Torts and Damages Reviewer

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola
CHAPTER 1 concept of obligations arising from non-

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS contractual negligence.
◦ Intentional acts (considered torts in
Torts – (Fr) torquere; to twist Anglo American law) are intended to be
– common law: unlawful violation of private governed by the RPC in the Philippines
right, not created by contract, and which
gives rise to an action for damages. Art. 19, 20, & 21 of the NCC enlarge the concept of
– An act or omission producing an injury to tortious acts and embody in our law the Anglo-
another, without any previous legal relation American concept of tort. They are “catch-all”
of which the said act or omission may be provisions that serve as basis for any imaginable
said to be a natural outgrowth or incident. tort action.
– Private or civil wrong or injury, other than
breach of contract. Art. 20 is the general sanction for all other
– Can be based on all 5 sources of obligation provisions of law which do not especially provide
as enumerated in Art. 1157, NCC their own sanctions and is broad enough to cover
– genus; involves any violation of a right all legal wrongs which do not constitute violation of
contract.
Classes of torts: • Defamation
• Intentional torts – conduct where the • fraud
actor desires to cause the consequences • physical injuries
of his acts or believes that consequences • violation of constitutional rights
are substantially certain to result from it. • negligence
◦ Battery, assault, false imprisonment, • interference with contractual relations
defamation, invasion of privacy, • violation of privacy
interference of property • malicious prosecution
• Negligence – voluntary acts or omissions • product liability
which result in injury to another without • strict liability for possession of animals
intending to cause the same. The actor • abuse of right (Art. 19, NCC)
fails to exercise due care in performing • acts which violate good morals and
such acts or omissions
customs (Art. 21, NCC)
• strict liability – the person is made liable
independent of fault or negligence upon Art. 1902 of the old Civil Code covers the broad
submission of proofs of certain facts. concept of torts prior to the NCC.
Philippine Tort Law Art. 2176 of NCC covers quasi-delict, which as
• Obligations based on law & quasi-delict observed by the SC in numerous cases includes
• Sources intentional acts.
◦ New Civil Code
▪ Roman Law Culpa aquiliana includes acts which are criminal in
▪ Spanish character or in violation of the penal law, whether
▪ French voluntary or negligent.
▪ Anglo-American Law
• Scope And Applicable Laws Purposes of Tort Law:
◦ the Code Commission uses the word General purpose: Protect different interests in the
society, specifically to:
“quasi-delict” instead of torts because
• provide a peaceful means for adjusting the
torts in Angle American law is much
rights of parties who might otherwise take
broader than the Spanish-Philippine
the law in their hands
st
jmvdg 1 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
• deter wrongful conduct institutions
• encourage socially responsible behavior ▪ retributive – sanctions or penalties

• restore the injured parties to their original that are applied to those who
condition, insofar as that law can do this, engage in cetain kinds of antisocial
by compensating them for their injury. behavior
• Reduce the risks and burden of living in the ◦ individual
society and to allocate them among the ▪ compensatory – a person who
members of the society wrongfully inflicts harm on another
or that person's property must
The study of law of torts is therefore a study of the repay or repair the damage
extent to which the law will shift from the person ▪ commutative – fairness of a private
affected to the shoulder of him who caused the bargain or exchange
loss.(Wright, Cases on Law on Torts, p.1) • equity is defined as justice according to
Although tort law is mainly concerned with natural law and right.
◦ Justice outside legality
providing compensation for personal injury and ◦ invoked in justifying the rule regarding
property damage caused by negligence, it also mitigation of liability if the plaintiff was
protects other interests such as reputation, guilty of contributory negligence
personal freedom, enjoyment of property, and
commercial interests. DEMOCRACY
Fundamental principles: • democracy being more than a mere form of
government, affecting as it does, the very
These purposes of tort law are sought to be foundations of human life and happiness,
achieved in the pursuit of fundamental principles cannot be overlooked by an integral civil
upheld under the NCC. code.
EQUITY & JUSTICE • Art. 32 provides for independent civil
actions for damages against any public
• NCC upholds the “spirit that giveth life officer or employee, or any private
rather than the letter that killeth” individual, who directly or indirectly
• Art. 21 & 26 of NCC obstructs, defeats, violates, or in any
• justice and equity demand that persons manner impedes or impairs the civil rights
who may have damaged by the wrongful or and liberties of another person.
negligent act of another are compensated.
• Acting with justice involves the duty to RESPECT FOR HUMAN DIGNITY
indemnify for damages caused under Arts. • Art. 26 and the provisions on moral
20,21,28,27; to indemnify by reason of damages are included in order to remedy
unjust enrichment under Arts. 22 & 23; and defects in old CC in so far as it did not
to protect the weaker party under Art. 24 properly exalt human personality.
• “the precepts of law are these, to live • The touchstone of every system of laws, of
honestly, not to injure others, and to give the culture and civilization of every country,
each one his due.” is how far it dignifies man.
• “Justice is a steady and unceasing
disposition to render every man his due.” Justification of Tort Liability: in cases of non-
• 2 levels of justice contractual obligations, it is the wrongful or
◦ social negligent act or omission itself which creates the
▪ distributive – address the allocation vinculum juris whereas in contractual relations the
of social goods and bads vinculum exists independently of the breach of the
• concern of our democratic voluntary duty assumed by the parties.
st
jmvdg 2 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
• Moral perspective Preventive remedy is available in some cases.
◦ tort liability may be justified because Alternative compensation schemes include

the conduct is considered moral wrong.
◦ The law of torts abounds in moral insurance & work employees compensation
phraseology it has much to say of CHAPTER 2
wrongs, malice, fraud, intent and
negligence. Hence, it may naturally be NEGLIGENCE
supposed that the risk of man's Kinds of Negligence:
conduct is thrown upon him as a result • culpa contractual (contractual negligence)
of some moral shortcomings. • culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict)
◦ Ubi jus ibi remedium (there is no wrong • culpa criminal (criminal negligence)
without remedy) Quasi-Delict
◦ moral turpitude was considered the
outstanding though not exclusive • used by the Code Commission to
principle of tortious liability. designate negligence as a separate source
of obligation because it more nearly
• social and economic perspective corresponds to the Roman Law
◦ liability may be provided for certain classification and is in harmony with the
tortious conduct because of the good nature of this kind of liability.
that it will do to the society as a whole • fault or negligence of a person who, by his
and its function of encouraging socially acts or omission, connected or
responsible behavior. unconnected with, but independent from,
◦ Economic analysis of tort law focuses any contractual relation, causes damage to
on the allocation of the risks of loss due another person. (Art. 2176 of the CC)
to the destruction of property or injury • covers not only those that are not punished
to persons created by those activities. by law but also those acts which are
voluntary and negligent
Plaintiff: • Requisites:
• Any person who had been injured by ◦ act or omission constituting fault or
reason of a tortious conduct can sue the negligence
tortfeasor. ◦ damage caused by the said act or
• Plaintiff can be a natural person or juridical omission
person. ◦ causal relation between the damage
• An unborn child is not entitled to damages. and the act or omission
But the bereaved parents may be entitled ◦ absence of contractual relation
to damages, on damages inflicted directly between plaintiff and defendant. (no
upon them. (Geluz vs. CA, 2 SCRA 802) longer cited because an action based
Defendant: on quasi-delict can be maintained even
if there is an existing contractual
• may be held liable even if he does not relation between the parties)
know the identity of the plaintiff at the time Delict
of the accident.
• Can either be a natural or juridical being • criminal negligence; covered by Art. 365 of
RPC
The primary purpose of a tort action is to provide • elements:
compensation to a person who was injured by the ◦ offender does or fails to do an act
tortious conduct of the defendant. ◦ that the doing or the failure to do the
act is voluntary
st
jmvdg 3 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
◦ that it be without malice Includes all acts which Punishes only those
◦ that material damages results from the any kind of fault or covered by penal laws
reckless imprudence negligence intervenes
◦ there is an inexcusable lack of Liability of employer is Liability of employer is
precaution on the part of the offender, direct and primary subsidiary
taking into consideration his
employment or occupation, degree of
A single act or omission can give rise to 2 or more
intelligence, physical condition, and
other circumstances causes of action.
Contract Whenever a contractual obligation can be

• governed by CC provisions on Obligations breached by a tort, it is also possible that two
and Contracts particularly Arts. 1170-1174 persons are liable for such breach even of there is
• by express provision Arts. 2178, 1172 to only one act or omission that causes the injury.
1174 are applicable to quasi-delict cases Art. 2194 applies when there are two persons
Culpa aquiliana vs Culpa involved.
contractual Limitation imposed by law is the proscription
Separate source Foundation of against double recovery provided under Art. 2177
of oligation definition liability is contract of the NCC.
independent of
contract Although an act can give rise to 2 causes of action,
Substantive and characterist Incident of the the plaintiff cannot recover twice for the same act
independent ic performance of an or omission of the defendant.
obligation Negligence – omission of that degree of diligence
There may or may Party Pre-existing which is required by the nature of the obligation
not be a pre- relationship contractual and corresponding to the circumstances of time,
existing relation persons, and place. (Art. 1173)
contractual – omission to do something which a
relationship reasonable man, guided by those
Defendant's Source of Breach of contract considerations which ordinarily regulate the
obligation conduct of human affairs, world do.
negligent act or
(Black's Law Dictionary)
omission
– failure to observe for the protection of
Negligence of the What needs Existence of the interests of another person, that degree of
defendant to be contract and its
proven care, precaution, and vigilance which the
breach circumstances justly demands. (Judge
Prof of diligence is Availability Proof of diligence Cooley)
a valid defense of diligence is not a defense – want of care required by the circumstances
(Valenzuela vs CA)
– failure to observe that degree of care,
Culpa aquiliana Crimes precaution and vigilance which the
Affects private concerns Affects public interest circumstances justly demands whereby
CC merely repairs RPC punishes or such other person suffers injury.
damages by means of corrects criminal act (Valenzuela vs CA)
indemnification
st
jmvdg 4 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
test of negligence: • social value it seeks to advance
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent • alternative course of action, dangers
act use that reasonable care and caution which an and advantages to the person or
ordinary prudent person would have used in the property of the actor himself and to the
same situation? others.
Test of what a reasonable ordinary man requires Degree of diligence required in ever situation:
tha application of the test of foreseeability • Art. 1173, NCC – depends upon the nature
Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent of the obligation and corresponds to the
circumstances of person, time and place
man in the position of the tortfeasor would have • Art. 365, RPC – employment of the actor,
foreseen that an effect harmful to another was degree of diligence, physical condition and
sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing the other circumstances regarding persons,
conduct or guarding against the consequences. time, and place.
Negligence is conduct which creates an undue risk Circumstances to consider in determining the
of harm to others existence of negligence:
State of mind of the actor is not so important; good 1. Time
2. Place
faith or use of sound judgment is immaterial. 3. Emergency
Motive is not material in negligence cases. • emergency rule - the law takes stock of
impulses of humanity when placed in a
Only juridical fault is subject to liability and not threatening or dangerous situations
and does not require the same
moral fault. standard of thoughtful and reflective
Unreasonable risk means a danger which is care from persons confronted by
unusual and often time threatening
apparent, or shouldbe apparent, to one in the situations
position of the actor 4. Gravity of harm to be avoided
the determination of negligence is a question of • even if the odds that an injury will result
is not high, harm may still be
foresight on the part of the actor of a probable
considered foreseeable if the gravity of
harm to another person.
the harm to be avoided is great.
If there is a great probability and risk that damage 5. Alternative cause of action
• if the alternative presented to the actor
will result, a person is negligent if he did not
is too costly, the harm that may result
exercise due diligence in the face of such great
may still be considered unforeseeable
probability.
to a reasonable man, more so if there
Risk-benefit analysis – balancing the risk, in the is no alternative thereto.
6. Social value or utility of activity
light of the social value of the interests threatened,
and the probability and extent of harm against the • the diligence which the law requires an
value of eh interest which the actor is seeking to individual to observe and exercise
protect, and the expedience of the course pursued. varies according to the nature of the
situation which he happens to be in,
– common sense intuitive interpretation
and the importance of the act which he
(under rule in the Philippines)
has to perform.
– Considerations:
• Any act which subjects an innocent
• gravity of the harm to be avoided
person to an unnecessary risk is a
st
jmvdg 5 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
negligent act if the risk outweighs the ◦ if the child is under 9 years, it is no
advantage accruing to the actor and longer necessary to determine his
even to the innocent person himself. maturity and capacity because he is
7. Person exposed to the risk conclusively presumed to be incapable
• a higher degree of diligence is required of negligence.
if the person involved is a child. ◦ If the child is above 9-15, he is
disputably presumed to be incapable of
Paterfamilias – diligence of a good father of a negligence but the opposing party can
family prove that the child is at such stage of
• reasonable man; ordinary prudent man maturity and capacity that he can
• one objective standard: already determine what a reasonable
man would do under the same
Circumstances To Prove Negligence circumstances.
➢ knowledge and experience of the actor ◦ liability of children
• the prudent man is expected to act ▪ absence of negligence does not
according to the circumstances that necessarily mean absence of
appear to him at the time of the liability.
incident and he is not judged based on ▪ A child who is 9 yrs. old can still be
his knowledge or experience after the subsidiarily liable with his
event. properties. (Art. 101, RPC)
• A reasonable man is also deemed to ▪ absence of negligence or intent on
have knowledge of facts that a man the part of the child may not excuse
should be expected to know based on the parents from their vicarious
ordinary human experience. liability under Art. 2180 of CC or
• A prudent man is expected to know Art. 221 of FC (because they are
basic laws of nature and physics. liable for their own negligence in
the supervision of their child)
➢ children ▪ child shall be answerable with his
◦ the action of the child will not necessarily own property in an action against
be judged according to the standard of him if he has no parent or guardian.
an ordinary adult. ▪ The effect of the circumstances
◦ The care and caution required of a child that the actor is a child would vary
is according to his maturity and if the child is the defendant-actor or
capacity only and this is to be the plaintiff
determined in each case by the
circumstance of the case. ➢ physical disability
◦ The law fixes no arbitrary age at which a ◦ weakness of a person will not be an
minor can be said to have the excuse in negligent cases (common
necessary capacity to understand and law)
appreciate the nature and ◦ the Constitution mandates the creation
consequences of his acts, so as to of a special agency for disabled
make it negligence on his part to persons for their rehabilitation, self-
exercise due care and precaution in the development and self-reliance, and
commission of such act their integration in the mainstream of
◦ question of negligence necessarily the society. (Sec. 13, Art. XIII)
depends on the ability of the minor to ◦ the standard of conduct to which a
understand the character of his own disabled person must conform to avoid
acts and their consequences being negligent is that of a reasonable
st
jmvdg 6 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
person under like disability. ➢ Insanity
experts & professionals ◦ RPC: insane persons are exempted

➢ from criminal liability.
◦
when a person holds himself out as ▪ In case of lunatic and demented
being competent to do things requiring person, they may still be liable with
professional skills, he will be held liable their property for the consequences
for negligence if he fails to exhibit the of their acts, even though they be
care and skill of one ordinary skilled in performed unwittingly
the particular work which he attempted ◦ Civil Code: The insanity of the person
to do. (Culion Ice, Fish & Electric Co., does not excuse him or his guardian
vs Phil Motors Corp.) from liability based on quasi-delict (Art.
◦ an act may be negligent if it is done 2180 & 2182, NCC)
without the competence that a ◦ bases for holding a permanently insane
reasonable person in the position of the person liable for his torts
actor would recognize as necessary to ▪ where 1 of 2 innocent persons must
prevent it from creating an suffer a loss it should be borne by
unreasonable risk of harm to another. the 1 who occasioned it.
(Far Eastern Shipping Co. vs CA) ▪ To induce those interested in the
◦ the care required must be estate of the insane person who
commensurate with the danger restrain and control him.
involved and skill employed must ▪ The fear that an insanity defense
correspond with the superior would lead to false claim of insanity
knowledge of the business which the to avoid liability.
law demands.
➢ nature of activity ➢ Women
◦ Dean Guido Calabrese: there should
◦ persons impose upon themselves be uniform standard of care for men &
certain obligations and non-compliance women
therewith will be considered
negligence. ➢ Others
◦ There are activities which by nature ◦ Violation of Rules & Statutes
impose duties to exercise a higher ▪ statutes & ordinance
degree of diligence. (e.g. banks &
• violation of these will be either
common carriers)
treated as:
➢ intoxication ◦ circumstance that establish
negligence
◦ mere intoxication is not negligence, nor
◦ negligence per se (+)
does the mere fact of intoxication
establish want of ordinary care. ◦ circumstance that should
be taken as an evidence of
◦ If one's conduct is characterized by a
negligence.
proper degree of care and prudence, it
is immaterial whether he is drunk or • the statute or ordinance
sober. (Wright vs. MERALCO) becomes the standard of care
or conduct to which the
◦ intoxication is of little consequence in
reasonably prudent person is
negligence cases if it was not shown
held.
that such drunkenness contributed to
the accident or that the accident would • Since negligence is a breach of
have been avoided had he been sober. legal duty, the violator of a
st
jmvdg 7 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
statute is the negligent as a “The weight of authority is the

matter of law. violation of statute is negligence per
• When the legislature has se. although it is argued that the
spoken, the standard of care better rule is to consider these
required is no longer what the statutes or ordinances as
reasonable prudent man would circumstances that give rise to a
do under the circumstances but presumption of negligence unless the
what the Legislature has law provides otherwise”
commanded.
• Art. 2184 & 2185; presumption ◦ Practice & Customs
of the negligence of a motor ▪ “What is usually done may be
driver; evidence of what ought to be done,
▪ administrative rule but what ought to be done is fixed
• violation of this is not by a standard of reasonable
negligence per se but it may be prudence, whether it usually is
an evidence of negligence. complied with or not.”- Justice
▪ private rules of conduct Holmes
• same rules applies to rules ▪ one who performs an act so
imposed by private individuals inherently dangerous cannot, when
like an employer. an accident occurs, take refuge
• The order or prohibition of an behind the plea that other have
employer couldn't be of greater performed the same act safely
obligation than the rule of the (Yamada vs Manila Raillroad Co.
Commission or Board and [1915])
violation thereof is merely a ◦ Compliance With Rules & Statutes
possible evidence of ▪ non-compliance to statute is not
negligence sine qua non of negligence
▪ proximate cause ▪ one cannot avoid a charge of
• the rule that no liability attaches negligence by showing that the act
unless it appears that there was or omission complained of was of
a causal connection between the itself lawful or not violative of any
negligent act or omission statute or ordinance.
charged and the injury is ▪ Compliance to a statute or
applicable where the act or ordinance is not conclusive that
omission complained of there was no negligence
constitutes a violation of some
statute or ordinance even STANDARD vs. SPECIFIC RULES
though such violation rules – legal norms that are formal & mechanical
constitutes negligence per se
or prima facie evidence of standards – flexible, context-sensitive legal norms
negligence. that require evaluative judgments in their
▪ negligence per se rule application; being followed in deciding negligence
• statutes may also provide cases.
specific rules of conducts to be
observed in a given situation The courts in each case must balance all
and may even impose penal conflicting interests and consider all the
sanctions in case the rule is not circumstances.
observed.
st
jmvdg 8 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
Degrees of Negligence responsible is eliminated.
• ordinary negligence • Applied in conjunction with the doctrine of

• Gross negligence common knowledge.
◦ recognized in Art. 2231 of the Civil • Theoretically based on necessity (some
Code evidence may not be available)
◦ where there is want of even slight care CHAPTER 3
and diligence. (Amadeo vs Olabarrieta)
◦ implying conscious indifference to AFFIRMATIVE DUTIES
consequences; pursuing a course of AND MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES
conduct which would naturally and 1. DUTY TO RESCUE
probably result to injury;
• duty to the rescuer
◦ utter disregard of consequences
◦ we have an innate repugnance at
◦ basis for the award of exemplary
damages seeing a fellow creature suffer
(Rousseau)
burden of proof – the duty of a party to present ◦ courts make defendants liable for the
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to injuries to persons who rescue people
establish his claim or defenses by the amount of in distress because of the acts or
evidence required by law [preponderance of omission of said defendant.
evidence]. (Sec. 1, Rule 131, Revised Rules of ◦ One who was hurt while trying to
Court) rescue another who was injured
through negligence may recover
Presumption of Negligence damages.
• Art. 2184 & 2185; presumption of the • duty to rescue
negligence of a motor driver; ◦ there is no general duty to rescue
• Art. 2188; possession of deadly weapon ◦ a person is not liable for quasi-delict
• presumption of negligence may also even if he did not help a person in
arise because of certain contractual distress.
relationship between the parties ◦ Except: Art. 275, RPC; Sec, 55, RA
(example: contract of carriage) ◦ 4136
there are individuals who are required
Res Ipsa Loquitur by law to take care another person,
• the thing speaks for itself hence, they are legally compelled to
• function: aid plaintiff in proving elements of rescue the other person under their
a negligence case by circumstantial care or custody
evidence 2. OWNERS, PROPRIETORS, & POSSESSORS
• merely a mode of proof or procedural
-damage to any person resulting from the
convenience, not a rule of substantive law
exercise of any of the rights of ownership is
• requisites:
damage without injury (damnum absque
◦ the accident is of a kind which
injuria)
ordinarily does not occur in the • trespassers
absence of someone's negligence
◦ trespassers comes on to the
◦ it is caused by an instrumentality within premises at his own risk.
the exclusive control of the defendant
◦ The owner has no duty to maintain
or defendants his property in such a danger-free
◦ the possibility of contributing conduct state just to prevent trespassers
which would make the plaintiff from being injured
st
jmvdg 9 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
▪ tolerated possession children

• owner is liable if the plaintiff ▪ state of necessity
is inside his property by • owners and possessors of
tolerance or by implied real estate also owes duty
permission to allow trespassers, who
▪ visitors are in a state of necessity,
owners of a building or premises to enter their properties
owe a duty of care to visitors • Art. 432, CC & Art. 11, RPC
• common carriers • state of necessity – a
◦ common carriers may situation of present danger
be held liable for to legally protected
negligence to persons interests, in which there is
who stay in their no other remedy than the
premises even if they injuring of another's also
are not passengers. legally protected interest.
◦ Theperson who • use of property that injures others
purchases a ticket from ◦ Art. 431, CC, “an owner cannot use
the carrier must present his property in such a manner as to
himself at the proper injure the rights of others.
place and in the proper • liability of proprietors of buildings
manner to be ◦ 3rd persons who suffered damages
transported. may proceed only against the
▪ children and attractive nuisance engineer or architect or contractor if
rule the damage referred to in Art. 2190
• an owner is liable if he & 2191 should be the result of any
maintains in his premises defect in construction.
dangerous instrumentalities
or appliances of a character 3. EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES
likely to lure children in play • Employer
if he fails to exercise ◦ failure of the employer to comply
ordinary care to prevent with the mandatory provisions of
children of tender age from the Labor Code with regard the
playing therewith or proper maintenance of the
resorting thereto. workplace or the provision on
• Liability exists even if the adequate facilities to ensure the
child is a trespasser so long safety of the employees may be
as he is not of sufficient age considered negligence per se.
or discretion ◦ degree of care owed by employers to
• nuisance vs attractive their employees has been modified
nuisance by Art. 1711 & 1712, NCC.
◦ nuisance – by its very • Employee
nature, harmful to the ◦ employees are bound to exercise
community or to certain due care in the performance of
persons their functions for the employers
◦ attractive nuisance – ◦ the existence of the contract
considered nuisance constitutes no bar to the
only because it attracts commission of torts by one against
certain kind of persons - the other and the consequent
st
jmvdg 10 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
recovery of damages to be that of an average

specialist, not that of an
4. BANKS average physician.
• business of banks is one affected with ▪ Advances of the profession is
public interest taken into account in either
• a bank is under obligation to treat the case
accounts of its depositors with • captain of the ship doctrine
meticulous care, always having in mind ◦ doctor as head of the surgical team
the fiduciary nature of their ◦ he has the responsibility to it that
relationships those under him perfrom the task in
the proper manner.
5. COMMON CARRIERS ◦ The doctor is likened to a captain of
• Arts. 1733 & 1755, NCC: carriers, by the ship who must not only be
reason of public policy and the nature responsible for the safety of the
of their business, are bound to observe crew but also of the passengers of
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance the vessel.
over the goods and for the safety of • Physicians are not warrantors
passengers transported by them ◦ difficulties and uncertainties in the
according to all circumstances of each practice of the profession are such
case. that no practitioner can guarantee
• Presumption: common carriers have results
been at fault or have acted negligently • Proof
• the case against common carrier is for ◦ there is a presumption that in
the enforcement of an obligation from proper cases, the physician takes
breach of contract. the necessary precaution and
employs the best of his knowledge
6. DOCTORS
and skills in attending to his clients.
they are required to exercise utmost diligence
◦ Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is
in the performance of their work.
limited to cases where the court
• standard of care from its fund of common knowledge
◦ medical malpractice – form of can determine the standard of care
negligence which consists in the required.
failure of a physician or surgeon to • liability of hospital and consultants
apply to his practice of medicine ◦ in cases of consultants, the hospital
that degree of skill and care which itself is not liable under Art. 2180,
is ordinarily employed by the CC in the absence of employer-
profession generally under similar
employee relationship
conditions and in like surrounding
circumstances. 7. LAWYERS
◦ General Practitioners vs Specialist
• conduct of lawyers is governed by the
▪ standard of care demanded Code of Professional responsibility
from a general practitioner is • Canon 18
ordinary care and diligence in
• a lawyer is not bound to exercise
the application of his
extraordinary diligence, but a
knowledge and skill in the
reasonable degree of care and skill,
practice of a profession.
having reference to the character f the
▪ A specialist's legal duty to the
business he undertakes to do.
patient is generally considered
jmvdg 11
st
1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
CHAPTER 4 part of the person for whom the plaintiff is

DEFENSES IN NEGLIGENCE CASES responsible
***either partial defenses or complete defenses 3. FORTUITOUS EVENTS

• caso fortuito; an event which could not be
1. PLAINTIFF'S CONDUCT AND foreseen, or which though foreseen, was
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE inevitable. (Art. 2181)
the victim of negligence is likewise required to • a person is not liable if the cause of the
exercise due care in avoiding injury to himself Art. damage was fortuitous (Art. 1174)
2179 • characteristics of fortuitous event:
• Plaintiff's own negligence as the proximate ◦ the cause of the unforeseen and
cause bars him from recovering anything unexpected occurrence, or of the
• contributory negligence of the victim has failure of the debtor to comply with his
the effect of mitigating or reducing the obligation, must be independent of the
damages that the victim may recover (Art. human will
2179 & Art. 2174) ◦ must be impossible to foresee the event
• contributory negligence – conduct on the or if it is foreseen, it must be impossible
part of the injured party, contributing as to avoid
legal cause to the harm he has suffered, ◦ occurrence must be such as to render it
which falls below the standard to which he impossible for the debtor to fulfill his
is required to conform for his own obligation in a normal manner
protection. ◦ obligor must be free from any
• rule of comparative negligence – any participation in the aggravation of the
rule under which the relative degree of injury resulting to the creditor
negligence of the parties is considered in • the negligence of the defendant which
determining whether, and to what degree, occurred with the fortuitous event or which
either should be responsible for his resulted in the aggravation of the injury of
negligence. the plaintiff will make him liable even if
◦ Apportionment of damages there was a fortuitous event.
◦ pure type of comparative negligence – • Nevertheless, even if the defendant is still
plaintiff's contributory negligence does liable, courts may equitably mitigate the
not operate to bar his recovery damages if the loss, even in part, would
altogether but does serve to reduce his have resulted in any event because of the
damage in proportion to his fault. fortuitous event
• Prevailing doctrine
◦ Time of Civil Code: contributory 4. ASSUMPTION OF RISK
negligence • consistent with the maxim, volenti non fit
◦ 1991: comparative negligence injuria
• The court is free to determine the extent of • requisites
the mitigation of the defendant's liability ◦ plaintiff must know that the risk is
depending on the circumstances. present
◦ he must further understand its nature
2. IMPUTED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ◦ his choice to incur it is free and
• negligence is imputed if the actor is different voluntary
from the person who is being made liable. • plaintiff is excused from the force of the rule
• Effect: mitigated liability if an emergency is found to exist or if the
• applicable where the negligence was on the life or property of another is in peril or when
st
jmvdg 12 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
he seeks to rescue his endangered (common carriage)

property. ▪ dangerous activities
• kinds • personswho voluntarily
◦ express waiver of right to recover participate in dangerous
▪ there is assumption of risk if the activities assume the risk which
plaintiff in advance has expressly are usually present in such
waived his right to recover activities.
damages for the negligent act of
the defendant. • Awareness of the risk is not to
▪ A person cannot contract away his be determined in a vacuum but
right to recover damages resulting must be assessed against the
from negligence; the same is background of the skill and
contrary to public policy experience of the particular
(Pleasantville Dev't Corp vs CA, plaintiff.
253 SCRA 10) ▪ defendant's negligence
▪ waiver here is the waiver of the right • plaintiff is aware of the risk
to recover BEFORE the negligent created by the defendant's
act was committed. negligence, yet he voluntarily
▪ if the waiver was made after the decided to proceed to
cause of action has accrued, the encounter it.
waiver is valid and may be
construed as condonation of the 5. DEATH
obligation. • death of the defendant will not extinguish
◦ implied assumption the obligation based on quasi-delict.
▪ dangerous conditions • The case will continue through the legal
• a person who knowing that he is representative who will substitute the
exposed to a dangerous deceased.
condition, voluntarily assumes
the risk of such dangerous 6. PRESCRIPTION
condition may not recover from • action based on quasi delicts prescribes in
the defendant who maintained 4 years, counted from the date of the
such dangerous conditions. accident (Art. 1146)
▪ contractual relations • relations back doctrine – an act done at one
• by entering into a contractual time is considered by fiction of law to have
relationshipfreelyand been done at some antecedent period.
voluntarily where the • Acquisitive prescription vs. extinctive
negligence of the defendant is prescription
obvious, the plaintiff may be
found to accept and consent to 7. INVOLUNTARINESS
it, and to undertake to look out • believed to be a complete defense in a
for himself and yo relieve the quasi-delict case
defendant of the duty.
• This is a defense of an CHAPTER 5
employer in a tort case filed by CAUSATION
his employee.
• There is assumption of risk PROXIMATE CAUSE
involved in transportation of • cause which, in natural and continuous
goodsandpassengers sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and
jmvdg
st
13 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
without which the result would not have • policy tests of negligence
occurred. ◦ if the damage or injury to the plaintiff is
• not necessarily the last link in the chain of beyond the limit of the liability fixed by
events but that which is the procuring law, the defendant's conduct cannot be
efficient and predominant cause. considered the proximate cause of the
• Not necessarily the sole cause of the damage
accident ◦ foresight perspective – the defendant is
not liable for the unforseeable
Remote cause – cause which some independent consequences of his act.
force merely took advantage of to accomplish ▪ foreseeablity test
something not the natural effect thereof. ▪ natural and probable
consequences test
Concurrent cause ▪ natural and ordinary or direct
• intervening cause which merely cooperated consequences test
with the primary cause and which did nit ◦ directness perspective – makes the
break the chain of causation. defendant liable for damages which are
• The joint tortfeasors are solidarily liable beyond the risk
▪ hindsight test
TESTS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
▪ orbit of risk test
• “cause-in-fact test”
▪ substantial factor test
◦ it is necessary that there be proof that
defendant's conduct is a factor in the definition of proximate cause which includes
causing plaintiff's damage the element of foreseeability is not consistent with
◦ “but for” test or sine qua non test the express provision of the New Civil Code (Art.
▪ defendant's conduct is the cause in 2202).
fact of the injury under this test if
the damage would not have “natural and probable consequences of the act or
resulted had there been negligence omission complained for” (Art. 2202)
on the part of the defendant. • involves 2 things: (Reyes & Puno)
▪ This is the test commonly applied in ◦ causality
Philippine jurisdiction ▪ damage would not have resulted
◦ substantial factor test without the fault or negligence of
▪ the causes set in motion by the the defendant
defendant must continue until the ◦ adequacy
moment of the damage or at least ▪ the fault of the defendant would
down the setting in motion of the
normally result in the damage
final active injurious force which
suffered by the obligee
immediately produced or preceded
the damage. moral damages & purely economic loss are
▪ Important in cases where there are recoverable under the Philippine jurisdiction on
concurrent causes Torts cases. Moreover, the defendant can also be
◦ NESS test made liable even to those who may be considered
▪ the act or omission is the cause in unforeseeable plaintiffs.
fact if it is a necessary element of a
sufficient set CAUSE AND CONDITION
• it is no longer practicable to distinguish
between cause and condition (Phoenix
st
jmvdg 14 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
Construction vs IAC) the result.

• if no danger existed in the condition except • Equivalent to the pre-emptive cause
because of the independent cause, such referred to in the NESS test of Professor
condition was not the proximate cause Wright
• if an independent negligent act or defective • the test for efficient intervening cause is
condition sets in the operation the found in the nature and manner in which it
circumstances which result in the injury affects the continuity of operation of the
because the prior defective condition, such primary cause or the connection between it
subsequent act or condition is the and the injury
proximate cause. • such intervening cause must be:
• Even if the defendant had only created a ◦ new
condition, he may be held liable for ◦ independent or one not under the
damages if such condition resulted in harm control of the official wrongdoer
to either person or property. ◦ one which by the exercise of
• Types of dangerous conditions reasonable foresight and diligence, he
◦ inherently dangerous should have anticipated and guarded
▪ they retain their potential energy in against it
full, even if they are stored or ◦ it must break the continuity of causal
handled with utmost care. connection between the original
◦ in a dangerous position negligent act or omission and the injury
▪ like the case of Phoenix so that the former cannot be said to
Construction vs. IAC have been the efficient cause of the
▪ includes cases where the object is latter
placed in an unstable position • a cause is not an intervening cause if it is
where the application of small force already in operation at the time the
will permit the release of some negligent act is committed.
greater force. • Foreseeable intervening cause
◦ defective products ◦ cannot be considered sufficient
▪ the thing itself is not supposed to intervening causes.
be dangerous but it was negligently • A medical treatment is an intervening cause
or erroneously produced or • the intervention of an unforeseen and
constructed unexpected cause, is not sufficient to
▪ i.e defective buildings relieve a wrongdoer from consequences of
negligence, if such negligence directly and
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE proximately cooperates with the
• one that destroys the causal connection independent cause in the resulting injury.
between the negligent act and injury and ◦ An unforeseen and unexpected act of a
thereby negatives liability 3rd person may not be considered
• novuc actus interviens efficient intervening cause of it is
• there is no efficient intervening cause if the duplicative in nature or it merely
force created by the negligent act or aggravated the injury that resulted
omission have either: because of the prior cause.
◦ remained active itself
◦ created another force which remained CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
active until it directly caused the result • conduct on the part of the injured party,
◦ created a new active risk of being acted contributing as a legal cause to the harm
upon by the active force that caused he has suffered, which falls below the
st
jmvdg 15 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
standard to which he is required to conform ◦ Picart vs. Smith; PBCom vs CA;

for his own protection • cases where doctrine is inapplicable
• the reduction of the liability of the ◦ when only the defendant was negligent
defendant cannot be more than 50% ◦ where the party charged is required to
because such reduction by more than 50% act instantaneously; or if the injury
is no longer consistent with a finding that cannot be avoided by the application of
the defendant's negligence was the all means at hand
proximate cause of the damage or injury ◦ if the defendant's negligence is a
• if the defendant's negligence caused the concurrent cause and which was still in
injury but the plaintiff's negligence may operation up to the time the injury was
have increased or aggravated the resulting inflicted. (joint tortfeasors or between
damage or injury, the liability of the defendants)
defendant should also be mitigated. ◦ when plaintiff, a passenger, filed an
action against a carrier based on
LAST CLEAR CHANCE contract
• Requisites: ◦ if the actor was not aware of the danger
◦ Plaintiff was in a position of danger by his or risk brought about by prior fraud or
own negligence negligent act
◦ Defendant knew of such position of the
plaintiff CHAPTER 6
◦ Defendant had the least clear chance to HUMAN RELATIONS: INTENTIONAL TORTS
avoid the accident by exercise of ordinary
care but failed to exercise such last clear CATCH ALL PROVISIONS:
chance and Art. 19, NCC
◦ Accident occurred as proximate cause of • believed to be a mere declaration of
such failure principles which is being implemented by
• Views: other provisions
◦ prevailing view • abuse of rights, elements:
▪ the person who has the last fair ◦ there is a legal right or duty
chance to avoid the impending ◦ such right or duty was exercised in bad
harm and fails to do so is
faith
chargeable with the consequences,
◦ for the sole intent of prejudicing or
without reference to the prior
injuring another
negligence of the other party.
• sets certain standards which may be
◦ minority view
observed not only in the exercise of one's
▪ the doctrine is not applicable in the
rights but also in the performance of one's
jurisdiction where the common law duties
doctrine of contributory negligence ◦ to act with justice
(which bars recovery) has been
◦ to give everyone his due
rejected
◦ to observe honesty and good faith
◦ 3rd view
▪ the rule of comparative negligence Art. 20, NCC
and last clear chance are not • renders it impossible that a person who
considered inconsistent in any way suffers damage because another has
• cases where doctrine is applied violated some legal provision, should find
◦ the doctrine is being applied for the himself without relief
purpose of determining the proximate
cause of the accident
st
jmvdg 16 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
Art. 21, NCC liable for damages

• gives flesh to the provisions of Art. 19 ◦ basis of liability: Arts. 1701 and Art. 21
• acts contra bonus mores, elements of NCC
◦ there is an act which is legal ◦ Globe Mackay vs CA, GR 81262,
◦ such act is contrary to morals, good August 25, 1989
customs, public order or public policy • malicious prosecution
◦ one with intent to injure ◦ an action for damages brought by one
• breach of promise to marry against another whom a criminal
◦ by itself is not actionable unless there prosecution, civil suit, or other legal
are other acts that make it fall under proceedings has been instituted
Art. 19, 20, 21 of the Civil Code maliciously and without probable
▪ financial damage cause, after the termination of such
▪ social humiliation caused to one of prosecution, suit or proceeding in favor
the parties of the defendant therein
▪ when there is a moral seduction ◦ the action terminated should be one
begun in malice without probable
• seduction by itself is an act
cause to belive the charges thereon
which is contrary to morals,
can be sustained and is instituted with
good customs, and public
the intention of injuring another and
policy
which terminates in favor of the person
• one is liable if he employed
prosecuted.
deceit, enticement, superior
◦ Elements;
power or abuse of confidence
in successfully having sexual ▪ malice
intercourse with another. • acting with inexusable ntent to
• Desertion by a spouse injure, oppress, vex, annoy or
◦ if a spouse does not perform hir or her humiliate
duty to the other, he may be held liable ▪ absence of probable cause
for damages for such omission • probable cause – existence of
because the same is contrary to law, such facts and circumstances
morals and good customs as would excite the belief of the
◦ (Tenchaves vs Escano, GR L-19671, prosecutor, that the person
July 26, 1966) charged is guilty of the crime
• trespass and deprivation of property for which he was prosecuted
▪ acquittal
◦ real property
• presupposes that a criminal
◦ personal property
information is filed in court and
• abortion and wrongful death
final judgment is rendered
◦ a doctor who performs an illegal dismissing the case against the
abortion is criminally liable under Art. accused
259 of the RPC • public humiliation
◦ Geluz vs CA, 2 SCRA 802 [1961]
◦ plaintiff suffered humiliation through the
• illegal dismissal
positive acts of the defendant directed
◦ employer has a right to dismiss an
against the plaintiff
employee in the manner and on the
grounds provided for An action can only prosper when damage, material
◦ if the dismissal is in non-compliance or otherwise, was suffered by the plaintiff.
with the principles provided in Art. 19
and 21, the employer may be held
st
jmvdg 17 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
CHAPTER 7 invoked only by the person whose privacy

HUMAN DIGNITY is claimed to have been violated.
◦ May be waived
Privacy ◦ ceases upon the death of the person.
a)constitutional right to privacy • The standard to be applied in determining if
• rights included there was violation of the right is that of a
◦ right against unreasonable search and person of ordinary sensibilities. It is relative
seizures (Sec. 2, Constitution) to customs of time and place and is
◦ the right to privacy of one's determined by the norm of an ordinary
communication and correspondence person.
(Sec. 3 (1), Constitution)
◦ right against self incrimination (Sec. 17, Violation of privacy recognized in our
Constitution) jurisdiction:
• the Court ruled that in passing laws and • intrusion
rules, adequate safeguards should be ◦ protect a person's sense of locational
maintained regarding the people's and psychological privacy
expectancy of privacy. ◦ forms of intrusion:
• 2 part-test ▪ prying into the privacy of another's
◦ whether by his conduct, the individual residence (Art. 26 (a), NCC)
has exhibited an expectation of privacy ▪ criminal trespass (Art. 280, RPC)
◦ whether this expectation is one that ◦ generally, there is no invasion of the
society recognizes as reasonable right to privacy when a journalist
• special laws records, photographs, or writes about
◦ Anti Wiretapping Law something that occurs in public places.
◦ Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act Except: when such constitutes
◦ Intellectual Property Code harassment or overzealous shadowing.
• violation of the constitutional right to
privacy that causes damage to another • publication of private facts
makes the actor liable under Art. 32, NCC ◦ the interest sought to be protected is
the right to be free from unwarranted
b) Violation of the Right to Privacy as publicity, from the wrongful publicizing
Independent Tort of the private affairs and activities of an
• According to Prosser violations of privacy individual which are outside the realm
create 4 different kinds of tort. of legitimate public concern
◦ intrusion upon plaintiff’s seclusion or ◦ elements: (American Jurisprudence)
solitude ▪ there must be a public disclosure
◦ publicdisclosure of private ▪ the facts disclosed must be private
embarrassing facts facts
◦ publicity that places one in a bad light ▪ the matter must be one which
◦ appropriation, for the defendant’s would be offensive and
advantage of the plaintiff’s name or objectionable to a reasonable
likeness. person of ordinary sensibilities
• The right to privacy can be invoked only by ◦ elements: (Cordero vs. Buigasco)
natural persons because the basis of the ▪ publicity is given to any private or
right to privacy is an injury to the feelings purely personal information about a
and sensibilities of the party. person
• Purely personal in nature and may be ▪ such publication is without the
st
jmvdg 18 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
latter's consent ◦ unwarranted publication of a person's

▪ regardless of WON such publicity name or the unauthorized use of his
constitutes a criminal offense photograph or likeness for commercial
▪ publication made for profit or with purposes
intent to gain aggravates the ◦ right to publicity: protection of one's
violation of the right. economic interest; they treat their
◦ Newsworthiness names and likeness as property which
▪ the claim of newsworthiness can be cannot be encroached by another.
sustained if the facts to be ◦ 3 policy consideration
published are strange and unusual ▪ right to publicity vindicates the
◦ official proceedings economic interests of celebrities,
▪ the publication of facts derived form enabling those whose
the records of official proceedings, achievements have imbued their
which are not otherwise declared identities with pecuniary value to
by law as confidential, cannot be profit from their fame.
considered tortious. ▪ Right of publicity fosters thr
◦ official functions production of intellectual and
▪ the right to privacy belongs to the creative works by providing the
individual acting in his private financial incentives for individuals
capacity and not to governmental to expend the time and resources
agency or officers tasked with, and necessary to produce them.
acting in, the discharge of public ▪ Right of publicity serves both the
duties individual and societal interest by
preventing wrongful misconduct,
• false light unjust enrichment and deceptive
◦ the interest to be protected in this tort is trade practices.
the interest of the individual in not
being made to appear before the public Interference With Family Life And Other
in an objectionable false position Relations
False light Defamation • alienation of affection
◦ consists of depriving one spouse of the
Gravamen is the Gravamen is
affection, society, companionship and
embarrassment of a reputational harm comfort of the other
person being made into ◦ the gist is an interference with one
something he is not.
spouse's mental attitude toward the
The statement should Publication is satisfied if other and the conjugal kindness of
be made actually public. a letter is sent to a 3rd marital relations resulting in some
person actual conduct which materially affects
Affects the relationship What is published it.
of the plaintiff with his lowers the esteem in
environment which the plaintiff is Vexation and Humiliation
held • infliction of emotional distress
◦ elements:
▪ the conduct of the defendant was
• commercial appropriation of likeness
intentional or in reckless disregard
◦ held to protect aspects of an of the plaintiff
individual's identity from commercial ▪ the conduct was extreme and
exploitation
outrageous
jmvdg 19
st
1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
• conduct that is so outrageous in AIDS Victims)

character and so extreme in ▪ RA 8972 (Discrimination against
degree, as to go beyond all solo parent)
possible bounds of decency, • sexual harassment
and to be regarded as ◦ RA 7877, Anti-Sexual Harassment Act
atrocious and utterly intolerable of 1995
in civilized society ◦ policy: value the digity of every
▪ there was a causal connection individual, enhance the development of
between the defendant's conduct its human resources, guarantee full
and the plaintiff's mental distress respet for human rights, and uphold the
▪ plaintiff's mental distress is extreme dignity of works, employees, applicants
and severe for employment, students or those
◦ emotional distress undergoing training
▪ highly unpleasant mental reaction ◦ may be committed by one having
▪ parasitic damages on emotional authority, influence or moral
distress – depend on the existence ascendancy over another in a work,
of another tort instead of an education, or training setting
independent tort for intentional ▪ quid pro quo cases
infliction of emotional distress • defendantcondition
Emotional distress Defamation employment benefits, onors,
Personal in nature awards, or privileges on sexual
favors
Belongs to the reactive Calls for the application
harm of the relational harm ▪ hostile environment case
principle • involve the allegation that
Publication not Publication is necessary employees or students
necessary work/study in an offensive or
abusive environment
• Discrimination • test: Won an ordinary prudent
person would engage in the
◦ laws against discrimination
allegedly harassing conduct
▪ Universal Declaration Of Human
• elements:
Rights
◦ plaintiff was subjected to
▪ InternationalConvention On
sexual advances, requests
Economic, Social, And Cultural
for sexual favors, or other
Rights verbal or physical conduct
of sexual nature
▪ International Convention On The ◦ thatthe defendant's conduct
Ekements Of All Forms Of Racial
was unwelcome
Discrimination
◦ that the conduct was
▪ Convention Agaisnt Discrimination
sufficiently sever or
In Education pervasive to alter the
▪ ConventionConcerning conditions of the victim's
Discrimination In Respect Of employment and create an
Employment And Occupation abusing work environment
▪ Art. 135, Labor Code ◦ punishment: imprisonment of 1mo. to
▪ RA 7277, Magna Carta For 6mo. or a fine of 10k-20k
Disabled Persons ◦ 3 years prescriptive period
▪ RA 8504 (discrimination Against
jmvdg 20 st
1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
CHAPTER 8 public official, especially when he is of

TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION high rank, no criminal action was thus
filed by the prosecuting attorney
INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION ◦ the requirement of proof beyond
• violation of civil rights reasonable doubt often prevented the
• violation of political rights appropriate punishment
• defamation ◦ direct and open violation of the Penal
• fraud Code trampling upon the freedom
• physical injuries named are not so frequent as those
• neglect of public officers subtle,clever and indirect ways which
do not come within the pale of penal
examples: laws
• Art. 32, NCC • normally involves intentional acts but can
also be committed through negligence,
• Art. 33, NCC
thus good faith on the part of the defendant
• Art. 34, NCC
does not necessarily excuse such violation
• Art. 135 of the Labor Code • liability for violation of any of these rights
• Section 5 of the Anti-Sexual Harassment are directed against public officers or
Act employees and private individuals
• a person may also be liable whether his
Concept:
participation is direct or indirect.
“The underlying principle under consideration is to
• The doctrine of state immunity applies
allow the citizen to enforce his rights in a private
only if the acts involved are act done by
action brought by him regardless of the action of
officers in the performance of official duties
the State Attorney. x x x while the State is the
within the ambit of their powers.
complainant in the criminal case, the injured
• Examples of violations:
individuals is the most concerned because it is he
◦ due process
who has suffered directly. He should be permitted
to demand reparation for the wrong which ◦ search and seizure
particularly affects him.” - (Report, p. 46, Civil
Code Commission) ARTICLE 33: DEFAMATION, FRAUD, and
PHYSICAL INJURIES
2 views: • Defamation
• Tolentino ◦ invasion of the interests in reputation
◦ the civil actions are ex-delicto (civil and good name, by communication to
liability arising from delict) others which tends to diminish the
• Caguioa esteem in which the plaintiff s held, or
to excite adverse feelings or opinions
◦ the tortious of the actions are more of
against him. (Prosser)
culpa aquiliana
◦ publication of statement which tends to
ARTICLE 32 lower a person in the estomation of
• provides for an independent civil action for right-thinking members of society
violation of civil and political rights. generally or which tends to make them
• Rationale: shun or avoid that person
◦ because the Fiscal is burdened with too ◦ liability is brought about by the desire to
protect the reputation of every
many caseso bacause he belived the
individual
evidence was insufficient, as as to
◦ requisites:
disinclination to prosecute a fellow
st
jmvdg 21 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
▪ it must defamatory from arrest while the Congress
▪ it must be malicious is in session. No member shall

• prompted by ill-will or spite and be questioned nor be held
speaks not in response to a liable in any other place for any
duty but merely to injure the speech or debate in the
reputation of the person who Congress or in any committee
claims to have been defamed thereof. (Constitution)
• malice in law or malice in fact ▪ qualified privilege
▪ it must be given publicity • a private communication made
• communication to a single by any person to another in the
individual is sufficient performance of any legal,
▪ the victim must be identifiable moral, or social duty;
• includes natural and juridical ◦ complaints against public
persons officials
• groups libel – statements ◦ report to a superior officer
directed against a fairly large ◦ allegations in pleadings
group ◦ publication of pleadings
• in our jurisdiction, the relatives ◦
of the deceased can file an • a fair and true report, made in
action for damage to the good faith, without any
reputation of the latter. comments or remarks of any
◦ a man's reputation is not the good judicial, legislative, or other
opinion he has of himself, but the official proceedings which are
estimation in which others hold him. not confidential in nature, or of
◦ Kinds: any statement, report, or
▪ slander or oral defamation speech delivered in said
proceedings, or of any other act
▪ libel or written defamation
performed by public officers in
◦ persons liable: (Art. 360, RPC)
the exercise of their functions
▪ any person who shall publish,
◦ fair comment – when the
exhibit, or cause the publication or
discretable imputation is
exhibition
directed against a public
▪ author or editor of the book or person in his public
pamphlet capacity, it is not
▪ editor or business manager of a necessarily actionable
daily newspaper, magazine, or • Fraud
serial publication
◦ elements of deceit (English Law)
◦ every defamatory imputation is
▪ the defendant must have made
presumed to be malicious even if it be
false representation to the plaintiff
true (Art. 354, RPC)
◦ Defenses:
▪ the representation must be one of
fact
▪ absolutely privileged matters
▪ the defendant must know that the
• Section 11. A Senator or representation is false or be
Member of the House of reckless about whether it is false
Representatives shall, in all ▪ the defendant must have acted on
offenses punishable by not the false representation
more than six years
▪ the plaintiff must have suffered
imprisonment, be privileged
st
jmvdg 22 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
damages as a result of acting on

the representation Exceptions:
◦ includes the crime of Estafa under the • contravention of ordinance
RPC • violation of game laws
◦ includes misrepresentation made by • infraction of the rules of traffic when
sellers and manufacturers nobody is hurt
• Physical Injuries • treason
◦ include the crime of battery (an • rebellion
intentional infliction of harmful or • espionage
offensive bodily contact) • contempt, etc.
◦ includes bodily injuries causing death
The presence of civil liability in offenses is not
ARTICLE 34: NEGLECT OF DUTY determined by the fact that the crime is public or
• intended to afford a remedy agaisnt police private.
officers who connive with bad elements,
are afraid of them or are simply indifferent Persons liable: (RPC & NCC)
to duty • principals
• the subsidiary liability of cities and • accomplices
municipalities, is imposed so that they will • accessories
exercise great care in selecting
conscientious and duly qualified policeman “Art. 109. Share of each person
and exercise supervision over them in the civilly liable. — If there are two or more
performance of their duties as peace persons civilly liable for a felony, the courts
officers shall determine the amount for which each
must respond.
CHAPTER 9 Art. 110. Several and
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM DELICT subsidiary liability of principals,
accomplices and accessories of a felony —
dual character of a crime: Preference in payment. — Notwithstanding
• offense against the State for the the provisions of the next preceding article,
the principals, accomplices, and
disturbance of the social order accessories, each within their respective
• offense against the person injured by the class, shall be liable severally (in solidum)
crime. among themselves for their quotas, and
subsidiaries for those of the other persons
Art. 100, RPC. Every person criminally liable.
liable is also civilly liable. The subsidiary liability shall be
enforced, first against the property of the
ARTICLE 1161. Civil obligations arising principals; next, against that of the
from criminal offenses shall be governed by accomplices, and, lastly, against that of the
the penal laws, subject to the provisions of accessories.
article 2177, and of the pertinent provisions Whenever the liability in solidum
of Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, on Human or the subsidiary liability has been
Relations, and of Title XVIII of this Book, enforced, the person by whom payment
regulating damages. has been made shall have a right of action
against the others for the amount of their
What gives rise to the civil liability is really the respective shares.”
obligation of everyone to repair or to make whole Each of the persons liable shall be subsidiarily
the damage caused to another by reason of his act
liable for the other's share in case of the latter's
or omission, whether done intentionally or
insolvency.
negligently and whether or not punishable by law.
st
jmvdg 23 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
law.
Civil liability includes restitution, reparation of the
damages caused, and indemnification for Modes to extinguish liability:
consequential damages. (Art. 104, RPC; see Art. • payment
105, 106, 107 and 111 of RPC) • loss of the thing due
• condonation or remission of the debt
Art. 2202 of the NCC provides that in crime and • confusion or merger
quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all • compensation
the damages which are natural and probable • novation
consequences of the act or omission complained
• prescription
of.
Circumstances affecting civil liability: Effect of Death:

• JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art, 11, • Death of the person liable after the final
RPC) judgment extinguishes the criminal liability
◦ make the act of the accused legal but will not extinguish the civil liability. The
◦ exception: general rule will not apply to obligation to make restoration and
persons who obtained benefit because reparation for damages ad indemnification
he performed an act in a state of for consequential damages devolves upon
he heirs of the person liable.
necessity. (Art. 101, RPC)
• Death of the accused before the final
◦ civil liability when there is justifying
judgment relieves the accused of both
circumstances is present only in the
criminal and civil liability arising from the
situation contemplated in paragraph 4 criminal liability.
of Art. 11. ◦ Aggrieved party in a libel or physical
injuries case (including homicide or
• EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 12, murder) who initially opted to claim
RPC) damages in the criminal case can file
◦ exempt the person from punishment
another case to enforce his claim under
◦ no civil liability if Art. 33, NCC
▪ the crime was committed by any
person who while performing a Pardon does not erase civil liability because it is
lawful act with due care, causes an not one of the grounds recognized by the civil code
injury by mere accident without that extinguishes civil liability.
fault or intention of causing it.
▪ Crime was committed by any Civil liability arising from crime is impliedly
person who fails to perform an act instituted with the criminal action but a separate
required by law, when presented by case may be filed to enforce the same.
some lawful or insuperable cause. • Civil action filed ahead of the criminal
action
• MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 13, • filing of civil action has been reserved
RPC) (in both case the civil action is dependent on the
◦ reduces the criminal liability criminal action)
• AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. section 1 of Rule 111 of the 2000 Revised Rules on
14, RPC) Criminal Procedures indicates that the action to
◦ compels the court to impose the enforce civil liability based on Arts. 2176, 32, 33,
penalty to the maximum provided by and 34 of NCC are not deemed instituted and what
is deemed instituted only is the action to enforce
st
jmvdg 24 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
civil liability arising from criminal liability. Joint tort-feasors

• their liability is solidary (Art. 2194, NCC)
The right to file an independent action is even ◦ motor vehicle mishaps – owner is
available to the accused in the criminal case. solidarily liable with his driver if the
former who was in the vehicle, could
Prejudicial question have, by the use of due diligence,
• matter that may suspend the civil action prevented the misfortune (Art. 2184)
that is deemed instituted with the criminal ◦ test of negligence: omission to do
case which the evidence of his own senses
• elements: tell him he should do in order to avoid
◦ previously instituted civil action involves the accident.
an issue similar or intimately related to
the issue raised in the criminal action Vicarious liability
◦ the resolution of such issue determines • a person is not only liable for torts
whether or not the criminal action may committed by himself, but also for torts
proceed. committed by others with whom he has a
certain relationship and for whom he is
CHAPTER 10 responsible.
THE DEFENDANTS • Doctrine of imputed negligence
• the person is being made liable not only
Doctrine of Respondeat Superior – the liability is because of the negligent or wrongful act of
strictly imputed, the employer is liable not because the person for whom they are responsible
of his act or omission but because of the act or but also because for their own negligence
omission of the employee; employer cannot • legal bases:
escape liability by claiming that he exercised due ◦ Civil Code: Art. 2180 to 2182 of NCC;
diligence in the selection or supervision of the Art. 58, Child and Youth Welfare Code;
employee. Arts. 219, 221, and 236 of the Family
GENERAL RULE: Vicarious liability in the Code
Philippines is not governed by the doctrine of ◦ Revised Penal Code: Arts. 101, 102
respondeat superior; employers or parents are
and 103
made liable not only because of the negligent or
wrongful act of the person for whom they are Parents and other person exercising Parental
responsible but also because of their own Authority
negligence:
• the basis of their liability is the parental
1) Liability is imposed on the employer
authority that they exercise over the minor
because he failed to exercise due diligence
children.
in the selection or supervision of the
• The parents exercise their authority jointly
employee
and in the absence or death of either
2) Parents are made liable because
parent, the parent present shall continue
they failed to exercise due diligence
exercising parental authority.
EXCEPTION: Doctrine of respondeat superior is
• The same parental authority is terminated
applicable in:
upon adoption of the child and shall be
1) liability of employers under Article
103 of the RPC vested in the adopters.
2) liability of a partnership for the tort • In default of parents or a judicially
appointed guardian, the ffg. shall exercise
committed by a partner
substitute parental authority
both natural and juridical persons may be held ◦ surviving grandparents
liable for quasi-delict.
st
jmvdg 25 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
◦ oldest brother or sister over 21 years of liable, the parents are subsidiarily liable
age • responsibility and authority of the school
◦ child's actual custodian over 21 years and other persons exercising special
of age parental authority shall apply to all
• with the enactment of the Family Code, the authorized activities whether inside or
alternative obligation of parents under Art. outside the premises of the school, entity
2180 is now inoperative. Both parents are or institution.
primarily liable for the damages caused by • Art. 2180 of the Civil Code applied if the
their child student is not a minor, apply Art. 218 of
• parents or guardian are liable only if the Family Code if the involved is a minor.
minor is living in their company • Basis of liability may be:
• under Art. 101 of RPC, parents are ◦ negligence
primarily liable for the civil liability arising ◦ contract
from criminal offense committed by their
minor children under their legal authority or Employers
control who live in their company • the responsibility of employers for the
• defense of due diligence of a good father of negligence of their employees in the
a family is a valid defense performance of their duties is primary
• due care that parents and guardians are • Civil Code
supposed to exercise is a question of ◦ Art. 2180 of the Civil Code provides
foreseeability that the employer's liability is direct and
• in guardianship, even if the ward is already primary
of age, guardians have the same liability as ▪ the employer can escape this
persons exercising parental authority. liability by proving that he exercised
• Procedure for appointment of guardians is due diligence in the selection and
governed by Rule 92, Rules of Court supervision of the employee
• special parental authority vs. substitute • formulating SOP, monitoring
parental authority. their implementation, and
• Parents are held vicariously liable because imposing discipline for
they are the persons who are financially breaches thereof.
capable of satisfying any judgment ▪ presence of employer-employee
obligation. (deep pocket principle) relationship must be proven
• control test – person for whom
Schools, Teachers and Administrators the services are to be
• Art. 218, Family Code: schools, its performed controls not just the
administrators, and teachers or the result but also the means and
individual, entity or institution engaged in manner to achieve such end or
child care shall have special parental result
authority and responsibility over the minor ▪ if only the employer is sued, he
child under their supervision, instruction, or may recover from the employee
custody. what he has paid or delivered in
• They are principally and solidarily liable for satisfaction of the claim. If only the
damages caused by the acts or omissions employee is sued, no right of
of the unemancipated minor reimbursement accrues.
• defense: due diligence of a good father of a ◦ it is not necessary that the employer is
family engaged in some kind of industry or
• if the persons enumerated herein are made work (Castillex vs. Vasquez)
st
jmvdg 26 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
◦ the vicarious liability of the employer ▪ employer is engaged in any kind of

attaches only when the tortious industry
conduct of the employee relates to, or • industry – any department or
is in the course of his employment branch of arts, occupation or
▪ test: whether, at the time of the business especially one which
damage or injury, the employer is employs such labor and capital
engaged in he affairs or concerns and is a distinct branch of trade
of the employer, or independently, ▪ employee was convicted of the
in that of his own offense in the discharge of his
◦ presumption of negligence of the duties
employer is only juris tantum and not • conviction is condition sine qua
juris et de jure non. If no criminal action was
◦ for the presumption of negligence to instituted, the employer's
operate, the negligence of the liability will nit be predicated on
employee must first be established. Art. 103, RPC
◦ Registered owner rule • the acquittal of the employee
▪ the person who is the registered wipes out not just the
owner of a vehicle is liable for any employee's primary liability but
damages caused by the negligent the subsidiary liability as well
operation of the vehicle driver ▪ employee is insolvent
although the same was already • insolvency - inability or the lack
sold or conveyed to another at the of means to pay one's debt as
time of the accident. they fall due
▪ This rule had been applied to cases ◦ the controlling view is that the subsidiary
involving the enforcement of liability liability of the employer can be enforced
against an employer under Art. in the same criminal case where the
2180, NCC even if the employer is employee was convicted. All that is
not engaged in business. necessary is the filing of a motion for a
▪ Exception: if the vehicle was subsidiary writ of execution
stolen from or taken without the
consent and knowledge of the Innkeepers and Hotelkeepers
registered owner. • their liability is based on Art. 102 of RPC
▪ This rule applies when ever the
persons involved are engaged in Partnership
what is known as the “kabit system” • each partner is an agent of the other
• arrangement whereby a person partners and the partnership for acts done
who has been granted a within the apparent scope of business of
certificate of public the latter.
convenience allows other • The partnership or every member of a
persons who own motor partnership is liable for torts committed by
vehicles to operate under his one of the members acting within the
license, sometimes for a fee or scope of the firm's business though they do
percentage of the earnings. not participate in, ratify, or have knowledge
• Revised Penal Code of such torts.
◦ Art. 103, RPC, the liability imposed is • Test: WON the wrong was committed in
subsidiary behalf of the partnership and within the
◦ requisites reasonable scope of its business.
• Vicarious liability is similar to the common
jmvdg st
27 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
law rule on respondeat CHAPTER 11

STRICT LIABILITY
superior Spouses
strict liability
• Absolute Community of Property • if one is made liable independent of fault,
◦ default marriage settlement negligence or intent after establishing
◦ all the properties of the marriage are certain facts specified by law.
jointly owned by the spouses • Can be committed even if reasonable care
◦ vicarious liability based on paragraph was exercised and regardless of the state
(9), Art. 94, Family Code of mind of the actor at that time.
• Conjugal Partnership of Gains • Liability without fault.
◦ default marriage settlement prior to the
effectivity of the Family Code ANIMALS
◦ pecuniary indemnities imposed upon • Art. 2183, NCC
“The possessor of an animal or whoever may
the husband or wife are not chargeable
make use of the same is responsible for the
against the conjugal partnership but damage which it may cause, although it may
against the separate properties of the escape or be lost. This responsibility shall
wrongdoer. cease only in case the damage should come
• Regime of separation of property from force majeure or from the fault of the
◦ Art. 145, Family Code person who has suffered damage. (1905)”
◦ each spouse shall own, dispose of ,
FALLING OBJECTS
possess, administer and enjoy his or
• Art. 2193, NCC
her own separate estate.
“The head of a family that lives in a building or a
◦ Each spouse is responsible for his or part thereof, is responsible for damages caused
her own obligation. by things thrown or falling from the same. (1910)”
• the liability imposed is absolute; it does not
State indicate a presumption or admit of proof of
• 5th paragraph of Art. 2180, NCC which is care.
limited to acts of special agents • The term “head of a family” is not limited to
◦ special agent – one who receives the owner of the building and it may even
definite and fixed order or commission, include the lessee thereof.
foreign to the exercise of the duties of
his office if he is a special official. LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS
• Art. 1171, NCC
Municipal Corporations “Owners of enterprises and other employers are
• liability of municipal corps for damages obliged to pay compensation for the death of or
arising from injuries suffered by injuries to their laborers, workmen, mechanics or
other employees, even though the event may
pedestrians from the defective conditions have been purely accidental or entirely due to a
of roads is expressed in Art. 2189, NCC fortuitous cause, if the death or personal injury
• the article only requires that either control arose out of and in the course of the employment.
or supervision is exercised over the The employer is also liable for compensation if the
employee contracts any illness or disease caused
defective road or street.
by such employment or as the result of the nature
of the employment. If the mishap was due to the
Public officers employee's own notorious negligence, or
• public officers who are guilty of tortious voluntary act, or drunkenness, the employer shall
acts are personally liable for their actions. not be liable for compensation. When the
• Section 38, Administrative Code of 1987 employee's lack of due care contributed to his
death or injury, the compensation shall be
equitably reduced.”
st
jmvdg 28 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
NUISANCE ▪ remedies
• ARTICLE 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, • civil action
establishment, business, condition of property, or
anything else which:
• abatement without judicial
(1) Injures or endangers the health or proceedings
safety of others; or • remove or destroy the thing
(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or which constitutes the nuisance
(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency (must be with the assistance of
or morality; or
the local police)
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free
passage of any public highway or street, or ◦ nuisance per se
any body of water; or ▪ nuisance under any and al
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property. circumstances
• Anything that injures health, endangers life, ◦ nuisance per accidens
offends the senses or produces discomfort ▪ becomes nuisance under certain
to the community (Section 84, Code of conditions and circumstances
Sanitation of the Phil.) • there is strict liability on the part of the
• protection against nuisance is a legal owner or possessor of the property where
easement a nuisance is found because he is obliged
• kinds to abate the same irrespective of the
◦ public presence or absence of fault or negligence.
▪ affects a community or • Private person or public official
neighborhood or any considerable extraordinarily abating a nuisance shall be
number of persons although the liable for damages in 2 cases:
extent of annoyance, danger or ◦ if he causes unnecessary injury
damage upon individuals may be ◦ if an alleged nuisance is later declared
unequal by the courts to be not a real nuisance.
▪ remedies • The action to abate a nuisance is
• prosecution under the RPC imprescriptible
• civil action for abatement • it is believed that the only effect of estoppel
without judicial proceedings at most is that the private party who is so
▪ a private person may file an action estopped may be deemed to have waived
on account of a public nuisance, if his or her rights to damages.
it is specially injurious to himself
with the following requisites: CHAPTER 12
• that demand be first made upon PRODUCT AND SERICE LIABILITY
the owner or possessor of the
property to abate the nuisance Product Liability
• that such demand has been • law which governs the liability of
rejected manufacturers and sellers for damages
• that the abatement must be resulting from defective products
approved by the district health • statutory basis: Consumer Act of the
officer and executed with the Philippines
assistance of the local police; • alternative theories:
• that the value of the destruction ◦ fraud or misrepresentation
does not exceed P3k ▪ may be based on Art. 33, NCC
◦ private usual exaggeration in trade are not
▪ anything that is not included in the actionable misrepresentations
foregoing ◦ breach of warranty
st
jmvdg 29 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
▪ warranty is any affirmation of fact or ordinary prudent man was not

any promise by the seller relating to exercised in manufacturing,
the thing which induces the buyer packaging, marketing or distributing
to purchase the same and the the product
buyer purchases relying thereon ▪ there is negligence per se if the
▪ warranty may be express or implied manufactures products do not
▪ warranty shall be operative from comply with the safety standards
the moment of sale (Art. 68 [b], promulgated by appropriate
Consumer Act) government agencies specified
▪ other implied warranty shall endure under the Consumer Act.
not less that 60 days nor more than ▪ Safety and quality standards for
1 year consumer act
▪ distributors and retailers are • requirements to performance,
required to keep a record of all composition, contents, design,
purchases covered by a warranty construction, finish, packaging
or guarantee for such a period of of a consumer product
time • requirements as to kind, class,
▪ warranty registration – report made grade, dimensions, weight,
in accordance with Art. 68, par 1 of material
Consumer Act. • requirements as to method of
▪ The retailer shall be subsidiarily liable sampling, tests and codes used
under the warranty in case of failure to check the quality of the
of both the manufacturer and products
distributor to honor the warranty • requirements as to precautions
▪ Del Rosario vs CA: privity is not in storage, transporting and
necessary in successfully pursuing packaging
an action for breach of warranty • requirements that a consumer
▪ see the coverage of the Consumer product be marked with or
Act accompanied by clear and
• De Guzman vs Toyota(2006): a adequate safety.
car is impliedly a consumer ◦ civil liability arising from criminal liability
product ◦ strict liability***
▪ hierarchy of liable individuals ▪ Article 2187, NCC
• Manufacturer ▪ privity of contract is not required
• distributor under Art. 2187 because it
• retailer expressly allows recovery although
▪ joint manufacturer are jointly liable no contractual relation exists.
▪ remedies ▪ The duty to warn is primarily
• express: goods repaired; refund imposed on the manufacturer but
exceptionally, the wholesaler or
purchase price
retailer may have such obligation if
• implied: retain the goods+
they:
damages;rejectthe
• are engaged in the packaging
goods+rescind the
contract+recover what has or labeling of such products
been paid • prescribe or specify by means
◦ negligence the manner in which such
▪ liability will result if due care of an products are packaged or
labelled
st
jmvdg 30 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
• having knowledge, refuse to ◦ knowledge on the part of th e3rd

disclose the source of the person of the existence of the contract
mislabeled or mispackaged ◦ interference by a 3rd person without
products legal cause
▪ minimum labeling requirements • Daywalt vs. La Corporacion De los Padres
• WON it is flammable Agustinos Recoletos et al.: malice in the
• directions for use sense of ill will or spite is immaterial as
• warning of toxicity opposed with the case of So Ping Bun vs.
• wattage, voltage or amperes CA: lack of malice precludes damages but
• process of manufacture use if a permanent injunction against the 3rd
necessary person shall be the proper remedy.
▪ failure of the manufacturer to • mere competition is not sufficient unless it
comply with the affirmative duties is considered unfair competition or the
imposed by law not only exposes dominant purpose is to inflict harm or injury
him to civil liability for damages but • privileges to interfere afforded in business
also to criminal liability competition
▪ available defenses ◦ the defendant's purpose is a justifiable
• that it did not place the product one
on the market ◦ the actor employs no means of fraud or
• although it did place the deception which are regarded unfair
product on the market such • the stranger cannot become more
products has no defect extensively liable in damages for the non
• the consumer or 3rd party is performance of the contract than the party
solely at fault in whose behalf he intermeddles.
• there is no defect in the • See Article 2202, NCC
services rendered (supplier)
Interference With Prospective Advantage
CHAPTER 13 • there is no contract yet and the defendant
BUSINESS TORTS is only being sued for inducing another to
enter into a contract with the plaintiff
“ARTICLE 1314. Any third person who induces
another to violate his contract shall be liable for Unfair Competition
damages to the other contracting party. (n)” • Art. 28, NCC
• see Article 186, RPC; Section 2 of Art. XIV,
Interference With Contractual Relations Constitution; Section 168 (Sec. 168.2 and
• general rule: only parties to a contract ae 168.3 [a] and [b]), IPCode;
bound by the terms of the contract and only • includes the cases involving the tort of
a party can file an action for breach of interference with contractual relations and
contract or for rescission or annulment interference with prospective advantage
thereof • also present is the defendant committed
• considered tortious because it violates the fraudulent appropriation against
rights of the contracting parties to fulfill the competition
contract and to have it fulfilled to reap the • also present in the case of predatory
benefits resulting therefrom and to compel pricing
the performance by the other party ◦ practice of selling below costs in the
• elements short run in the hoe of obtaining
◦ existence of a valid contract monopoly gains later, after driving the
st
jmvdg 31 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
competition from the market. psychologically incapacitated;

award of moral damages is
Securities Related Fraud improper
• implicit from any violation of the Securities ◦ WON a juridical entity is capable of
Regulations Code (RA 8799) is the liability being awarded an award for moral
for damages caused by such violation. damages: Generally NO.
• Sec. 26, RA 8799 enumerates the Exception: Besmirched reputation
fraudulent transactions. (Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Jan
• Sec. 58, RA 8799 17, 2005:libel and defamation with
• the essential objectives of securities moral damages)
legislation is to protect those who do not • exemplary
know market conditions from the ◦ corrective damages
overrechings of those who do. ◦ Art. 2229, NCC
◦ in addition to the other forms of
CHAPTER 14 damages
DAMAGES ◦ bad faith, gross negligence or malice
on the part of the defendant
Justice Regalado • nominal
injury – legal invasion of a right; ◦ “stand alone” award of damages
damage – lost, hurt or harm
◦ Cathay Pacific vs. Vasquez; passenger
damages – compensation of the lost, hurt or harm
moved from economy class to business
caused by the legal invasion of a right class
damages shall be awarded in legal tender ◦ Agabon vs NLRC: reverted to the
Wenphil doctrine(?) with regard to
damnum absque injuria – damages without award of backwages; there is valid
injury; one who exercise a right does no injury ground to dismiss the employee; right
except is the provisions on human relations apply to due process was violated; nominal
(Art. 19-21, NCC) damages was awarded
read the case of Custodio vs CA (property case) • temperate
◦ award of damage sustained cannot be
types of damages:(mental) determined with reasonable certainty
• moral ◦ Ramosvs CA; medical
◦ awarded to afford plaintiff the means of malpractice;captain of the ship
diversion or to alleviate moral doctrine; 1.5M award of temperate
sufferings damages
◦ malice on the part of the defendant
should be proven • actual/compensatory damages
▪ Bagumbayan Corp. vs IAC: juice ◦ the 2 are treated the same
was spilled to one patron of a ◦ doctrine of foreseeability of the injury
restaurant; no ground to award ◦ plaintiff has to prove his cause of action
moral damages ◦ types
▪ Sps. Herbosa vs PBE, January 25, ▪ danjo emergente – loss of what the
2002; videography of a wedding; plaintiff has
moral damages was awarded ▪ lucro cessante – loss of profit; loss
▪ Buenaventura vs Buenaventura, of earning capacity
March 21, 2005: moral damages ◦ legal interest
against a spouse who is ▪ Eastern Shipping vs CA (Vitug)
▪ distinguish obligation from a loan or
jmvdg 32
st
1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Torts & Damages
forbearance of money and from

those which are not.
• Loan: Legal interest is 12%
which commence on the day of Source:
delay TORTS AND DAMAGES by Timoteo B. Aquino, 2nd
• 6% if the amount claimed edition, 2005
cannot be determined with
reasonable certainty which
commence on the day the
Court rendered judgment on
the amount of claim
▪ General rule: the stipulated
interest in the contract shall be the
basis of computation
exception: in cases where the
source of an obligation is not a
contract
◦ ICTSI vs FGU insurance (March 2009)
▪ cargo owner; subrogation; 6%
interest applied (Resolution)
◦ P50k award in case of death
◦ formula for loss of earning capacity:

2/3 x 80 (life expectancy of Filipinos) – actual
age x gross annual income – living expenses
(50% of gross annual income)
◦ PP vs Claudio Teehankee, Jr.:
compensation for damages for loss of
capacity is awarded even to those who
are NOT gainfully employed
◦ Mercury Drug vs Huang: student who
was awarded damages for earning
capacity
◦ Attorney's fees
▪ belongs to the client not to counsel
▪ not automatically awarded to
winning litigant
▪ usually is 10%
▪ basis for the award must be
explained in the dispositive portion
of the decision
▪ avoidable consequences (Art.
2203, NCC)
• liquidated
◦ specific amount stipulated with regard
to damage
◦ General rule: respected by court
except: if the amount is unconscionable
st
jmvdg 33 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts and Damages Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torts and Damages Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torts and Damages Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torts & Damages

AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

CHAPTER 1 concept of obligations arising from non-

• encourage socially responsible behavior ▪ retributive – sanctions or penalties

◦ tort liability may be justified because Alternative compensation schemes include

Contract Whenever a contractual obligation can be

experts & professionals ◦ RPC: insane persons are exempted

statute is the negligent as a “The weight of authority is the

• ordinary negligence • Applied in conjunction with the doctrine of

▪ tolerated possession children

recovery of damages to be that of an average

CHAPTER 4 part of the person for whom the plaintiff is

***either partial defenses or complete defenses 3. FORTUITOUS EVENTS

he seeks to rescue his endangered (common carriage)

Construction vs IAC) the result.

standard to which he is required to conform ◦ Picart vs. Smith; PBCom vs CA;

Art. 21, NCC liable for damages

CHAPTER 7 invoked only by the person whose privacy

latter's consent ◦ unwarranted publication of a person's

• conduct that is so outrageous in AIDS Victims)

CHAPTER 8 public official, especially when he is of

▪ it must be malicious is in session. No member shall

damages as a result of acting on

Circumstances affecting civil liability: Effect of Death:

civil liability arising from criminal liability. Joint tort-feasors

◦ the vicarious liability of the employer ▪ employer is engaged in any kind of

law rule on respondeat CHAPTER 11

▪ warranty is any affirmation of fact or ordinary prudent man was not

• having knowledge, refuse to ◦ knowledge on the part of th e3rd

competition from the market. psychologically incapacitated;

forbearance of money and from

◦ formula for loss of earning capacity:

You might also like