- A^$f*""'-t'"''

Ti)ft-trs,,n*u-ua*4a*Eg
to anotlrer' whOeVer by act or omisslon c;]uses damage -,a:.flnitloi-r: (/u1.,21'76, NCC: fault ot' Such done' [o pay for the datnage rirei.e being far-rlt or nl'grig.n.*, is obliged is relation between the parties' called a rreqligence, if there is ni flre existing c#tractual i, g,ou*'n*ct by rtie [rovisions of this chapter,)

JI,klril.

fi;f;;F;

Elemeni:;:

7. Damage results fronr the act ot'ottrission; 3. Causal connection between the act or omiEsion

l.Actorttrrtissioncauseclbyfaultornegligence;

i^.^^i -,Lr-^ damaqe; and andlhe

whiclr is requirecl by tlre

4.l.lopre-existingcontractLralreiatitlnbetweentheparties., Negligence: f.consists irr the onrission oimut diligence with the circumstances of the perso*s/ nature of the ibtigation and ccirrespon'ds of care required by tlre of the time and of the place", nrt. tlz:;'''that^want 69 SCRA 263) circunrstances", Umali vs' Bacani' et al''
Test for Determining Negligence:

Didthedefencjantincloingtheallegednegligentactusetiratreasonable prudent person would l-ravel used ttr care and caution *iii.f, ari ordinarily 809) it',* uu*. situatiorr? (Picart vs' Smith, 37 Phil
Picart vs. Sniitlr, 37 Phil 809 5*c) Phil 758 f-ilius, et al. vs, I'he Manila Railroad Conipanrl' Umali vs' Bacani' et al'' rr9 scRA 263 SCRA C"rfitt,-eLal. vs. I-he i"ianila R'ailroad Cotnpariy' 27 674

iulion lce, Fish and Electric Co', Inc' vs' Phit'

Motors

Corp., 55 Plril 129 768. a;;g;" vs' The Manila Railroacl Company' 38 Phil ('a rlisl-iap 1987 V*rjrru vs. CA, G.R. No. 77679,30 Sept'

cauied by ciefective brakes cannot be conticiered

forLuitous in character") RCPI vs. CA Pantranco vs' Baesa

as

tf

9.

proof ulnrugrig*nce: pLDT vs. CA, 178 S,,kA-g4 i::4 person crairring the burclen of proving the damages f";'th; negligerrce of anot'her has
[lrereof.,,) existe"nce of sitch ruu-n or negligence causative
ancl eiflcient cause which itr hlegligence as Proximate cause: ("the adeqttate particuiar circumstances surrounding tirr: natural or,l,,, oi-"uents, and under the

tlre t.ase, woulrJ naturally produce the i:v*rrt")

(-.asi':;:

A.i-ty dGr'tfq A,-tt*tt,

l-.tir-r't:.1-)

"- DE '.rl;$-'\t-l

. '.. j''

,):/' {f{

,/ /

/2.

1/

truck driver's negligence.') .NAPOCOR vs. CA/ 161 SCRA 334 nCAir Cargo vs. CA, 241 SCRA 619

Phoenix.Construction, Inc. et al. vs. IAC, et al., 148 scRA 353, ("That there was a reasonable relationship betr,veen petitioner carbonel's negligence on the one lrand and the accident and respondent's injuries on the other hand, is quite clear. put in a slightly different manner, the coilision of Dionisio,s car with tlie dump truck was a natural and foreseeable consequence of tlre

Presumption of Negligence: 1. Res lpsa Loquitur - the thing speaks for itself
the thing that caused the injury is under the exclusive corrtrol of the defendanf b, the injury does not happen in the ordinary course of things; and c. the injury happened and no sufficient explanation was"given by the defendani.
e,g, Medical Malpractice Cases: a. expert testimony b. layman's testimony

a.

Elements:

ff"
2.

Africa vs. Caltex, 16 scra 448 F. F. Cruz vs. CA, 164 scra 733 Batiquin vs. CA, 258 scra 334

Respondeat superior presunrption of negligence against for the negligence of the

emnlovsp(tffi)

tle

employer

,y

t,*,

&^Jirus

Airlines vs, cA, G.R. No.45985, 18 May 1990 ("when an injLrry is Ainu ' caused by the negligence of an employee, there

instanfly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the employer either in the selection of the employee or in the supervision over him after such selection. Tlre presumption, however, may be rebutted by a clear showing on the part of the employer that it has exercised the care and diligence of a good farher of a family in the selection and supervision of his enrployeeil

construction, Inc. et al. vs. IAC, et Hl., I4B scRA 353, /u(yoenrx ("Petitioner carbonel's proven negligence creal-es a presumption of
negligence on the part of his employer phoenix employees properly and adequately,)
vs. BLTB, 34 SCRA 618

in

sLiperuising its

,Eonifacio

:tt

-l4qjation of -l-rafti!_RUl_eg (See Arts. 2184 and 2185)

4.

1franuel

vs. CA, 227 SCRA 29

Dangerous ll/cEpaxr *atrd_Substances (see ArL. 21BB) presurtrption

prlnta facie

See also Republic Act No, 6969 Toxic Substances and l-iazadous anc.l Nuclear Wastes Control Act of 1990 Strict Liability Principle -- If the substances are hazardous to the community, the one responsible is rregligent, Clean Up Liability - the person responsible for the pollution is also responslble for clean up and other damages caused,

Available Defenses: 1. eqnllFqlary__NCglgenee (See

Aft. Zt79) - If plaintiff is guitry of

contributory negligence, damages shall be mitigated.

ArrMarketing

vs. CA, G,R. No. 1.?g7g2, 21 December 1999 ("children below nine (9) years old are conclusive presumed to be incapal:le of contributory negligence'J Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance * One who maintains on his prernises dangerous contrivances that are a[tractive to children, and fails to exercise diligence to r:revent chilclren irom playing therewith, is liable for injuries suffered by a child, even if the child is a trespasser.

2.

' -

(See Picart irs. Smilli, supra) - applies itt a suit be[ween the owners and drivers of collicling; veiiicles" It does not apply where a passenger deniands responsibility fronr the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations, For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the 9lound that the other driver was likewise guilty of negliqence. ,,(Bustamante, et al., vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. B9BB0, 6 February 1991)
LqsL,lC.leAr Clrance

Emergency Rule: one who suddenly flnds himself irr a place of danqer', and is required to a-et-withdrlt-'[ime-to considerlhe best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, iI he fails to adopt what subsequrerrtly and upon reflection nray appear to have been a better method, urrless the enrerggncy in wlrich he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence./1{cKee, et al. vs, IAC, et
al., G.R, No. L-68102, 16 July

1992)

3.

Force Majeure (See

Aft. tL74)

Requisites of [''ortuitous Event: the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor; b. the event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable;

a,

c. the ei.,ent must be such as to render ir impossibre for the debtor to fulfill liis obligation in a moral nranner; and d. the debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of the injury to the creditor.
Exception: The principle emboriied in the act of God doctrine stricfly requires that the act must be one occasioned exclusively by of nature and ail human agencies are to be excruded rromthe uiol*n.. .i.utini o,entering into the cause of the mischief, when the effect, the caus6 of which is to b_e considered, is found to be in part ilre resurt of the participation of man, whether it be from active intervention or neglect, or failure to act, the whore occurrence is thereby hunranizgd, as it were, ancr removed from the rures appricabre to the acrs or coa/(iapoc"on tn, ' et al., G.R. Nos. t03442_45,21 May "ri

./

1993)

4.

In Sports: one may be held liable for in juries caused follow the rules of the game.

Assumprion of Risk (See Art. Lt74)

if he does not

workmen's compensation Act: Even if the employee knew that 5is work was dangerous, employee may receive the beneirts provided
law. (See Art2. 1146 and 11s0) ftyf $0b *esenplron Lapuno, et al' vs. Pepsi cora, et ar. (G,R. No, L-19331, 30 Aprir 1965)

for in this

Note: Administrative and crimittal cases do not toll the prescriptive periocl l'or filing a case based on qr-rasi-r1elict.

Fonus Pater Fam,lias-Lsee Art, ,ztg0) familv (but see Art. 1759)
7.
B.

- diriqe

of a*qood fauler of

Judicata Waiver
Res

firO*tof
L
2.

Liabitiries as to Negtigence: Direct Liability - liability for one,s own acts

a.

Vicarious Liability - liability of a person for the acts of anotirer for whonr the fdrmer is responsible (See Art 2lg0) Parents and Guardians
Casgs:

4' ,41. -b+

Cases:

Exconde vs. Capuno, G.R. No. L_10134, 29 June 1957 uuadra vs, Monfoft, G.R. No. L-24101, 30 septenrber r.g70

Owners and Managers of Establishments

Filarner Cliristian College vs. CA, G.R. No. 75L12,17 August 1.g92 Solinran vs. Tuazon,

Employers (not engaged in business State

Ca#s:
t,

il.

MerritL vs. Government, G.R, No, L-11154, 21 Marcli 1g16 Fontanilla vs, Maliaman, G,R. No, L-55963, I December 1989 fachers or l-ieads of Schools Anradora vs, CA, 160 SCRA 315 Salvosa vs. IAC, G.R. No. 70458,5 October lgBB

3.

Primary Liability a. Possessors/users of animals (See Art. Z1B3) Vestll vs. IAC, 179 SCRA 47

/Owners of motor vehicles (See Art. 2lB4) First Malayan vs. CA, G. R. No. gL37B, g June 1992 c. Manufacturers and processors (see Aft. zlBT; See also RA 7394 "Consumer Act of the Philippines') d. Municipal Corporations (See Art. Zl8g) City of Manila vs. Teotico, G.R. No. L-23052, 29 January 1968 'uilatco vs. City of Dagupan, G.R. No. 61516, 21 Marclr 1!,Q9 e. Building Proprietors (See Arts. 2190, 2191, and 2193) ( f. Engineers/ArchitectslContractors (See Art. ZtgZ) -Nakpil & Sons vs. CA, G,R. No. L-+785l., 3 October lg\h,y'
b,

-EPG Construction vs. CA, 210 SCRA

230

// /

,/

Solidary Liability (See Art. 2194) Gelisan vs, Alday, 154 SCRA 388 De Guzman vs, NLRC, G.R, No, 90856, 23 July 1992

f'^*l:'.'
,/
)

of Torts
Abuse of Righ! (See Art. 19, NCC)
Cases:

Velayo vs. Shel[, 100 Phil, 168 Filinvest vs CA, 248 SCRA 549 Contrary to Law and Morals (See Arts. 20 and 21, NCC)
Cases:

Hermosisima vs. CA, 109 Phil 628 Shookat vs, CA, 219 SCRA 115

3/
4/

Malicious ProsecLrtion Ponce vs, Legaspi, 208 SCRA 377

Unjust Enrichmen! (See Arts. 22 and 23, NCC)

a. b. c. d'

Elements:

Cases:

enrichnrent of or beneflt to respondent loss or damage to plaintiff no moral or legal cause for enrichment or beneflt enrichment of respondent is due to ross or prurntrn

Pecson vs. CA, 244 SCRA 407 Security Bank vs. CA, Z4g SCRA 206
5. J_udicial Viqilance (See

Art. 24,

NJCC)

Cruz vs. NLRC, 203 SCRA 286

6. 7
B.

Thoug,htless Extravagance (See Art. 25, NCC)

Disrespect fof persoq (See Aft. 26, NCC)

Dereliction Qf Duty (See Art. 27, NCC) Phimco vs. City of Cebu, 81 SCM.99

9.

unratr-eg!0pc$an (see Art. 28, NCC)

(See Art" 32, NCC)

l-0,

Lim vs. ponce de Leon, 66 SCRA Zgg MHP Garments vs. CA, 236 SCRA 227

J,
,l r'"

11.

I$erferencg in Contrac

t'

a, b. c. d. e,

Elements:

inducement breach of the contract damage to the other pafi/

contract/ knowledge oflre contract,/ /

Cases:

Daywalt vs. Recoletos, 39 phil, 587 Rubio vs. CA, 141 SCRA 4BB

emediqs
i

Tt{Oes of Actions:

1.I 2. 3.

Culpa Aquiliana.r Culpa Contractual

to
recover
civil

Culpa Criminal

/ . ' V/_ a.

-.liability are
deemed

General Rule: Actions instituted wiLh the crlminal acilon.

i.

Exceptions:

Waiver

]J

'":

{".;;,.pi, '''; :-.''i

ii, iii.

'' i

t ,,

Reservation prior InstitLrtion

General Rule: criminar actions proceed before the civir action. Exceptions: When there is a prejucliciat question DAMAGES General Principles: Damages nrust be proved. 1 2. Amount of damages must be fair and commensurate to the ross. Damages must be a consequence of the l, tortuous act. 4. Remote and speculative danrages are not allowed.

Actual Darnages (See Arts. ZTgg-2203,22A7

and 2209)

1. 7.
1.

Value of loss (Damnun Emerqens) /. Unrealized profits (Lucrum Cissansl /

7.

Loss of Earning Capacity Injury to Business Standing/Credit

1.

2.

Indernnity for Death - currently at p50,000 Lost Income = Lite Expectancy,* N.t Income

Life Expectahcy = 2/3 (100 -- alte at time of death) Net Income = Gross Irrcome
3.

personar Expenses of Deceased

Support for Compulsory Heirs

five (5) years

&tles_qn-lruercsl

1. No interest may be awarded

stipulated; or delay or default. 2. r.f is stipulated rate, appry that rate. If no stinura _th.ere (6%). In both ..rL, interesr accrues upon demand. ' 3. yt?i finality of decision, interest raie is LZo/o (cB circurai: rorn*6i,r,.,.. money).

a.

unless:

b.

/-ti'")?irPf'\Wd'r t\L

,t4ilDa"

Attorney's Fees

must be stipulated except Aft. 2208,

Moral Damages (See Arts. ZZLT-ZZZ})

ATtNTLE
rd

,,zttlonrinal
1,

Danrages (See ArLs. Z?ZL-ZZZ3)

a legal right is violated; no loss or damage is suffered; and award is to vindicate the right violated,

2. 3,

rvt
or liquidater
!r
I I

- award of nominal
danrages,

dprnages is IN LIEU of actual, moral, temperate

Tenrperate Damages (See Arts. 2224-Z?25)

-,/ / c

actual clamage the amount of which cannot be asceftained

(See Arts. 2226-2228)

Liquidated Danrages

,/
e.xemn

awarded only if agreed upon no need to prove the amount, just prove the breach may be reduced if unconscionable

lary Damages (See Arts. 2229-2234)

drr^'

-ft

may not be awarded unless accompanied by actual, mbral or liquidated ddmaqes

f^,$";" aU^*N

I
I

i:;l