Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Part I TORTS
I. QUASI-DELICT
TORT
- From the Latin tortus, which means twisted or crooked
- Warren Seavey: harm is the tort signature. In general, the
action is based upon the theory that one person has caused
harm to another; the causing of harm is predominantly the
basis of tort actions
- Tort under common law and Philippine tort law are different
because the latter is based on the Civil Code
- The Code Commission chose the term quasi-delict and
rejected the term tort because the former best described
the civil action for damages envisioned under the proposed
code
o Tort was rejected because the common law concept
covered far more than what the Commission envisioned
o Original plan was to exclude intentional and malicious acts
from the coverage of the concept because there are to be
governed by the RPC
o Despite rejecting the term, they did not completely reject
the concept of tort Art. 19-21 are even broader than the
common law tort, there are independent civil actions for
violations of civil liberties and for violations of right to
privacy as well as for defamation, fraud and physical injuries
civil actions which correspond to certain common law torts
A. General Principles
1. Elements
- Elements of quasi-delict are based on Art. 2176, and elements
of a tort are based on Art. 20 of the Civil Code
Elements of Quasi-Delict (Art. 2176)
1. Act or omission;
2. Damage to another;
3. Fault or negligence; and
4. No pre-existing contractual relation
Elements of Quasi-Delict (acc. to jurisprudence)
1. Damage to the plaintiff;
2. Negligence, by act or omission, of the defendant, or by some
other person for whose act the defendant must respond; and
3. Connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence of the defendant and the damage incurred by the
plaintiff
Note: To be more precise, instead of damage, the element
should be injury because there can be damage without injury
(damnum absque injuria = loss without injury) from which no
damages can be awarded
Elements of Quasi-Delict (Sinsgon v. BPI as cited in Sangco)
1. There must be an unlawful act or omission amounting to fault
or negligence, imputable to the defendant;
2. The plaintiff suffered damage or injury;
3. Such damage or injury to the plaintiff was the natural and
probably, or direct and immediate consequence of
defendants wrongful act or omission; and
4. There is no pre-existing contractual relations between the
plaintiff and the defendant.
Elements of Tort
- The Court has adopted the 4 elements of tort under common
law and applied it to cases which could fall under Art. 20 of the
Civil Code
Elements of Tort (Prosser and Keeton)
1. A duty or obligation recognized by law, requiring a person to
conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of
others against unreasonable risks;
2. A failure on the persons part to conform to the standard: a
breach of a duty;
3. A reasonably close causal connection between the conduct
and resulting injury; (legal cause; proximate cause)
4. Actual loss or damage resulting to the interests of another
Note: These are the elements of common law tort, but the
Court has adopted these elements in a few cases
QUASI-DELICT
All acts attended by fault or
negligence
Must have no pre-existing
contractual obligation
May cover acts that are
felonies
Brief Facts: A truck hit a jeep, which lurched forward and hit a
Mercedes. In the criminal case, the truck driver was found guilty
of negligence, and the jeepney owner/driver was absolved of
liability. The owner of the Mercedes, plaintiff herein, sought to
recover from the driver/owner of the jeepney and the owner of
the truck.
QUASI-DELICTS
Are only of private concern
The law merely repairs the
damages
through
indemnification
Any kind of fault or negligence
the
Vinculum
Juris
Presence of
Negligence
What Must
Be Proven
Defense
Culpa Aquiliana
Negligence
becomes
source of obligation
between persons not
formerly connected by a
legal tie
It is the vinculum juris
Culpa Contractual
A breach in the
performance of an
obligation
already
existing
Merely incidental
10
boarded the train, the contract was already perfected hence, the
obligation of LRT already existed.
11
The Batals are liable for culpa contractual. They failed to exercise
the requisite diligence in the placement of the markings.
Air France v. Carrascoso (1966)
Concept: Quasi-delict Distinguished from Contract
Brief Facts: Carrascoso was forced by Air France manager to
vacate his seat because there was a white man who had a better
right to a first class seat.
Doctrine: Existence of a contract does not preclude liability
arising from quasi-delict. Liability arising from quasi-delict may
still arise when the act which constituted the breach is also a tort.
Singson v. BPI (1968)
Concept: Quasi-delict Distinguished from Contract
Brief Facts: BPI erroneously froze the account of Singson. BPI
later rectified its mistake and apologized to Singson.
Doctrine: The existence of a contract between the parties does
not bar the commission of a tort by the one against the order
and the consequent recovery of damages therefor.
In view, however, of the facts obtaining in the case at bar, and
considering, particularly, the circumstance, that the wrong done
to the plaintiff was remedied as soon as the President of the
bank realized the mistake he and his subordinate employee had
committed, an award of nominal damages would suffice to
vindicate plaintiff's rights.
3 Basic Elements:
1. Act or omission in breach of legal duty
2. Concept of fault or negligence
3. Causal relation between act/omission and injury
1. Act or omission in breach of legal duty
In most, if not all, cases wherein the Court expounds on the
elements of quasi-delicts, the first requisite is always the
existence of a duty or obligation, recognized by
law, requiring a person to conform to a certain standard of
conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable
risks.
In most cases, such duty need not be proven since it
is either already apparent or is expressly provided
by law, such as the duty of a driver of an automobile to
observe traffic rules, or that of common carriers to safely
transport its passengers.
Since such duty is recognized by law, Article 19, 20, and
21, NCC can be used as legal basis for indemnity for
damages for such breach.
Breach of duties arising from contractual obligations or
culpa contractual, is different from the breach referred to in
quasi-delicts or culpa aquilana, the former being governed
by Article 1170, NCC, and the latter under Article
2176, NCC.
Jurisprudence does not offer a clear answer on the question
of WON there can be a quasi-delict when there is a
pre-existing contract between the parties.
Jurisprudence
In the Courts obiter dictum in the case of Naguiat v. NLRC,
it said that: Essentially, tort consists in the violation of a
right given or the omission of a duty imposed by law. Simply
stated, tort is a breach of legal duty. However, being a
mere obiter, it can be argued that the Naguiat definition is
not binding.
It was in Garcia v. Salvador where the Court held that
violation of a statutory duty is negligence. Where
the law imposes upon a person the duty to do something,
his omission or non-performance will render him liable to
whoever may be injured thereby.
As was also held in Cangco v. Manila Railroad, The legal
rights of each member of society constitute the measure of
the corresponding legal duties, mainly negative in character,
which the existence of those rights imposes upon all other
members of society. The breach of these general
duties whether due to willful intent or to mere
inattention gives rise to an obligation to indemnify
the injured party.
In Air France v. Carrascoso, while the Court held that the
act that breaks the contract may also be a tort, this could
not be used as a legal basis for saying that an act
can be both culpa contractual and culpa aquilana
at the same time.
Firstly, although both are
homologous, and while all quasi-delicts are torts,
not all torts are quasi delicts. Secondly, the term
tort cannot be interpreted as culpa aquilana because the
Court in this case cited Article 21 as the basis of
responsibility for the committed tort and not
Article 2176, which is the basis for culpa aquilana.
2. Concept of fault or negligence
Art. 1173 The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the
omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the
obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the
persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows
bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2
shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be
observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good
father of a family shall be required. (1104a)
Art. 1171 Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all
obligations. Any waiver of an action for future fraud is void.
(1102a)
Art. 2201 (2) In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton
attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which
may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the
obligation. (1107a)
12
(i) General)
In Common Law
Negligence is a matter of risk that is to say, of
recognizable danger of injury
Conduct which involves an unreasonably great risk of
causing damage
Conduct which falls below the standard established by law
for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of
harm
Negligence is conduct and not a state of mind (Prosser &
Keeton)
In Philippine Law
Negligence is conduct that creates undue risk or harm to
another. It is that failure to observe for the protection of the
interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution
and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand,
whereby such other person suffers injury. (U.S. v. Barrias,
adopting the definition given by Judge Cooley; Jarco
Marketing Corporation v. CA)
Article 2178. The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are
also applicable to a quasi-delict.
Test for Determining Whether a Person is Negligent
1. Reasonable care and caution expected of an
ordinary prudent person
The test for determining whether a person is negligent in
doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the person
or property of another is this: Would a prudent man, in the
position of the person to whom negligence is attributed,
foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable
consequence of the course about to the pursued? If so, the
law imposes the duty on the actor to refrain from that
course or to take precaution against its mischievous results,
and the failure two do so constitutes negligence.
Reasonable foresight of harm followed by the ignoring of
the admonition born of this provision, is the constitutive fact
of negligence. (Picart v. Smith)
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use
the reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent
person would have used in the same situation. If not, then
he is guilty of negligence. (Mandarin Villa, Inc. v. CA; Jarco
Marketing Corp. v. CA)
2. No hard and fast rule for measuring degree of care
There is no hard and fast rule whereby the degree of care
and vigilance required is measured
It is dependent upon the circumstances in which a person
finds himself situated
All the law requires is that it is always incumbent upon a
person to use that care and diligence expected of prudent
and reasonable men under similar circumstances (Cusi v.
PNR)
Existence of negligence is not determined by reference to
the person judgment of the actor; it is the law that considers
what would be reckless or negligent
Factors To Be Considered
1. Nature of the obligation
2. Circumstances of the person
3. Circumstances of time
4. Circumstances of the place
Kinds of Diligence Required
Diligence is the attention and care required of a person
in a given situation and is the opposite of negligence
(Sambijon v. Suing)
Under Art. 1173, the following kinds are required:
1. That agreed upon by the parties, orally or in writing;
2. In the absence of stipulation, that required by law in the
particular case (extraordinary diligence for common
carriers)
3. If both the contract and law are silent, then the
diligence expected of a good father of a family (par. 2)
or ordinary diligence
What needs to be proved:
1. Negligence - In action for quasi-delict, plaintiff must prove
negligence of defendant
Exception:
a. In cases where negligence is presumed or imputed by
law - this is only rebuttable/presumption juris tantum
b. Principle of res ipsa loquitur - grounded on the difficulty
in proving through competent evidence, public policy
considerations
2. Damage/injury
3. Causal connection between negligence and
damage (to be actionable)
Defendants negligence must be the proximate cause
of the injury sustained by the plaintiff to enable plaintiff
to recover.
If plaintiffs own conduct is the cause of the injury there
can be no recovery.
If plaintiff's negligence is only contributory, he is
considered partly responsible only, may still recover
from defendant but must be reduced by the courts in
proportion to his own negligence
Doctrine of proximate cause:
Any cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient intervening cause, produces the result
complained of and without which would not have occurred and
from which it ought to have been foreseen or reasonably
anticipated by a person of ordinary case that the injury
complained of or some similar injury would result therefrom as a
natural and probable consequence. (Pilipinas Bank v. CA)
13
14
15
Brief Facts: PNR did not set up lights or a flag bar to warn
vehicles. Its train hit a car and PNR was held liable. SC held that
railroad companies owe to the public a duty of exercising a
reasonable degree of care to avoid injury. Its failure to put a
cross bar/ signal light is negligence and disregard of the safety
of the public even if no law or ordinance requires it because
public safety demands that said device are installed.
16
17
Cantre v. Go (2007)
Concept: Medical Negligence
Brief Facts: During the delivery of her fourth child, Dr. Cantre
ordered that a droplight (a device that emits light and heat) be
used to warm her body and her baby while they were trying to
stop Noras internal bleeding. After the delivery, Noras husband
discovered that there was a wound on Noras arm. When he
asked the nurses, he was informed that it was a burn wound.
During the subsequent investigation, Dr. Cantre claimed that the
wound was caused by the blood pressure cuff. Meanwhile, the
medico-legal officer, in its report, claimed that the wound was a
burn and that the droplight was what probably caused it. The
spouses then filed for damages for the injury.
Doctrine: In applying the res ipsa loquitur to medical
negligence cases, the following requisites have to concur: a) the
accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the
absence of someone's negligence; b) it is caused by an
instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or
defendants; and c) the possibility of contributing conduct which
would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated. Once these
requisites concur, a rebuttable presumption of negligence arises
against the defendant.
(iii) Res ipsa loquitor
Latin: the thing, or transaction speaks for itself
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows the mere existence
of an injury to justify a presumption of negligence on the
part of the person who controls the instrument causing the
injury
Requisites:
a. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in
the absence of someones negligence;
b. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control
of the defendant or defendants; and
c. The possibility of contributing conduct, which would make
the plaintiff responsible is eliminated.
18
Doctrine: When the thing that caused the injury is under the
control of the defendant, and that the accident, which produces
the injury, occurs in such a manner that would not happen if
there were proper care, it constitutes reasonable evidence,
absent the defendants explanation, that the accident arose from
the negligence of the defendant. Also, in this jurisdiction, fire is
not considered as a fortuitous event as it almost always arises
from some act of man.
Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring Co. (1967)
Concept: Res ipsa loquitur
Brief Facts: Luzon was towing its barge with two of its boats
down the Pasig River. The river was swollen at the time due to
the heavy rains. Due to this, the barge smashed into the
Nagtahan bailey bridge. The Republic sued Luzon for damages.
Doctrine: Res ipsa loquitur applies when the instrument that
causes injury is under exclusive control of the defendant and the
accident occurs in such a way that would not have happened if
proper care was used.
MRT: Res ipsa loquitur should not have been used because there
was direct evidence.
F.F. Cruz v. Court of Appeals (1988)
Concept: Res ipsa loquitor
Brief Facts: FFC operates a furniture manufacturing shop in
Caloocan, adjacent to some houses. Some of the residents
nearby requested FFC that a firewall be constructed between
the shop and the houses. The requests went unheeded, despite
several repeated requests. Fire did break out in the furniture
shop and it spread to the plaintiffs house which was also razed
to the ground with the shop. Hence the civil suit for damages.
Doctrine: The case reiterates the doctrine of Africa v. Caltex:
where the thing which caused the injury complained of is shown
to be under the management of the defendant or his servants
and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does
not happen if those who have its management or control use
proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of
explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want
of care.
19
20
21
Bustamante v. CA (1991)
Concept: Last Clear Chance
Brief Facts: Picart was riding his horse over Carlatan Bridge.
Picart was at the wrong side of the road, and a car was directly
approaching him from the opposite direction. It was driven by
Smith. Picart, upon his observation that the car was fastapproaching, pulled his pony up against the railing on the right
side of the bridge instead of going left because he did not have
enough time to get to the other side. Smith quickly turned his
car to the right to escape hitting the horse, but in doing so, leg
of the horse was struck and it fell. Horse eventually died and
Picart received contusions. Picart filed a complaint for damages.
22
Brief Facts: Two cars. One car hit while making a u-turn. Car
from behind alleged that the car making a u-turn did not flash
signal lights.
Doctrine: Last clear chance applies. The one driving the rear
vehicle, he had full control of the situation since he was in a
position to observe the vehicle in front of him. He had the
responsibility of avoiding bumping the vehicle in front of him.
23
Requisites:
a. 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;
b. It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes
caso fortuito or if it can be foreseen it must be impossible to
avoid
c. The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for
the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner
d. The obligor must be free from any participation in the
aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor.
GENERAL RULE: Fortuitous Event is a complete defense
and a person is not liable if the cause of the damage is a
fortuitous event.
EXCEPTION: It is merely a partial defense and the courts
may mitigate the damages if the loss would have resulted in any
event [Art. 2215(4) NCC]
Art. 2215 In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts, the
court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances
other than the case referred to in the preceding article, as in the
following instances: xxx
(4) That the loss would have resulted in any event;
NOTE: A person may still be liable for a fortuitous event if such
person made an ASSUMPTION OF RISK.
Sicam v. Jorge (2007), supra
Concept: Fortuitous event
Brief Facts: Jorge pawned jewelry to Sicam to secure a loan
she had. However, 2 armed men entered the pawnshop and
took the contents of a pawnshop vault, including Sicams jewelry.
Sicam informed Jorge of the loss, and eventually, Sicam failed to
return the jewelry despite Jorges demands. Jorge filed a
complaint with the RTC seeking indemnification for the loss of
the pawned jewelry. RTC found no liability because robbery is a
fortuitous event; CA reversed, finding Sicam liable.
Doctrine: Fortuitous events by definition are extraordinary
events not foreseeable or avoidable. It is therefore, not enough
that the event should not have been foreseen or anticipated, but
it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. When the
effect is found to be partly the result of a persons participation
whether by some overt act, negligence, or omission- the whole
occurrence is humanized and removed from the rules applicable
to acts of God.
The possibility of robbery was not only foreseeable, but actually
foreseen and anticipated. This contradicts petitioners defense
of fortuitous events.
24
25
26
NPC v. CA (1988)
Concept: Proximate Cause
Brief Facts: Typhoon Welming hit Central Luzon passing
through NAPOCORs Angat Hydro-Electric Project Dam in
Bulacan. The water level had reach the danger height of 212
meters above sea level and abruptly opened the spillway gates.
This action by NAPOCOR had an extraordinary large volume of
water rushed and hit the installations and construction works of
ECI (Engineering Construction, Inc.) a contractor of NAWASA for
its tunnel in Bulacan. The negligent manner of opening the
spillway gates by NAPOCOR had washed away, lost or
destroyed ECIs facilities and structures.
Doctrine: Negligence is a proximate cause of the injury even if
an act of god intervened between such negligence and the
injury caused.
NPC v. CA (1992)
Concept: Proximate cause
Brief Facts: During Typhoon Kading, a flash flood covered
the towns near the Angat Dam, causing deaths and destructions
to residents and their properties. Respondents blamed the
tragedy to the opening of the 3 floodgates by NPC, without
prior warning to the residents within the vicinity of the dam.
Doctrine: Although the typhoon was an act of God, petitioners
cannot escape liability because their negligence was the
proximate cause of the loss and damage.
NPC v. CA (1993)
Concept: Proximate cause
Brief Facts: This is a consolidated case comprising of four
separate complaint filed against NPC and Chavez. Plaintiffs filed
a complaint against NPC for the loss of lives and destruction of
property due to the negligence of the latter in releasing water
from Angat dam during the typhoon Kading Benjamin Chavez,
was the supervisor at that time of a multi-purpose hydroelectric
plant in the Angat River at Hilltop, Norzagaray, Bulacan.
Doctrine: The effect of the force majeure in question may be
deemed to have, even if only partly, resulted from the
participation of man if there is negligence. Thus, the whole
occurrence was thereby humanized, as it were, and removed
from the laws applicable to acts of God.
27
!
Austria v. CA (2000)
Concept: Proximate cause
C. Persons Liable
1. Tortfeasor
Art. 2176 Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is called a
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
(1902a)
-
28
!
2. Vicarious liability
-
29
!
(i) Parents
30
31
Doctrine: The reason behind the civil liability which the law
impose 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 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 and instructing
them in proportion to their means, while, on the other hand,
gives them the right to correct and punish them in moderation
(Articles 154 and 155, Spanish Civil Code). The only way by which
they can relieve themselves of this liability is if they prove that
they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent the damage(Article 1903, last paragraph, Spanish Civil
Code).
Fuellas v. Cadano (1961)
Concept: Persons liable; Parents
Brief Facts: While Pepito, 13, was studying his lessons in the
classroom, Rico (13) took the pencil of Ernesto (13) and placed it
inside Pepitos pocket. When Ernesto asked Rico to return the
pencil it was Pepito who returned it. This angered Rico and he
held Pepitos neck and pushed him to the floor until a teacher
separated them. After school, Rico attacked Pepito. As a result,
his arm was broken. Two cases were filed by Elpidio Cadano,
father of Pepito. A criminal case against Rico for serious physical
injuries and a civil case for damages against Agapito Fuellas,
father of Rico.Agapito was held liable for damages for the
tortious acts of his minor son, although it was done with
deliberate intent.
Doctrine: Liabilities of parents do not only arise when the acts
committed by minor children consist of fault or negligence, but
likewise arise when the act is committed with deliberate intent.
Such situation is governed by Art. 2180 CC and not by Art. 101
RPC. The void apparently exists in the Revised Penal Code is
subserved by this particular provision of our Civil Code, as may
be gleaned from some recent decisions of this Court which cover
equal or identical cases
32
Tamargo v. CA (1992)
Concept: Persons Liable - Parents
Doctrine: The law imposes civil liability upon the father and, in
case of his death or incapacity, the mother, for any damages that
may be caused by a minor child who lives with them. The
principle of parental liability is a species of what is frequently
designated as vicarious liability, or the doctrine of "imputed
negligence" under Anglo-American tort law, where a person is
not only liable for torts committed by himself, but also for torts
committed by others with whom he has a certain relationship
and for whom he is responsible. Parental liability is made a
natural or logical consequence of the duties and responsibilities
of parents their parental authority which includes the
instructing, controlling and disciplining of the child. The civil
liability imposed upon parents for the torts of their minor
children living with them, may be seen to be based upon the
parental authority vested by the Civil Code upon such parents.
The civil law assumes that when an unemancipated child living
with its parents commits a tortious acts, the parents were
negligent in the performance of their legal and natural duty
closely to supervise the child who is in their custody and control.
In any case, actual custody of Adelberto was then with his natural
parents, not the adopting parents.
!
(ii) Guardians
Art. 316 The father and the mother have, with respect to their
unemancipated children:
(1) The duty to support them, to have them in their company,
educate and instruct them in keeping with their means and to
represent them in all actions which may redound to their benefit;
(2) The power to correct them and to punish them moderately.
(155)
Art. 317 The courts may appoint a guardian of the child' s
property, or a guardian ad litem when the best interest of the
child so requires. (n)
Art. 222, FC The courts may appoint a guardian of the child's
property or a guardian ad litem when the best interests of the
child so requires. (317)
-
33
34
Art. 2180(7), CC
All students, even those no
longer minors, as long as they
remain in the custody of the
persons responsible
Heads
Arts
and
trades
establishments
Head of establishment
itself
Heads of establishments
of arts and trades have
apprentices, who they
are in close proximity to.
Therefore, they can be
liable
for
the
tort
committed
by
the
apprentice/student
Defense
Diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage
(From A2016 Reviewer)
35
Amadora v. CA (1988)
Concept: Vicarious liability- Teachers
Brief Facts: Alfredo Amadora (17), a prospective high schoo
graduate, was in the auditorium of Colegio de San JoseRecoletos after the semester has ended. He was there to pass his
final Physics project as a requisite for graduation. While inside
the auditorium, a classmate Pablito Daffon fired a gun and
mortally hit Alfredo causing his death. The parents of Alfredo
filed a civil action for damages under Article 2180 of the Civil
Code against the school, rector/ the high school principal, the
dean of boys, physics teacher, Daffon , and 2 other students
through their respective parents.
Doctrine: Article 2180 should apply to all schools, academic as
well as non-academic. There is no substantial distinction
between the academic and the non-academic schools insofar as
torts committed by their students are concerned. Exconde and
Mercado interpretations are incorrect since provision would
make the teacher or even the head of the school of arts and
trades liable for an injury caused by any student in its custody
but if that same tort were committed in an academic school, no
liability would attach to the teacher or the school head. Same
vigilance is expected from the teacher over the students under
his control and supervision, whatever the nature of the school
where he is teaching. The head of the school is the one held
liable where the injury is caused in a school of arts and trades
because of the fact that historically the head of the school of arts
and trades exercised a closer tutelage over his pupils than the
head of the academic school. A student is in the custody of the
school authorities as long as he is under the control and
influence of the school and within its premises, whether the
semester has not yet begun or has already ended. As long as it
can be shown that the student is in the school premises in
pursuance of a legitimate student objective, in the exercise of a
legitimate student right, the responsibility of the school
authorities over the student continues.
Salvosa v. Intermediate Appellate Court (1988)
Concept: Persons liable; Teachers
Brief Facts: Abon was a student and an employee of the
armory of the schools ROTC. One night, he shot Napoleon, a
commerce student, within BCF premises using an unlicensed
gun from the armory.
Doctrine: The school and its president cannot be held liable for
damages as Jimmy was no longer in their custody at the time of
the shooting. The mere fact of being enrolled or being in the
premises of a school without more does not constitute
"attending school" or being in the "protective and supervisory
custody" of the school, as contemplated in Article 2180.
36
37
Liability
Depends on the established
facts and applicable law
State can never be held liable
if it does not first consent to
be sued
Waiver of immunity from suit
does not concede that the
State is liable
38
!
(iv) Employers
-
39
When Applicable
Employer-Employee Relationship
o A requisite in order to hold an employer liable under
Art. 2180 is to prove that there was an employeremployee relationship.
o Such relationship cannot be assumed, and it falls upon
the plaintiff to prove its existence by preponderant
evidence.
o The following requisites must be established:
! That the employee was chosen by the employer
personally, or through another
! That the service to be rendered in accordance with
orders which the employer has the authority to give
at all times
! That the illicit act of the employee was on the
occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted to
him.
o Also, the Court has added that it must be established
that the injurious or tortious act was committed at the
time the employee was performing his functions.
o Specific cases:
! Spouse Jayme v. Apostol: The mere giving of
directions to the driver does not establish that the
passenger has control over the vehicle. Neither
does it render one the employer of the driver. The
Court has also ruled in this case that one employee
who has the power of control over another
employee cannot be held vicariously liable for the
latter employees negligent acts.
! Professional Services v. Agana: The Court cited
Ramos v. CA and said thatfor the purposes of
apportioning responsibility in medical negligence
cases, an employer-employee relationship, in effect,
exists between hospitals and their attending and
visiting physicians.
Within the Scope of Assigned Tasks
o The employer need not prove that his employees was
not acting within the scope of his assigned tasks at the
time of the injury to the plaintiff. It is enough that the
employer denies that his employee was acting within
the scope of his duties.
o The clause, within the scope of assigned tasks,
includes any act done by an employee, in furtherance of
the interests of the employer or for the account of the
employer at the time of the infliction of the injury or
damages.
!
o
Specific cases:
! Labor-only contracting: Art. 2180 is the controlling
provision (and not the Labor Code) in determining a
principals liability in a civil suit for damages
instituted by an injured person for any negligent act
of the employees of the labor-only contractor.
! Employee driving the company car: From American
jurisprudence, there are three recognized cases,
with their own separate consequences, which have
been ruled to be acceptable in our jurisdiction,
despite being anchored on the basis of repondeat
superior.
o Using the company vehicle in going to and
from meals: The employee is not ordinarily
acting within the scope of his assigned tasks,
and therefore, no liability attaches to the
employer. The exception is when it can be
shown that there is some special business
benefit to the employer when the employee
uses the car in this manner. One accepted
special benefit is to allow the employee more
time at work.
o Using the company vehicle in going to and
from work: This is ordinarily a personal concern
or problem of the employee, and in absence
that there is a special benefit to the employer,
no liability will attach to the employer. Again,
the fact that an employee can spend more
time at work is another accepted special
benefit. Also, if the work of the employee
actually requires him to follow a route, he is
considered to be within the scope of his
assigned tasks. However, when he goes out of
his route to pursue a personal errand, he is
outside of the said scope
o When an employer loans the company car for
the employees personal use: No liability
attaches even if there is some incidental
benefit to the employer by the employees use
of the company car
Presumption of Negligence
Once the employee is found liable for a quasi-delict while
acting within the scope of his assigned tasks, his employer is
immediately presumed, juris tantum, to be negligent in the
selection and supervision of his employee.
Hence, this rebuttable presumption will not arise unless the
employees negligence is proven first.
The responsibility of the employer is ultimately based on his
own negligence (in the selection and supervision of the
employee), and not on the actual injurious act of the
employee.
40
Rebuttal of Presumption
To rebut the presumption of negligence, the employer must
present adequate and convincing proof that he exercised
care and diligence in the selection and supervision of his
employees.
In the case of selection:
o Employer must show that he examined the prospective
employees as to their qualifications, experience, and
service records.
! In the case of supervision:
o The law does not require supervision in every activity.
Diligent supervision is enough.
o It essentially requires the employer to
! Formulate standard operating procedures, suitable
rules and regulations and issuance of proper
instructions
! Monitor their implementation
! Impose disciplinary measures in case of breach
o The Court will require concrete proof of the existence
of these requirements.
What must be established for vicarious liability:
1. Existence of an employer-employee relationship between
company and tortfeasor; and
2. Tortiout act had been committed while the tortfeasor was
acting in the normal course of employment
Four-fold test for employer-employee relationship:
1. Selection and engagement of the employee;
2. Payment of wages;
3. Power of dismissal
4. Employers power to control the employees conduct, not
only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to
the means and methods to accomplish it (the most
important element)
Nature of Employers Liability
Direct
The basis of his liability is not his employees
negligence, but his own negligence in hiring and
supervising the employee.
Primary
The amount for which he is liable may be pursued
without having to exhause the employees assets, as
opposed to subsidiary liability under the RPC.
Solidary
He may recover the full amount of the liability from
his employee, as per Art. 2181, and not merely a
prorated amount, unlike in Art. 2184.
(From A2016 Reviewer)
41
42
43
44
45
Brief Facts: Theness was bitten by the Vestils dog. She died
later on as a result of broncho-pneumonia, as stated in her death
certificate. Her parents claim that the dog bites were the one
that caused her death while the defendants claim that the cause
of death is not related to the dog bites.
Art. 2186 Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file with the
proper government office a bond executed by a governmentcontrolled corporation or office, to answer for damages to third
persons. The amount of the bond and other terms shall be fixed
by the competent public official. (n)
Defense
Owners
liability
Good father of a
family in employment
and supervision
PrimaryHe
may
recover
the
full
amount from the
driver, as per Art.
2181
46
!
3. Manufacturers
4.
47
Art. 97, 99, 4(on Manufacturer), 98, 100, 101, 102, 106
DTI-Department Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 2002
DTI-Department Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 2006
Coca-Cola v. CA, supra
Concept: Persons Specifically Made Liable; Manufacturers
Brief Facts: Geronimo is a proprietress of a canteen selling
products manufactured by Coca-Cola Bottlers. There were
complaints about her products, and DOH confirmed they were
adulterated. She filed a complaint for damages against CocaCola; they disagreed as to the nature of the action (relevant to
the prescription of the action). Court held, based on the
allegations, it was based on a quasi-delict and hadnt prescribed.
Doctrine: The liabilities of a manufacturer or seller of injurycausing products may be based on negligence, breach of
warranty, tort, or other grounds such as fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation.
4. Provinces, cities and municipalities
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. (n)
Sec. 24, LGC Liability for Damages. - Local government units
and their officials are not exempt from liability for death or injury
to persons or damage to property.
-
!
-
48
Doctrine:
1. The Manila City Charter section 4 establishes a general rule
regulating the liability of the City of Manila for "damages or
injury to persons or property arising from the failure of" city
officers "to enforce the provisions of" said Act "or any other
law or ordinance, or from negligence" of the city "Mayor,
Municipal Board, or other officers while enforcing or
attempting to enforce said provisions." Article 2189 of the
Civil Code constitutes a particular prescription making
"provinces, cities and municipalities . . . liable for damages
for the death of, or injury suffered by, any person by reason"
specifically "of the defective condition of roads,
streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works
under their control or supervision.
2. Under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, it is not necessary for
the liability therein established to attach that the defective
roads or streets belong to the province, city or municipality
from which responsibility is exacted. What said article
requires is that the province, city or municipality have either
"control or supervision" over said street or road.
Jimenez v. City of Manila (1987) Paras
Concept: Persons Liable; State
Brief Facts: Petitioner injured himself from a nail inside an
uncovered opening in the public market. He became ill after and
suffered physically and economically. He now sues the City of
Manila and the private operator of the market. The City disclaims
liability by the virtue of the contract where the private operator is
the one, they argue, that should be held liable.
Doctrine: Under Art. 2189, the State becomes liable for any
injury caused by defective public works. It does not require that
the State owns the defective public works but only that they have
control and supervision over them.
Guilatco v. City of Dagupan (1989) Sarmiento
Concept: Provinces, Cities and Municipalities
Brief Facts: Guilatco fell into an open manhole found at Perez
Blvd, a national road under control and supervision of the City of
Dagupan. City Engineer Tangco is also an ex-officio Highway
Engineer of the Ministry of Public Highway. Court ruled that
while the City did not own the road, ownership over a defective
road is not necessary for liability to attach under Art. 2189. Said
article only requires that either control or supervision is exercised
over the defective road or street, and City Charter expressly
provides that this should be exercised by the city through the
City Engineer.
Doctrine: For liability to attach to a public corporation under
Art. 2189, it is not necessary for the defective road or street to
belong to the said public corporation, since it only requires that
either control or supervision is exercised by the province, city or
municipality over it.
49
Within 10 years
Prescription of action against
engineer/architect
or
contracter after the collapse of
the building
!
6. Head of the family
50
51
Cause
of
action
Negligence
Pre-existing
obligation
Quantum
proof
of
Defense
of
good father of
a family
Presumption
of innocence
Need
for
reservation
Suspension
Culpa Aquiliana
Quasi-delict
Culpa Criminal
Delict
Direct, substantive,
independent (Rakes
v AG&P)
None (except the
duty to be careful in
all
human
actuations)
Preponderance of
evidence
Direct,
substantive,
independent
of
contract
None (except the duty
never to harm others)
It is a proper and
complete defense
(insofar
as
employers
or
guardians
are
concerned)
Ordinarily,
the
victim has to prove
the negligence of
the
defendant
because his action is
based on alleged
negligence on the
part
of
the
defendant
Separate
legal
institution; no need
to be reserved
Proceeds
independently
of
the criminal case
Effect
acquittal
of
Effect of death
of the accused
None
May be recovered
from the estate of
the
accused,
regardless of the
stage
of
the
proceedings
52
53
54
55
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.
Reason for Article (according to the Code Commission)
Old rule that acquittal also releases accused from civil
liability is one of the most serious flaws in the Philippine
legal system it has given rise to miscarriage of justice,
where the acquittal was due to a reasonable doubt in the
mind of the court as to the guilt of the accused
Inasmuch as the civil responsibility is derived from the
criminal offense, when the latter is not proved, civil liability
cannot be demanded
But two liabilities are distinctone affects social order, the
other affects private rights; one is for punishment or
correction, and the other is for reparation of damages
suffered by the aggrieved party
Adoption of the reform (not to extinguish civil liability) will
correct a serious defect, will close up an inexhaustible
source of injustice
Effect on Prior Jurisprudence
Almeida v. Abaroa was the case which stated that acquittal
extinguishes civil liability
Present article reverses Almeida
SC has applied Art. 29 and held that acquittal predicated on
the conclusion that the guilt of the defendant has not been
satisfactorily established is equivalent to one on
reasonable doubt, and a suit to enforce civil liability for the
same act or omission lies
No Reservation Requirement
Before recent amendatory provisions of 2000 Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure were adopted, the action to enforce
civil liability based on Art. 2176, 32, 33 and 34 is deemed
instituted together with the criminal case unless reserved
This is not absent in Sec. 1, Rule 111 indicating that the
action to enforce civil liability based thereon are not
deemed instituted and what is deemed instituted only is the
action to enforce civil liability arising from criminal liability
!
-
56
57
!
-
58
G. 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;
However, when the action arises from or out of any act, activity,
or conduct of any public officer involving the exercise of powers
or authority arising from Martial Law including the arrest,
detention and/or trial of the plaintiff, the same must be brought
within one (1) year. (As amended by PD No. 1755, Dec. 24, 1980.)
Art. 1145 The following actions must be commenced within six
years:
(1) Upon an oral contract;
(2) Upon a quasi-contract. (n)
When it commences
Article 1146 provides that actions based on quasi-delict
must be instituted within four years from the day the quasidelict is committed.
The right of action accrues when there exists a cause of
action, which consists of three (3) elements, namely:
a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and
under whatever law it arises or is created;
b) an obligation on the part of the defendant to respect
such right; and
c) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative
of the right of the plaintiff.
The prescriptive period must be counted when the
last element of commission of an act or omission
violative of the right of the plaintiff, which is the time
when the cause of action arises, since it is only at that time
that a cause of action arises.
Doctrine of Relations or Relations Back Doctrine
Defined: That principle of law by which an act done at one
time is considered by fiction of law to have been done at
some antecedent period. It is a doctrine which, although of
equitable origin, has a well-recognized application to
proceedings at law; a legal fiction invented to promote the
ends of justice or prevent injustice and occurrence of
injuries where otherwise there would be no remedy.
For example, the doctrine should be applied where the
injury was discovered long after the accident. The offended
party should not be prejudiced in such case and the
prescriptive period should commence to run only upon
discovery of the injury. It is not unusual that the effect of the
negligent act is latent and may become apparent only after
quite some time. Thus, if the injury becomes apparent only
after several years, the prescriptive period should
commence to run only after discovery.
!
-
59
!
-
60
61
Motive
Impelling reason
particular desire
for
that
Art. 21
Willful act causing loss
or injury, in a manner
contrary to morals,
good customs, public
order or public policy
(acts contra bonus
mores
or against
good morals)
A. Abuse of Rights
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.
Principle of Abuse of Rights
Exercise of rights entails corresponding duties
o Exercise of rights must never be abused, to the
prejudice of another
o When a right is exercised in bad faith for an illegitimate
purpose, or with intention to injure another, even when
the act itself is not illicit, there is an abuse of right,
giving rise to liability for damages
o A person is protected only when he acts in the
legitimate exercise of his rights, i.e., he acts with justice,
gives everyone his due, and observes honesty and
good faith
o Absence of good faith is essential to abuse of right
o Good faith is always presumed
!
-
62
63
Brief Facts: Diaz and Davao Light filed several cases against
each other. One of the cases ended in a Compromise
Agreement. Two of the cases were Davao Lights initiation of
criminal charges against Diaz. Diaz finally filed a case alleging
abuse of rights and malicious prosecution against Davao Light.
The Court ruled in the negative. Diaz unilaterally installed his
own meter to replace DLPCs meter after it was removed by
DLPC. Whatever damages Diaz may have suffered would have to
be borne by him alone since it was his acts which led to the filing
of the complaints against him. There can be no malicious
prosecution on the part of DLPC. DLPC was not motivated by
malicious intent or by a sinister design to unduly harass
petitioner, but only by a well-founded anxiety to protect its
rights
Doctrine:
The elements of abuse of rights are the following: (1) the
existence of a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in
bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another. Malice or bad faith is at the core of the above
provisions.
Malicious prosecution has been defined as an action for
damages brought by or 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 therein.
The following requisites must be proven by petitioner: (1)
the fact of prosecution and the further fact that the
defendant was himself the prosecutor and that the action
finally terminated with an acquittal; (2) that in bringing the
action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause; and (3)
that the prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal
malice, that is, by improper or sinister motive. Malice and
want of probable cause must both be clearly
established to justify an award of damages based on
malicious prosecution.
B. Acts contra bonus mores
Art. 21 Any person who wilfully 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.
-
Under this article, liability may arise from acts which are in
themselves legal or not prohibited, if such acts are contrary
to morals or good customs, public order, or public policy.
This provision is very intimately related to the principle
embodied by Art. 19.
This article fills the gaps in statutes that leave victims of
moral wrongs helpless, even though they may have actually
suffered material and moral damages.
64
65
66
!
-
67
!
-
5. OPPRESSIVE DISMISSAL
In Quisaba v. Sta. Ines, Court held that the right to dismiss
Quisaba should not be confused with the manner in which
the right was exercised and the effects flowing therefrom
If the dismissal was done anti-socially or oppressively, then
there would be a violation of Art. 1701 (which prohibits acts
of oppression by either capital or labor against the other)
and Art. 21 (which makes a person liable for damages if he
willfully causes loss or injury in a manner contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy " Sanction, by way of moral
damages, based on Art. 2219(10)
Case was intrinsically concerned with a civil dispute based
on a violation of Quisabas rights as a member of society,
and did not involve an ER-EE relation
Illegal Dismissal
Employer has the right to dismiss an employee in the
manner and on the grounds provided
o Dismissal warranted: EE guilty of misconduct, dismissal
consistent with ERs right to protect its interest in
seeing to it that EEs are performing their jobs with
honesty, integrity and good faith
Exercise of the right to terminate must be consistent with
the general principles in Arts. 19 and 21; if there is noncompliance, ER may be held liable for damages
If dismissal was done anti-socially or oppressively, ER is
deemed to have violated Art. 1701 and Art. 21
68
69
Brief Facts: Adaza was one of those charged with the crime of
rebellion complexed with murder and frustrated murder, based
on the finding of the preliminary investigation that there was
probable cause to hold respondents for trial for such a crime.
Adaza filed a complaint for damages because he felt aggrieved
by the institution of the proceedings against him. Adazas case
was one for malicious prosecution, but since it failed to state a
cause of action (by failing to allege the presence of any of the
elements), it must be dismissed.
70
71
E. 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.
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 a just compensation when private property is
taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies
for purposes not contrary to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to 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 cause of the
accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to
meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against
one's self, or from being forced to confess 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; and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the
defendant's 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
72
Nature of liability
1. Of the police officer Primary
2. City or municipality Subsidiary
Note: The defense of having observed the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent the damage is not available to the
city/municipality
Amaro v. Sumanguit (1962) -- Makalintal
Plaintiff: Cornelio Amaro and Jose Amaro
Defendant: Ambrosio Sumanguit
Concept: Dereliction of duty (Art. 27)
Brief facts: Cornelio and Jose Amaro filed a suit against
Sumanguit because they were harassed and terrorized. Claim of
relief was based on Sumanguits refusal to give assistancehis
duty as an officer of the law.
Doctrine: Refusal to give assistance, when it is his duty as an
officer of the law, is an actionable dereliction. The allegation that
the defendant Chief of Police is about to order the arrest of the
plaintiffs to make them sign affidavits of exculpation in favor of
the policemen is a statement of the defendants dereliction,
which is actionable under Art. 27, CC.
F. 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.
Unfair competition in enterprises or in labor
Above provision is necessary in a system of free enterprise
Unfair competition may constitute a criminal offense (Art.
186-189 RPC) but likewise gives rise to an action for
damages independent of the criminal action
Whether competition is fair or unfair depends principally on
the method used, and not on the damage caused
73
74
75
76
Defamation
The Court has defined defamation to be the offense of
injuring a persons character, fame, or reputation through
false and malicious statements.
There are some rules laid down by our jurisprudence in
dealing with defamation cases in general:
o In defamation cases, the words used in the statement(s)
in question should be construed in their entirety and
also taken in their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning,
as they would be naturally understood by persons
reading or hearing them, unless it appears that they
were used and understood in another sense.
o Words that are merely insulting are not actionable as
libel or slander per se, and mere words of general
abuse, however opprobrious, ill-natured, or vexatious,
whether written or spoken, will not serve as a cause of
action for defamation in the absence of an allegation
for special damages.
o The fact that the plaintiff finds the language used is
offensive does not, by itself, make it actionable.
o The defamatory words must refer to an ascertained or
ascertainable person and that person must be the
plaintiff. The name of the plaintiff need not be
mentioned; it is sufficient that it can be shown that the
plaintiff is the one alluded to in the defamatory
statement.
Libel is one of the forms of defamation and, hence,
actionable under Art. 33. Its elements are:
o An allegation or imputation of a discretable act
or condition concerning another
o Publication of the imputation
o Identity of the person defamed
o Existence of malice
There are some rules laid down by our jurisprudence in
dealing specifically with libel cases:
o The element of publication does NOT require that
there be wide circulation/publication; it merely
requires that a person, other than the author
of the publication of the libelous statement
and the offended party, takes notice of such
publication.
o In dealing with group libel or libel directed against a
group or class of persons, the Court has laid down
further rules/principles in the leading case of MVRS:
!
Unless there are circumstances specifically pointing
or alluding to a particular member of a group or
class, no member of such group or class has a right
of action against declarations made towards such
group or class.
77
Fraud
The Court, in Prudential Bank v. IAC, has ruled that estafa
falls under the contemplation of fraud under Article 33. A
separate civil action may be filed from it.
However, estafa by postdating a check or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation without sufficient funds therefor
needs to be distinguished from a violation of BP 22.
Under Rule 111, Section 1(b), the civil aspect CANNOT be
reserved and even a separate civil action may NOT be filed,
in cases of violation of BP 22. This was intended to help the
speedy disposition of BP 22 cases which were clogging the
courts.
o The only instance allowing the filing of a separate civil
action based on a violation of BP 22 is when it is
instituted before the criminal action.
Physical Injuries
The physical injuries contemplated under Article 33 is not
limited to the specific definition of the term given in the
Revised Penal Code; it is also understood to mean bodily
injury, even those resulting in death.
Distinction must also be made for physical injuries
caused by reckless imprudence or negligence; these
physical injuries are NOT covered under Article 33, as the
term is understood in the provision.
o Article 33, assumes that the fraud, defamation, or
physical injuries was intentionally committed.
o Criminal negligence by nature lacks such intent.
Moreover, criminal negligence is not included in the
enumeration under the provision and, hence, a
separate civil action based from it may not be
instituted.
78
C. Neglect of Duty
!
-
V. NUISANCE
Art. 694 A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment,
business, condition of property, or anything else which:
(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or
(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or
(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public
highway or street, or any body of water; or
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.
Art. 695 Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance
affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable
number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance,
danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal. A private
nuisance is one that is not included in the foregoing definition.
Art. 696 Every successive owner or possessor of property who
fails or refuses to abate a nuisance in that property started by a
former owner or possessor is liable therefor in the same manner
as the one who created it.
79
Art. 700 The district health officer shall take care that one or all
of the remedies against a public nuisance are availed of.
Art. 701 If a civil action is brought by reason of the maintenance
of a public nuisance, such action shall be commenced by the city
or municipal mayor.
Art. 702 The district health officer shall determine whether or
not abatement, without judicial proceedings, is the best remedy
against a public nuisance.
Functions of Mayor v. District Health Officer
Mayor
District Health Officer
Takes care that one or all of
the remedies against public
Brings action for a public nuisances are availed of
nuisance
Determines
whether
abatement of the public
nuisance is the best remedy
(From A2016 Reviewer)
Art. 703 A private person may file an action on account of a
public nuisance, if it is specially injurious to himself.
Art. 704 Any private person may abate a public nuisance which
is specially injurious to him by removing, or if necessary, by
destroying the thing which constitutes the same, without
committing a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury.
But it is necessary:
(1) That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of
the property to abate the nuisance;
(2) That such demand has been rejected;
(3) That the abatement be approved by the district health officer
and executed with the assistance of the local police; and
(4) That the value of the destruction does not exceed three
thousand pesos.
Art. 705 The remedies against a private nuisance are:
(1) A civil action; or
(2) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.
Concept of Nuisance
Anything that works hurt, inconvenience, or injury
Applied to that class of wrongs which arises from the
unreasonable, unwarrantable, or unlawful use by a person of
his own property and which produces such material
annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, or hurt, that the law
will presume a consequent damage
Embraces both intentional harms and those caused by
negligence or recklessness
Negligence is not an essential ingredient, but to be liable
for a nuisance, there must be resulting injury to another in
the enjoyment of his legal rights
Nuisance and negligence distinguished
Nuisance
Negligence
Breach of duty
Breach of duty
Creation or maintenance of a Negligence is a violation of a
nuisance is a violation of an relative duty, the failure to use
absolute duty, the doing of an the degree of care required
act is wrongful in itself
under particular circumstances
in connection with an act or
omission which is not wrongful
in itself
Liable for the resulting injury Liability based on want of care
regardless of the degree of
care or skill exercised to avoid
the injury
Damage is the necessary
consequence of what the
defendant is doing, or is
incident to the business itself
or the manner in which it is
conducted, whether there is
proper care or not
When rules on negligence applicable
Where the acts or omissions constituting negligence are the
identical acts which give rise to a cause of action for
nuisance, the rules applicable to negligence will be applied
Extrajudicial abatement
The remedy of extrajudicial abatement is available:
1. When there is a public nuisance; or
2. When there is a private nuisance, but the destruction of the
thing must not exceed P3,000. In both cases, the requisites
below must be followed.
80
Public Nuisance
The doing of or the failure to do something that injuriously
affects safety, health, or morals of the public, or works some
substantial annoyance, inconvenience, or injury to the public
Causes hurt, inconvenience, or damage to the public
generally, or such a part of the public as necessarily comes
in contact with it in the exercise of a public or common right
A condition of things which is prejudicial to health, comfort,
safety, property, sense of decency or morals of citizens at
large, resulting either from an act not warranted by law, or
neglect of a duty imposed by law
Private Nuisance
One which violates only private rights and produces
damage to but one or a few persons
Public and private nuisance
Public Nuisance
Affects public at large or such
of them as may come in
contact with it
Indictable offense
distinguished
Private Nuisance
Affects the individual or a
limited number of individuals
Actionable
either
for
abatement or for damages, or
for both
Mixed nuisances
It may be a public nuisance because it violates public rights
to the injury of many persons, and it may also be private in
character in that it produces special injury to private rights
to any extent beyond the injury to the public
Example: a house abutting on a street railway track is a
private nuisance to the railway company and a public
nuisance because it obstructs the street
Public v. Private Nuisance
Public Nuisance
Affects a community or
neighborhood or any
considerable number of
persons, although the
Definition
extent of the annoyance,
danger, or damage upon
individuals
may
be
unequal
Criminal prosecution
Civil action (abatement,
Remedies
damages, injunction)
Extrajudicial abatement
Who may City or municipal mayor
institute
Private person ONLY IF
the
the nuisance is especially
complaint injurious to him
(From A2016 Reviewer)
81
Private Nuisance
Anything not covered
by the definition of a
public nuisance
82
I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Art. 2195 The provisions of this Title shall be respectively
applicable to all obligations mentioned in Article 1157.
Art. 2196 The rules under this Title are without prejudice to
special provisions on damages formulated elsewhere in this
Code. Compensation for workmen and other employees in case
of death, injury or illness is regulated by special laws. Rules
governing damages laid down in other laws shall be observed
insofar as they are not in conflict with this Code.
Art. 2197 Damages may be:
(1) Actual or compensatory;
(2) Moral;
(3) Nominal;
(4) Temperate or moderate;
(5) Liquidated; or
(6) Exemplary or corrective.
Art. 2198 The principles of the general law on damages are
hereby adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with this
Code.
Part II DAMAGES
A. Concept of Damages
Damage v. Damages
Damage
Damages
Actionable loss, hurt, or Sum of money that the law awards
harm that results from or
imposes
as
pecuniary
the
unlawful
act, compensation, recompense, or
omission, or negligence satisfaction for an injury done or a
of another
wrong sustained as a consequence
of either a breach of a contractual
obligation or a tortuous or illegal act
(From A2016 Reviewer)
Definition
May refer to either monetary award to the person injured by
the legally recognized harm caused by another or to the loss
caused to such person by the violation of his legal rights
o Monetary award:
! The pecuniary compensation, recompense, or
satisfaction for an injury sustained
! The pecuniary consequences which the law imposes
for the breach of some duty or violation of some
rights
! Not synonymous to fine, penalty, punishment,
revenge, discipline, or chastisement
o Loss
! Actionable loss, injury or harm which results from the
unlawful act or omission or negligence of another
Damages in tort constitute the money awarded to the
person injured by the tort of another
83
84
Injunction
Forbids threatened
actions or requires
the defendant to
alter
harmful
conduct or repair
its consequences
Damages
The
pecuniary
consequences
which
the
law
imposes for the
breach of some
duty or violation of
some rights
85
Art. 2203 The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the
diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages
resulting from the act or omission in question.
Art. 2204 In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be
respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating
or mitigating circumstances.
Art. 2205 Damages may be recovered:
(1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of
temporary or permanent personal injury;
(2) For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial
credit.
Art. 2206 The amount of damages for death caused by a crime
or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even
though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In
addition:
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning
capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the
heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed
and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of
permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had
no earning capacity at the time of his death;
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the
provisions of Article 291, the recipient who is not an heir called
to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or intestate
succession, may demand support from the person causing the
death, for a period not exceeding five years, the exact duration
to be fixed by the court;
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and
ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for
mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
Art. 2207 If the plaintiff's property has been insured, and he has
received indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or
loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained
of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of
the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has
violated the contract. If the amount paid by the insurance
company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the aggrieved
party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the person
causing the loss or injury.
86
!
-
87
C. Measure of damages
(i) Contracts
88
of
Natural
and
probable
consequences
of
the breach of the
obligation, and which
the
parties
have
foreseen or could
have
reasonably
foreseen at the time
the obligation was
constituted
(From A2016 Reviewer)
89
of
Brief Facts: The bus of LTBC, in which Cariaga was riding in,
collided with the train belonging to MRC. As a result, Cariaga
and the other passengers sustained several injuries. The lower
court held that it was the LTBC bus who was responsible for the
accident and it adjudged LTBC to be liable for compensatory
damages but NOT for actual and moral damages. Now, both
LTBC and Cariaga appeal that judgment, with regard to the
finding of liability and the non-award of moral damages,
respectively.
Avoidable Consequences v.
Avoidable Consequences
A wrongful act or omission
causing injury has already
taken place, but the avoidable
consequences come after such
act or omission
Contributory Negligence
Contributory Negligence
The negligence comes before
or during the wrongful act or
omission that causes injury
Actual/Compensatory Damages
Delictu
Actual
or
Compensatory
Damges
Basis
Civil Code
Proof
Actual
pecuniary
required damages, except if
resulting in death
v. Civil Indemnity Ex
Civil
Indemnity
Delictu
Ex
90
Other cases:
91
damages
must
be
92
Doctrine:
The attorney's fees were awarded in the concept of damages in
a quasi-delict case and under the circumstances interest as part
thereof may be adjudicated at the discretion of the court. (See
Art. 2211, Civil Code.) As with the other damages awarded, the
interest should accrue only from the date of the trial court's
decision.
D. Subrogation
Art. 2207 If the plaintiffs property has been insured, and he has
received indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or
loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained
of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of
the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has
violated the contract. If the amount paid by the insurance
company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the aggrieved
party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the person
causing the loss or injury.
Subrogation of Insurer to Rights of Insured in Property
Insurance
Doctrine of Subrogation
It is a process of legal substitution: the insurer, after paying
the amount covered by the insurance policy, steps into the
shoes of the insured, as it were, availing of the latters rights
that exist against the wrongdoer at the time of the loss
It is rooted in equity designed to compel the ultimate
payment of a debt by one who in justice, equity and good
conscience ought to pay
Right Applicable Only to Property Insurance
Does not apply to life insurance because the value of human
life is unlimited and no recovery from a third party can be
deemed adequate to compensate the insureds beneficiary
Pecuniary value of a human life to the beneficiary can
seldom be determined with accuracy except when the
insurance is taken by a creditor on the life of a debtor to
insure a debt
Life insurance contracts are not ordinarily contracts of
indemnity
Right of Insured to Recover from Both Insurer and Third Party
Right of subrogation prevents the insured from obtaining
more than the amount of his loss
Right exists after indemnity has been paid by the
insurer to the insured who can no longer go after the third
party (he can only RECOVER ONCE)
IF the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully
cover the injury or loss, it is the aggrieved party (insured)
who is entitled to recover the deficiency from the person
responsible
93
Brief Facts:
Vessels M/T Vector, owned by Vector Corp. and M/V Doa Paz,
owned by Sulpicio Lines, collided in open sea. The vessels sank
and as result, the entire petroleum cargo of Caltex on board M/T
Vector was lost. American Home Assurance (AHA) indemnified
Caltex for the loss of the petroleum cargo. AHA filed a complaint
against Vector, Soriano, and Sulpicio Lines, Inc. to recover the
full amount it paid to Caltex. CA absolved Sulpicio and held
Vector and Soriano solidarily liable to AHA.
Doctrine: Subrogation under Article 2207 of the Civil Code
gives rise to a cause of action created by law. For purposes of
the law on the prescription of actions, the period of limitation is
ten years.
E. Attorneys Fees
Art. 2208 In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be
recovered, except:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the
plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to
protect his interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding
against the plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in
refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and
demandable claim;
(6) In actions for legal support;
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers,
laborers and skilled workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and
employer's liability laws;
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a
crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and
equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should
be recovered.
94
F. Rules on interest
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 beb. Furthermore, the
INTEREST
DUE
shall itself earn
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.
The actual base for
the computation of
legal interest shall
be on the amount
finally adjudged.
95
RATE
a) That which may
have
been
stipulated
in
writing.
b) In the absence of
stipulation, the rate
of interest shall be
6% 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
6% 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.
d.
When
the 6% per annum
JUDGMENT of the
court awarding a
sum
of
money
becomes final and
executory, whether
or not the case
consists
in
the
payment of a sum
of money
Note: The new rate of legal interest (6%) in Nacar does not apply
to judgments that have become final and executory prior to July
1, 2013.
(From UP BOC Reviewer 2014)
Start of Delay
(1) Extrajudicial: Demand letter
(2) Judicial: Filing of complaint
(3) Award
Applicability of 12% v. 6% Interest Rates
12% interest per annum
6% interest per annum
Applicable interest for loans or Applies for any other breach
forbearance of money, where that is not a loan or
there is no stipulation fixing forbearance of money
another rate (penalty clause);
counted from the date of
demand
(From A2016 Reviewer)
Definition of forbearance of money
Contractual obligation of lender or creditor to refrain,
during a given period of time, from requiring the borrower
or debtor to repay loan or debt that is due and payable.
Computation in Eastern Assurance v. Calumpang
[Principal payments made]a
+ [(remaining balance x 12% p.a. x number of years after
demand)b
+ (interest on principal computed from the time of judicial
demand x 12% p.a. x number of years from due date)]c
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
a Remaining balance from the amount originally due
b Legal interest on the remaining balance
c Legal interest on the monetary interest due
This computation contemplates a situation after judicial demand,
so the interest rate applied is 12% per annum.
After final judgment: Total amount due (d) + [d x 12% p.a. x
number of years from finality to satisfaction].
IMPORTANT
NOTE
REGARDING
APPLICABLE
INTEREST
Central Bank Circular 416 imposing a 12% per annum
interest rate on all loans or forbearances of money, goods,
or credit, and 6% per annum interest rate on all other
obligations applies in the cases below. However, effective 1
July 2013, BSP Monetary Bank Circular No. 799-2013 was
issued, providing that the legal interest for loans or
forbearances of money shall be 6%, thereby creating the 66-6 rule.
This was applied in Nacar v. Gallery Frames (G.R. No.
189871; 13 August 2013). (See Eastern Assurance v.
Calumpang for further discussion.)
96
6-6-6
(Nacar
rules,
applying
new
Circular
799-2013)
1. 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 that which may have
been stipulated in writing.
Furthermore, the interest due
shall itself earn legal interest
from the time it is judicially
demanded. In the absence of
stipulation, the rate of interest
shall be 6% per annum to be
computed from default, i.e.,
from judicial or extrajudicial
demand under and subject to
the provisions of Art. 1169 of
the Civil Code.
2. 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. No
interest, however, shall be
adjudged on unliquidated
claims or damages, except
when or until the demand can
be established with reasonable
certainty. Accordingly, where
the demand is established with
reasonable
certainty,
the
interest shall begin to run from
the time the claim is made
judicially or extrajudicially (Art.
1169), but when such certainty
cannot be so reasonably
established at the time the
demand is made, 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). The
actual
base
for
the
computation of legal interest
shall, in any case, be on the
amount finally adjudged.
97
Requisites:
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. [Villanueva vs. Salvador (2006)]
98
99
100
B. 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 arising from any source enumerated in Article 1157, or
in every case where any property right has been invaded.
Art. 2223 The adjudication of nominal damages shall preclude
further contest upon the right involved and all accessory
questions, as between the parties to the suit, or their respective
heirs and assigns.
-
101
When Awarded
1. According to Art. 2224, when the amount cannot, from
the nature of the case, be proved with certainty
2. According to jurisprudence, when the actual amount of
loss was not proven with certainty, even if the nature
of the case allows for the possibility of pecuniary loss being
proven with certainty
In Republic v. Tuvera, the Court acknowledged that
temperate damages may be awarded even in cases
where the amount of loss could have been proven with
certainty
In Pleno v. CA, the SC agreed with the TC when it
awarded temperate damages for loss of earning
capacity because the injureds actual income was not
sufficiently established
o Prof. Casis: This ruling may be interpreted as
another exception to the rule requiring
documentary evidence for the award of loss or
earning capacity
In Tan v. OMC Carriers, the Court rule that absent
competent proof on the actual damages suffered, a
party still has the option of claiming temperate
damages, which may be allowed in cases where, from
the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss
cannot be adduced although the court is convinced
that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss
o Court cited Pleno v. CA, People v. Singh, and
People v. Almedilla, where it granted temperate
damages in place of actual damages for either
failing to sufficiently prove plaintiffs income or
failing to present sufficient evidence of the
deceaseds income
3.
102
No Receipts Provided
Award of P25,000 even where no receipts are presented in
evidence
In People v. Gidoc, award was proper when there was no
evidence of burial and funeral expenses presented
In People v. Surongon, Court justified it by saying no
receipts were presented to prove the loss of actual
damages, but it was shown that the heirs were entitled to
the same; hence, they were awarded
In People v. Abrazaldo, Court may have explained why
amount is pegged at P25,000
o Because of the decisions saying civil indemnity for
death was fixed at P50,000, then the temperate
damages should be of it (P25,000)
In People v. Almedillai, Court said that although
compensation for lost income requires unbiased proof of
the deceaseds average income, it awards P25,000 as
temperate damages in view of the lack of proof of average
income
Because of the jurisprudence awarding temperate damages
in lieu of actual damages not proven (or actual damages in a
lesser amount proven), the amount of actual damages
awarded in any case cannot be less than P25,000
Necesito v. Paras (1958) J.B.L. Reyes
Concept: Temperate or Moderate Damages
Brief Facts: Severina Garces and Precillano Necessito (1 year
old) boarded Philippine Rabbit at Agno, Pangasina. The
truck/bus fell into a creek. Severina drowned, Precillano suffered
injuries. The money, wrist watch and cargo of vegetables were
lost.
Doctrine: A carrier is liable to its passengers for damages
caused by mechanical defects of the conveyance. 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. In such cases, the judge
should be empowered to calculate moderate damages, rather
than that the plaintiff should suffer, without redress from the
defendants wrongful act.
103
Brief Facts: PNR did not set up lights or a flag bar to warn
vehicles. Its train hit a car and PNR was held liable. SC held that
railroad companies owe to the public a duty of exercising a
reasonable degree of care to avoid injury. Its failure to put a
cross bar/ signal light is negligence and disregard of the safety
of the public even if no law or ordinance requires it because
public safety demands that said device are installed
D. Liquidated Damages
Art. 2226 Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the
parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof.
Art. 2227 Liquidated damages, whether intended as an
indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are
iniquitous or unconscionable.
Art. 2228 When the breach of the contract committed by the
defendant is not the one contemplated by the parties in
agreeing upon the liquidated damages, the law shall determine
the measure of damages, and not the stipulation.
-
Purpose
Article 2227: purpose of liquidated damages can be either
as indemnity or penalty. This means that the sum of money
stipulated can either be intended (i) to compensate the nonbreaching party for the injury caused by the other partys
breach or (ii) to punish the breaching party. It can be said
therefore,
that
liquidated
damages
are
either
compensatory or punitive in nature.
A stipulation for liquidated damages does not necessarily
mean that other types of damages may no longer be
recovered.
Reducing the amount
1. When iniquitous or unconscionable
- Article 2227 provides that liquidated damages shall be
equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or
unconscionable. Iniquity means a gross injustice or a
wicked thing, and also defined as extremely immoral and
unfair while Unconscionable is defined as something
excessive, unreasonable or shockingly unfair or unjust.
- Such reduction in both cases is warranted under Article
1306 since those stipulations are contra bonus mores.
- Determining WON the amount stipulated is iniquitous or
unconscionable can be difficult because of the
subjectivity of the standards. In some cases, the court
would simply say that the stipulated amount is
unconscionable or iniquitous but not explain why.
2. Possible Tests in reducing damages
a. Apply rules on Penalty Clauses
- Court may consider a number of factors including,
but not limited to the type, extend and purpose of
the penalty, the nature of the obligation, the mode of
breach and its consequences, the supervening
realities, the standing and relationship of the parties
b. Apply the rules on the Award of Attorneys
Fees
c. Applying precedent
d. Proportionality to Purpose
- If the purpose is to compensate, the amount must
correspond to the actual injury suffered. If purpose is
punitive, then it becomes a policy decision and the
injury suffered by the innocent party need not be
taken into consideration. What is determinative is the
proper penalty for the breach which happened.
e. Necessity Test
- If there are other stipulations in the contract, such as
payment of interest, service fee, etc. the court may
go into the question WON the amount stipulated is
still necessary as indemnity or penalty.
f. When in pari delicto
- Court may reduce the liquidated damages if other
party is also guilty of breach
g. Consider actual damages
- If actual damages sustained would also include the
interest and penalties, then liquidated damages may
be reduced.
104
!
3.
105
106
LIMITATIONS
Art. 2233. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a
matter of right; the court will decide whether or not they
should be adjudicated.
Art. 2235. A stipulation whereby exemplary damages are
renounced in advance shall be null and void.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
(1) Exemplary damages cannot be awarded alone: they must
be awarded IN ADDITION to moral, temperate, liquidated
or compensatory damages.
(2) The purpose of the award is to deter the defendant (and
others in a similar condition) from a repetition of the acts for
which exemplary damages were awarded; hence, they are
not recoverable as a matter of right.
(3) The defendant must be guilty of other malice or else
negligence above the ordinary.
(4) Plaintiff is not required to prove the amount of exemplary
damages.
(a) But plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral,
temperate, or compensatory damage; that is,
substantial damages, not purely nominal ones. This
requirement applies even if the contract stipulates
liquidated damages.
(b) The amount of exemplary damage need not be
pleaded in the complaint because the same cannot be
proved. It is merely incidental or dependent upon what
the court may award as compensatory damages.
Conditions for Award of Exemplary Damages (From
Octor v. Ybaez)
1. Imposed by way of example or correction only in addition,
among others, to compensatory damages;
2. Cannot be recovered as a matter of right;
3. Wrongful act accompanied by bad faith, i.e., award would
be allowed only if the guilty party acted in a wanton,
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner
Lao v. Standard Insurance Co. (2003) Quisumbing
Concept: Exemplary Damages
Brief Facts: Rudy Lao insured his truck. It figured in an accident
during the effectivity of the insurance policy. Standard Insurance
denied the claim alleging that it violated the authorized driver
clause because the drivers license showed that he was not
authorized to trucks weighing more than 4,500 kg. Both lower
courts ruled in favor of Standard Insurance Company and
ordered Rudy Lao to pay 50,000 exemplary damages.
Doctrine: Entitlement to the recovery of exemplary damages
must be shown; they cannot be recovered as a matter of right,
they also need not be proved. But a complainant must still show
that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory
damages before the court may consider the question of whether
or not exemplary damages should be awarded.
107
friends. However, the Business Class was already full. In the end,
the spouses acquiesced to the upgrade when they were told that
they would not be allowed to board the plane if they refused.
Upon their return, the spouses filed an action for damages.
Doctrine: Nominal damages may be awarded when plaintiffs
rights have been violated but actual/compensatory, moral, or
exemplary damages cannot be awarded. Moreover, the trial
court should avoid the award of excessive damages.
Pan Pacific Co. v. Phil. Advertising Corp. (1968) Concepcion
Concept: Exemplary or Corrective Damages
Brief Facts: Phil. Advertising bought bowling alleys and other
accessories from Pan Pacific, which the latter duly installed.
However, aside from paying the down-payment, Phil. Advertising
made no other payments despite demands by Pan Pacific, so the
latter was constrained to file an action to recover sums of money
from the former.
Doctrine: Acting in a wanton, oppressive, and fraudulent
manner in the performance of an obligation (showing gross and
evident bad faith) and failing to give/pay what is due entitles the
innocent party to moral and exemplary damages. This is because
exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of
example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral,
temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages (Art. 2229).
Such may be awarded when the defendant acted in a wanton,
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner (Art.
2232).
People v. Domingo (2007) Nachura
Concept: Exemplary Damages
Brief Facts: Dominguez raped a 10 year old girl. He was
convicted of statutory rape but trial court failed to award
exemplary damages.
Doctrine: Pursuant to People v. Malones, exemplary damages
should be awarded in cases of statutory rape.
!
-
108