8. Julian Del Rosario V. Manila Electric Co (Nov. 5, 1932)1. Around 2pm On August 4, 1930, trouble developed in a wire used by Manila Electric Company on Dimas-Alang Street.

2. Jose Noguera, who had charge of a tienda nearby, first noticed that the wire was burning and its connections smoking the wire parted and one of the ends of the wire fell to the ground.

3. Noguera went to the nearby garage and asked Jose Soco, the timekeeper, to telephone the Malabon station of the Manila Electric Company.

4. Soco then transmitted the message. The Malabon station then told him that they would send an inspector

5. At 4 p. m. the neighborhood school was dismissed and the children went home. Among these was Alberto del Rosario (9 years old), Jose Salvador (8 yrs. old), and Saturnino Endrina (10 years old).

6. As the three neared the place where the wire was down, Saturnino made a motion as if it touch it. But Jose stopped Saturnino. The father of Jose Salvador happened to be an electrician and his father had cautioned him never to touch a broken electrical wire.

7. Saturnino listened to Jose Salvador. However, Alberto, who was somewhat ahead, said, I have for some time been in the habit of touching wires ".

8. Jose Salvador to Alberto not to touch the wires, but Alberto, put out his index finger and touched the wire. He immediately fell face downwards, exclaiming "Ay! madre".

9. The end of the wire remained in contact with his body which fell near the post. A crowd soon collected, and someone cut the wire and disengaged the body.

10. When he was taken to St. Luke's Hospital, he was pronounced dead.

11. Julian del Rosario, father of Jose, then filed a complaint for damages in the amount of P30,000. Upon hearing the cause the trial court absolved the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE: W/N Manila Electric Company should be held liable for negligence that caused the death of Alberto.

HELD: YES. Plaintiff is entitled to recover P250 for expenses incurred in connection with the death and burial of the boy and the sum of P1,000 as general damages for loss of service.The engineer of the company says that there is a special inspection of these wires at least once in six months, and that all of the company's inspectors were required in their daily rounds to keep a lookout for trouble of this kind. However, the presumption of negligence on the part of the Manila Electric Company from the breakage of this wire has not been overcome. In the instant case, contributory negligence cannot be properly be imputed to the deceased, owing to his immature years and the natural curiosity, and the mere fact that the deceased ignored the caution of a companion of the age of 8 years does not alter the case.

Separate Opinion: ABAD SANTOS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in so far as the defendant company is held liable for the death of Jose, but I dissent that the plaintiff can only recover P1, 250. In a civil action, the principal object is the recovery of damages for wrongful death. In the instant case, the defendant is a corporation. There should be a distinction between the civil liability of a corporation and an ordinary person. The civil liability of a corporation, organized primarily for profit, which has caused the death of a person by failure to exercise due care should adequately compensate those who have suffered damage by its negligence. Considering the circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff should recover the sum of P2, 250 as damages.

9. Federico Ylarde V. Edgardo Aquino (July 29, 1988)1. On 1962, Sergio Banez started burying huge stones which were remnants of the old school shop that was destroyed in World War II because they were serious hazards to the school children.

2. Sometime in October 1963, Edgardo Aquino gathered 18 of his male pupils, aged 10 to 11, and ordered them to dig beside a one-ton concrete block in order to make a hole wherein the stone can be buried. However, the work was left unfinished.

3. October 8, 1963: Aquino called Alonso, Alcantara, Abaga and Ylarde of the original 18 pupils to continue the digging. They dug until the excavation was 1 meter and 40 centimeters deep.

4. Aquino alone continued digging while the pupils remained inside the pit throwing out the loose soil. When the depth was right enough, they got out of the hole.

5. Aquino left the children to level the loose soil around the open hole while he went to Sergio Banez to borrow the key to the school workroom to get some rope. But before leaving, Edgardo Aquino allegedly told the children "not to touch the stone."

6. A few minutes after Aquino left, Alonso, Alcantara and Ylarde, playfully jumped into the pit. Abaga then jumped on top of the concrete block causing it to slide down towards the opening.

7. Alonso and Alcantara were able to scramble out on time unfortunately for Ylarde, the concrete block caught him before he could get out. Ylarde sustained the following injuries: (1. Contusion with hematoma and with ecchymosis. 2. Lacerated wound in left penile skin; 3. Abrasion in gluteal region, 4. extravasation of blood and urine; 5. Fracture; and 6. Ruptured urinary bladder)

8. 3 days later, Novelito Ylarde died. Ylarde's parents then filed a suit for damages against both Aquino and Soriano (school principal).

9. Lower Court dismissed the complaint. Lower court declared that: (1) digging done by the pupils is in line with their course called Work Education; (2) Aquino exercised the utmost diligence of a very cautious person and (3) demise of Ylarde was due to his own reckless imprudence.

10. CA affirmed the decision of the lower court. Hence, this petition. Petitioners cited article 2176 and 2180 of Civil Code.

ISSUE: W/N Aquino and Soriano should be held liable for negligence.

HELD: YES. SC ordered Edagardo Aquino to pay petitioners the following: (1) Indemnity for the death of Child Ylarde P30K; (2) Exemplary damages 10K (3) Moral damages-20K.

SC cited Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done xxx.

Aquino acted with fault and gross negligence when he: (1) failed to avail himself of services of adult manual laborers; (2) required the children to remain inside the pit knowing that the huge block was lying nearby; (3) ordered them to level the soil around the excavation when it is apparent that the was at the brink of falling; (4) went to a place where he would not be able to check on the children's safety; (5) left the children close to the excavation, an obviously attractive nuisance.

SC held that it was but natural for the children to play around therefore they are not liable for reckless imprudence. Novelito Ylarde would not have died were it not for the unsafe situation created by Aquino.

However, Soriano (principal), is not liable. According to Art. 2180. xxx Teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody. In the instant case, Soriano is the head of an academic school and not a school of arts and trades. Furthermore, Soriano did not give any instruction regarding the digging.4.Experts/Professionals 10. Culion Ice, Fish And Electric Co V. Phil Motors Corp. (Nov. 1930)

1. In the instant case, the plaintiff and defendant are domestic corporations.

2. At the time of the incident, H.D. Cranston was the representative of the plaintiff. At the same time the plaintiff was the registered owner of the motor schooner Gwendoline, which was used in the fishing trade in the Philippine Islands.

3. Sometime in January, 1925, Cranston decided, to have the engine on the Gwendoline changed from a gasoline consumer to a crude oil burner.

4. Cranston went to the office of the Philippine Motors Corporation (PMC) and had a conference with C.E. Quest, its manager, who agreed to do the job, with the understanding that payment should be made upon completion of the work.

5. The PMC was at this time engaged in business as an automobile agency, but also had authority to deal in all sorts of machinery engines and motors, as well as to build, operate, buy and sell the same.

6. Quest, in company with Cranston, visited the Gwendoline anchored in the Pasig River.

7. Upon inspection of the engine, Quest came to the concluded a new a Zenith carburetor shall be installed. After the installation, the engine was tried with gasoline and the result of this experiment was satisfactory.

8. The next problem was to introduce into the carburetor the baser fuel, consisting of a low grade of oil. In the course of the preliminary work, it was observed that the carburetor was flooding, and that the gasoline was trickling freely from the lower part to the carburetor.

9. This fact was called to Quest's attention, but he appeared to think lightly of the matter and said that, when the engine had gotten to running well, the flooding would disappear.

10. Sometime in January, 1925, around 7:30 pm, the engine of the Gwendoline stopped. Because of such, a connection again had to be made with the gasoline line to get a new start. After this had been done, the engineer, switched to the tube connecting with the new mixture.

11. A moment later a back fire occurred in the cylinder chamber. This caused a flame to shoot back into the carburetor, and instantly cause a mass of flames.

12. The members of the crew were unable to subdue the fire so the crew were compelled to escape. Their escape was safely effected, but the Gwendoline was reduced to a mere hulk. The salvage from, the wreck, when sold, brought only the sum of P150. The value of the boat, before the accident occurred, as the court found, was P10,000.

ISSUE: W/N the incident was due to the negligence of Phil. Motors as experts.

HELD: YES. SC awarded to the plaintiff the amount of P9,850, with interest. According to SC, the burning of the Gwendoline may be said to have resulted from an accident, but this accident was an unavoidable accident. It would not have occurred if not for Quests carelessness or lack of skill.

The test of liability is not whether the injury was accidental in a sense, but whether Quest was free from blame. The proof shows that Quest had had ample experience in fixing the engines of automobiles, but he was inexperienced in the doing of similar work on boats. But a person skilled in that particular sort of work would, have been sufficiently warned from those circumstances to cause him to take greater precautions against the danger. In other words Quest did not use the skill that would have been exhibited by one ordinarily expert in repairing gasoline engines on boats. In this connection it must be remembered that when a person holds himself out as being competent to do things requiring professional skill, he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular work which he attempts to do.