Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NOV 20 2015
SABALORIO
So the subject Torts & Damages is a prescribed subject, meaning it is
a BAR subject under Civil Law. It discusses (1) Quasi-Delict (2)
Damages (3) Human Relations (4) Nuisance. These are 4 very
familiar subjects to you. You may not know it, but you actually have
encountered the topics previously in law school.
Being taught in 3rd year, I would like to tell you that a lot of cross
references will be made to different subjects in order to have an
understanding of the topics at hand. So your stock knowledge in
your other subjects where torts may relate to would be very
important. Therefore, we will be reviewing these topics and
concepts to aid in a full understanding of the course.
Q: But for purely private offenses, how should the law treat that?
Remember the state is only concerned about public interest in
general. But what if the injury occasioned by a private individual
upon another private individual? What is the measure of justice?
Without you knowing it you are learning a little bit about Torts &
Damages.
There is one case that Ive read, there is this doctor who operated
upon a woman, but while doing so, gidala niya iyang amigo to
observe. So the woman felt privacy was violated. There is an injury
there to her privacy. How do you regulate that? Those type of
cases?
Dati, it is retaliation. Then the Romans had a mixture of both talio
and monetary compensation. Then in the 6th centuries, the Saxons.
There is this word weregild, which literally means blood money.
Nakapatay ka, naa na siyay equivalent na amount in silver. So, that
is what is paid to the family of the person who was killed.
Q: Is there an equivalent of weregild in PH law?
Say for example, because of your acts a person wasnt able to
sleep, serious anxiety at night, besmirched reputation. Im talking
about claims for moral damages. The law will give you recompense
in the form of moral damages.
Despite these changes, the basic formula, up to this day, remains
the same. For a wrong or injury there must be a commensurate
compensation. That is the goal of the law, to regulate vengeance
by dispensing justice. In private cases (in dispensing justice) by
providing for commensurate compensation.
Without you knowing it, you are actually going to study something
that you already know.
In Obligations & Contracts, I believe you are familiar with Art 1157.
Article 1157. Obligations arise from:
(1)
(2)
Law
Contracts
(3)
(4)
(5)
Quasi-contracts
Acts or omissions punished by law; and
Quasi-delicts
QUASI-DELICT
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is called a
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
(1902a)
Whoever by his act or omission meaning it can be willful or it can
be by failure to act. Like for example, you are driving your car
negligently (texting while driving), remember there should be fault
or negligence. Then suddenly you failed to notice there was
somebody crossing the street and you hit him. You were negligent.
Q: Why? Do you as a human being and as a citizen of this great
nation, have an obligation to be careful? Is that the obligation
involved in Art 2176? To be careful?
A: NO. Although, it is of course your duty as human beings to be
careful.
Q: Assuming that you were not careful, but nobody got injured.
Whats your obligation?
A: Wala. Because there is no victim. No plaintiff.
Like, nagpabuto kag baril pero walay naigo. You did not commit a
tort, but you may have committed illegal discharge of firearm
which is a criminal offense. But, you did not commit a tort.
It is only when injury occurs that quasi-delict arises.
Q: What is the obligation involved in a quasi-delict?
A: One that arises only when there is injury. When there is damage.
The obligation involved, therefor, is for you to compensate for the
damage, to pay for the damage done. That is the obligation
involved in a quasi-delict.
Although others would tell you that, first and foremost, your
obligation is to not to commit any injury upon another person.
as committed through its agents, can the state file an action for
tort against a private individual? The answer of course is, YES.
Once again, we borrow a provision from Human Relations which is
part and parcel of the Philippine Tort law.
ARTICLE 24: In all contractual property or other relations, when
one of the parties is at disadvantage on account of his moral
dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age
or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.
So it is a mandate upon the court to favor certain individual in
terms on human relations. The next provision on Human Relation, is
ARTICLE 25: Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or
display during a period of acute public want or emergency may be
stopped by order of the courts at the instance of any government
or private charitable institution.
So a government institution can actually file a case against
somebody who is violating Article 25 which is known in Philippine
Law as Sumptuary Legislation. So what is Sumptuary Legislation?
It is a law or a provision of law that actually interferes with the use
of property so as not to effect or offend the sensibilities of the
other.
In Article 25, where thoughtless extravagance is actually
being curtailed that it might stop. So nagkatyphoon nalang and all
and you have and then you have a thoughtless display of
extravagance and wealth. The government can actually file a case
in court to stop whatever it is.
So, the state can file an action for tort against an
individual, an individual can file a tort action against the state.
So is it purely a private act that would require private remedies? In
that sense, would the definition be accurate? The Answer is NO. So
in that sense, that definition is Busted.
SECOND CHARACTERISTIC:
The Second characteristic based on the definition of
Black is Tort in the Philippines a purely a civil wrong? And the
remedies are therefore lodged in the form of civil action in court?
Because according to Blacks Law definition is a private civil wrong
or is it something that is similar? NO.
For example we recall that nuisance is part and parcel of
the Philippine Tort law. And under the provisions of civil code of
nuisance particularly Article 699 of the Civil Code
relating to
a public nuisance the remedies are: prosecution under the penal
code, or any local ordinance, or a civil action, or abatement without
judicial proceedings.
So from that provision alone, you can actually see that
the remedies for tortious conduct is not limited to civil actions.
There can be prosecution under the RPC. So is the definition
accurate in the sense of it? Busted gihapon. It is not an accurate
definition atleast in so far as Philippine Law is concern.
Plus Philippine Tort Law includes breaches of contract
because the definition that was fore worded by Blacks Law says
that it includes breaches of contract in bad faith. Lets try to
examine the codal provisions and it would tell you, NO!. It should
not cover breaches of contract, precisely because Article 2176 our
main law on Torts, says:
Article 2176: Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to
pay for the damage done. Such failure or negligence, if there is no
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this chapter.
So that is the only time that you can call it a tort or a quasi-delict
when there is no pre-existing contractual relationships. In that
sense or totally atleast, it says that Tort law in the Philippines ought
not to include breaches of Contract. And therefore when there is a
pre-existing contractual relation, the remedy should be limited to
those provided for Culpa Contractual or breaches of contract such
as rescission under Article 1191 of the Civil Code or Specific
Performance with an action for damages within the case.
If it is a breach of contract, apply contractual remedies. If it is a
quasi-delict, if it is a tort, if it is a culpa aquiliana, lahi pud imong
remedies.
Busted? Does it mean that the definition of Blacks law does not
apply in Philippine law? Actually, no it is cover, or the very least, it is
a plausible definition. Why? In several cases, one of the most recent
of which is the case of:
Loadmasters vs. Glodel Brokerage Corporation:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the act that breaks
the contract may also be a Tort. In fine, liability for tort may arise
even under the contract where tort is that which breaches the
contract.
Can you recall from your previous subject the acts, something to
this event where the act that breaches a contract may likewise be
classified as tort? And therefore liability for damages therefore
would not be limited therefore to Culpa contractual but can only so
extend to cases of Culpa Aquilana or tort? For that we have the
case of:
AIR FRANCE v. CARASCOSO
The facts are very easy. The plaintiff here was one of the
pilgrims going to Lourdes on a pilgrimage of course. And they
secure, Eng. Carascoso secure a first class accommodation on
board in Air France who took its ticket through its Philippine agent,
Philippine Airlines. So, Manila to Bangkok, then Bangkok to Rome.
No problem with the Manila to Bangkok trip. He was able to ride
first class, quiet a short trip. During the Bangkok to Rome flight,
what happened was the manager of Air France, while he was
already seated in his first class seat, forced him to vacate it,
because in the words of the witness, THERE WAS A WHITE MAN
WHO THE MANAGER ALLEGED HAD THE BETTER A RIGHT TO THE
SEAT. Just imagine the racial discrimination and profiling. Just
because you are a Filipino, you are not a Caucasian, you are not
entitled to a first class seat. When asked to vacate his first class
seat, the plaintiff as what was expected, refused. Syempre,
gibayran ko na pahawaon ko nimo. But his companions to avoid
further commotions, just vacate the seat. Sige ihatag nalang na
para walay nay gubot. So the Plaintiff, reluctantly gave up his first
class seat.
The pertinent issue is: Liability of Air France. Based on
the facts do you think that AIR FRANCE should be held liable
against Engineer Carascoso? OF COURSE. The most obvious one is
that there is liability for breach of contract. Remember that Air
France is a common carrier. And when the common carrier does
not deliver you into your destination, in the manner with which you
contracted with it, there is Liability. THERE IS BREACH OF
CONTRACT.
Nipalit kag pinaypay, ang gihatag sa imoha kay turon.
Simple as that. THEREFORE, THERE IS BREACH. THERE IS CULPA
CONTRACTUAL.
And the Supreme Court awarded damages to
Carascoso. There is contract of carriage between Air France and
Carascoso. The contract that was furnished by Carascoso was a first
class passage. That contract was breach when Air France fail to
furnish a first class transportation at Bangkok and there was bad
faith when Air Frances employee compelled Carascoso to leave his
first class accommodation after he was already seated and to take a
seat in the tourist class by reason of which he suffered
inconvenience, embarrassment and humiliation. Thereby causing
him mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social
humiliation resulting in moral damages. No problem there because
it is very clearly there is a breach of contract of carriage.
But this is more telling, CULPA AQUILIANA, QUASIDELICT OR TORT. Even though there is a contract of carriage, there
is also a tortuous acts based on culpa aquiliana. Passengers do not
contract merely for transportation, they have the right to be
treated with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration.
They are entitled to be protected from personnel misconduct,
injurious language, indignities and such abuses of the employees.
The stress of Carascoso action is based on upon its wrongful
exposure. This is a violation of the public duty by Air France, a case
of quasi-delict. And the SC has doctrinally stated that although the
relation of the passenger and carrier is contractual both in origin
and nature, nevertheless, the act that breaks the contract may also
be a tort.
Let us go back to the definition of Article 2176. That liability for
TORT is proper when there is no pre-existing contractual obligation
between the parties. As early as Air France v. Carascoso, that is only
the General Rule subject to this exception. And therefore, tort
liability, under Philippine Law, can exist within the context of a
contract. So it is no longer any defense that there is no Tort Liability
because there is a contract between the Parties. And therefore the
remedies that are exclusively that are available to the parties would
be remedies that are of course geared towards breaches of
contract; Rescission, specific performance with damages.
Supreme Court here said that NO. When the act that
breaks the contract is itself tortuous, liability under quasi-delict or
culpa aquiliana is proper. So in that sense, the definition is correct.
The definition of Blacks Law is Correct.
Finally, does the remedy consist of purely an action for damages.
Yes, BUT, it is only one of the remedies. Example under Article 26,
theres something in it that makes it toxic, and then you got sick for
food poisoning.
First question: Where did you buy your coke? Direkta from Cocacola? NO. The probability is gipalit nimo sa Sari sari store. Gipalit
nimo sa canteen. But the law makes the manufacturer of coke
liable to you because of the injury. Take note that under Article
2187, does it mention anything about bad faith on the part of the
manufacturer or processor? The law doesnt have it stated. Its
enough that the person who consumed the food stuff or drinks
suffered death or injury for liability to attached. That is Strict
Liability Tort.
The law is presuming that if therefore is injury occurs by
the consumption, that there is negligence.
ARTICLE 2193: The Head of a Family that lives in a
building or a part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by
things thrown or falling the same.
Nahulugan ka ug paso coming from the 2 nd floor, does it
make the it a fault on the part of the people inside the 2 nd floor, that
room in the 2nd floor na nakahulog ug paso sa imo? No. Does it
mention any bad faith, intent or negligence? NO. Its enough na nay
nahulog. You are already liable if you are the head of the family.
That the price of modern living. Kadtong sa unang panahona,
bungalow tanan, first floor tanan tao. But when the Romans
invented multi-tiered lodgings. They were the first who used multitiered or multi story lodging. Some earlier civilizations may have
been build bigger structures compared to the Romans, Romans and
nag una una ug buhat ug condominium type nga habitation. And its
no surprise that Article 2193 is lifted almost directly from Roman
Law kay sila ang tag-iya and nagregulate ana. No need to prove any
fault or negligence, bad faith, theres liability. Strict liability. So for
strict liability torts, the law imposes absolute liability without
regard to fault or negligence. And therefore obviates the need to
prove fault or negligence in court. It is enough that the factual
antecedent required by the provision is satisfied. No need to prove
any factors such as fault, negligence or bad faith. That is strict
liability.
Intentional Torts
At onset remember that when a wrongful act is
committed intentionally what results is not a civil wrong but a
criminal wrong. If you do harm a person, and there is intent on your
part to harm that person, thats a crime, thats NOT a Tort. You
should be prosecuted for it because there is criminal intent, an
intent to harm. So unsa jud diay ning Intentional Tort? So how could
a Tort be intentional?
Ill give you an example. Hypothetical lang. Im not
saying that this happened. What if Duterte says, Nagkatambok
lang ng agi nimo Leyla Delima, bugo naka, bigaon pajud!. You
know that Duterte and Delima are used to be classmates, but
because of politics perhaps, nag away na ning duha. So lets say
nag-away sila. So what would Dutertes liability for intentionally
calling Delima, fat and dumb? Unsa man? Can you recall what will
you do if you were Delima? What would you file against Duterte? It
depends. Depende sa circumstances. Example, if the statement
was printed, or published, liability would be Article 353 of the RPC
one full hour just proximate cause in the future. This is a very
important doctrine. What say here in:
way to the ladder causing signal guy to fall and thereby breaking his
arms so result to harm. So there is causation in fact and proximate
causation.
Have you seen movies of Dolphy before? Have you? Or wala njud
ninyo naabtan si Dolphy? I always see this in his movies noh, kana
bang magmata siya ug sayo sa buntag, pagkahuman,
magtootbrush, actually dili magtoothbrush, maghimogmog ra, and
somebody catches his attention, just as he is spitting out kadtong
iyang gimumog. Then naay niagi, Si Panchito or si Babalu, maoy
maigo. I dont know why but this doctrine or this principle of law
reminds me of that. Why unsa diay ni?
1.)
b.
January 8, 2016
KVTAN
So we will continue on where we left off last year. And I hope you
already got a copy of the case list for this semester. But please take
note of certain cases because I included in my lecture certain cases
of recent xxx which may still not yet included in your case list.
On March 13, 2000, at around 11 pm, one Dela Llana was driving a
1997 Toyota Corolla along North Ave., Quezon City. His sister, Dra.
Dela Llana, was seated at the frnt passenger's seat while a certail
Calimlim was at the back seat. One stop at the Veteran's Memorial
Hospital when the signal light turned red. A few seconds after, a
dump truch containing gravel and sand suddenly rammed the car's
rear end, violently pushing the car forward. Due to the impact, the
car's rear collapsed and it's windshield was shattered. Glass flew,
puncturing Dra. Dela Llana. Apart from her minor wounds, Dra. Dela
Llana did not appear to have suffered from any other visible
physical injuries.
So it is a simple bump from behind case. They were riding there and
suddenly something bumped them. So what will happen to you?
Malabay jud ka especially wala kay seatbelt.
The truck driver revealed that his employer was Rebecca Biong. A
month and a half after the accident, Dra. Dela Llana began to feel
moderate pain on the left side of her neck and shoulder. Her health
deteriorated to the extent that she could no longer move around.
She consulted with Dr. Milla to examine her condition. Dr. Milla told
her that probably she suffered from a whiplash injury, an injury
caused by the compression of a nerve running to her left arm and
hand.
Lao: Sale.
Sir: Meaning buyer and seller, both have obligations? What is the
obligation of the buyer?
Lao: Under 1458 of the Civil Code. To pay, therefore in a price
certain or its equivalent.
Sir: What about the seller?
Lao: To deliver agreed upon by the parties.
2.
According to the Supreme Court, the bicycle occupies a legal
position that is at least equal to that of other vehicles lawfully on
the highway, and it is fortified by the fact that usually more will be
required of a motorist than a bicyclist in discharging his duty of
care to the other because of the physical advantages the
automobile has over the bicycle.
At a slow speed of ten miles per hour, a bicyclist travels amost 15 ft
per hour, while a car traveling at only 25miph covers almost 37ft per
second, and a split-second acton may be insufficient to avoid an
accident. It is obvious that a motor vehicle poses a greater danger
of harm to a bicyclist than vice versa. Accordingly, while the duty of
using reasonable care falls alike on a motorist and a bicyclist, due to
the inherent differences in the two vehicles, more care is required
from the motorist to fully discharge the duty than from the
bicyclist. Simply stated, the physical advantages that the motor
vehicle has over the bicycle make it more dangerous to the bicyclist
than vice versa.
So what is the Supreme Court saying? Between a motor vehicle and
a bicycle, kinsay lamang? Motor Vehicle.
occurrence.
What about the accused in the case of Standand? Take note that
the accused here filed a civil action while the criminal case was still
pending. That is why the private complainant here is saying nga dili
man siguro ka pwede mu-file ana because otherwise that would be
a forum shopping.
Can you recall the requisites for forum shopping?
And finally, although these two actions arose from the same act or
omission, they have different causes of action. The criminal case is
based on culpa criminal while the civilc case was based on culpa
aquiliana, actionable under articles 2176 and 2177 of the civil code.
I love this case of Standard.
Now, based on what we already know so far, there are three types
of culpa:
1. culpa aquiliana
2. culpa contractual
3. culpa criminal
What are the disctinctions?
I do not want to discuss that anymore. If you look at your books,
daghan kaayog distinctions. So just take note of those. I want you
to master those distinctions.
You call this provision in the Criminal procedure? And do you recall
also the provision prior to the 2000 Rules of Crim Pro, nga naa tay
case nga Cabaero vs Cantos? Can you recall Cabaero? That tackled
the propriety of filing a counterclaim in a criminal case where the
judge there said that actually silent man ang laws. And so maybe
you can file a counterclaim. If it is silent, then it is allowed and
maybe it is allowed.
When it reached the Supreme Court, it said nga actually tama man.
Pero what you are actually doing is that you are convoluting
everything. Ginasamok nato kay imbes nga ang i-determine lang
nato kay ang criminal liability lang, naa pay counterclaim even
though it arises from the same subject matter from the main
complaint.
So, here, there is no forum shopping.
Reasons:
-The accused cannot file a counterclaim precisely because of the
prohibition under Rule 111. So whatever claim he has against the
other party can only be ventilated in a separate civil action. So, dili
pwede.
And according to the Supreme Court, quoting the case of
Casupanan, either the private complainant or the accused can file a
separate civil action under article 2177. Because in all occasion is if
you are the complainant, ikaw tong plaintiiff, you are the only one
who can file a separate civil action because that is under article
2177.
But actually, the Supreme Court said, wala may prohibition. The
accused can do it. The accused can also file an independent or
separate civil action.
Unsa man ning res ipsa loquitur? In certain instances, the presence
of facts and circumstances surrounding the injury woud not
indicate the negligence on the part of the defendant. The maxim
applies when it is so improbable that such accident will have
happened without the fault of the defendant and a reasonable man
to find, without further evidence, that it was so caused. He maxim
calls for the defendant the burden of disproving the negligence.
Maski wala pa mo nigikan sa evidence, you of course know that
when you allege something, you have to prove it. It is not enough
that you allege and put it out there. You have to substantiate it.
So, for example, you are the plaintiff. You are alleging that the
defendant is negligent and his negligence is the reason for your
injury, then you have to prove it that he was certainly negligent.
But there are certain instances where you don't have to prove
negligence. In fact, the burden is shifted to the defendant to
disprove that he was negligent.
Let's say for example, na-opera ka. Appendectomy. What would
you want to happen? A-there are forecepts left B- hysterectomy or
C-testicles were removed instead? In either way, if anything
happens, you need to prove that the medical institution or the
doctor was negligent. Naay nabilin nga foreign object sa imong
tiyan, who put it there? Alangan ikaw? So do you need to prove that
there was negligence? The answer is NO. The thing speaks for itself
res ipsa loquitur.
Now, read this case: REPUBLIC VS LUZON STEVEDORING
(September 29, 1967) including that case that I have told you about
the UNKNOWN OWNER (2015)because the res ipsa loquitur
doctrine there is important.
AFRICA VS CALTEX (March 31, 1966)
The requisites can be found in the case of MALAYAN VS ALBERTO,
which is also stated in HARCIA VS PEOPLE.
What was the contract entered here between Air France and
the passenger Carascoso? Contract of carriage.
Now take note of the requirement that as a general rule there has
to be a no pre existing contractual relations between the parties in
order for liability to attach under article 2176. This is so because
Coca-cola v CA
The soft drinks were found to contain fiber like substance as a
result the proprietress selling the soft drink lost sales. AS a
result she filed an action for damages from the manufacturer
Coca-cola.
What is the contention of the plaintiff here? Why is she entitled
to damages? She contended that because of the said product
she suffered loss and damages and as result she lost her job
and she became jobless so she is claiming damages against
Coca-cola.
SC ruling:
Loadmasters v Glodel
R&B Insurance issued many policy in favor of Columbia to
insure the shipments of cargo. Columbia engaged the services
of Glodel for the release and withdrawal of the cargos and
Glodel engaged the services if loadmasters for the use of its
delivery trucks. The cargos were to be transported to
Columbias warehouses in Bulacan and Valenzuela City. The
cargos arrived safely in Bulacan but one of the trucks to going
What is the law trying to tell us here? That the defendant in a case
filed under 2176 can defend against the cause of action by stating
that:
The RTC ruled against BPI, holding that while it has a right to
suspend the defalting credit card, it abused the right.
dominos and you flip the 1st so the expectation is the last one
will also fall. But what if someone pitik the 5 th domino what
will now cause the last domino to fall? Dili na katong pag pitik
nimo sa una na domino, its now the other person pitiking or
flipping the 5th domino. So its the simple illustration of what
constitutes proximate cause and efficient intervening cause.
But actually in legal practice unless its really clear that mao
gyud na siya ang proximate cause na wala jud efficient
intervening cause and sometimes its very hard to determine.
Example is RODRIGUEZA, ET AL. v. THE MANILA RAILROAD
COMPANY
RODRIGUEZA, ET AL. v. THE MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY
The house of the plaintiff here was razed by fire emitted
because of the train of Manila Railroad Company. The fire
started from one house until it reached the plaintiffs house.
The defendant MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY contended that
the fire could not have spread to the house of the plaintiff
where it not for the wind which is connected to be the efficient
intervening cause. Dili man masunog ang ika napulo na balay
kung wla gi dala sa hangin ang kalayo gikan sa una nga balay. So
ang nay sala ana ang hangin. Thats the defense of MANILA
RAILROAD COMPANY. According to them thats an efficient
intervening cause. According to the SC how did it rule here?
According to the SC, you cannot call it an efficient intervening
cause if it is already in operation at the time the negligent act
was committed. What was the negligent act? The failure to
ensure that the train will not emit fire when it runs. Ang wind
naa na ba at the time that you failed to repair? Yes naa man
hangin all the time. So the wind cannot be deemed to be an
efficient and intervening cause because it was already in
operation at the time of the negligence of the defendant. Even
if the wind was not in operation then it cannot be considered an
effective intervening cause because the wind did not break the
chain of causation between the negligence of the defendant
and the resulting damage.
Mckee v AIC
Kho was driving along the highway, he swerved his car to the
left and encroached upon the opposite lane. Nag counter flow
siya to avoid 2 children. His car was hit by a speeding truck
coming from the opposite direction, so Kho sued the driver. The
efficient intervening cause is the negligence of the defendant.
The plaintiff may have been negligent but the defendants
negligence pre empted the effect of negligence in the said case.
Although it may be said that Khos act was negligent and was
the initial act in the chain of events because clearly kung wala
siya ni swerve dili siya ma bangaan, it cannot be said that the
same cause the injuries and deaths because of the occurence of
the efficient intervening event, the negligent act of the truck
driver. The driver did not heed the warning to slow down
instead of swerving to his right which is the proper
precautionary measure under the given circumstances. So again
you go back to that mental *** of dominos. The 1 st domino can
be seen kato pag swerve ni Kho and here comes the truck that
is speeding, instead of slowing down or avoiding the swerving
presumption.
sought by, another if the latter, who had the last clear chance,
could have avoided impending harm by the exercise of due
diligence.
Recit: Agantal
Q: What happened in the case of Picart v Smith?
A: The plaintiff was riding on a pony. And then he crossed the
bridge. And then the defendant was riding his automobile.
Defendant approached the foot bridge and saw the plaintiff on the
wrong side of the lane. He (inaudible), thinking that the driver of
the pony will go to the other lane. Upon approaching at 10-20 miles
per hour, he startled the house and the horse when to his lane. As a
result, he hit the horse resulting to its death.
The issue in this case is WON the defendant is liablee for damages.
The Court here said that YES.
Firstly, the person riding on the pony was negligent because, in the
first place, he was on the wrong side of the road. So the court said
that he was negligent. But, the defendant should have been aware
that this horse would be startled by some - for example,
automobiles because this is foreign to them. When he
approached the horse, he should have at least stopped the car or
slowed it down.
Q: So 10 kph imong speed, I think the better thing to do would have
been to stop.
A: Yes, sir. Instead, he assumed that the horse would go to the
other side of the lane. But what happened was the other way
around.
Q: So what is this doctrine of last clear chance that became very
famous because of Picart v Smith? Or is it the other way around: did
the case of Picart v Smith become famous because of this doctrine
[of last clear chance]?
A: In this case, although the person riding the pony was negligent,
the defendant here had the last clear chance of avoiding the
incident, since he was riding an automobile only him had the
ability to evade the incident but he instead hit the horse
negligently. (end of recit)
What he said was correct. The law is that the person who has the
last clear chance of avoiding impending harm, and fails to do so, is
chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior
negligence of the other party.
And here, the Supreme Court described the so-called doctrine of
last clear chance, also known as the doctrine of supervening
negligence or the doctrine of (inaudible). It is the event that where
both parties are negligent, but the negligent of one is appreciably
later in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to
determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the
incident, the one who has the last clear opportunity to avoid
impending harm, and failed to do so, is chargeable with the
consequences thereof.
Stated differently, the rule would also mean that an antecedent
negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages
for supervening negligence of, or bar a defense against the liability
here?
A: 60-40.
Q: So what are you saying, he did not authorize the P1M check?
A: Yes, sir. After he discovered that he has a debt of P1M, he filed a
complaint against the ALLIED.
(1)
(2)
Shipping v Concha.
Just to give you a perspective I know wala na niy labot sa courts
its not with the courts if illegally dismissed ka. But just so you know
unsay difference sa number 1 and number 2 sa Article 1146.
accident occurred such that the brace of the trench was destroyed
and he was buried up to his waist. When they tried to rescue him,
he has already died. An action for damages was filed by his mother.
The issue here, sir, is WON the company where he worked (Atlantic
Gulf) was liable for damages.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK
Next, Assumption of Risk. I know youve heard about this. Weve
discussed about this when we were talking about the case of Ilocos
Norte Electric Cooperative. Diba?
What is this doctrine of Assumption of Risk? It bars a claim for
negligence when it can be shown that the plaintiff, by his or her
conduct, voluntarily chose to encounter a known and specific
danger and either fully appreciated or should have fully appreciated
the risks posed by that conduct.
The applicable latin maxim here is volenti non fit injuria meaning,
he who voluntarily assumes a risk does not suffer damage
thereby. Or simply, to a willing person no injury is done.
This doctrine holds that a person who knowingly and willingly puts
himself in a dangerous situation cannot sue for any resulting
injuries. Again, this is a common law doctrine of Anglo-American
origin which serves as a bar to recovery for damages in negligence
cases.
The example I always give to my students here would be Manny
Pacquiao. But this time, Manny Pacquiao being a boxer. Or any
boxer, for that matter. So nag-boxing ka. Gikulata ka. Can you now
sue the promoted of the boxing match that you got hurt? Can you
sue your opponent for beating you up? No. Why? Volenti non fit
injuria. To the willing, no injury is done.
Medical tests. Diri sa Pilipinas wala kaayoy ing-ana. Pero medical
tests, for example, became quite prominent right now because in
France, theres a guy who became brain dead after being subjected
to medical trials for medication. So he became brain dead. Of
course, he is dead already. And a lot of people develop symptoms
also after testing drugs against (inaudible). But they voluntarily
assumed the risk and, in all probability, they were made to sign
waivers. Diba? So that is volenti non fit injuria. Kung mag tuga-tuga
ka, ayawg reklamo kung mapandol ka. Mao nay ginaingon sa volenti
non fit injuria.
Now, this doctrine was first alluded to in our jurisdiction in the case
of Cerezo v Atlantic Gulf.
*Recit: Monday
Q: What happened here?
A: In this case, _____ was an employee of Atlantic Gulf.
Okay, now, lets change my work. For example, one that is a little bit
more exotic: mangatkatay ug tuba. Or meaning, mukatkat ug lubi.
Okay, mao nang gipabuhat saako sa Ateneo. And then nahulog ko.
A: Ateneo would not be liable, sir. Because under the doctrine of
assumed risk (end of recit)
Mao na ron ang assumption of risk! Meaning, Ateneo and even in
this case of Cerezo, Atlantic Gulf cannot insure against all risks.
These are simply veritable risks of labor. Dili na pwede mainsure
nimo! I think this will be a little bit more appreciated in the next
case.
*Recit: Bungabong
Q: What happened in the case of Afialda v Hisole
A: In this case, Loreto Afialda was the caretaker of carabaos owned
by Hisole. Then, on March 21, 1947, without any fault on the part of
Afialda, or any force majeure, one of the carabaos gored him
(gisungag) thereby causing his death.
Now, Afialdas sister sued Hisole arguing that under the Civil Code
(ARTICLE 1905):
Q: First question, do you know who the respondent in this case is?
A: No, I dont, sir. (cue the age jokes)
The possessor of animals or the one who uses the same is liable for
any damages it may cause, even such animal should escape from him
or stray away.
The liability shall cease only in case, the damage should arise from
force majeure or from the fault of the person who may have suffered
it.
Q: Who was the owner of the animal again? Was it the caretaker?
A: No, sir. It was owned by Hisole.
So the issue in this case, sir, is WON Hisole should be liable for the
death of Mr. Afialda.
Q: How did the SC deal with that issue? What did it say, how did it
rule?
A: In this case, sir, the SC had the opportunity to emphasize the
term possessor and user of animal.
In this case, Afialda was only the caretaker of the carabaos of Mr.
Hisole. And he was tasked and paid to tend for the carabaos. He, at
the time of the goring, is the possessor and the user of the carabao.
And therefore, hes the one who had custody of the animal and was
in a position to prevent the animal from causing the damage.
Atty. E: including himself, right?
It would be a defense, sir, if Afialda was not the one who was
taking care of that carabao. So in this case, sir, it was Afialdas
business to prevent the animal from causing the injuries or damage
to anyone, including himself. And being injured by the animal under
those circumstances, was one of the risks of the occupation which
he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the
consequences.
Atty. E: One of the risks of the occupation... Same thing that you can
apply in the case of Cerezo! Si Cerezo, okay, worked in that time of
day, digging a trench hole. That the company cant assure that
nothing bad will happen to you, the same thing in any occupations.
FORTUITOUS EVENT
Next is ARTICLE 1174.
You can defend against quasi-delict by saying that it was not my
So in this case, the SC said that assuming that there was really a
problem in the transmission of RCPI, which led to the belated
transmission of the telegram, they should have informed Grace
right away of such event. (end of recit)
Okay, theres still negligence. Despite their claim that it was an act
of God. But if there is an intervention of negligence, or failure to
perform an act which is incumbent upon the contracting party, the
whole force is humanized. Thats the term used by the Supreme
Court: humanized, and is removed from the rules applicable in
acts of God.
You can still apply these rules to Quasi-Delicts because it is not all
that different. Lets say, for example, you are driving a car. And
then, suddenly, nagka-tire blow up ka. You dont have any control
as to whether or no imohang car magkabuang! And then you hit
somebody. If it can be proven that it was due to the fact that you
did not maintain your vehicle in a proper condition na wala nimo
gipulihan ang naupaw na nga ligid, then you are liable despite the
fact that you never really intended na mubuto imong ligid. Similar
gihapon na sya sa Quasi-delicts.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
And, finally, a partial defense is found in Article 2180 with respect
to the vicarious liability principle.
Now, if you have your codals with you, kindly take a look at Article
2180 and observe Im not asking you to memorize it or anything,
but I just want you to observe look at Article 2180: who are those
persons who are responsible for the acts or omissions of another?
And from the paragraphs you see there *reads paragraphs*
(Editors note: enumeration here supplied; summary)
1.
Father, or mother;
2.
Guardians;
3.
Owners and managers of an establishment;
4.
Employers;
The phraseology of that you may find a bit peculiar,
considering that naa na dayon syay murag caveat ba:
eventhough the former (employer) are not engaged in
any business or industry. It seems like its just mentioning
it from out of the blue. Actually, not from out of the blue.
Remember the requirement in the Revised Penal Code,
that even (inaudible) kinahanglan engaed in business or
industry ang usa ka employer for subsidiary liability to
The State;
Teachers or heads of establishments
2183
Nuisance
Product Liability
For example,
1. Respondeat Superior
Command responsibility, or that to which will hold the superior
officer jointly and severally accountable for damages with his
subordinates who committed such transgressions.
2. Principle of Pater Familias.
Father of a Family. This purely bases the liability of the master
ultimately on his own negligence and not of that of his servant.
TIU vs ARRIESGADO (Sept 1, 2004)
The Supreme Court had the occasion to determine, unsa ba gyud
ang basis sa liability when it comes to quasi-delicts.
Q: What is the distinction of respondeat superior and pater familias,
as taken from the case of Tiu vs Arriesgado? (Recit)
Take notes ha, that in the case of Tiu, the SC did not call it Pater
Familias but noted it is imputed negligence gihapon.
A: In pater familias, it is disputable. Meaning the presumption of
negligence on the part of the actor can be disputed.
Q: How?
A: By showing that they exercised due diligence of good father of a
family.
Q: Now what about, respondeat superior?
A: It is conclusive. Meaning, immediately after there is an act causes
damages to another by someone for whom another is responsible,
ang iyang superior/amo/boss is already conclusively presumed
negligent.
But if you really look at it, himayhimayon nimu ang ruling sa SC, dili
nimu makita. Pater familias is the basis of liability in Civil Law.
Respondeat Superior, on the other hand, is the basis of liability in
Anglo-American court common law. Therefore, diha pa lang sa PH,
being a Civil Law country, we do not have Respondeat Superior as a
general rule, but Pater Familias. In Pater Familias, the presumption
of negligence is disputable. However, negligence of an employee is
conclusively presumed in the case of Respondeat Superior.
Remember, one of the important distinction: In Pater Familias,
defense here is diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage (last par of 2180). Whereas, in Respondeat Superior that is
not a proper defense.
But it doesnt mean, that being a Civil Law country there are no
instances of Respondeat Superior is applicable. For example, there
is Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code relating to the subsidiary
civil liability of employers.
Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. - The
subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall
also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations
engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their
servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the
(3.)
Spouses.
Article 211. The father and the mother shall jointly exercise
parental authority over the persons of their common children. In
case of disagreement, the father's decision shall prevail, unless
there is a judicial order to the contrary.
So karon, wala nay alternative qualification. But in case of
disagreement, the fathers decision shall prevail, unless there is
judicial order to the contrary.
Now, under Art 221. What are these appropriate defenses? Mubalik
gihapon ta sa 2180. Which is, diligence in disciplining and rearing the
children in preventing the damage.
Under Article 211, liability for tort under vicarious liability is without
alternative qualification. This was the categorical ruling of the SC En
Banc in the case of LIBI vs IAC, where the SC was very poetic. It
said: One of the ironic verities of life, it has been said, is that sorrow
is sometimes a touchstone of love. Beautiful language!
Relating to the torts of minor children, under Article 58 of the Child
and Youth Welfare Code:
Article 58. Torts. - Parents and guardians are responsible for the
damage caused by the child under their parental authority in
accordance with the Civil Code.
So, pareha ang rule, more or less, with respect to torts. Parents
no alternative qualification.
In the rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law (Feb 28, 2002)
Section 33. xxxx The parents and other persons exercising
parental authority over the juvenile shall be civilly liable for the
injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of the
juvenile living in their company and under their parental
authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law.
More or less the same.
Take note that the liability here is solidary (direct/primary).
However, there are instances under the law when parents are
nearly made subsidiarily liable. What are these instances?
Instances parents are subsidiarily liable:
(5.)
Article 218 of the Family Code
Article. 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.
The school, its administrators and teachers have special parental
authority over the minor child while under their supervision,
instruction or custody.
And under Article 219, if the tort is committed by children within the
custody of the school, the parents/guardians/persons exercising
the subsidiary parental authority over the minor shall be subsidiarily
liable.
TAMARGO vs CA
(Recit)
Q; What happened first?
A: Decree of adoption then the incident happened. So technically
speaking, at the time that it happened, adopted na ang minor.
Q: Would that matter?
A: Even if the decree of adoption has been approved, it is still the
natural parents who are liable. This so because, the law says that
the parents who are liable for the acts of their children, should be
those who are in actual custody of the minor.
Q: How many sets of adoptive parents are here? Because I am also
of the impression that katong naigo is an adopted child. What does
it tell you?
Sir: That as an adoptive parent, you have the cause of action to sue
for your adopted child. It also tells you that you can be sued for the
acts of your adopted child.
Q: Was there an issue here concerning the Retroactive effect of
adoption?
A: Yes. But the SC said that considering that the adoptive parents
here are in the US and they do not have actual custody of the child,
it would be unfair to give retroactive effect.
From case (read by sir): to hold that parental authority had been
retroactively lodged in the Rapisura spouses so as to burden them
with liability for a tortious act that they could not have foreseen
and which they could not have prevented (since they were at the
time in the United States and had no physical custody over the child
Adelberto) would be unfair and unconscionable. Such a result,
moreover, would be inconsistent with the philosophical and policy
basis underlying the doctrine of vicarious liability. Put a little
differently, no presumption of parental dereliction on the part of
the adopting parents, the Rapisura spouses, could have arisen since
Adelberto was not in fact subject to their control at the time the
tort was committed.
Contemplates a situation where the pupil lives and boards with the
teacher, such that the control, direction and influence on the pupil
supersedes those of the parents.
in particular circumstances.
As a consequence of substitute parental authority, the school, its
administrators and teachers, are principally and solidary liable for
damages caused by their pupil or students.
Parents are not exempt from liability, there is subsidiary liablity as
we mentioned. The FC now makes no distinction between
academic and non-academic institutions.
If the school is being sued together with its administrators and
teachers, the liability is joint and solidary in keeping with Article
2194 which provides that the liability of joint tort feasors is joint and
solidary.
Responsibility and authority shall apply to authorized activities
whether inside or outside the premises of the school. Unlike Art
2180, where the child should be in the school premises, custody
under Art 218 extends to acts committed inside or outside provided
the activity was an authorized activity.
Q: What happens if the student is not a minor?
A: Remember under the Family Code a non-minor, lets say 18-21,
applies only to parental authority. In that situation you still apply
Art 2180.
Q: In 2180, kinsa ang liable?
A: teachers and heads of establishments for the acts of students
and apprentices who are not minors anymore. But the teacher-incharge is liable for the acts of the non-minor student. The school
and administrators are not to be held liable. However, in the case of
the teachers liability will attach whether the school is academic or
non-academic.
By exception, it is the head of the school, not the teacher, who is
held liable where the injury is caused in school of arts and trades.
Custody means also protective custody. Which means, the student
must be under the authority of the school, and within it premises
whether the semester has not yet begun or has to end.
Please remember these rules.
employees.
What about working scholars?
FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT, Aug 17, 1992
Here, there is a working student and janitor of Filamer. He has a
student drivers permit and so the son of the schools owner Allan
Masa, gipa-drive siya para makatuon siya. While driving,
nakabangga. Of course there was damage. So the first thing we
need to ask is this, He is a student and at the same time an
employee, what therefore would govern liability? Would it be 2180
under pseudo-parental vicarious liability or should it be ER-EE
relationship as a basis for vicarious liability? In this case, it is the
employment relationship. Accdg to the SC: any act done by an
employee, in furtherance of the interests of the employer or for the
account of the employer at the time of the infliction of the injury or
damage would give rise to the presumption na ang iyang gibuhat
was within the scope of his assigned tasks.
What about labor-only contracting?
In NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION vs.
August 14, 1998
COURT OF APPEALS
with? What would be the effect if the orders are not complied with?
Naa bay punishment? It is incumbent upon the ER to show that
upon recruiting the erring EE, the policies were followed.
Can the ER be liable for acts of the EE done after office hours?
General rule: NO.
Now I have a problem with this ruling. What law provides for ER-EE
relationship? It is the Labor Code. So you make reference to the
Labor Code that is the foundation of liability. And yet the SC is
saying that for purposes of allocating responsibility for damages,
we do not apply anymore the Labor Code but Art 2180 of the NCC.
To my mind, this is aberrant. SC is saying we apply labor-only
contracting provisions to make a finding of ER-EE relationship even
if there is no power of control. And yet when it comes to liability,
we do not apply the Labor Code anymore because ang application
sa Labor Code is limited. It does not include liability for damages.
On that score, we have to apply Art 2180. But then again, thats just
my opinion.
When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, the
employer is presumed to be negligent either in the selection or in
the supervision of that employee. This presumption may be
overcome only by satisfactorily showing that the employer
exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of his employee.
When you make a finding of ER-EE relationship for the purpose of
complying with labor standards provisions, what is the quantum of
proof? SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE because it is an administrative
tribunal. It is a little bit lower than PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
which is what is needed to prove that there is ER-EE relationship in
a quasi-delict case grounded on Art 2176 in relation to 2180.
That make the ruling in NAPOCOR aberrant.
How do you prove diligence to negate liability?
VALENZUELA,
The SC said naa ray duha ka rason ngano tagaan kag car plan:
1. As a facility so that EE can meet his clients; and
2. Goodwill
The company actually owns and maintains the car up to the point
of turnover of ownership to the employee; in the second example,
the car is really owned and maintained by the employee himself. In
furnishing vehicles to such employees, are companies totally
absolved of responsibility when an accident involving a companyissued car occurs during private use after normal office hours?
For large companies other than those cited in the example of the
preceding paragraph, the privilege serves important business
purposes either related to the image of success an entity intends to
present to its clients and to the public in general, or - for practical
and utilitarian reasons - to enable its managerial and other
employees of rank or its sales agents to reach clients conveniently.
In most cases, providing a company car serves both purposes.
Ordinary ER
Acts covered in
order for there to
be
vicarious
liability
Acts performed on
the occasion or by
reason
of
the
functions entrusted
to him
Effect of violation
of orders
Availability
of
defense in the
selection
and
supervision of EEs
Contributory
negligence
Apply 2179
Common Carrier
ER
All
acts
negligent man o
willful.
Even
though the EE
acted outside the
scope of authority
or
even
in
violation of the
ERs orders.
Not a defense.
Common carrier
would still be held
liable.
It is NOT a valid
defense.
Contributory
negligence
of
passenger
does
not bar recovery
for damages if the
proximate cause is
the negligence of
the carrier but the
amt of damages
shall be equitably
reduced.
The State
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a
special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the
official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case
what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.
This is difficult to understand therefore we need to understand
what is a special agent? Why is that the law mentions article 2176
when we are talking about 2180? R4emember there are two
aspects to the functions of the state and its liability :
Apparently you will be paid back but it is not a guarantee that you
will not be sued.
Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his
dependents or employees may recover from the latter
what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim.
(1904)
Youre held vicariously liable but remember as well that because
liability here is direct derivative joint and solidary, you can be sued
directly being the employer. Pwede na ikaw ang pabayron directly
because you are the employer. The basis of liability under 2810 is
not really your negligence as if you were the one who did the tort.
No. it is because of the imputed negligence on the employer etc
because of their own lack of due care in the selection, supervision,
in preventing the damage or injury. Under the general provisions of
liabilities direct and primary, under the vicarious liability provision
liability is direct and derivative to a certain degree. If the defendant
is made liable under 2176, it therefore correspondent to his own
property if liability is based on 2180 the parent, employer, etc will
be proceeded directly against. Pwede direct sa ilaha. Take note of
article 2181 regarding the rights of one who pays for the damage
caused by another. What is the remedy? You have the right to
recover from the person over whom you are responsible like minor
child, employee, ward or special agent, what he has paid in
satisfaction of the claim. So that is statutory recognition of the
right of reimbursement because while the basis of liability is
presumed negligence in selection and supervision it is ultimately
the acts of the minor, employee or ward that causes damage.
PHILTRANCO vs. CA june 17 1997
The SC said that the liability of the employer for damages arising of
the tortuous acts of its employee is primary, direct, join, several or
solidary with the latter. ART. 219. the responsibility of two or more
persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary. Since the
employer's liability is primary, direct and solidary, its only recourse
if the judgment for damages is satisfied by it is to recover what it
has paid from its employee who committed the fault or negligence
which gave rise to the action based on quasi-delict under article
2181.
Pwede nimo ma recover but it is not a guarantee that you will not
be made to pay. Mubayad gihapon ka under article 2181. Maka
recover ka. How much can you recover? Look at 2181. The law does
not qualify. In other words, full reimbursement. Although that
would not usually happen especially minor children. Ikaw mubayad
independent pa man na sa imo.
Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no
parents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall be
answerable with his own property in an action against him
where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. (n)
Nothing much here except to note that the provision has its
counterpart in the RPC in cases of civil liability of ex delicto and
enunciated in the case of Libi vs IAC where the SC noted that
pareha lang ang atoang rules na gina follow. The minor shall be
answerable or shall respond with his own property only In case of
insolvency of the former meaning parents. So thats the ruling. We
What does this provision require? You in effect the owner of the
vehicle, you are there with your driver you are supposed to get
intelligent back seat driver. So kung naa kay makita na reckless
imong driver its your responsibility as owner or employer to stop
the act of negligence. Should that apply to me? I am driven by
somebody whom I pay to drive me around but should that apply to
me? Can I be an intelligent backseat driver? Obviously I know
nothing about traffic rules and regulations. it applies to me
regardless of WON I have actual knowledge of the proper rules and
regulations. its part of your responsibility if you buy a vehicle. Take
not under article 2184 covers 3 situations.
(1.)
(2.)
(3.)
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle you apply 2180
regarding employers, owners, managers liability.
Nobody goes to the doctor for the sake of going to the doctor. You
go to the doctor because there is something that ails you. What is
the standard of care required? Remember in quasi delict cases in
2176 the standard of care required is simply the diligence of a good
father of the family. Contrast that with the case of common carriers
where the law itself under 1755 of the Civil Code creates that
standard of more than ordinary diligence because what the law
requires is the standard of extra ordinary diligence.
Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the
passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can
provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious
persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.
Now isnt the requirement of diligence in 1755 appropriate also to
be required in the medical profession? What else in the case of
Compania Maritima v CA 164 S 285, according to the SC ang extra
ordinary diligence kuno amounts to rendering service with the
greatest skill and foresight. Which begs a question, what type of
skill is required in driving you. So it also tells you that isnt skill
something that could be best attributed to a profession where a
skill is really required. Theres a skill that is required in conducting
surgeries. In medical treatment only ordinary diligence is required
the law does not make any requirement that when it comes to
medical treatment whether it is a simple diagnosis or surgery,
whether it is minor or major surgery, it should be extra ordinary
diligence. The Philippine Medical Act doesnt say that. The canons
of the medical profession did not explicitly require extra ordinary
diligence. Once again it posses a question, if you contract for
medical care will you not expect that you will be treated as far as
care human foresight can provide using the utmost diligence of
very cautious persons with due regard to all the circumstances?
Furthermore will you not expect your doctor to render the medical
service with the greatest skill and foresight? The law requires
ordinary diligence when in fact standards apply to mere common
carriers is less stringent compared to the ones that are employed to
medical field? Why is it like that? Wouldnt that promote laziness on
the part of the doctors? There has to be skill and foresight in the
industry.
Lets go to the case of Reyes v The Sisters of Mercy, according to
the SC the medical profession is one which like the business of a
common carrier is affected with public interest, which again
justifies the comparison that I am trying to make. In the contract of
common carrier its extra ordinary diligence impressed with public
interest. Medical field according to the SC, also affected with public
interest, but the degree of care required is simply ordinary
diligence. Why is there a variance in the required diligence?
Reyes vs. Sisters of Mercy
Why is there a variance in the required diligence when the SC
itself said that the diligence in the medical profession is one like
a common carrier and affected by public interest?
The practice of medicine is already envisioned with one with the
highest degree of diligence. The standard contemplated for
doctors is simply the reasonable average merit among ordinarily
good physicians.
The question is you said stringent na siya daan, how so? How
stringent or high? In the medical profession the doctor takes the
medical school, medical board, residency, specialization and
practice the medical profession and there is a need to
continuously educate yourself and your conduct is subject to
stringent guidelines and regulations by the government itself,
so why is there a need to call it extra ordinary diligence. What
the SC here is saying that its just a matter of nonmenclature
that we do not call it extra ordinary diligence because the
degree of care is already within the system. Built na siya eh. No
need to call it extra ordinary diligence to differentiate it from
other professions or activities, it is in itself very strict. Thats
what the SC is saying, Its not saying that the degree of care
require is only ordinary, ordinary in the sense that it is lower
than extra ordinary diligence. The degree of diligence should
depend the nature of the obligation and corresponds to the
circumstances of persons, of time and of place. Lahi ang
circumstances sa medical profession compared to selling
profession.
So to compare for common carriers rarely there is no pre
qualification process. The only pre qualification process is you
get a student permit, take and exam and you are issued a
license, thats it. While you are already in possession of a license
all you need to do is to follow traffic rules and regulations. Now
the practice of medicine is a profession engaged in only by
qualified individuals. It is acquired through years of education,
training and by first obtaining a license from the state through
professional board examinations. Such license may at any time
and for a cause be revoked by the government in addition to
state regulation the conduct of medical profession is governed
by the hypocratic oath. Whats a hypocratic oath? 1 st an ancient
code of discipline and ethical rules which doctors have imposed
upon themselves in recognition and acceptance of their great
responsibility to society, given these safeguards there is no
need to expressly require doctors the observance the extra
ordinary diligence. Its saying no need to call it extra ordinary
because it already is extra ordinary.
For contracts of carriage there is in effect a guarantee for
passengers or goods will arrive at their destinations safely and
securely. Although you are familiar with the doctrine that
common carriers are not insurers against all risks. Now is it not
in fact that when you contract for transportation you have that
reasonable expectation that you will reach your destination
safely and securely, failing to do hat the common carrier is
automatically liable. Kung di ka ma hatod kung as aka mag pa
hatod, according to the degree of care stated in the civil code it
simply means one thing the common carrier is already in breach
regardless of how limited or how slight the negligence there is a
guarantee. But in the medical profession naa bay gurantee? It is
of such nature that no guarantee of results can be made. A
doctor cannot warrant that the patient after treatment will be
cure of his disease, walay in ana na guarantee in the same way
that in the legal profession you should not make any
guarantees.
So that is the difference between a medical contract and the
contract of carriage.
the second and third elements were present, considering that the
anesthetic agent and the instruments were exclusively within the
control of Dr. Solidum, and that the patient, being then
unconscious during the operation, could not have been guilty of
contributory negligence, the first element was undeniably
wanting. The 1st element here is lacking the finding of negligence.
Hypoxia, or the insufficiency of oxygen supply to the brain that
caused the slowing of the heart rate, scientifically termed as
bradycardia, would not ordinarily occur in the process of a pullthrough operation, or during the administration of anesthesia to
the patient, but such fact alone did not prove that the negligence
of any of his attending physicians, including the anesthesiologists,
had caused the injury. In fact, the anesthesiologists attending to
him had sensed in the course of the operation that the lack of
oxygen could have been triggered by the vago-vagal reflex,
prompting them to administer atropine to the patient. So vagovagal reflex is a reaction, although dili kayo siya common na
reaction, its a reaction that can happen when anesthesia is
administered. So according to the SC kani in anin na injury, its rare
but it can happen. Under the circumstances, it cannot be
reasonable to infer that the physician was negligent, there was no
palpably medical act. There was no expert medical testimony to
create the inference that negligence caused the injuries.
The 3rd element, the definition of medical negligence in
both Garcia v Pascasio and Flores v Pineda, contemplate only bodily
harm or death of a patient. Can you consider psychological or
emotional harm? Like when the doctor molested the patient, ang
emotional harm ba ana be considered medical malpractice? For all
intents and purposes that will be considered bodily harm, not
emotional or psychological harm. What about if the doctor violated
confidentiality? In other words pag treat sa imoha and found out
you have 3 testicles and the doctor shared that information in
violation of the duty owed by a physician to his patient, what harm
will result? Definitely not bodily harm, would that be covered?
Based on the definition of medical malpractice, no. It might
constitute a different actionable wrong but not under medical
malpractice. How about Hayden Kho, according to them his act of
taking videos *scandal* is immorality. Immorality according to the
medical board constitutes malpractice. Thats the reason why his
license was revoked, because of immorality and according to them
is conduct of unbecoming a physician. When you say conduct
unbecoming a physician, that constitutes malpractice. Thats the
reason for revocation of his license. How about Maricar Reyes? She
was not the author of the video so her license was not revoked.
Take note in the recent case of Casumpang v Cortejo,
March 11, 2015 the SC did not change the definition of what
constitutes medical malpractice, still bodily harm or death of a
patient. So short of bodily harm, there cannot be any medical
malpractice. Maskin unsa pa na siya, if it does not amount to bodily
harm, it is technically speaking not medical malpractice.
Lets go to causation. There must be reasonably close and
causal connection between the negligent act or ommission and the
resulting injury. The critical factor in medical negligence case is
proof of the causal connection between the negligence which the
evidence established and the plaintiffs injuries. The plaintiff must
plead and prove not only that he had been injured and defendant
has been at fault but also that the defendants fault cause the
March 4, 2016
MMUNGCAL
DAMAGES
This will be the second to the last major topic that we are going to
be discussing because as I have told you already I am not going to
discuss nuisance anymore, what I am going to discuss is human
relations after we talk about damages.
How do you react when you see the word DAMAGES? Lahi ang
reaction sa usa katao nga dili law student or a non-lawyer when he
hears about the term damages because when we talk about
damages in law, naa nah siyay particular signification. Take note
that the term damages came from the Latin word damnum or
demo which means to take away and in the Civil Code, damages
could mean either two things:
Actual injury or loss caused to
another by a violation of his legal rights; or
The sum of money which the law
awards or imposes as pecuniary
compensation
to
recompense
or
satisfaction for injury done or wrong
sustained as a consequence of either a
breach of contractual obligation or a
tortious act.
Now, what are we going to discuss beginning from Article 2195
would be the second signification of the term damages. Meaning,
kadtong recompense, the sum of money which the law awards
because of a particular injury.
Let us go to Article 2195. Nothing much there.
Article 2195. The provisions of this Title shall be respectively
applicable to all obligations mentioned in article 1157.
Also keep in mind what we learned in Obligations and Contracts
that damages can be due for any source of obligation, whether it
be an obligation that arise from law, contracts, quasi-contracts,
acts or omissions punished by law or quasi-delicts, damages will be
awarded.
Article 2196. The rules under this Title are without prejudice to
special provisions on damages formulated elsewhere in this Code.
Compensation for workmen and other employees in case of death,
injury or illness is regulated by special laws. Rules governing
damages laid down in other laws shall be observed insofar as they
are not in conflict with this Code.
Kung pila ang gasto sa paayo, mao nah siya ang danyos nga ihatag
sa plaintiff.
Now, what happens if you are able to prove it, but you were not
able to claim it? What is the effect if actual damages were not
pleaded or prayed for in the complaint or answer or in the
counterclaim? Let us recall what we know from Civil Procedure.
Remember that a court cannot consider anything that is not
pleaded. The court does not acquire jurisdiction over that issue.
Diba? So the question is what if you are still able to prove it in court
despite the fact that you were not able to plead it?
In the case of Heirs of Justiva vs. Court of Appeals, January 31, 1963:
As a general rule, actual damages will not be
awarded, but even if they are not pleaded, but if they
are proven during trial, actual damages can be
awarded based on the general prayer in the
complaint, such other reliefs just and equitable under
the premises are also prayed for. Except in those
cases where the law authorizes the imposition of
punitive or exemplary damages, a party claiming
damages must establish by competent evidence the
amount of such damages and courts cannot give
judgment for a greater amount than that actually
proven.
That is the rule, whatever you are able to prove, you are entitled to
it. If you fail in proving these damages, then, it will not be given to
you. It is as simple as that. So, a court cannot rely on speculation,
conjecture or he cannot resort as to the fact of amount of
damages, but must depend on actual proof that damages have
been suffered and the evidence of the amount of actual damages.
Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed but must be
duly proved. Take note, in the case of DBP vs Court of Appeals and
Spouses Mangubat, October 16, 2005 (Note: 1995 pag isearch), the
Supreme Court ruled that:
The list of damages extra-judicially prepared by the
plaintiff without supporting receipts is inadmissible
in evidence as factum probans or evidentiary proof
or evidentiary fact. Hence, in order that damages
maybe recovered, the best evidence obtainable by
the injured party must be presented.
Let us go to Article 2200.
imposed as well.
So, dako. Rather than imong liability is simply pay the difference
between the fare, but if there is bad faith, mudako imohang liability
other forms of damages might be warranted already. That is with
respect only to contracts and quasi-contracts.
What about for crimes and quasi-delicts?
Article 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be
liable for all damages which are the natural and probable
consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not
necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have
reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.
So there is no requirement anymore of foreseeability. What is
required here is simply probability, natural and probable
consequences of the act or omission complained of. So, your
obligation in Article 2202 is similar to an obligor in bad faith. Mas
grabe pa actually when we talk of 2202.
Article 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the
diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages
resulting from the act or omission in question.
So if you are a victim, if you are the plaintiff, you have that
obligation. You have that obligation to also do everything in your
power to also minimize your own damages or injury. Let us say for
example, gidunggab ka, Ah, dili na lang ko magpaayo, any way
mahospital bitaw ko, ang mubayad ang defendant bitaw. You do
not do that. You also have to do something to vindicate the injury.
An important case to remember here which clearly illustrates 2203
is the case of Lasam vs. Smith 45 Phil 657.
Here, the defendant Smith owned a public garage
undertook to take plaintiffs from San Fernando to
Currimao, Ilocos Norte. On leaving San Fernando, the
automobile was operated by a licensed chauffer, but
later the chauffer allowed his assistant, who had no
driving license, but who had some experience in
driving to drive. So, gipadrive niya ang lain, an
unauthorized driver. After crossing the Abra River,
the car zigzagged for about half a kilometer, left the
road and went down, the car overturned and the
plaintiffs were pinned down under it. Lasam escaped
with a few concussions but his wife received serious
injuries among which was a compound fracture of
one of the bones of her left wrist. In other words, to
give you a picture, there is a decaying bone beneath
her skin, sa may left wrist niya. But, she refused any
treatment, dili siya gusto magpaopera. You do not
know how many people are like that? Dili ganahan
magpaopera, whether for religious or personal
reasons.
The lower court granted the plaintiff P1,254.10 as
damages. Imagine, this is 45 Philippine Reports, so
this is long time ago and P1,250.10 damages is
actually a big amount. From this decision, plaintiffs
appealed claiming that they are entitled to P7,832.80
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity
of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the
latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded
by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent
physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning
capacity at the time of his death;
Nakapatay ka ug tao or you were driving recklessly your car then,
that person died. Number 1 tells you that you are liable to indemnify
his heirs for the loss of his earning capacity. That amount of money
which he may have earned and therefore used to comply with his
obligations of support under the Family Code were it not for the
fact that you killed him.
xxx
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the
provisions of article 291, the recipient who is not an heir called to
the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or intestate
succession, may demand support from the person causing the
death, for a period not exceeding five years, the exact duration to
be fixed by the court; xxx
Although I have not seen any decision of the Supreme Court that
applies or interprets number 2. But theoretically speaking, let us
suppose that nabangga ka of somebody who is obliged to give
support, pwede ikaw ang pangayuan ug allowance sa iyang mga
nabilin sa kinabuhi. That is number 2.
xxx
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and
ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for
mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
So that is the ground for the award of moral damages. But, we
have to tackle first the first paragraph, the opening paragraph of
Article 2206 by examining jurisprudence on that matter because we
cannot believe right now that our lives are just worth P3,000. It has
to be a little bit more.
What is this death indemnity that we are talking about? Death
indemnity is payable in cases of wrongful death either due to
crimes and quasi-delicts. There can even be also wrongful death as
a result of a contract.
Let us suppose there is a contract of carriage and because the
common carriers employee, the driver did no operate the vehicle
with due care, naay namatay na pasahero, that will also be a
ground for the award of death indemnity.
Now, suppose the death occurred in a contract of carriage, does it
mean that the family of the deceased passenger can no longer
recover? Again, as I told you, NO because if you look at Article 1764
relating to common carriers.
Article 1764. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be
awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book, concerning
Damages. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger
caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier.
Same point is the case of Sulpicio Lines Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,
July 14, 1994.
Deducing alone from Article 2206, one can conclude
that damages arising from culpa contractual are not
compensable without proof of special damages
sustained by the heirs of the plaintiff. However, the
Civil Code, in Article 1764 thereof, expressly makes
Article 2206 applicable to the death of a passenger
caused by the breach of contract by a common
carrier.
So it is clear. It can be a crime, quasi-delict, or even a breach of
contract of carriage.
So, to just look at it from an academic standpoint, what are the
damages that may be awarded in case somebody dies wrongfully,
whether by reason of crime, a quasi-delict or by reason of or in the
occasion of the performance of the carriers obligation?
In People vs. Domingo, March 2, 2009:
For crimes, the following damages may be awarded:
(1) Civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim;
(2) Actual or compensatory damages;
(3) Moral damages;
(4) Exemplary damages; and
(5) In certain cases, temperate damages.
However, as a general rule, when actual damages may be awarded,
temperate damages must be deleted.
Now, what is this temperate damages? Temperate or moderate
damages. Actual damages, we have no problem because we know
that it is supposed to compensate for pecuniary loss. And you are
supposed to prove the pecuniary loss because you are entitled to
such adequate compensation as you have duly proved.
What about temperate damages? Temperate damage is a close
cousin, a younger cousin of actual damages. In the sense that the
law clearly sees that he suffered pecuniary loss but he cannot prove
it with certainty and as a way of paconsuelo, you are given
temperate damages.
Perfect example, namatay, unsay buhaton? Ihaya. Ipalubong. So
there is funeral expense, there is also burial expense. But when that
happens to somebody, will it be the main concern of the family of
the deceased to think about the receipts? Because, in the future, I
will file a case, I have to keep it because according to Atty. Espejo, I
have to substantiate my claim for damages with receipts. To give
item for actual damages. What if nalimtan jud, nawala? Number 1
question is kung wala kay resibo, does it mean nga wala ka
nagpahaya, nga wala ka nagpalubong? Of course, it cannot mean
that. So the court can actually take notice of the fact that naay
namatay, ilahang gipalubong, that definitely nigasto jud sila. So,
what will the court award? Not actual damages because you are not
able to prove it, you are awarded temperate damages. We will go
to that when we discuss temperate damages. But that is the
difference between actual and temperate.
Actual, you have to substantiate it with receipts. Temperate, you
suffered a loss, but the problem is you were not able to prove it
with certainty. So they are mutually exclusive in that both may not
be awarded at the same time as a general rule. We will go to
temperate damages later on and I will tell you the exceptions to the
general rule nga mutually exclusive sila. In other words, they
cannot be awarded in the same cause of action. Hence, no
temperate damages may be awarded if actual damages had already
been granted.
Take note as well that interests may be recovered in a proper case.
In the 2005 case of Nueva Espaa vs. People:
The Court may impose legal interest at the rate of 12%
per annum until the monetary award is actually paid
by the convict.
But this is actually 2005. Because beginning 2013, there is a change
already in the amount of interest that can be charged as to the
interest. We will go to that later on.
Eastern Shipping Lines, before man gud, when there was still a
dichotomy between loans or forbearance of money and non-loans
or forbearance of money, you have to remember the 6% interest
and the 12% interest and the main case there that you need to read
is the case of Eastern Shipping Lines Inc. vs. Court of Appeals where
the Supreme Court had the occasion to list down the rules for the
imposition of legal interest. We will discuss that later on, pero
suffice it to state for now that that is no longer the applicable.
In People vs. Alawig, G.R. No. 187731, September 18, 2013, the
Supreme Court ruled that:
In conformity with current policy, we impose interest
at the rate of 6% per annum on all damages awarded
from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
So right now, it is only 6% per annum.
So what is the proof required in order for the Court to award civil
indemnity for death or kanang ginatawag nato nga death
indemnity?
In People vs. Gutierrez, February 4, 2010:
P50,000 requires no proof other than the fact of
death as a result of the fight.
All you have to do will be the fact of death. Death certificate would
suffice. Now, question is how much? Again, in 2206, P3,000, that is
the value of human life. In time however, the Supreme Court has
increased the civil indemnity from P3,000 to higher amounts based
on several cases that succeeded the passage of the Civil Code.
What is the prevailing amount? P50,000. When death results from a
crime or quasi-delict, the amount of civil indemnity is P50,000.
There is no need to amend the Civil Code for that, why? Because
what the law provides is at least P3,000. So it is really up to the
Court to impose on the passage of time, progressive amounts. So,
ang P3,000 kaniadto nahimong P10,000. Ang P10,000 nahimong
P25,000, nahimong P30,000, nahimong P50,000 and so on. So,
progressively the court can make its own standards when it comes
to award of civil indemnity.
Take note of the following cases, because in these cases, the award
of the Supreme Court in these cases is not P50,000.
First, the case of People vs. Obligado, April 16, 2009. No need to list
down the cases, it is not important. What is important would be
what SC say.
With respect to the award of damages, to conform
with the recent jurisprudence, the appellant is
ordered to pay P75,000 as civil indemnity ex-delicto.
What was the crime committed here? The crime committed was the
crime of murder.
But, in the later case, the case of People vs. Gutierrez, February 4,
2010, ang gihatag diri is P50,000 as civil indemnity. And the crime is
also murder. In murder, the grant of civil indemnity, which has been
fixed by jurisprudence at P50,000 requires no proof other than the
fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of the accuseds
responsibility therefor. This is 2010. Obligado, 2009. P75,000 in
Obligado. In Gutierrez, P50,000. Same crime of murder.
So when you go out and rape somebody, that is the fixed rate that
you are going to pay, multiplied by the number of times that you
raped that person.
Castillo was found guilty of qualified rape or sexual assault, but the
civil indemnity awarded was only P30,000, punishable by prision
mayor to reclusion temporal. So it is not P75,000 because it is not
qualified. Again, you will look at the penalty. The penalty being only
prision mayor to reclusion temporal, that is it.
Now, what you need to look at here, in the case of People vs.
Castillo is the fact that dili nah mao ang doctrine. The mere
touching of the male organ sa female labia is supposed to
consummate the rape already. Here, walay penetration, it is a
different form of rape that was employed, by means of a finger or
an object. P30,000 lang, barato lang kaayo ang bayad.
People vs Sato, November 2014. Statutory rape. Penalty- reclusion
perpetua. Civil indemnity awarded is P75,000. That is correct. No
problem there.
People vs. Dilla, January 21, 2015. Crime committed was murder.
Penalty is reclusion perpetua. Civil indemnity awarded was P75,000
which is also correct because of the penalty to be imposed.
People vs. Tabayan. Crime was rape committed against his minor
granddaughter. Penalty was reclusion perpetua in lieu of death. The
Supreme Court awarded P100,000 as civil indemnity, P100,000 as
moral damages, P100,000 as exemplary damages. Why? Anyare? If
you look at the case, wala man. It is just a simple case where
reclusion perpetua was imposed without possibility of parole
instead of a death penalty and based on prevailing jurisprudence,
that is P75,000. But in this case of Tabayan, P100,000.
People vs. Gambao, 2013 case. The crime committed was kidnapping
for ransom. The proper penalty is death, but because of Republic
Act No. 9346, the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua without
possibility of parole. Question: How much should be the indemnity
here, if at all there is an indemnity? According to the Supreme
Court:
The penalty where the crime committed is death,
which however cannot be imposed because of the
provisions of Republic Act No. 9346, P100,000 as the
civil indemnity.
So does it change already? Is it now not P75,000, but already
P100,000? Is that the prevailing amount? If you look at this case of
Gambao, the 2013 case, P100,000. In the case of Sato, November
2014, only P75,000. In Dilla, only P75,000. This is a 2015 case. Diba
makalibog? The Supreme Court should come up with the prim and
proper guidelines or better yet, the Congress should come up with
a law that amends the Civil Code, because it now creates a wrong
impression that in the Philippines, the value of human life is only at
least P3,000. There should be a clarification coming from the
Congress as well.
I guess that is the best way to look at it, rather than reading all
those cases. Remember this rule. When you take the bar
examinations, I would bet that that would still be the rule.
Paragraph 1 (Article 2206)
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity
of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the
latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded
by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent
physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning
capacity at the time of his death;
What is the purpose of the award?
In the case Da Jose vs. Angeles, October 23, 2013:
Compensation of this nature is not awarded for loss
of earnings, but for loss of capacity to earn money.
The indemnification for loss of earning capacity
partakes of the nature of actual damages which must
be duly proven by competent proof and the best
obtainable evidence thereof. Thus, as a rule,
documentary evidence should be presented to
substantiate the claim for damages for loss of
earning capacity.
Is this the first time that you heard of the term indemnity for loss of
earning capacity because I do remember that when I was in law
school, I did not learn this for the first time in Torts and Damages, I
have learned this is Transportation Law. Damages recoverable from
common carriers. In the case here is the case of Cariaga vs. Laguna
Tayabas Bus Company, a medical student who died because of an
accident for the negligence of the common carrier. That is the first
time that I have earned about it.
By way of an effect, as a rule, documentary evidence should be
presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning
capacity. So how much do you earn on a monthly basis? On a daily
basis? On a weekly basis? And finally, how much do you earn per
year. You need to be able to prove that, and how do you do that?
You can present your payslips or payrolls providing that you earn
this much or may be a tax return. That would be a good proof as
well.
In People vs. Ibaez, September 25, 2013. The Supreme Court said
that:
The bare testimony of the deceaseds mother or
spouse as to the income or earning capacity of the
deceased must be supported by competent evidence
like income tax returns or receipts.
But there are exceptions:
In Da Jose vs. Angeles, October 23, 2013, the Supreme Court said
that:
Damages for loss of earning capacity maybe awarded
despite the absence of documentary evidence in
these 2 instances:
(1.)
When the deceased is self-employed and
earning less than the minimum wage under current
Supreme Court is saying. Buntis ka, nakuhaan ka, and then you are
suing the person responsible why the fetus was aborted, you know,
based on prevailing jurisprudence, you can sue for damages as if
the fetus is what? A liver. Pareha lang nah sa imong atay, mao nah
ang status sa fetus according pa sa Supreme Court. That is the case
of Geluz vs. CA.
The parents can also recover damages for injuries that are inflicted
directly upon them such as moral damages, or mental anguish that
attended the loss of the unborn child. Since there is gross
negligence, exemplary damages can also be recovered.
Article 2207, subrogatory right of the insurer. I just want you to
read that. It will not be asked in your bar examinations, but what
you need to remember is what 2207 provides is only damage to
property. Okay?
Let us say for example, nabanggaan kag sakayanan, the car was
insured, so the insurance company took care of repairing the car.
And the insurance company will now be subrogated to the rights of
the plaintiff. They will now become the real party in interest. Kining
insurance company to go against the defendant because the
insurance company has the right to go after that defendant who
caused the loss to the plaintiff. So ing.ani ang mahitabo, there is
subrogation.
But what if the person who is insured by a life insurance was hit by
a car and then died. The insurance company paid the insurance. Is it
subrogated in the cause of action to go against the accused or the
defendant for the wrongful death? The answer is NO. Why?
Because there is no subrogatory right to the insurance company in
the case of injury to persons. Only, damage to property. That was
the ruling in the case of Catuiza vs. People, March 31, 1965.
So the provision is inapplicable to damages sustained by natural
persons, only damage to property. You cannot ask for subrogation
if you are the insurance company.
Article 2207. If the plaintiff's property has been insured, and he has
received indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or
loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of,
the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the
insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the
contract. If the amount paid by the insurance company does not
fully cover the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled
to recover the deficiency from the person causing the loss or
injury.
Also read this case, the case of Pan Malayan Insurance Corporation
vs. Court of Appeals, April 3, 1990. Kanus.a walay right of
subrogation ang insurance company. I will not discuss this, so
please try to take note of the case. All you need to do is read what
are these instances where the subrogatory right under 2207 is not
applicable.
So what happens here? This pro tanto subrogation. When you say
pro tanto, this means that for however much the insurance
company had paid, there could be that subrogation, only to the
extent of what the insurer paid. However, there may be an instance
where the insurer can recover more than what it paid to the
insured, it is when legal interest is also due.
Let us go to Article 2208. This is a very long provision, we have to
highlight the very important provisions.
Article 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be
recovered, except:
(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;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the
plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or
proceeding against the plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad
faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just
and demandable claim;
(6) In actions for legal support;
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household
helpers, laborers and skilled workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's
compensation and employer's liability laws;
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising
from a crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and
equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation
should be recovered.
In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be
reasonable.
It is not automatic. You need to remember that the award of
attorneys fees is not automatic. Why? Because the law does not
impose upon a party a premium on the right to it. That is the
reason. Because if mapildi ka sa kaso, and at all times, bayaran toh
nimo dapat ang other party ug attorneys fees, then it means that it
is like automatic na nga mubayad dayon ka ug attorneys fees. Mura
na siya nahimo nga multa kay nagtuga tuga ka ug file ug kaso. It is
not like that. So you need to be very familiar on what is stated in
Article 2208. What are these instances when there could be an
award of attorneys fees.
Article 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of
money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages,
there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of
the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the
legal interest, which is six per cent per annum. (1108)
Article 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the court, be
allowed upon damages awarded for breach of contract.
Article 2211. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part of the
damages may, in a proper case, be adjudicated in the discretion of
the court.
Article 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is
judicially demanded, although the obligation may be silent upon
this point. (1109a)
From Article 2209 until 2213, what you need to remember would be
2209 because that is the provision that allows for imposition of
legal interest. Now, what rules would govern the imposition of
interests? First would be what is the stipulation between the
parties? If there is that stipulation between the parties as to the
amount of interest, that means that the stipulation will prevail. But
in the absence of stipulation, then legal interests may actually be
imposed.
Article 2213. Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated
claims or damages, except when the demand can be established
with reasonable certainty.
We will discuss that later on when we will talk about the other
forms of unliquidated damages. But in credit transactions, I hope
you do recall that there would be no obligation to pay interest
unless stipulation to pay the interest will be in writing. If that
stipulation is not in writing then, no interest will be due.
Damages in the form of interest:
Article 1956. No interest shall be due unless it has been expressly
stipulated in writing. (1755a)
Two types of interests:
(1) Contractual interest;
(2) Legal interest.
Contractual interest means interest as per the stipulation between
the parties or the contract. That can be any rate. You need to
remember, considering that the Usury Law has been repealed by
Central Bank Circular No. 905, there is no more maximum rate of
interest and the rate will just depend on the mutual agreement of
the parties. Liam Lao vs. Philippine Sawmill Company (1984) which
we discussed in credit transactions.
However, there is nothing in Central Bank Circular No. 905 that
grants lenders carte blanche to raise interest rates to lender which
can either enslave their borrowers or otherwise lead to a
haemorrhaging of their assets. Although there is, technically
speaking, no usury, but if it is already exorbitant, iniquitous,
unconscionable, it will of course be struck down.
And then Legal Interest. I know that before, there is this dichotomy
once again, 6% under Article 2209 and 12% under certain situations
under Central Bank Circular No. 416 where you need to distinguish
between voluntary obligation that can be considered a loan or
forbearance of money and a different monetary obligation that
does not consists in loan or forbearance of money. What is the
prevailing rate? Only 6%. At least you know that from Credit
Transactions. Wala na tay 12% interest regardless if that is a loan or a
forbearance of money, so on and so forth.
For example, in the case of Reformina vs Tomol, 139 SCRA 260, dili
na nah siya importante kay dili na man ka kinahanglan
magdistinguish sa 6% ug 12%.
What else? The case of Eastern Shipping, that is no longer
important because we do not distinguish anymore as to what
constitutes a loan or forbearance and a non-loan or forbearance of
Article 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the
diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages
resulting from the act or omission in question.
Article 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be
respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or
mitigating circumstances.
Now my question is, in 2204, it allows mitigation, it allows for
increasing as well of the amount of damages to be awarded.
Let us suppose, somebody stole your money. You were bringing
along P100,000 and then somebody stole it and then gifilan nimo
siya ug theft or robbery. In court, he was able to prove that he
acted under mitigating circumstances. Naa siyay mga mitigating
circumstances that he was able to prove. And so the question is,
will the responsibility to pay back the P100,000 which is part of the
civil liability which is actual damages, will that be affected by the
presence of mitigating circumstances? Oh sige, kay tungod naay
mitigating circumstance, naa kay discount. Is that what the law is
saying under Article 2204?
Or let us look at it in a different way. What if the crime was
committed with aggravating circumstances? Gikawat, unya grabe
gyd ang pagkakawat kay naay aggravating. Does it mean that the
Court is allowed to impose a greater amount of actual damages
because of the aggravating circumstance?
What 2204 does not tell you is the fact that it is not supposed to be
applicable to actual damages. Why? What is the rule in actual
damages? The rule is you are entitled to such compensation as you
have duly proved. However much you are able to prove, you are
supposed to get, regardless of the presence of mitigating or
aggravating circumstances. And so, 2204, with respect to crimes
and the effect of mitigating and aggravating circumstances would
actually not be applicable to actual damages, but only to the other
forms of damages. Pwede ang moral damages, pwede mamitigate,
pwede pud maincrease based on mitigating or aggravating
circumstances, but never actual damages. If the offense for
example was committed by aggravating circumstance of ignominy,
the Court may impose a greater amount of damages, either moral
or exemplary. Or kung naa pa gyd passion and obfuscation, the
Court may impose a lesser amount of damages, but not actual
damages, only the other forms of damages.
Example, People vs. Ruiz, December 14, 1981. So here, moral
damages was actually reduced from P50,000 to P20,000 there
being no aggravating circumstance, but there being 3 mitigating
circumstances. That is correct, because here, we are talking about
moral damages, not actual damages.
Article 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the
plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover.
This 2214 might be applicable to actual damages. Remember the
cases that we discussed when we were talking about contributory
negligence. What happened there? The Supreme Court actually
apportions 70-30, 60-40, diba? So it can apply to actual damages
when you are talking about 2214, but not 2204.
named.
What is Article 21? We will discuss that later on when we go to
Human Relations. Remember that 19, 20, 21 relating to abuse of
rights, they are all connected.
Moral damages can be recovered in case of wrongful act or
omission causing as a proximate result thereof, physical suffering
and Article 2209 is not an exclusive enumeration because it
provides that the following and analogous cases. Pwede nah siya
nga similar lang.
For example, in the same case I told you about, Expert Travel vs.
Court of Appeals, June 25, 1999. Can moral damages be awarded in a
clearly unfounded suit? Kana kunong harassment suits bah nga
ginatawag nato. Because what 2219 tells you is that moral damages
may be awarded in the case of #8, malicious prosecution. Malicious
prosecution, remember you have to file a criminal case and then
there is bad faith and then no finding of a probable cause.
So what about filing an unfounded civil action? A suit intended to
harass or vex the defendant. Will that be considered as an
analogous case under Article 2219? Can moral damages be awarded
for negligence or quasi-delict that did not result to physical injury to
the offended party? That is the issue there in Expert Travel. So the
Supreme Court said that similar.
Although the institution of action is clearly
unfounded civil suit can at times be a legal
justification for an award of attorneys fees, such
filing however is almost invariably been held not to
be a ground for an award of moral damages. The
rationale for the rule is that the law could not have
meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate.
Expert Travel vs. Court of Appeals, June 25, 1999.
So the Supreme Court rationalized to a certain extent that if the
rule were otherwise, every time na lang nga mapildi ka sa kaso,
mubayad ka ug moral damages. So ang timan.on pag pildi,
pabayron. That is the rationale there by the Supreme Court and the
Supreme Court said that they cannot be sued, there is no penalty of
the right to litigate.
What about the second issue? If it is a quasi-delict or a breach of
contract, can moral damages be recovered when there is no injury?
In culpa acquiliana or quasi-delict, an act or omission
causes physical injuries or where the defendant is
guilty of intentional tort, moral damages may also be
recovered. This rule also applies to contracts when
breached by tort. Expert Travel vs. Court of Appeals,
June 25, 1999.
So, no need for physical injuries where you can prove that the tort
is intentional. That is the answer to the question. And there must
be a private offended party. Take note that the damages that can
be recovered in cases where crime is committed and there is a
private offended party. For example, in the case of treason,
remember, there is no offended party so there is no civil liability.
There is no award of moral damages when the victim is the State. In
danced and sang around the dead body of Favali and it was stated
that Manero picked up a piece of the brain from Favalis open head.
This gave him the name Cannibal Priest Killer. He was a very
notorious killer. Now the question here is that, can there be an
award of damages to the religious denomination to which Father
Tulio Favali belonged?
The SC stated here that the award of moral damages in the amount
of P100,000.00 to the congregation, the Pontifical Institute of
Foreign Mission (PIME) Brothers, is not proper. There is nothing on
record which indicates that the deceased effectively severed his
civil relations with his family, or that he disinherited any member
thereof, when he joined his religious congregation. Besides, as we
already held, a juridical person is not entitled to moral damages
because, not being a natural person, it cannot experience physical
suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety,
mental anguish or moral shock. It is only when a juridical person has
a good reputation that is debased, resulting in social humiliation,
that moral damages may be awarded.
These two cases would now bring forth the question na kung
corporation ba ka, pwede diay ka mukuha ug moral damages?
Lets say for example here is a particular corporation, say ABS-CBN,
which is always bombarded with criticisms left or right. Ako ang
gina-besmirch nako all the time is ang PLDT. If I slander the good
reputation of PLDT, would that allow it to recover damages?
Now, according to ABS-CBN vs. CA, January 21, 1999, the SC
repeated what it stated in Manero and Mambulao, that a
corporation cannot experience physical suffering and mental
anguish, which can be experienced only by one having a nervous
system. It stated that the rulings in People v. Manero and
Mambulao Lumber Co. v. PNB, that a corporation may recover
moral damages if it has a good reputation that is debased,
resulting in social humiliation is an obiter dictum. Wala siya. It is
not something that we should rely on.
To my mind, this is a correct ruling precisely because moral
damages alleviates suffering. It restores spiritual status. And you
cannot do that to something that does not have a spirit, emotions
or a nervous system.
Now, according to Crystal vs. BPI, November 28, 2008, the SC said
there may be a chance to award moral damages to a corporation
but it is not automatic. There must be proof of factual basis of
damage and its causal relation to the offense.
So pwede na pud diay because of the Crystal case!
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.
Take note that the first sentence talks about injury to property. So
it clarifies that injury to property may also be a ground for an award
for moral damages. Remember what we learned previously that
So, the source for the award for nominal damages is quite broad.
In LABOR CASES:
Remember this very important ruling in Agabon vs. NLRCG.R.
158693 November 17, 2004. The SC pronounced that if the employer
fails to comply with the due process, nominal damages may be
awarded. Here, the SC found that there was a proper just cause,
but there was non-compliance of the notice and hearing
requirements. Hence, violation in the procedural due process in the
termination and so nominal damages was awarded. You technically
did not violate a right but there is that technical injury: you did not
give him proper due process. Here the nominal damages awarded
was P30k, would this be followed in the subsequent cases with
similar factual backgrounds?
In the case of Uniliver vs. Rivera 2013, January 3, 2013. There was a
violation to right to due process in the procedure for termination
for a just cause. The Sc here modified the award from 20k from
NLRC increased to 30k.
So from the time of Agabon(2004) to time of Uniliver(2013), it is still
30k.
In another case Garza vs. Coca Cola, January 2014. The award was
still 30k.
Case of JAKA Food Processing vs. PACOT, 454 SCRA 119, Here the
ground for termination was retrenchment, an authorized cause.
The question is how much would be the award? Lets analyze.
In just causes, you have to give notice to employee, giving him an
opportunity to be heard. And the second notice comes in the form
of your decision as to W/N to terminate. Mao na siya ang twonotice requirement. In authorized causes, three-notice. The
addition is the notice as well to the DOLE. Now, what if you fail to
give notice to your employees? How much should be awarded?
According to the SC, it should be 50k.
The SC said the sanction should be stiffer because the dismissal
process was initiated by the employers exercise of his
management prerogative. Walay sala ang empleyado. In Agabon
and similar cases, naay sala ang empleyado. This explains why it
should be greater.
In the case of De Jesus vs. Aquino, January 18, 2013. The award was
also 50k for the violation of due process for termination for a JUST
cause. The SC cited the case of Culili vs. Eastern Telecom, the
amount of 50k by way of nominal damages for failure to observe
due process.
So I ask the SC, pagklaro ra gud, pila man gyud 50k or 30k? Why do
you think there is no harmony in the decisions? Because they are
decided in division not en banc.
So remember that nominal damages are always awarded in illegal
dismissal cases because if you remember Father. Nazareno, one of
the fundamental facts is that labor is a property right, and being a
property right it is safeguarded by the due process clause in the
constitution.
In the case of Cathay Pacific vs Reyes, June 26, 2013. Here you have
a trip to Australia. Its supposed to be Manila-Hongkong-AdelaideHongkong-Manila. The father here re-confirmed the flight and they
were advised that their reservation was still okay as scheduled. On
the day of their scheduled departure from Adelaide, Wilfredo and
his family arrived at the airport on time. When the airport check-in
counter opened, they were informed by a staff from Cathay Pacific
that the Reyeses did not have confirmed reservations, and only one
of them has flight booking confirmed. Nevertheless, they were
allowed to board the flight to HongKong due to adamant pleas
from Wilfredo. When they arrived in HongKong, they were again
informed of the same problem. Unfortunately this time, the
Reyeses were not allowed to board because the flight to Manila
was fully booked. Only Sixta was allowed to proceed to Manila
from HongKong. On the following day, the Reyeses were finally
allowed to board the next flight bound for Manila. Upon arriving in
the Philippines, Wilfredo went to Sampaguita Travel to report the
incident. He was informed by Sampaguita Travel that it was actually
Cathay Pacific which canceled their bookings.
Here the SC said that considering that the three respondents were
denied boarding their return flight from HongKong to Manila and
that they had to wait in the airport overnight for their return flight,
they are deemed to have technically suffered injury. Nonetheless,
they failed to present proof of actual damages. Consequently, they
should be compensated in the form of nominal damages. What was
the award here? 25k to all of them.
Japan Airlines vs CA, August 7, 1998. Here they were not able to
board their flight as scheduled because of the eruption of Mt.
Pinatubo and all flights to Manila were cancelled indefinitely
This one is sad. The case of Saludo vs CA, March 23, 1992. Namatay
ang loved one in another country. So e-ship. The remains of a loved
one was lost in transit. Nawala! So the SC said airlines should be
more careful. So the SC awarded 40,000 as nominal damages
because the petitioners right to be treated with due courtesy in
People vs. De la Tongga. G.R. No. 133246. July 31, 2000. To recover
actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss
with a reasonable degree of certainty. In this case, there was no
such proof to sustain the trial courts award of actual damages. In
lieu of actual damages, the court awarded the amount of
P15,000.00 as temperate damages.
Premium Development Bank vs. CA. April 14, 2004. To justify an
award for actual damages, there must be competent proof of the
actual amount of loss. Credence can be given only to claims, which
are duly supported by receipts. In other words, damages cannot be
presumed and courts, in making an award, must point out specific
facts that can afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory
or actual damages are borne.
Because of failure of Premiere to adduce proof of actual
expenditure consequently, Panacor may still be awarded damages
in the concept of temperate or moderate damages. When the court
finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount
cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty,
temperate damages may be recovered. Here the SC awarded 200k.
Now this is important. Because of the ruling in People vs.
Villanueva, August 11, 2003, naa na tay ginatawag nga P25,000 or
Actual Rule.
This was first mentioned in the case of People vs. Abrazaldo, but it
wa in the instant case that it became a rule. For example, let us
suppose your claim for actual damages clearly amounts to 100k but
your receipts are only ike 15k. Wouldnt that be unfair? Yes, because
the problem is that you cannot prove it. The answer to that is the
case of People vs. Villanueva, the P25,000 or Actual Rule. If you
clearly incurred funeral or burial expenses, but what you actually
prove is less than P25,000, the SC ruled that the award of 25k is
justified in lieu of actual damages.
But this rule is only applicable if clearly your pecuniary loss is more
than 25k. It cannot be awarded in a case where clearly actual
damages kay naa lang sa 5k. There has to be a bona fide attempt to
claim more than 25k but failed to substantiate. Whichever is higher:
25k or actual.
Adriano vs. Lasala. October 9, 2013. The owners of the buildings
unilaterally terminated their services. Indisputably, respondents in
this case suffered pecuniary loss because of the untimely
termination of their services for no cause at all. According to the
SC, the amount of P200,000.00 by way of temperate damages as
just and reasonable.
Gonzales vs. CASURECO. March 6, 2013. In this case the SC said that
even if the pecuniary loss suffered by the claimant is capable of
proof, an award of temperate damages is not precluded. The grant
of temperate damages is drawn from equity to provide relief to
those definitely injured. Therefore, it may be allowed so long as the
court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some
pecuniary loss. In this case there was an award of 3k.
Bacolod vs. People, July 15, 2013 Arson case. The accused was
found guilty and was ordered to pay the value of the house.
So what the SC is saying is you can never really achieve res judicata.
No judgment can ever be final because the plaintiff will always go
back to court and then ask for further compensatory damages in as
much as ilahang injuries still continues. Wala pa siya naayo.
Mugasto pa siya para sa iyahang pagpaayo.
Remember this case. We discussed this under medical negligence.
Whats the important thing that you need to remember here by
way of summary? Since the basis of the award of actual and
temperate damages are practically the same and that is pecuniary
loss, they cannot be awarded together in the same case because
they are incompatible. But by way of exception, in the case of
Ramos vs CA, when the damages awarded refer to two different
phases. Actual expenses or expenses already incurred for
hospitalization and Prospective expenses for Rehabilitation. When
proper, both actual and temperate damages may be awarded. (It
leads to another question because the SC ventured on the
speculative on whether or not the damages awarded will be
enough).
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Article 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the
parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof.
So a contract is broken, you present a proof of breach then the
parties previously had already set a particular amount by way of
damages to cover everything that the (unaduible). These are
damages that somehow its the parties that designate during the
formulation of the contract for the injured party to collect as
compensation upon specific breach.
Its from the latin word LIQUIDAT or to make clear, to
elucidate. As used in the Civil Code, liquidated damages means
ascertained or predetermined damages or made clear in advance.
When you say a claim is unliquidated, it means that it still subject to
proof and contestation. When you say liquidated, there is no longer
any contestation of the entitlement. What you need to prove
therefore, in a case is the breach was the one stipulated upon by
the parties at the time that they entered into a contract.
Whats the purpose of liquidated damages? Why can we set
predetermined amounts by way of liquidated damages? Because it
make things easier. If we have already agreed that in case you do
not deliver on your obligation based on the contract, you will pay
me this much then, it already dispenses (for me) the need to prove
or present specific proof as to the amount of damages.
By way of nature, it is also referred to as a penalty clause. It is an
accessory undertaking to assume greater liability on the part of an
obligor in case of breach of an obligation.
The function of a liquidated damage clause is doubled in that it is
used to provide in liquidated damages and to strengthen the
coercive force of the obligation by the threat of greater
responsibility in the event of breach because you do not anymore
present any evidence as to the amount of damages suffered by one
of the parties. All that you need to prove is the fact that there is
delay or breach in the contract.
Effects of Stipulation The amount agreed upon already answers
for the damages suffered by a party due to the breach of obligation
by the debtor. Proof of pecuniary loss is dispensed with; the obligor
would be bound to pay the stipulated amount of indemnity without
the necessity of proof of the existence and measure of damages
imposed by the obligation. Once again, what do you prove? Just the
fact of breach.
PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION vs
PETROLEUM DISTRIBUTORS & SERVICE CORPORATION, April
18, 2012
Paragraph 2.3 of the Building Contract clearly provides a
stipulation for the payment of liquidated damages in case of
delay in the construction of the project. Such is in the nature of
a penalty clause fixed by the contracting parties as a
compensation or substitute for damages in case of breach of
the obligation. The contractor is bound to pay the stipulated
amount without need for proof of the existence and the
measures of damages caused by the breach.
Article 2226 of the Civil Code allows the parties to a contract to
stipulate on liquidated damages to be paid in case of breach.It is
attached to an obligation in order to insure performance and
has a double function: (1) to provide for liquidated damages,
and (2) to strengthen the coercive force of the obligation by the
threat of greater responsibility in the event of breach. As a
general rule, contracts constitute the law between the parties,
and they are bound by its stipulations. For as long as they are
not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or
public policy, the contracting parties may establish such
stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem
convenient.
REQUISITES FOR THE VALIDITY OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
The amount of damages identified must roughly
approximate the damages likely to fall upon the
party seeking the benefit.
The damages must be sufficiently ascertained at the
time the contract was made that such clause will
save both parties the future difficulty of estimating
damages.
As a precondition to the award of the liquidated
damages, there must be proof of the fact of breach
in the performance of the obligation, not proof of
specific damages.
J PLUS ASIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs UTILITY
ASSURANCE CORPORATION, G.R. No. 199650 June 26, 2013
Liability for liquidated damages is governed by Articles 2226 to
2228 of the Civil Code, which provide:
ART. 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the
parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof.
ART. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as an
indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are
iniquitous or unconscionable.
al., vs. Arcadia Orchards Co. (77 Wash. 477, 317 Pac. 1051, citing
Shute vs. Taylor, 5 Metc. [Mass.] 61, 67):
. . . The question what is liquidated damages, and
what is a penalty, if often a difficult one. It is not
always the calling of a sum, to be paid for breach of
contract, liquidated damages which makes it so. In
general, it is the tendency and preference of the law
to regard a sum, stated to be payable if a contract is
not fulfilled, as a penalty, and not as liquidated
damages, because then it may be apportioned to the
loss actually sustained. But, without going at large
into the subject, one consideration, we think, is
decisive against recovering the sum in question as
liquidated damages, namely: That here there has been
a part performance, and acceptance of such part
performance. If the parties intended the sum named to
be liquidated damages for the breach of the contract
therein expressed, it was for an entire breach. Whether
divisible in its nature or not, it was in fact divided by an
offer and acceptance of part performance. It is like the
case of an obligation to perform two more independent
acts, with a provision for single liquidated damages for
non-performance; if one is performed, and not the
other, it is not a case for the recovery of the liquidated
damages. (Emphasis supplied)
Consequently, it is immaterial whether the questioned clause in
the dealership agreement is a provision for liquidated damages,
or deemed a penalty clause under the above circumstances; it
has to be mitigated in either case, in the former case, because
of its being unconscionable if enforced in toto; and in the latter,
because of the acceptance of a partial performance.
LEON J. LAMBERT, vs. T. J. FOX, G.R. No. L-7991 January 29, 1914
In this jurisdiction, there is no difference between a penalty and
liquidated damages, so far as legal results are concerned.
Whatever differences exists between them as a matter of
language, they are treated the same legally. In either case the
party to whom payment is to be made is entitled to recover the
sum stipulated without the necessity of proving damages.
Indeed one of the primary purposes in fixing a penalty or in
liquidating damages, is to avoid such necessity.
Academically, you can differentiate Obligations with Penal Clauses
from Liquidated Damages in a contract. As a way of review, what
are the provisions relating to Obligations with Penal Clause?
Compare them with Liquidated Damages.
Article 1226. In obligations with a penal clause, the penalty shall
substitute the indemnity for damages and the payment of
interests in case of noncompliance, if there is no stipulation to
the contrary. Nevertheless, damages shall be paid if the obligor
refuses to pay the penalty or is guilty of fraud in the fulfillment
of the obligation.
The penalty may be enforced only when it is demandable in
accordance with the provisions of this Code. (1152a)
Article 1227. The debtor cannot exempt himself from the
performance of the obligation by paying the penalty, save in the
case where this right has been expressly reserved for him.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
Article 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by
way of example or correction for the public good, in addition
to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
If you ask me, the most diverse damages would be exemplary and
liquidated damages.
Why? Because Art 2229 provides you can only impose exemplary
damages when it is only in addition to the moral, temperate,
liquidated or compensatory damages. So you need to be entitled to
other forms of damages first before you can be awarded with
exemplary damages.
What about liquidated damages? Liquidated damages also (ideally)
should be awarded by its clausal because the parties agreed as to
the damages that can be recovered. Exception to the rule is if the
breach is not what the parties contemplated to be, if that is the
case, it would be the law that would measure the damages and not
the stipulation of the parties.
*From 2014-2015 class tsn - It comes from the word exemplum
(Latin for "example", pl. exempla, exempli gratia = "for example",
abbr, e.g.) is a moral anecdote, brief or extended, real or fictitious,
used to illustrate a point. Its also the source of the Spanish word
ejemplo meaning example.
Under the Civil Code, exemplary damages are awarded in order to
set an example so that the public as a whole will refrain from
similar deplorable conduct. It is supposed to be a deterrent. In
America, it is called punitive damages so that others will not follow
you. It is awarded not to compensate the plaintiff but to reform or
deter defendant and similar from pursuing such court of action
such as that damage made.
DIOSDADO OCTOT, vs. JOSE R. YBAEZ, in his capacity as
Regional Director of Regional Health Office No. VII, CLEMENTE
S. GATMAITAN, in his capacity as Secretary of Health, and
Presidential Executive Assistant JACOBO C. CLAVE, G.R.No. L48643 January 18, 1982
Exemplary damages are not generally recoverable in a special
civil action for mandamus unless the defendant patently acted
with vindictiveness or wantonness and not in the exercise of
honest judgment. The claim for exemplary damages must
presuppose the existence of the circumstances enumerated in
Articles 2231 and 2232 of the Civil Code.
Exemplary
Nominal
Temperate
Actual only
Liquidated
Exemplary
YES. (bestfriends)
Nominal
Liquidated
Why? The prohibition here is the same with Art 1171, to wit:
Temperate
Actual
Moral
Exemplary
Nominal only
Temperate
Actual
Liquidated
NO.
Exception: Yes. If predicated on a different
violation or a different source of obligation
where moral damages can be awarded.
(Sumalpong case)
NO, (Article 2234 expressly excludes nominal
damages, the only kind of damage excluded)
inclusio union exclussio est alterius
YES. (Saludo case, no due process in labor
cases)
NO. (Cititrust case)
Exception: Yes, Francisco, actual and nominal
(What if the receipt of the cake was lost but
clearly they paid? As long as its pecuniary loss
is suffered, and you can prove with reasonable
certainty)
YES. (Francisco case, cost of the cake and the
nominal damages)
NO. Liquidated and Nominal both have the
effect of preclusion. Liquidated is already a
recognition or vindication of a right that is
breached.
Liquidated only
GR: NO
EX:
YES
GR: NO
EX:
GR: NO
EX:
GR: NO
EX:
YES
April 1, 2016
DSOLANO
We begin tonight with the topic of Human Relations which is
something that is not unfamiliar to you as much as you discussed
that in first year in Person and Family Relations. But please take
note that we are going to discuss today although medyo review na
lang sya of the principles we discussed in first year for Articles 19 to
36 of the Civil Code ang focus nato is more on torts rather than
persons.
What is Human Relation?
YES
YES
GR: NO
EX:
BREACH
YES
YES
YES
YES
GR: NO
EX:
DIFFERE
NT
VIOLATI
ON
YES
NO
It is in
addition
NO
YES
GR: NO
EX:
DIFFERE
NT
VIOLATI
ON
DEFINIT
ELY NO
YES
GR: NO
EX:
FRANCI
SCO
CASE
YES
GR: NO
EX:
DIFFERE
NT
VIOLATI
ON
YES
GR: NO
EX:
FRANCI
SCO
CASE
YES
GR: NO
EX:
RAMOS
CASE
GR: NO
EX:
YES
YES
YES
GR: NO
EX:
CAKE
CASE
GR: NO
EX:
RAMO
S CASE
YES
GR: NO
EX:
rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. Mao ni ang
principle of abuse of rights. It provides that a person should not use
his right unjustly or in bad faith, otherwise he may be liable to
another ____. The rationale for the concept is to present some
basic principles, to be followed for the rightful relationship in
human beings and the stability of the social order.
Let me ask you something, supposed i have property for sale and
then you express interest in buying the property, lets say you gave
me an offer, an offer that I have not yet accepted. Can I force you
to buy the property? Can you force me to sell the property to you
instead of me selling it to somebody else? What if you offer a better
price than the third person? Can you force me to sell the property
to you? Answer of course is a no. Why? Because the right not to
enter into contractual relations is absolute. Walay makapugos sa
imoha. But does it mean that when I, for example, unilaterally,
withdraw from entering into a contract with a person, does it mean
that there are no repercussions with or without ____? Remember
the exercise of rights ends when right disappears and it disappears
when it is abused especially to the prejudice of others.
In the case of Sesbreno vs. CA, March 26, 2014, the Supreme Court
had the occasion to tell us about unsa ba ang standards that we
need to observe in order not to run counter with article 19 of the
civil code. Of course, its very very codal. To act with justice, to give
everyone his due, to observe honesty and good faith. The law
thereby recognizes the primordial limitations of all rights, that we
may exercise the rights, the standards under article 19 must be
observed. If I might hazard an opinion here, ang pinakaimportante
ay letter C, to observe honesty and good faith because it is very
important to prove an abuse of rights, that you have to prove as
well the presence of bad faith so to my mind anything that is done
by bad faith will be under article 19. Ngano? Why to my mind is it
the most important? Letter A: to act with justice. How do you
measure act with justice? Are we judges? Are we just pieces of the
Supreme court? So how can we gauge whether were acting with
justice or not? If I fail you, for example, in this class, does it mean i
m already not acting with justice? Does it mean that im not giving
you your due or is it the other way around? But if i do it, if i fail you
in bad faith, thats the only time that you can prosecute a cause of
action against me, because theres already bad faith but if
everything is done good faith, even if apparently ther is an abuse of
right, then we cannot seek refuge under the article because all was
done in good faith.
Now, Article 19 actually is a rejection of the classical theory
expressed in the Latin NEMINIM LAEDIT QUI SUO JURE UTITUR.
How weird is that? Knowing to memorize but he who stands in his
own right injures no one. Diba? Im just exercising my right. So
dapat wala kay mabuhat against me. I have a property, lets say for
example and then earlier, before I came here thats why im a little
bit late, theres a buang outside my gate and then the buang is
already throwing stuff on imaginary opponents. Again, it just
happened a few minutes ago outside my gate. Now what
happened if that buang was like, paglabas sa sakyanan sa driveway,
paglabas ko sa gate, what if iyahang gusto labayan akong sakyanan,
i paid a lot of money for that I used _____. What if gusto nya
gubaon akong sakyanan, labayan ng anything. If I try to defend my
property against him that buang, dont you think Im just exercising
absolute right to this property. Yeah, under article 429, you can
prevent people from entering your property but is it capricious?
Does it amount to bad faith already? If that is the case, then that is
no longer allowed. You already violate Article 19 of the Civil Code.
Oh, this is one is very common: MWSS v Act Theater (June 17, 2004)
Utility companies who will unceremoniously cut-off your utilities.
Kanang kuryente or tubig, here it is tubig. In my case, the worst is
PLDT. I will give you a scenario. What if nakabayad na ka sa PLDT,
ok? Lets say for example my deadline for payment is every 29 th (of
the month) but I paid on the 28 th, which is, lets say, a Friday. I paid
thru my ATM. Pag-abot ug Sunday, I discovered that wala na koy
internet. Despite the fact na nakabayad ka on time and their policy
allows on-line payment. What if that happens to you? Naputlan ka
ug internet without notice, or tubig?
Acording to the SC, you can cut-off your service but you have to
give notice. If you do not give notice to your customer, then you
can be considered abusing your right under Article 19.
Torrijos v CA (October 21, 1976)
In this case, just remember that while the death of the accused
extinguishes his criminal liability, including the fine, his civil liability
based on human relations remains. So it survives even the death of
the accused.
going to graduate and that he cannot take the bar exams because
he had a failing mark in practice court.
The trial court ruled in his favor and awarded him actual damages.
The CA affirmed the trial court with modification. The CA awarded
moral damages for the shock, anguish, serious anxiety and
wounded feelings to his person. What issue was brought to the SC?
May an educational institution be held liable for misleading the
student to believing that he has satisfied all the requirements for
graduation when such is not the case? According to the SC, yes! The
school has the obligation to promptly inform the student of any
problem regarding the students grade or performance and most
importantly of the procedures for _____.
UE, in belatedly informing Jader of the result of the removal exam
particularly at that time when he had already commenced
preparing for the bar exams, cannot be said to have acted in good
faith. It is only the school that can compel its professors to act and
comply with the schools policies with respect to computation and
prompt submission of grades. Students do not exercise control,
much less influence, over the way an educational institution should
run its affairs particularly in disciplining its professors or teachers
and ensuring their compliance with the schools rules and
regulations. The Dean is the senior officer responsible for the
operation of an academic program, foster the rules and
regulations, and supervisions of faculty services. He must see to it
that his own professors, regardless of their status or profession
outside of the university, must comply with the rules set by the
latter. The negligent act of the professor who fails to observe the
rules of the school by not promptly submitting a students grade is
not only imputable to the professor but is an act of the school,
being his employer.
Considering further that the institution of learning is involved
herein is a university which is engaged in legal education, it should
have practiced what it inculcates in its students, more specifically
the principle of good dealings enshrined in Articles 19 and 20 of the
Civil Code.
What damages should be awarded? He (Jader) already paid for the
review, he cannot take that back. UE must pay for that by way of
actual and compensatory damages. Whatever loss of income he
may have had because he took a leave of absence from work to
prepare for the bar exams must be compensated by UE.
Should there be an award of moral damages against UE? According
to the SC, NO! We do not agree with the CAs findings that Jader
suffered shock trauma and pain when he was informed that he did
not graduate and could not take the bar exams. At the very least, it
was the responsibility of the respondent to verify for himself is he
has completed all the necessary requirements to be eligible for the
bar exams. As a senior law student, respondent should have been
more responsible to ensure that all his affairs, specifically those
pertaining to his academic achievements are in order. (Atty. E: That
I do not agree with. Diba the SC said earlier nga ang naa ray control
sa record is the school itself? What was the confirmation nga,
apparently, ok na sya? Gipa-attend sya ug graduation!)
Remember this case of Aytona v Castillo (4 SCRA 1) on midnight
appointments. What happened here?
If the special law does not provide for civil indemnity in case it is
violated, what will automatically be the basis for the award for
damages? It is Article 20. That is what I want you to remember.
Take note that pwede with intent ug pwede pud negligent ang
pagcommit sa tort under Article 20. Wilfully signifies intent. Diba
remember, Article 2176, quasi-delicts, the cornerstone of liability is
negligence. If it is wilfully committed it becomes what? It becomes
a crime. This is in keeping with the Anglo-American law concept of
torts. Negligence, on the other hand, signifies culpa, fraud, or
failure to observe the appropriate degree of diligence. This is in
keeping with the Spanish-Roman law concept of torts. Therefore,
Article 20 is an amalgam of the Spanish and American tort law.
Now, for me lang, if you are suing under article 20, you have to pair
it with something else. In the same way that in article 19, you have
to pair it with either article 20 or 21, as a general rule.
Now, lets go to Article 20. Generally, you pair it with Article 19 and
that would be enough to support a cause of action. Ok? Lets now
examine certain cases where lahi nga law ang gigamit. It is not
always article 19, it can be applied even if article 19 is not being
involved. Please remember that. Article 19 cannot be invoked
without applying Article 20 or 21, but Article 20 and 21 can be
applied even if you do not invoke Article 19. Pwede special law like
BP 22 which do not provide for civil liability or indemnity. What
would be the remedy available for the private offended party? You
can always apply Article 20.
Banal v Tadeo (December 11, 1987)
Regardless, therefore, of whether or not a special law so provides,
indemnification of the offended party may be had on account of
the damage, loss or injury directly suffered as a consequence of the
wrongful act of another. The indemnity which a person is
sentenced to pay forms an integral part of the penalty imposed by
law for the commission of a crime. Every crime gives rise to a penal
or criminal action for the punishment of the guilty party, and also to
civil action for the restitution of the thing, repair of the damage,
and indemnification for the losses.
April 8, 2016
GARAFOL
For tonight we begin with article 21
Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a
manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy
shall compensate the latter for the damage
This is a new provision. You can compare this to article 20 which we
already discussed and which provide that every person who,
contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another
shall indemnify the latter for the damage done.
Take particular attention on how article 20 is worded compare to
article 21. In article 21 willfully causes loss or injury to another,
compensate the latter for the damage.
In article 20 willfully and negligently causes damage to another
shall indemnify the other for the damage done What is then the
basic difference in article 20 and article 21?
Article 20 can be violated either willfully or negligently whereas
article 21 can only be violated willfully or intentionally. In other
words, article 21 requires intent. A matter of intention causing
damage to another.
Take note that in the tort law, a tort can only be committed either
by intent or without intent as well. We discussed before that an act
which can be considered as a tort can also be considered as a crime.
Again lets go back to article 21 any person who willfully causes
loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for
damage There was no mention there of intent. Willfulness or
voluntariness of a particular act.
So therefore, did you commit a crime when you violated article 21?
We know for the fact that when you violated article 21, there has
suppose to be intent, there suppose to be mens rea there. Dba, but
the question is, even if there is a physical act of causing damage to
another with intent would you thereby considered a violation of
article 21 a crime? The answer is NO. Why? Lets go back to the
principle that we know back in our criminal law , nullum crimen
nullum poena sine lege . Article 21 does not offend any statute and
when there is no statute violated by the act it could not be
considered as a crime. The act of violating article 21 here is only
violating good customs, public policy and morals. In the absence of
statute no matter how perverse the violation under article 21 in
cannot be considered as a criminal offense.
Thus if the act is covered by statute you apply article 20 but if the
act is not covered by statute but it is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy you apply article 21.
And if the act covers under article 20 remember the remedies that
we have would be enforcing the liability under the said statute if it
provides for a certain liability and damages under article 20. If the
act covers under article 21, you apply article 21 because there is no
other __ act. Article 21 is intended to be a catch all provision. Not all
possible acts that can cause damage can be covered by our statutes
so that is the wisdom of article 21. Therefore although that there is
no law that punishes the act it does not mean that there is no
possible remedies. In an old case under PNB vs. CA
PNB VS CA
Article 21 was intended to expand the concept of torts in our
jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold
number of moral wrong which is impossible for human foresight to
specifically provide for in the statutes.
So catch-all sya. No violation of law, the remedy is article 21. Similar
nature to article 19. While article 20 seeks to remedy or to provide a
__ with respect to certain acts that may violate the law but the law
that is violated does not provide for civil indemnity article 21 has a
greater scope. And that masking walay balaod, for as long that the
act that is committed causes damage to another that act would still
be actionable.
What is the effect of the absence of article 21? It would be damnum
absque injuria.
Example:
Gerald was an employee of ABC Company on which Mateo was a
manager. He was suspected na nagdispalko ug kwarta. Take note
under the labor law, a confidential employee who no longer enjoy
the damage incurred by Tobias was not only in connection with the
abusive manner in which he was dismissed but was also the result
of several other quasi-delictual acts committed by petitioners.
That to my mind is a complete example of article 21. What are the
elements of Article 21? This was discussed in the case of Nikko Hotel
VS Reyes 2005
Nikko Hotel vs. Reyes 2005
Article 2165 refers to acts contra bonus mores and has the following
elements:
So what happen here in this case. There was this actor who was
quite famous during the era of FPJ. He was about to join the party
but then, he was approach my certain Miss Lim to leave the party
as the host intended it to be an intimate gathering only. Kung kinsa
lng tong nasa listahan. There are two version of the story here,
according to the actor, he was already lining in, nalinya na sya,
naggunit ug plato and then suddenly Miss lim approach intended to
humiliate and embarrassed him. According to Miss Lim, the she
merely whisper to him and was very polite in asking the actor to
leave the party. According to the latter, paghawa daw niya,
nasyaget2x causing scandal in the hotel. He was escorted by the
Makati police and was even more embarrassed for the Dr__ the
host does not even know him. And because that the actor was
humiliated he sue the hotel. Let go again to the requisites here.
There is an act which is legal. What act of the defendant here was
being question by the plaintiff? The act of asking him to leave. Is it
legal for Miss lim to ask him (partycrasher) to leave? Of course.
There is no law that tells you that basta nakasulod ka sa party
bawal nakapagawason. Because if that is the case, then wala na
maghold ug party.
The act is contrary to morals, good customs and public policy.
Would that be contrary to morals, good customs and public policy
to ask a party crasher to leave? It depends noh, well go to that
later.
The most important element, it is done with the intent to injure.
According to the Supreme Court, Mr. Reyes has not shown that Ms.
Lim was driven by animosity against him. These two people did not
know each other personally before the evening of 13 October 1994,
thus, Mr. Reyes had nothing to offer for an explanation for Ms.
Lims alleged abusive conduct except the statement that Ms. Lim,
being "single at 44 years old," had a "very strong bias and prejudice
against (Mr. Reyes) possibly influenced by her associates in her
work at the hotel with foreign businessmen." Unsa man ang buot
pasabot ana? Matadang dalaga na, ibig sabihin sulpada na kaau .
The lameness of this argument need not be belabored. Suffice it to
say that a complaint based on Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code
It is a medicine to the heart of a rejected loverWith respect to the appeal of the plaintiffs, we are of the opinion
that the trial court was right in refusing to give damages to the
plaintiff, Antonia Loanco, for supposed breach of promise to marry.
Such promise is not satisfactorily proved, and we may add that the
action for breach of promise to marry has no standing in the civil
law, apart from the right to recover money or property advanced
by the plaintiff upon the faith of such promise. This case exhibits
none of the features necessary to maintain such an action.
Furthermore, there is no proof upon which a judgment could be
based requiring the defendant to recognize the second baby, Pacita
Loanco.
Actaully the facts of the example above is the same facts of the
case of wassmer vs velez.
Wassmer vs Velez 1964
The Supreme Court ruled that surely this is not a case
of mere breach of promise to marry. As stated, mere breach of
promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a
wedding and go through all the above-described preparation and
publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be
solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably
contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held
answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 aforesaid.
GENERAL RULE: Breach of promise to marry is not actionable. The
exception we will discuss later.
What is the basis of liability? The basis of course is that article 21.
That is the basis of the award of damages. Again, actionable
breaches. There are so many cases under this provision dili nato ni
isa-isahon kay they have same facts. We have the case of Gashem
Shookat Baksh vs CA 1993
Baksh vs CA 1993
Baksh is foreign. According to SC where a man's promise to marry is
in fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a
woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter
becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a
sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of
marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or
deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to
obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of
damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such promise to
marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful
injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. It is
essential, however, that such injury should have been committed in
a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
So therefore, if there is carnal knowledge under this case, breach of
contract of marriage is actionable and explain the reason of the
departure to the GR ths SC said it was defendant-appellant's
fraudulent and deceptive protestations of love for and promise to
marry plaintiff that made her surrender her virtue and womanhood
to him and to live with him on the honest and sincere belief that he
would keep said promise, and it was likewise these (sic) fraud and
deception on appellant's part that made plaintiff's parents agree
(what kind of parent is this) to their daughter's living-in with him
preparatory to their supposed marriage.
And as these acts of appellant are palpably and undoubtedly
against morals, good customs, and public policy, and are even
gravely and deeply derogatory and insulting to our women, coming
as they do from a foreigner who has been enjoying the hospitality
of our people and taking advantage of the opportunity to study in
one of our institutions of learning, defendant-appellant should
indeed be made, under Art. 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, to
compensate for the moral damages. This was decided when Filipina
women were not that modern. Do you agree? .. talk about survey
about women.
I promise to marry you so, give it to me murag ing-ana bah Let say
for example: Maja 17 years old had carnal knowledge with ramon
because Ramon promise to marry her. On the day of marriage
nawagting c ramon. Can maja recover damages? Was there a
seduction? Yes there is. Is article 21 applicable? No, because it is not
a moral seduction but rather a criminal seduction. What is criminal
seduction then? You have to go back to the RPC.
One thing that I have to tell you when it comes to these cases that
in the recent years wla nay ing-ana na caso. Imagine gud wala ka
niya kipakaslan tapos when you sue you have to allege that you
have carnal knowledge with that man. Lahi na karon.
Another example
A seduces the 19 year old daughter of X. the girl becomes pregnant.
What is the criminal or civil liability here? Can there be liability for
seduction? Of course there is no seduction here. There was even no
promise to marry in this case. Neither there was criminal liability for
seduction here because again the girl was of age. In the absence of
the intent defraud and deceive the girl, there can be no liability
under article 21. Pero nabuntis ang girl? The proper action here is
that she can file action to compell recognition and an action of
support but not under article 21.
A a married man and B a single of woman of age entered into
written agreement to marry each other after A became and
widower. After A became a widower, A married C. can B sue A for
breach of promise of marriage? NO moral damage can only be
recovered if there is criminal or a special law. To enter into such
agreement over the lifetime of one spouse is clearly contrary to law
public morals, and therefore null and void.
Tenchavez vs Escano July 26 1966
The award of moral damages against Vicenta Escao is assailed on
the ground that her refusal to perform her wifely duties, her denial
of consortium and desertion of her husband are not included in the
enumeration of cases where moral damages may lie. The argument
is untenable. The acts of Vicenta (up to and including her divorce,
for grounds not countenanced by our law, which was hers at the
time) constitute a wilful infliction of injury upon plaintiff's feelings
in a manner "contrary to morals, good customs or public policy"
(Civ. Code, Art. 21) for which Article 2219 (10) authorizes an award
of moral damages.
Naa kay asawa when you deny marital consortium it does not mean
actually sexual consortium there is also intimacy. If you deny that
you might actually liable for damages. In fact the SC added, Thus, a
consort who unjustifiably deserts the conjugal abode can be denied
support (Art. 178, Civil Code of the Phil.). And where the wealth of
the deserting spouse renders this remedy illusory, there is no
cogent reason why the court may not award damage as it may in
cases of breach of other obligations to do intuitu personae even if
in private relations physical coercion be barred under the old
maxim "Nemo potest precise cogi and factum". So you cannot be
forced
PE vs Pe 1962
Alfonso pe and Lolita pe. Lolita was missing and could not be
found. Alfonso pe a married man and nagbaligya ug sigarilyo in
marinduque and was treated as a Son by Cecelio Pe who is one of
the petitioners. Layo na ni sila na relatives. Alfonso here was
actually not a Filipino. Cecelio introduce alfonso to his children, one
of his daughter is lolita. Sige na syag bisita sa balay ni cecelio kay
tudloan niya ug rosary c lolita . And eventually they fell in love with
each other despite the fact that alfonso is married to another.
Lolita disappeared from her brothers house where she was living.
A note in the handwriting of the defendant was found inside
Lolitas aparador The present action was instituted under Article 21.
So the parents sued alfonso for damages kay tungod nadaut na
dungog sa pamilya tungod sa paglayas sa girl. Remember this case
happen a long time ago.. the SC ruled that There is no doubt that
the claim of plaintiffs for damages is based on the fact that
defendant, being a married man, carried on a love affair with Lolita
Pe thereby causing plaintiffs injury in a manner contrary to morals,
good customs and public policy. The circumstances under which
defendant tried to win Lolita's affection cannot lead, to any other
conclusion than that it was he who, thru an ingenious scheme or
trickery, seduced the latter to the extent of making her fall in love
with him. This is shown by the fact that defendant frequented the
house of Lolita on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him how
to pray the rosary.
, no other conclusion can be drawn from this chain of events than
that defendant not only deliberately, but through a clever strategy,
succeeded in winning the affection and love of Lolita to the extent
of having illicit relations with her. The wrong he has caused her and
her family is indeed immeasurable considering the fact that he is a
married man. Verily, he has committed an injury to Lolita's family in
a manner contrary to morals, good customs and public policy as
contemplated in Article 21 of the new Civil Code. Remember in this
case the girl is 24 years old. The girl has knowledge that Alfonzo is a
married man. The Sc still award damages on the pretext that he
was teaching the rosary. That deceit was the reason of the award.
Article 22
Article 22. Every person who through an act of performance by
another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession
of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal
ground, shall return the same to him.
We already know this. This is the principle of unjust enrichment.
Nemo ex alterius incommodo debet lecupletari (no man ought to be
made rich out of another's injury)
Hulst vs PR Builders
There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit
at the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property
of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and
good conscience.
Compare this provision in quasi contract
Article 2142. Certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give rise to
the juridical relation of quasi-contract to the end that no one shall
be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another. (n)
We discussed this in passing in OBLICON. What s the basis of the
law under quasicontact in realtion to article 22. Again that is unjust
enrichment. The law abhords the situation of it.
Example :
A owed B a sum of money evidenced buy a promissory note. At
maturity A paid and a receipt was given to him. When later on he
was asked again to pay, he could not find the receipt, so to avoid
trouble, he paid again. Subsequently he found the missing receipt.
Can he get back what he had paid intentionally but unwillingly?
Can he? Based on article 22. But sir why not under Solutio indebiti
which is under the law on quasi-contracts? Why because when you
talk about Solutio indebiti, you are talking about payment by
mistakes. Here there was no payment by mistakes. There was no
mistakes here. He paid intentionally.
What will A file against B? that would fall under Accion in rem verso.
An action to recover and in the case of UP vs Philab Industries
September 2004 in order that accion in rem verso would prosper
(9)
Lets go to article 23
Article 23. Even when an act or event causing damage to
another's property was not due to the fault or negligence of the
defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the
act or event he was benefited.
What is article 23? It is an act or event that cause the damage to
other property. Ikaw, wala kay paki-alam wla kay gibuhat pero the
damage to the property cause you to be vindicated.
It is another provision that discussed about unjust enrichment. This
provision is in place because unless there is a duty to indemnify,
unjust enrichment will occur. There is no such thing as a free beer.
Example:
Without A knowledge, a flood drives his cattle to the cultivated
highland of B. As cattle are saved but B crops are destroyed. True,
A was not at fault, but he was benefited. It is but right and
equitable that he should indemnify B.
WHO WILL INDEMNIFY? The person who benefited from the act or
event.
(2.)
(3.)
During the storm the ship which was heavily loaded with goods was
in danger of sinking. The captain of the vessel ordered part of the
goods thrown overboard. In this case the captain is not criminally
liable. The question is who is to be made liable? Under the law on
averages , the ship owner and the cargo owners whose goods were
saved were liable.
Who will indemnify ?Ship owners and the cargo owners
Who will be indemnified? The owners of the jettison goods
Story about the Bar Question regarding Jason Clause- a waiver of
negligence. This is doubtful clause it is void and not existing in
Philippines Jurisdiction. I wonder why it was question in the bar.
Lets go to article 24
Article 24. In all contractual, property or other relations, when one
of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral
dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or
other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.
This is to my mind this is misplaced. Why? Because law under
human relation is suppose to regulate the human interrelation of
one private individual to the other private individual. This article is
actually a command. A command or mandate. Apart from being
misplaced it is actually a very good provision.
them the right to use, the right to dispose your property as you
see fit. And it allows exercise of police power of the state to
interfere in private property rights because otherwise you are free
to spend your money; you are free to exhaust your own resources.
The problem is when it offends Article 25, it may call upon the
exercise of the power of the State to prevent it or to stop such
thoughtless extravagance or ostentatious display of wealth.
For example:
In Kidapawan City, what happened here, farmers
ning-lugsong padulong sa syudad kay mangayo ug
bugas,
Panahon sa Yolanda.
If you are to master the law on Human Relations other than Articles
19, 20, 21 you have to master Article 26. Because the case law of
Article 26 is quite developed already with recent jurisprudence.
Art. 26. 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:
There is an emphasis on damages, prevention and other relief
which brings to mind the fact that under Article 26 your remedies
are purely civil in nature. You do not go to the extent of filing a
criminal action under Article 26. If it amounts to a criminal offense
then you file the necessary case but not under Article 26 of course.
What are these acts?
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence:
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family
relations of another;
No 2, Which in American and recent PH jurisprudence is called
Alienation of Affection
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
Kanang pataka lang ka ug storya. Tsismis! Again this is part of what
we call Alienation of Affection but its no longer limited to Family
Relations under no. 2, it includes now to friendly relations.
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious
beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or
other personal condition.
Again in recent jurisprudence this has been called Intentional
Infliction of Emotional or Mental distress which is a tort in
American Law but not necessarily a tort in PH law prior to No.4
which is vexing or humiliating another.
We look at the rationale of Concepcion vs. CA, January 31, 2000
The Code Commission stressed in no uncertain terms that
the human personality must be exalted. The sacredness of
human personality is a concomitant consideration of
every plan for human amelioration. The touchstone of
every system of law, of the culture and civilization of
every country, is how far it dignifies man. If the statutes
insufficiently protect a person from being unjustly
humiliated, in short, if human personality is not exalted then the laws are indeed defective. [11]Thus, under this
article, the rights of persons are amply protected, and
damages are provided for violations of a persons dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind.
Brings to mind what happened a couple of months back about the
statement of Manny Pacquiao. You can very much sue him if you
want based on those statements under Article 26.
Lets go to Par. 1: (1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence:
problem here is, it was not Arcadios house. It was the house of
Doctor Conrado J. Aramil. So Dr. Aramil wrote to St. Louis Realty
about the mistake and seeing how it has affected his professional
and personal integrity as he has invited in several occasions
numerous medical colleagues, medical students and friends to his
house. Because of it he receives sly remarks, "it looks like your
house," "how much are you renting from the Arcadios?", "like your
wife portrayed in the papers as belonging to another husband,"
etc. He claims that the act of publishing on Sunday Times resulted
in mental anguish. So he sued for damages St. Louis Realty later on
for violation of Article 21 and 26 of the CC. What did St. Louis do?
Through a certain Ernesto Magtoto, he stopped the publication of
the advertisement and contacted Dr. Aramil and offered his
apologies but no rectification or official apology was published.
Ang gusto ni Dr. Aramil rectify it on paper and also make a public
apology but it was never done by St. Louis prompting again Dr.
Aramil to sue St Louis for damages. How did the SC rule? According
to SC there was gross negligence on the part of St Louis employees
in mixing up the Arcadio and Dr Aramil residences in a widely
circulated publication like the Sunday Times and the SC lamented
also about the fact that was no official or written public apology.
Persons, who know the residence of Doctor Aramil, were
confused by the distorted, lingering impression that he
was renting his residence from Arcadio or that Arcadio
had leased it from him. Either way, his private life was
mistakenly and unnecessarily exposed. He suffered
diminution of income and mental anguish.
The SC awarded him a certain sum for damages. Thats a violation
of your right to privacy by means of gross negligence. This case is
perfectly okay. This is good precedent.
But what the SC failed to consider is the fact that Article 26 actually
makes out intentional torts or torts committed by intent not by
negligence. Diba diri gross negligence, there is no intent to do that.
But the SC applied Article 26 (1). Somehow medyo loose ang
interpretation sa SC.
Par 2: (2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family
relations of another; or the so-called Alienation of Affection
Lets go to a hypothetical example:
Bangs, with her revealing clothing and flirtatious behavior
attempted to seduce Rrramon who did not submit to the
temptation. Rrramons wife, Leilania was furious causing
a marital rift between the spouses. If you look at the
facts, is there a cause of action? Is there a cause of action
there, especially so when it did not amount to anything?
Rrramon was not seduced. He did not do anything about
it; there is no criminal offense that is committed. There
can be no charge of concubinage. Why? They had no
relationship. Supposed that Rrramon had intercourse with
Bangs who succeeded in seducing him. Will the situation
be different? Naa bay criminal offense? Sexual intercourse
does not necessarily mean a criminal offense of
concubinage. When would there be concubinage in the
case of sexual intercourse? If it is under scandalous
circumstances or if there is cohabitation, or if there is
Friends are not relatives, so dili siya covered sa No.2. Let us assume
the facts that I told you about earlier on.
Naay BF, GF, unya nay babaye nga nag-interfere sa
relationship between BF-GF. Can you use no. 3, intriguing
to cause another to be alienated from his friends?
Technically speaking, YES. You can use this because this is
alienation of affection that is not included in the context
of family relations. Pwede, when you say man gud
intriguing to cause another, it can be anyone. Dili man
kinahanglan nga nagtsismis ka lang, there are also other
acts as we would explain later on.
Par 4, intentional infliction of emotional or mental distress
(4)Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs,
lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal
condition.
Lets go back to this hypothetical example: remember we discussed
this when we were talking about the difference between a tort and
a crime. Remember the commission of crime requires two
elements: actus reus and mens rea: the criminal overt act and the
criminal intent. If you commit a wrongful act but without criminal
intent, that cannot be considered a crime. Whenever there is intent
it can make the status of a wrong from a civil wrong to a criminal
act depending on the elements of the offense itself.
In this example I remembered before naay away si Leila De Lima
and Duterte, nagkatambok lang ng agi nimo Leila de lima, bogo ka
bigaon pa dyud. Now what would be Dutertes liability for
intentionally calling De lima fat, dumb and a flirt. It depends. If the
statement was printed, the liability will be under Article 353 of the
RPC for libel or if it was merely uttered it could be slander or oral
defamation under Article 358. What you need to remember in
articles 353 and 358 of the RPC there is that element of publicity. So
without that publicity what would govern liability when the
statements were merely uttered privately? Nag away lang silang
duha walay lain nakadungog. Unsay liability? Can you file an action
for slander, for libel? You cannot. There is no criminal offense.
That is when you apply Article 26, and according to the Code
Commission: No less serious are the acts mentioned in no.4,
vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs,
etc. The penal laws against defamation and unjust vexation are
glaringly inadequate. That is true, right? Unjust vexation pila lang
man penalty niana? In my 12 years of practice as a lawyer the only
time that the fiscal found probable cause in an unjust vexation case
that are filed is once only. Its a very obscure provision of the law.
Not a lot of people would go for that. When you recall in your first
year, recall the unjust vexation provision of the RPC as a catch all
provision. In other words, kung wala nakay lain ma-file basi puwede
mu-file ug unjust vexation.
So for example, Religious freedom does not authorize
anyone to heap obloquy and disrepute upon another by
reason of the latters religion. Not a few of the rich people
treat the poor with contempt because of the latters lowly
station in life. To a certain extent this is inevitable, from
the nature of social makeup, but there ought to be a limit
and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such
civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal
prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and mat be proved by a
preponderance of evidence.
xxx
Here we're talking about Constitutional Rights, freedom of religion,
freedom of speech, right to the press etc., freedom from arbitrary
detention and so on and so forth. You are talking here about
Constitutional Right. Let's take No. 4 (Freedom from arbitrary or
illegal detention) for example.
Remember that if you are restrained of liberty or if your liberty is
restricted by an agent of the state, the case is arbitrary detention. If
it is done by a private individual, its a different case. You cannot call
it arbitrary detention, you call it illegal detention which is a different
way of saying kidnapping. Remember as well the General Principle
that the Bill of Rights is a proscription against public action. As a
General Rule it is a proscription against violation of your rights by
the state. Rights to privacy, for example. If somebody violates your
right to privacy and he is a public officer or employee then you
apply the Bill of Rights. But if it is committed by somebody else you
apply the Civil LAw. But what is your cause of action? Your cause of
action would be for damages. Again this is a stop-gap.
But if you look at it naa bay nakabutang diri sa provision that is
already covered by previous provisions? For example, freedom of
religion. What if somebody meddles with your freedom of religion,
vexes or humiliate you on account of your religion?That is under
Article 26. But you also have a cause of action under Article 32. So
doble actually. Daghan pa kaayo, giisa isa ang Constitutional Rights
by Article 32. What's the cause of action? For damages - Violation of
Constitutional Right. Everything gibalhin ra na sa law on Human
Relations.
So kini mao na pud criminal procedure or civil procedure provisions.
x x x The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary
damages may also be adjudicated.
With respect to Moral Damages, remember that this provision Art
32 is also mentioned under Article 2219. Article 2219 is referring to
Article 32 and Article 32 is referring also to Article 2219 relating to
Moral Damages.
x x x The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from
a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the
Penal Code or other penal statute.
You cannot file an action for damages against him, an action purely
for damages if you are talking about a violation of your rights by a
judge. Walay civil action but there can be criminal action.
Just read article 33.
Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil
action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the
criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution,
END.