COURSE OUTLINE FOR TORTS AND DAMAGES

UB School of Law, 2nd Semester, SY 2016-2016

Course Description
This two unit course is designed to provide law students an insight into the core
concepts of civil liability for damages caused by a breach of an imposed duty.
Topics pursued include negligence, delict, absolute liability, intentional torts,
special torts, and kinds of damages.
Course Requirements
MIDTERM:
1.
Active Participation in Class Discussions (15%)
2.
Quiz/Seatwork (30%)
3.
Case digest(15%)
4.
Midterm Exams (40%)
FINALS:
1.
Active Participation in Class Discussions (20%)
2.
Quiz/Seatwork (20%)
3.
Final Exams (60%)
Reference:
_________________________
Course Outline
(first meeting) Organizational Meeting
Organizational Matters and Course Completion

Regular Schedule/Make up Time

Class Coordinators (per group)

Email Group (cda_farinas@yahoo.com)

I. INTRODUCTION
CONCEPT OF TORTS
Definition
Any wrong, harm, or injury for which the injured party has the
right to sue for damages in a civil court, with the exception of a
breach of contract.
Requisites
1. There must be an act or omission;
2. Such act or omission causes damage to another;
3. Such damage is caused by fault or negligence; and
4. There is no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties.
Kinds
1. Intentional torts are those wrongs which the defendant knew
or should have known would occur through their actions or
inactions;
2. Negligent torts occur when the defendant's actions were
unreasonably unsafe; and
3. Strict liability wrongs do not depend on the degree of
carefulness by the defendant, but are established when a
particular action causes damage.

 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF PHILIPPINE LAW ON TORTS

Origin
Old French word derived from the latin tortus which means
twisted or crooked
English synonym of wrong
Spanish
Torticero
Civil law
American
Common law
Philippines Civil law + Common law = Civil law
Quasi-delict
II. SOURCES OF CIVIL LIABILITY
Articles 29 to 31; Articles 1159 to 1162 of the Civil Code
29
When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground
that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action
for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action
requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the
defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for
damages in case the complainant should be found to be malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgement of acquittal is based upon reasonable
doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of any declaration to that
effect, it may be inferred from the text of the decision whether or not the
acquittal is due to that ground.
30
When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising
from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted
during the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall
likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of.
31
When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or
omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed
independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of
the latter.
1159 Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the
contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.
1160 Obligations derived from quasi-contract shall be subject to the provisions
of Chapter 1, Title XVII, of this book.1
1161 Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses shall be governed by the
penal laws, subject to the provisions of Article 2177 2, and of the pertinent
provisions of Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, on Human Relations 3, and of
Title XVIII4 of this Book regulating damages.
1162 Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the provisions
of Chapter 2, Title XVII of this book, and by special laws.
Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code
100
Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. Every person criminally liable
for a felony is also civilly liable.
Sections 1 and 2, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
1 Extra-contractual obligations, quasi contracts, (1) negotiorum gestio, (2)
solution indebiti and (3) other quasi-contracts.
2 Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely
separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant.
3 Articles 19 to 36, Civil Code
4 Actual, Moral, Nominal, Temperate/Moderate, Liquidated, Exemplary/Corrective

Institution of criminal and civil actions.

(a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of
civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted
with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action,
reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action
prior to the criminal action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be
made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under
circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to
make such reservation.
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the
accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages
without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or information,
the filing fees thereof shall constitute a first lien on the judgment
awarding such damages.
Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the
complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by
the offended party upon the filing thereof in court.
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be
required for actual damages.
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the
accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have
been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action.
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be
deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file
such civil action separately shall be allowed.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended
party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check
involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed.
Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated,
moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party
shall pay additional filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. If
the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages are
subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount
awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not
yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon
application with the court trying the latter case. If the application is
granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section
2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions.

Arising from Crime

People of the Philippines vs. Bayotas (G.R. No. 102007, 2 September 1994,
236 SCRA 239)
Issue Whether the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction
extinguish his civil liability.
Rulin YES. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes
g
his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As
opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, the death of the accused
prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil
liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People of the Philippines
Issue Whether the escape of the accused pending appeal of his conviction
extinguish his civil liability.

Rulin
g

NO. At the outset, we must explain that the 2000 Rules of Criminal
Procedure has clarified what civil actions are deemed instituted in a
criminal prosecution. x x x Only the civil liability of the accused arising
from the crime charged is deemed impliedly instituted in a criminal
action that is, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves
the right to institute it separately, or institutes it prior to the criminal
action.
What is deemed instituted in every criminal prosecution is the civil
liability arising from the crime or delict per se (civil liability ex delicto),
but not those liabilities arising from quasi-delicts, contracts or quasicontracts.

Arising from Contract

Air France vs. Carrascoso, et al
Issue
Rulin A written document speaks a uniform language the spoken word could
g
be notoriously unreliable. If only to achieve stability in the relations
between passenger and air carrier, adherence to the terms of a ticket is
desirable.
Light Rail Transit Authority, et al. vs. Navidad
Issue
Rulin A liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that
g
which breaches the contract. Stated differently, when an act which
constitutes a breach of contract would have itself constituted the source
of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed between the parties,
the contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing
the rules on tort to apply.
Far East Bank and Trust Company vs. Court of Appeals
Issue
Rulin A quasi-delict can be the cause for breaching a contract that might
g
thereby permit the application of applicable principles on tort even where
there is a preexisting contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
xxx
The test (whether a quasi-delict can be deemed to underlie the breach of
a contract) can be stated thusly: Where, without a preexisting contract
between two parties, an act or omission can nonetheless amount to an
actionable tort by itself, the fact that the parties are contractually bound
is no bar to the application of quasi-delict provisions to the case.
Arising from Tort
Andamo, et al vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al
Issue
Rulin
g
Castro vs. People of the Philippines
Issue
Rulin
g
CULPA AQUILANA/CULPA CONTRACTUAL/CULPA CRIMINAL
Article 2177 of the Civil Code
2177 Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is
entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from

negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
Fabre, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

Issue
Rulin
g
Calalas vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
Issue
Rulin
g
Padua, et al. vs. Robles
Issue
Rulin
g
Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et
al.
Issue
Rulin
g
III. CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT
1. ELEMENTS OF A QUASI-DELICT
Article 2176 of the Civil Code
Andamo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (191 SCRA 195)
Cinco vs. Canonoy, et al (90 SCRA 369)
2. DISTINCTIONS

A. Quasi-delict v. Delict
Article 2177, CC
Article 365, RPC
Padilla vs. CA, 129 SCRA 558
Philippine Rabbit vs. People, GR No. 147703 (2004)

B. Quasi-delict v. Breach of contract

Articles 1170-1174, CC
Article 1174, CC
Article 2178, CC
Far East vs. CA, 241 SCRA 671
Calalas vs. Sunga, 332 SCRA 356 (2000)
IV. NEGLIGENCE
Concept of Negligence
Definition; Elements
Article 20, CC
Article 1173 of the Civil Code
Picart vs. Smith, Jr. (37 Phil 809)
Negligence as the Proximate Cause

Vda. de Bataclan, et al. vs. Medina

Umali vs. Bacani, et al.
Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

Proof of Negligence
A. Burden of proof
Rule 131, Rules of Court (ROC)
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. Court of Appeals,
et al.
B. Presumption of Negligence
Articles 2184-2185, 2188, 1734-1735, CC
C. Res ipsa loquitur
Layugan vs. IAC, 167 SCRA 363Africa, et al. vs. Caltex, Inc., et al.
Batiquin vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
Ramos, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
Respondeat superior
Castilex Industrial Corporation vs. Vasquez, Jr., et al.
Ramos, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
Nograles, et al. vs. Capitol Medical Center, et al.
Violation of Traffic Rules
Article 2184 of the Civil Code
Caedo, et al. vs. Yu Khe Thai, et al.
BLT Bus co. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.
Dangerous weapons and substances
Article 2188 of the Civil Code
V.DEFENSES
a. Contributory negligence
Article 2179, 2214 of the Civil Code
Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company (GR No 1719 (1907))
Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company
Gan vs. Court of Appeals, et al
Estacion vs. Bernardo, et al.
b. Assumption of Risk
Afiada vs. Hisole (85 Phil 67)
c. Last clear chance
Picart vs. Smith, Jr (37 Phil 809)
Spouses Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District (104 Phil 397)
Anuran, et al. vs. Buno, et al. (L-21353) (May 20, 1966)
Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Baesa, et al (179 SCRA 384)
d. Prescription
Article 1146 of the Civil Code

Article 169 of the Consumer Act of the Philippines

Ferrer, et al. vs. Ericta, et al
Kramer, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. (178 SCRA 518)

e. Force majeure/ Fortuitous event

Article 1170, 1174 of the Civil Code
Gotesco vs. Chatto, et al (210 SCRA 18)
National Power Corporation, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al (GR Nos.
103442-45 (1993)
f. Exercise of diligence
Article 2180 of the Civil Code
Ramos vs. Pepsi, (19 SCRA 289)
g. Mistake and waiver
Gatchalian vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
h. Damnum absque injuria
National Power Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al
VI.CAUSATION
Proximate Cause
1. Definition
Fernando vs. CA, 208 SCRA 714
Pilipinas Bank vs. CA, 234 SCRA 435
2. Distinguished from other kinds
Remote
Urbano vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 1
Concurrent
Far East Shipping vs. CA, 297 SCRA 30
VII. VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Article 2180 to 2194 of the Civil Code
1. PARENTS

AND GUARDIANS
Article 2180, 2181 and 2182 of the Civil Code
Articles 216 and 218, Family Code
Republic Act No. 6809
Exconde vs. Capuno, et al. (101 Phil 843 (1957))
Canlas vs. Chan Lin Po, et al. Spouses Libi vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court, et al

2. TEACHERS AND HEADS OF ESTABLISHMENTS

Articles 218-219, FC
Article 2180, CC
Mercado vs. Court of Appeals, et al. (108 Phil 414 (1960))
3. OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF ESTABLISHMENTS

St. Francis High School, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al

4. EMPLOYERS
Martin vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al
Mercury Drug Corporation, et al. vs. Spouses Huang
VIII. PRIMARY LIABILITY
1. POSSESSORS /USERS OF ANIMALS
Article 2183 of the Civil Code
Vestil, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. (179 SCRA 47)
2. OWNERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Article 2184 of the Civil Code
Caedo, et al. vs. Yu Khe Thai, et al.
Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al
3. MANUFACTURERS AND PROCESSORS
Article 2189 of the Civil Code
in general, Consumer Act of the Philippines
4. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
Article 2189 of the Civil Code
Section 24 of the Local Government Code
City of Manila vs. Teotico, et al.
Jimenez vs. City of Manila, et al.
5. BUILDING PROPRIETORS
Articles 2190, 2191, 2192 and 2193 of the Civil Code
6. ENGINEERS /ARCHITECTS /CONTRACTORS
Article 2192 and 1723 of the Civil Code
Nakpil & Sons, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
IX. SPECIAL TORTS
1. ABUSE OF RIGHTS
Article 19 of the Civil Code
Velayo vs. Shell Company of the Philippines Islands, Ltd (100 Phil 186)
Llorente vs. Sandiganbayan
Heirs of Nala vs. Cabansag
2. ACTS OR OMISSIONS CONTRARY TO MORALS
Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code
Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals
Wassmer vs. Velez
3. UNJUST ENRICHMENT
Articles 22 and 23 of the Civil Code

Security Bank & Trust CO., et al. vs. Court of Appeals

4. JUDICIAL VIGILANCE
Article 24 of the Civil Code
5. THOUGHTLESS EXTRAVAGANCE
Article 25 of the Civil Code
6. RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Article 26 of the Civil Code
St. Louis Realty Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
Castro vs. People of the Philippines
7. DERELICTION OF DUTY
Article 27 of the Civil Code
Torio, et al. vs. Fontanilla, et al
8. UNFAIR COMPETITION
Article 28 of the Civil Code
9. VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Article 32 of the Civil Code
Lim vs. Ponce de Leon
Vinzons-Chato vs. Fortune Tobacco Corporation
10. INTERFERENCE IN CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
Article 1314 of the Civil Code
Daywalt vs. La Corporacion delos Padres Agustino Recoletos, et al
X. DAMAGES
CONCEPT/KINDS
Article 2195 to 2198 of the Civil Code
Filinvest Credit vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Spouses Custodio, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al
A. ACTUAL/COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
Article 2199 to 2215 of the Civil Code

a. In General
PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals (297 SCRA
402)
Talisay-Silay Milling, Inc. vs. Associacion de Agricultures de Talisay-Silay,
Inc
b. Death and permanent incapacity
Article 2206, CC
Manzanares vs. Moreta
Borromeo vs. Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co
Heirs of George Y. Poe vs. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc

c. Attorneys Fees
Article 2208, CC
Agustin vs. Court of Appeals
d. Interest
Articles 2209-2213, CC
Eastern Shipping vs. Court of Appeals
Crismina Garments, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
B. MORAL DAMAGES
CONCEPT
Article 2217 to 2220 of the Civil Code
Lopez vs. Pan American World Airways
Expert Travel & Tours, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
C. NOMINAL AND TEMPERATE DAMAGES
Articles 2221 to 2225 of the Civil Code
Northwest Airlines, Inc. vs. Cuenca
Japan Airlines vs. Court of Appeals
Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Spouses Vasquez
D. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Articles 2226 to 2228 of the Civil Code
Country Bankers vs. Court of Appeals
E. EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGES
De Leon vs. Court of Appeals
People of the Philippines vs. Cristobal