RB – Torts reviewer

GENERAL CONCEPTS IN TORTS

TORTS
➔ unlawful violation of a private right, not created by contract, and which gives rise to an action
for damages.
TORT
➔ consists in the violation of a right given or the omission of a duty imposed by law.

CULPA CRIMINAL CULPA AQUILIANA or CULPA EX CULPA CONTRACTUAL

CONTRACTU (QUASI-DELICT)

AS TO THE BASIS OF LIABILITY

Existence of a law clearly Fault or negligence resulting in Obligation arises from the breach of
punishing the act (Nullum damage or injury to another (ART. the contract because of defendant’s
crimen sine lege). 2176, NCC) failure to exercise due care in its
performance (ART. 1173, NCC)

AS TO THE NATURE OF NEGLIGENCE

Direct, substantive and Direct, substantive and independent. Negligence is merely incident to the
independent. performance of an obligation already
existing because of a contract.

AS TO THE PROOF NEEDED

Proof beyond reasonable Preponderance of evidence Preponderance of evidence

doubt

AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF PRE-EXISTING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION

NONE No pre-existing obligation There is a pre-existing obligation

contract, either express or implied.
EXCEPT: the duty to be careful in all
human actuations.

AS TO THE EMPLOYER’S DEFENSE OF EXERCISING THE DILIGENCE OF “GOOD FATHER OF A

FAMILY” IN THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF HIS EMPLOYEES
Not a proper defense. GENERAL RULE: Complete and Not a complete and proper defense
proper defense
However, even if the employer can
prove the diligence in the selection
and supervision of the employee, still
if he ratifies the wrongful acts or take
no step to avert further damage, the
employer would still be liable.

AS TO THE PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE

The innocence of the No presumption of negligence. The presumption of negligence in

accused is presumed until Injured party must prove the culpa contractual, immediately
the contrary is proven. negligence of the - defendant attached by a failure of the covenant
(Cangco v. Manila Railroad or its tenor (FGU Insurance
Company, G.R. No. L-12191, Corporation - v. G.P. Sarmiento
October 14, 1918). Trucking Corporation, G.R. No.
141910, August 6, 2002). Ln culpa
contractual, the plaintiff only needs
to establish the existence of the
contract and the obliger’s failure to
perform his obligation (Torres-Madrid
Brokerage, Inc. v. FEB - Mitsui
Marine Insurance Co. Inc., G.R. Nq.
194121, July 11, 2016).

AS TO THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT VIOLATED

Public Right Private Right Private Right

AS TO THE GOVERNING LAW

Governed by Art. 365 of the Governed by Art. 2176, Arts. 1172-1174 Governed by Arts. 1170-1174 of the
RPC are applicable (Art. 2178) NCC.

CLASSIFICATION OF TORTS
PROPERTY TORTS PERSONAL TORTS

Injuries and damages to real or personal Injuries to person, EX. body, reputation, character or
property feelings

KINDS OF TORTS LIABILITIES :

NEGLIGENT TORT INTENTIONAL TORT STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT
(NEGLIGENCE)

Involves voluntary acts or If the actor desires to causae the Person is made liable independent of
omissions that result in injury to consequences of his act or he fault or negligence upon submission of
others, without intending to believes that the consequences proof of certain facts. The conduct is
cause the same. of his acts are certain to cause generally not wrongful in itself but the
- Actor fails to exercise damage to another wrong consists in causing harm by
due care in performing - Assault, battery, false engaging in risky activities.
such acts or omissions imprisonment

REMEDIES FOR TORTS :

COMPENSATORY - PREVENTIVE - prayer for injunction, and RESTITUTION - to disgorge gains that
actions for sum of a writ of preliminary injunction and a the defendant wrongfully obtained by
money for damages TRO, to enjoin the defendant from tort.
suffered continuing the doing of the tortious
conduct.

PURPOSES OF TORT LAW

1. To provide a peaceful means for adjusting the rights of the parties who might otherwise take the
law into their own hands;
2. To deter wrongful conduct;
3. To encourage socially responsible behavior; and
4. To restore injured parties to their original condition insofar as the law can do this.
QUASI-DELICTS (ART. 2176, NCC)
Article 2176. 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 is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this chapter.
A. ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICTS
1. Act or omission
2. Damage or injury is caused to another
3. Fault or negligence is present
4. There is no pre-existing contractual relations between the parties
5. Causal connection between damage done and act/omission
B. PRINCIPLE OF DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA
● Damage without injury
● The legitimate exercise of a person’s rights, even if it causes loss to another does not
automatically result in an actionable injury.
● a principle that involves damage without injury, therefore no liability is incurred; there is
no legal injury
C. DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
● This principle states that the contributory negligence of the person injured will not defeat
the claim for damages if it is shown that the defendant might; by the exercise of
reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the
injured party.
● Under the Doctrine:te of Last Clear. Chance, the one who has the last reasonable
opportunity to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the
consequences without reference to the prior negligence of the other party (Glan People's
Lumber Hardware v. /AC, G.R. No. 70493, May 18, 1989).
D. RES IPSA LOQUITUR
● "The thing or transaction speaks for itself."
 ● The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is simply a recognition of the postulate that, as a matter
of common knowledge and experience, the very nature of certain types of occurrences
may justify an inference of negligence oh the part of the person who controls the
instrumentality causing the injury in the absence of some explanation by the accused-
appellant who is charged with negligence. It is grounded in the superior logic of ordinary
human experience and, on the basis of such experience or common knowledge
negligence may be deduced from the mere occurrence of the accident itself. Hence, res
ipsa loquitur is applied in conjunction with the doctrine of common knowledge (Jarcia,
Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 187926, February 15, 2012).
ELEMENTS:
1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s
negligence;
2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants;
and
3. The possibility of contributing conduct, which would make the plaintiff responsible, is
eliminated.

E. EMERGENCY RULE
● "one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time
to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not
guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may
appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is
brought about by his own negligence."
● Exception: cannot be invoked if the person making the defense found himself in danger
which he himself created through his own negligence
F. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
● the plaintiff was also negligent together with the defendant; to constitute a defense,
proximate cause of injury/damage must be the negligence of defendant

CASES
 DULAY v. CA MANDARIN VILLA, INC. v. CA METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST
The Court states that it is a The test for determining the CO. v. CA
well-entrenched is the doctrine existence of negligence in a case Art. 2217 of the NCC, “Moral damages
that Article 2176 covers not may be stated as follows: did the include physical suffering, mental
only acts committed with defendant in doing the alleged anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
negligence, but also acts which negligent act use the reasonable besmirched reputation, wounded
are voluntary and intentional. It care and caution which an feelings, moral shock, social
was erroneous on the part of ordinary prudent person would humiliation, and similar injury. Though
the trial court to dismiss the have used in the same situation? incapable of pecuniary computation,
complaint simply because it If not, then he is guilty of moral damages may be recovered if
failed to make allegations of negligence. they are the proximate result of the
attendant negligence defendant’s wrongful act or omission.
attributable to private The humiliation and The damage to the private respondent’s
respondents. There is no embarrassment of the private reputation and social standing entitled
justification for limiting the respondent was brought about not them to moral damages.
scope of Art 2176 of the Civil by such a remark of Professor
Code to acts or omissions Lirag but by the fact of dishonor Due to the carelessness of petitioner
resulting from negligence. Art. by the petitioner of private bank, aggravated by the lack of
2176 covers not only acts respondent's valid BANKARD promptness in repairing the error and
committed w/ negligence, but credit card. If at all, the remark of the arrogant attitude of the bank officer
also acts w/c are voluntary & Professor Lirag served only to handling the matter, justifies the grant
intentional aggravate the embarrassment of moral damages, which are not
then felt by private respondent, excessive and unconscionable
albeit silently within himself.

BPI v. SPS. QUIAVIT PICART v. SMITH GLAD PEOPLE’S LUMBER and

It is a well-settled rule that the Reasonable foresight of harm, HARDWARE v. IAC
diligence required of banks is followed by the ignoring of the The doctrine of the last clear chance
more than that of a good father suggestion born of this prevision, provides as valid and complete a
of a family – banks are is always necessary before defense to accident liability today as it
required to exercise the negligence can be held to exist. did when invoked and applied in the
highest degree of diligence in Conduct is said to be negligent 1918 case of Picart vs. Smits involving
their banking transactions. ○ when a prudent man in the similar facts wherein the court rules
BPI failed to exercise the position of the tortfeasor would that: It will be noted that the negligent
required highest degree of have foreseen that an effect acts of the two parties were not
care and diligence when it harmful to another was sufficiently contemporaneous, since the negligence
released the bills without listing probable to warrant his foregoing of the defendant succeeded the
down their serial numbers. As the conduct or guarding against negligence of the plaintiff by an
such, BPI is not capable of its consequences. appreciable interval. Under these
establishing whether the circumstances the law is that the
returned bills came from BPI or The control of the situation had person who has the last fair chance to
not. then passed entirely to the avoid the impending harm and fails to
defendant; and it was his duty do so is chargeable with the
BPI’s action is the proximate either to bring his car to an consequences, without reference to the
cause of the loss suffered by immediate stop or, seeing that prior negligence of the other party
Sps. Quiaoit. The spouses and there were no other persons on
Lambayong do not have the the bridge, to take the other side
knowledge of verifying the and pass sufficiently far away
genuineness of the bills. Were from the horse to avoid the
it not for the bank’s negligence, danger of collision. Instead of
Sps. Quiaoit wouldn’t suffer doing this, the defendant ran
any loss. straight on until he was almost
upon the horse. However, It goes
without saying that the plaintiff
himself was not free from fault, for
he was guilty of antecedent
 negligence in planting himself on
the wrong side of the road. But as
stated, the defendant was also
negligent and in cases such as
this it must be discovered which
agent is immediately and directly
responsible.

PB COMM v. CA ECHEVARA v. RAMOS ORIX METRO LEASING &

In the case of banks, the Foreseeability is the fundamental FINANCING CORP v. MANGALINO
degree of diligence required is test of negligence. To be The smashed front of the Isuzu strongly
more than that of a good father negligent, a defendant must have indicates the strong impact of the
of a family. While it is true that acted or failed to act in such a ramming of the rear of the Pathfinder
had private respondent way that an ordinary reasonable that pinned its passengers.
checked the monthly man would have realized that
statements of account sent by certain interests of certain One who suddenly finds himself in a
the petitioner bank to RMC, the persons were unreasonably place of danger, and is required to act
latter would have discovered subjected to a general but definite without time to consider the best means
the loss early on, such cannot class of risks that may be adopted to avoid the
be used by the petitioners to impending danger, is not guilty of
escape liability. When the owner-type jeep negligence, if he fails to adopt what
encroached on the lane of the subsequently and upon reflection may
passenger jeep, it must have appear to have been a better method,
been near enough because the unless the emergency in which he finds
passenger jeep driven by Valdez himself is brought about by his own
was unable to avoid the collision. negligence.
Hence, Doctrine of last clear
chance does not apply in this
case.

NPC v. CA AFRICA v. CALTEX REPUBLIC v. LUZON STEVEDORING

Even though the typhoon was Gasoline is a highly combustible CORP
an act of God or force majeure, material, in the storage and sale Art. 1174, NCC provides for caso
NPC cannot escape liability of which extreme care must be fortuito or force majeure which are
because its negligence was taken. On the other hand, fire is extraordinary events not foreseeable or
the proximate cause of the loss not considered a fortuitous event, avoidable, “events that could not be
and damage. as it arises almost invariably from foreseen, or which, though foreseen,
some act of man. were inevitable”. It is not enough that
As held in Juan Nakpil & Sons the event should not have been
v. CA, the act of God doctrine PRESUMPTION OF foreseen or anticipated, but it must be
requires that the act must be NEGLIGENCE UNDER THE one impossible to foresee or to avoid.
occasioned exclusively by the DOCTRINE OF Res Ipsa The mere difficulty to foresee the
violence of nature and human Loquitur. — Where the thing happening is not impossibility to forsee
agencies had no part therein. which caused the injury the same. The very measures adopted
When the effect is found to be complained of is shown to be by appellant prove that the possibility of
in part the result of the under the management defendant danger was not only foreseeable, but
participation of man, whether itor his servants and the accident is actually foreseen, and was not caso
be active intervention, neglect,such as in the ordinary course of fortuito. Luzon Stevedoring Corporation,
or failure to act, the whole things does not happen if those knowing and appreciating the perils
occurrence is humanized and who have its management or posed by the swollen stream and its
therefore removed from the control use proper care, it affords swift current, voluntarily entered into a
rules applicable to the acts of reasonable evidence, in absence situation involving obvious danger it
God. of explanation by defendant, that therefore assumed the risk, and cannot
the accident arose from want of shed responsibility merely because the
Thus, it has held that when the care. precautions it adopted turned out to be
negligence of a person insufficient. Hence, the lower court
concurs with an act of God in committed no error in holding it
producing a loss, such person negligent in not suspending operation
is not exempt from liability by and in holding it liable for the damages
showing that the immediate caused
cause of the damage was the
act of God. To be exempt from
liability for loss because of an
act of God, he must be free
from any previous negligence
or misconduct by which the
loss or damage may have
been occasioned.

INTERPHIL LABORATORIES, CASUMPANG v. NELSON SPS FLORES v. SPS PINEDA

INC v. OEP PHILS. INC. CORTEJO A medical negligence case is a type of
The Courts held that Interphil To successfully pursue a medical claim to redress a wrong committed by
was proven clearly negligent malpractice suit, the plaintiff (in a medical professional that has caused
based on the doctrine of res this case, the deceased patient's bodily harm to or the death of a patient.
ipsa loquitur. heir) must prove that the doctor There are four elements involved in a
Under this doctrine, it provides either failed to do what a medical negligence case, namely: duty,
that "the thing or transaction reasonably prudent doctor would breach, injury, and proximate causation.
speaks for itself, or in one have done, or did what a
jurisdiction, that the thing or reasonably prudent doctor would Duty refers to the standard of behavior
instrumentality speaks for not have done; and the act or which imposes restrictions on one's
itself, the facts or omission had caused injury to the conduct.
circumstances accompanying patient. The patient's heir/s bears
an injury may be such as to the burden of proving his/her Breach of duty occurs when the
raise a presumption, or at least cause of action. physician fails to comply with these
permit an inference of The elements of medical professional standards. If injury results
negligence on the part of the negligence are: to the patient as a result of this breach,
defendant, or some other 1. Duty; the physician is answerable for
person who is charged with 2. breach; negligence.
negligence. 3. injury; and
4. proximate causation. To successfully pursue a claim, the
OEP sufficiently rebutted the plaintiff must prove by preponderance
presumption of fault and/or A physician-patient relationship is of evidence that, one, the physician
negligence. OEP was able to created when a patient engages either failed to do something which a
show that it needed to do so the services of a physician, and reasonably prudent health care provider
immediately because of the the latter accepts or agrees to would have done, or that he did
danger and health risks posed provide care to the patient. To something that a reasonably prudent
to the public due to the wrong successfully claim damages, the provider would not have done; and two,
packaging. What was at stake patient must lastly prove the the failure or action caused injury to the
is not only the good reputation causal relation between the patient.
of a company, but also the negligence and the injury. This
possibility of prejudicing connection must be direct, Expert testimony is therefore essential
consumers who could be natural, and should be unbroken since the factual issue of whether a
adversely-affected by the by any intervening efficient physician or surgeon has exercised the
incorrect content of the causes. In other words, requisite degree of skill and care in the
capsules, and it would be a negligence must be the proximate treatment of his patient is generally a
matter of recklessness to do cause of the injury matter of expert opinion.
anything but urgently recall the
same from public distribution.

ERLINDA RAMOS v. CA DR. RUBI LI v. SPS SOLIMAN GUERRERO v. PHIL. PHOENIX

Res ipsa loquitur is not a rigid The Doctrine of Informed SURETY & INSURANCE, INC.
or ordinary doctrine to be Consent evolved into a general A police blotter entry, or a certification
perfunctorily used but a rule to principle of law that a physician thereof, is admissible in evidence as an
be cautiously applied, has a duty to disclose what a exception to the hearsay rule under
depending upon the reasonably prudent physician in Section 46, Rule 130 of the Rules of
circumstances of each case. It the medical community in the Court. In order for it to be admissible,
is generally restricted to exercise of reasonable care would the said evidence must be properly
situations in malpractice cases disclose to his patient as to presented in evidence. What must have
where a layman is able to say, whatever grave risks of injury been presented in evidence was either
as a matter of common might be incurred from a the police blotter itself or a copy thereof
knowledge and observation, proposed course of treatment, so certified by its legal keeper.
that the consequences of that a patient, exercising ordinary
professional care were not as care for his own welfare, and Photographic evidence of events shall
such as would ordinarily have faced with a choice of undergoing be identified, explained or authenticated
followed if due care had been the proposed treatment, or by the person who made the recording
exercised. A distinction must alternative treatment, or none at or by some other person competent to
be made between the failure to all, may intelligently exercise his testify on the accuracy thereof. A
secure results, and the judgment by reasonably balancing competent witness must be able to
occurrence of something more the probable risks against the "assure the court that they know or are
unusual and not ordinarily probable benefits familiar with the scenes or objects
found if the service or shown in the pictures and the
treatment rendered followed photographs depict them correctly."
the usual procedure of those
skilled in that particular
practice. It must be conceded
that the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur can have no
application in a suit against a
physician or surgeon which
involves the merits of a
diagnosis or of a scientific
treatment

VERGARA v. CA AIRFRANCE v. CARRASCOSO PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC

The requisites of quasi-delict Neglect or malfeasance of the v. IAC
are: carrier's employees could give Article 2180 does not include the
1. damages to the ground for an action for damages. manager of a corporation. It may be
plaintiff; Damages here are proper gathered from the context of article
2. negligence, by act or because the stress of 2180 that the term "manager" ("director"
omission, of which respondent's action is placed in the Spanish version) is used in the
defendant, or some upon his wrongful expulsion, sense of "employer".
person for whose acts which is a violation of a public
he must respond, was duty by petitioner air carrier — a Hence, no tortious or quasi-delictual
guilty; and case of quasi-delict. liability can be imposed on Balingit as
3. the connection of cause manager of Phil-American Forwarders,
and effect between Carrascoso and Air France in connection with the vehicular
such negligence and entered into a contract of accident in question, because he
the damages. carriage, which is vested with himself may be regarded as an
A mishap caused by defective public duty. Thus, neglect or employee or dependiente of Phil-
brakes can not be considered malfeasance of the carrier’s American Forwarders.
as fortuitous in character. employees is a ground for
Certainly, the defects were damages. Passengers are not
curable and the accident only entitled to transportation, but
preventable. to expect kindness, respect and
courtesy from employees of the
carrier since they work with
transporting the public. The
 tortious act is based on Article 21
of the NCC, “Any person who
willfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs
or public policy shall compensate
the latter for the damage."

ART. 2177, NCC

ART. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and
distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot
recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.

CASES

FILOMENTO URBANO v. IAC

The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the wounds
inflicted upon him by the accused. (People v. Cardenas, supra) And since we are dealing with a criminal
conviction, the proof that the accused caused the victim’s death must convince a rational mind beyond
reasonable doubt. The medical findings, however, lead us to a distinct possibility that the infection of the
wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between the time Javier was wounded to the
time of his death. The infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime.

If no danger existed in the condition except because of the independent cause, such condition was not the
proximate cause. And if an independent negligent act or defective condition sets into operation the
circumstances, which result in injury because of the prior defective condition, such subsequent act or
condition is the proximate cause.
 ARTICLE 2178. The provisions of articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict.

● ARTICLE 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind
of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts,
according to the circumstances. (1103)
● ARTICLE 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that
diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows
bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
○ ARTICLE 1171. Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all
obligations. Any waiver of an action for future fraud is void.
○ ARTICLE 2201, par 2: In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the
obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed
to the non-performance of the obligation.

If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the
performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required.
(1104a)

● ARTICLE 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise
declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of
risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or
which, though foreseen, were inevitable.

CASES

Juan Nakpil & Sons vs CA NPC vs CA Bachelor Express vs CA

Art. 1723 dictates that the To exempt the obligor from liability under The running amuck of the
engineer/architect and Article 1174 of the Civil Code, for a passenger was the proximate
contractor are liable for breach of an obligation due to an "act of cause of the incident as it
damages should the building God," the following must concur: triggered off a commotion and
collapse within 15 years from a. the cause of the breach of the panic among the passengers
completion. obligation must be independent of such that the passengers started
the will of the debtor; running to the sole exit shoving
The general rule is that no b. the event must be either each other resulting in the falling
person shall be responsible unforeseeable or unavoidable; off the bus by passengers Beter
for events which could not be c. the event must be such as to and Rautraut causing them fatal
foreseen or which though render it impossible for the debtor injuries. The sudden act of the
foreseen, were inevitable to fulfill his obligation in a moral passenger who stabbed another
(Article 1174, New Civil manner; and passenger in the bus is within the
Code) d. the debtor must be free from any context of force majeure.
participation in, or aggravation of
Thus, if upon the happening the injury to the creditor. In order that a common carrier
of a fortuitous event or an act NPC cannot be heard to invoke the act of may be absolved from liability in
of God, there concurs a God or force majeure to escape liability case of force majeure, it is not
corresponding fraud, for the loss or damage sustained by enough that the accident was
negligence, delay or violation private respondents since they were caused by force majeure. The
or contravention in any guilty of negligence. The event then was common carrier must still prove
manner of the tenor of the not occasioned exclusively by an act of that it was not negligent in
obligation as provided for in God or force majeure because a human causing the injuries resulting from
Article 1170 of the Civil Code, factor negligence or imprudence had such an accident.
which results in loss or intervened. The effect then of the force
damage, the obligor cannot majeure in question may be deemed to
escape liability have, even if only partly, resulted from
the participation of man. Thus, the whole
occurrence was thereby humanized, as it
were, and removed from the laws
applicable to acts of God.

Gacal vs PAL Sanitary Steam Laundry, Inc. vs CA Valenzuela vs CA

In this case, the failure to It has not been shown how the alleged Since important business
transport petitioners safely negligence of the Cimarron driver transactions and decisions may
from Davao to Manila was contributed to the collision between the occur at all hours in all sorts of
due to the skyjacking incident vehicles. Indeed, petitioner has the situations and under all kinds of
staged by six (6) passengers burden of showing a causal connection guises, the provision for the
of the same plane, all between the injury received and the unlimited use of a company car
members of the MNLF, violation of the Land Transportation and therefore principally serves the
without any connection with Traffic Code. He must show that the business and goodwill of a
private respondent, hence, violation of the statute was the proximate company and only incidentally the
independent of the will of or legal cause of the injury or that it private purposes of the individual
either the PAL or of its substantially contributed thereto. who actually uses the car, the
passengers. managerial employee or company
Mere allegations such as these are not sales agent. As such, in providing
Under normal circumstances, sufficient to discharge its burden of for a company car for business
PAL might have foreseen the proving clearly that such alleged use and/or for the purpose of
skyjacking incident which negligence was the contributing cause of furthering the company's image, a
could have been avoided had the injury. Furthermore, based on the company owes a responsibility to
there been a more thorough evidence in this case, there was no was the public to see to it that the
frisking of passengers and either driver could have avoided the managerial or other employees to
inspection of baggage as collision. whom it entrusts virtually
authorized by R.A. No. 6235. unlimited use of a company
But the incident in question issued car are able to use the
occurred during Martial Law company issue capably and
where there was a military responsibly.
take-over of airport security
including the frisking of Valenzuela did exercise the
passengers and the standard reasonably dictated by
inspection of their luggage the emergency and could not be
preparatory to boarding considered to have contributed to
domestic and international the unfortunate circumstances
flights. These events which eventually led to the
rendered it impossible for amputation of one of her lower
PAL to perform its obligations extremities. The emergency which
in a nominal manner and led her to park her car on a
obviously it cannot be faulted sidewalk in Aurora Boulevard was
with negligence in the not of her own making, and it was
performance of duty taken evident that she had taken all
over by the Armed Forces of reasonable precautions.
the Philippines to the
exclusion of the former

ARTICLE 2179. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his
injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate
and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

CASES

Garciano vs CA Ramos vs C.O.L Realty Corp.

Liability for damages under Articles 19, 20 and 21 If the master is injured by the negligence of a third
of the Civil Code arises only from unlawful, willful or person and by the concurring contributory negligence of
negligent acts that are contrary to law, or morals, his own servant or agent, the latter’s negligence is
good customs or public policy. imputed to his superior and will defeat the superiors
action against the third person, assuming of course that
As for the moral damages, the right to recover them the contributory negligence was the proximate cause of
under Article 21 is based on equity, and he who the injury of which complaint is made.
comes to court to demand equity, must come with
clean hands. Article 21 should be construed as Proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing
granting the right to recover damages to injured the injury, either immediately or by setting other events
persons who are not themselves at fault. Moral in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain
damages are recoverable only if the case falls of events, each having a close causal connection with
under Article 2219 in relation to Article 21. In the its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain
case at bar, the petitioner is not without fault. As for immediately affecting the injury as a natural and
the exemplary damages, it was not justified for she probable result of the cause which first acted, under
is not entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory such circumstances that the person responsible for the
damages. first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent
person, have reasonable ground to expect at the
moment of his act or default that an injury to some
person might probably result therefrom.

NPC vs Heirs of Casionan Pilipinas Bank vs CA

The sagging high tension wires were an accident For Art. 2179 to apply, it must be established that the
waiting to happen. If the transmission lines were private respondent’s own negligence was the immediate
properly maintained by the petitioner, the bamboo and proximate cause of his injury.
pole carried by Noble would not have touched the
wires. He would not have been electrocuted. In the case at bench, the proximate cause of the injury
is the negligence of petitioner's employee in
Negligence is the failure to observe, for the erroneously posting the cash deposit of private
protection of the interest of another person, that respondent in the name of another depositor who had a
degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the similar first name.
circumstances justly demand, whereby such other
person suffers injury. On the other hand, The bank is not expected to be infallible but it must bear
contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the blame for not discovering the mistake of its teller
the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to despite the established procedure requiring the papers
the harm he has suffered, which falls below the and bank books to pass through a battery of bank
standard which he is required to conform for his personnel whose duty it is to check and counter check
own protection. There is contributory negligence them for possible errors.
when the party's act showed lack of ordinary care
and foresight that such act could cause him harm While the bank’s negligence may not have been
or put his life in danger. It is an act or omission attended with malice and bad faith, it caused serious
amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation to the private
the person injured which, concurring with the respondents for which they are entitled to recover
defendant's negligence, is the proximate cause of reasonable moral damages.
the injury.

NPC NOT ENTITLED TO A MITIGATION OF ITS

LIABILITY - If indeed there was contributory
negligence on the part of the victim, then it is
proper to reduce the award for damages. This is in
consonance with the Civil Code provision that
liability will be mitigated in consideration of the
contributory negligence of the injured party
 ARTICLE 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts
or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the
damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are
under their authority and live in their company.

The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for
damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are
employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household
helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
engaged in any business or industry.

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when
the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in
which case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages
caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned
prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
(1903a)

1. VICARIOUS LIABILITY
➔ Art. 2180 - One is not only liable for his own quasi-delictual acts but also for those persons for
whom he is responsible
➔ Persons made responsible for others
➔ The obligation imposed by Art. 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions,
but also for those persons for whom one is responsible
➔ Basis of liability:
◆ Pater familias
◆ Failure of persons mentioned in Art 2180 to exercise due care and vigilance over the acts
of subordinates to prevent damages
➔ PERSONS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE:
◆ Persons liable for acts committed by minors
● Exercising Parental Authority
○ Adopters ; Court Appointed Guardians
● Exercising Substitute Parental Authority
○ Surviving Grandparents
○ Oldest Sibling over 21 unless unfit
 ○ Child’s actual custodian over 21 unless unfit
◆ Guardians
◆ Owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise
◆ Employers
◆ State
● School Teachers and administrators
● Exercises special parental authority
● Includes School, Administrators, Teachers, Individual (entity or institution)
engages in child care
◆ Innkeepers
◆ Hotel Keepers
◆ Partnership
◆ Spouses

2. BASIS OF LIABILITY
a. PARENTS/GUARDIAN
➔ Parents
◆ Art. 2180 - father and, incase of his death or incapacity, the mother, are civilly liable for
any damages that may be caused by the minor children who live in their company
◆ Rationale: liability is a necessary consequence of the parental authority they exercise
over them. The liability under Art. 2180 also extends to other persons exercising parental
authority like judicially appointed guardians
◆ Requisites (Sustain liability of father or mother):
● Child is below 21 (Deep Pocket Theory)
● Child committees a tortious act to the damage and prejudice of another person
● Child lives in the company of the parent concerned whether single or married
➔ Other persons exercising Parental Authority:
◆ Adopters (Tamargo vs. CA)
● The court does not consider the retroactive
◆ Guardians
● They are liable for damages caused by minors or incapacitated persons (even if
they are already of age) under their authority and living in their company
● Incompetent:
○ Persons suffering the penalty of civil interdiction
○ Hospitalized lepers
○ Prodigals
○ Deaf and dumb - unable to read and write
○ Of unsound mind - even if they have lucid intervals
○ Persons not being of unsound mind but by reason of age, disease, weak
mind and other similar causes, cannot without outside aid, take care of
themselves and manage their property
● Extent of parental authority
○ Exercised only over minors while under their supervision, instruction ir
custody, including while in authorized activities whether inside or outside
the school, entity or institution
➔ Liability: Principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the
minor

i. DEEP POCKET RULE

➔ Young Filipinos aged 18-21 are usually not yet gainfully employed and without property. The law
allows the injured party to pursue actions against the tortfeasor’s parents
➔ Under Art. 6809 in relation to Art. 236 of the FC:
◆ A teacher in charge is still liable for the acts of their students even if the minor students
are of age of majority
◆ THe parents or guardians can still be held liable even if the minor is already emancipated
 provided he is below 21
◆ Parental Authority is not the sole bases of liability
➔ Under Art. 101 of the RPC:
◆ A child 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be
exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention
program.

ii. ART. 221, FC

Article 221, Family Code. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable
for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in
their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law

➔ VIcarious liability or imputed negligence

◆ Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for injuries
and damages caused by acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their
company and under the Parental Authority subject to appropriate defenses provided by
law

CASES

CUARDA vs. MONFORT LIBI vs. IAC TAMARGO vs. CA

A 13-year old girl tossed a The parents are and should be held We do not consider that
headband at her 12-year primarily liable for the civil liability arising retroactive effect may be
classmate. This happened from criminal offenses committed by their given to the decree of
while they were playing inside minor children under their legal authority or adoption so as to impose a
the schoolyard. Since the latter control, or who live in their company, unless liability upon the adopting
was surprised, she turned it is proven that the former acted with the parents accruing at a time
around but her eyes were hit, diligence of a good father of a family to when the adopting parents
causing eventual blindness of prevent such damages. That primary liability had no actual or physical
one eye. The culprit’s father is premised on the provisions of Article 101 custody over the adopted
was sued for damages. The of the Revised Penal Code with respect to child.
culprit’s father is not liable for damages ex delicto caused by their children
he could not have prevented 9 years of age or under, or over 9 but under
the damage. The child was at 15 years of age who acted without “Doctrine of Imputed
school, where she ought to be discernment; and, with regard to their Negligence” or Vicarious
under the supervision of the children over 9 but under 15 years of age Liability
school authorities. The who acted with discernment, or 15 years or
defendant cannot be obligated over but under 21 years of age, such This principle of parental
to compensate the victim as primary liability shall be imposed pursuant to liability is a species of what is
there is no legal sanction Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Under said frequently designated as
enforceable in court, but only Article 2180, the enforcement of such vicarious liability, or the
the moral compulsion of good liability shall be effected against the father doctrine of "imputed
conscience. and, in case of his death or incapacity, the negligence" under Anglo-
mother. This was amplified by the Child and American tort law, where a
Youth Welfare Code which provides that the person is not only liable for
same shall devolve upon the father and, in torts committed by himself,
case of his death or incapacity, upon the but also for torts committed
mother or, in case of her death or by others with whom he has a
incapacity, upon the guardian, but the certain relationship and for
liability may also be voluntarily assumed by whom he is responsible.
a relative or family friend of the youthful
offender. However, under the Family Code,
this civil liability is now, without such
 alternative qualification, the responsibility of
the parents and those who exercise parental
authority over the minor offender. For civil
liability arising from quasi-delicts committed
by minors, the same rules shall apply in
accordance with Articles 2180 and 2182 of
the Civil Code, as so modified.

b. OWNERS AND MANAGERS

➔ Art. 2180 Par. 4
◆ Liable for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which
they are employed, or on the occasion of their functions. It does not extend to acts of
strangers who committed unauthorized acts and in doing so, caused damage to others
➔ “Manager”
◆ In Art. 2180 is used in the sense of an employer
◆ A managerial employee within the contemplation of the Labor Code is not a manager
referred to in Art. 2180 because he himself may be regarded as an employee or
dependiente of the employer

CASES

PHIL RABBIT BUS INC. vs. PHILAM FORWARDERS

Article 2180 does not include the manager of a corporation. It may be gathered from the context of article
2180 that the term "manager" ("director" in the Spanish version) is used in the sense of "employer".

Hence, no tortious liability can be fastened on Balingit as manager of Phil-American Forwarders, Inc., in
connection with the vehicular accident already mentioned because he himself may be regarded as an
employee or dependiente of his employer, Phil- American Forwarders, Inc.

c. EMPLOYERS
➔ Liable for damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope
of their assigned tasks even though employer is not engaged in any business or industry
➔ Requisites:
◆ Employee was chosen by the employer personally or through another
◆ Service is to be rendered in accordance with the orders which the employer has the
authority to give at all times
◆ The illicit act of the employee was on the occasion or by reason of the functions
entrusted to him
➔ Establish:
◆ Employer-Employee Rel.
◆ Employee was acting within the scope of the assigned task when the tort complained of
was committed

i. ART. 103, RPC

Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The subsidiary liability established in the next
preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any
kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees
in the discharge of their duties.chanrobles virtual law library

➔ Governs the vicarious liability of the employer for the criminal negligence of his employees
➔ Requisites of Vicarious Liability of Employers Under Art 103 of the RPC:
◆ Employee is insolvent
 ◆ Employee was convicted of the offense committed in the discharge of his duties
◆ Employer is engaged in any kind of industry

CASES

DUAVIT vs. CA GENSON vs. ARDALE FILAMER vs. IAC

Article 2180. The obligation The courts are not disposed to the The clause "within the scope of their
imposed by article 2176 is rule that the supervisor who tolerates assigned tasks" for purposes of raising
demandable not only for his subordinates to moonlight on the presumption of liability of an
one's own acts or omissions, non-working days in the office is not employer, includes any act done by an
but also for those of persons liable for everything that happened employee, in furtherance of the
for whom one is responsible. that day. interests of the employer or for the
Xxx account of the employer at the time of
The owners and managers of the infliction of the injury or damage.
an establishment or Even if somehow, the employee driving
enterprise are likewise the vehicle derived some benefit from
responsible for damage the act, the existence of a presumptive
caused by their employees in liability of the employer is determined
the service of the branches in by answering the question of whether or
which the latter are employed not the servant was at the time of the
or on the occasion of their accident performing any act in
functions. furtherance of his master's business.

CASTILEX vs. VASQUEZ LOADMASTERS vs. GLOBAL

BROKERAGE

The phrase “even though the It may not have a direct contractual
former are not engaged in relation with Columbia, but it is liable
any business or industry” for tort under the provisions of Article
found in the fifth paragraph 2176 of the Civil Code on quasi-
should be interpreted to delicts which expressly provides
mean that it is not necessary that: “Whoever by act or omission
for the employer to be causes damage to another, there
engaged in any business or being fault or negligence, is obliged
industry to be liable for to pay for the damage done. Such
fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
Whether or not engaged in existing contractual relation between
any business or industry, an the parties, is called a quasi- delict
employer is liable for the torts and is governed by the provisions of
committed by employees this Chapter.”
within the scope of his In connection therewith, Article 2180
assigned tasks. But it is provides: “The obligation imposed by
necessary to establish the Article 2176 is demandable not only
employer-employee for one’s own acts or omissions, but
relationship; once this is also for those of persons for whom
done, the plaintiff must show, one is responsible...Employers shall
to hold the employer liable, be liable for the damages caused by
that the employee was acting their employees and household
within the scope of his helpers acting within the scope of
assigned task when the tort their assigned tasks, even though
complained of was the former are not engaged in any
committed. It is only then that business or industry.”
the employer may find it
necessary to interpose the
defense of due diligence in
the selection and supervision
of the employee.

d. OTHER PERSONS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE

MAKATI SHANG-RI LA CADIENTE v. MACAS JIMMY CO et al v. CA
HOTEL & RESORT INC. v. Records show that when the accident happened, The court ruled that it is
HARPER the victim was standing on the shoulder, which was not a defense for a repair
The hotel business is imbued the uncemented portion of the highway. As noted shop of motor vehicles to
with public interest. Catering by the trial court, the shoulder was intended for escape liability simply
to the public, hotelkeepers pedestrian use alone. Only stationary vehicles, because the damage or
are bound to provide not only such as those loading or unloading passengers loss of a thing lawfully
lodging for their guests but may use the shoulder. placed in its possession
also security to the persons Running vehicles are not supposed to pass was due to carnapping.
and belongings of their through the said uncemented portion of the Carnapping per se
guests. The twin duty highway. However, the Ford Fiera in this case, cannot be considered
constitutes the essence of the without so much as slowing down, took off from the as a fortuitous event.
business. cemented part of the highway, inexplicably swerved The fact that a thing was
to the shoulder, and recklessly bumped and ran unlawfully and forcefully
It was held that there is much over an innocent victim. The victim was just where taken from another’s
greater reason to apply the he should be when the unfortunate event rightful possession, as in
same if not greater degree of transpired. cases of carnapping,
care and responsibility when does not automatically
the lives and personal safety give rise to a fortuitous
of their guests are involved. event. It must be proved
Otherwise, the hotelkeepers and established that the
would simply stand idly by as event was an act of God
strangers have unrestricted or was done solely by
access to all the hotel rooms third parties and that
on the pretense of being neither the claimant nor
visitors of the guests, without the person alleged to be
being held liable should negligent has any
anything untoward befall the participation.
unwary guests.

AMADORA v. CA SALUDAGA v. FEU

Each of them was exercising Saludaga is a law student enrolled in FEU when he
only a general authority over was shot by Rosete, one of the security guards in
the student body and not the FEU. Saludaga was rushed to FEU’s Medical
direct control and influence Foundation due to the wounds he sustained,
exerted by the teacher placed meanwhile Rosete was brought to the police station
in charge of particular classes but was eventually released because no formal
or sections and thus complaint was filed.
immediately involved in its
discipline. The respondents cannot be held liable for damages
under Art. 2180 because the respondents are not
In the absence of a teacher- the employers of Rosete. The latter was employed
in-charge, it is probably the by Galaxy. The instructions issued by respondent’s
dean of boys who should be Security Consultant to Galaxy and its security
held liable, especially in view guards are ordinarily no more than requests
of the unrefuted evidence that commonly envisaged in the contract for services
he had earlier confiscated an entered into by a principal and security agency.
unlicensed gun from one of They cannot be construed as the element of control
the students and returned the as to treat respondents as the employers of
same later to him without Rosete.
taking disciplinary action or
reporting the matter to higher For these acts of negligence and for having
authorities. While this was supplied respondent FEU with an unqualified
clearly negligence on his part, security guard, which resulted to the latter's breach
for which he deserves of obligation to petitioner, it is proper to hold Galaxy
sanctions from the school, it liable to respondent FEU for such damages
does not necessarily link him equivalent to the above-mentioned amounts
to the shooting of Amador as awarded to petitioner.
it has not been shown that
the confiscated and returned
pistol was the gun that killed
the petitioners' son.

Colegio de San Jose

Recoletos cannot be held
directly liable under the article
because only the teacher or
the head of the school of arts
and trades is made
responsible for the damage
caused by the student or
apprentice. Neither can it be
held to answer for the tort
committed by any of the
other private respondents
for none of them has been
found to have been
charged with the custody
of the offending student or
has been remiss in the
discharge of his duties in
connection with such
custody.

—START OF OF FINALS COVERAGE.

Art 2181 – 2194 NCC
Article 2181. Whoever pays for Article 2182. If the minor or insane Article 2183. The possessor of an
the damage caused by his person causing damage has no animal or whoever may make use
dependents or employees may parents or guardian, the minor or of the same is responsible for
recover from the latter what he insane person shall be answerable the damage which it may cause,
has paid or delivered in with his own property in an action although it may escape or be
satisfaction of the claim. against him where a guardian ad lost. This responsibility shall
litem shall be appointed. cease only in case the damage
should come from force majeure
or from the fault of the person
who has suffered damage.

Article 2184. In motor vehicle Article 2185. Unless there is proof to Article 2187. Manufacturers and
mishaps, the owner is solidarily the contrary, it is presumed that a processors of foodstuffs, drinks,
liable with his driver, if the person driving a motor vehicle has toilet articles and similar goods
former, who was in the vehicle, been negligent if at the time of the shall be liable for death or
could have, by the use of the due mishap, he was violating any traffic injuries caused by any noxious
diligence, prevented the regulation. or harmful substances used,
misfortune. It is disputably although no contractual relation
presumed that a driver was Article 2186. Every owner of a motor exists between them and the
negligent, if he had been found vehicle shall file with the proper consumers.
guilty of reckless driving or government office a bond executed
violating traffic regulations at by a government-controlled Article 2188. There is prima facie
least twice within the next corporation or office, to answer for presumption of negligence on
preceding two months. damages to third persons. The the part of the defendant if the
If the owner was not in the motor amount of the bond and other terms death or injury results from his
vehicle, the provisions of article shall be fixed by the competent possession of dangerous
2180 are applicable. public official. weapons or substances, such as
firearms and poison, except
when the possession or use
thereof is indispensable in his
occupation or business.

Article 2189. Provinces, cities Article 2191. Proprietors shall also be Article 2192. If damage referred
and municipalities shall be liable responsible for damages caused: to in the two preceding articles
for damages for the death of, or (1) By the explosion of machinery should be the result of any
injuries suffered by, any person which has not been taken care of defect in the construction
by reason of the defective with due diligence, and the mentioned in article 1723, the
condition of roads, streets, inflammation of explosive third person suffering damages
bridges, public buildings, and substances which have not been may proceed only against the
other public works under their kept in a safe and adequate place; engineer or architect or
control or supervision. (2) By excessive smoke, which may contractor in accordance with
be harmful to persons or property; said article, within the period
Article 2190. The proprietor of a (3) By the falling of trees situated at therein fixed.
building or structure is or near highways or lanes, if not Article 2193. The head of a family
responsible for the damages caused by force majeure; that lives in a building or a part
resulting from its total or partial (4) By emanations from tubes, thereof, is responsible for
collapse, if it should be due to canals, sewers or deposits of damages caused by things
the lack of necessary repairs. infectious matter, constructed thrown or falling from the same.
without precautions suitable to the
place. Article 2194. The responsibility
of two or more persons who are
liable for quasi-delict is solidary.

CASES

Manlangit v. Urgel Guillang v. Bedania

The criminal act of one person cannot be Article 2185 of the Civil Code, unless there is proof to the
charged to another without a showing that contrary, a person driving a vehicle is presumed
the other participated directly or negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating
constructively in the act or that the act was
any traffic regulation. Bedania’s negligence was the
done in furtherance of a common design or
purpose for which the parties were united proximate cause of the collision which claimed the life of
in intention. Thus, an employer is not Antero and injured the petitioners. The cause of the
criminally liable for the criminal acts of his collision is traceable to the negligent act of Bedania for if
employee or agent unless he, in some way, the U-turn was executed with the proper precaution, the
participates in, counsels or abets his mishap in all probability would not have happened. The
employee's acts or omissions. sudden U-turn of the truck without signal lights posed a
serious risk to oncoming motorists. Bedania failed to
prevent or minimize that risk. The truck’s sudden U-turn
triggered a series of events that led to the collision and,
ultimately, to the death of Antero and the injuries of
petitioners.
 Coca-Cola Bottlers Ohils v. CA Guilatco v. City of Dagupan

The Court said that the manufacturer shall The liability of public corporations for damages arising
be held liable even if there was no death or from injuries suffered by pedestrians from the defective
physical injuries sustained the fact that the condition of roads is expressed in Art. 2189. It is not
canteen had to be closed because nobody necessary for the defective road or street to belong to the
wanted to buy the soft drinks since it was province, city or municipality for liability to attach. The
“adulterated”, and the proprietress of the article only requires that either control or supervision is
canteen sustained substantial loss of exercised over the defective road or street. In the case at
income entitles her of damages bar, the control or supervision is provided for in the
charter of Dagupan and is exercised through the City
Engineer. The express provision in the charter holding
the city not liable for damages or injuries sustained by
persons or property due to the failure of any city officer
to enforce the provisions of the charter, cannot be used
to exempt the city, as in the case at bar. The charter only
lays down general rules regulating the liability of the city.

Negligence
CASES

PNR vs CA E.M Wright vs Meralco

Negligence has been defined as "the failure to Mere intoxication is not negligence, nor does the
observe for the protection of the interests of mere fact of intoxication establish a want of ordinary
another person that degree of care, precaution, care, If a person’s conduct is characterized but a
and vigilance which the circumstances justly proper degree of care and prudence, it is immaterial
demand, whereby such other person suffers whether he is drunk or sober.
injury."

Astudillo vs Meralco Corliss vs The Manila Railroad Co.

It is well established that the liability of electric Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection
light companies for damages for personal of the interests of another person that degree of care,
injuries is governed by the rules of negligence. precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances
Such companies are, however, not insurers of
justly demand, whereby such other person suffers
the safety of the public. But considering that
electricity is an agency, subtle and deadly, the injury.
measure of care required of electric companies La Mallorca vs De Jesus
must be commensurate with or proportionate to A tire blown-out by itself alone and without showing
the danger. The duty of exercising this high as to the causative factors as to why it blew would
degree of diligence and care extends to every generate liability.
place where persons have a right to be.

EQUITABLE BANK v. ARCELITO B. TAN Pacis vs Morales

The diligence required of banks, therefore, is more A higher degree of care is required of someone who
than that of a good father of a family. In every case, has in his possession or under his control an
the depositor expects the bank to treat his account instrumentality extremely dangerous in character,
with the utmost fidelity, whether such account such as dangerous weapons or substances. Such
consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions.
person in possession or control of dangerous
The bank must record every single transaction
instrumentalities has the duty to take exceptional
accurately, down to the last centavo, and as precautions to prevent any injury being done
promptly as possible. This has to be done if the thereby. Unlike the ordinary affairs of life or business
account is to reflect at any given time the amount of which involve little or no risk, a business dealing with
money the depositor can dispose of as he sees fit, dangerous weapons requires the exercise of a higher
confident that the bank will deliver it as and to
degree of care.
whomever he directs. From the foregoing, it is clear
that petitioner bank did not exercise the degree of
diligence that it ought to have exercised in dealing
with its client.

Proximate Cause
CASES

Ridjo Tape and Chemical Corp. vs CA Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs IAC

Public utilities should be put on notice, as a Foreseeable Intervening Causes - If the intervening
deterrent, that if they completely disregard their cause is one which in ordinary human experience is
duty of keeping their electric meters in reasonably to be anticipated or one which the
serviceable condition, they run the risk of defendant has reason to anticipate under the
forfeiting, by reason of their negligence, particular circumstances, the defendant may be
amounts originally due from their customers. negligence among other reasons, because of failure
Certainly, we cannot sanction a situation to guard against it; or the defendant may be
wherein the defects in the electric meter are negligent only for that reason.
allowed to continue indefinitely until suddenly
the public utilities concerned demand payment
for the unrecorded electricity utilized when, in
the first place, they should have remedied the
situation immediately.

Human Relations
Article 19 NCC
CASES

Velayo vs Shell Co. Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. Metro Heights Subd.
Art. 19 “Human Relation” vs CA Homeowners Association, Inc.
Every person must, in the While an employer has the. Article 21 vs CMS Construction & Dev.
exercise of his rights and in was adopted to remedy the countless Corp.
the performance of his gaps in the statues, which leave so The elements of an abuse of
duties, act with justice, give many victims of moral wrong helpless, rights under Art. 19 are: 1.
everyone his due, and even though they have suffered There is a legal right or duty;
observe honesty and good material and moral injury. This article 2. which is exercised in bad
faith. should vouchsafe adequate legal faith;
remedy for that untold number of moral 3. for the sole intent of
wrongs which it is impossible for prejudicing or injuring another.
human foresight to provide for
 specifically in the statues.

Articles 20-21 NCC

CASES

Banal vs Tadeo Lim vs Lintag

Art. 20, NCC- Every person who, contrary to law, The extinction of penal action does not carry with
wilfully or negligently causes damages to it the extinction of civil action where:
another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as
Criminal liability will give rise to civil liability only only a preponderance of evidence is required;
if the sane felonious act or omission results in (b) the court declares that the liability of the
damage or injury to another and is the direct and accused is only civil; and
proximate cause thereof. Damage or injury to (c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise
another is evidently the foundation of the civil from or is not based upon the crime of which the
action. accused was acquitted.

RCPI vs CA Lomarda vs. Fudalan

To hold the petitioner not liable directly for the Article 19 is the general rule which governs the
acts of its employees in the pursuit of its conduct of human relations. By itself, it is not the
business is to deprive the general public availing basis of an actionable tort. Article 19 describes the
of the services of the petitioner of an effective degree of care required so that an actionable tort
and adequate remedy. may arise when it is alleged together with Article
20 or Article 21.
Article 21 of the Civil Code "refers to acts contra
bonos mores and has the following elements:
(1) an act which is legal;
(2) but which is contrary to morals, good customs,
public order or public policy; and
(3) is done with intent to injure."

Articles 22-24 NCC

CASE: Sycip vs CA
Article 24. In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage
on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other
handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.

Articles 25-26 NCC

 CASE: Concepcion vs CA
The basis would be Article 26 and Article 2219. The petitioner claimed that there was no basis for the
supreme court’s ruling. However, it was established that there does not need to be further elucidation
for the law to consider it as an invasion of the right of Nestor. The rights of the persons are amply
protected and damages are provided for a person's dignity and peace of mind. Due to the incident,
Nestor Nicolas suffered mental anguish, wounded feelings, and social humiliation as a proximate
result of the petitioner's abusive, scandalous and insulting language.

Article 27 NCC
CASE: Ledesma vs CA
Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects,
without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against
the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken [ART. 27, NCC].

Articles 28-30 NCC

CASE: Mansion Biscuits Corp. vs CA
Any claim for the tortious liability must be ventilated in a separate action against the proper party

Articles 31-36 NCC

CASE: JM Dominguez Argonomic Co. Inc. vs Liclican
A prejudicial question generally exists in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both
pending, and there exists in the former an issue that must be pre-emptively resolved before the latter
may proceed, because however the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative
juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.

The rationale behind the principle is to avoid two conflicting decisions,and its existence rests on the
concurrence of two essential elements:
(i) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal
action; and
(ii) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

Damages
a. Concept
➔ Damages may either be:
(a) The injury or loss to another by the violation of his legal right; or
(b) The sum of money which the law award or imposes as pecuniary compensation, recompense,
or satisfaction for an injury done or wrong sustained as a consequence either of a breach of
contractual obligation or a tortuous act.
b. Purpose
➔ The law on damages is intended to repair the damage done by putting the plaintiff in the same
position, as far as pecuniary compensation can do, that he would be, had the damage not been inflicted
and the wrong not committed.
◆ Moral damages are not intended to enrich the plaintiff but they are designed to compensate for
the actual injury suffered, not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer.
 c. Applicability/Scope
➔ The law mentions of its applicability to all obligations mentioned in ART. 1157 of the NCC, arising from:
LAW, CONTRACTS, QUASI-CONTRACTS, DELICTS and QUASI-DELICTS.

d. Actual/Compensatory Damages
e. Classifications
Ribo vs CA

Actual or compensatory damages are those recoverable because of pecuniary loss — in business,
trade, property, profession, job, or occupation, and the same must be proved; otherwise, if the proof
is flimsy and non-substantial, no damages will be given.

With respect to compensatory damages assuming that they are recoverable under the theory that
petitioner had filed a clearly unfounded suit against respondent, the same constitutes a tort against
the latter that makes the former liable for all damages which are the natural and probable
consequences of the act or omissions complained of. These damages, cannot, however, be presumed
and must be duly proved.

Even if the complaint filed by one against the other is clearly unfounded this does not necessarily
mean, in the absence of specific facts proving damages, that said defendant really suffered actual
damage over and above attorney's fees and costs. The Court cannot rely on its speculations as to the
fact and amount of damages. It must depend on actual proof of the damages alleged to have been
suffered.

People vs Asis

Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when
the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate
and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.

Carriaga vs Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co.

Damages recoverable from common carriers; Actual or compensatory – An obligor guilty of a breach
of contract in good faith is liable under Art. 2201, NCC for such damages which are the “natural and
probable consequences of the breach and which the parties had foreseen at the time the obligation
was constituted,” provided such damages, according to Art. 2199 of the same Code, have been duly
proved. This would be the premise for the award of actual damages.

G.A. Machineries vs Yaptinchay

Article 2200 of the Civil Code entitles the respondent to recover as compensatory damages not only
the value of the loss suffered but also prospective profits. Article 2201 entitles the respondent to
recover all damages which may be attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. However, in
order to recover this kind of damages, plaintiff must prove his case. The injured party must produce
the best evidence of which his case is susceptible and if that evidence warrants the inference that he
has been damaged by the loss of profits which he might with reasonable certainty have anticipated
but for the defendant’s wrongful act, he is entitled to recover.

Chiang Kai Shek School vs Ca

For the wrongful act of the petitioner, the private respondent is entitled to moral damages. As a
proximate result of her illegal dismissal, she suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded
feelings and even besmirched reputation as an experienced teacher for more than three decades.

Rosit vs Davao Doctors Hospital

Moral damages cannot be recovered except when the following requisites are proved: (a) There must
be physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury;
(b) The suffering must be the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission;
(c) There must be clear testimony on the suffering.

People vs Galvez

Although receipts should ordinarily support claims of actual damages, the defense in this case
stipulated that Romen Castro's funeral and burial expenses amounted to P30,000.00. Hence, in view of
the defense's admission as to the claim for actual damages, the award should be sustained.

f. Damages Recoverable in case of Death

➔ Shall be at least be P3,000 even though there may have been mitigating circumstances.
People vs Dadanon

Civil indemnity is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact
of the commission of murder or homicide; while moral damages is awarded for the mental anguish
suffered by the heirs of the deceased. Following the latest jurisprudence, the amounts awarded for
civil indemnity and moral damages are increased pursuant to R.A.9346 where heinous crimes with an
imposable penalty is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua.

People vs Jugueta

Civil indemnity is, technically, not a penalty or a fine; hence, it can be increased by the Court when
appropriate. In awarding civil indemnity and moral damages, it is also important to determine the
stage in which the crime was committed and proven during the trial.

g. Loss of Earning Capacity

Rosales vs CA

Compensation for Loss of Earning Capacity. Art. 2206 of the Civil Code provides that in addition to the
 indemnity for death caused by a crime or quasi delict, the "defendant shall be liable for the loss of the
earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter;
"Compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings but for loss of capacity to earn
money. Evidence must be presented that the victim, if not yet employed at the time of death, was
reasonably certain to complete training for a specific profession.

h. Attorney’s Fees and Interest (Art. 2209, 2210 and 2212)

ORDINARY EXTRAORDINARY

The attorney's fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a The attorney's fee is an indemnity for
lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the damages ordered by the court to be paid by
latter. the losing party in a litigation to the
BASIS: the fact of his employment by and his agreement with prevailing party.
the client
GROUNDS FOR CLAIMING ATTORNEY’S FEES (Art. 2208)
1. In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime
2. When defendant’s act or omission compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur
expenses to protect his interest
3. In actions for legal support
4. In a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff
5. In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff
6. When exemplary damages are awarded
7. When at least double judicial costs are awarded
8. In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorneys fees and expenses of
litigation should be recovered.
9. In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers
10. In actions for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and employer’s liability laws; or
11. Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff’s valid, just
and demandable claim.
INTEREST
Breach of obligation consisting of Breach of obligation not constitution a loan or forbearance
payment of sum of money of money

a. The interest due is that stipulated in a. An interest on the amount of damages to be awarded
writing and the interest due shall itself may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate
earn legal interest from the time it is of 6% per annum
judicially demanded. b. No interest shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or
b. The rate of interest shall be 6% per damages, except when or until demand can be
annum in the absence of express established with reasonable certainty.
construct as to such rate of interest c. Where the demand is established with reasonable
certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the
claim is made judicially or extrajudicially.

i. Moral Damages
 ➔ The award of moral damages is designed to compensate the claimants for actual injury and is not
meant to enrich the complainant at the expense of the defendant. The grant of moral damages is based
on the ancient maxim "when there is a wrong there is a remedy”
PURPOSE: Moral damages are not punitive and not intended to enrich the complainant in order to
punish the defendant. They are for reparation of the spiritual status quo ante; a means to assuage the
moral suffering of the complainant brought about by, defendant's culpable action.
j. Scope – Art. 2217 & 2219
● Besmirched reputation
● Moral shock
● Wounded feelings
● Fright
● Physical suffering
● Mental anguish
● Serious anxiety
● Social humiliation
● Similar injury

Noell Whessoe, Inc. vs Independent Testing Consultants, Inc.

Moral Damages are awarded to claimants who suffer mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, and the
like. Moral Damages are awarded to natural persons, not to juridical persons; juridical persons can not
experience or feel emotions.

People vs Iman

To constitute seduction, there must be some sufficient promise or inducement and the woman must
yield because of the promise or other inducement. If she consents merely from carnal lust and the
intercourse is from mutual desire, there is no seduction. She must be induced to depart from the path
of virtue by the use of some species of arts, persuasions and wiles, which are calculated to have and
do have that effect, and which result in her ultimately submitting her person to the sexual embraces of
her seducer. If these requisites are satisfied, the victim is entitled to damages

Tulfo vs People

Moral damages can be awarded even in the absence of actual or compensatory damages. The fact that
no actual or compensatory damage was proven before the trial court does not adversely affect the
offended party's right to recover moral damages.

Without proof of actual loss that can be measured, the award of actual damages cannot stand.

Tabuada vs Tabuada

The Civil Code provision under Article 309 on showing "disrespect to the dead" as a ground for the
family of the deceased to recover moral and material damages, being under the title of Funerals,
obviously envisions the commission of the disrespect during the period of mourning over the demise
of the deceased or on the occasion of the funeral of the mortal remains of the deceased.

Yap vs Dy
Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in
addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.

People vs Manero

Art. 2206 (3) provides: "The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the
deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased."

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs CA

In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and
probable consequences of the act or omission complained of, whether or not such damages has been
foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. Actual damages may likewise be
recovered for loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal
injury, or for injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit.

k. Nominal Damages (ART.2221-2223)

● They are those recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an
invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind, or where, from the nature of the case,
there has been some injury arising from a breach of contract or legal duty the amount thereof has not
been or cannot be shown.
● PURPOSE: As provided for under Art. 2221 of the NCC “in order that a right of the plaintiff has been
violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized. IT IS NOT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INDEMNIFYING THE PLAINTIFF FOR ANY LOSS SUFFERED HIM.”
○ An award of nominal damages precludes the recovery of actual, moral and temperate damages.
Cathay Pacific Airways vs Reyes

Nominal damages are recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated
against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind or where there has been a
breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever have been or can be shown.
Under Article 2221 of the Civil Code, nominal damages may be awarded to a plaintiff whose right has
been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right, not
for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered.

The amount to be awarded as nominal damages shall be equal or at least commensurate to the injury
sustained by respondents considering the concept and purpose of such damages. The amount of
nominal damages to be awarded may also depend on certain special reasons extant in the case.

One Network Rural Bank vs Baric

Nominal damages are recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated
against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind or where there has been a
breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever have been or can be shown.

l. Temperate or Moderate Damages (ART. 2224-2225)

 ● Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be recovered when the court finds that
some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, proved with
certainty.
● These are damages, which are more than nominal hut less than compensatory, and may be allowed in
cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although
the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.

Necesito vs Paras 104 Phil 75

In a case, there may be some form of loss but definite proof thereof cannot be presented. The judge
may however feel that a certain degree of such loss must be compensated. In such a case, the court
may calculate moderate damages. The award must however be reasonable.

Tan vs OMC Carriers Inc. G.R. No. 190521 January 12, 2011

By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of
documentary evidence when: (1) the deceased is self employed and earning less than the minimum
wage under current labor laws, in which case, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the
deceased's line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a
daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws

Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs Karaan G.R. No. 208590 October 3, 2018

Exemplary damages are designed by our civil law to permit the courts to reshape behavior that is
socially deleterious in its consequence by creating negative incentives or deterrents against such
behavior

Sps. Estrada vs Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. G. R. No. 203902 July 19, 2017

There is no competent proof substantiating Dionisio’s actual income and because of this, an award for
actual damages for loss/ impairment of earning capacity cannot be made.
HOWEVER: Under Article 2224, "temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but
less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss
has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty."
Temperate damages are awarded in lieu of actual damages for loss of earning capacity where earning
capacity is plainly established but no evidence was presented to support the allegation of the injured
party's actual income.

m. Liquidated Damages (ART. 2226-2228)

● Those agreed upon by the parties in a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof.
○ No proof is necessary. It is not subject to any contingency or determination as it is already
agreed upon. The reason why there is no need for proof to recover liquidated damages is
because the agreement is the law between the parties.
● PURPOSE: To strengthen the coercive force of the obligation by the threat of greater responsibility or
consequences m the event of breach
Commercial Credit Group of Cagayan de Oro vs CA G.R. No. 78315 January 3, 1989

Art. 1229 The judge shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or
irregularly complied with by the debtor. Even if there has been no performance, the penalty may also be
reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous or unconscionable

n. Exemplary Damages (ART. 2229-2235)

● Imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate,
liquidated or compensatory damages.
● REQUISITES:
1. Imposed, by way of example addition to compensatory damages, only after the claimant's right
to it has been established;
2. Not recoverable as a matter of right , their determination depending upon the amount of
compensatory damages that may be awarded; and
3. The act must be accompanied by bad faith or done in wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or
malevolent manner

Exemplary Damages in Delict or Crime Exemplary Damages in Exemplary Damages in

Quasi-Delict Contracts and Quasi-
Contracts

Relative to the civil aspect of the case, an It may be awarded if the It may be awarded if the
aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or defendant acted with gross defendant acted un wanton,
qualifying, should entitle the offended party to negligence. (Art. 2232) fraudulent, reckless,
an award of exemplary damages within the oppressive, malevolent
unbridles meaning of Art. 2230 of the NCC. manner. (Art. 2232)

ART. 2233 2234 2235

Exemplary damages cannot be Although the amount of exemplary damages Agreement to

recovered as a matter of right. This may need not be proved, plaintiff must show that renounce exemplary
be granted at the discretion of the court he is entitled to moral, temperate or damages in advance
·even if not expressly pleaded or compensatory damages. shall be null and void.
prayed for.

Dela Cruz vs Octoviano G.R. No. 219649 July 26, 2017

Exemplary damages are also known as “punitive damages” or “vindictive” damages. It is intended to
serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings, and as vindication of undue suffering and wanton
invasion of the rights of an injured person or punishment of those guilty of outrageous conduct

People vs Reyes G.R. No. 184809 March 29, 2010

Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages can be awarded, not only in the presence of an
aggravating circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible
or outrageous conduct of the offender.

People vs Canares G.R. No. 174065 February 18, 2009

The retroactive application of procedural rules cannot adversely affect the rights of the private
offended party that have become vested prior to its effectivity Moral damages are awarded to rape
complainants without need of pleading or proof of their basis; it is assumed that a rape complainant
actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to this award The award of exemplary damages is justified
under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set a public example and serve as deterrent against elders who
abuse and corrupt the youth.

People vs Gragasin G.R. No. 186496 August 25, 2009

On the award of damages, civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape.
Moral damages are automatically awarded upon such finding without need of further proof, because it
is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.
Exemplary damages are awarded under Article 2230 of the Civil Code if there is an aggravating
circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying. There being no aggravating circumstance that can be
considered, the award of exemplary damages would have to be deleted.

People vs Banez G.R. No. 198057 September 21, 2015

An award of temperate damages in lieu of actual damages is warranted because it is reasonable to

presume that when death occurs, the family of the victim suffered pecuniary loss for the wake and
funeral of the victim although the exact amount was not shown.
The award of exemplary damages is proper considering the attendance of treachery or alevosia that
qualified the killing to murder.

Civil Aeronautics Administration vs CA G.R. L-51806 November 8, 1988

Gross negligence is equivalent to the term "notorious negligence" and consists in the failure to
exercise even slight care can be attributed to the CAA for its failure to remedy the dangerous
condition of the questioned elevation. The award by the trial court as exemplary damages
appropriately underscores the point that as an entity charged with providing service to the public, the
CAA, like all other entities serving the public, has the obligation to provide the public with reasonably
safe service.