Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a. By State
Bar Exam Questions:
1.
2.
Under
these
facts,
can
the
Embassy
successfully invoke immunity from suit? (6%)
Discussion:
Even though the rule as to immunity of a state from
suit is relaxed, the power of the courts ends when the
judgment is rendered. Although the liability of the state
has been judicially ascertained, the state is at liberty to
determine for itself whether to pay the judgment or
not, and execution can not issue on a judgment against
the state. Such statutes do not authorize a seizure of
state property to satisfy judgments recovered, and only
convey implication that the legislature will recognize
such judgment as final and make provision for the
satisfaction thereof. (49 Am. Jur., Sec. 104, pp. 312320.)
Judgments against a state, in cases where it has
consented to be sued, generally operate merely to
liquidate and establish plaintiff's claim in the absence
of express provision; otherwise they can not be
enforced by processes of law; and it is for the
legislature to provide for their payment in such manner
as it sees fit. (59 C.J. sec. 501, p. 331; 81 C.J.S., sec.
232, p. 1343.)
It is a well-entrenched rule in this jurisdiction,
embodied in Article 2180 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, that the State is liable only for torts caused
by its special agents, specially commissioned to carry
out the acts complained of outside of such agent's
regular duties (Merritt vs. Insular Government, supra;
Rosete vs. Auditor General, 81 Phil. 453). There being
no proof that the making of the tortious inducement
was authorized, neither the State nor its funds can be
made liable therefor.
b. By teachers
WHO CAN BE HELD LIABLE?
1. The school
2. The schools administrators;
3. and Teachers
WHY ARE THEY LIABLE?
According to Tolentino, a teacher must not
only be charged with teaching but also vigilance over
their students or pupils. Without the parents to look
after their children when in school, it is the teacher
who takes over in the supervision.
It is thus fitting that the basis of a teachers
liability is the principle of in loco parentis.
Principle of in loco parentis
- means in the place of a parent,
- exists when a person undertakes care and
control of another in absence of such supervision by
natural parents and in absence of formal legal
approval, and is
temporary in character and is
not to be likened to an adoption which is permanent.
LEGAL BASIS FOR THEIR LIABILITY
Family Code
Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers,
or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child
are shall have special parental authority and
responsibility over the minor child while under their
supervision, instruction or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized
activities whether inside or outside the premises of the
school, entity or institution. (349a)
WHEN ARE THEY LIABLE?
Waivers
Can a teacher or school escape responsibility by
asking parents to file a waiver during field trips
and outings?
This issue is closely related to liabilities outside
school and Art 218 is clear that authority and
responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities
Who is At fault?
Who to sue?
Student
Teacher, Head
School
Administrator
Basis of liability
Teacher
2180
paragraph
(Loco
Parentis)
Art 218 1nd
219 of Family
Code
School
2180
paragraph
(Respondeat
Superior)
Stranger
School
Diligence of a good
father of a family
Diligence
in
selection
supervision
employee
the
and
of
Faithful
compliance
of the terms of the
contract
Contract
whether inside or
outside the premises of the
school, entity or
institution.
The fact that the parents allowed their child to join the
activity, or even signed a waiver for this purpose, does
not mean that the teacher(s)-in-charge were already
relieved of their duty to observe the required diligence
of a good father of a family in ensuring the safety of
the children.
The waiver not to hold the school or its
teachers responsible for negligence is not valid
because the waiver is contrary to public policy. Thus, a
teacher can still be made to answer for damages by
the parent of the pupil or student in case she failed to
exercise the proper diligence to prevent harm or injury
to the pupil or student.
At best, what the waiver can bring about is a
reminder to the teacher of his duty of diligence.
v.
BAKING
Article
21 refers
to
acts contra
bonus
mores and has the following elements: (1)
There is an act which is legal; (2) but which is
contrary to morals, good custom, public order,
or public policy; and (3) it is done with intent to
injure.
A common theme runs through Articles 19 and
21, and that is, the act complained of must be
intentional.
3.
4.
c.
Alienation of Affection
Article 26 of NCC
Every person shall respect the dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons. The following and
similar acts, though they may not constitute a
criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for
damages, prevention and other relief:
(1) Prying
residence:
into
the
privacy
of
another's
frighten
the
plaintiff.
Generally,
conduct will be found to be actionable
where the recitation of the facts to an
average member of the community
would arouse his resentment against
the actor, and lead him or her to
exclaim, "Outrageous!" as his or her
reaction.
There was a causal connection between
the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's
mental distress; and
The plaintiff's mental distress was extreme
and severe
Exception:
RA 9262 SECTION 34
Persons Intervening Exempt from Liability. In
every case of violence against women and their
children as herein defined, any person, private
individual or police authority or barangay official who,
acting in accordance with law, responds or intervenes
without using violence or restraint greater than
necessary to ensure the safety of the victim, shall not
be liable for any criminal, civil or administrative liability
resulting therefrom.
d. Interference with Contractual Relations
Elements:
1. existence of a valid contract;
2. knowledge on the part of the third person
of the existence of contract; and
3. interference of the third person is without
legal justification or excuse
o
there was no malice in the
interference of a contract, and the
impulse behind one's conduct lies in a
proper business interest rather than in
wrongful motives, a party cannot be a
malicious interferer. Where the alleged
interferer is financially interested, and
such interest motivates his conduct, it
cannot be said that he is an officious or
malicious intermeddler.
o
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
It is a particular form of negligence which
consists in the failure of the physician or surgeon to
apply his practice of medicine that degree of care and
skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession
generally, under similar conditions, and in like
surrounding circumstances.
Elements Involved in Medical Negligence Cases:
EVIDENTIARY RULE
GR:
There is a necessity of expert testimony in
proving medical negligence.
EXC: Obvious errors, which the doctrine of Res Ipsa
Loquitor applies.
In such case, the need for an expert medical testimony
is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the
proof of negligence.
Meaning: When common language and experience
teach that a resulting injury would not have occurred to
the patient if due care had been exercised, an
inference of negligence may be drawn giving rise to an
application of the doctrine without medical evidence,
which is ordinarily required to show not only what
occurred but how and why it occurred.
WHEN IS A HOSPITAL LIABLE?
3.
4.
KINDS OF DAMAGES:
ACTUAL DAMAGES- are those recoverable because of
pecuniary loss- in business, trade, property, profession,
job or occupation.
What is meant to compensate is
money or monetary loss; there
must be an actual loss and such
loss must be duly proven
-
ATTORNEYS FEES
General Rule: cannot be recovered
Exception: Article 2208
(1) When exemplary damages are
awarded;
(2) When the defendant's act or
omission
has
compelled
the
plaintiff to litigate with third
persons or to incur expenses to
protect his interest;
MORAL DAMAGES
What kind of injury does it seek to address?
ARTICLE 2219
ARTICLE 2220
Willful injury to property may be a legal ground
for awarding moral damages if the court should
find that, under the circumstances, such
damages are justly due. The same rule applies to
breaches of contract where the defendant acted
fraudulently or in bad faith.
Art.
publicity.
354.
Requirement
for
LIBEL
ARTICLE 353, RPC
Definition of libel. A libel is public and
malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
condition, status, or circumstance tending to
cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a
natural or juridical person, or to blacken the
memory of one who is dead.
May be committed against natural (living and
the dead) or juridical persons (corporations)
Ex:
1.
Public conduct,
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
WRIT OF KALIKASAN
o
o
o
10/09
ACTUAL DAMAGES
- prove monetary loss
TEMPERATE DAMAGES
MORAL DAMAGES
- prove that a loss was suffered
and that it falls under what is
enumerated by law
-purpose is to provide diversion
or recreation
NOMINAL DAMAGES
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
-
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES
Doctrine of Contributory Negligence (DCN) when
CN is pleaded, liability is admitted except that you are
asking the court to mitigate the liability. This may be
used to lessen the award of damages.
Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences (DAC)
ART 2203, NCC