TORTS  EX.

The caretaker employed (to whom the

animal was under custody) is responsible for
the damage (Afialda v. Hisole)
Introduction Proper  This responsibility shall cease only in case the
Provisions of laws where Torts & Damages may be found (pp.1-2) damage should come from force majeure or
from the fault of the person who has suffered
Quasi-contract damage.
 Certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give rise to the juridical o Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks,
relation of quasi-contract to the end that no one shall be unjustly toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for death
enriched or benefited at the expense of another [2142] or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances
o EX. An obligation only arises for compensation if there was an used (although no contractual relation exists between
act that was done to save another (p.2) them and the consumers) [2187]
o The head of a family that lives in a is responsible for
Torts damages caused by things thrown or falling from the
Definition same. [2193]
 Ordinary Definition: Private or civil wrong or injury that provides a  Negligence tort v. Strict liability tort (p.5)
remedy in the form of action for damages
 Not a purely civil wrong (with remedies in the form of civil actions) Tort sometimes encompasses both negligent and intentional acts (act may be
(ex. remedies for nuisance,p.3) prosecuted both as a crime and as a civil wrong/tort)
 Codally speaking, it does not include breaches of contract (pre-existing  EX. If a defamatory statement is published, it may be punished under the
contractual relation) RPC. If it was uttered privately, then it may be punished as intentional
 Rationale: The existence of the latter would only be limited to affliction of mental distress (Art 26) (NB: Based merely on J.Carpio’s dissent)
those for breaches of contract (ex.rescission or specific o Gravamen of the offense is not the injury to the reputation,
performance, with action for damages in either case) but the actual harm to the mental and emotional state
 However, breaches of contract may be a tort when such tort is the o The requirements of libel (reputation) is immaterial in Art 26
cause for the breach of contract o EX. (MVRS v. Islamic Dawal Council, p.6)
o The breach of contract of carriage (improper treatment
of airline staff) also finds a tortous act present, since any Torts law covers actual, potential, and foreseeable injuries
discourteous conduct gives the passenger an action for  While PH law only covers actual injury, Western tort law covers mere
damages (albeit not merely limited to damages alone, in potential injuries
lieu of Art 26 and 699) (Air France v. Carrascoso) (pp.3-4) o Roman concepts in torts
o Thus, there is not exact definition for tort, as an act for  Dejectum Effesumve Aliquid (2193)
breach of contract may also be classified as a tort (which  Del Positis Vel Suspensis
may also be classified as a crime)  Mere placing of an object in a
 Tort v. Crime (p.4) dangerous position is already a ground
 New Definition: Miscellaneous and unconnected group of civil wrongs for liability, even if no one was injured
(other than breach of contract) that gives rise to an action for damages  EX. Fire hazard and nuisance (p.8)
 Covers physical and non-physical injuries
Action is available against both private and public entities, thus the government o EX. p.8
is not immune from torts
 Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the Aims or Theories of Tort Law (pp.8-9)
death of, or injuries suffered by, any person [2189]
o by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges,
public buildings, and other public works under their control QUASI-DELICT
or supervision
 The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special
agent [2180] 2176-2179
o EXC: but not when the damage has been caused by the official Quasi-delict
to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what  Latin Origin and as a misnomer (p.9)
is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable  Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault
 Rationale (p.3) or negligence (where if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties) is obliged to pay for the damage done [2176]
Classes of Torts o An obligation is a juridical necessity to give (real), to do or
a) Negligence torts not to do (personal) (quasi-delict as a source of obligation)
 Correlate with 2176. Hence, if there is no negligence, then there is o It is the fact of damage caused by fault or negligence that gives
no tort nor quasi-delict rise to the obligation
 Most prevalent tort, because anything can be subsumed as long as o EX. An obligation to be a careful driver, arises from a natural
an individual fails to act as a reasonable person to someone he obligation, not necessarily from 2176 (p.2)
owes a duty to  Quasi-delict v. Tort (p.9)
 Elements  Elements
i. Person owes a duty or service to the plaintiff (duty) i. Damage
ii. He violated such duty or obligation (breach) ii. Negligence
iii. An injury arises because of that specific obligation (causation, iii. Relation of cause and effect between the two
or a cause-and-effect relationship between the the conduct  De La Llana v. Biong (pp.9-10)
and result)
 Types of causation Fault or Negligence
a. Causation-in-fact  Differentiating dolo and culpa (p.10)
o Injury incurred due to the party’s actions  Negligence (definition) (p.10)
b. Proximate causation (causation in law)  Types of Fault
o Definition of proximate cause i. Fault substantive and independent (culpa aquiliana or culpa extra-
o Even if one is causation-in-fact, it does not contractual)
necessarily mean it is also a proximate causation ii. An incident in the performance of an obligation (culpa contractual,
(due to the element of foreseeability, EX pp.7-8) since arising from a pre-existing obligation)
iv. Cause of injury must have been reasonably foreseeable as a  EX. Contract of commodatum (p.10)
result of the negligent action (damages)  Culpa Aquiliana v. Culpa Criminal v. Culpa Contractual (pp.13-14)
b) Intentional torts  Negligence must be proved (by preponderance of evidence) in a quasi-
 Does not depend on negligence, but on the intent of the party delict case for the plaintiff to recover
causing damage o EXC: Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor
 Arises a criminal offense  When the presence of facts and circumstnaces
 EX. Art 26 (p.5) surrounding the injury clearly indicate negligence.
c) Strict liability torts Burden of proof rets on the party charged of
 Law determines that such acts are liable for damages, regardless of negligence
intent or negligence  Requisites (p.14)
 Examples (p.5)  Not substantive law, but a mere procedural
o Maintenance of fire hazard (RA 9514) convenience (does not dispense requirement of
o The possessor of an animal is responsible for the proof of culpable negligence, as it is only invoked
damage which it may cause, although it may escape or when direct evidence is absent and not readily
be lost [2183] available) (p.15)
 EX. Dog bites, even if there was no
negligence on the part of the owner Due Care
 Reasonable person: an imaginary prudent person who takes necessary
precaution to avoid harming another (equated to DGFF)
 Due care: Does not necessarily mean DGFF, but depends on the nature
of the obligation and the circumstances of the persons,time, and place
(since reasonableness is relative) (EX. p.7)
o Examples of instances when absolute, not relative (p.11)
 EX. A car crashes on a bicycle. The former is liable
and must had exerted more care than the latter, as
it poses a greater danger than the bicycle (Heirs of
Complete v. Albayda)
 Types of Diligence Required Under the Civil Code
1. Agreed upon by the parties
2. Required by law
 DGFF (bonum pater familias) as the default
3. Extraordinary diligence
Instances when required by law
o Common carriers
Over the goods and safety of its passengers,
and carry them safely as far as human care
and foresight can provide [1733 and 1755]
o Public utility companies
EX. Death due to a faulty wire from a post
hitting heavy flooded streets. Negligence in
duty of avoiding harm to the public, and
cannot be justified of a fortituous event, since
the act of God combines the negligence to
produce an injury (Ilocos Norte v. CA)
 In relation to Doctrine of assumption of
risk (pp.11-12)
o BIR and Customs Examiners
In the performance of their duties, and liable
for any injury suffered by any business
establishment or taxpayer [RA 9335]
o Banks
Only to the extent of which the fiduciary
relationship between the bank and their
depositors are concerned (ex. diligence as to
forged checks), and not to other commercial
transactions
o Board of Canvassers during election
o SEC officers (p.12)
o Respondent public officers in Writ of Amparo
cases
 Must prove such diligence that the ruels
were observed in the performance of
duty (presumption of regularity does
not apply)
 Responsibility and accountability (p.13)

Also applicable to intentional acts

 As to employers where the employees committed the act, 2176 would
make the former’s liability primary and direct (not subsidiary as to Art
100 RPC)
o An independent action for 2176 may prosper despite prior
filing of a criminal case, as long as there is no double recovery
of damages (p.13)