Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TABLE of CONTENTS
387
TORTS & DAMAGES
CIVIL LAW
Kristine Bongcaron
Patricia Tobias
Subject Editors
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE
Kristine Bongcaron
Michelle Dy
Patrich Leccio
Editors-in-Chief
LECTURES COMMITTEE
Michelle Arias
Camille Maranan
Angela Sandalo
Heads
Katz Manzano Mary Rose Beley
Sam Nuez Krizel Malabanan
Arianne Cerezo Marcrese Banaag
Volunteers
LOGISTICS
Charisse Mendoza
SECRETARIAT COMMITTEE
Jill Hernandez
Head
Loraine Mendoza Faye Celso
Mary Mendoza Joie Bajo
Members
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.
388
TORTS & DAMAGES
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.
389
A. Elements
B. Distinguished
I.
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
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)
390
TORTS & DAMAGES
A.
B.
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
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.
391
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.
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:
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.
393
TORTS & DAMAGES
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.
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
6. Prescription
4 years for QD
1 year for defamation
395
TORTS & DAMAGES
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
396
TORTS & DAMAGES
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
397
TORTS & DAMAGES
398
TORTS & DAMAGES
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.
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
1. Parents
400
TORTS & DAMAGES
Guardians
Apprentices
must be below 18
401
TORTS & DAMAGES
the
not
the
the
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
4. Employers
402
TORTS & DAMAGES
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.
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
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
2. THINGS THROWN
FROM A BUILDING
OR
FALLING
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
5. INTERFERENCE
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
WITH
405
TORTS & DAMAGES
QUICK GLANCE
For What
For the damage it may cause
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
406
TORTS & DAMAGES
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.
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
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;
408
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.
409
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
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.
411
TORTS & DAMAGES
412
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.
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.
413
TORTS & DAMAGES
Chapter
VIII.
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.
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.
414
TORTS & DAMAGES
A.
B.
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.
CC
Art.
2200
2205
2206
2209
2208
A.
415
TORTS & DAMAGES
Art.
2202
Contracts and
quasi contracts
Crimes and
quasi-delicts
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).
Note:
WON damage is foreseen is irrelevant
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
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
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
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
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.
legal interest
The
actual
base
for
the
computation of legal interest shall
be on the amount finally adjudged.
418
TORTS & 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.
419
TORTS & DAMAGES
420
(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
421
TORTS & DAMAGES
422
TORTS & DAMAGES
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
423
TORTS & DAMAGES
i.
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.
424
TORTS & DAMAGES