Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    Europa v. HGMI

    Uploaded by

    Jocel Bataga
    This case involved a wrongful death claim filed by Lucia Europa, the mother of Lucrecia Europa, against Hunter Garments Manufacturing after Lucrecia died from electrocution while using a high speed sewing machine during her employment. The trial court found Hunter liable and awarded damages, but the appellate court overturned based on improper service of summons. The Supreme Court then determined that Hunter was grossly negligent because the sewing machines were known to be ungrounded and improperly maintained, and Lucrecia's death from electrocution could have been prevented by regular inspections and maintenance, so they increased the damages award to P30,000.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Europa v. HGMI

    Uploaded by

    Jocel Bataga
    41 views2 pages
    This case involved a wrongful death claim filed by Lucia Europa, the mother of Lucrecia Europa, against Hunter Garments Manufacturing after Lucrecia died from electrocution while using a high speed sewing machine during her employment. The trial court found Hunter liable and awarded damages, but the appellate court overturned based on improper service of summons. The Supreme Court then determined that Hunter was grossly negligent because the sewing machines were known to be ungrounded and improperly maintained, and Lucrecia's death from electrocution could have been prevented by regular inspections and maintenance, so they increased the damages award to P30,000.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    76. Europa v. HGMI

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a wrongful death claim filed by Lucia Europa, the mother of Lucrecia Europa, against Hunter Garments Manufacturing after Lucrecia died from electrocution while using a high speed sewing machine during her employment. The trial court found Hunter liable and awarded damages, but the appellate court overturned based on improper service of summons. The Supreme Court then determined that Hunter was grossly negligent because the sewing machines were known to be ungrounded and improperly maintained, and Lucrecia's death from electrocution could have been prevented by regular inspections and maintenance, so they increased the damages award to P30,000.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    41 views2 pages

    Europa v. HGMI

    Uploaded by

    Jocel Bataga
    This case involved a wrongful death claim filed by Lucia Europa, the mother of Lucrecia Europa, against Hunter Garments Manufacturing after Lucrecia died from electrocution while using a high speed sewing machine during her employment. The trial court found Hunter liable and awarded damages, but the appellate court overturned based on improper service of summons. The Supreme Court then determined that Hunter was grossly negligent because the sewing machines were known to be ungrounded and improperly maintained, and Lucrecia's death from electrocution could have been prevented by regular inspections and maintenance, so they increased the damages award to P30,000.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    EUROPA

    vs. HUNTER GARMENTS MANUFACTURING, INC.

    G.R. No. 72827 July 18, 1989

    FACTS: 1. Petitioner: Lucia Europa (Mother of the deceased Lucresia Europa

    2. Respondents: Hunter Garments MFG. (PHIL.) Inc. and Intermediate Appellate Court

    3. Action: -Petitioner filed an action for damages against private respondent based on
    quasi-delict.

    4. – In 1973, the petitioner's daughter, Lucrecia Europa, was employed as sample


    maker by the private respondent Hunter Garments Manufacturing (Philippines)
    Incorporated. Sometime during the course of her employment, or on March 9,
    1978, Lucrecia got electrocuted by the high speed sewing machine which had
    been assigned to her by the private respondent.

    5. RTC (CFI): the trial court rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:

    WHEREFORE, the plaintiff having established her cause of action,


    judgment is rendered against the defendant corporation ordering the
    latter to pay the plaintiff the following:

    a) for the death of Lucrecia, the sum of P12,000.00;

    b) for actual expenses for the wake, the funeral and burial
    expenses and other miscellaneous expenses, the sum of
    P5,580.00;

    c) for loss of income, the sum of P30,000.00;

    d) for moral damages, the sum of P10,000.00;

    e) for attorney's fees, the sum of P5,000.00; and pay the


    costs.

    6. CA (IAC): Finding that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the person of
    private respondent as summons was improperly served
    (the production manager not being the same "manager" referred to in
    Section 13 Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court for purposes of service
    of summons upon a domestic private corporation), the Court of Appeals
    set aside the default order and judgment by default and directed the trial
    court to conduct further proceedings for the adjudication of the case.
    7. Contention of respondent: - That the honorable court erred in not ruling that
    defendant-appellant's failure to seasonably file its Answer
    was due to excusable negligence.

    -The Honorable Court, a quo, erred in declaring


    defendant-appellant in default and in allowing plaintiff-
    appellee to present her evidence ex parte despite the fact
    that summons had not been properly served; and

    -Assuming, arguendo, that the Honorable Court, a quo,


    had validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of
    defendant-appellant, it erred in rendering a decision which
    is not supported by law and the facts of the case.

    ISSUE: Whether or not there was gross negligence on the part of private respondent as
    expressed in the judgment of the lower court.

    HELD: Yes. Indemnity for death increased to P30,000. The SC held that in actions based on
    quasi-delicts, as in this case, all damages for natural and probable consequences of
    the act/omission complained of are recoverable (Art. 2202 NCC).
    As found by the LC, there were at least two incidents where high speed sewing
    machines of defendant corporation were grounded. These were brought to the attention
    of the management of Hunter but nothing was done. The autopsy conducted by Dr.
    Salvador confirmed that Lucrecia died from “shock probably secondary to
    electrocution.” The SC reiterated the LC and held that if the machines were frequently
    and regularly checked or properly maintained, the death of Lucrecia could not have
    come to pass.

    You might also like