TORTS AND DAMAGES

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN 2014

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes

events which could not be foreseen,

damage

or

to

another,

there

being

fault

or

negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage

which,

though

foreseen,

were

inevitable. (1105a)

done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-

Art. 2179. When the plaintifs own negligence

existing contractual relation between the parties,

was the immediate and proximate cause of his

is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the

injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his

provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)

negligence was only contributory, the immediate

Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence

and proximate cause of the injury being the

under the preceding article is entirely separate

defendants lack of due care, the plaintif may

and distinct from the civil liability arising from

recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate

negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintif

the damages to be awarded. (n)

cannot recover damages twice for the same act

Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article

or omission of the defendant. (n)

2176 is demandable not only for ones own acts

Art. 2178. The provisions of Articles 1172 to

or omissions, but also for those of persons for

1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict. (n)

whom one is responsible.

Quasi-delict arising from obligations:

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity,

Art. 1172. Responsibility arising from

the mother, are responsible for the damages

negligence

caused by the minor children who live in their

every

kind

in
of

the

performance

obligation

is

of

also

company.

demandable, but such liability may

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the

be regulated by the courts, according

minors or incapacitated persons who are under

to

their authority and live in their company.

the

circumstances.

(1103)

The owners and managers of an establishment or

Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of

enterprise are likewise responsible for damages

the obligor consists in the omission

caused by their employees in the service of the

of that diligence which is required by

branches in which the latter are employed or on

the

the occasion of their functions.

nature

of

the

obligation

and

corresponds with the circumstances

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused

of the persons, of the time and of the

by their employees and household helpers acting

place. When negligence shows bad

within the scope of their assigned tasks, even

faith, the provisions of Articles 1171

though the former are not engaged in any

and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.

business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it

If the law or contract does not state

acts through a special agent; but not when the

the diligence which is to be observed

damage has been caused by the official to whom

in the performance, that which is

the task done properly pertains, in which case

expected of a good father of a family

what

shall

applicable.

be

required.

(1104a)

is

provided

in

Article

2176

shall

be

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of

Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly

arts and trades shall be liable for damages

specified by the law, or when it is

caused

otherwise declared by stipulation, or

apprentices, so long as they remain in their

when the nature of the obligation

custody.

requires the assumption of risk, no

The responsibility treated of in this article shall

person shall be responsible for those

cease when the persons herein mentioned prove

by

their

pupils

and

students

or

TORTS AND DAMAGES

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN 2014

that they observed all the diligence of a good

Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of

father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a)

negligence on the part of the defendant if the

Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused

death or injury results from his possession of

by his dependents or employees may recover

dangerous

from the latter what he has paid or delivered in

firearms and poison, except when the possession

satisfaction of the claim. (1904)

or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation

Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing

or business. (n)

damage has no parents or guardian, the minor or

Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities

insane person shall be answerable with his own

shall be liable for damages for the death of, or

property in an action against him where a

injuries sufered by, any person by reason of the

guardian ad litem shall be appointed. (n)

defective condition of roads, streets, bridges,

Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or

public buildings, and other public works under

whoever

their control or supervision. (n)

may

make

use

of

the

same

is

weapons

or

substances,

such as

responsible for the damage which it may cause,

Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or

although

This

structure is responsible for the damages resulting

responsibility shall cease only in case the damage

from its total or partial collapse, if it should be

should come from force majeure or from the fault

due to the lack of necessary repairs. (1907)

of the person who has sufered damage. (1905)

Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible

Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner

for damages caused:

is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former,

(1) By the explosion of machinery which has not

who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of

been taken care of with due diligence, and the

the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is

inflammation of explosive substances which have

disputably presumed that a driver was negligent,

not been kept in a safe and adequate place;

if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or

(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to

violating traffic regulations at least twice within

persons or property;

the next preceding two months.

(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near

If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the

highways or lanes, if not caused by force

provisions of Article 2180 are applicable. (n)

majeure;

Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary,

(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or

it is presumed that a person driving a motor

deposits of infectious matter, constructed without

vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the

precautions suitable to the place. (1908)

mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.

Art. 2192. If damage referred to in the two

(n)

preceding articles should be the result of any

Art. 2186. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall

defect in the construction mentioned in Article

file with the proper government office a bond

1723, the third person sufering damages may

executed by a government-controlled corporation

proceed only against the engineer or architect or

or office, to answer for damages to third persons.

contractor in accordance with said article, within

The amount of the bond and other terms shall be

the period therein fixed. (1909)

fixed by the competent public official. (n)

Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a

Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of

building or a part thereof, is responsible for

foodstufs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods

damages caused by things thrown or falling from

shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any

the same. (1910)

noxious or harmful substances used, although no

Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more

contractual relation exists between them and the

persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary.

consumers. (n)

(n)

it

may

escape

or

be

lost.

TORTS AND DAMAGES

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN 2014

TORT
An unlawful violation of private right, not created
by contract, and which gives rise to an action for
damages.
It is an act or omission producing an injury to
another, without any previous existing lawful
relation of which the said act or omission may be
said to be a natural outgrowth or incident.
Classes of Torts:
A.
Negligent Torts
B.
Intentional Torts
C.
Strict Liability

ISSUE:

W/N

Superguard

and

Safeguard

commited an actionable breach and can be

civilly

liable

even

if Benigno Torzuela

is

already being prosecuted for homicide

HELD:

YES.

Petition

for

Review

is

Granted. remanded to RTC for trial on the merits

Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
provides:

I.

TORT VS QUASI DELICT

Sec. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.

When

DULAY VS CA

criminal

action

is

instituted, the

civilaction for the recovery of civil liability is

G.R. No. 108017 April 3, 1995

Lesson

Applicable:

impliedly

Quasi-delict

(Torts

and

instituted

action, unless

the

with

offended

the
party

criminal
waives the

Damages)

civil action , reserves his right to institute it

FACTS:

separately or institutesthe civil action prior to the

December

7,

1988:

Due

to

heated

criminal

action

argument, Benigno Torzuela, the security guard

Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity

on duty at Big Bang Sa Alabang carnival, shot and

under the Revised Penal Code, and damages

killed Atty. Napoleon Dulay

under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the

Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the

Maria

Benita

A.

Dulay,

widow

of

the

same act or omission of the accused

deceased Napoleon Dulay, in her own behalf and

in behalf of her minor children filed an action for

Contrary to the theory of private respondents,

damages

for wanton

there is no justification for limiting the scope of

firearm and

Article 2176 of the Civil Code to acts or omissions

Safeguard Investigation and Security Co., Inc.,

resulting from negligence. Well-entrenched is the

(Safeguard) and/or Superguard Security Corp.

doctrine that article 2176 covers not only acts

(Superguard) as employers for negligence having

committed with negligence, but also acts which

failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of

are voluntary and intentional.

and

against Benigno Torzuela

reckless

discharge

of

the

a family in the supervision and control of its

employee to avoid the injury

Article

2176,

where

it

Superguard:

or negligence,"

covers

not

Torzuela's act of shooting Dulay was beyond the

punishable by law" but also acts criminal in

scope of his duties, and was committed with

character; whether intentional and voluntary or

deliberate intent (dolo), the civil liability therefor

negligent. Consequently, a separate civil action

is governed by Article 100 of the Revised Penal

against the ofender in a criminal act, whether or

Code, which states:

Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of a
felony. Every person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable.

not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty

refers
only

to
acts

"fault
"not

or acquitted, provided that the ofended party is

not allowed, if he is actually charged also
criminally, to recover damages on both scores,

Civil liability under Article 2176 applies only to

quasi-ofenses under Article 365 of the Revised
Penal Code
CA Affirmed RTC: dismising the case of Dulay

and would be entitled in such eventuality only to

the bigger award of the two, assuming the
awards made in the two cases vary
Extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of
Section 3, Rule 111, refers exclusively tocivil

TORTS AND DAMAGES

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN 2014

liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised

Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the
same act considered as quasi-delict only and not
as a crime is not extinguished even by a
declaration in the criminal case that the criminal
act charged has not happened or has not been
committed by the accused
It

is

enough

that

that Benigno Torzuela

because allegedly in truth and in fact, that was

not the true intent between the parties.
Air France also questioned the admissibility of
Carrascosos testimony regarding the note made
by the purser because the said note was never
presented in court.
ISSUE 1: Whether or not Air France is liable for
damages and on what basis.

the

complaint

alleged

shot Napoleon Dulay

resulting in the latter's death; that the shooting

occurred while Torzuela was on duty; and that
either SUPERGUARD and/or SAFEGUARD was
Torzuela's employer and responsible for his acts.

ISSUE 2: Whether or not the testimony of

Carrasoso regarding the note which was not
presented in court is admissible in evidence.
HELD 1: Yes. It appears that Air Frances liability
is based on culpa-contractual and on culpa
aquiliana.

II. QUASI DELICT AND CONTRACT

AIR FRANCE VS CARRASCOSO
FACTS:
In March 1958, Rafael Carrascoso and several
other Filipinos were tourists en route to Rome
from Manila. Carrascoso was issued a first class
round trip ticket by Air France. But during a stopover in Bangkok, he was asked by the plane
manager of Air France to vacate his seat because
a white man allegedly has a better right than
him. Carrascoso protested but when things got
heated and upon advise of other Filipinos on
board, Carrascoso gave up his seat and was
transferred to the planes tourist class.
After their tourist trip when Carrascoso was
already in the Philippines, he sued Air France for
damages for the embarrassment he sufered
during his trip. In court, Carrascoso testified,
among others, that he when he was forced to
take the tourist class, he went to the planes
pantry where he was approached by a plane
purser who told him that he noted in the planes
journal the following:
First-class passenger was forced to go to the
tourist class against his will, and that the captain
refused to intervene
The said testimony was admitted in favor of
Carrascoso. The trial court eventually awarded
damages in favor of Carrascoso. This was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Air France is assailing the decision of the trial
court and the CA. It avers that the issuance of a
first class ticket to Carrascoso was not an
assurance that he will be seated in first class

Culpa Contractual
There exists a contract of carriage between Air
France and Carrascoso. There was a contract to
furnish Carrasocoso a first class passage; Second,
That said contract was breached when Air France
failed to furnish first class transportation at
Bangkok; and Third, that there was bad faith
when
Air
Frances
employee
compelled
Carrascoso to leave his first class accommodation
berth after he was already, seated and to take
a seat in the tourist class, by reason of which he
sufered inconvenience, embarrassments and
humiliations, thereby causing him mental
anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and
social humiliation, resulting in moral damages.
The Supreme Court did not give credence to Air
Frances claim that the issuance of a first
class ticket to a passenger is not an assurance
that he will be given a first class seat. Such claim
is simply incredible.
Culpa Aquiliana
Here, the SC ruled, even though there is a
contract of carriage between Air France and
Carrascoso, there is also a tortuous act based on
culpa aquiliana. Passengers do not contract
merely for transportation. They have a right to be
treated by the carriers employees with kindness,
respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are
entitled to be protected against personal
misconduct, injurious language, indignities and
abuses from such employees. So it is, that any
rule or discourteous conduct on the part of
employees towards a passenger gives the latter
an action for damages against the carrier. Air
Frances contract with Carrascoso is one attended
with public duty. The stress of Carrascosos action

TORTS AND DAMAGES

is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This is a
violation of public duty by the Air France a case
of quasi-delict. Damages are proper.
HELD: 2: Yes. The testimony of Carrascoso must
be admitted based on res gestae. The subject of
inquiry is not the entry, but the ouster incident.
Testimony on the entry does not come within the
proscription of the best evidence rule. Such
testimony is admissible. Besides, when the
dialogue between Carrascoso and the purser
happened, the impact of the startling occurrence
was still fresh and continued to be felt. The
excitement had not as yet died down. Statements
then, in this environment, are admissible as part
of the res gestae. The utterance of the purser
regarding his entry in the notebook was
spontaneous, and related to the circumstances of
the ouster incident. Its trustworthiness has been
guaranteed. It thus escapes the operation of the
hearsay rule. It forms part of the res gestae.

VILORIA VS CONTINENTAL AIRLINES

FACTS
Fernando agreed to buy airline tickets on board
CAI after Margaret Mager of Holiday Travel (HT)
agency informed him that there were no available
seats at Amtrak. Subsequently, Fernando
requested Mager to reschedule their flight. Mager
informed him that flights to Newark, New Jersey,
USA via CAI were fully booked and ofered the
alternative flight via Frontier Air. Since alternative
flight would be more costly and would mean
traveling by night, Fernando opted to request for
a refund. Mager denied his request as said tickets
were non-refundable. When Fernando saw an
Amtrak station nearby, he made inquiries and
was told that there were seats available anytime.
Fernando confronted Mager with the Amtrak
tickets, telling her that she had misled them into
buying CAI tickets by misrepresenting that
Amtrak was already fully booked. Fernando
reiterated his demand for a refund but Mager
denied it. Fernando sent a letter to CAI
demanding a refund. Continental Micronesia
denied his request and advised him that he may
take said tickets to any CAI ticketing location for
re-issuance of new tickets. When Fernando went
to CAIs ticketing office to have the tickets
replaced by a single round trip ticket to Los
Angeles under his name, he was informed that
Lourdes ticket was non-transferable, thus, cannot
be used for the purchase of a ticket in his favor.

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN 2014
Sps. Viloria filed a complaint against CAI. CAI
interposed, among other things, that it should not
be liable for Magers acts because she was not a
CAI employee. Citing Articles 1868 and 1869 of
the Civil Code, RTC-Antipolo City ruled that Mager
was CAIs agent, hence, bound by her bad faith
and misrepresentation. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals (CA) reversed RTC-Antipolo Citys
decision and ruled that CAI cannot be held liable
for Magers act in the absence of any proof that a
principal-agent relationship existed between CAI
and HT, as the contract was not an agency but
that of a sale. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE
Whether or not a principal-agent relationship
existed between CAI andHoliday Travel; and
assuming that an agency relationship existed
betweenthe two, would CAI be bound by the acts
of HTs agents and employees suchas Mager?
HELD
Yes. SC ruled that there was principal-agent
relationship because all the elements of an
agency existed between CAI and HT. The first and
second elements were present as CAI did not
deny that it concluded an agreement with HT,
whereby the latter would enter into contracts of
carriage with third persons on CAIs behalf. The
third element was present as it was undisputed
that HT merely acted in a representative capacity
and it was CAI and not HT who was bound by the
contracts of carriage entered into by the latter on
its behalf. The fourth element was also present
considering that CAI had not made any allegation
that HT exceeded the authority that was granted
to it. In fact, CAI consistently maintained validity
of the contracts of carriage that HT executed with
Sps. Viloria and that Mager was not guilty of
fraudulentmisrepresentation.SC, as early as 1970,
had already formulated the guidelines that would
aid in diferentiating the two contracts. In
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Constantino,
SC extrapolated that the primordial diferentiating
consideration between the two contracts is the
transfer of ownership or title over the property
subject of the contract. In an agency, the
principal retains ownership and control over the
property and the agent merely acts on the
principals behalf and under his instructions in
furtherance of the objectives for which the
agency was established. On the other hand, the
contract is clearly a sale if the parties intended
that the delivery of the property will efect a
relinquishment of title, control and ownership in
such a way that the recipient may do with the
property as he pleases. That the principal is
bound by all the obligations contracted by the

TORTS AND DAMAGES

agent within the scope of the authority granted to
him is clearly provided under Article 1910 of the
Civil Code and this constitutes the very notion of
agency. As to the subsequent issue on whether or
not CAI would be bound by the acts of HTs
agents, SC mentioned that an examination of its
pronouncements in China Air Lines, Ltd. v. Court
of Appeals, et al. [264 Phil15 (1990)] will reveal
that an airline company is not completely
exonerated from any liability for the tort
committed by its agents employees. A prior
determination of the nature of the passengers
cause of action is necessary. If the passengers
cause of action against the airline company is
premised on culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict for a
tort committed by the employee of the airline
companys agent, there must be an independent
showing that the airline company was at fault or
negligent or has contributed to the negligence or
tortuous conduct committed by the employee of
its agent. The mere fact that the employee of the
airline companys agent has committed a tort is
not sufficient to hold the airline company liable.
There is no vinculum juris between the airline
company and its agents employees and the
contractual relationship between the airline
company and its agent does not operate to
create a juridical tie between the airline company
and its agents employees. Article 2180 of the
Civil Code does not make the principal vicariously
liable for the tort committed by its agents
employees and the principal-agency relationship
per se does not make the principal a party to
such tort; hence, the need to prove the principals
own fault or negligence. On the other hand, if the
passengers cause of action for damages against
the airline company is based on contractual
breach or culpa contractual, it is not necessary
that there be evidence of the airline companys
fault or negligence. As SC stated in China Air
Lines , "in an action based on a breach of
contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not
have to prove that the common carrier was at
fault or was negligent. All that he has to prove is
the existence of the contract and the fact of its
non-performance by the carrier. "SC denied the
petition
NEGLIGENCE

The omission of that degree of diligence

which is required by the nature of the
obligation and corresponding to the
circumstances of persons, time and place.
(Article 1173 Civil Code)

Kinds of Negligence:
1. Culpa Contractual (contractual negligence)

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN 2014

Governed by CC provisions on Obligations and

Contracts, particularly Arts. 1170 to 1174 of
the Civil Code.

2. Culpa Aquiliana (quasi-delict)

Governed mainly by Art. 2176 of the Civil

Code

3. Culpa Criminal (criminal negligence)

Governed by Art. 365 of the Revised Penal

Code.

NOTES:
The 3 kinds of negligence furnish separate,
distinct, and independent bases of liability or
causes of action.

A single act or omission may give rise to two

or more causes of action.

Culpa
Contractual
The
foundation
of the liability of
the defendant
is the contract
In
breach
of
contract
committed
through
the
negligence
of
employee,
the
employer cannot
erase his primary
and
direct
liability
by
invoking exercise
of diligence of a
good father of a
family
in
the
selection
and
supervision
of
the employee.

Culpa
Aquiliana
Only
involves
private concern
The Civil Code by
means of indemnification merely
repairs
the
damage
Includes all acts
in which any kind
of
fault
or
negligence
intervenes

Culpa
Aquiliana
It is a separate
source
of
obligation
independent
of
contract
In quasi-delict
the presumptive
responsibility for
the negligence of
his servants can
be rebutted by
proof of the
exercise of due
care in their
selection and
supervision.

Crime
Afect the public
interest
The
Revised
Penal
Code
punishes
or
corrects criminal
act
Punished only if
there is a penal
law
clearly
covering them
Liability

of

the

TORTS AND DAMAGES

Liability is direct
and primary in
quasi-delict

employer of the
actor-employee
is subsidiary in
crimes

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN 2014
The determination of negligence is a question
of foresight on the part of the actor
FORESEABILITY.

Even if a particular injury was not

foreseeable, the risk is still foreseeable if
possibility of injury is foreseeable.

Forseeability involves the question of

PROBABILITY, that is, the existence of
some real likelihood of some damage and
the likelihood is of such appreciable
weight reasonably to induce, action to
avoid it.

QUASI-DELICT

Whoever by act or omission causes damage

to another, there being fault or negligence is
obliged to pay for the damage done. (Article
2176 Civil Code)

Essential Requisites for a quasi-delictual

action:
1.
Act or omission constituting fault or
negligence;

Calculation of Risk

2.
Damage caused by the said act or
omission; and
3.
Causal relation between the damage and
the act or omission.
Tests of Negligence

Circumstances to consider in determining

negligence: (PEST-GAP)
1. Time

1. Did the defendant in doing the alleged

negligent act use the reasonable care and
caution which an ordinarily prudent person
would have used in the same situation?

Interests are to be balanced only in the sense

that the purposes of the actor, the nature of
his act and the harm that may result from
action or inaction are elements to be
considered.

2. Place
3. Emergency

If not then he is guilty of negligence.

2. Could a prudent man, in the case under

consideration, foresee harm as a result of the
course pursued?

GENERAL RULE: An individual who

suddenly finds himself in a situation of
danger and is required to act without
much time to consider the best means
that may be adopted to avoid the
impending danger is not guilty of
negligence if he fails to undertake what
subsequently and upon reflection may
appear to be a better solution.
EXCEPTION: When the emergency was
brought by the individuals own
negligence. (Valenzuela vs. CA 253 SCRA
303).

If so, it was the duty of the actor to take

precautions to guard against harm.

NOTES:
Negligence is a conduct - the determination of
the existence of negligence is concerned with
what the defendant did or did not do

The state of mind of the actor is not

important; good faith or use of sound
judgment is immaterial. The existence of
negligence in a given case is not
determined by reference to the personal
judgment but by the behavior of the actor
in the situation before him. (Picart vs.
Smith)

Negligence is a conduct that creates an undue

risk of harm to others.

Emergency rule

4. Gravity of Harm to be avoided

5. Alternative Course of Action

If the alternative presented to the actor is too

costly, the harm that may result may be still
be considered unforeseeable to a reasonable
man.
6. Social value or utility of activity
7. Person exposed to the risk

TORTS AND DAMAGES

Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the
obligor consists in the omission of that
diligence which is required by the nature of
the obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of the persons, of the time
and of the place. When negligence shows
bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171
and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the
diligence which is to be observed in the
performance, that which is expected of a
good father of a family shall be required.
(1104a)
G.R. No. L-4977
March 22, 1910
DAVID TAYLOR, plaintiff-appellee, vs. THE
MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT
COMPANY, defendant-appellant.
Facts:
David Taylor was a 15 year old boy who spent
time as a cabin boy at sea; he was also able to
learn some principles of mechanical
engineering and mechanical drawing from his
dads office (his dad was a mechanical engineer);
he was also employed as a mechanical draftsman
earning P2.50 a day all said, Taylor was mature
well beyond his age.
One day in 1905, he and another boy entered into
the premises of Manila Electric power plant where
they found 20-30 blasting caps which they took
home. In an efort to explode the said caps, Taylor
experimented until he succeeded in opening the
caps and then he lighted it using a match which
resulted to the explosion of the caps causing
severe injuries to his companion and to Taylor
losing one eye.
Taylor sued Manila Electric alleging that because
the company left the caps exposed to children,
they are liable for damages due to the companys
negligence.
ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Electric is
liable for damages.
HELD: No. The SC reiterated the elements of
quasi delict as follows:
(1) Damages to the plaintif.
(2) Negligence by act or omission of which
defendant personally, or some person for whose
acts it must respond, was guilty.
(3) The connection of cause and efect between
the negligence and the damage.
In the case at bar, it is true that Manila Electric
has been negligent in disposing of the caps
which they used for the power plant, and that
said caps caused damages to Taylor. However,

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN 2014
the causal connection between the companys
negligence and the injuries sustained by Taylor is
absent. It is in fact the direct acts of Taylor which
led to the explosion of the caps as he even, in
various experiments and in multiple attempts,
tried to explode the caps. It is from said acts that
led to the explosion and hence the injuries.
Taylor at the time of the accident was wellgrown youth of 15, more mature both mentally
and physically than the average boy of his age;
he had been to sea as a cabin boy; was able to
earn P2.50 a day as a mechanical draftsman
thirty days after the injury was incurred; and the
record discloses throughout that he was
exceptionally well qualified to take care. The
evidence of record leaves no room for doubt that
he well knew the explosive character of the cap
with which he was amusing himself. The series of
experiments made by him in his attempt to
produce an explosion admit of no other
explanation. His attempt to discharge the cap by
the use of electricity, followed by his eforts to
explode it with a stone or a hammer, and the final
success of his endeavors brought about by the
applications of a match to the contents of the
cap, show clearly that he knew what he was
about. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt
that he had reason to anticipate that the
explosion might be dangerous.
The just thing is that a man should suffer the
damage which comes to him through his own
fault, and that he cannot demand reparation
therefor from another.

Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of

Appeals, 321 SCRA 325Facts:
FACTS
Petitioner Jarco Marketing Corporation is the
owner of Syvels Department Store, Makati
City. Petitioners Leonardo Kong, Jose Tiope and
Elisa Panelo are the stores branch manager,
operations
manager, and
supervisor,
respectively. Private respondents are spouses and
the parents of Zhieneth Aguilar (Zhieneth).
In the afternoon of 9 May 1983, Criselda and
Zhieneth were at the 2nd floor of Syvels
Department Store, Makati City. Criselda was
signing her credit card slip at the payment and
verification counter when she felt a sudden gust
of wind and heard a loud thud. She looked behind
her. She then saw Zhieneth on the floor crushed
by bulk
of
the
stores gift-wrapping
counter/structure. Although shocked, Criselda
was quick to ask the assistance of the people

TORTS AND DAMAGES

around in lifting the
Zhieneth from the floor.

counter and

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN 2014
retrieving

Zhieneth was rushed to the hospital. She lived

through the operation but lost her ability to
speak. She then died two weeks later due to
the injuries she sustained.
Respondents demanded the reimbursement of
hospitalization, medical bills and wake and
funeral
expenses
they
incurred
from
the petitioners. The petitioners refused to pay.
Thus, respondents filed a civil case to recover
P157522.86 as actual damages,P300,000.00 as
moral damages and P20,000.00 in attorneys
fees.
In their defense, petitioners claimed that
Criselda was negligent for allowing her daughter
to freely roam around the Department Store.
They also claimed that Zhieneth was guilty of
contributory negligence by climbing onto the
counter which later fell on her causing her
untimely death.
Respondents on the other hand claim that
Criselda was not guilty of negligence as it was
natural for her to leave Criselda when she was
signing her credit card slip. They argue that
Zhieneth is not presumed to be guilty of
contributory negligence as she was only 6 years
old at that time and that her dying declaration as
testified to by the doctor was that the counter
just fell on her without her climbing onto it.
Respondents also argue that the structure should
have been nailed to the floor to prevent incidents
like this.
As to the claim that the counter should have
been nailed, they claim that it was unnecessary
as it had been in existence for many years
without incident. Further, petitioners claim that
the criminal case for simple negligence filed
against them has been dismissed and that a
verdict of acquittal issued in their favour.
Trial court dismissed the complaint but the Court
of Appeals reversed.
Issue: WON petitioners may be held liable
for the death of Zhieneth.
Held:
YES. An accident pertains to an unforeseen
event in which no fault or negligence attaches to
the defendant. It is a fortuitous circumstance,
event or happening; an event happening without
any human agency, or if happening wholly or

partly through human agency, an event which

under
the
circumstances
is
unusual
or
unexpected by the person to whom it happens.
While negligence is the omission to do
something which a reasonable man, guided by
those considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human afairs, would do, or the doing
of something which a prudent and reasonable
man would not do. Negligence is the failure to
observe, for the protection of the interest of
another person, that degree of care, precaution
and vigilance which the circumstances justly
demand, whereby such other person sufers
injury. The test of is: Did the defendant in doing
the alleged negligent act use that reasonable
care and caution which an ordinarily prudent
person would have used in the same situation? If
not, then he is guilty of negligence.
Zhieneths dying statement before being rushed
to into the operating room that she did not do
anything but merely approached the counter
forms part of the
res gestae in accordance with Section 42 of Rule
130 of the Rules of Court. It is axiomatic that
matters relating to declarations of pain or
sufering and statements made to a physician are
generally
considered
declarations
and
admissions.
Further, the negligence of the petitioners was
proven by the testimony of their employees who
testified that the counter was heavy, shaky and
could collapse at anytime. It was verified that the
counter was not nailed which further aggravated
the counters instability. Worse, such condition
was brought to the attention of the store
supervisor but no action was taken to address it.
Verily, such shows a blatant failure to exercise the
diligence of a good father of a family.
Both Criselda and Zhieneth are not guilty of
contributory negligence. Zhieneth, a 6year old
enjoys the presumption that she is incapable of
committing contributory negligence. Petitioners
failed to rebut such presumption. Further,
Criselda was not guilty of contributory negligence
as it was only natural for her to let go of Zhieneth
to sign her credit card slip.
Judgment of the Court of Appeals affirmed

Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District | Bautista

Angelo
L-7644 August 29, 1958 |

TORTS AND DAMAGES

FACTS
Metropolitan owns 3 swimming pools at its
filters
in
Balara,
Quezon
City
It charges the public a certain fee if such
wanted
to
use
its
pools
Dominador Ong, 14 years of age, son of
petitioners, went to the pools along with his 2
brothers
He stayed in the shallow pool, but then he told
his brothers that he would get something to
drink. His brothers left him and went to the Deep
pool
Around 4pm that day, a bather reported that
one person was swimming to long under water
Upon hearing this, the lifeguard on duty dove
into the pool to retrieve Ongs lifeless body.
Applying first aid, the lifeguard tried to revive the
boy.
Soon after, male nurse Armando Rule came to
render assistance, followed by sanitary inspector
Iluminado Vicente who, after being called by
phone from the clinic by one of the security
guards, boarded a jeep carrying with him the
resuscitator and a medicine kit, and upon arriving
he injected the boy with camphorated oil. After
the injection, Vicente left on a jeep in order to
fetch Dr. Ayuyao from the University of the
Philippines. Meanwhile, Abao continued the
artificial manual respiration, and when this failed
to revive him, they applied the resuscitator until
the
two
oxygen
tanks
were
exhausted
Investigation was concluded and the cause of
death is asphyxia by submersion in water
(pagkalunod)
The parents of Ong bring this action for
damages
against
Metropolitan,
alleging
negligence on the selection and supervision of its
employees and if not negligent, they had the last
clear
chance
to
revive
Ong.
It is to be noted that Metropolitan had complete
safety measures in place: they had a male nurse,
six lifeguards, ring buoys, toy roof, towing line,
saving kit and a resuscitator. There is also a
sanitary inspector who is in charge of a clinic
established for the benefit of the patrons.
Defendant has also on display in a conspicuous
place certain rules and regulations governing the
use of the pools, one of which prohibits the
swimming in the pool alone or without any
attendant. Although defendant does not maintain
a full- time physician in the swimming pool
compound, it has however a nurse and a sanitary
inspector ready to administer injections or
operate the oxygen resuscitator if the need
should arise
ISSUES & ARGUMENTS
W/N Metropolitan is liable to the Ongs for its
negligence
W/N the last clear chance doctrine may be
invoked in this case

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN 2014
HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI
No. Metropolitan is not negligent
Metropolitan has taken all necessary
precautions to avoid danger to the lives of its
patrons. It has been shown that the swimming
pools of appellee are provided with a ring buoy,
toy roof, towing line, oxygen resuscitator and a
first aid medicine kit. The bottom of the pools is
painted with black colors so as to insure clear
visibility. There is on display in a conspicuous
place within the area certain rules and
regulations governing the use of the pools.
Appellee employs six lifeguards who are all
trained as they had taken a course for that
purpose and were issued certificates of
proficiency. These lifeguards work on schedule
prepared by their chief and arranged in such a
way as to have two guards at a time on duty to
look after the safety of the bathers. There is a
male nurse and a sanitary inspector with a clinic
provided with oxygen resuscitator. And there are
security guards who are available always in case
of
emergency.
The record also shows that when the body of
minor Ong was retrieved from the bottom of the
pool, the employees of appellee did everything
possible to bring him back to life. When they
found that the pulse of the boy was abnormal, the
inspector
immediately
injected
him
with
camphorated oil. When the manual artificial
respiration proved inefective they applied the
oxygen resuscitator until its contents were
exhausted. And while all these eforts were being
made, they sent for Dr. Ayuyao from the
University of the Philippines who however came
late because upon examining the body found him
to be already dead. All of the foregoing shows
that appellee has done what is humanly possible
under the circumstances to restore life to minor
Ong and for that reason it is unfair to hold it liable
for his death The Last Clear Chance Doctrine is
inapplicable
in
this
case
The record does not show how minor Ong came
into the big swimming pool. The only thing the
record discloses is that minor Ong informed his
elder brothers that he was going to the locker
room to drink a bottle of coke but that from that
time on nobody knew what happened to him until
his lifeless body was retrieved. The doctrine of
last clear chance simply means that the
negligence of a claimant does not preclude a
recovery for the negligence of defendant where it
appears that the latter, by exercising reasonable
care and prudence, might have avoided injurious
consequences to claimant notwithstanding his
negligence
Since it is not known how minor Ong came into
the big swimming pool and it being apparent that
he went there without any companion in violation
of
one
of
the

10

TORTS AND DAMAGES

regulations of appellee as regards the use of the
pools, and it appearing that lifeguard
Abao responded to the call for help as soon as
his attention was called to it and immediately
after retrieving the body all eforts at the disposal
of appellee had been put into play in order to
bring him back to life, it is clear that there is no
room for the application of the doctrine now
invoked by appellants to impute liability to
appellee.
CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, et al.

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN 2014
cause of the plaintifs own injury being the
defendant's lack of due care. In the instant case,
no contributory negligence can be imputed to the
private respondent, considering the following test
formulated in the early case of Picart v. Smith, 37
Phil. 809 (1918):The test by which to determine
the existence of negligence in a particular case
may be stated as follows:
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent
act use that reasonable care and caution which
an ordinarily prudent man would have used in the
same situation

FACTS:
Ernest Simke is a naturalized Filipino citizen and
the Honorary Consul General of Israel in the
Philippines. One afternoon, he, with several other
persons, went to the Manila International Airport
to meet his future son-in-law. He and his group
proceeded to the viewing deck or terrace of the
airport. While walking on the terrace, Simke
slipped over an elevation about four (4) inches
high at the far end of the terrace. He fell on his
back and broke his thigh bone. The next day, he
was operated. CFI rendered in Simkes favor
prompting petitioner to appeal to the Court of
Appeals. The latter affirmed the trial court's
decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was negligent on the part
of Civil Aeronautics.
HELD:
Yes. The inclination itself is an architectural
anomaly for it is neither a ramp because a ramp
is an inclined surface in such a way that it will
prevent people or pedestrians from sliding. But if,
it is a step then it will not serve its purpose, for
pedestrian purposes.
The legal foundation of CAA's liability for quasidelict can be found in Article 2176 of the Civil
Code. As the CAA knew of the existence of the
dangerous elevation which it claims though, was
made precisely in accordance with the plans and
specifications of the building for proper drainage
of the open terrace, its failure to have it repaired
or altered in order to eliminate the existing
hazard constitutes such negligence as to warrant
a finding of liability based on quasi-delict upon
CAA. Contributory negligence under Article 2179
of the Civil Code contemplates a negligent act or
omission on the part of the plaintif, which
although not the proximate cause of his injury,
contributed to his own damage, the proximate

? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law

here in efect adopts the standard supposed to be
supplied by the imaginary conduct of the
discreet pater familias of the Roman law. The
existence of the negligence in a given case is not
determined by reference to the personal
judgment of the actor in the situation before him.
The law considers what would be reckless,
blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary
intelligence and prudence and determines liability
by that. The question as to what would constitute
the conduct of a prudent man in a given situation
must of course be always determined in the light
of human experience and in view of the facts
involved in the particular case. Abstract
speculations cannot be here of much value but
this much can be profitably said: Reasonable
men-govern their conduct by the circumstances
which are before them or known to them. They
are not, and are not supposed to be omniscient of
the future.
Hence they can be expected to take care only
when there is something before them to suggest
or warn of danger. Could a prudent man, in the
case under consideration, foresee harm as a
result of the course actually pursued' If so, it was
the duty of the actor to take precautions to guard
against that harm. Reasonable foresight of harm,
followed by the ignoring of the suggestion born of
this prevision, is always necessary before
negligence can be held to exist. Simke could not
have reasonably foreseen the harm that would
befall him, considering the attendant factual
circumstances. Even if he had been looking where
he was going, the step in question could not
easily be noticed because of its construction. As
the trial court found: In connection with the
incident testified to, a sketch, shows a section of
the floorings oil which plaintif had tripped, this
sketch reveals two pavements adjoining each
other, one being elevated by four and one-fourth
inches than the other. From the architectural
standpoint the higher, pavement is a step.
However, unlike a step commonly seen around,

11

TORTS AND DAMAGES

the edge of the elevated pavement slanted
outward as one walks to one interior of the
terrace. The length of the inclination between the
edges of the two pavements is three inches.
Obviously, plaintif had stepped on the inclination
because had his foot landed on the lower
pavement he would not have lost his balance.
The same sketch shows that both pavements
including the inclined portion are tiled in red

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN 2014
cement, the lines of the tilings are continuous. It
would therefore be difficult for pedestrian to see
the inclination especially where there are plenty
of persons in the terrace as was the situation
when plaintif fell down. There was no warning
sign to direct one's attention to the change in the
elevation of the floorings. Wherefore, decision of
lower court is affirmed.

12