WEEK 1 the defendant was a contract and until proven

1. What is Tort under Philippine Law? Discuss for it is based that it was 2)not guilty.
and Explain. on alleged carried out. It is Prosecutor
What are generally considered tortious acts negligence on the duty of the has the
in the Philippines are limited to acts committed the part of the debtor to prove burden of
by negligence and without intent. Quasi-delict defendant; otherwise; proving
negligence;
under Art. 2176 is limited to negligent acts or
There is
omission and excludes the notion of willfulness
No presumption of
or intent. Intentional and malicious acts, with presumption of negligence No
certain exceptions, are to be governed by the negligence presumption
Revised Penal Code while negligent acts or of negligence
omission are to be covered by Art. 2176 of the Quantum of evidence
Civil Code. In between these opposite Preponderance Preponderance of Beyond
spectrums are injurious acts which, in the of evidence; evidence; reasonable
absence of Art. 21, would have been beyond doubt;
redress. Thus, Art. 21 fills that vacuum and, As to the applicability of the defense of a good
together with Arts. 19 and 20, broadens the father of a family
scope of the law on civil wrongs; it has become Proper and Not proper and Not a proper
much more supple and adaptable than the complete. complete but may defense. The
Anglo-American law on torts (Tolentino, 72). mitigate the employee’s
damages. guilt is
automatically
2. What are the elements of tort?
Reason: Master- the
a. Duty
servant rule or employer’s
b. Breach
respondeat guilt if the
c. Injury
superior. former is
d. Proximate cause – that which, in
insolvent.
natural and continuous sequence,
As to law that governs
unbroken by an efficient intervening
Art. 2176, CC Arts. 1170-1174, Art. 100, RPC
cause, produces injury, and without
CC
which, the result would not have
occurred As to presumption of negligence
3. What is Culpa-Aquiliana? Distinguish from No There is No
presumption of presumption as presumption
Culpa-Contractual and Culpa Criminal.
negligence long as the
CULPA CULPA CULPA
creditor proves the
AQUILIANA CONTRACTUAL CRIMINAL
existence of
As to negligence breach
Substantive Merely incidental Direct,
and to the substantive
independent, performance of an and
WEEK 2
which of itself obligation already independent
constitutes the existing because of of a contract;
source of an a contract; QUASI-DELICT UNDER THE CIVIL CODE
obligation
between ART. 2176
persons not Requisites of Culpa-Aquiliana
formerly I. Acts or Omission
connected by Europa vs. Hunter Garments (July 18, 1989)
any legal tie; The Supreme Court held that, in actions based on
As to pre-existing obligation
None; Either express or None quasi-delict as in this case, all damages for the
implied; natural and probable consequences of the act or
As to weight of evidence
omission complained of are recoverable as provided
Victim has to Presumed that the Accused is
prove the debtor is at fault presumed in Article 2202 of the New Civil Code.
negligence of as long as 1)there innocent
1|Page
PLDT vs. Court of Appeals National Power Corporation vs. Heirs of
The Supreme Court ruled that not only did Antonio Casionan (November 27, 2008)
Negligence is the failure to observe for the
Esteban have negligence contributory towards the
protection of the interest of another person, that
accident, but it was the main cause of the accident,
degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the
and thus has no right to recover from the damages
circumstances justly demand, whereby such other
that he and his wife suffered. His negligence was
person suffers injury. On the other hand,
the contributing factor that caused the accident,
contributory negligence is conduct on the part of
and his failure to show the due diligence in
the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to
traversing the road that he had knowledge of a
the harm he has suffered, which falls below the
hazard was present on Lacson Street.
standard which he is required to conform for his
own protection.
II. Fault or Negligence
Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping vs. Catalino
The underlying precept on contributory negligence
Baja (June 10, 2002)
is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his
Negligence is conduct that creates undue risk of own injury should not be entitled to recover
harm to another. It is the failure to observe that damages in full but must bear the consequences of
degree of care, precaution and vigilance that the his own negligence.
circumstances justly demand, whereby that other
person suffers injury. Petitioners vessel was Norman Gaid vs. People (April 7, 2009)
carrying chemical cargo -- alkyl benzene and Reckless imprudence
methyl methacrylate monomer. While knowing Consists of voluntary doing or failing to do, without
that their vessel was carrying dangerous malice, an act from which material damage results by
inflammable chemicals, its officers and crew failed reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part
to take all the necessary precautions to prevent an of the person performing or failing to perform such act.
accident. Petitioner was, therefore, negligent.
Negligence
The three elements of quasi delict are: (a) damages It is the failure to observe for the protection of the
suffered by the plaintiff, (b) fault or negligence of interest of another person that degree of care,
the defendant, and (c) the connection of cause and precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances
effect between the fault or negligence of the justly demand, whereby such other person suffers
defendant and the damages inflicted on the injury.
plaintiff. All these elements were established in
this case. Knowing fully well that it was carrying Elements of Negligence
dangerous chemicals, petitioner was negligent in 1. That there is lack of precaution on the part of
not taking all the necessary precautions in the offender; and
transporting the cargo. This negligence resulted in 2. That the damage impending to be caused is not
an explosion which in turn caused Borja’s injuries. immediate or the danger is not clearly
manifest.
2|Page
 Doctrine of Turntable and Torpedo such as in the
Test in determining Negligence case of Railroad Co. vs. Stout which provides that,
“Could a prudent man, in the position of the person to “While it is the general rule in regard to an adult that
whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the to entitle him to recover damages for an injury
person injured as a reasonable consequence of the resulting from the fault or negligence of another he
course actually pursued?” must himself have been free from fault, such is not the
rule in regard to an infant of tender years. The care and
Proximate Cause caution required of a child is according to his maturity
That which, in the natural and continuous sequence, and capacity only, and this is to be determined in each
unbroken by any efficient, intervening cause, produces case by the circumstances of the case”
the injury, and without which the result would not
Also, negligence is not presumed, but must be proven
have occurred.
by him who alleges it. Finally, in personal injury cases,

Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. Court of law in this jurisdiction required the application of "the
Appeals (November 6, 1989) principle of proportional damages," but expressly and
In times of calamities, extraordinary diligence requires
definitely denied the right of recovery when the acts of
a supplier of electricity to be in constant vigil to prevent
or avoid any probable incident that might imperil life the injured party were the immediate causes of the
or limb. accident.

Picart vs. Smith (37 Phil. 809)

The Supreme Court ruled that the test by which to III. Damage
determine the existence of negligence in a particular Air France vs. Court of Appeals (March 21, 1989)
case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in The Supreme Court ruled that it is essential before an
doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care award of damages that the claimant must satisfactorily
and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would prove during the trial the existence of the factual basis
have used in the same situation? If not, then he is of the damages and its causal connection to defendant’s
guilty of negligence. Furthermore, conduct is said to be acts.
negligent when a prudent man in the position of the
tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful Banzon vs. Court of Appeals (July 13, 1989)
to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his It is a settled principle that moral damages may be
foregoing the conduct of guarding against its
recovered if they are the proximate result of the
consequences.
defendant’s wrongful act or omission.
Acuna vs. Alcantara (March 20, 2001)
Rodolfo Alcantara was guilty of simple negligence. Under the Civil Code, the damages for which a
According to the Supreme Court, the refusal of the defendant may be held liable are those which are the
Philippine Coast Guard to initially take custody of the
flatboats should have prompted Alcantara to the trial natural and probable consequences of the act or
court for an order to have the custody of the flatboats omission complained of
be transferred to the Philippine Coast Guard. There
was delay on his part to secure such order. However,
the loss of the boats cannot be entirely blamed on IV. Causal connection between fault or
Alcantara but it cannot be denied that is initial action negligence and the damage.
may have contributed to the deterioration of the boats.
His fine was reduced by the Court. Sanitary Steam Laundry vs. CA (December 10,
1998)
Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad (16 Phil. 8)

3|Page
He must show that the violation of the statute was the
proximate or legal cause of the injury or that it Greenstar Express vs. Universal Robina Corp.
substantially contributed thereto. Negligence, (October 17, 2016)
consisting in whole or in part, of violation of law, like Art. 2180 requires that first, there must be an
any other negligence, is without legal consequence
employer-employee relationship between the driver
unless it is a contributing cause of the injury.
and owner, and second, that the driver acted within the
V. No pre-existing contractual relation. scope of his assigned tasks.

Adamo vs. IAC

The complaint shows that the civil action is one under Gumabon vs. PNB (July 25, 2016)
Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi- Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the

delicts. All the elements of a quasi-delict are present, injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm

to wit: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff, (b) fault or he has suffered, which falls below the standard to

negligence of the defendant, or some other person for which he is required to conform for his own protection.

whose acts he must respond; and (c) the connection of Whether contributory negligence transpired is a

cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the factual matter that must be proven.

defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff.

WEEK 3
Vergara vs. Court of Appeals (September 30,
1987) Specific Cases of Negligence
As to negligence, the Court held that the fact of 1. Common Carrier
negligence may be deduced from the surrounding Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping vs.
circumstances by the fact that the cargo truck was Philippine First Insurance (June 5, 2002)
travelling on the right side of the road going to Manila Well-settled is the rule that common carriers, from the
and then it crossed to the center line and went to the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy,
left side of the highway; it then bumped a tricycle; and are bound to observe extraordinary diligence and
then another bicycle; and then said cargo truck vigilance with respect to the safety of the goods and the
rammed the store warehouse of the plaintiff." The passengers they transport. Thus, common carriers are
Court also held that a mishap caused by defective required to render service with the greatest skill and
brakes cannot be considered as fortuitous in character. foresight and “to use all reasonable means to ascertain
Certainly, the defects were curable and the accident the nature and characteristics of the goods tendered for
preventable. shipment, and to exercise due care in the handling and
stowage, including such methods as their nature
Corinthian Gardens Associations vs. Spouses requires.”
Tan-Jangco and Spouses Cuaso (June 27, 2008)
A negligent act is an inadvertent act; it may be merely 2. Negligence of Doctor (Medical
carelessly done from a lack of ordinary prudence and Negligence)
may be one which creates a situation involving an
To successfully pursue a medical malpractice suit, the
unreasonable risk to another because of the expectable
plaintiff (in this case, the deceased patient’s heir) must
action of the other, a third person, an animal, or a force
prove that the doctor either failed to do what a
of nature. A negligent act is one from which an ordinary
reasonably prudent doctor would have done, or did
prudent person in the actor’s position, in the same or
what a reasonably prudent doctor would not have done;
similar circumstances, would foresee such an
and the act or omission had caused injury to the
appreciable risk of harm to others as to cause him not
patient.
to do the act or to do it in a more careful manner.
4|Page
The elements of medical negligence are: (1) duty; (2) It is the client’s duty to be in contact with his lawyer
breach; (3) injury; and (4) proximate causation. from time to time, to be informed of the status of the
case, as this is an exercise of due diligence on the part
Duty refers to the standard of behavior that imposes of the client.
restrictions on one’s conduct, and requires proof of
A further exception, which is absent from the case, is
professional relationship between the physician and
when the negligence of the counsel is so gross, reckless,
the patient. A physician-patient relationship is created and inexcusable that the client is denied his day in
when a patient engages the services of a physician, and court
Jacot vs. Dal (2008)
the latter accepts or agrees to provide care to the It is a well-settled rule that a client is bound by his
patient. Once a physician-patient relationship is counsel’s conduct, negligence, and mistakes in
established, the legal duty of care follows, and this handling the case, and the client cannot be heard to
includes the use at least the same standard of care that complain that the result might have been different had
a reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a his lawyer proceeded differently. The only exceptions
medical condition under similar circumstances. to the general rule—that a client is bound by the
mistakes of his counsel—which this Court finds
Breach of duty occurs when the doctor fails to comply
acceptable are when the reckless or gross negligence of
with, or improperly performs his duties under
counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or
professional standards. If the patient, as a result of the
when the application of the rule results in the outright
breach of duty, is injured in body or in health,
deprivation of one’s property through a technicality.
actionable malpractice is committed, entitling the
These exceptions are not attendant in this case.
patient to damages.
Mistakes of attorneys as to the competency of a
Lastly, the patient must prove the causal relation witness; the sufficiency, relevancy or irrelevancy of
between the negligence and the injury, which must be certain evidence; the proper defense or the burden of
direct, natural, and should be unbroken by any proof, failure to introduce evidence, to summon
intervening efficient causes. Meaning, the negligence witnesses and to argue the case—unless they prejudice
must be the proximate cause of the injury. the client and prevent him from properly presenting
his case—do not constitute gross incompetence or
negligence, such that clients may no longer be bound
3. Negligence of Lawyers
Paluca vs. COA (2016) by the acts of their counsel.
The general rule is that the negligence and mistakes of
counsel are binding on the client.
Guevarra vs. Bautista (2008)
The exception to this rule is when there is a showing A relief from judgement is a remedy provided by law to
that the petitioner regularly followed up with his any person against whom a decision or order is entered
counsel as to the status of the case, and mere through fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
endorsement does not excuse the client of a counsel’s negligence. Negligence, to be excusable, must be such
negligence. that ordinary diligence and prudence could not have
guarded against it. It is settled that clients are bound
by the mistakes, negligence and omission of their

5|Page
counsel. As an exception, the client may be excused judge should diligently discharge his administrative
responsibilities, maintain professional competence in
from the failure of counsel, the circumstances in the
court management, and facilitate the performance of
present case do not convince the Court to take the administrative functions of other judges and court
exception. personnel.” A judge should organize and supervise the
court personnel to ensure prompt and efficient dispatch
Fraud, accident, mistake and excusable negligence of business, and require at all times the observance of
high standards of public service and fidelity.
should first be established before relief from judgement
Proper and efficient court management is the
can be granted. Relief will not be granted to a party responsibility of the judge. It is incumbent upon
who seeks avoidance from the effects of the judgement judges to devise an efficient recording and filing
system in their courts so that no disorderliness
when the loss of remedy at law was due to his own can affect the flow of cases and their speedy
negligence; otherwise, petition for relief can be used to disposition.
revive the right to appeal which had been lost through
5. Negligence of Drivers and
excusable negligence. Commuters/Bystanders

Gaid vs. People

Reyes vs. NLRC (2009) Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection
Gen. Rule: of the interest of another person that degree of care,
In simple negligence, the negligence of counsel binds precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances
justly demand, whereby such other person suffers
his client. injury. The elements of negligence are: 1) That there
is lack of precaution on the part of the offender; and 2)
That the damage impending to be caused is not
Reason:
immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest. The
To avoid the possibility that every losing party would standard test in determining negligence is: “could a
raise the issue of negligence of his or her counsel to prudent man, in the position of the person to whom
negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person
escape an adverse decision of the court, to the injured as a reasonable consequence of the course
detriment of our justice system, as no party would ever actually pursued?”
accept a losing verdict.
I. Last Clear Chance
1. History and Concept
Exception: Where the negligence of a counsel is a. Picart vs. Smith (1918)
2. Elements and Conditions of the
one that is so gross, palpable, pervasive, reckless and
Last Clear Chance Doctrine
inexcusable, then it does not bind the client since, in
such a case, the client is effectively deprived of his or 3. Doctrine Applicable:
a. PLDT vs. CA (supra)
her day in court. b. Glan’s People Lumber vs. IAC
(1989)
c. Phoenix Construction vs. IAC
When is counsel’s negligence considered gross?
(1987)
If it invariably resulted to the foreclosure of remedies d. Pantranco North Express vs.
otherwise readily available to the petitioner. Baesa
4. Doctrine Not Applicable:
a. Bustamante vs. CA (1990)
4. Negligence of Judges b. Roy vs. Court of Appeals (1988)
Heirs of Jose vs. Beldia (2009)
The simple misconduct is premised on the violation of WEEK 4
Rules 3.08 and 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. “A

6|Page
Res Ipsa Loquitur accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in
Meaning of Res Ipsa Loquitur
the absence of someone’s negligence; 2) It is caused by
What is the doctrine all about?
Applicability of the rule an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the
Africa vs. Caltex (1966) defendant or defendants; and 3) The possibility of
principle of res ipsa loquitur (“the transaction speaks
contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff
for itself”) which states: “where the thing which caused
injury, without fault of the injured person, is under the responsible is eliminated.
exclusive control of the defendant and the injury is
such as in the ordinary course of things does not occur In the above requisites, the fundamental element is the
if he having such control use proper care, it affords “control of the instrumentality” which caused the
reasonable evidence, in the absence of the explanation,
that the injury arose from defendant’s want of care.” damage. Such element of control must be shown to be
within the dominion of the defendant. In order to have
Ma-ao Central Co. vs. Court of Appeals (1990)
the benefit of the rule, a plaintiff, in addition to proving
Res ipsa loquitur. The doctrine was described recently
in Layugan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, thus: injury or damage, must show a situation where it is
Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be applicable, and must establish that the essential
under the management of the defendant, and the
accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does elements of the doctrine were present in a particular
not happen if those who have the management use incident. In cases where the res ipsa loquitur is
proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the
applicable, the court is permitted to find a physician
absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the
accident arose from want of care. negligent upon proper proof of injury to the patient,
without the aid of expert testimony, where the court
Ludo and Luym Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
(2001) from its fund of common knowledge can determine the
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur provides that ‘where proper standard of care.
the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the
management of the defendant, and the accident is such
as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if Assumption of Risk Doctrine [Defense]
Defense in an action for negligence
those who have the management use proper care, it
Assumption of risk vs. Contributory Negligence
affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an The Doctrine of Assumption of Risk means that one
explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose who voluntarily exposes himself to an obvious, known
from want of care.’ and appreciated danger assumes the risk of injury that
it may result therefrom. It rests on the fact that the
This recognizes that parties may establish prima facie
person injured has consented to relieve the defendant
negligence without direct proof and allows the principle
of an obligation of the conduct toward him and to take
to substitute for specific proof of negligence. It is
his chance of injury from a known risk and whether the
invoked when under the circumstances, direct evidence
former has exercised proper caution or not is
is absent and not readily available.
immaterial.

Ramos vs. Court of Appeals (1999) The Doctrine of Assumption of risk has three elements:
res ipsa loquitur is applied in conjunction with the
1. The plaintiff must know that the risk is present;
doctrine of common knowledge. The following
2. He must further understand its nature; and
requisites must be satisfactorily shown: 1) The
3. His choice to incur it must be free and voluntary.

7|Page
 BF Metal vs. Lomotan (2008)
When doctrine of assumption of risk does not Moral Damages are those designed to compensate
apply
and alleviate the physical suffering, mental anguish,
Abrogar vs. Cosmos Bottling Company (2017)
Afralda vs. Hasole (85 Phil. 671) fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
The Supreme Court ruled that Art. 1905 of the Civil wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and
Code names the possessor or user of the animal as the
similar harm unjustly caused to a person.
person liable for "any damages it may cause," and this
for the obvious reason that the possessor or user has
the custody and control of the animal and is therefore Requisites in awarding moral damages
the one in a position to prevent it from causing damage.
1. Evidence of besmirched reputation or physical,
Volenti Non Fit Injuria mental or psychological suffering sustained;
Define and Explain
2. A culpable act or omission factually
Ilocos Norte Electric Co. vs. Court of Appeals
(1989) established;
The maxim volenti non fit injuria (to a willing person, 3. Proof that the wrongful act or omission of the
injury is not done)
defendant is the proximate cause of the
It is used when there is contractual relationship damages sustained; and
4. The case is predicated on any of the instances
Substantial Factor Test
Define and Explain expressed or envisioned by Arts. 2019 and 2220
Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines vs. IAC (1990) of the Civil Code.
With regard to the substantial factor test, it was the
opinion of the respondent court that: “the rule under
the substantial factor test that if the actor’s conduct When can moral damages be recovered?
is a substantial factor in bringing about harm to
Culpa aquiliana or Culpa criminal
another, the fact that the actor neither foresaw nor
should have foreseen the extent of the harm or the Quasi-delict
manner in which it occurred does not prevent him from 1) When n act or When the accused is
being liable.
omission causes found guilty of physical
ART. 2177 physical injuries; or injuries, lascivious acts,
Distinctness of Quasi-Delicts
2) Where the adultery or concubinage,
Responsibility for Quasi-Delicts Distinct from
Civil Liability Arising from Negligence Under defendant is guilty of illegal or arbitrary
the Penal Code intentional tort detention, illegal arrest,
Bermudez vs. Judge Melencio-Herrera (1998)
illegal search, or
In cases of negligence, the injured party or his heirs has
defamation.
the choice between an action to enforce the civil
liability arising from crime under Article 100 of the
RPC and an action for quasi-delict under Article Exemplary damages are those are imposed, by way

217602194 of the Civil Code. If a party chooses the of example, or correction for the public good, in addition

latter, he may hold the employer liable for the to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory

negligent act of his employee, subject to the employer’s damages.

defense of exercise of the diligence of a good father of a

family. Requisites in awarding exemplary damages

8|Page
The plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, g. Bernal vs. House and Tacloban
temperate or compensatory damages before the court Electric (1930)
h. Tuason vs. Luzon Stevedoring
may consider the question of whether exemplary Co. (1961)
damages should be awarded C. Test to determine proximate cause
1. “Sine Qua Non” Rule
When can exemplary damages be recovered?
2. Foreseeability Test
In culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict), exemplary damages 3. The cause of condition test
may be granted if the defendant acted with gross 4. Natural and probable
consequences test
negligence. D. Doctrine of Contributory Negligence
1. Meaning of the Doctrine
Mindanao Terminal vs. Phoenix Assurance 2. Definition
(2009) 3. Effect of contributory negligence of
Article 1173 of the Civil Code is very clear that if the Plaintiff
law or contract does not state the degree of diligence a. Taylor vs. Manila Electric Co.
which is to be observed in the performance of an b. Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf (1907)
obligation then that which is expected of a good father c. BPI vs. Lifetime Marketing
of a family or ordinary diligence shall be required. (2008)
E. Conclusive Presumptions
ART. 2178 1. Children below nine years old
Read: Articles 1172, 1173, 1171, 2201, 1174 Read: RA No. 10630
Ronquillo vs. Singson (1959) F. Doctrine of Limited Liability
His act was clearly a departure from the standard of
WEEK 6
conduct required of a prudent man. He should have
desisted from making the order. His failure to Father / Mother or Guardian and Minor Children
appreciate the predictable danger and his act of 1. Responsibility is alternative not
simultaneous
offering part of the fruits as a reward clearly shows The civil code vests the liability for the acts of the minor
that he should be made to respond in damages for the to the father, or in his absence or incapacity, to the
mother; hence the liability is alternative. However, in
actionable wrong committed by him.
the Family Code, this liability is not, without such
alternative qualification. In other words, both parents
are primarily liable for the damages caused by their
Vda. De Imperial vs. Heald Lumber (1961)
child. It should be emphasized that the liability is
primary and not subsidiary.
WEEK 5

2. Kinds and degree of diligence sufficient to

ART. 2179
overcome presumption of negligence
A. Define Proximate Cause
1. Cuadra vs. Monfort (1970)
B. Doctrine of Proximate Cause
3. Intentional Crimes of Minor Children
a. Manila Electric Co. vs.
Read: RA No. 10630
Remonquillo 53 OG 1429
b. Quezon City Government vs.
Owners and Managers of an Establishment or
Dacara (2005)
Enterprise for Employee’s Torts
c. William Tiu vs. Pedro
Requisites of liability
Arriesgado (2004)
a. That the employee was chosen by the employer
d. Andamo vs. IAC (1990)
personally or through another – there exist an
e. St. Mary’s Academy vs.
employer-employee relationship;
Carpitanos (2002)
b. There is fault or negligence on the part of the
f. London vs. Baguio Club
employee which was the proximate cause of the
Corportion (2003)
damage or loss;
9|Page
 c. That illicit act of the employee was on the Genson vs. Adarle (1987)
occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted Lampesa vs. De Vera (2008)
to hm. Distinguished from Art. 2180 (4)
Castilex vs. Vasquez (1999)
Presumption of negligence of employer
When an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant WEEK 7
or employee there instantly arises a presumption of the
law that there was negligence on the part of the master Damages Caused by Employees and Wards
or employer either culpa in eligiendo (selection) or Discuss Subsidiary Liability vs. Primary
culpa in vigilando (supervision), or both. Said Liability
presumption, nonetheless is only juris tantum Dulay vs. Court of Appeals (1995)
(rebuttable presumption) and not juris et de jure In the performance of his assigned tasks
(conclusive presumption) which may be overthrown by St. Francis High School vs. Court of Appeals
satisfactory evidence that the employer indeed (1991)
exercised diligentissimi bonis patris familia. NOTE: see Valenzuela v CA (253 SCRA 303 [1996])
where it was ruled that the ruling in St. Francis case is
Independent contractor distinguished from no longer controlling. The subject dealing with a school
Master-Servant Relationship; Can Independent an its teacher’s supervision during an extracurricular
Contractor be an Employee at the same time? activity now falls under the provision on special
One who hires an independent contractor but controls parental authority found in Art. 218, FC wich generally
the latter’s work, is responsible also for the latter’s encompasses all authorized school activities whether
negligence. Of the person hired is a true independent inside or outside school premises.
contractor, the person who hired him is not liable under
Art. 2180. The contractor is liable for all the claims of Victory Liner vs. Heirs of Malendan (2002)
laborers and other employed by him, and of third School of the Holy Spirit vs. Taguiam (2008)
persons for death or physical injuries during the Filamer Christian vs. Court of Appeals (1990)
construction (see Art. 1728). Pacific Airways vs. Tonda (2002)

A school is not liable as employer for the acts of the Liability of the State
guard manning its premises if the latter was employed Two aspects of liability
by a security agency which is separate and distinct Distinction between Governmental and
from the school. There is no employer-employee Proprietary Function
relationship between the school and the guards and the NIA vs. Fontanilla (1991)
contractual relationship is between the school and the COA vs. Link Worth (2009)
security agency. This is because the school has no hand
in selecting who among the pool of security guards or Liability of Teachers or Heads for Damaged
watchmen employed by the agency shall be assigned to caused by Pupils
it. “So long as the students remains in their custody”
Meaning of Pupils, Students, Apprentices
Employee must be engaged in employer’s Amadora vs. Court of Appeals (2008)
business
Marquez vs. Castillo 68 Phil 568 NOTE:
Exemption from liability
Deviation (rule) RA No. 7877 Anti-Sexual Harassment Act
The employer is not liable for the negligence of an
employee in the use of employer’s motor vehicle when
the employee deviates from his ordinary course of work I. ART. 2181
such as going to or from meals, going to or from work,
use of vehicle outside regular working hours. However, II. ART. 2182
the employer may be held liable when he derives some
special benefits therefrom.
EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY
Employer’s subsidiary liability
10 | P a g e
 SUBSIDIARY PRIMARY matter are sure to occur in the conduct of the
LIABILITY LIABILITY employer’s enterprise, are placed upon that enterprise
itself, as required cost of doing business. Having
Governed by the Revised Governed by the Civil
engaged in an enterprise, which will on the basis of all
Penal Code; Code; past experience involve harm to others through the tort
The injured party The injured may go of employees, it is but just that the employer, rather
prosecutes the employee directly against the than the innocent injured plaintiff, should bear them;
who is primarily liable for employer who is and because he is better able to absorb them and to
the delict committed and presumed by law to be distribute them. Added to this is the makeweight that
holds the employer negligent in not an employer who is held strictly liable is under the
greatest incentive to be careful in the selection,
subsidiarily liable; preventing or avoiding
instruction and supervision of his servants, and to take
the damages; in the every precaution to see that the enterprise is conducted
selection and/or safely (Metro Manila Transit Corp. v CA, 359 SCRA 18
supervision of the [1998]).
employees who caused
the injury.
EMPLOYER’S DEFENSE
The injured party may Prior conviction of the
Employers may be relieved of responsibility for the
only recover from the employee is not negligent acts of their employees acting within the
employer when there is a necessary for the scope of their assigned task only if they can show that
prior conviction of the liability of the employer they observed all the diligence of a good father of a
employee; is direct and immediate; family to prevent damage (Pestaño v Sumayang, 346
Injure party may only Employee’s insolvency SCRA 870 [2000]).
recover from the employer is immaterial;
WEEK 8
upon insolvency of the
employee;
ART. 2183
Defense of diligence of a Diligence of a good Liability of Possessors of Animals
good father of a family is father of a family is a Vestil vs. IAC (1989)
untenable. good defense. Article 2183 provides that the possessor of an animal
or whoever makes use of the same shall be held liable
NOTE: While a separate and independent civil action
for damages may be brought against the employee for damages it may cause, although it may escape or be
under Article 33 of the Civil Code, no such action may lost. This liability shall only cease in case where the
be filed against the employer on the latter’s subsidiary
damage should come from force majeure or from the
civil liability because such liability is governed not by
the Civil Code but by the Penal Code, under which fault of the person who suffered the damage.
conviction of the employee is a condition sine qua non
The obligation imposed under Article 2183 is based on
for the employer’s subsidiary liability (Joaquin v
Aniceto, GR No. L-18719 [31.10.64]). the natural equity and on the principle of social
interest that he who possesses the animals for his
WHEN IS EMPLOYER LIABLE FOR
utility, pleasure, or service must answer for the
EMPLOYEE’S NEGLIGENCE
Before an employer may be held liable for the damage which such animal may cause.
negligence of his employee, Art. 2180, par. 4 provides
that the act or omission which caused the damage or
prejudice must have occurred while an employee was ART. 2184, 2185, 2186
in the performance of his assigned tasks. Liability of Owners of Motor Vehicle
Chapman vs. Underwood 27 Phil. 374
If the driver, by a sudden act of negligence, and without
REASON FOR EMPLOYER’S VICARIOUS the owner having a reasonable opportunity to prevent
LIABILITY the acts or its continuance, injures a person or violates
It is the deliberate allocation of a risk. The losses
the criminal law, the owner of the automobile, although
caused by the torts of employees, which as a practical
11 | P a g e
present therein at the time the act was committed, is and other public works under their control or
not responsible, either civilly or criminally, therefor.
supervision.”
The act complained of must be continued in the
presence of the owner for such a length a time that the
It is not even necessary for the defective road or street
owner, by his acquiescence, makes his driver's act his
own. to belong to the province, city or municipality for
liability to attach. The article only requires that either
ART. 2187
control or supervision is exercised over the defective
Liability of Manufacturers and Processors
road or street.
ART. 2188

ART. 2189 City of Manila vs. IAC (November 15, 1989)

A. Liability of Municipal Corporation in Certain The Court further stressed that Municipal corporations
Cases are subject to be sued upon contracts and in tort. The
B. Meaning of Respondeat Superior rule of law is a general one, that the superior or
C. Test of Respondeat Superior employer must answer civilly for the negligence or
D. Municipal Corporations can be sued want of skill of its agent or servant in the course or line
Municipality of San Fernando vs. Judge Firme of his employment, by which another who is free from
(1971) contributory fault, is injured. Municipal corporations
The doctrine of non-suability of the state is expressly under the conditions herein stated, fall within tile
operation of this rule of law, and are liable accordingly,
provided in Article 16, Section3 of the Constitution,
to civil actions for damages when the requisite
“The State may not be sued without its consent." elements of liability co-exist. The court added that
Thus, the general rule is that they can’t be sued while the following are corporate or proprietary in
character, viz: municipal waterworks, slaughter
without its express or implied consent. Such
houses, markets, stables, bathing establishments,
consent can be found in the general or special wharves, ferries and fisheries.
law”. Unfortunately for the municipality, it is written
ART. 2190
under their charter that they can sue and be sued. ART. 2191
ART. 2192
The question of whether or not the municipality can be ART. 2193
held liable for torts committed by its employee depends ART. 2194

on whether or not the driver is performing

WEEK9
governmental or proprietary functions. If the employee
was committing a governmental function, they (the NUISANCE

municipality) are generally not liable for torts ORIGIN AND CONCEPT
committed by such employee; but if the employee was Origin of nuisance
acting in a proprietary capacity, the municipality shall
The word “nuisance” is derived from the Latin
be liable for the tort committed. “nocumentum,” means injury, hurt or harm. The
concept of nuisance is so broad that it covers anything
that unlawfully works hurt, inconvenience or damage
Guilatco vs. City of Dagupan (1989) (Rabuya, “Property,” 670).
“Article 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall The law on nuisance is a restriction or limitation upon
be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries ownership and a manifestation of the principle that
every person should so use his property as not to cause
suffered by, any person by reason of the defective damage or injury to others – sic utere tuo ut alienum
condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, non laedas. Art. 431 of the Civil Code express the
principle, “the owner of a thing cannot make use

12 | P a g e
thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a Nuisance distinguished from Negligence
third person.” With this, there is an implied liability NUISANCE NEGLIGENCE
on the part of every holder of property who uses said Based on the resulting Based on want of a proper
property in a manner injurious to the equal enjoyment injury to others care.
of others having an equal right to the enjoyment of regardless of the degree
their property, or injurious to the rights of the of care or skill exercised
community. to avoid such injury.

CLASSIFICATION OR KINDS
Definition of nuisance 1. General Classification
NUISANCE As to the object it affects:
A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, a. Public nuisance;
condition of property, or anything else which: b. Private nuisance;
1. Injures or endangers the health or safety of c. Mixed or united nuisance.
others; As to its susceptibility to summary abatement
2. Annoys or offends the senses; (corrective action without prior judicial permission):
3. Shocks, defies or disregards decency or d. Nuisance per se;
morality; e. Nuisance per accidens.
4. Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of As to nature:
any public highway or street, or any body of f. Permanent;
water; or g. Temporary.
5. Hinders or impairs the use of property.
2. Nuisance Per Se and Per Accidens
Nuisance distinguished from Trespass NUISANCE PER SE
NUISANCE (private) TRESPASS TO LAND Affects the immediate safety of persons and property;
It consists of a use of It is an invasion of the it is recognized as a nuisance under any and all
one’s own property in plaintiff’s interest in the circumstances (Salao v Santos, GR No. L-45519
such a manner as to exclusive possession of [26.04.39]), regardless of location or surroundings
cause injury to the his land. it is any because it constitutes a direct menace to public health
property or other rights intentional intrusion that or safety, and, for that reason, may be abated
or interest of another deprives another of summarily or without prior judicial permission.
and generally results possession of land, even if The injury in some form is certain to be
from the commission of only temporarily; inflicted.
an act beyond the limits NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS
of the property affected.
That which depends upon certain conditions and
It is an interference with
circumstances, and its existence being a question of
his use and enjoyment of
it. Note that there is no fact, it cannot be abated without due hearing thereon
actual physical invasion in a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thing
of the plaintiff’s does constitute a nuisance (Cruz v Pandacan Hiker’s
property; Club, Inc. 778 SCRA 385 [2016]); hence, cannot be
Intended to protect the Intended to protect the abated summarily.
use and enjoyment of the possession of the land; It refers to those which are not nuisance per se but
land; may become a nuisance by reason of the circumstances
There must be a harm or No inquiry into the of the location and surroundings or manner in which it
injury to a legally presence of injury or harm is performed or operated.
protected interest of to another for the owner’s The injury is uncertain or contingent until it
another. right to exclude others actually occurs.
from his/her land is one of
the most essential
3. Temporary or Permanent
characteristics of
ownership (jus PERMANENT TEMPORARY
possidendi). NUISANCE NUISANCE
Nuisance caused by a It is the result of
single act resulting in temporary interference

13 | P a g e
 permanent injury, and with the use and Ramcar Inc. vs. Millar (1962)
damages are assessed enjoyment of property; Dela Cruz vs. Tianco (1964)
one for all injury; Iloilo Cold Storage vs. Municipal
Impracticable or Can be abated; Council (24 Phil. 471)
impossible to be abated; Hidalgo Enterprises vs. Balandon
It is inherently injurious. Not inherently injurious (1952)
but only becomes Jarco Marketing vs. Court of Appeal
harmful through its use.
(1999)
Parayno vs. Jovellanos (2006)
4. Public and Private Nuisance
AC Enterpises vs. Frabelle Properties
PUBLIC NUISANCE
(2006)
One which affects a community or neighborhood or any
Tayaban vs. People (2007)
considerable number of persons, although the extent of
A. FAILURE OR REFUSAL TO ABATE A
the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals
NUISANCE
may be unequal (Art. 695).
1. Liability of every owner or possessor
Article 696, 697, 698, 699
It comprehends a miscellaneous and diversified group
2. Who files and action for abatement of
of minor criminal offenses, based on some interference
public nuisance? Article 700, 701, 702,
with interests of the community, or the comfort or
703
convenience of the general public. It includes
3. Ways of abating a public nuisance by a
interferences with, among others, public health, safety,
private person
morals, peace, comfort and convenience.
4. Requisites to be complied with by a
private person before filing an action
PRIVATE NUISANCE
on account of public nuisance Article
One which violates only private rights and
704
produces damages to but on or few persons (Cruz v
5. Remedies against a private nuisance
Pandacan Hiker’s Club, Inc. 778 SCRA 385 [2016]). As
Article 705
distinguished from trespass, private nuisance is a
6. How is abatement done? Procedure
substantial and unreasonable interference with the
for extrajudicial abatement of a
private use and enjoyment of another’s land.
private nuisance Article 706
It includes any wrongful act which destroys or
7. When is a private person or public
deteriorates the property of an individual or of a few
official extrajudicially abating a
persons or interferes with their lawful use or
nuisance liable? Article 707
enjoyment thereof, or any act which unlawfully hinders
8. Easements against nuisance Article
them in the enjoyment of a common or public right and
682 and 683
causes them a special injury different from that
sustained by the general public.

5. Mixed or United Nuisances

MIXED OR UNITED NUISANCE
One which affects both public and private: public
because it injures many persons or all the community;
and private in that it also produces special injuries to
private rights (see Art. 703).

6. Continuing or Recurrent
7. Cases:
Bengzon vs. Province of Pangasinan
(1936)
Espiritu vs. Municipal Circuit Court of
Pozorrubio (1958)
Estate of Gregoria Francisco vs. Court
of Appeals (1991)

14 | P a g e