0% found this document useful (0 votes)
70 views24 pagesChapter 1
fff
Uploaded by
Precious Grace Follero PeregrinoCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
70 views24 pagesChapter 1
fff
Uploaded by
Precious Grace Follero PeregrinoCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 24
‘TABLE OF CONTENTS.
General Principles in the
“Award of Damages...
‘Actual Damages
Damnum Emergens and
‘Lucrum Cessans.
‘Actual Damages for Violation of
Contract and Quasi-contract.
‘Actual Damages for Delict and
‘Quasi-delice,
Duty to Exercise Diligence
"To Minimize the Damages..
Loss of Earning Capacity
Right of Subrogation,
[Attomey's Fees.
Interest :
Contributory Negligence
‘Mitigation of Damages.
‘Moral Damages vr
‘Nominal Damages...
‘Temperate of Moderate Damages...
Liquidated Damages
Exemplary or Corrective Damages...
soca
321
322
324
B24
24
327
328
331
332
335,
342
342
343
350
351
352
353
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
History
Most tort law in various jurisdictions took
their origin from the Roman law. In civil law
Jurisdictions, which they derived the provisions on.
tort in their respective civil codes, from the concepts
of Roman law as regards contractual and delictual
liability. In common law countries, it is apparent
that they took and adopted the customary English
tort law concepts. In Scots and Roman Dutch
laws, they are similar to tort law in common law
Jjurisdictions, in which they resolve conflicts using.
established case precedents, rather than the strict
‘application of the code provisions.
‘The development of tort law around the world
resulted to various causes of action, remedied
ty evar of cl damages ean om paca mle,
emotional, economic harm, besmirched reputation,
Violations of privacy, property or constitutional rights.
Modern tort law’ were formulated to include
‘automobile accidents, false imprisonment, defamation,
‘product liability, copyright infringement, and toxic 2 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES
(CHAPTER ONE a
Modern tort cases are heavily affected by
ingurance and insurance laws, as many cases are
settled through claims adjustment rather than by
‘tial, and are defended by insurance lawyers, with the
insurance policy, setting a ceiling on the possible
indemnity
‘Tarough the years, lw of torts evolved and
branched fo various special torts, ke. damages
train from medial malpractice casa, Since hurean
ie is inviolable and health services are a public
feod, fin a sacrosanct policy of every state to
Enact laws to protect thie matter that fs imbued
wih ti ndret Considering thi, pheicane
fre facing stngent challenges in initating, Changes
that lead to the delivery of beter health care services
land undertake greater accountability, ike being
invoedin medical malpractice Itgations, in which
an award of damages the ved i neitable>
In most juriadictions, another emerging tort is
privacy tort, arising ffom invasion of one’s priva
‘A peroon has an actionable right to be free from
invasion of privacy. An actionable invasion of the
right of privacy is the unwarranted appropriation or
exnlotation of one’s personality, the publicizing of
one’s private affairs with which the public has'na
legitimate concern, or the wrongful intrusion into
one’s private activites in such a manner a8 to
‘outage or cause mental suring, shame or huation
toa person of ordinary sensibilities.”
In some countries with advanced business
practices, they apply tort in business and related
transactional activities. Business tort may include
a restraint of trade, when the defendant in the case
‘might not have caused the immediate financial loss,
‘but caused a larger hindrance that prevents =
business from continuing in a normal manner.
This may also involve theft of trade secrets, when
fone party tales the proprietary information from a
Dusiness, with the intent of gaining a competitive
advantage unfairly. Damages may also be filed due
to fraudulent misrepresentation, when two parties
‘agree through a contract or to an agreement in
goodiaith, but fail to comply one’s obligations in a
contract in bad faith
In common, civil, and mixed law jurisdictions,
the main remedy available to plaintiffs under tort
law is economic compensation. Further, in the
case of a continuing tort, or even where harm is
‘merely threatened, the courts will sometimes grant
fn injunction or restraining the continuance or
‘threat of harm, In some countries, injunctions will
not impose positive obligations on tortfeasors, but
fan order for specific performance to ensure that
the defendant carries out their legal obligations,
especially in relation to nuisance matters.° At the
‘same time, the legal systems from various jurisdictions
also provided for possible defenses available among
defendants charged with tort lability.
Se 8 Seen BM, La, Nn Tams 4 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES
In some jurisdictions, tort law may include not
only in the concept of negligence or those harm
‘unintentionally committed but may also refer to
intentional tort. Usually, in the absence of other
alternative modes of resolving disputes, most
jurisdictions usually adopt the procedural rule,
that an aggrieved party initiates an action by filing
‘lawsuit, seeking a legal remedy from the court. If
the plaintiff is successful in proving his/her claim,
the court will enter judgment for the plaintiff and
fssue a court order for damages, The party against
whom the complaint is directed is the defendant.
Hence, in litigation, cases are identified by citing
the plaintiff frst; ‘thus, a lawsuit is cited as
“Plaintiff us. Defendant”*
‘Tort Law in Various Jurisdictions
England and Wales
‘The legal system operating in England and
Wales is @ common law system. The essential
Giflerence between a common law system and
civil law system (the predominant legal system in,
Europe] is that in the former, judicial decisions are
binding both on lower courte and on the court that
hhas made the decision. This is called a system of
precedent. Tort law is concerned with civil wrongs.
Undoubtedly, the largest area of law within tortie
the law of negligence. In the context of personal
injury claims, the injured person will most likely
sue in negligence. Negligence is a relatively new
tort, and it has been largely developed by the
Judiciary. Its expansion throughout the late’ 19th
CHAPTER ONE s
‘and 20th century reflects the pressures, which the
rise of industrial and urban society has brought to
bear upon the traditional categories of legal redress
{or interference with protected interests.” For the
‘court to make a finding of negligence, the claimant
ust prove the following:
cowed tie ‘claimant a duty of care, The duty of
SSibie tate secon care avid acs or
Smlaiona which you can reasonably foresee
that would be Hay to injure your neighbor A
court wil ind a duty of are ithe claimant can
Show that he damage he sured was forseesbi
that there was prosimiy between himself and
the defendant; and thet ll the creumatancee
it would be fai jst and reasonable to impone
labltyon te defendant
face Determining whether the defendant was at
{Eu in a. two-stage process, First the court
Iust determine the sandard of care thatthe
Gstendant owed the ciamant. The standard of
are wil be the simdard that the Teasonable
fers” would adopt inthe pression, occupation
ervnctiyy in" question, indetrmining. this
Standard, the courte wil often balance ‘the
degree of foreseabilty or sak of harm against
{he cot of avicing the harm, and the benefits
to society foregone if the actin. question is
fot eared on The econd stage i forthe court
“Denny Janae, oan, 20, Men an 6 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES
to determine whether the actions of the defendant
‘himeelf reached this standard. This is a question
‘of fact, The claimant must then show that the
defendant's breach of duty caused the damage
that he sulfered. The test is a ‘but-for test ~ but
{or the defendant's tort, would the claimant have
ssulfered the loss or damage?
) Finally, the damage suffered by the
‘laimant must be a iype of damage that can be
recovered under the law on negligence.”
United States of America
‘The primary aims of tort law in the U.S. are to
provide reli to injured partes for harms caused by
‘others, to impose liability on parties responsible for
‘the harm, and to deter others from committing harmful
acts.t0 Torts can shift the burden of loss from the
injured party to the party who is at fault or better
suited t0 bear the burden of the loss. Typically, a
party secking redress through tort law will asle for
amages, in the form of monetary compensation.
Less common remedies include injunction and
restitution.
‘The boundaries of tort law are defined by
‘common law and state statutory law. American
Judges, in interpreting the language of statutes,
have wide latitude in determining which actions
qualify as legally cognizable wrongs, which defenses
may override any given claim, and the appropriate
‘measure of damages,
"gl frag nwt, Tar, Crmll Law Schl, Cae
ning ip ota corset sd a
(CHAPTER ONE, 7
‘Tort_law_in_the US fall_into_three_general
‘categories: intentional torts (intentionally hitting a
person); negligent torts (causing an accident by
failing to obey traffic rules); and strict liability torts
or product lability (ibility for making and selling
defective products).
Japan
‘The provision on tort under the Civil Code of
Japan (Act No. 89, enacted on April 27, 1896)
[Article 709: A person who has intentionally or
regigenty infringed any right of others, or legally
protected interest of others, shal be table to compensate
‘any damages resuling in consequence.
‘Tort liability in Japan requires three conditions:
negligence, infingoment of rights and «causal
link between the action and the damage, It is
necessary for the vietim (plaintiff) to demonstrate
that through the defendant's negligent action his
rights were infringed and thereby the damage was
caused, The defendant should be judged to be
liable ifthe court finds that he was negligent in his
‘conduct and consequently injured the plaintiff, in
‘which the alleged harm is of the type which must
bbe protected by law. At the same time, the court
determines the sum of money that the defendant
shall be ordered to pay the victim.
ses a tan as Ne a
ep yee Sepa Law Sew 8 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES
Canada
Im most provinces in Canada, a tort is a civil
‘wrong for which a legal remedy exists. The wrong
relates to harm or losses occurring to a person oF
their property because of deliberate action or
carelessness of another, which forms the basis of
the claim by the plaintiff in most civil legal claims.
Breach of contract issues are separate from torts.
However, it is noteworthy, the concept of a tort
does not apply in Québec.
‘An absolute right to a jury is available to
plaintiffs in a civil action oniy in Saskatchewan.
Traditionally, civil actions in the other common
W provinces and territories are heard by a judge
alone, but in recent years there has been an
increasing trend toward jury trials.'®
Definition of Tort
It originated from the Latin word “torqueo” or
“torquere’, meaning to turn, twist or bend.
In common law, tort is an unlawful violation
‘of private right, not created by contract, and which
gives rise to an action for damages. It is an act or
omission producing an injury to another, without
any previous existing lawful relation of which the
‘said act or omission maybe said to be a natural
outgrowth or incident."
amu, (B06, law of Dec in Que’ The Canaan
"sesso 0.01220, CAR (21
(CHAPTER ONE 9
Tort is also defined as a “private or civil wrong
or injury, other than breach of contract,” for which
the court will provide a remedy in the form of an.
action for damages. It isa violation of a duty imposed
by general law or otherwise upon all persons
‘occupying the relation to each other which is
involved in each transaction, There must always be
violation of some duty that must arse by operation of
law and not by mere agreement of the parties.
‘A tort is an act or omission that gives rise to
injury or harm to another and amounts to a
civil wrong for which courts impose liability
Purposes of Tort Cases
@) To compensate the agarieved party in_the
form of monetary awards. The remedy sought in a
tort action does not involve incarceration or the
payment ofa fine tothe victim, but rather payment of
‘damages to the aggrieved party as imposed by courts,
in a private case. Tort cases authorize recovery of
damages grounded in determinations of plaintiffs
‘actual or consequential losses."*
b) Asa form ofc indemnification. The purpose
of tort ‘cases is to economically indemnify an
fsegrieved party for the direct and consequential
damage, as result ofa tortious act or omission.
©) Gil redress, Tort cases empower individual
Vietims of tortious acts to seck redress, through
Judicial actions against those who have wronged
them, Tort law addresses a question about whose 10 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES
problem it is when things go wrong by generating,
land enforcing a remedial structure within which those
‘who have been wronged can claim a remedy from
the person who has wronged them. To establish the
remedial claim, the plaintiff must establish that
the act of the alleged defendant satisfies each of
the elements of the tort of whieh they complain. (7
4) Loss allocation or redistribution. For assigning,
losses or payment of damages, not only against
principal offenders, but to other parties who
‘maybe vicariously oF solidary liable, as to claim for
fair and complete compensation of the losses suffered
by the victim.
€) Deterrence in_the commission _of similar
offense/s. Tort cases and the resulting decisions
by courts awarding compensation to the victims,
promote optimum deterrence in the commission of
‘same or similar acts or omission, resulting to an orderly
society. The possibilty of recovering damages in
tort law gives potential plaintiffs an incentive to
pursue claims against the tortfeasors at whose
hands they have suffered. The risk of tort liability
Creates an incentive to take steps to avoid injuring
‘others. In that sense, tort law, particularly negligence
law (which subjects agents to liability for harms
they have proximately caused), creates'a tacit form
of private risk policing."*
"Dr B, 015) The Ste aT Lam, Reis The Polen
corte esponja Save fo tae
CHAPTER ONE u
(GENERAL PRINCIPLES
| Promotes a_civlized_societu_and_qualitu
approach. Tort is a method of regulating safety by
warning people to take precautions against the
risk of injury. The study of tort law creates an
optimum standard governing human conduct and.
relations, with an objective to promote the exercise
of the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable
person would exercise in various circumstances.2
A) As conectve justice and retribution for losses
Courts determine the civil abilities to be awarded.
among aggrieved persons who have been wronged,
hence, provides an avenue of recourse through
which’ they can proceed against tortfeasors.
‘Types of Tort
1) Intentional Tort - are intentional actions
that result in harm to the plaintiff. The harm need
not be intended, but the act must be intentional,
ot merely a product of one's carelessness or
reckless acts, In common law countries, some
{intentional tort offenses are as follows:
+ Battery ~ battery is when a person
intentionally eauises a victim to have harmful
for offensive contact with something else.
‘This includes the intentional act of touching,
another person, without the latter's consent.
+ Assault assault occurs when a person imputes
fear or apprehension of imminent harmful or
offensive contact. Employing unreasonable
threat or fear to his victim. 12 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES
+ False imprisonment - false imprisonment is
‘when an offender, without any legal authority,
restraine or limits a vietim’s ability to move
freely from one area to another.
+ Trespass to land — trespass to land is when a.
person intentionally enters someone else’s
property. The person does not have to damage
‘anything for it to be trespass.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(IED) ~ this occurs when one acts abominabiy
or outrageously with intent to cause another
tw suffer severe emotional distress, such as
issuing the threat of future harm.
+ Conversion — this occurs when a person
takes the chattel property of another with
the intent to deprive them of said property.
“+ Defamation false statement of facts made
to another person,
2). Unintentional Tort or Nealizence - It presupposes,
the failure to observe the reasonable standard of
care and diligence, which other people of ordinary
prudence would have exercised under the same
‘cccasion oF circumstances. Negligence is the failure
to observe for the protection of the interests of
another person that degree of care, precaution, and
Vigilance which the circumstances justly demand,
whereby such other person suffers injury 2°
3) Strict Liability Tort - also called a product
liability, imputing liability to a defendant, provided
the plaintiff proves that the product is ‘defective,
"nC Otaano, Oo. 296492047
CHAPTER ONE 13
(GENERAL PRINCIPLES
rogardiess of the defendant's intent to commit an
error or harm. It is not a defense that the
‘manufacturer or producer exercised great care or
caution, if there is a defect in the product that
‘causes harm, the former shall be liable for it.
‘Various Tort Liabilities
a) Primary Liability - the basis of claims under
this liability is Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which
provides: Whoever by act or mission causes damage
fo another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged
to pay for the damage done, Such fault or negligence,
if there is no preexisting contractual relaion between
the parties, is called a quasi-detict x x x.
1). Solidary Liability ~ the basis of claims under
this lability is under Article 2194 of the Civil Code:
Article 2194. The responsibility of 00 oF more
persons who are lable for quastdelict 5 solidary
€} Vicarious tiabilty ~ it comes from the word
“vicartus" or “vicar,” which means @ substitute. The
basis of claims under this liability is Article 2180
of the Civil Code, that refers to a situation where
‘someone is held responsible for the acts or omissions
of another person. It means representative, deputy
for substitute, anyone acting “in the person of o
‘agent of a superior. In the context of the workplace,
the employer ean be held responsible for the acts
of omissions of its employees, provided it can be
shown that it tool place in the course of their
employment. This ‘may also include the civil 14 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES,
liabilities of parents on behalf oftheir minor children
‘committing harmful acts.
44)_Strct Hability ~ the basis of claims under
‘his aby is the strict standards among manufacturers,
producers and providers of goods and services. In
tort law, there are {wo broad categories of activities
for which a plaintiff may be held strictly liable ~a)
possession of certain animals and b) abnormally.
dangerous activities. Additionally, in the area of
torts known as products liability, there is a sub-
category known as strict products liability which
applies when a defective product for which an
‘appropriate defendant holds responsibility causes
injury to an appropriate plaintiff.29
Distinctions Between Tort and Quasi-delict
Tort is an Anglo-American and common law
{in concept, that inciudes both intentional and
‘unintentional torts. On the other hand, quasi-
ddlict is civil law in origin, based on Article 2176 of
the Civil Code, which has its original term from
‘Spanish treatises as *culpa-aquiliana,” that is only
limited to negligent acts or omissions and excludes
the notion of willftiness or intent.
‘Tort, as previously discussed, is much broader
than quasidelict because it inchades not only nesligence,
‘but intentional criminal offenses of assault, battery,
fraud, trespass to dwelling, intentional infliction of
‘emotional distress and false imprisonment. While
‘quasi-delict only includes negligence,
"ap ifrmaton ne, Care Law Scheel
(CHAPTER ONE. 15
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
However, on the issue, whether quasidelict
may involve acts intentionally committed, the provision
of Article 2176 of the Civil Code was supplied with
the application on the provisions on Human
Relations, particularly Articles 19, 20, 21, 32,
33 and 34, to include intentional acts as basis for
civil claims,
Human Relations
ARTICLE 19. Buen) person must, in the
‘exercise of his rights and inthe performance of
his duties, act with justice, qive everuone his
‘due, and observe honesty and good faith
ARTICLE 20, Bvery person who, contrary to
tans uahaly or neg causes carage fo
tater shal denny the later or the same
ARTICLE 21. Any person who willy cases
toss or nh to another in @ manner tha
Contrary to morals, good custome or ube
obey shal componsite te later forthe damage
ARTICLE 92. Any pub offer o” emolouee,
or ar prow inivicl, who, dethy oF
Seine obatract, defects, oles 0” i a
tanner pads or impairs a ofthe lia
Tints and iberties of onather perso" shall be
Tote othe lator for damages:
(1) Freedom of religion:
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to
‘maintain a periodical publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention: 16
‘TORTS AND DAMAGES
CHAPTER ONE 7
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
(5) Freedom of suffiage:
(6) The right against deprivation of property
‘without due process of lau;
(7) The right to a just compensation when
_Private property is taken for public use;
(6) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house,
papers, and effects against. unreasonable
Searches and setzures;
(1 tery faba ef cringe same
(11) The, pruacy of communication and
comespndenc
(12) The taht t9 become a member of
tbooditons or sodetce for‘ purpones” no
‘contrary to law; f *
(13) The rat t take part in a peaceable
caer eto he Contest eaboos
Foronces
(14 Teri be fe fom nha ser
jin any form; ” “e
(15) The right ofthe accused against excessive
(25) The right o agai
(16) The rt of the accused to be heard bi
himself and course, to be informed of the
ative an cause of the scctstion against
him, to have a speedy and public re, oo ast
the’ witnesses ce to face, and ts hase
Compulsory press 1 secure the atenderice
Gfustnese hie behais
117) Freedom from being compelied to be a
witness against one's sel, or from being forced
{0 confess quilt, or from being induced by a
‘promise of immunity or reward to make such
Confession, except when the person confessing
becomes @ Stave witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel andt
unusual’ punishment, unless the same is
imposed or inflicted in accordance with a
Statute which has not been judicially declared
unconstitutional, and
(19) Freedom of access tothe courts.
In any of the cases referred 10 in this article,
‘whether or not the defendant's act or omission
‘constitutes criminal offense, the aggrieved
‘party has @ right fo commence an entirely
Separate and distinet cil action for damages,
‘and for other relief. Such civil action shall progeed
Independently of any criminal prosecution (if
the latter be instituted), and may be proved by
‘a preponderance of evidence.
‘The indemnity shall inchude moral damages.
Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
The responsibilty herein set forth is not
demandable from a judge unless his act or
fmisoion constitutes a violation of the Penal
Code or other penal statute.
ARTICLE 22. in cases of defumason, fraud
‘and phusical injuries, a cil action for damages,
‘entirely separate and distinct from the eriminat
‘action, may be brought by the injured party. 18 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES
‘Such civil action shalt proceed independently
Of the criminal prosecution, and shall require
‘only @ preponderance of evidence
ARTICLE 34. When a member of a city or
‘municipal police fore refuses or fais to render
aid or protection to any person in case of
danger 10 life or property, such peace officer
shall be primarily liable for damages, and the
city or ‘municipality shall be subsidiarity
responsible therefor. The civil action herain
recognized shall be independent of any criminal
proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence
Shall sufce to support such action.
‘Thus, in the case of Gashem Shookat
Baksh ws. Court of Appeais, an Iranian citizen
residing at the Lozano Apartments, Guilig, Dagupan
City, and is an exchange student taking, a medical
course at the Lyceum Northwestern Colleges in.
Dagupan City, courted and proposed to marry
Marilou Gonzaies. Marilou accepted his love on the
condition that they would get married. ‘They
therefore agreed to get married after the end of the
school semester. The petitioner forced her to live
with him in the Lozano Apartments. Marilou was &
virgin before she began living with him, Defendant
‘would tie plaintiff's hands and feet while he went
to school, and he even gave her medicine at 4
o'clock in the morning that made her sleep. the
whole day and night until the following day. As a
result of this livein relationship, plaintiff became
pregnant, but defendant gave her some medicine
to abort the fetus. Still, plaintiff continued to live
CHAPTER ONE 19
with defendant and kept reminding him of his
promise to mary her until he told her that he
‘Could not do so because he was already married to
girl in Bacolod City
‘The Supreme Court held thet the Defendant is
liable, even though the act was intentionally
committe.
‘The Civil Code contains a provision, Anicle
21, which is designed to expand the ‘concept
ot’ tons or quastdetictin thle jurisdiction by
adequate legal remedy Tor the untold
Sumber of moral wrongs whichis impossible for
human foresight to specifically enumerate and
Punish in the statute books.
Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which defines
2 quastdelict thus:
Whoever by act or omission causes damage
to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there 's.no preexisting contractual
relation between the partes, is called «quasi
detict and is governed by the provisions of this
Chapter.
Article 2176 is limited to negligent acts or
omissions and excludes the notion of wilfulness
or intent, Quasi-delict, known in Spanish legal
\weatises as culpa aquiliana, is @ civil law concept,
‘while forts isan “Anglo-American or common
Taw concept. Torts is “much broader than culpa
aquikana because it includes not only negligence,
but international criminal acts as well such 88
‘assault and atery, false imprisonment and decet.
Jn the general scheme of the Philippine legal 20 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES
system envisioned by the Commission responsible
for drafting the New Civil Code, intentional and
‘malicious acts, with certain exceptions, are to be
governed by the Revised Penal Code, while
Deglgent acts or omissions are to be covered by
Article 2176 of the Civil Code. In between these
opposite spectrums are injurious acts which, in
the absence of Article 21, would have been beyond
redress, Thus, Article 21 fills that vacuum, It is
‘even postulated that together with Articles 19
‘and.20 of the Civil Code, Article 21 has greatly
‘broadened the scope of the law on civil wrongs:
izhas become much more supple and adaptable
‘han the Anglo-American law on torts
In the light of the above laudable purpose of
‘Amicle 21, We are of the opinion, and 0 hold,
that where a man's promise to marry is in fact
the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love
by a woman and his representation to fulfil that
promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause
of the ging of herself unto him in a sexual
‘congress, proof that he had, in reality, no
intention of manying her and that the promise
was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to
entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain
her consent to the sexual act, could justify the
award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not
because of such promise to marry but because
of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willl
injury to her honor and reputation which followed
thereafter. IU is essential, however, that such
injury should have been committed in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
(CHAPTER ONE. a
(GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Distinctions Between Quasi-delict and Culpa
Criminal.
‘There are distinctions between quasi-delict
from culpa criminal. In the case of Barredo vs.
Gareta, involves head-on collision between a
taxi and a carretela, The carretela overturned, and
one of its passengers, euflered injuries from which
he died two days later, The driver of the taxi was
convicted, The court in the criminal case granted
the petition that the right to bring a separate civil
faction be reserved. The pivotal question in this case
whether the plaintiffs may bring this separate
civil action against Fausto Barredo, thus making
him primarily and directly responsible under the
Civil Code as an employer of Pedro Fontanilla.
In this case, the Supreme Court explained the
distinctions between the two causes of action,
particularly stating that:
Some of the differences between crimes under
the Penal Code and the culpa aquiliana or cuasi-
delito (quasi-delict) under the Civil Code are:
1) That crimes affect the public interest, while
cuasi-delitos (quasidelict) are only of
private concern,
2) That, consequently, the Penal Code punishes
for corrects the criminal act, while the Civil
Code, by means of indemnification, merely
repairs the damage. 2 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES
3) That delicts are not as broad as quasi-
elicts, because the former is punished
only if there is a penal law clearly covering
them, while the latter, cuasi-delitos (quasi
elie), include all acts in which “any kind
of fault or negligence intervenes." However,
it should be noted that not all violations of
the penal law produce civil responsibility,
‘such as begging in contravention af ordinances,
violation of the game laws, infraction of the
‘rules of traffic when nobody is hurt.2°
In addition, the following are the distinctions:
4) To find the accused liable for culpa
‘criminal, his guilt in a criminal case, proof
‘of guilt Beyond reasonable doubt is required.
While in a civil case of culpa aquiliana,
‘mere preponderance of evidence is sufficient
to make the defendant pay in damages.
5) To find the tortfeasor liable for damages,
criminal intent is not necessary for quasi-
delict to exist. Fault or negligence without
intent will suffice. While in culpa criminal,
criminal intent is essential for criminal
‘and civil lability (0 exit,
6) Negligent acts can produce civil tiabilities
among tortfeasor, awarded by courts. in
favor of an aggrieved party. On the other
hhand, not all criminal acts produce civil
liabilities.
CHAPTER ONE, 23
(GENERAL PRINCIPLES
In summary, it is implied that our laws and
Jurisprudence recognize the distinctions between
Criminal and civil abilities. A crime is a liability
against the state. It is prosecuted by and for the
State. Acts considered criminal are penalized by
law, as a means, to protect the society from
dangerous transgressions. As criminal liability
Involves a penalty affecting a person's liberty, acts
are only treated criminal when the law clearly says
0. On the other hand, civil liabilities take a less
public and more private nature. Civil liabilities are
Claimed through civil actions, as means to enforce
or protect a right or prevent or redress a wrong. They
do not carry with them the imposition of
imprisonment as a penalty. Instead, civil liabilities
fare compensated in the form of damages.
‘The effects offing a separate dl action for damages
‘arising from deli:
Thus, the law provides that a person
criminally Hable for a felony is also civilly liable
(Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code). This civil
liability ex delicto may be recovered through a civil
action which, under our Rules of Court, is deemed
instituted with the criminal action. While they are
factions mandatorily fused, they are, in truth,
‘separate actions whose existence are not dependent
fon each other.
Under the Rules of Court, it states: 24
‘TORTS AXD DAMAGES
RULE 111
Prosecution of Civil Action
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil
‘actions. —" (a) When a criminal action is
{nsttuted, the civil action for the recovery
of civil liability arising from the offense
charged shall be deemed instituted with
the criminal action unless the offended
Party wales the cil action, reserves the
10 i separately or institutes
the civil action prior tothe eximinal action.
‘The reservation of the right to institute
‘separately the civil action shall be made
before the prosecution starts presenting
its evidence and under circumstances
affording the offended party a reasonable
‘opportunity to make such reservation.
When the offended party seeks to enforce
civil lability against the accused by Way
‘of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary
damages without specifying the amount
thereof in the complaint of information,
the fling fees thereof shall constitute
first lien on the judgment awarding stich
damages
‘Where the amount of damages, other
than actual, is speciied in the complaint
or information, the corresponding. fling
fees shall be paid by the offended party
‘upon the fling thereaf in court.
CHAPTER ONE,
(GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Except as otherwise provided in these
Rules, no filing fees shall be required for
actual damages,
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-
party complaint’ may be filed by the
‘ecused in the criminal case, but any
‘catise of action which could have been
the subject thereof may be litigated in a
separate civil action
Where the civil scion hasbeen fied
Separately and tral thereof hae not yet
Scmmenced, it may be consolidated wth
the criminal action upon application with
the court tying the latter case. If the
pplication is granted, the tal of both
Ekone shall proceed in accordance with
Secon 2 ofthis Fle governing consodetion
Ftc cel and criminal actions.
Section 2. When separate civil action is
Suspended. — After the criminal action
hhas been commenced, the separate civil
‘ction arising therefrom cannot be instituted
tuntl Binal judgment has been entered in
the criminal action.
If the criminal action is filed alter the
said. civil action has already been
{nstituted, the latter shall be suspended
in whatever stage it may be found before
judgment on the merits. The suspension
Shall last until final judgment is rendered
in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before
judgment on the merits is rendered in the
vil action, the same may, upon motion
25 26 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES.
of the offended party, be consolidated
‘with the criminal action in the court trying
‘the criminal action. In ease of consolidation,
the evidence already adduced in the civil
‘action shall be deemed automatically
‘reproduced in the eriminal action without
prejudice to the right of the prosecution
‘to cross-examine the witnesses presented
by the offended party in the criminal case
sand of the parties to present additional
fvidence. The consolidated criminal and
(ul actions shall be tied and decided joint
Dring the pendency of the criminal action,
the running of the period of prescription
of the civl action which “cannot be
instituted separately or whose proceeding,
hhas been suspended shal be tolled.
‘The extinction of the penal action does
not carry with it extinction of the civil
Action. However, the civil action based on.
Gelice shall be ‘deemed extinguished if
there is @ finding in a final judgment in
the criminal action that the act or omission
from which the civil lisbility may arise
did not exist
To explain, in the case Dy vs. People of the
Mandy Commodities Co, Ine, represented
by William Mandy, filed a case for Bstafa against
Gloria Dy, before the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Manila. On March 3, 2004, an Information w
filed against petitioner before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) Manila. After a full-blown trial, the RTC
ER Wo, 16981 2016)
CHAPTER ONE a
(GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Manila rendered a decision acquitting petitioner.
‘Thus, it held that the prosecution failed to establish
fan important element of the crime of estafe—
misappropriation or conversion. However, while the
RTC Manila acquitted petitioner, it ordered her to
pay the amount of the checks. Petitioner raised the
‘civil award, contending that her guilt has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt.28
‘The Supreme Court reiterated, thus, while an
‘act considered criminal is a breach of law against
the State, our legal system allows for the recovery
‘of civil damages where there is a private person
Injured by a criminal act. Itis in recognition of this
dual nature of a criminal act that our Revised
Penal Code provides that every person criminally
liable is also civilly liable. This is the concept of
civil ability ex delioto2 The law and the rules of
procedure provide for a precise mechanism in
instituting & civil action pertaining to an act or
‘omission which is also subject of a criminal case.
‘Our Rules of Court prescribes a kind of fusion
such that, subject to certain defined qualifications,
when a criminal action is instituted, the civil
action for the recovery of the civil liability arising
from the offense is deemed instituted as well
However, there is an important difference
between civil and criminal proceedings that require &
fine distinction as to how these twin actions shall
proceed, These two proceedings involve two diferent
standards of proof. A criminal action requires 28 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES:
‘proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt while a civil
‘ction requires a lesser quantum of proof, that of
preponderance of evidence. This distinction also
agrees with the essential principle in our legal
system that while a criminal liability carries with it
8 conesponding civil lability, they are nevertheless
separate and distinct. In other words, these two
liabilities may covexist, but their existence is not
dependent on each other,
‘The Civil Code states that when an accused in
4 criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground
that his guilt has not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for
‘the same act or omission may be filed. In the latter
‘case, only preponderance of evidence is required, This
is supported by the Rules of Court which provides
that the extinction of the criminal action does not
result in the extinction of the corresponding civil
action. The latter may only be extinguished when
there is a ‘finding in a final judgment in the
‘criminal action that the act or omission from which
‘the civil ability may arise did not exist.” Consistent
with this, the Rules of Court requires that in
judgments of acquittal the court must state whether
the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed
to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either
case, the judgment shall determine if the act oF
‘omission from which the civil lability might arise
did not exist.2°
(CHAPTER ONE. 29
[GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Similarly, in the case of Lumantas vs.
Calapiz,*" Spouses Calapiz brought their 8-year-
old son, Hanz Calapiz (Hanz), to the Misamis
Occidental Provincial Hospital, Oroquieta City, for
fan emergency appendectomy. Hanz was attended
to by petitioner Dr. Encarnacion Lumantas, who
‘suggested to the parents that Hanz also undergo
circumcision at no added cost to spare him the
pain. With the parents’ consent, the petitioner
performed the coronal type of circumcision on
Hanz after his appendectomy. On the following
day, Hanz complained of pain in his penis, which
‘exhibited blisters. His testicles were swollen. The
parents noticed that the child urinated abnormally
after the petitioner forcibly removed the catheter, but
‘the petitioner dismissed the abnormality as normal.
‘On January 30, 1995, Hanz was discharged from
‘the hospital over his parents’ protestations and
‘was directed to continue taking antibiotics.
On February 8, 1995, Hanz was confined in a
hospital because of the abscess formation between
the base and the shaft of his penis. Presuming
that the ulceration was brought about by Hanz's
‘appendicitis, the petitioner referred him to Dr.
Henry Go, @ urologist, who diagnosed the boy to
hhave a damaged urethra. Thus, Hanz underwent
‘eystostomy, and thereafter was operated on three
times to repair his damaged urethra.
When his damaged urethra could not be fully
repaired and reconstructed, Hanz’s parents brought a
‘criminal charge against the petitioner for reckless
imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries.
Tan No 759 OTe) 20 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES
‘The trial court acquitted the accused for insufficiency
of evidence, but ordered him to pay Hanz Calapiz
50,000.00 as moral damages. An appeal was filed
fon the basis that petitioner cannot be civilly liable
after her acquittal
According to the Supreme Court, it is axiomatic
that every person criminally liable for a felony is
also civilly liable. Nevertheless, the acquittal of an
accused of the crime charged does not necessarily
extinguish his civil lability. The Court elucidates
‘on the two kinds of acquittal recognized by our law
f5 well a8 on the different effects of acquittal on.
the civil lability of the accused, viz:
ur law recognizes {wo kinds of acquittal, with
diferent effects on the civil lability of the accused.
Hirst, isan acquittal on the ground that the
‘accused is not the author of the act or omission
complained of. This instance closes the door to
‘lvl lability, for a person who has been found to
be not the perpetrator of any act or omission
cannot and can never be held liable for such act or
‘omission. There being no delict, civil ability ex
delicto is out of the question, and the civil action,
if any, which may be instituted must be based on.
grounds other than the delict complained of. This
is the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the
Rules of Court. The second instance is an acquittal
‘based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the
accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the
accused has not been satisfactorily established, he
Js not exempt from civil liability which may be proved
by preponderance of evidence only.
(CHAPTER ONE at
‘The Rules of Court requires that in case of an
acquittal, the judgment shall state "whether the
evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed (0
prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed t0
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, In either
fase, the judgment shall determine if the act or
omission from which the civil liability might arise
ddid not exist.”
Conformably with the foregoing, therefore, the
‘acquittal of an accused does not prevent a judgment
from still being rendered against him on the civil
aspect of the criminal case unless the court finds
fand declares that the fact from which the civil
liability might arise did not exist. Although it found
the prosecution's evidence insufficient to sustain a
judgment of conviction against the petitioner for
the crime charged, the RIC did not err in
determining and adjudging his civil liability for the
‘same act complained of based on mere preponderance
of evidence."
Glearty, the Rules of Court and jurisprudence provides
forthe following
2) Generally, an aggrieved party can file a
criminal case, in which the civil action for
damages is deemed instituted.
b) Nevertheless, an aggrieved party has an
option to file a separate civil action for
damages arising from delict, in which case,
reservation in the eriminal case is required
(Section 1, Rule 111, Rules of Court) 9
a
a
‘TORTS AND DAMAGES.
If an accused in a criminal prosecution is
acquitted on the ground that his guilt has
not been proven beyond reasonable doubt,
f civil action for damages for the same act,
fr omission may be filed. In the latter case,
only preponderance of evidence is required.
However, it bars fing a case for civil
liability arising from delict and the right to
file/proceed as separate action maybe
extinguished if the court hearing the
criminal case issued a “finding in a final
judgment in the criminal action that the
fact or omission from which the civil
liability may arise did not exist.” That,
clearly shows that the accused is not the
author ofthe erime charged.
Based on ‘c" and “d’, it is inferred, that
our laws recognize two kinds of acquittal,
with different effects on the civil lability of
the accused arising from the crime committed.
Eirst, is an acquittal on the ground that
the accused is not the author of the act or
omission complained of. This instance
loses the door to civil lability, for a
Person who has been found ta be not the
perpetrator of any act or omission cannot
and can never be held liable for such act
or omission. There being no deliet, civil
liability ex delicto is out of the question,
and the civil action, if any, which may be
stituted must be based on grounds other
than the delict complained of. This is the
situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the
n
CHAPTER ONE 33
(GENERAL PRINCIPLES.
Rules of Court. The second instance is an
fcqulttal based on reasonable doubt on
the guilt of the accused. In this caue, even
if'ite guilt of the accused has not been
Satisfactory established, he is not exempt
from ea at whi ay be proved by
ontderance of evidence only. Tis isthe
Eitteton contemplated in Arcie 29 of the
Gis Code, where. the cil action for
damages is "or the same act or omission.
‘After the criminal action has been commenced,
the separate civil action arising therefrom
Cannot be instituted until final judgment
hhas been entered in the criminal action,
If the criminal action is led after the said
Gul action has already been. instituted,
the later sal be suapended in whatever
Stage ft may be found before judgment on
the merit, The suspension shailiastuntl inal
[Rtdgment ig rendered in the criminal action.
Nevertheless, before judgment on the
merits is rendered in the civil action, the
same may, upon motion of the offended
party, be consolidated with the criminal
fetion in the court trying the criminal
‘ection. In case of consolidation, the evidence
‘lready adduced in the civil action shall be
deemed automatically reproduced in the
Criminal action without prejudice to the
Hight of the prosecution to cross-examine
the witnesece. presented by the offended
party in the criminal case and of the 34 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES
parties to present additional evidence. The
Consolidated criminal and civil actions
‘shall be tried and decided jointly.
The effects of fling an independent civil action for
damages under quast-delict.
‘The requirement for the reservation of the civil
action does not anymore apply to the independent,
civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of
the Civil Code. Such action may be filed anytime,
provided the plaintiff does not recover twice upon.
the same act or omission. Provided further, that
the action is filed within the prescriptive period of
four (4) years.
‘The procedural rules to support the _non-
reservation requirement for quasi-delict actions,
‘ven ifit stems from same criminal act or omission
is Section 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, thus!
Section 3. When cil action may proceed
independent. — Inthe cases proved. for in
‘Article 32, $3, $4 and 2176 of the Civil Code of
i Pilipines, the Independent cl action may
ought by the offended party. It shall proceed
Jndepeneniy of the eriminal ‘action and shall
require oniy'a preponderance of evidence. In no
case, however, may the offended party recover
amages' twice Tor the same act or omission
charged in the criminal ection
Hence, if the action is based on a quasi-delict,
the failure of the claimant to reserve his right to
file @ separate civil case and his intervention in the
criminal case will not bar him from ‘fling @
separate civil action for damages,
CHAPTER ONE. 35
(GENERAL PRINCIPLES
In Supreme Transportation Liner, Inc. vs.
San Andres,» Ernesto Belchez was driving a
passenger bus, Mabel Tours Bus. While traversing.
Maharlika Highway, the Mabel Tours Bus sideswiped
Toyota Revo it was overtaking. The Mabel Tours
Bus immediately swerved to the left lane but in the
process, it hit head-on the Supreme Bus owned
and registered in the name of Supreme Bus
Transportation Line, Inc., and driven by Felix G.
Ruz, that was negotiating in the opposite lane.
Because of the strong impact of the incident, the
‘Supreme Bus was pushed to the side of the road
and the Mabel Tours Bus continuously moved until
it hit a passenger jeepney that was parked on the
side of the road which later on fell on the canal.
Nobody died but all the vehicles were damaged.
‘A. complaint for damages before the RTC
‘abate Ciy was inetd by respondent Antonio
Sem Andres against (pttioner) alleging actual
damage to Mabel Tours Bus and unrealized profits
icra he aa our Bs te me
ie underwent repair, Subsequendy, [petiloners
fed tel Answer th Counterclai, Tey alleged
mong others that painif has no ease of a
‘gaint her; the proximate eaue ofthe vehicular
siistent ie the “reckons impradence of the
[reepandents driver, EmestoBelches operated the
Nabe! Tours Bus eckieely and in volaton of rai
laws: By way of counterclaim, [eutione] Supreme
Trnnaportation Liner, Ine aleged that sullered
damages in the aggregate amount of PS00,000.00
Send another P10 00000 forthe medical expenses
of ie employees and. passengers. During ‘il 36 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES
CHAPTER ONE a
GENERAL PRINCIPLES.
Jessi Alvarez stated that he filed a criminal
‘complaint for Reckless Imprudence resulting to
‘damage to property against Emesto Belchez before
the RTC Candelaria, Quezon, which the criminal
‘case was terminated, and the accused was convicted
because of his admission of the crime charged. In
the said criminal complaint, he did not reserve
their civil claim or asked the fiscal to reserve it,
Which, if itemized, would also be the amount of
their counterclaim in the present civil action filed
by [respondent]. The RTC Tabaco City dismissed
the counterclaim on the ground that to allow their
counterclaim was tantamount to double recovery
of damages, considering that the same was not
prosecuted ‘in the criminal action against the
respondent's diver.
‘The Supreme Court ruled, the latest iteration
‘of Rule 111, unlike the predecessor, no longer includes
the independent civil actions under Articles 32, 33,
34, and 2176 of the Civil Code as requiring prior
feservation to be made in @ previously instituted
criminal aetion,2*
‘The error committed by the CA emanated from
failure to take into consideration that the
‘omission of the driver in violation of Article 365 of,
the Revised Penal Code could give rise not only to
the obligation ex delicto, but also to the obligation
based on culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the
Civil Code. Under the factual antecedents herein,
oth obligations rested on the common element of
negligence. Article 2177 of the Civil Code and
Section 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court allow the
injured party to prosecute both criminal and civil
actions simultaneously. As clarified in Casupanan
, Laroya:®=
sone ae art
Bin ares Si ne RS
er
Sino ie ce 8
sata ari Secharen a
See hse cet sete
openers eer
3 Eras reine a
iB wit pie
Shs Ea naar Sa
Sea Sd hima ttce nd
rans eerea gee
ae sree
SS cv magne sats el
Berl sae ene
Sipe gens ae abe
testi amare
‘he foregoing notwithstanding, the petitioners
as the injured parties have to choose the remedy
{) which to enforce their claim in the event of
fevorable decisions in both action, Tis is because
Avice 2177 of the Ciel Code bare them rom
Tecovering damages twice upon the same act or
omission. Ae ruled in Safeguard Secunty Agency,
the. v Tangoose 38 TORTS AND DAMAGES:
‘An act or omission causing damage to
‘another may give rise to two separate
‘vil Habilties on the part of the
offender, ie, (1) civil ability ex deticto,
under Artiele 100 of the Revised Penal
Code; and (2) independent civil
liabilities, such as those (a) not arising
from an act or omission complained of
fs a felony, eg, culpa contractual or
obligations ‘arising from law under
Article 31 of the Civil Code, intentional
torts under Articles 32 and 34, and
‘culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of
the Civil Code; or (6) where the
injured party is granted a right to file
fan action independent and distinct
from the criminal action under Article
33 of the Civil Code. Bither of these
liabilities may be enforced against the
offender subject to the caveat under
Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the
offended party cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission or
‘under both causes
‘As can be seen, the latest iteration of Rule
111, unlike the predecessor, no longer includes
the independent civil actions under Articles 32, 33,
34, and 2176 of the Civil Code as requiring prior
reservation to be made in a previously instituted