or on quasi-delict, there is no need for reservation.
No, such reservation is not necessary. Under Section 1 of Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, what is "deemed  instituted"  with the  criminal  action is  only  the action to recover civil liability arising isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation from the crime or ex delicto. All the other civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the New Civil Code are no longer "deemed instituted", and may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the criminal action (Section 3, Rule 111, Ibid). The failure to make a reservation in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file a separate  and  independent isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation civil  action based  on these articles of the New Civil Code (Casupanan  v.  Laroya  G.R.  No.  145391,  August  26,  2002).
A van owned by Orlando and driven by Diego, while negotiating isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation a downhill isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation slope of a city road, suddenly gained speed, obviously beyond the authorized limit in the area, and bumped a car in front of it, causing severed damage to the care and serious injuries to its passengers. Orlando isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation was not in the car at the time of the incident. The car owner and the injured passengers sued Orlando and Diego for damages caused by Diego's negligence. In their defense, Diego claims that the downhill slope caused the van to gain speed and that, as he stepped isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation on the brakes to check the acceleration, the brakes locked, causing the van to go even faster and eventually to hit the car in front of it. Orlando and Diego contend that the sudden malfunction of the van's brake system is a fortuitous even and that, therefore, they are exempt from any liability.
No. Mechanical defects of a motor vehicle do not constitute fortuitous event, since the presence of such defects would have been readily detected by diligent maintenance check. The failure to maintain the vehicle in safe running condition constitutes negligence.
DT  and  MT  were  prominent  members  of  the  frequent travelers' club of FX Airlines. In Hongkong, the couple isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation were assigned isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation seats in Business Class for which they had bought tickets.   On checking in, however, they were told they were upgraded by computer to First Class for the flight to Manila because the Business Section was overbooked.
Both refused to transfer despite better seats, food, beverage and other services in First Class.  They said they had guests in   Business isle of wight coach tours travel accommodation   Class   they   should   attend   to.   They   felt humiliated, embarrassed and vexed, however, when the stewardess allegedly threatened to offload them if they did