UP 2010 Civil Law (Torts and Damages) PDF

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
TABLE of CONTENTS
TORTS & DAMAGES

Table of Contents
Chapter I. Introduction, Definitions............388
A. Tort and Quasi-Delict ........................388
B. Damages ...........................................389
Chapter II. Concept of Quasi-Delict............390
A. Elements ...........................................390
B. Distinguished.....................................390
Chapter III. Negligence ................................392
A. Concept of Negligence......................392
B. Degrees of Negligence......................393
C. Proof of Negligence...........................393
D. Defenses ...........................................394
Chapter IV. Causation..................................396
A. Proximate Cause...............................396
Chapter V. Persons Liable...........................399
A. The Tortfeasor...................................399
B. Vicarious Liability ..............................399
C. Specific Liability.................................403
D. Joint and Solidary Liability ................407
E. Civil Liability Arising From Crime...........407
F.
Prescription .......................................408
Chapter VI. Tortious Interference With
Contract.........................................................409
Chapter VIII. Human Relations Provisions 413

A. Abuse of Rights.................................413
B. Acts Contra Bonus Mores .................413
Other Torts ...............................................414
C. Dereliction of Duty.............................414
D. Illegal Acts .........................................414
E. Unfair Competition ............................414
F.
Violation of Human Dignity................414
Chapter IX. Damages ...................................415
A. Definition and Concept......................415
B. Kinds of Damages.............................415
387
TORTS & DAMAGES
Chapter VII. Torts with Independent Civil

Action ............................................................410
A. Violation of Civil and Political Rights.410
B. Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries 410
Prof. Gwen Grecia-De Vera

Faculty Editor
Ana Patricia Ruiz Tobias

Lead Writer
Darwin Angeles
Ron Michael Garcia
Jena de Mesa
Juan Antonio Oposa
Writers
CIVIL LAW
Kristine Bongcaron
Patricia Tobias
Subject Editors
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE
Kristine Bongcaron
Michelle Dy
Patrich Leccio
Editors-in-Chief
PRINTING & DISTRIBUTION

Kae Guerrero
DESIGN & LAYOUT

Pat Hernandez
Viktor Fontanilla
Rusell Aragones
Romualdo Menzon Jr.
Rania Joya
LECTURES COMMITTEE
Michelle Arias
Camille Maranan
Angela Sandalo
Heads
Katz Manzano Mary Rose Beley
Sam Nuez Krizel Malabanan
Arianne Cerezo Marcrese Banaag
Volunteers
MOCK BAR COMMITTEE

Lilibeth Perez
BAR CANDIDATES WELFARE

Dahlia Salamat
LOGISTICS
Charisse Mendoza
SECRETARIAT COMMITTEE
Jill Hernandez
Head
Loraine Mendoza Faye Celso
Mary Mendoza Joie Bajo
Members
Chapter I. Introduction, Definitions

A.
B.
Tort and Quasi-Delict

Damages
A. Tort and Quasi-Delict

1. Tort
Essentially, "tort" consists in the violation of

a right given or the omission of a duty
imposed by law. Tort is a breach of a legal
duty. (Naguiat vs. NLRC, 1997)
A tort is civil wrong, other than breach of
contract, for which a court of law will afford a
remedy in the form of an action for
damages. [Prosser, Handbook of the Law of
Torts]
Elements:
A legal duty
Breach
Causation
Damage
2. 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 pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
and is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code
Chapter on quasi-delicts.
Barredo vs. Garcia (1952): A quasi-delict or

"culpa aquiliana" is a separate legal institution
under the Civil Code, entirely independent from
a delict or crime. A concurrence of scope in
regard to negligent acts does not destroy the
distinction between the civil liability arising from
a crime and the responsibility for cuasi- delitos
or culpa extra-contractual. The same negligent
act causing damages may produce civil liability
arising from a crime under article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code, or create an action for
cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual.
Elcano vs. Hill (1977): Article 2176, where it
refers to "fault or negligence, covers not only
acts "not punishable by law" but also acts
criminal in character, whether intentional and
voluntary or negligent.
[There is also the other view which states
otherwise. To make it balanced you should
include the other view]
388
TORTS & DAMAGES
TORTS & DAMAGES TEAM
Chapter I. INTRODUCTION, DEFINITIONS
TORTS & DAMAGES
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
Chapter I. INTRODUCTION, DEFINITIONS
B. Damages
1. Damage, Damages, Injury
Custodio v. CA (1996): (Damage vs. Injury)
Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right.
Damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results
from the injury. Damages are the recompense
or compensation awarded for the damage
suffered.
People vs. Ballesteros (1998): Damages may be
defined as the pecuniary compensation,
recompense or satisfaction for an injury
sustained or as otherwise expressed, the
pecuniary consequences which the law imposes
for the breach of some duty or the violation of
some right.
2. Damnum Absque Injuria
Custodio vs. CA (1996): To warrant damages
there must be a right of action for a legal wrong
inflicted by the defendant and damage resulting
to plaintiff. Mere fact that plaintiff suffered loss
does not give rise to a right to recover damages.
Proper exercise of a lawful right cannot
constitute a legal wrong.
TORTS & DAMAGES
389
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
Chapter II. CONCEPT of QUASI-DELICT
Chapter II. Concept of Quasi-Delict

Elements
Distinguished
1. Quasi-Delict vs. Delict
2. Quasi-Delict vs. Breach of
Contract
II. Quasi-Delict vs. Breach of Contract
A. Elements
Act or omission amounting to fault or

negligence
Damage or injury is caused to another
Causal connection between damage done
and act/omission. (Art. 2176)
There is no pre-existing contractual relations
1
between the parties
In order that liability under Article 2176 of the

Civil Code will arise the following requisites must
exist:
a. There must be damage or prejudice which
must be proven by the party claiming it;
b. There must be an unlawful act or omission
amounting to fault or negligence; and
c. There must be a direct causal connection
between the damage or prejudice and the
act or omission. (Manresa; Taylor vs. Manila
Electric Co.; Jarencio, Torts and Damages)
B. Distinguished
I.
Quasi-Delict vs. Delict
Quasi-Delict
private concern
CC repairs the damage by
indemnification
includes all acts in which
"any kind of fault or
negligence intervenes."
solidary
liability
of
employer
ERs defense is that
accused observed due
diligence of a good father
of a family
Delict
public interest
RPC
punishes
and
corrects the act
Punishes only when
there is a penal law
covering the act
Subsidiary liability of
employer
ERs defense is that
employees
resources
must first be exhausted
(Barredo vs. Garcia)

Padilla vs. CA (1997): The extinction of the civil
action by reason of acquittal in the criminal case
refers exclusively to civil liability ex delicto
founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal
Code. The same punishable act or omission can
1
However, the court has held that there can be a tort even
where there is a pre-existing contract between the parties.
(Far East vs. CA, infra)
Cangco vs. Manila Railroad (1918): The field of

non- contractual obligation is much broader than
that of contractual obligations. These two fields
are concentric: the mere fact that a person is
bound to another by contract does not relieve
him from extra-contractual liability to such
person. When such a contractual relation exists
the obligor may break the contract under such
conditions that the same act constitutes the
source of an extra-contractual obligation, had no
contract existed between the parties.
Air France vs. Carrascoso (1966): The act that
breaks the contract of carriage may also be a
tort.
Far East v. CA (1995): The doctrine that a
quasi-delict can be the cause for breaching a
contract that might thereby permit the application
of applicable principles on tort even where there
is a pre-existing contract between the plaintiff
and the defendant can aptly govern only where
the act or omission complained of would
constitute an actionable tort independently of the
contract. Where, without a pre-existing contract
between two parties, an act or omission can
nonetheless amount to an actionable tort by
itself, the fact that the parties are contractually
bound is no bar to the application of quasi-delict
provisions.
390
TORTS & DAMAGES
A.
B.
create two kinds of civil liabilities against the

accused and, where provided by law, his
employer. Civil liability is not extinguished by
acquittal where the acquittal is based on
reasonable doubt. However, the offended party
cannot recover damages under both types of
liability. (Asked in the 1990 and 2003 bar exams)
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
Chapter II. CONCEPT of QUASI-DELICT
Vinculum Juris
CONTRACT
Contract
QUASI DELICT
Negligent act/ omission (culpa,
imprudence)
Proof Needed
Preponderance of evidence
Preponderance of evidence
Defense available
Exercise
of
extraordinary
diligence
(in
contract
of
carriage), Force Majeure
Pre-existing
contract
Burden of proof
There is pre-existing contract
Exercise of diligence of good

father of a family in the
selection and supervision of
employees
No pre-existing contract [not
necessarily]
Victim. Prove the ff.:
1. damage
2.negligence
3.
causal
connection between negligence
and damage done
Contractual party. Prove the ff:

1. existence of a contract
2. breach
DELICT
Act committed by means
of
dolo
(deliberate,
malicious, in bad faith)
Proof beyond reasonable
doubt
No pre-existing contract
Prosecution. Accused is
presumed innocent until
the contrary is proved.
(Asked in the 2003 bar exams)
TORTS & DAMAGES
391
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
Chapter III. NEGLIGENCE
Chapter III. Negligence
B.
C.
1.
2.
3.
D.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE
DEFINITION; ELEMENTS
STANDARD OF CONDUCT
i. SPECIAL CASES
a. CHILDREN
b. EXPERTS/PROFESSIONALS
c. INSANITY
ii. EMERGENCY RULE
DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE
PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
BURDEN OF PROOF
PRESUMPTIONS
RES IPSA LOQUITUR
DEFENSES
PLAINTIFF'S NEGLIGENCE
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
FORTUITOUS EVENT
ASSUMPTION OF RISK
DUE DILIGENCE
PRESCRIPTION
DOUBLE RECOVERY
392
TORTS & DAMAGES
A.
1.
2.
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
Cruz vs. CA (1997): Whether or not a

physician
has
committed
an
"inexcusable lack of precaution" in the
treatment of his patient is to be
determined according to the standard of
care observed by other members of the
profession in good standing under
similar circumstances bearing in mind
the advanced state of the profession at
the time of treatment or the present
state of medical science.
Marinduque vs. Workmen's (1956): "Notorious"

negligence, is the same thing as "gross"
negligence: pursuing a course of conduct which
would naturally and probably result in injury, or
utter disregard of consequences.
Benguet vs. CA (1999): Acting or omitting to act
in a situation where there is duty to act, not
inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a
conscious indifference to consequences in so far
as other persons may be affected.
c) Insanity
Art. 2180. Guardians are liable for damages caused
by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under
their authority and live in their company
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.
C. Proof of Negligence
1. Burden of Proof (ROC)
Rule 131, Sec. 3(c and d)
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences
of his voluntary act;
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns:
ii. Emergency Rule

Valenzuela vs. CA (1996): An individual who
suddenly finds himself in a situation of
danger and is required to act without much
time to consider the best means that may be
adopted to avoid the impending danger, is
not guilty of negligence if he fails to
undertake what subsequently and upon
reflection may appear to be a better solution,
unless the emergency was brought by his
own negligence.
B. Degrees of Negligence
Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may
be granted if the defendant acted with gross
negligence.
2. Presumptions
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is
solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was
in the vehicle, could have, by the use of due diligence,
prevented the misfortune. It is disputable presumed
that the driver was negligent, if he had been found
guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations
at least twice within the next preceding two months.
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is
presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has
been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was
violating any traffic regulation.
Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of
negligence if the death or injury results from his
possession of dangerous weapons or substances,
such as firearms and poison, except when the use or
possession thereof is indispensable in his occupation
or business.
Art. 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding article
(calamity, act of public enemy in war, act of owner of
the goods, character of the goods, order of competent
public authority), if the goods are lost destroyed or
deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have
been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they
prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as
required under Art. 1733.
3. Res Ipsa Loquitur

Amedo vs Rio (1952): Gross negligence is a
want of even a slight care or diligence; an entire
want of care that raises the presumption that the
person at fault is conscious of the probable
consequence thereof, and is indifferent or worse,
to the danger or injury to persons or property.
Layugan vs. IAC 1988): Res ipsa loquitur (The

thing speaks for itself): Where the thing which
causes injury is shown to be under the
management of the defendant, and the accident
is such as in the ordinary course of things does
393
TORTS & DAMAGES
US vs. Baggay (1911): A lunatic or

insane person who, in spite of his
irresponsibility on account of the
deplorable condition of his deranged
mind, is still reasonably and justly liable
with his property for the consequences
of his acts.
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
not happen if those who have the management

use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence,
in the absence of an explanation by the
defendant, that the accident arose from want of
care.
Bernardo vs. Legaspi (1914): Both of the parties

contributed to the proximate cause; hence, they
cannot recover from one another.
Ramos vs. CA (1999): The injury itself, taken

together with the circumstances raises the
presumption of negligence that the defendant
must meet with an explanation.
Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence

of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may
recover.
DM Consunji vs. CA (2001): The res ipsa

loquitur doctrine is based in part upon the theory
that the defendant in charge of the
instrumentality which causes the injury either
knows the cause of the accident or has the best
opportunity of ascertaining it and that the plaintiff
has no such knowledge, and therefore is
compelled to allege negligence in general terms
and to rely upon the proof of the happening of
the accident in order to establish negligence.
(NOTE: For the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to
apply, it must appear that the injured party had
no knowledge as to the cause of the accident, or
that the party to be charged with negligence has
superior
knowledge
or
opportunity
for
explanation of the accident.)
D. Defenses
1. Plaintiffs Negligence
Art. 2179. When the plaintiffs own negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was
only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause
of the injury being the defendants lack of due care,
the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall
mitigate the damages to be awarded.
Manila Electric vs. Remonquillo (1956): Even if

Manila Electric is negligent, in order that it may
be held liable, its negligence must be the
proximate and direct cause of the accident.
Genobiagon vs. CA (1989): The alleged

contributory negligence of the victim, if any, does
not exonerate the accused in criminal cases
committed through reckless imprudence, since
one cannot allege the negligence of another to
evade the effects of his own negligence.
Rakes vs. Atlantic (1907): If so, the
disobedience of the plaintiff in placing himself in
danger contributed in some degree to the injury
as a proximate, although not as its primary
cause.
(Supreme Court in this case cited numerous
foreign precedents, mostly leaning towards the
doctrine that contributory negligence on the part
of the plaintiff did not exonerate defendant from
liability, but it led to the reduction of damages
awarded to the plantiff.)
3. Fortuitous Event
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the
law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or
when the nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk, no person shall be seen
responsible for those events which, could not
foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.
Juntilla vs. Fontanar (1985): The elements of

caso fortuito are:
1. the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected
occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to
comply with his obligation, must be
independent of the human will;
2. It must be impossible to foresee the event or
if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to
avoid;
3. The occurrence must be such as to render it
impossible for the debtor to fulfill his
obligation in a normal manner;
4. The obligor must be free from any
participation in the aggravation of the injury
resulting to the creditor.
Hernandez vs. COA (1984): The robbery that
happened to him cannot be said to be the result
of his imprudence and negligence. This was
undoubtedly a fortuitous event covered by the
said provisions, something that could not have
394
TORTS & DAMAGES
Elements:
The accident is such that it would not
have happened in the ordinary course of
events without the negligence of
someone;
The defendant exercises control and
management.
There is no contributory negligence on
the part of the plaintiff.
2. Contributory Negligence
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
been reasonably foreseen although it could have

happened.
4. Assumption of Risk
Afialda vs. Hisole (1958): It is the caretaker's
business to try to prevent the animal from
causing injury or damage to anyone, including
himself. It was a risk he voluntarily assumed.
Exception:
Ilocos Norte vs. CA (1989): A person is excused
from the force of the rule (volenti non fit injuria),
that when he voluntarily assents to a known
danger he must abide by the consequences, if
an emergency is found to exist or if the life or
property of another is in peril or when he seeks
to rescue his endangered property.
5. Due Diligence
6. Prescription
4 years for QD
1 year for defamation
Kramer vs. CA (1989): It is clear that the

prescriptive period must be counted from the
time of the commission of an act or omission
violative of the right of the plaintiff, which is the
time when the cause of action arises.
Allied Banking vs. CA (1989): Relations Back
Doctrine (footnote 17 of Allied Banking case):
That principle of law by which an act done at one
time is considered by a fiction of law to have
been done at some antecedent period.
7. Double Recovery
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under
the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct
from the civil liability arising from negligence under the
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
395
TORTS & DAMAGES
MMTC vs. CA (1998): Due diligence in the

supervision of employees, on the other hand,
includes the formulation of suitable rules and
regulations for the guidance of employees and
the issuance of proper instructions intended for
the protection of the public and persons with
whom the employer has relations through his or
its employees and the imposition of necessary
disciplinary measures upon employees in case
of breach or as may be warranted to ensure the
performance of acts indispensable to the
business of and beneficial to their employer.
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
2. Distinguished from Other Kinds

i.
A.
PROXIMATE CAUSE
1. DEFINITION
2. DISTINGUISHED
FROM
OTHER
KINDS
i. REMOTE
ii. CONCURRENT
3. TESTS
TO
DETERMINE
THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE
4. EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE
5. LAST CLEAR CHANCE
A. Proximate Cause
1. Definition
Bataclan vs. Medina (1960): that acting first and
producing the injury, either immediately or by
setting other events in motion, all constituting a
natural and continuous chain of events, each
having a close causal connection with its
immediate predecessor, the final event in the
chain immediately effecting the injury as a
natural and probable result of the cause which
first acted, under such circumstances that the
person responsible for the first event should, as
an ordinarily prudent and negligent person, have
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of
his act or default that an injury to some person
might probably result therefrom.
Lambert v. Heirs of Ray Castillon (2005):
Proximate cause is defined as that which, in the
natural and continuous sequence unbroken by
any efficient, intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without which the result would not
have occurred.
Pilipinas Bank vs. CA (1994): ...and from which it
ought to have been foreseen or reasonably
anticipated by a person of ordinary care that the
injury complained of or some similar injury,
would result therefrom as a natural and probable
consequence.
(NOTE: Same definition as in the Bataclan case,
except that the SC added the element of
FORESEEABILITY.)
Quezon City vs. Dacara (2005): Proximate
cause is determined from the facts of each case,
upon a combined consideration of logic,
common sense, policy or precedent.
Remote
Manila Electric Co. v. Remonquillo (1956): A

prior and remote cause cannot be made the
basis of an action if such remote cause did
nothing more than furnish the condition or give
rise to the occasion by which the injury was
made possible, if there intervened between such
prior or remote cause and the injury, a distinct,
successive, unrelated and efficient cause of the
injury, even though such injury would not have
happened but for such condition or occasion.
If no danger existed in the condition except
because of the independent cause, such
condition was not the proximate cause. And if an
independent negligent act or defective condition
sets into operation the circumstances which
result in injury because of the prior defective
condition, such act or condition is the proximate
cause.
ii. Concurrent
Far Eastern vs. CA (1998): Where the
concurrent or successive acts of 2 or
more
persons,
although
done
independently, constitute in combination
the proximate cause of the injury to the
rd
3 person, either shall be responsible
for the whole injury.
3. Tests to determine the proximate cause
Cause in fact: The first step is to determine
whether the defendants conduct, in point of fact,
was a factor in causing plaintiffs damage.
Effectiveness of the cause; but for rule:
whether such negligent conduct is a cause
without which the injury would not have taken
place (sine qua non rule) or is the efficient cause
which set in motion the chain of circumstances
leading to the injury. (Bataclan v. Medina)
1. Substantial
factor
test
under
Restatement: If the actors conduct is a
substantial factor in bringing about harm
to another, the fact that the actor neither
foresees nor should have foreseen the
harm or the manner in which it occurred,
does not prevent him from being liable.
(Philippine Rabit v. IAC)
2. Foreseeability test: Anticipation of
consequence is a necessary element in
determining not only whether a
396
TORTS & DAMAGES
Chapter IV. Causation
Chapter IV. CAUSATION
particular act or omission was negligent,

but also whether the injury complained
of was proximately caused by such act
or omission.
3. Natural and probable consequence
test: A natural consequence of an act is
the consequence which ordinarily
follows it. A probable consequence is
one that is more likely to follow than fail
to follow its supposed cause but it need
not be one which necessarily follow
such cause.
4. Ordinary and natural or direct
consequence test: if negligence is a
cause in fact of the injury , the liability of
the wrongdoer extends to all the
injurious consequences.
5. Hindsight test: A party guilty of
negligence or omission of duty is
responsible for all the consequences
which a prudent and experienced party,
fully
acquainted
with
all
the
circumstances which in fact exist,
whether they could have been
ascertained by reasonable diligence, or
not, would have thought at the time of
the negligent act as reasonably possible
to follow, if they had been suggested to
his mind.
6. Orbit of the risk test: If the foreseeable
risk to plaintiff created a duty which the
defendant breached, liability is imposed
for any resulting injury within the orbit or
scope of such injury. It is not the
unusual nature of the act resulting in
injury to plaintiff that is the test of
foreseeability, but whether the result of
the act is within the ambit of the hazards
covered by the duty imposed upon the
defendant.
4. Efficient Intervening Cause
Teague vs. Fernandez (1973): The test is not in
the number of intervening causes, but in their
character and in the natural and probable
connection between the wrong done and the
injurious consequence.
5. Last Clear Chance
Also known as: "doctrine of discovered peril or
doctrine of supervening negligence.
Elements:
1) Plaintiffs own negligence put himself
in a dangerous situation
2) Defendant
saw/discovered,
by
exercising reasonable care, perilous
position of plaintiff
3) In due time to avoid injuring him
4) Despite notice and imminent peril,
defendant failed to employ care to
avoid injury
5) Injury of plaintiff resulted.
Doctrine
covers
successive
acts
negligence:
Primary negligence of the defendant
contributory negligence of the plaintiff
subsequent negligence of the defendant
failing to avoid the injury to the plaintiff
of
in
The doctrine cannot be extended into the field of

joint tortfeasors as a test of whether only one of
them should be held liable to the injured person
by reason of his discovery of the latters peril,
and it cannot be invoked as between defendants
concurrently negligent.
As against third persons, a negligent actor
cannot defend by pleading that another had
negligently failed to take action which could have
avoided the injury.
Picart vs. Smith (1918): If both parties are found
to be negligent; but, their negligence are not
contemporaneous, the person who has the last
fair chance to avoid the impending harm and
fails to do so is chargeable with the
consequences, without reference to the prior
negligence of the other party.
Bustamante vs. CA (1991): The doctrine of last
clear chance, as enunciated in Anuran v. Buno,
applies in a suit between the owners and drivers
of colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a
passenger demands responsibility from the
carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. It
will be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver
of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that
the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence
Phoenix vs. IAC (1987): Doctrine of last clear
chance does not seem to have a role to play in a
jurisdiction where the common law concept of
contributory negligence as an absolute bar to
recovery by the plaintiff, has itself been rejected,
as it has been in 2179 of CC
(NOTE: Interpretation of 2179: It is not just the
relative location in the continuum of time of the
negligence of both parties but also the weighing
397
TORTS & DAMAGES
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
and assessing of other factors such as the

nature of the negligent act/omission and the
character and gravity of the risks created by
such for the rest of the community.
a) If plaintiff IS the proximate cause: NO
RECOVERY can be made.
b) If plaintiff is NOT the proximate cause:
Recovery can be made but such will be
mitigated.
c) If negligence of parties are equal in degree,
then each bears his own loss.)
Pantranco vs. Baesa (1989): Last clear chance
applies only if the person who allegedly had the
last opportunity to avert the accident was aware
of the existence of peril or should, with exercise
of due care, have been aware of it.
Ong vs. Metropolitan (1958): Last clear chance
does not apply where the party charged is
required to act instantaneously, and if the injury
cannot be avoided by the application of all
means at hand after the peril is or should have
been discovered.
Consolidated Bank vs. CA (2003): This is a case

of culpa contractual where neither contributory
negligence nor last clear chance will exonerate
defendant from liability. (NOTE: This means that
Last Clear Chance is not a defense in culpa
contractual.)
398
TORTS & DAMAGES
Emergency rule: McKee v. IAC (1992): One

who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger,
and is required to act without time to consider
the best means that may be adopted to avoid
the impending danger, is not guilty of
negligence, if he fails to adopt what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to
have been a better method, unless the
emergency in which he finds himself is brought
about by his own negligence.
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
THE TORTFEASOR
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
1. PARENTS
2. GUARDIANS
3. TEACHERS
AND
HEADS
OF
INSTITUTIONS
4. OWNERS
AND
MANAGERS
OF
ESTABLISHMENTS
5. EMPLOYERS
6. STATE
SPECIFIC LIABILITY
1. Possessor of Animals
2. Things Thrown or Falling from a Building
3. Death/Injuries in the Course of Employment
4. Product Liability
5. Inference with Contractual Relations
6. Liability of Local Government Units
JOINT AND SOLIDARY LIABILITY
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM CRIME
PRESCRIPTION
A. The Tortfeasor
Worcester vs. Ocampo (1958): (Refers to) All
the persons who command, instigate, promote,
encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in,
aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who
approve of it after it is done, if done for their
benefit.
Each joint tortfeasor is not only
individually liable for the tort in which he
participates, but is also jointly liable with his
tortfeasors.
B. Vicarious Liability
Art. 2180, par 1. The obligation imposed by Article
2176 is demandable not only for ones own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one
is responsible.
Art. 2180, par 8. The responsibility treated of in this
article shall cease when the persons herein
mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence
of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
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.
NOTE:
Common defense: exercise of the diligence
of a good father of a family.
Exception: common carriersextraordinary
diligence.
Were the liability subsidiary and not primary

and solidary, the defense of due diligence
would not be available
Basis of Liability
Arises by virtue of a presumption juris tantum of
negligence on the part of the persons made
responsible under the article, derived from their
failure to exercise due care and vigilance over
the acts of the subordinates to prevent them
from causing damage.
The non-performance of certain duties of
precaution and prudence imposed upon the
persons who become responsible by civil bond
uniting the actor to them.
Underlying Basis of Vicarious Liability of
parents: Tamargo v. CA (1992): The basis of
this vicarious, although primary, liability is, as in
Article 2176, fault or negligence, which is
presumed from that which accompanied the
causative act or omission. The presumption is
merely prima facie and may therefore be
rebutted
2 Requisites According to Chironi:
1. The duty of supervision
2. The possibility of making
supervision effective
such
Respondeat superior
It means nothing more than look to the man
higher up, (usually the employer or person
under whose control the tortfeasor was under)
which is a manifestation of vicarious liability.
Bonus paterfamilias.
The relationship of pater familias (good father of
the family) is the basis of civil law liability,
particularly for an employer. It is a defense for all
instances of vicarious liability based on Art.
2180. (Most frequently asked topic in Torts,
1975-2003)
Liability of Author
Article does not exempt the author who are the
only ones liable if there are no persons who will
be held liable if there are no person having
authority over him or if due diligence of the
persons having authority over him. He may be
sued alone or with the person responsible for
him.
Strict Interpretation
The liability under this article cannot be
extended to those persons not enumerated
because this is an extraordinary responsibility
created by way of exception to the rule that no
399
TORTS & DAMAGES
Chapter V. Persons Liable
Chapter V. PERSONS LIABLE
person can be liable for the acts or omissions of

another.
parents had exercised all the diligence of a good

father of a family to prevent the damage
1. Parents
(NOTE: Art 2180, par 2 of the Civil Code which

holds the father liable for damages has been
modified by the Family Code and PD 603. Art.
211 of the FC declares joint parental authority of
the mother and father over common children.
The parent(s) exercising parental authority are
liable for the torts of their children. Despite the
lowering of the age of majority from 21 to 18,
parents are still liable for the torts committed by
their children below 21 years of age. Art 236, par
3 FC, as amended by RA 6809)
Based on the presumption of failure on their part

to properly exercise their parental authority for
the good education of their children and exert
adequate vigilance over them.
Imposed only when children are living with the
parents
If there is just cause for separation, the
responsibility ceases.
The responsibility of the father and mother is not
simultaneous but alternate.
When Responsibility Ceases
When parent is not in the position to exercise
authority and supervision over the child
Illegitimate Children
Responsibility is with the mother whom the law
vests parental authority
Exconde vs. Capuno (1957): The civil liability
which the law imposes upon the father and, in
case of his death or incapacity, the mother, for
any damages that may be caused by the minor
children who live with them, is obvious. This is a
necessary consequence of the parental authority
they exercise over them which imposes upon
the parents the 'duty of supporting them,
keeping them in their company, educating them
in proportion to their means', while, on the other
hand, gives them the 'right to correct and punish
them in moderation.'
Tamargo vs. CA (1992): The basis of parental
authority for the torts of a minor child is the
relationship existing between the parents and
the minor child living with them and over whom,
the law presumes, the parents exercise
supervision and control. To hold that parental
authority had been retroactively lodged in the
adoptive parents so as to burden them with the
liability for a tortious act that they could not have
foreseen and prevented would be unfair.
Parental liability is, in other words,
anchored upon parental authority coupled with
presumed parental dereliction in the discharge
of the duties accompanying such authority. The
parental dereliction is, of course, only presumed
and the presumption can be overturned under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code by proof that the
Art. 2180, par 2. The father and, in case of his death

or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the
damages caused by the minor children who live in
their company.
Art 58 (PD 603). Torts Parents and guardians are
responsible for the damage caused by the child under
their parental authority in accordance with the civil
code.
Art 221 (FC). Parents and other persons exercising
parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries
and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their
unemancipated children living in their company and
under their parental authority subject to the
appropriate defenses provided by law.
Art. 101 (RPC). Rules regarding civil liability in certain
cases. The exemption from criminal liability
established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article
12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does
not include exemption from civil liability, which shall
be enforced subject to the following rules:
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of
Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an
imbecile or insane person, and by a person under
nine years of age, or by one over nine but under
fifteen years of age, who has acted without
discernment, shall devolve upon those having such
person under their legal authority or control, unless it
appears that there was no fault or negligence on their
part.
Should there be no person having such insane,
imbecile or minor under his authority, legal
guardianship or control, or if such person be
insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall
respond with their own property, excepting property
exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil
law.
Libi vs. IAC (1992): The parent's liability under

2180 should be primary and not subsidiary. If it
were subsidiary, the parents cannot invoke due
diligence as a defense. Such interpretation
reconciles 2180 with 2194 which calls for
solidary liability of joint tortfeasors.
400
TORTS & DAMAGES
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
Guardians
REQUISITES FOR LIABILITY TO ATTACH:
Art. 2180, par 3. Guardians are liable for damages

caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who
are under their authority and live in their company.
Parents - (mnemonic: 21 + Authority &

Company):
1. The child is below 21 years old
2. The child is under the parental authority
of the parents
3. The child is living in the company of the
parents
Art. 216. In default of parents or a judicially appointed

guardian, the following person shall exercise
substitute parental authority over the child in the order
indicated:
The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art.

214;
The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one

years of age, unless unfit or disqualified; and
The child's actual custodian, over twenty-one

years of age, unless unfit or disqualified.
Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian over
the property of the child becomes necessary, the
same order of preference shall be observed.
Art. 217. In case of foundlings, abandoned neglected
or abused children and other children similarly
situated, parental authority shall be entrusted in
summary judicial proceedings to heads of children's
homes, orphanages and similar institutions duly
accredited by the proper government agency.
Guardians - (mnemonic: Authority & Company)

1. The ward if minor is below 21 years
old. If incapacitated, the guardian is
liable for the acts of the ward regardless
of the latters age.
2. The child is under the parental
authority of the parents.
3. The tortfeasor is under his authority.
4. The tortfeasor is living in his
company.
Is a minor or insane tortfeasor with NO parent or
guardian liable?
Yes. He shall be answerable with his own
property in an action against him where a
guardian ad litem shall be appointed. (Art. 2182)
2. Teachers and Heads of Institutions

For whose Acts
Pupils and students
Apprentices
Requisite for Liability to Attach

pupils and students remain in
teachers custody regardless of the
age
custody regardless of the age
must be below 18
If the tortfeasor is a student of

the school (Art 218 FC)
If the tortfeasor is a teacher/
employee of the school, it is
liable as employer under 2180
(5) of CC (St. Francis vs. CA)
If the tortfeasor is a stranger, it
is liable for breach of contract.
(PSBA vs. CA)
Palisoc vs, Brillantes (1971): Custody means

the protective and supervisory custody that the
school and its heads and teachers exercise over
the pupils and students for as long as they are at
attendance in the school and includes recess
time.
There is nothing in the law that
requires that for such liability to attach, the pupil
or student who commits the tortious act must
live and board in the school, as erroneously held
by the lower court, and in the dicta in Mercado
(as well as in Exconde) on which it relied, must
now be deemed to have been set aside by this

decision
Amadora vs. CA (1988): Art. 2180 should apply
to ALL schools, academic as well as nonacademic. Where the school is academic rather
than technical or vocational in nature,
responsibility for the tort committed by the
student will attach to the teacher in charge of
such student. In establishments of arts and
trades, it is the head thereof, and only he, who
shall be held liable as an exception to the
general rule.
401
TORTS & DAMAGES
Who are liable

Teacher- in- charge (the one
designated to exercise supervision
over students)
Head of establishment of arts and
trades
School (generally not held liable)
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
Salvosa v. IAC (1988): A student not at

attendance in the school cannot be in recess
thereat. A recess, as the concept is embraced
in the phrase at attendance in the school,
contemplates
a
situation
of
temporary
adjournment of school activities where the
student still remains within call of his mentor and
is not permitted to leave the school premises, or
the area within which the school activity is
conducted. Recess by its nature does not
include dismissal.
Mere fact of being enrolled or being in
premises of a school without more does
constitute attending school or being in
protective and supervisory custody of
school, as concemplated by law.
the
not
the
the
Ylarde vs. Aquino (1988): The principal of the

school cannot be held liable for the reason that
the school he leads is an academic school and
not a school of arts and trades. (Teachers
liability has been asked four times from 19751990, and four times from 2004- 2007)
3. Owners
and
Establishments
Who are liable
Owners
and
managers of an
establish-ment
or enterprise
Managers
For
whose
acts
Their
employees
of
Requisites
for
liability to attach
The damage was
caused in the
service of the
branches in which
the
employees
are employed
-ORThe damage was
caused on the
occasion of their
functions
3 Essential Requisites:
1. That the employee was chosen by the
employer, personally or through another
2. That the services are to be rendered in
accordance with orders which the employer
has the authority to give at all times
3. That the illicit act of the employees was on
the occasion or by reason of the entrusted to
him
Presumption of negligence
The presentation of proof of the negligence of its
employee gives rise to the presumption that the
defendant employer did not exercise the
diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of its employees
Nature of liability of the employer
The employer is primarily and solidarily liable for
the tortious act of the employee. The employer
may recover from the employee, the amount it
will have to pay the offended partys claim.
Such recovery, however, is NOT for the entire
amount. To allow such would be as if to say that
the employer was not negligent.
Necessity of presumption of negligence
It is difficult for any person injured to prove the
employers negligence as they would be proving
negative facts. (Here comes in the fabrication of
documents, etc.)
Independent contractor
Master not generally liable for the fault or
negligence of an independent contractor
performing some work for him
A contractor may at the same time be so
situated that he would be regarded as an
employee for whose negligence the employer is
liable
Cuison vs. Norton & Harrison (1930): Basis for
civil liability of employers is pater familias
Philippine Rabbit vs. Philam Forwarders (1975):

Owners and managers of an establishment or
enterprise does not include a manager of a
corporation. (Spanish term directores connotes
employer. But manager of a corporation is not
an employer, merely an employee of the owner.)
The existence of the employer-employee

relationship must first be established before an
employer may be made vicariously liable under
Art. 2180, CC.
4. Employers
Philtranco vs. CA (1997): The liability of the

registered owner and driver is solidary, primary
and direct.
Art 2180, par 5. Employers shall be liable for the

damages caused by their employees and household
helpers acting within the scope of their assigned
tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry.
Filamer vs. IAC (1992): Within the scope of

their assigned task in Art. 2180 includes any act
done by an employee in furtherance of the
402
TORTS & DAMAGES
Teachers in general shall be liable for acts of

their students except where the school is
technical in nature, in which case it is the head
thereof who shall be answerable.
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
De Leon Brokerage v. CA (1962): Employer

need not be riding in the vehicle to become
liable for a drivers negligence. Article 2184
mandating that the owner is only held solidarily
liable if he is riding in the vehicle at the time of
the mishap, only applies to those owners of
vehicles, who do not come within the ambit of
Article 2180 (as owners of an establishment or
enterprise.)
5. State
Sec 3, Art XVI, 1987 Constitution. The State may not
be sued without its consent.
Art 2180, par 6. 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.
Merrit vs. Government of the Philippine Islands

(1960): A special agent is one who receives a
definite and fixed order or commission, foreign
to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a
special official.
This concept does not apply to any executive
agent who is an employee of the active
administration and who on his own responsibility
performs the functions which are inherent in and
naturally pertain to his office.
The responsibility of the state is limited to that
which it contracts through a special agent, duly
empowered by a definite order or commission to
perform some act or charged with some definite
purpose which gives rise to the claim and not
where the claim is based on acts or omissions
imputable to a public official charged with some
administrative or technical office who can be
held to the proper responsibility in the manner
laid down by the law of civil responsibility.
General Rule: The State cannot be sued.
Exceptions:
a. There is express legislative consent
b.
The State filed the case
Instances where the state gives its consent to be
sued:
a. Art. 2180 (6) is an example of an express
legislative consent. Here, the State assumes
a limited liability for the acts of its special
agents.
b. Art. 2189 provides for state liability for

damages caused by defective condition of
public works.
c. Local Government Code provides for the
liability of local government units for
wrongful exercise of its proprietary (as
opposed to its governmental) functions. The
latter is the same as that of a private
corporation or individual. (Mendoza vs. De
Leon, 1916)
The state agencies or subdivisions, in the
pursuance of proprietary functions, are akin to
any other private corporation. They may be sued
for:
torts committed by them (Art. 2176) or
torts committed by their employees (art
2180).
As long as it is performing proprietary functions,
it can be held liable for the acts of its employees,
both regular and special.
Quick Glance
o As a governmental entity: Liable only for
acts of its special agents
o As a corporate entity: May be held liable
just as any other employer for the acts of its
employees
o Special Agent: One duly empowered by a
definite order or commission to perform
some act or one charged with some definite
purpose which give rise to the claim; if he is
a government employee or official, he must
be acting under a definite and fixed order or
commission, foreign to the exercise of the
duties of his office
C. Specific Liability
1. Possessor of Animals
Art. 2183 (CC). The possessor of an animal or
whoever may make use of the same is responsible for
the damage which it may cause, although it may
escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only
in case the damage should come from force majeure
or from the fault of the person who has suffered
damage.
Applicability of provision
Since the law makes no distinction, this is
applicable to both wild (in case the wild animal is
kept) and domestic animals. It is enough that
defendant is the possessor, owner, or user of
the animal at the time it caused the damage
complained of, to hold him liable therefor.
403
TORTS & DAMAGES
interests, or for the account of the employer at

the time of the infliction of the injury or damage.
Basis
Negligence is immaterial. It is based on natural
equity and on the principle of social interest that
he who possesses animals for his utility,
pleasure, or service, must answer for any
damage which such animal may cause.
Possible defenses against this liability:
1. Force Majeure
2. Fault of person suffering damage
3. Act of third persons
Vestil vs. IAC (1989): Possession of the animal,

not ownership, is determinative of liability under
Art. 2183. The obligation imposed by said article
is not based on the negligence or on the
presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or
user of the animal causing damage. It is based
on natural equity and on the principle of social
interest that he who possesses animals for his
utility, pleasure, or service, must answer for any
damage which such animal may cause.
Scope of provision
Contention that the defendant could not be
expected to exercise remote control of the
animal is not acceptable. In fact, Art. 2183 holds
the possessor liable even if the animal should
escape or be lost and so be removed from his
control.
It is likewise immaterial that the animal was
tame and was merely provoked by the victim.
The law does not speak only of vicious animals
but covers even tame ones as long as they
cause injury.
2. THINGS THROWN
FROM A BUILDING
OR
FALLING
Art 2193 (CC). The head of a family that lives in a

building or a part thereof, is responsible for damages
caused by things thrown or falling from the same.
Purpose of the law

To relieve the injured party of the
difficulty of determining and proving who threw
the thing or what caused it to fall, or that either
was due to the fault or negligence of any
particular individual.
Dingcong vs. Kanaan (1941): Lessee is
considered as the head of the family. It is
enough that he lives in and has control over it.
3. DEATH/INJURIES IN THE COURSE

OF EMPLOYMENT
Art 1711: Owners of enterprises and other employers
are obliged to pay compensation for the death or
injuries ti their laborers, workmen, mechanics or other
employees even though the event may be purely
accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause, if the
death or personal injury arose out of and in the course
of employment. The employer is also liable for
compensation if the employee contracts any illness or
disease caused by such employment or as a result of
the nature of the employment. If the mishap was due
to the employee's own notorious negligence, or
voluntary act, or drunkenness, the employer shall not
be liable for compensation. When the employee's lack
of due care contributed to his death or injury, the
compensation shall be equitable reduced.
Art. 1712: If the death or injury is due to the
negligence of a fellow-worker, the latter and the
employer shall be solidarily liable for compensation. If
a fellow worker's intentional or malicious act is the
only cause of the death or injury, the employer shall
not be answerable, unless it should be shown that the
latter did not exercise due diligence in the selection or
supervision of the plaintiff's fellow worker.
Afable vs Singer (1933): The injury must be

received while engaged in the furtherance of the
affairs of the employer.
4. PRODUCT LIABILITY
Art 2187 (CC). Manufacturers and processors of
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods
shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any
noxious or harmful substances used, although no
contractual relation exists between them and the
consumers.
Consumer Act Provisions
Art. 4. n) "Consumer" means a natural person who is
a purchaser, lessee, recipient or prospective
purchaser, lessor or recipient of consumer products,
services or credit.
(as) "Manufacturer" means any person who
manufactures, assembles or processes consumer
products, except that if the goods are manufactured,
assembled or processed for another person who
attaches his own brand name to the consumer
products, the latter shall be deemed the
manufacturer. In case of imported products, the
manufacturer's representatives or, in his absence, the
importer, shall be deemed the manufacturer.
Art. 97. Liability for the Defective Products. - Any
Filipino or foreign manufacturer, producer, and any
importer, shall be liable for redress, independently of
fault, for damages caused to consumers by defects
resulting from design, manufacture, construction,
assembly and erection, formulas and handling and
making up, presentation or packing of their products,
as well as for the insufficient or inadequate
information on the use and hazards thereof.
404
TORTS & DAMAGES
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
A product is defective when it does not offer the

safety rightfully expected of it, taking relevant
circumstances into consideration, including but not
limited to:
a. presentation of product
b. use and hazards reasonably expected of it;
c. the time it was put into circulation.
A product is not considered defective because
another better quality product has been placed in the
market. The manufacturer, builder, producer or
importer shall not be held liable when it evidences:
a. that it did not place the product on the market;
b. that although it did place the product on the
market such product has no defect;
c. that the consumer or a third party is solely at
fault.
Art. 99. Liability for Defective Services. - The service
supplier is liable for redress, independently of fault, for
damages caused to consumers by defects relating to
the rendering of the services, as well as for
insufficient or inadequate information on the fruition
and hazards thereof.
The service is defective when it does not provide the
safety the consumer may rightfully expect of it, taking
the relevant circumstances into consideration,
including but not limited to:
the manner in which it is provided;
the result of hazards which may reasonably be

expected of it;
the time when it was provided.
Coca-Cola v. CA (1993): While it may be true

that the pre-existing contract between the
parties may, as a general rule, bar the
applicability of the law on quasi-delict, the
liability may itself be deemed to arise from
quasi-delict if the act which breaks the contract
is also a quasi-delict.
5. INTERFERENCE
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
WITH
Art 1314: Any third person who induces another to

violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the
other contracting party.
Gilchrist vs. Cuddy (1915): Everyone has a right

to enjoy the fruits of his enterprise. He has no
right to be protected from competition, but he
has the right to be free from malicious and
wanton interference. If the injury is a result of
competition, it is a case of damnum absque
injuria, unless superior right by contract is
interfered with.
So Ping Bun vs. CA (1999): Elements of
Interference are:
Existence of a valid contract;
Knowledge of the third person of the
existence of such contract;
Interference without legal justification or
excuse.
A service is not considered defective because of the

use or introduction of new techniques.
The supplier of the services shall not be held liable
when it is proven:
that there is no defect in the service rendered;
that the consumer or third party is solely at
fault.
Lagon vs. CA (2005): If there in no bad faith,

there is no tortious interference; Actual
knowledge of the contract is not required so long
as there are facts leading one to investigate.
Art. 106. Prohibition in Contractual Stipulation. - The

stipulation in a contract of a clause preventing,
exonerating or reducing the obligation to indemnify for
damages effected, as provided for in this and in the
preceding Articles, is hereby prohibited, if there is
more than one person responsible for the cause of
the damage, they shall be jointly liable for the redress
established in the pertinent provisions of this Act.
However, if the damage is caused by a component or
part incorporated in the product or service, its
manufacturer, builder or importer and the person who
incorporated the component or part are jointly liable.
Art 2189: Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be

liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered
by, any person by reason of the defective condition of
roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other
public works under their control or supervision.
6. LIABILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

UNITS
Guilatco vs Dagupan: It is not necessary that the

defective road belongs to the LGU, only that the
LGU exercises control and supervision over it.
405
TORTS & DAMAGES
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
QUICK GLANCE
For What
For the damage it may cause
Manufacturers and Processors of

foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and
similar goods (FDTAS)
Defendant
in
possession
of
dangerous weapons/ substances
such as firearms and poison
Provinces, Cities and Municipalities
death and injuries caused by any

noxious or harmful substances used
Proprietor of building/ structure
Engineer, Architect or Contractor
Head of the Family that lives in a

building or any part thereof
Motor vehicle mishaps
death or injury results from such

possession
the death or injuries suffered by any
person by reason of the defective
condition of roads, streets, bridges,
public buildings, and other public
works
total or partial collapse of

building or structure if due to
lack of necessary repairs
explosion of machinery which

has not been taken cared of
with due diligence, and the
inflammation
of
explosive
substances which have not
been kept in a safe and
adequate place
by excessive smoke, which

may be harmful to persons or
property
by falling of trees situated at or

near highways or lanes, if not
caused by force majeure
by emanations from tubes,

canals, sewers or deposits of
infectious matter, constructed
without precautions suitable to
the place
if damage of building or structure is
caused by defect in construction
which happens within 15 years from
construction; action must be
brought within 10 years from
collapse
Liable for damages caused by

things thrown or falling from the
same
Defenses or Exceptions
Force majeure
Fault of the person who suffered
damage
Solidary liability only if the owner was
in the vehicle and if he could have
prevented it thru due diligence
If not in vehicle 2180
Absence on contractual relation NOT
a defense
possession or use thereof is
indispensable in his occupation or
business
Public works must be under their
supervisions
Responsibility for collapse should be

due to the lack of necessary repairs
406
TORTS & DAMAGES
Person Strictly Liable

Possessor of an animal or whoever
makes use of them even if the
animal is lost or escaped
Owner of Motor Vehicle
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
Suggested Answer:
(a) No. Mechanical defects of a motor vehicle
do not constitute fortuitous event, since the
presence of such defects would have been
readily detected by diligence maintenance
check. The failure to maintain the vehicle in
safe
running
condition
constitutes
negligence.
(b) The doctrine of vicarious liability is that
which renders a person liable for the
negligence of others for whose acts or
omission the law makes him responsible on
the theory that they are under his control
and supervision.
(c) In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is made
solidarily liable with his driver if he (the
owner) was in the vehicle and could have,
by the use of due diligence, prevented the
mishap (Caedo vs. Yu Khe Thai, 26 SCRA
410 [1968]). However, this question has no
factual basis in the problem given, in view of
the express given fact that Orlando was not
in the car at the time of the incident.
D. Joint and Solidary Liability

Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons
who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary. (n)
E. Civil Liability Arising From Crime

Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under
the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct
from the civil liability arising from negligence under the
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
(n)
1. Distinguished from Independent Civil

Actions and Liability for QD
(Arts. 31-34, 2176)
Rule 111, Rules of Court
Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently.
In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and
2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the
independent civil action may be brought by the
offended party. It shall proceed independently of the
criminal action and shall require only a preponderance
of evidence. In no case, however, may the offended
party recover damages twice for the same act or
omission charged in the criminal action.
Sec. 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar. A final
judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the
defendant from civil liability is not a bar to a criminal
action against the defendant for the same act or
omission subject of the civil action.
2. Effect of Acquittal
Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is
acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for
damages for the same act or omission may be
instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance
of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the court
may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for
damages in case the complaint should be found to be
malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based
upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In
the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be
inferred from the text of the decision whether or not
the acquittal is due to that ground.
3. Prejudicial Questions
Art. 36. Pre-judicial questions which must be decided
before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or
may proceed, shall be governed by rules of court
which the Supreme Court shall promulgate and which
shall not be in conflict with the provisions of this Code.
Rule 111, Rules of Court
Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question.
A petition for suspension of the criminal action
based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in
a civil action may be filed in the office of the
prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary
investigation. When the criminal action has been filed
407
TORTS & DAMAGES
BAR QUESTION: MOTOR VEHICLE MISHAPS

A van owned by Orlando and driven by Diego,
while negotiating a downhill slope of a city road,
suddenly gained speed, obviously beyond the
authorized limit in the area, and bumped a car in
front of it, causing severe damage to the car and
serious injuries to its passengers. Orlando was
not in the car at the time of the incident. The car
owner and the injured passengers sued Orlando
and Diego for damages cause by Diegos
negligence. In their defense, Diego claims that
the downhill slope caused the van to gain speed
and that, as he stepped on the brakes to check
the acceleration, the brakes locked, causing the
van to go even faster and eventually to hit the
car in front of it. Orlando and Diego contend that
the sudden malfunction of the vans brake
system is a fortuitous event and that, therefore,
they are exempt from any liability.
(a) Is this contention tenable? Explain.
(b) Explain the concept of vicarious
liability in quasi-delicts.
(c) Does the presence of the owner
inside the vehicle causing damage
to a third party affect his liability
for his drivers negligence? Explain.
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed

in the same criminal action at any time before the
prosecution rests.
Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question. The
elements of a prejudicial questions are: (a) the
previously instituted civil action involves an issue
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of
such issue determines whether or not the criminal
action may proceed.
Zapanta vs. Montesa (1962): A civil case for the

annulment of marriage is an example of a
prejudicial question for a criminal charge of
bigamy.
F. Prescription
Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted
within four years:
(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
(2) Upon a quasi-delict;
TORTS & DAMAGES
408
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
Chapter VI. TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE with CONTRACT
Chapter VI. Tortious Interference With

Contract
Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to
violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the
other contracting party. (n)
Elements:
a) existence of a valid contract
b) knowledge of the third person of the
existence of the contract
c) interference of the third person WITHOUT
legal justification or excuse
(So Ping Bun vs. CA, 1999)
So Ping Bun vs. CA (1999): Bad faith/Malice is
required to make the defendant liable for
DAMAGES in cases of tortuous interference.
Gilchrist vs. Cuddy (1915): Injunction is the
proper remedy to prevent wrongful interference
with contracts by strangers, where other legal
remedies are insufficient and the resulting injury
is irreparable.
Lagon vs. CA (2005): Proper business interest
provides a legal justification to negate the
presence of the third element.
TORTS & DAMAGES
409
Chapter VII. Torts with Independent Civil

Action
A.
B.
VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

DEFAMATION, FRAUD, PHYSICAL INJURIES
1. DEFAMATION
2. FRAUD
3. PHYSICAL INJURIES
A. Violation of Civil and Political Rights

Art 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private
individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats,
violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of
the following rights and liberties of another person
shall be liable to the latter for damages:
1. Freedom of religion
2. Freedom of speech
3. Freedom to write for the press or to maintain
a periodical publication
4. Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention
5. Freedom of suffrage
6. The right against deprivation of property
without due process of law
7. The right to just compensation when property
is taken for public use
8. The right to equal protection of the laws
9. The right to be secure in ones person,
house,
papers
and
effects
against
unreasonable searches and seizures
10. The liberty of abode and of changing the
same
11. The right to privacy of communication and
correspondence
12. The right to become a member of
associations and societies for purposes not
contrary to law
13. The right to take part in a peaceable
assembly and petition the government for
redress of grievances
14. The right to be free from involuntary
servitude in any form
15. The right of the accused against excessive
bail
16. The right of the accused to be heard by
himself and counsel, to be informed of the
nature and the cause of the accusation
against him, to have a speedy and public
trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, to
have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses on is behalf;
17. Freedom form being compelled to be a
witness against ones self, or from being
forced to confess his guilt, or from being
induced by a promise of immunity or reward
to make such confession, except when the
person confessing becomes a State witness.
18. Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and
unusual punishment, unless the same is
imposed or inflicted in accordance with a
statute which has not been judicially
declared unconstitutional;
19. Freedom of access to the courts
Chapter VII. TORTS with INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION

In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether
or not the defendants act or omission constitutes a
criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to
commence an entirely separate 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 may be
proved by a preponderance of evidence. The
indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary
damages may also be adjudicated. The responsibility
herein set forth is not demandable from a judge
unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of
the Penal code or any other penal statute.
Cojuangco vs. CA (1999): The purpose of article

32 is to remind us that basic rights are
immutable. Thus, absence of bad faith or malice
is not a defense.
Vinzons- Chato vs. Fortune (2007): A public
officer may be sued under Art. 32 even if his
acts were not so tainted with malice, as long as
there is a violation of a constitutional right. Its
precise object is to put an end to official abuse,
done on the plea of good faith.
B. Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries

Art. 33: In case 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, and shall
require only a preponderance of evidence.
Marcia vs. CA (1983): Reckless imprudence is

not one of the three crimes mentioned in Art. 33;
no independent civil action may be filed because
what is punished is reckless imprudence is the
negligent or careless act, not the result thereof.
(However, in the contrary ruling in People vs.
Faller, court discussed reckless imprudence
under art. 33 not as a crime, but as a way of
committing it, such that it punishes BOTH the act
and the resulting damage, wherein an
independent action could be allowed.)
1. Defamation
Cojuangco vs. CA (1991): Separate civil action
may be consolidated with the criminal action.
MVRS vs. Islamic Da'wah (2003): Defamation is
that which tends to injure reputation or diminish
esteem, respect, good will, or confidence of the
plaintiff, or excite derogatory feelings about him.
410
TORTS & DAMAGES
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
It must be personal. (What is definitive is not the

level of hurt, but the effect of the statement on
the reputation or standing of the person.)
2. Fraud
Salta vs. De Veyra (1982): Independent civil
actions are permitted to be filed separately
regardless of the result of the criminal action.
Samson vs. Daway (2004): Unfair competition
under the Intellectual Property Code and fraud
under Art. 33 are independent actions. Art. 33
does not operate as a prejudicial question to
justify the suspension of the criminal cases at
bar.
3. Physical Injuries
Capuno vs Pepsi (1965): The institution of
criminal action cannot have an effect of
interrupting the running of the period for the filing
of independent civil actions.
Dulay vs. CA (1995): Homicide is included in Art.
33, where a separate action is availing.
NOTE:
Civil liability arising from crime
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence is
entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability
arising from negligence under the RPC. But double
recovery is not allowed.
Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code provides

that every person who is criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable. This general rule
however presupposes that the felony had
resulted in damage or injury to anothers person
or property. To create an obligation or give rise
to civil liability, an act or omission, whether
intentional or negligent, must have caused
damage or injury to another, otherwise only
criminal liability will attach. Though the general
rule provides that one who is not criminally liable
cannot be civilly liable, RPC Arts. 101-103
provide exceptions as they provide for vicarious
liability for certain types of offenders and
subsidiary liability in case of default of the
offender.
The civil liability established by RPC Arts. 100103 include:
a.
Restitution;
b.
Reparation of the damage caused;
and
c.
Indemnification
for
consequential
damages.
Neplum vs. Orbeso (2002): Deemed instituted in

every criminal prosecution is the civil liability
arising from the crime or delict per se (civil
liability ex delicto), but not those liabilities from
quasi-delicts, contracts or quasi-contracts.
Sps. Benito Lo Bun Tiong etc. vs. Vicente
Balboa (2008): The criminal action for violation
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to
include the corresponding civil action and that no
reservation to file such civil action separately
shall be allowed. But a separate proceeding for
the recovery of civil liability in cases of violations
of B.P. No. 22 is allowed when the civil case is
filed ahead of the criminal case.
For independent civil actions:
Physical injuries unqualifiedly refer to an
independent cause of action, whether
caused by a deliberate or negligent act.
Jurisprudence is mixed, but Sangco
discusses
that
the
reservation
requirement should only be for civil
actions based on crime. What will
prevent double recovery is the election
of any of the civil actions, being an
implicit waiver of the others.
Madeja vs. Caro (1983): Article 33 is ex
delicto, but it is an exception to the
reservation requirement, as it allows the
citizen to enforce his right to damages
independent of the prosecutor. Physical
injuries, fraud and defamation are used
in their ordinary, generic sense (and not
within RPC context).
BAR QUESTION
As a result of a collision between a taxicab owned by
A and another taxicab owned by B, X, a passenger of
the first taxicab, was seriously injured. X later filed a
criminal action against both drivers.
(a) Is it necessary for X to reserve his right to institute
a civil action for damages against both taxicab owners
before he can file a civil action for damages against
them? Why?
(b) May both taxicab owners raise the defense of due
diligence in the selection and supervision of their
drivers to be absolved from liability for damages to X?
Reason.
Suggested Answer:
(a) It depends. If the separate civil action is to
recover damages arising from the criminal act,
reservation is necessary. If the civil action
against the taxicab owners is based on culpa
contractual or on quasi-delict, there is no need for
reservation.
(b) It depends. If the civil action is based on quasidelict, the taxicab owners may raise the defense
411
TORTS & DAMAGES
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
of diligence of a good father of a family in the

selection and supervision of the driver; if the
action against them is based on culpa contractual
or civil liability arising from a crime, they cannot
raise the defense.
Alternative Answer:
No such reservation is necessary. Under Section 1
Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure,
what is deemed instituted with the criminal action is
only the action to recover civil liability arising from the
crime or ex delicto. All the other civil actions under
Articles 32, 33, 34, 2176 of the New Civil Code are no
longer deemed instituted, and may be filed
separately and prosecuted independently even
without any reservation in the criminal action (Section
3, Rule 111, 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure). The
failure to make a reservation the criminal action is not
a waiver of the right to file a separate and
independent civil action based on these articles of the
New Civil Code (Casupanan vs. Laroya, G.R. No.
145391, August 26, 2002)
TORTS & DAMAGES
412
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
Human
Relations
A.
B.
ABUSE OF RIGHTS
ACTS CONTRA BONUS MORES
1. ELEMENTS
2. EXAMPLES
i. BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY,
SEDUCTION AND SEXUAL ASSAULT
ii. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
iii. PUBLIC HUMILIATION
iv. UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL
OTHER TORTS
C. DERELICTION OF DUTY
D. UNFAIR COMPETITION
E. VIOLATION OF HUMAN DIGNITY
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his
rights and in the performance of his duties, act with
justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty
and good faith.
A. Abuse of Rights
Velayo vs. Shell (1959): It may be said that Art
19 only contains a mere declaration of principles
and while such statement may be essentially
correct, yet we find that such declaration is
implemented by Art 21. There is no belief of
more baneful consequences upon the social
order than that a person may with impunity
cause damage to his fellowmen so long as he
does not break the law though he may be
defying the most sacred postulates of morality.
Globe vs. CA (1989): A right, though by itself
legal because recognized or granted by law as
such, may nevertheless become the source of
some illegality. When a right is exercised in a
manner which does not conform with the norms
enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to
another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for
which the wrongdoer must be held responsible.
Albenson vs. CA (1993): The elements of an
abuse of right under Article 19 are the following:
(1) There is a legal right or duty;
(2) Which is exercised in bad faith;
(3) For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another.
University of the East vs. Jader (2000): Educational
institutions are duty-bound to inform the students of
their academic status and not wait for the latter to
inquire from the former. The conscious
indifference of a person to the rights or welfare
of the person/persons who may be affected by
his act or omission can support a claim for
damages.
B. Acts Contra Bonus Mores

Art. 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.
1.Elements
Albenson vs. CA ((1993): This provision has
broadened the scope of civil wrongs; it is more
supple and adaptable than tort. Elements:
1. legal action;
2. contrary to morals, public policy, good
customs;
3. intent to injure.
2. Examples
i.
Breach of Promise to Marry,

Seduction and Sexual Assault
Wassmer vs. Velez (1964): 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.
Baksh vs. CA (1993): 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.
ii. Malicious Prosecution
413
TORTS & DAMAGES
Chapter
VIII.
Provisions
Chapter VIII. HUMAN RELATIONS PROVISIONS
Que vs. IAC (1989): To constitute

malicious prosecution, there must be
proof that the prosecution was prompted
by a sinister design to vex and humiliate
a person that it was initiated deliberately
by the defendant knowing that his
charges were false and groundless.
Concededly, the mere act of submitting
a case to the authorities for prosecution
does not make one liable for malicious
prosecution.
Drilon vs. CA: Malicious Prosecution
defined: An action for damages brought
by one against whom a criminal
prosecution, civil suit, or other legal
proceeding
has
been
instituted
maliciously and without probable cause,
after
the
termination
of
such
prosecution, suit or other proceeding in
favor of the defendant herein. The gist of
the action is the putting of legal process
in force, regularly, for the mere purpose
of vexation or injury.
Concurring requisites:
1. The fact of the prosecution and the
defendant was himself the prosecutor
and then action was terminated with
an acquittal;
2. The
prosecutor
acted
without
probable cause;
3. That the prosecutor was impelled by
legal malice, that is by improper or
sinister motive.
iii. Public Humiliation
Grand Union vs. Espino: It is against
morals, good customs and public policy
to humiliate, embarrass and degrade the
dignity of a person. Everyone must
respect the dignity, personality, privacy
and peace of mind of his neighbors and
other persons (Article 26, Civil Code).
iv. Unjustified Dismissal
Quisaba vs. Sta. Ines: The complaint in
this case is not grounded on his
dismissal per se, as in fact he does not
ask for reinstatement, but on the manner
of his dismissal and the consequent
effects of such dismissal. If the dismissal
was done anti-socially or oppressively,
as the complaint alleges, then the
respondents violated Art. 1701 of the
CC and Art 21 of the CC.
Chapter VIII. HUMAN RELATIONS PROVISIONS
Other Torts
C. Dereliction of Duty
Art. 27: Any person suffering material or moral loss
because a public servant or employee refuses or
neglects, without just cause, to perform his official
duty may file an action for damages and other relief
against he latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary
administrative action that may be taken.
Amaro vs. Samanguit: Requisites:

(1) Defendant is a public officer charged with a
performance of a duty in favor of the plaintiff;
(2) He refused or neglected without just cause to
perform the duty;
(3) Plaintiff sustained material or moral loss as a
consequence of such non-performance;
(4) The amount of such damages, if material.
D. Illegal Acts
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall
indemnify the latter for the same
E. Unfair Competition
Art. 28: Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial
or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of
force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other
unjust, oppressive or highhanded method shall give
rise to a right of action by the person who thereby
suffers damage.
F. Violation of Human Dignity

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:
1. Prying into the privacy of another's residence
2. Meddling with or disturbing the private life or
family relations of another
3. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from
his friends
4. Vexing or humiliating another on account of his
religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of
birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
St. Louis Realty Corporation vs. CA (Illustration of

a similar act):
The acts and omissions of the
firm fall under Article 26. 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.
414
TORTS & DAMAGES
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
A.
B.
DEFINITION AND CONCEPT

KINDS OF DAMAGES
1. ACTUAL/COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
i. KINDS OF ACTUAL DAMAGES
ii. GENERAL
PRINCIPLES
FOR
RECOVERY
iii. DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURY &
DEATH
iv. ATTORNEYS FEES
2. MORAL DAMAGES
i. GENERAL
PRINCIPLES
OF
RECOVERY
ii. MORAL DAMAGES IN MALICIOUS
PROSECUTION
iii. MORAL DAMAGES IN RAPE
iv. MORAL DAMAGES IN MURDER
v. LABOR CASES
3. NOMINAL DAMAGES
i. REQUISITES
4. TEMPERATE/MODERATE DAMAGES
i. REQUISITES
5. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
6. EXEMPLARY/CORRECTIVE DAMAGES
i. REQUISITES
TO
RECOVER
EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES
AND
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AGREED
UPON IN ADDITION TO EXEMPLARY
ii. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
A. Definition and Concept

People vs. Ballesteros (supra): Damages may
be defined as the pecuniary compensation,
recompense, or satisfaction for an injury
sustained, or as otherwise expressed, the
pecuniary consequences which the law imposes
for the breach of some duty or the violation of
some right.
Ocena vs. Icamina: The obligation to repair the
damages exists whether done intentionally or
negligently and whether or not punishable by
law.
Elements for recovery of damages:
1. Right of action
2. For a wrong inflicted by the defendant
3. Damage resulting to the plaintiff
B. Kinds of Damages
(1) ACTUAL/COMPENSATORYfor
loss
actually suffered
(2) MORAL- mental anguish, etc.
(3) NOMINAL- for rights recognized and
violated
(4) TEMPERATE/MODERATE- for damages
proved but the amount was not proven
(5) LIQUIDATED- stipulated damages in the
contract
(6) EXEMPLARY/CORRECTIVE- to serve as
an example for the common good
1. Actual or Compensatory
When is a person entitled to actual or
compensatory damages? (Art. 2199)
When there is a pecuniary loss suffered
by him;
When he has alleged and prayed for
such relief (Manchester Devt Corp vs.
CA);
When he has duly proved it;
When provided by law or by stipulation.
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary for:
moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or
exemplary damages. The assessment of such
damages is discretionary upon the court, except
liquidated ones. (Art. 2216)
i.
Kinds of Actual Damages
CC
Art.
2200
2205
2206
2209
2208
A.
Damnum emergente- value of the

loss suffered
B. Lucro cessante- profits which the
obligee failed to obtain
A. Loss of earning capacity due to
injury (temporary or permanent)
B. Damage to Business Standing or
Commercial Credit
A. Fixed indemnity for death = Php
50,000 (as of 2005)
B. Loss of Earning Capacity of the
Deceased
Interest
Attorneys Fees & Expenses of Litigation
ii. General Principles for Recovery

(1) The amount of damages must be fair
and just and commensurate to the loss.
- In case of contracts, only those
injuries which could have been
reasonably foreseen by the parties
by the parties at the time the
contract was entered into are
recoverable.
415
TORTS & DAMAGES
Chapter IX. Damages
Chapter IX. DAMAGES
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
Chapter IX. DAMAGES
(3) The damages must be proven by

competent evidence (admissible or
probative)
- Integrated Packaging Corp. vs. CA;
Fuentes vs. CA: It is necessary to
prove with a reasonable degree of
certainty, premised upon competent
proof and on the best evidence
obtainable by the injured party, the
actual amount of loss.
(4) Circ. No. 7, Mar. 24, 1988; Manchester
Devt. Corp. vs. CA, 1987: Complaint
and prayer must specify amount of
damages and pay filing fees before it
may be accepted and admitted for filing.
(5) The requirement of certainty does not
prevent the drawing of reasonable
inferences
from
the
fact
and
circumstance in evidence.
(6) Events which occur after the wrong
complained of may serve to render the
damage sufficiently certain.
Art.
2201
Art.
2202
Contracts and
quasi contracts
Crimes and
quasi-delicts
(7) The damages must be susceptible of

ascertainment in some manner other
than by mere speculation, conjecture or
surmise and by reference to some fairly
definite standard, such as market value,
established
experience
or
direct
inference from known circumstances.
Talisay-Silay vs. Associacion: Where,
however, it is reasonably certain that
injury consisting of failure to realize
otherwise reasonably expected profits
had been incurred, uncertainty as to the
precise amount of such unrealized
profits will not prevent recovery or the
award of damages.
The extent of recovery:
Recovery of all proximately traceable to the
primary negligence, including subsequent
aggravations, the probability of which the law
regards as a consequence and natural result
likely to flow form the original injury. However,
note that if the subsequent aggravations are due
to his own negligence then the tortfeasor shall
not be liable for such since Art. 2203 imposes a
duty on the injured party to avoid loss or
minimize resulting damages.
Liability extends to those:

1. natural and probable consequences
of the breach
2. those that have been foreseen
3. those that could have been
reasonably foreseen
Note:
Liability extends to all damages which may be
reasonably attributed to the non-performance
of the obligation in case of fraud, bad faith,
malice or wanton attitude
(FBM-WA).
Provided: obligor in good faith

Liability extends to all damages which
are
the
natural
and
probable
consequence
Note:
WON damage is foreseen is irrelevant
Algarra vs. Sandejas: Actual damages for a

negligent act or omission are confined to those
which "were foreseen or might have been
foreseen," or those which were "the natural and
probable consequences" or "the direct and
immediate consequences" of the act or
omission. (Asked eight times from 1990 to 2008)
Daywalt vs. Recoletos et al.: The damages
recoverable upon breach of contract are,
primarily, the ordinary, natural and in a sense
the necessary damage resulting from the
breach. Other damages, known as special
damages, are recoverable where it appears that
the particular conditions which made such
damages a probable consequence of the breach
were known to the delinquent party at the time
the contract was made.
What must be proved:
Fact of
Injury
Cause
Amount
Proof
Reasonable certainty only that the fact
and cause of injury must be taken out of
the area of speculation. Usual burden of
proof required in a negligence case,
prove the substantive right, its breach and
the amount of damages flowing from the
breach.
Proximate cause the cause, which, in a
natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury, and without
which the injury would not have occurred.
(without which test of cause in fact)
Need not be proved with the same
degree of certainty. Fair and reasonable
estimate of the amount of damage.
416
TORTS & DAMAGES
(2) The damages must be proximate and

not remote or speculative.
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
Chapter IX. DAMAGES
When pecuniary loss need not be proved

1) Liquidated damages previously agreed
upon
2) If damages other than actual are sought
(Art. 2216)
3) Loss is presumed (ex: loss of a child or
spouse)
4) Forfeiture of bonds in favor of the
government for the purpose of
promoting public interest or policy (ex:
bond for temporary stay of alien
iii. Damages for Personal Injury & Death
(Art. 2206)
capacity of a minor is even stronger if he

or she was a student, whether already
training for a specific profession or still
engaged in general studies. Formula
established in decided cases for
computing net earning capacity:
MMTC v. CA: Net earning capacity (X) =
life expectancy * [gross annual income
reasonable, necessary living expenses]
Life expectancy = 2/3 (80- age of
deceased)
iv. Attorneys Fees
Factors:
1. Earning Capacity
2. Obligation to Support
3. Moral Damages to heirs
Compensation should be allowed for
loss of earning capacity resulting from
the death of a minor who has not yet
commenced employment or training for
a specific profession if sufficient
evidence is presented to establish the
amount thereof.
The
argument
compensation for
for
allowing
loss of earning
Attorneys Fees is the exception NOT

the general rule.
Art. 2208: can be recovered:
(1) If there is a stipulation to that effect
(2) When
exemplary
damages
are
awarded;
(3) When the defendant's act or omission
has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with
third persons or to incur expenses to
protect his interest;
(4) In
criminal
cases
of
malicious
prosecution against the plaintiff;
(5) In case of a clearly unfounded civil
action or proceeding against the plaintiff;
(6) Where the defendant acted in gross and
evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy
the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and
demandable claim;
(7) In actions for legal support;
(8) In actions for the recovery of wages of
household helpers, laborers and skilled
workers;
(9) In actions
for indemnity under
workmen's
compensation
and
employer's liability laws;
(10) In a separate civil action to recover civil
liability arising from a crime;
(11) When at least double judicial costs are
awarded;
(12) 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.
Kinds:
(1) Retainers agreement between the
lawyer and the client (in writing).
(2) Award as an indemnity to the client.
Quirante vs. IAC: BELONGS to the
client hence the litigant is the judgment
creditor who may enforce the judgment
by execution.
417
TORTS & DAMAGES
Recoverable
damages
for death
caused by a crime or quasi-delict:
(a) At least three thousand pesos, even
though there may have been
mitigating circumstances.
- (People vs. Robert Brodett y
Pajaro, Jan. 18, 2008: so as of
2008, it is P75,000
(b) Loss of the earning capacity of the
deceased,
- paid to his heirs
- unless the deceased on account
of permanent physical disability
not caused by the defendant,
had no earning capacity at the
time of death;
(c) Support according to the provisions
of Article 291
- the recipient who is not a testate
or intestate heir may demand
support from the person causing
the death, for a period not
exceeding five years
(d) Moral damages
- demanded by the spouse,
legitimate
and
illegitimate
descendants and ascendants of
the deceased
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
INTEREST accrues when:

the obligation consists in the payment of
a sum of money
debtor incurs in delay
there being no stipulation to the contrary
If there is no stipulated interest the
legal interest of 6%. (Art. 2209)
Interest
due
Art. 2210
From
Breach of
contract
Discretion
of the court
Art. 2211
Crimes and
quasidelicts
Discretion
of the court
When shall
interest?
interest
Interest
imposed
on
damages
awarded
Interest is
awarded
as part of
damages
earn
legal
from judicial demand

even if the obligation is silent upon this
point. (Art. 2212)
When is interest not recovered?

When claims/ damages are unliquidated
EXCEPT when the demand can be
established with reasonably certainty.
(Art. 2213)
Determination of legal interest:

1. When an obligation, regardless of its
source (i.e., law, contracts, quasicontracts, delicts or quasi-delicts) is
breached, the contravenor can be held
liable for damages.
2. With regard particularly to an AWARD
OF INTEREST in the concept of actual
and compensatory damages, the RATE
of interest, as well as the ACCRUAL
thereof, is imposed, as follows(Eastern
Shipping Lines vs. CA, 1994):
BASE
a. When the obligation is breached,
and it consists in the PAYMENT OF
A SUM OF MONEY, i.e., a loan or
forbearance of money, the interest
due should be
RATE
a) That which may have been
stipulated in writing.
b) In the absence of stipulation,
the rate of interest shall be 12%
per annum (legal interest)
ACCRUAL
to be computed from default, i.e., from
JUDICIAL or EXTRAJUDICIAL demand
under and subject to the provisions of
Article 1169 of the Civil Code.
b. Furthermore, the INTEREST

DUE shall itself earn
legal interest
from the time it is JUDICIALLY demanded.
c. When an obligation, NOT

constituting a loan or forbearance
of money, is breached, an interest
on the AMOUNT OF DAMAGES
awarded may be imposed at the
discretion of the court.
at the rate of 6% per annum.
If claim or damages are LIQUIDATED,

from default, i.e., from judicial or
extrajudicial demand. (Art. 1169, Civil
Code)
The
actual
base
for
the
computation of legal interest shall
be on the amount finally adjudged.
d. When the JUDGMENT of the

court awarding a sum of money
becomes final and executory,
the rate of legal interest, whether

the case falls under a,b, or c,
above, shall be 12% per annum
If UNLIQUIDATED, from the time the

demand can be established with
reasonable certainty. Hence, the interest
shall begin to run only FROM THE DATE
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IS
MADE (at which time the quantification of
damages may be deemed to have been
reasonably ascertained).
from
FINALITY
UNTIL
ITS
SATISFACTION,
this
period
being
deemed to be an equivalent to a
forbearance of credit.
418
TORTS & DAMAGES
Chapter IX. DAMAGES
Start of Delay
(1) Extrajudicial: demand letter
(2) Judicial: Filing of complaint
(3) Award
When damages mitigated:
1. In
quasi-delicts
contributory
negligence (Art. 2214)
2. Doctrine of avoidable consequences
a) This refers to the duty to
minimize damages once a
cause of action has accrued.
Standard: good father of a
family (Art. 2203)
3. In contracts, quasi-contracts and quasidelict (C-BELL):
a) plaintiff has contravened the
terms of contract
b) plaintiff derived some benefit as
result of contract
c) in case where exemplary
damages are to be awarded,
that the defendant acted upon
the advise of counsel
d) that the loss would have
resulted in any event
e) that since the filing of the action,
the defendant has done his best
to lessen the plaintiff's loss or
injury (Art. 2215)
4. In crimes mitigating circumstances
(Art. 2204) (increased, for aggravating)
2. Moral Damages
Visayan Sawmill vs. CA: Moral damages are
emphatically not intended to enrich a
complainant at the expense of the defendant. Its
award is aimed at the restoration, within the
limits of the possible, of the spiritual status quo
ante, and it must be proportional to the suffering
inflicted.
Art. 2217: Awarded when injury consists of:
(PBMF-MWSSS)
a. Physical suffering
b. Besmirched reputation
c. Mental anguish
d. Fright
e. Moral shock
f. Wounded feelings
g. Social humiliation
h. Serious anxiety
i. Similar injury
-
Though
incapable
of
pecuniary
computation
If such is the proximate result of
defendants act or omission.
Chapter IX. DAMAGES
Villanueva vs. Salvador: Requisites for awarding

moral damages:
(1) there must be an injury, whether
physical, mental or psychological,
clearly sustained by the claimant;
(2) there must be a culpable act or omission
factually established;
(3) the wrongful act or omission of the
defendant must be the proximate cause
of the injury sustained by the claimant;
and
(4) the award of damages is predicated on
any of the cases stated in ART. 2219
NCC.
i. General Principles of Recovery
1. Moral damages must somehow be
proportional to the suffering inflicted.
2. In culpa contractual or breach of
contract, moral damages may be
recovered when the defendant acted in
bad faith or was guilty of gross
negligence (amounting to bad faith) or in
wanton disregard of his contractual
obligation and, exceptionally, when the
act of breach of contract itself is
constitutive of tort resulting in physical
injuries.
3. By special rule in Article 1764, in relation
to Article 2206, moral damages may
also be awarded in case the death of a
passenger results from a breach of
carriage.
4. In culpa aquiliana, or quasi-delict,
(a) when an act or omission causes
physical injuries, or
(b) where the defendant is guilty of
intentional tort, moral damages may
aptly be recovered. This rule also
applies to contracts when breached
by tort.
5. In culpa criminal, moral damages could
be lawfully due when the accused is
found guilty of physical injuries,
lascivious acts, adultery or concubinage,
illegal or arbitrary detention, illegal
arrest, illegal search, or defamation.
6. Malicious prosecution can also give rise
to a claim for moral damages. The term
"analogous cases," referred to in Article
2219, following the ejusdem generis
rule, must be held similar to those
expressly enumerated by the law.
419
TORTS & DAMAGES
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
Chapter IX. DAMAGES
7. Although the institution of a clearly

unfounded civil suit can at times be a
legal justification for an award of
attorney's fees, such filing, however, has
almost invariably been held not to be a
ground for an award of moral damages.
(Expertravel& Tours vs. CA, 1 to 7)
8. The burden rests on the person claiming
moral damages toe a
TORTS & DAMAGES
420
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
Chapter IX. DAMAGES
(a) Does Ortillo have a legal basis for his claim for
moral damages?
(b) How about his claim for attorneys fees, having
hired a lawyer to defend him?
Suggested Answer:
(a) There is no legal basis to Ortillos claim for moral
damages. It does not fall under the coverage of
Article 2219 of the New Civil Code.
(b) Ortillo is entitled to attorneys fees because
Fabricatos complaint is a case of malicious
prosecution or a clearly unfounded civil action
(Art. 2208 [4] and [11], NCC).
ii. Moral
Damages
Prosecution
in
Malicious
Mijares vs. CA: Moral damages cannot

be recovered from a person who has
filed a complaint against another in good
faith, or without malice or bad faith. If
damage results from the filing of the
complaint, it is damnum absque injuria.
Castillo vs. Castillo: The adverse result
of an action does not per se make the
act wrongful and subject the actor to the
payment of moral damages. The law
could not have meant to impose a
penalty on the right to litigate; such right
is so precious that moral damages may
not be charged on those who may
exercise it erroneously.
iii. Moral Damages in Rape
People vs. Calongui: Anent the award of
damages, civil indemnity ex delicto is
mandatory upon finding of the fact of
rape while moral damages is awarded
upon such finding without need of
further proof because it is assumed that
a rape victim has actually suffered moral
injuries entitling the victim to such
award. If without factual and legal
bases, no award of exemplary damages
should be allowed.
iv. Moral Damages in Murder
People vs. Barcena: TC correctly
awarded P75K as civil indemnity which
is awarded if the crime is qualified by
circumstances which warrant the
imposition of the death penalty.
However, the award of P50K as moral
damages must be increased to P75K in
line with prevailing jurisprudence. In

addition, the presence of the qualifying
circumstances
of
minority
and
relationship entitles the offended party to
exemplary damages in the amount of
P25K.
People vs. Teodorico Cleopas and
Pirame (2000): The award of P50,000
from each accused as moral and
exemplary damages, however, is
unsupported. The widow of the victim
did not testify on any mental anguish or
emotional distress, which she suffered
as a result of her husband's death.
Arcona vs. CA: As borne out by human
nature and experience, a violent death
invariably and necessarily brings about
emotional pain and anguish on the part
of the victims family. Such violent death
or brutal killing not only steals from the
family of the deceased his precious life,
deprives them forever of his love,
affection and support, but often leaves
them with the gnawing feeling that an
injustice has been done to them. For this
reason, moral damages must be
awarded even in the absence of any
allegation and proof of the heirs
emotional suffering.
v. Labor Cases
Triple Eight Interated Services, Inc. vs.
NLRC: Moral damages are recoverable
where the dismissal of the employee
was attended by bad faith or fraud or
constituted an act oppressive to labor, or
was done in a manner contrary to
morals, good customs, or public policy.
Likewise, exemplary damages may be
awarded if the dismissal was effected in
a wanton, oppressive or malevolent
manner.
Factors in determining amount:
(1) Political, social, financial status, of
the person offended as well as the
business and financial standing of
the offender.
(2) Degree of anguish
(3) Sentimental value where applicable
ILLUSTRATIONS:
Kierulf et al. vs. CA : The social and financial
standing of a claimant of moral damages may be
considered in awarding moral damages only if
he or she was subjected to contemptuous
421
TORTS & DAMAGES
and respected businessman in his community, and (b)

attorneys fees.
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
PNB vs. CA: Petitioner has not presented

adequate evidence to show that private
respondent is indeed a big time gambler.
Petitioner has besmirched private respondent's
reputation and has considerably caused him
undue humiliation. The records further show that
plaintiff is a prominent businessman, licensed
and engaged in the real estate business. He is
at the same time a consultant of Dizon-Esguerra
Real Estate Company. Defendant treated him as
a valued and VIP client. Because of the bank's
refusal to encash the entire one million face
amount of his manager's checks, he was so
embarrassed for he was not able to purchase a
house and lot in Baguio City.
Lopez, et al. vs. Pan American World Airways:
International carriers like defendant know the
prestige of such an office. For the Senate is not
only the Upper Chamber of the Philippine
Congress, but the nation's treaty-ratifying body.
And he was former Vice-President of the
Philippines. An award of P100,000,000 is
appropriate. Mrs. Maria J. Lopez, as wife of
Senator Lopez, shared his prestige and
therefore his humiliation. Mr. and Mrs. Alfredo
Montelibano, Jr. were traveling as immediate
members of the family of Senator Lopez. As
such they likewise shared his prestige and
humiliation.
Producers Bank vs. CA: In the case of Leopoldo
Araneta v. Bank of America, we held that: "The
financial credit of a businessman is a prized and
valuable asset, it being a significant part of the
foundation of his business. Any adverse
reflection thereon constitutes some financial loss
to him. The damage to private respondents'
reputation and social standing entitles them to
moral damages.
Strebel vs. Figueras, et al.: As a general rule,
the right of recovery for mental suffering
resulting from bodily injuries is restricted to the
person who has suffered the bodily hurt, and
there can be no recovery for distress caused by
sympathy for another's suffering, or for fright due
to a wrong against a third person. A husband or
wife cannot recover for mental suffering caused
by his sympathy for the other's suffering.
For Corporations:
ABS-CBN vs. CA: The award of moral damages
cannot be granted in favor of a corporation
because, being an artificial person and having
existence only in legal contemplation, it has no
feelings, no emotions, no senses, It cannot,
therefore, experience physical suffering and

mental anguish, which call be experienced only
by one having a nervous system. The statement
in People vs. Manero and Mambulao Lumber
Co. vs. 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.
NAPOCOR vs. Philipp Brothers: While it is true
that besmirched reputation is included in moral
damages, it cannot cause mental anguish to a
corporation, unlike in the case of a natural
person, for a corporation has no reputation in the
sense that an individual has, and besides, it is
inherently impossible for a corporation to suffer
mental anguish.
BAR QUESTION
Rosa was leasing an apartment in the city. Because
of the Rent Control Law, her landlord could not
increase the rental as much as he wanted to, nor
terminate her lease as long as she was paying her
rent. In order to force her to leave the premises, the
landlord stopped making repairs on the apartment,
and cause the water and electricity services to be
disconnected. The difficulty of living without electricity
and running water resulted in Rosas suffering a
nervous breakdown. She sued the landlord for actual
and moral damages.
Will the action prosper?
Explain.
Answer:
Yes, based on quasi-delict under the human relations
provisions of the New Civil Code (Articles 19, 20 and
21) because the act committed by the lessor is
contrary to morals. Moral damages are recoverable
under Article 2219 (10) in relation to Article 21.
Although the action is based on quasi-delict and not
on contract, actual damages may be recovered if the
lessee is able to prove the losses and expenses she
suffered.
Alternative Answers:
(a) Yes, based on breach of contract. The lessor
has the obligation to undertake repairs to make
the apartment habitable and to maintain the
lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment
of the lease for the entire duration of the contract
(Article 1654, NCC). Since there was willful
breach of contract by the lessor, the lessee is
entitled to moral damages under Article 2220,
NCC. She is also entitled to actual damages,
e.g. loss of income, medical expenses, etc.,
which she can prove at trial.
(b) Yes, based on contract and/or on tort. The lessor
willfully breached his obligations under Article
1654, NCC, hence, he is liable for breach of
contract. For such breach, the lessee may
recover moral damages under Art. 2220 of the
NCC, and actual damages that she may have
suffered on account thereof. And since the
conduct of the lessor was contrary to morals, he
422
TORTS & DAMAGES
conduct despite the offender's knowledge of his

or her social and financial standing.
Chapter IX. DAMAGES
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
(c) Yes, the action should prosper for both actual

and moral damages. In fact, even exemplary
damages and attorneys fees can be claimed by
Rosa, on the authority of Magbanua vs. IAC (137
SCRA 328), considering that, as given, the
lessors willful and illegal act of disconnecting the
water and electric services resulted in Rosas
suffering a nervous breakdown. Art. 20 NCC and
Art. 21 NCC authorize the award of damages for
such willful and illegal conduct.
3. Nominal Damages
Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order
that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or
invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or
recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying
the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages:
in every obligation in Article 1157, or
where any property right has been invaded.
Art. 2223. Adjudication of nominal damages
precludes:
further contest upon the right involved
all accessory questions between the parties
or their respective heirs and assigns.
i. Requisites:
(1) A legal right has been violated.
(2) There is no loss or damage suffered or
such cannot be proven or was not
proved.
(3) The award is to vindicate the right
violated.
General Rule: One does not ask for nominal
damages, and it is in lieu of the actual, moral,
temperate, or liquidated damages.
Nominal damages are incompatible with: actual,
temperate and exemplary damages.
Armovit vs. CA: Nominal damages cannot coexist with actual or compensatory damages.
Francisco v. Ferrer: No moral or exemplary
damages was awarded. Nevertheless, when
confronted with their failure to deliver on the
wedding day the wedding cake ordered and paid
for, petitioners gave the lame excuse that
delivery was probably delayed because of the
traffic, when in truth, no cake could be delivered
because the order slip got lost. For such
prevarication, petitioners must be held liable for
nominal damages for insensitivity, inadvertence

or inattention to their customer's anxiety and
need of the hour.
4. Temperate Damages
Temperate or moderate damages are more than
nominal but less than compensatory damages.
It may be recovered when some pecuniary loss
has been suffered but its amount can not be
provided with certainty. (Art. 2224)
Temperate damages must be reasonable under
the circumstances. (Art. 2225)
i. Requisites:
(1) There is actual damage.
(2) The pecuniary amount of the damage
cannot be proved.
(3) Amount must be reasonable.
In cases where the resulting injury might be
continuing and possible future complications
directly arising from the injury, while certain to
occur are difficult to predict, temperate damages
can and should be awarded on top of actual or
compensatory damages; in such cases there is
no incompatibility between actual and temperate
damages.
Citytrust Bank vs. IAC: Temperate damages are
incompatible with nominal damages hence,
cannot be granted concurrently.
Pleno vs. CA: Temperate damages are included
within the context of compensatory damages
(RCPI vs. CA). ". . . There are cases where from
the nature of the case, definite proof of
pecuniary loss cannot be offered, although the
court is convinced that there has been such loss.
For instance, injury to one's commercial credit or
to the goodwill of a business firm is often hard to
show certainty in terms of money. (NOTE: In this
case actual and temperate damages were
awarded. It is postulated that the actual
damages is for the car while the temperate
damages is for the lost actual income not
sufficiently proved.)
5. Liquidated Damages
Those agreed upon by the parties to a contract,
to be paid in case of breach thereof. (Art. 2226)
Grounds for equitable reduction:
- iniquitous or
- unconscionable. (Art. 2227)
Stipulation is not controlling:
423
TORTS & DAMAGES
may also be held liable for quasi-delict. The

lessee may recover moral damages under Article
2219 (10) in relation to Article 21, and all actual
damages which she may have suffered by reason
of such conduct under Articles 9, 20 and 21.
Chapter IX. DAMAGES
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER
Chapter IX. DAMAGES
General Rule: The penalty shall substitute the

indemnity for damages and the payment of the
interests in case or breach.
Exceptions
(1) When there is a stipulation to the contrary.
(2) When the obligor is sued for refusal to pay
the agreed penalty.
(3) When the obligor is guilty of fraud.
6. Exemplary/Corrective Damages
Art. 2229. Nature of exemplary or corrective
damages
- Imposed by way of example
- or correction for the public good
- in addition to the moral, temperate,
liquidated or compensatory damages.
Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a
matter of right; discretion of the court. (Art.
2233)
i.
Requisites to recover exemplary

damages and liquidated damages
agreed upon in addition to exemplary
(Art.2234):
The plaintiff must show that he is
entitled to moral, temperate or
compensatory damages:
If arising from
Art.
2230
Crimes
Art.
2231
Art.
2232
Quasi-delicts
Contracts
and
Quasi- contracts
When
exemplary
damages are granted
the
crime
was
committed
with
an
aggravating
circumstance/s
defendant acted with
gross negligence
defendant acted in a
wanton,
fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent
manner
(WFROMM)
A stipulation
whereby exemplary
damages are renounced in advance
shall be null and void. (Art. 2235)
ii. General Principles
(1) Amount need not be proven.
(2) Cannot be recovered as a matter or
right; may be waived.
(3) An employer may be subsidiarily liable
to pay moral, actual, temperate or
liquidated damages arising from an
employees criminal offense, but NOT as
to
exemplary
damages
because
aggravating circumstances are personal
to the accused.
PNB vs. CA: However, the award of
P1,000,000 exemplary damages is also
far too excessive and should likewise be
reduced
to
an
equitable
level.
Exemplary damages are imposed not to
enrich one party or impoverish another
but to serve as a deterrent against or as
a negative incentive to curb socially
deleterious actions.
- end of Torts & Damages -
424
TORTS & DAMAGES
When the breach of the contract is not the one

contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon
the liquidated damages. In this case, the law
shall determine the measure of damages. (Art.
2228)
These damages are agreed upon in a
contract in case of breach thereof.
There is no need to prove the amount,
only the fact of the breach.
The amount can be reduced if:
- unconscionable as determined by
the court
- partial or irregular performance.

UP 2010 Civil Law (Torts and Damages) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UP 2010 Civil Law (Torts and Damages) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

TORTS & DAMAGES

Chapter VIII. Human Relations Provisions 413

Chapter VII. Torts with Independent Civil

Prof. Gwen Grecia-De Vera

Ana Patricia Ruiz Tobias

PRINTING & DISTRIBUTION

DESIGN & LAYOUT

MOCK BAR COMMITTEE

BAR CANDIDATES WELFARE

Chapter I. Introduction, Definitions

Tort and Quasi-Delict

A. Tort and Quasi-Delict

Essentially, "tort" consists in the violation of

Barredo vs. Garcia (1952): A quasi-delict or

TORTS & DAMAGES TEAM

Chapter I. INTRODUCTION, DEFINITIONS

TORTS & DAMAGES

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

Chapter I. INTRODUCTION, DEFINITIONS

TORTS & DAMAGES

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

Chapter II. CONCEPT of QUASI-DELICT

Chapter II. Concept of Quasi-Delict

II. Quasi-Delict vs. Breach of Contract

Act or omission amounting to fault or

In order that liability under Article 2176 of the

Quasi-Delict vs. Delict

(Barredo vs. Garcia)

Cangco vs. Manila Railroad (1918): The field of

create two kinds of civil liabilities against the

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

Chapter II. CONCEPT of QUASI-DELICT

There is pre-existing contract

Exercise of diligence of good

Contractual party. Prove the ff:

(Asked in the 2003 bar exams)

TORTS & DAMAGES

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

Chapter III. NEGLIGENCE

Chapter III. Negligence

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

Cruz vs. CA (1997): Whether or not a

Chapter III. NEGLIGENCE

Marinduque vs. Workmen's (1956): "Notorious"

ii. Emergency Rule

3. Res Ipsa Loquitur

Layugan vs. IAC 1988): Res ipsa loquitur (The

US vs. Baggay (1911): A lunatic or

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

Chapter III. NEGLIGENCE

not happen if those who have the management

Bernardo vs. Legaspi (1914): Both of the parties

Ramos vs. CA (1999): The injury itself, taken

Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence

DM Consunji vs. CA (2001): The res ipsa

Manila Electric vs. Remonquillo (1956): Even if

Genobiagon vs. CA (1989): The alleged

Juntilla vs. Fontanar (1985): The elements of

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

Chapter III. NEGLIGENCE

been reasonably foreseen although it could have