TORTS AND DAMAGES

Course Outline for Midterm 5. Culpa Aquilina vs Culpa Contractual vs Culpa

Criminal
I. Introduction II. Quasi- Delict
1. Sources of Obligation (Art. 1157 of the NCC) 1. Elements (Art. 2176 of the NCC)
2. Definition of Torts a. Act or omission
- Branch of law which treats injuries which b. Presence of fault or negligence
are neither crimes nor breach of contract c. Damage to another
- Legal wrong that causes harm for which d. Causal connection between the fault or
the violator is subject to civil liability. negligence and the damage
- Commission or omission of an act done e. No pre-existing contractual relation
by one, without right, whereby another
Cases:
receives some injury, directly or
- Vergara v. CA, 154 SCRA 564
indirectly, in person, property or
- Lucas v. Tuañ o, G.R. No. 178763, April 21,
reputation.
2009
- Huang v. Philippine Hoteliers Inc., G.R.
3. Classification of Torts in Common Law No. 180440, December 5, 2012
a. Intentional torts
- Consciously aware of his conduct Doctrines:
b. Negligence a. Diligence of a good father of a family
- Does not intend an invasion of b. Respondeat Superior – let the master
plaintiff’s right answer
c. Strict liability in tort c. Res ipsa loquitor – the thing speaks for
a. Possessor of animal (Art. 2183) itself
b. Food manufacturers and processors d. Damnum Absque Injuria – although there
(Art. 2187) was physical damage, there was no legal
injury. No injury = No Fault
c. Provinces, cities and municipalities
e. Doctrine of Last Clear Chance – he who
(Art. 2189)
could have prevented the injury is liable
d. Proprietors of buildings (Art. 2190)
2. No Double Recovery Rule (Art. 2177 of the
4. Torts vs Quasi-delict NCC)
- Torts, which is a much broader conc3ept, - Plaintiff cannot recover damages twice
includes intentional and malicious acts for the same act or omission of the
and is covered by Art. 19, 20, and 21 of defendant
NCC and RPC.
- Quasi-delict 2176
  Acquittal from an accusation of criminal 1. Concept of Negligence (Articles 2178, c. violation of traffic rules (Articles
negligence shall not be a bar to 1172, 1173, 1174, 2201 and 1733 of the 2184 and 2185 of the NCC and RA
subsequent civil action, but the civil New Civil Code) 10856 Sec. 13 aka "Anti-Drunk and
action must have been RESERVED. (Art. Pacis v. Morales, G.R. No. 169467, Drugged Driving Act of 2013″)
29 of NCC) February 25, 2010 Serra v. Mumar, G.R. No. 193861,
 If the civil case of culpa aquiliana si first BPI vs. Lifetime Marketing, GR March 14, 2012
brought, the subsequent institution of a 176343, 25 June 2008 Anonuevo v. CA GR 13003, 20
criminal case will not suspend the civil Manazares vs. People, 153760, Oct 2004
action 12 October 2006 d. common carrier (Art 1735 of the
NCC)
Cases: DSR Lines v. Federal GR 135377,
2. Negligence as Proximate Cause 7 Oct 2003
- Cancio v. Isip, GR 133978, 12 November
Operiano vs. People, GR 156521, Delsan v. CA GR 156034, 01 Oct
2002
26 Apr 2006 2003
- Lim v. Ping, G.R. No. 175256, August 23,
Lassam vs. Spouses Ramolete GR e. dangerous weapons and
2012
159132, 18 Dec 2008 substances (Art 2188 of the NCC)
DY Teban Trading vs. Ching Gr Smith Bell Shipping v. Borja GR
3. Person/s liable; nature of liability (Art. 2194
161803, 04 Feb 2008 143008, 10 June 2002
of the NCC)
3. Proof of Negligence (ROC- Rule 131, 4. Defenses
a. Principal or sole tortfeasor – the
Sections 1, 2 and 3[d]) a. Prescription
person whose act or omission directly or
Cristostomo vs. CA GR 138334, – 4 years from the happening of
indirectly or principally causes the
25 August 2003 the event
injury or damage
PNR vs. CA GR 157658, 15 Oct b. Plaintiff’s negligence is the
b. Joint tortfeasor/s – the person or
2007 proximate cause of injury (Art
persons whose negligence or concurrent
and whose responsibility is deemed 2179 of the NCC)
4. Presumption of Negligence Cayao-Lasam v. Spouses
solidary.
a. res ipsa loquitor (the thing speaks Ramolete, G.R. No. 159132,
for itself) December 18, 2008
Cases: Consunji v. CA GR 137873, 20 Apr 2001
- Philippine National Construction Flores v. Pineda GR 158996, 14 Nov 2008 Pantaleon v. American Express
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. b. respondeat superior (the master International, Inc., G.R. No.
159270, August 22, 2005 must answer) 174269, August 25, 2010
- Spouses Pereñ a v. Spouses Zarate, G.R. Nograles v. Capitol Medical c. Contributory negligence –
No. 157917, August 29, 2012 Center GR 142625, 19 Dec 2006 mitigating
Villanueva v. Domingo GR (Art 2179 of the NCC)
III. Negligence 144274, 20 Sept 2004 Lambert v. CAstillon GR 160709,
23 Feb 2005
 NCP v. Heirs of Casionan GR Sicam v. Jorge GR 159617, 08 Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges GR
165969, 27 Nov 2008 August 2007 156109, 18 Nov 2004
d. Assumption of risk Edgar Cokaliong Shipping Lines 3. Employers
Mondragon Leisure v. CA GR v. UCPB General Insurance Victory Liner v. Malecdan GR
154188, August 2005 Company, G.R. No. 146018, June 154278, 27 Dec 2002
e. Doctrine of last clear chance 25, 2003 Pleyto v. Lomboy GR 148737, 16
Bank of America NT & SA v. i. Diligence ((Art 2180 of the June 2004
Philippine Racing Club, G.R. No. NCC) 4. State
150228 July 30, 2009 Achevara Reyes v. CA GR 118492, 15 QC City Government v. Dacara GR
v. Ramos, G.R. No. 175172, August 2001 150304, 15 June 2005
September 29, 2009 Mindanao v. Phoenix GR Chato v. Fortune Tobacco GR
f. Emergency rule – an individual 162467, 08 May 2009 141309, 23 Dec 2005
who suddenly finds himself in a j. Waiver (Art 1174 of the NCC) 5. Teachers and Head of Establishment
situation of danger and is YHT Realty Corporation v. Court (Articles 218 and 219 of the FC)
required to act without much of Appeals, G.R. No. 126780, Aquinas School v. Inton, G.R. No.
time to consider the best means February 17, 2005 Madriaga v. 184202, January 26, 2011
that may be adopted to avoid CA GR 142001, 14 July 2005 6. Right to Reimbursement
the impending danger, is not k. Damnum absque injuria (loss 7. Distinguished from subsidiary
guilty of negligence if he fails to w/o injury) liability under the Revised Penal
act accordingly. DOLE Philippines, Inc., v. Code (Articles 102 and 103 of the
Corpus v. Lugue GR 137772, 29 Rodriguez, G.R. No. 174646, RPC)
July 2005 August 22, 2012
Orix Metro Leasing and Finance VI. Primary Liability (Articles 2183- 2193, and
Corporation v. Mangalinao, G.R. 1723 of the NCC)
Nos. 174089 & 174266, January V. Vicarious Liability (Articles 2180, 2181,
25, 2012 2182) 1. Possessor/Users of Animals
g. Prescription - 4-years from the Vestil v. IAC 179 SCRA 47
happening of the event (Art 1. Parents and Guardians (Articles 219, 2. Owners of Motor Vehicles
1146) 221, 236 of the FC as amended by RA Aguilar v. Commercial; Bank GR
Santos v. Pizardo, G.R. No. 6809) 128705, 29 June 2000
151452, July 29, 2005 Elcano v. Hill 77 SCRA 100 Cadiente v. Macas GR 167946, 14
De Guzman v. Toyota Cubao, St. Mary’s Academy v. Nov 2008
Inc., G.R. No. 141480, November Carpitanos, G.R. No. 143363, February 3. Manufacturer and Processors
29, 2006 6, 2002 Coca-Cola Bottlers v. Court of
h. Fortuitous event (Art 1174 of 2. Owner and Managers of Enterprises Appeals, G.R. No. 110295, October
the NCC) PNCC v. CA GR 159270, 22 Aug 18, 1993
2005
 4. Municipal corporation (RA No. 7160, Everett Steamship Corporation v. 1.Remedies
Section 24) Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122494, a. Civil Action with Criminal
City of Manila v. Teotico 22 SCRA October 8, 1998 Action (ROC-Rule 111, Section 1)
267 5. Thoughtless Extravagance (Article 25 b. Separate Civil Action (ROC-
Guilatco v. City of Dagupan 171 of the NCC) Rule 111, Section 2 and Article
SCRA 382 6. Disrespect for Person (Article 26 of 33 of NCC)
5. Buildings proprietors the NCC) c. Independent Civil Action (Art.
Gotesco v. Chato 210 SCRA 18 Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 30-31 of NCC and ROC-Rule 111,
No. 179799, September 11, 2009 Section 3)
6. Engineers/Architects/Contractors Manaloto v. Veloso, G.R. No.
Nakpil v. Sons v. CA 160 SCRA 171365, October 6, 2010
334 7. Dereliction of Duty (Article 27 of the 2.Effects
EGP Construction v. CA 210 SCRA NCC) a. Acquitted/Dismissal (Article
230 Javellana v. Tayo 6 SCRA 1042 29 of NCC, ROC-Rule 111)
Phimco v. City of Cebu 81 SCRA b. Extinction of Civil Liability
VII. Solidary Liability (see II.3 above) 99 (ROC- Rule 111)
8. Unfair Competition (Article 28 of the 3. Prejudicial Question (Art. 36 of NCC,
VIII. Special Torts (Human Relations) NCC) ROC- Rule 111, Secs. 6-7 )
Calamba Medical Center, Inc., v.
1. Abuse of Right (Article 19 of the NCC) National Labor Relations
Remas v. Quampo GR 146322, 6 Commission, G.R. No. 176484,
Dec 2006 November 25, 2008
2. Contrary to Law and Morals (Article 9. Violation of Civil/Political Rights
20-21 of the NCC) (Article 32 of the NCC)
Pascual v. Ramos GR 144712, 04 Silahis International Hotel v.
July 2002 Soluta, G.R. No. 163087,
Spouses Solangon v. Salazar GR February 20, 2006
125944, 29 June 2001
3. Unjust Enrichment (Article 22-23 of IX. Tortious Interference in Contractual
the NCC) Relation (Art 1314 of the NCC)
Grandteq Industrial Steel Lagon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
Products, Inc., v. Margallo, G.R. 119107, March 18, 2005
No. 181393, July 28, 2009 Go v. Cordero, G.R. No. 164703, May 4,
Uy v. Public Estates Authority, 2010
G.R. No. 147925-26, July 7, 2010
4. Judicial Vigilance (Article 24 of the X. Civil Liability Arising from Crime
NCC)