TORTS AND DAMAGES FINALS REVIEWER
STRICT LIABILITY VELASCO v MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY
CREWLINK, INC. v TERINGTERING
[Employers]
Crewlink sought to be discharged from civil liability following the
suicide of its crew, Jacinto Teringtering.
The ruled clarified that in order to avail of death benefits, the
death of the employee should occur during the effectivity of the
employment contract. The death of a seaman during the term of
employment makes the employer liable to his heirs for death
compensation benefits. This rule, however, is not absolute. The
employer may be exempt from liability if it can successfully prove
that the seaman's death was caused by an injury directly
attributable to his deliberate or willful act.
In the instant case, Crewlink was able to substantially prove that
Jacinto's death was attributable to his deliberate act of killing
himself by jumping into the sea.
VESTIL v IAC
[Animals]
Claim for damages are being pursued by the parents of the
three year old Theness against Purita Vestil, possessor of the
dog and the house where the said little girl was bitten.
Article 2183 reads as follows:
The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the
same is responsible for the damage which it may cause,
although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall
cease only in case the damages should come from force
majeure from the fault of the person who has suffered
damage.
Thus, in Afialda v. Hisole, a person hired as caretaker of a
carabao gored him to death and his heirs thereupon sued the
owner of the animal for damages. The complaint was
dismissed on the ground that it was the caretaker's duty to
prevent the carabao from causing injury to any one, including
himself.
According to Manresa the obligation imposed by Article 2183
of the Civil Code is not based on the negligence or on the
presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of the
animal causing the damage. It is based on natural equity and
on the principle of social interest that he who possesses
animals for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the
damage which such animal may cause.
1
[Nuisance]
Pedro Velasco is seeking redress for unceasing sound emanating
from a Meralco sub-station built near his house.
The general rule is that everyone is bound to bear the habitual or
customary inconveniences that result from the proximity of
others, and so long as this level is not surpassed, he may not
complain against them. But if the prejudice exceeds the
inconveniences that such proximity habitually brings, the
neighbor who causes such disturbance is held responsible for the
resulting damage, being guilty of causing nuisance.
The impartial and objective evidence points to the sound emitted
by the appellee's substation transformers being of much higher
level than the ambient sound of the locality. Contrary to the
finding of the trial court, the noise continuously emitted, day and
night, constitutes an actionable nuisance for which the appellant
is entitled to relief, by requiring the appellee company to adopt
the necessary measures to deaden or reduce the sound at the
plaintiff's house, by replacing the interlink wire fence with a
partition made of sound absorbent material, since the relocation
of the substation is manifestly impracticable and would be
prejudicial to the customers of the Electric Company who are
being serviced from the substation.
NOTE: Public nuisance need not require judicial proceeding to be
abated. It may be abated by the use of state police power. On the
other hand, private nuisance may be abated personally by the
individual affected without the need for judicial intervention only
when no destruction shall result therefrom.
PRODUCT AND SERVICE LIABILITY
NAVIDA v HON. DIZON
The case is about a class suit seeking damages for injuries
allegedly sustained from exposure to DBCP, a chemical used to
kill nematodes (worms), while working on farms in 23 foreign
countries including banana plantations in the Philippines.
The specific tort asserted against defendant foreign companies
in the present complaint is product liability tort. When the
averments in the present complaint are examined in terms of
the particular categories of tort recognized in the Philippine
Civil Code, it becomes stark clear that such averments describe
and identify the category of specific tort known as product
liability tort. This is necessarily so, because it is the product
manufactured by defendant foreign companies, which is
AUF-SOL | 2017 | GONZALES, K. | SALTA
TORTS AND DAMAGES FINALS REVIEWER
asserted to be the proximate cause of the damages sustained
by the plaintiff workers, and the liability of the defendant
foreign companies, is premised on being the manufacturer of
the pesticides.
NOTE: No specific provision in Civil Code pertaining to product
[and service] liability tort. Article 2176 is broad enough to
suffice as legal basis though. It must also be noted that product
liability torts are strict liability torts and not negligence torts.
BUSINESS TORTS
GO v CORDERO
[Contractual interference; Art. 1314, CC]
The case pertains to the disregard of Allan Go, et al of an earlier
shipbuilding contract with Mortimer Cordero, to directly execute
a similar deal with the latters supplier, Tony Robinson. Cordero
and Robinson have an existing exclusive distributorship
agreement.
While it is true that a third person cannot possibly be sued for
breach of contract because only parties can breach contractual
provisions, a contracting party may sue a third person not for
breach but for inducing another to commit such breach.
Article 1314 of the Civil Code provides: Any third person who
induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages
to the other contracting party.
The elements of tort interference are: (1) existence of a valid
contract; (2) knowledge on the part of the third person of the
existence of a contract; and (3) interference of the third person is
without legal justification.
The act of Go, Landicho and Tecson in inducing Robinson and
AFFA to enter into another contract directly with ACG Express
Liner to obtain a lower price for the second vessel resulted in
AFFAs breach of its contractual obligation to pay in full the
commission due to Cordero and unceremonious termination of
Corderos appointment as exclusive distributor. Following our
pronouncement in Gilchrist v. Cuddy (supra), such act may not be
deemed malicious if impelled by a proper business interest rather
than in wrongful motives. The attendant circumstances, however,
demonstrated that respondents transgressed the bounds of
permissible financial interest to benefit themselves at the expense
of Cordero. Respondents furtively went directly to Robinson after
Cordero had worked hard to close the deal for them to purchase
from AFFA two (2) SEACAT 25, closely monitored the progress of
building the first vessel sold, attended to their concerns and spent
no measly sum for the trip to Australia with Go, Landicho and Gos
family members. But what is appalling is the fact that even as Go,
2
Landicho and Tecson secretly negotiated with Robinson for the
purchase of a second vessel, Landicho and Tecson continued to
demand and receive from Cordero their commission or cut from
Corderos earned commission from the sale of the first SEACAT 25.
The rule is that the defendant found guilty of interference with
contractual relations cannot be held liable for more than the
amount for which the party who was inducted to break the
contract can be held liable.
NOTE: No case for contractual interference when a buyer (3rd
person) who procures directly from the manufacturer is unaware
of the existence of a distributorship contract between the latter
and its distributor. On the other hand, an action for breach of
contract is the proper remedy by the exclusive distributor against
the manufacturer.
THE DEFENDANTS
CAEDO v YU KHE THAI
[Respondeat superior v Bonus pater familias]
Plaintiff Caedo was on his way from his home to the airport,
while defendant Yu Khe Thai, the owner of the Cadillac was
with his driver Bernardo going to Wack Wack for his regular
round of golf. However, a vehicular accident happened
between them which caused plaintiff Caedo and the members
of his family were injured.
There was no doubt that the collision was directly traceable to
Bernardos negligence when he instead of slowing down or
stopping altogether behind the carretela until the lane was
clear, veered to the left in order to pass.
The main issue in this case is whether or not Yu Khe Thai, as
owner of the Cadillac, is solidarily liable with the driver
Bernardo.
SC No.
Art 2184 provides that in case of a vehicle mishap, the owner,
who was present during the mishap, is solidarily liable with his
driver, if the former could have prevented such mishap by the
exercise of due diligence.
The basis of the masters liability is bonus pater familias. The
theory is that ultimately the negligence of the servant, if
known to the master and susceptible of timely correction by
him, reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it in order
to prevent injury or damage.
AUF-SOL | 2017 | GONZALES, K. | SALTA
TORTS AND DAMAGES FINALS REVIEWER
In this case, the car was not running in an unreasonable speed
as to require the car owner to be in any special state of alert.
The road was wide and open, and devoid of traffic that early
morning. He had reason to rely on the skill and experience of
his driver. He became aware of the presence of the carretela
when his car was only 12m behind it, but then his failure to see
it earlier did not constitute negligence, for he was not himself
at the wheel. The time element was such that there was no
reasonable opportunity for Yu Khe Thai to assess the risks
involved and warn the driver accordingly.
CUADRA v MONFORT
[Parents]
Cuadra and Monfort were classmates in Grade 6 and was assigned
by the teacher to weed the grass in the school premises together.
Monfort jokingly said that she found an earthworm and, to
frightened Cuadra, tossed the plastic headband at her. The object
hit her eye. Cuadra rubbed the injured part and treated it with
powder. The eye became swollen. Cuadra was brought to a doctor
and underwent surgical operations twice; however, she
completely lost the sight of her right eye.
SC parents of Monfort not liable
The basis of the liability imposed by Art 2176 is the fault or
negligence accompanying the act or omission, there being no
willfulness or intent to cause damage thereby. When the act or
omission is that of one person for whom another is responsible,
the latter then becomes himself liable (vicarious liability) under
Art 2180. The parents of Monfort could not have prevented the
damage by the observance of due care, or was in any way remiss
in the exercise of their parental authority in failing to foresee such
damage since their child was at school during the incident, under
the care and supervision of the teacher. As far as the act which
caused the injury was concerned, it was an innocent prank not
unusual among children at play and which no parent, however
careful, would have any special reason to anticipate, much less
guard against.
TAMARGO v CA
[Parents]
10-year old Adelberto Bundoc shot Jennifer Tamargo with an
air rifle causing injuries which resulted in her death. A civil case
for damages was filed against the natural parents of Adelberto
with whom he was living at the time of the incident. The
natural parents of Adelberto however averred that it should be
the adopting parents who should be the indispensable parties
3
to the action since parental authority was shifted to the
adopting parents from the moment of the petition for
adoption was filed.
SC No, parental authority was still with the natural parents at
the time the incident occurred, and thus are indispensable
parties to the suit for damages against Adelberto.
Art 2180 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 designated as vicarious
liability, or the doctrine of imputed negligence, 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.
Thus, the parental liability is made a natural or logical
consequence of the duties and responsibilities of parents,
which includes the instructing, controlling, and disciplining of
the child.
In the instant case, the shooting incident occurred when
parental authority was still lodge with the natural parents of
Adelberto. The decree of adoption which was issued after the
incident cannot be given retroactive effect to the time of the
filing of the petition for adoption so as to impose liability upon
the adopting parents when, at that time, they had no actual or
physical custody over the adopted child.
LIBI v IAC
[Parents]
Sweethearts Julie Gotiong and Wendell Libi (both minor) died,
each from a single gunshot would with the same firearm, a Smith
and Wesson revolver licensed in the name of petitioner Cresencio
Libi (father). Petitioners defense is that they exercised due
diligence of a good father of a family, hence, they should not be
civilly liable for the crime committed by their son.
SC liable
The diligence of a good father of a family required by law in a
parent and child relationship consists of the instruction and
supervision of the child.
In this case, petitioners were gravely remiss in their duties as
parents in not diligently supervising the activities of their son,
despite his minority and immaturity, so much so that it was only
at the time of Wendells death that they allegedly discovered that
he was a CANU (Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unit) agent and that
Cresencios gun was missing from the safety deposit box.
AUF-SOL | 2017 | GONZALES, K. | SALTA
TORTS AND DAMAGES FINALS REVIEWER 4

AMADORA v CA PSBA v CA

[Schools] [Schools]

Alfredo Amadora was shot to death by his classmate Pablito A stabbing incident by outsiders caused the death of Carlitos
Daffon while inside the auditorium of their school. Parents of Bautista on the premises of the PSBA.
Amadora filed a case for damages against the school, its rector,
The court in this case focused on the contractual relation of the
the HS principal, the dean of boys, and the physics teacher.
school and its students.
They contend that their son was in school to finish his physics
experiment, hence, he was then under the custody of the When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment,
respondents. there establishes a contract between them, resulting in bilateral
obligations. For the part of the school, it is required to provide the
SC school not liable
student with not only the education, but as well as, a peaceful and
Even if he was there to merely submit his physics report, or to secure atmosphere.
finish his physics experiment, or even the mere savoring of the
company of his friends in the premises of the school, as long as SALUDAGA v FEU
he was there for a legitimate purpose, he is considered under
[Schools]
the custody of the school authorities.
Petitioner was a 2nd year law student when he was shot by one
The rules are:
of the security guards on duty at the school premises.
1. If school is academic institution the teacher in Petitioner sued for damages based on the breach of contract
charge of such student shall be held liable; (safe learning environment).
2. If it is a technical or vocational (arts and trades) the
SC liable
head of the school.
There was failure on the part of the school to exercise due
Reason: the old schools of arts and trades were engaged in the
diligence, when it failed to ensured that the guards assigned in
training of artisans apprenticed to their master who personally
the campus met the necessary qualifications.
and directly instructed them on the technique and secrets of
their craft. The head of the school of arts and trades was such
a master and so was personally involved in the task of teaching ST. JOSEPHS COLLEGE v MIRANDA
his students, who usually even boarded with him and so came
[Schools]
under his constant control, supervision and influence.
Failed science experiment case.
The head of the academic school was not as involved with his
students and exercised only administrative duties over the
Petitioner school was held liable in this case in the negligence and
teachers who were the persons directly dealing with the
failure to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family when
students.
it did not install safety measures to protect the students who
conduct experiments in class, it did not even provide them with
The rector, the HS principal, and the dean of boys were also
protective gears and devices, and the science teacher was not
not held liable because none of them was the teacher-in-
inside the classroom the whole time her class conducted the
charge. They exercise only general authority over the student
experiment. However, the award of damages were mitigated due
body.
to Jaysons contributory negligence when he looked into the
It was not disclosed who was the teacher-in-charge of the heated test tube before the compound had cooled off.
offending student was. The mere fact that Alfredo had gone to
school that day in connection with his physics report did not
necessarily make the physics teacher, the teacher-in-charge.

AUF-SOL | 2017 | GONZALES, K. | SALTA

TORTS AND DAMAGES FINALS REVIEWER
FILAMER v CA
[Employers]
For Labor Code purposes, working students are not
considered employees. But they are in cases of torts.
Filamer was held liable due to its failure to supervise its
employee to prevent the real driver from lending the
company vehicle, as in this case to Funtecha a working
student. In absence of evidence that petitioner had
exercised due diligence of a good father of a family in the
supervision of its employees, the law imposes upon it the
vicarious liability (primary and solidary) for acts or omissions
of its employees.
VALENZUELA v CA
[Employers] -supra
CASTILEX INDUSTRIES v VASQUEZ
[Employers]
Daddy, Daddy case.
An employer who loans his motor vehicle to an employee
for the latters personal use outside of regular working
hours is generally not liable for the employees negligent
operation of the vehicle during the period of permissive use,
even where the employer contemplates that a regularly
assign motor vehicle will be used by the employee for
personal as well as business purposes and there is some
incidental benefit to the employer.
It is undisputed that Abad did some overtime work at the
petitioners office. Thereafter, he went to a restaurant,
which was located in a lively place were drinking was
open, prostitutes, pimps, and drug addicts littered the place,
to have snacks and had a chat with friends, and it was when
he was leaving the restaurant that the incident occurred.
Thus, he was engaged in affairs of his own and was carrying
out a personal purpose not in line with his duties, and where
it was already way beyond his working hours (about 2 in the
morning).
AFRICA v CALTEX
[Employers]
While gasoline was being hosed from a tank truck into the
underground storage, a fire spread to and burned several
neighboring houses.
5
Boquiren is not an independent contractor and is liable with
Caltex for the damage caused to appellants. It was shown that
Boquiren was virtually an employee of Caltex since the former can
only sell Caltex products; the maintenance and agreement was
subject to the approval of Caltex; Caltex can at any time cancel
the agreement in case Boquiren ceased to sell Caltex products;
and that an employee of company supervised the operator and
conducted periodic inspection of the companys gasoline and
service station.
JOSE v CA
[Employers]
The negligence of the employee gives rise to the
presumption of negligence on the part of the employer.
Thus, before the presumption of the employers negligence
in the selection and supervision of its employees can arise,
the negligence of the employee must first be established.
CEREZO v TUAZON
[Employers]
The employee need not be impleaded if the cause of action is
based on Art 103 of the RPC.
PHIL. RABBIT v PHIL-AM FORWARDERS
[Employers]
The term manager contemplated under Art 2180 is that in
the sense of an employer, and not a manager who may
himself be regarded as an employee.
SPS. JAYME v APOSTOL
[Employers]
The question posed in this case is whether the municipal mayor
be held solidarily liable for the negligent acts of the driver
assigned to him, which resulted in the death of a minor
pedestrian?
No immunity from suit. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to
run after the registered owner.
AUF-SOL | 2017 | GONZALES, K. | SALTA
TORTS AND DAMAGES FINALS REVIEWER
MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL v HARPER
[Innkeepers and Hotelkeepers]
Petitioner hotel is liable for the murder of its hotel guest
(Norwegian national) by strangers inside his room, where it
failed to provide adequate security measures and stressing
on the fact that petitioner hotel is a five-star hotel that must
exercise reasonable care for the safety and comfort of its
guests, with the same grade and quality of the
accommodation it offers.
SPS. MAMARIL v BOY SCOUTS OF THE PH
[Innkeepers and Hotelkeepers]
Respondent boy scouts (owner of the lot) cannot be held liable in
this case since it had no contractual relationship with the owner
of the vehicle, considering the arrangement was under the table
between the owner of the vehicle and the security guards. The lot
was not meant to be a parking lot.
DEL CARMEN v BACOY
[Registered owner rule]
The registered owner is directly and primarily responsible
for the injuries or death of third persons cause by the
operator of such vehicle. No liability can be imputed when
there is unauthorized use, or when the subject vehicle was
stolen.
In this case, the contention that the jeep was stolen is
without merit since the carnapping case filed against Allan
and his companions were dismissed. And under the
circumstances, Oscar, the owner, deemed to have given
Allan the implied permission to use the vehicle. Therefore,
he is liable.
EQUITABLE LEASING v SUYOM
[Registered owner rule]
The registered owner of a motor vehicle is solidarily liable for the
injuries and damages caused by the negligence of the driver, in
spite the fact that the vehicle may have already been the subject
of an unregistered Deed of Sale in favor of another person. The
sale must be registered in order to affect third persons, especially
the victims of accidents involving the said motor vehicle.
6
FGU INSURANCE CORP. v CA
[Rent-a-car business]
A two-car collision occurred involving the car owned by
FILCAR, who was engaged in services of rent-a-car.
Art 2180(5) is not applicable to rent-a-car because no
viniculum juris between the lessee of the car and FILCAR as
employer and employee.
Art 2184, where the owner is inside the vehicle, is also not
applicable absence of master-driver relationship.
Note: if rules on rent-a-car are not applicable, use registered
owner rule.
ANONUEVO v CA
[Art 2185, CC]
Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed
that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent
if at the time of the mishap he was violating any traffic
regulation.
Art 2185 is limited only to motor vehicles does not include
bicycles (as in this case).
A motorized vehicle operates by reason of a motor engine unlike a
non-motorized vehicle, which runs as a result of direct exertion by
man or beast of burden of direct physical force. A motorized
vehicle, unimpeded by the limitation in physical exertion is
capable of greater speeds and acceleration than non-motorized
vehicles. At the same time, motorized vehicles are more capable
in inflicting greater injury or damage in the event of an accident or
collision.
MERRITT v GOVT OF THE PH
[State]
Art 1903(5) provides that the state is liable in this sense
when it acts through a special agent, but not when the
damage should have been caused by the official to whom
property it pertained to do the act performed, in which case
the provisions of the preceding article shall be applicable.
In this case, the driver of the ambulance of the General
Hospital is not a special agent of the state.
AUF-SOL | 2017 | GONZALES, K. | SALTA
TORTS AND DAMAGES FINALS REVIEWER
CITY OF MANILA v TEOTICO
[State]
Fell into a manhole case.
Whether the case is governed by the charter of Manila where the
city is not liable for damages or injuries on general negligence, or,
by art 2189 where cities shall be liable for damages in case of
death or injuries suffered by reason of the defective condition of
roads, streets, etc under their control and supervision.
SC Art 2189 (general law w/ specific provision prevailed over
specific law w/ a general provision). The street was also proven to
be under the control and supervision of the City of Manila.
GSIS v DEANG
[State]
A state is not liable for damages if it is acting within its
governmental function. XPN: GOCCs acting in a proprietary
function, like GSIS in this case.
MALAYAN INSURANCE v CA
[Liability of insurer]
The liability of an insurer is not direct, but based from its contract
with the insured. Upon payment of the loss, the insurer is entitled
to be subrogated to any right of action which the insured may
have against the third person whose negligence or wrongful act
caused the loss.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM DELICT
OZOA v MADULA
Writ of execution for the enforcement of the subsidiary civil
liability of Virgilio Ozoa as employer is being sought by the widow
of Arcadio Lagas who was killed in a vehicular accident by the
employee of the former.
The employer is subsidiarily answerable for the adjudicated civil
liability ex delito of his employee in the event of the latter's
insolvency; and the judgment in the criminal action pronouncing
the employee to be also civilly liable is conclusive on the employer
not only as to the actuality of that liability but also as to its
amount.
NOTE: Execution against the employer is not automatic. For
respondeat superior to apply, the following are required: (1) that
it must be verified if the person concerned is indeed an employee
[of the employer]; and (2) ascertained whether the accident
occurred in the exercise of his official function as employee.
7
TAN v STANDARD VACUUM OIL CO.
[Justifying and exempting circumstances]
Anita Tan is seeking indemnity for the destruction of her
house brought about by the abandonment of a delivery truck
that caught fire.
The rule is that "extinction of the penal action does not carry
with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds
from the declaration in a final judgment that the fact from
which the civil might arise did not exist" (Rule 107, section 1-
d, Rules of Court). Here it is true that Julito Sto. Domingo and
Igmidio Rico were acquitted, the court holding that they were
not responsible for the fire that destroyed the house of the
plaintiff,which as a rule will not necessarily extinguish their
civil liability,but the court went further by stating that the
evidence throws no light on the cause of fire and that it was
an unfortunate accident for which the accused cannot be
held responsible.
On the other hand, where the damage caused to the plaintiff
was brought about mainly because of the desire of driver
Julito Sto. Domingo to avoid greater evil or harm, which
would have been the case had he not brought the tank-truck
trailer to the middle of the street, for then the fire would
have caused the explosion of the gasoline deposit of the
company which would have resulted in a conflagration of
much greater proportion and consequences to the houses
nearby or surrounding it. It cannot be denied that this
company is one of those for whose benefit a greater harm
has been prevented, and as such it comes within the purview
of said penal provision. The acquittal of the accused cannot,
therefore, be deemed a bar to a civil action against this
company because its civil liability is completely divorced from
the criminal liability of the accused. The rule regarding
reservation of the right to file a separate civil action does not
apply to it.
PADILLA v CA
[Effect of acquittal]
Mayor Roy Padilla, et al were acquitted in a criminal case for the
crime of grave coercion. However, they were still made liable for
damages.
The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the liability of the accused
for damages only when it includes a declaration that the facts
from which the civil might arise did not exist. Thus, the civil
liability is not extinguished by acquittal where the acquittal is
based on reasonable doubt (PNB v. Catipon, 98 Phil. 286) as only
preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases.
AUF-SOL | 2017 | GONZALES, K. | SALTA
TORTS AND DAMAGES FINALS REVIEWER
Meanwhile, while civil damages may be awarded in the criminal
case despite acquittal, this rule does not preclude the filing of a
separate civil action. A separate civil action may be warranted
where additional facts have to be established or more evidence
must be adduced or where the criminal case has been fully
terminated and a separate complaint would be just as efficacious
or even more expedient than a timely remand to the trial court
where the criminal action was decided for further hearings on the
civil aspects of the case.
BUNAG JR v CA
[Effect of acquittal]
Zenaida Cirilo was raped by Conrado Bunag. He promised to
marry in order to escape liability. He, however, left anyway.
Generally, the basis of civil liability from crime is the
fundamental postulate of our law that every person
criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. In other
words, criminal liability will give rise to civil liability ex delicto
only if the same felonious act or omission results in damage
or injury to another and is the direct and proximate cause
thereof. Hence, extinction of the penal action does not carry
with it the extinction of civil liability unless the extinction
proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact
from which the civil might arise did not exist.
PEOPLE v BAYOTAS
[Effect of death]
Rogelio Bayotas was convicted of rape. Pending appeal of his
conviction, the same died.
The SC ruled that death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil
liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in
this regard, "the death of the accused prior to final judgment
terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly
arising from and based solely on the offense committed."
NOTE: Civil liability merely follows criminal liability. However,
death does not extinguish civil liability arising from quasi-delict.
8
TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION
CASUPANAN v LAROYA
The case deals with a vehicular incident between Laroya and
Casupanan (who was driving a vehicle owned by Capitulo).
The issue herein is whether or not an accused in a pending
criminal case for reckless imprudence can validly file,
simultaneously and independently, a separate civil action for
quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal
case.
Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, what is deemed
instituted with the criminal action is only the action to recover
civil liability arising from the crime or ex-delicto. All the other
civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil
Code are no longer deemed instituted, and may be filed
separately and prosecuted independently even without any
reservation in the criminal action. The failure to make a
reservation in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right
to file a separate and independent civil action based on these
articles of the Civil Code. The prescriptive period on the civil
actions based on these articles of the Civil Code continues to
run even with the filing of the criminal action. Verily, the civil
actions based on these articles of the Civil Code are separate,
distinct and independent of the civil action deemed instituted
in the criminal action.
Note: As earlier pointed out by Angeles, there is no need to
call it independent [civil action] because the mere fact that it
is not included in crime means that it is separate and
independent from delict.
ABERCA v VER
[Art 32 CC / searches and seizures]
The military allegedly conducted illegal searches and seizures in
premises of people who they suspected as communists-terrorists.
This case poses the question whether or not the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus bars a civil action for
damages for illegal searches conducted by military personnel and
other violations of rights and liberties guaranteed under the
Constitution.
It may be that the respondents, as members of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines, were merely responding to their duty, as they
claim, "to prevent or suppress lawless violence, insurrection,
rebellion and subversion" in accordance with Proclamation No.
2054 of President Marcos, despite the lifting of martial law on
January 27, 1981, and in pursuance of such objective, to launch
pre- emptive strikes against alleged communist terrorist
AUF-SOL | 2017 | GONZALES, K. | SALTA
TORTS AND DAMAGES FINALS REVIEWER
underground houses. But this cannot be construed as a blanket
license or a roving commission untramelled by any constitutional
restraint, to disregard or transgress upon the rights and liberties
of the individual citizen enshrined in and protected by the
Constitution. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the
land to which all officials, high or low, civilian or military, owe
obedience and allegiance at all times.
Simply stated, the SC ruled that just because the writ of habeas
corpus was suspended, it does not follow that they can just arrest
anybody they want.
MHP GARMENTS v CA
[Art 32 CC / searches and seizures]
The case involves the seizure of alleged fake Boy Scout
uniforms and paraphernalia by constabulary officers.
It answers the question whether or not MHP Garments and
De Guzman may be held liable despite being private persons
who did not conduct the purported unauthorized search and
seizure themselves.
Private persons who instigate an illegal warrantless search
and seizure may be held liable for damages. Moreover,
private persons who initiate an illegal warrantless search
and seizure, accompany the raiding team and stand during
the operation, apparently assenting thereto, are liable for
damages to the extent as the public officers themselves.
In conclusion, it is not just public officials and employees but
also private individuals as well those who have not directly
participated in an act violative of Art. 32, NCC may also be
held liable.
MANUEL v CRUZ-PANO
[Art 33 CC / defamation]
The cases pertains to a news article published by the Bulletin
Today stemming from a letter wrote by Atty. Esteban Manuel
addressed to the Chairman of the Anti-Smuggling Action Center
(ASAC) complaining about the conduct of the raid and demanded
the persons responsible therefore be investigated.
The issue at hand is whether or not the letter sent by Manuel is
actionable.
The SC noted that subject letter was considered a privileged
communication, which was a fair and true report, stated without
any comments written by a duly authorized person and provided
to a person who had a duty to receive such letter. Furthermore,
the letter was sent privately, directly to the addressee without
9
any fan fare or publicity. There was also no showing as well that
Manuel caused the publication of such letter nor he had the
capacity to.
BORJAL v CA
[Art 33 CC / defamation]
Series of blind items referring to an organizer of a
conference has been the subject of Philippine Star
publications. Wenceslao filed a libel case claiming that he was
the one being referred to in the said offensive and
derogatory publications.
The question in the case is whether or not Borjal and Soliven
may be held liable for damages based on libel.
In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim
be identifiable although it is not necessary that he be
named. It is also not sufficient that the offended party
recognized himself as the person attacked or defamed, but it
must be shown that at least a third person could identify
him as the object of the libelous publication. Regrettably,
these requisites have not been complied with in the case at
bar.
In the end, nobody could have identified Wenceslao had he
not identified himself.
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS AND FRAGRANCES v ARGOS
[Art 33 CC / defamation]
Following the termination of Argos and Pineda from IFFI, the duo
filed criminal complaints for libel against Costa, the companys
managing director, in relation to the announcement of the latter
declaring the former as persona non grata.
Whether or not Argos and Pineda may sue their employerIFFI
based on subsidiary liability in an independent civil action under
Art. 33 during the pendency of the criminal libel cases v. Costa,
the companys managing director.
Article 33 of the Civil Code provides specifically that in cases of
defamation, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and
distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured
party. Such civil action proceeds independently of the criminal
prosecution and requires only a preponderance of evidence. In
Joaquin vs. Aniceto, 12 SCRA 308 (1964), we held that Article 33
contemplates an action against the employee in his primary civil
liability. It does not apply to an action against the employer to
enforce its subsidiary civil liability, because such liability arises
only after conviction of the employee in the criminal case or
when the employee is adjudged guilty of the wrongful act in a
AUF-SOL | 2017 | GONZALES, K. | SALTA
TORTS AND DAMAGES FINALS REVIEWER
criminal action and found to have committed the offense in the
discharge of his duties. Any action brought against the employer
based on its subsidiary liability before the conviction of its
employee is premature.
Note: In civil actions arising from delict, respondeat superior is
applied wherein the master is held liable for the acts of the
servants. It requires that the employee must first be adjudged
guilty so it may result to the subsidiary liability of the employer.
MVRS PUBLICATION v ISLAMIC DAWAH COUNCIL OF THE
PH
[Art 33 CC / defamation]
The Islamic DaWah Council of the Philippines, local
federation of Muslims, along with several other Muslim
individuals filed a case for damages against MVRS, et al for its
libelous statements insulting and damaging to the former.
The issue in question is whether or not the religion of Islam
would be considered sufficient to fall under a fairly
identifiable group.
Declarations made about a large class of people cannot be
interpreted to advert to an identified or identifiable
individual. Absent circumstances specifically pointing or
alluding to a particular member of a class, no member of such
class has a right of action without at all impairing the equally
demanding right of free speech and expression, as well as of
the press, under the Bill of Rights.
In the present case, there was no fairly identifiable person
who was allegedly injured by the Bulgar article. Since the
persons allegedly defamed could not be identifiable, private
respondents have no individual causes of action; hence, they
cannot sue for a class allegedly disparaged. Private
respondents must have a cause of action in common with the
class to which they belong to in order for the case to prosper.
PHILIPPINE JOURNALIST, INC. (PEOPLES JOURNAL) v THOENEN
[Art 33 CC / defamation]
The case pertains to the published tabloid news of a person
shooting wayward animals entering his lot.
The issue to be dealt with is whether or nor the news report falls
under privileged communication and therefore protected by the
Constitutional provision on freedom speech.
It does not fall under privileged communication. It was neither a
fair and true report nor a communication that was confidentially
sent to the publisher. In fact, it appears that there is no rhyme or
10
reason for the publication. There was no truth to the allegation.
Malice is presumed.
HEIRS OF SIMON v CHAN
[Art 33 CC / fraud]
This involves a BP 22 case where the respondent Chan
commenced a civil action for the collection of the amount
representing the bouncing check issued by the late Eduardo
Simon to him eleven (11) years after a criminal case has been
filed for the same cause of action.
The issue in the case is whether or not Chans civil action to
recover the amount of the unfunded check was an
independent civil action.
There is no independent civil action to recover the civil
liability arising from the issuance of an unfunded check
prohibited and punished under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22
(BP 22). This is clear from Sec. 1 (b), Rule 111 of the Rules of
Court, effective December 1, 2000, which relevantly provides:
The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No
reservation to file such civil action separately shall be
allowed.
DAMAGES
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA
SPS. CUSTODIO v CA
Right of way case
This case focused on the timeline of events, where there was no
legal obligation prior to the decision of this Court granting an
easement of right of way to respondents. Hence, prior to said
decision, petitioners had an absolute right over their property and
their act of fencing and enclosing the same was an act which they
may lawfully perform in the exercise of said right. And whatever
injury or damage they may have sustained is damnum absque
injuria.
Note:
1. Not all damages can be compensated because there
must be an injury;
2. The violation of a right must be accompanied with
malice or bad faith.
AUF-SOL | 2017 | GONZALES, K. | SALTA
TORTS AND DAMAGES FINALS REVIEWER
DIAZ v DAVAO LIGHT AND POWER CO.
Electricity theft case
Diaz owner of a hotel building failed to pay its electric
consumption which prompted Davao Light to disconnect the
meter. A portion of the ground floor of the building of the
hotel was leased to NFA, and a separate meter was installed
to monitor NFAs electric consumption. When NFA vacated
the hotel, Diaz requested Davao Light to install a new
electrical connection for the building in his name. However,
Davao Light refused, and reminded Diaz to pay his unpaid
electric account. Meanwhile, the ground floor portion of the
hotel building was leased to Mendiola. Because he needed
more electricity, Mendiola applied to Davao Light to have the
meter change from a one-phase meter to a three-phase
meter connection. Davao Light then removed its single phase
meter which rendered almost half of the building without
power. Diaz, then, bought his own meter, and unilaterally
replaced the meter, which restored the electricity in the
building. Diaz now claims for damages due to the alleged
arbitrary and illegal removal of the meter in violation of Art
19, CC.
SC not entitled
Not entitled to damages based on abuse of right since Diaz
has not shown that the acts of Davao Light were done with
the intent of prejudicing or injuring him. In fact, he himself
alleged in his complaint that he unilaterally installed the
meter he bought after his was removed by Davao Light.
Although Diaz may have suffered damages as a result of the
complaints, however, there can be damage without injury in
those instances in which loss or harm was not the result of a
violation of a legal duty. 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.
Note:
Injury illegal invasion of a legal right;
Damage loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury;
Damages compensation awarded for the damage suffered.
ACTUAL DAMAGES
MARIKINA AUTO LINE TRANSPORT CORP. v PEOPLE
Swerving of a bus which struck the terrace of a commercial
apartment.
11
Damages cannot be based on mere estimate. It must be given by
a neutral third party. And that third party must be able to give
judicial affidavit or testify to court. The claimant must be able to
prove the actual amount with reasonable degree of certainty
premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence
obtainable.
MERCURY DRUG v HUANG
Court awarded loss of earning capacity taking into
consideration that the child was an achiever in his academics,
and would have led a fruitful life which were all lost due to
the accident causing him to be paralyzed for life.
Formula:
2/3 (80 age of death) x (actual savings); or
2/3 (80 age of death [or age at the time of the accident]) x
(annual salary actual expenses [or 50% of AS])
SPS. PERENA v SPS. ZARATE
School service accident
In an action for damages, the maximum amount you can receive is
what you prayed for.
Loss of earning capacity based on minimum wage was granted by
the court despite Aaron being a high school student.
NACAR v GALLERY FRAMES
Credit rate of interest is 6%
PEOPLE v AMINOLA
Civil indemnity is given without proof other than the fact of death
as a result of a crime and proof of the accuseds responsibility for
it. Jurisprudence sets the civil indemnity to P50,000, but if
accompanied by qualified aggravating circumstances P75,000.
MORAL DAMAGES
SPS HERBOSA v PVE
An action for breach of contract with damages was filed
against PVE for the failure of the latter to record on video the
petitioners wedding celebration due to the gross negligence
of its crew and the lack of supervision on the part of the
general manager of the PVE.
AUF-SOL | 2017 | GONZALES, K. | SALTA
TORTS AND DAMAGES FINALS REVIEWER
As a general rule, moral damages cannot be recovered in an
action for breach of contract because such an action is not
among those expressly mentioned in Art 2219. However, the
article allows moral damages to be recovered in analogous
cases.
Thus, where the breach was wanton, reckless, malicious or in
bad faith, and oppressive or abusive, moral damages can be
recovered.
BUENAVENTURA v BUENAVENTURA
No award of moral damages can be recovered in case of petition
for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological
incapacity. A claim for moral damages is inconsistent with the
concept of psychological incapacity, where result of such acts is
because of an innate inability. While a claim for moral damages is
based on the willful act with malice by a party.
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION ACADEMY v AMA COMPUTER
COLLEGE INC
In order to be entitled to moral damages (because of the
besmirch reputation) you must have a good reputation.
ABS CBN v CA
No award for moral damages in this case because a corporation,
being an artificial person, has no feelings, no emotions, no senses,
and it cannot therefore, experience physical suffering and mental
anguish.
FILIPINAS BROADCASTING NETWORK v AGO MEDICAL AND
EDUCATIONAL CENTER-BICOL CHRISTIAN COLLEGE OF
MEDICINE
Moral damages was awarded in this case based on Art
2219(7), where moral damages can be recovered in cases of
libel slander, or any other form of defamation. Under this
article, it did not qualify whether the plaintiff is a natural or
juridical person. Therefore, a juridical person can validly
complain for libel or any other form of defamation and claim
for moral damages.
QC GOVT v DACARA
Moral damages cannot be awarded in the absence of proof of
physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation, or similar injury. It must be solidly anchored on a
definite showing that the claimant actually experienced emotional
12
and mental sufferings. Mere allegations do not suffice; they must
be substantiated by clear and convincing proof.
NOMINAL DAMAGES
FONTANA RESORT v SPS. TAN
GR No. 154670, Jan. 30, 2012
Spouses Roy & Susan Tan, Class D members of Fontana
Leisure Park, were allegedly denied of their confirmed
reservation arbitrarily and unreasonably.
The question to be settled is whether or not the Spouses Tan
an entitled to the award of nominal damages.
The absence of any confirmation number issued to
respondents does not also discount the possibility that the
reservation was mistakenly confirmed by Fontanas
employee, Murphy Magtoto, despite being fully-booked. At
most, we perceive a mix-up in the reservation process of
petitioners. This demonstrates a mere negligence on the part
of Fontana, but not willful intention to deprive respondents
of their membership benefits. It does not constitute default
that would call for rescission of the sale of the club
membership. For the negligence of Fontana as regards the
respondents reservation, the Spouses Tan are at least
entitled to nominal damages of P5,000.00 as nominal
damages in recognition of their confirmed reservation for the
free use of a villa on which was inexcusably cancelled.
ALMEDA v CARINO
Ponciano Almeda asked Avelino Cario to execute the Deed of
Sale over the subject properties despite not fully delivering the
purchase price. Later, the latter refused to pay despite repeated
demands [and even despite re-sale of the property to a 3rd
person].
The Court ruled that nominal damages may be awarded to a
plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the
defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right,
and not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
Its award is thus not for the purpose of indemnification for a loss
but for the recognition and vindication of a right. Indeed, nominal
damages are damages in name only and not in fact. When granted
by the courts, they are not treated as an equivalent of a wrong
inflicted but simply a recognition of the existence of a technical
injury. A violation of the plaintiffs right, even if only technical, is
sufficient to support an award of nominal damages. Conversely,
so long as there is a showing of a violation of the right of the
plaintiff, an award of nominal damages is proper.
AUF-SOL | 2017 | GONZALES, K. | SALTA
TORTS AND DAMAGES FINALS REVIEWER
AGABON v NLRC
Virgilio and Jenny Agabon were dismissed by Riviera Home
Improvements, Inc. for abandonment of work.
Where the dismissal is for a just cause, as in the instant case,
the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the
dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual. However, the
employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of
his statutory rights in the form of nominal damages.
TEMPERATE OR MODERATE DAMAGES
ARANETA v BANK OF AMERICA
The case pertains to the unjustified dishonor of two (2) checks
issued by Leopoldo Araneta.
The Court ruled that financial credit of a businessman is a prized
and valuable asset, it being a significant part of the foundation of
his business. Any adverse reflection thereon constitutes some
material loss to him.
"It can hardly be possible that a customer's check can be
wrongfully refused payment without some impeachment of his
credit, which must in fact be an actual injury, though he cannot,
from the nature of the case, furnish independent, distinct proof
thereof."
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. The judge should be
empowered to calculate moderate damages in such cases, rather
than that the plaintiff should suffer, without redress from the
defendant's wrongful act.
NOTE: The smear in a persons reputation cannot be estimated in
pecuniary terms. As a result, in recognition of the real and
tangible damage, temperate damages must be awarded.
DE GUZMAN v TUMOLVA
Emerita De Guzman argued his right for damages on account
of a perimeter fence, constructed by A. M. Tumolva
Engineering Works, which partly collapsed due to a typhoon.
De Guzman is indeed entitled to temperate damages as
provided under Article 2224 of the Civil Code for the loss she
suffered. When pecuniary loss has been suffered but the
amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with
certainty, temperate damages may be recovered. adduced,
although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party
suffered some pecuniary loss.
13
Temperate damages may be allowed in cases where from the
nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be
Undoubtedly, De Guzman suffered pecuniary loss brought
about by the collapse of the perimeter fence by reason of the
Contractors negligence and failure to comply with the
specifications. As she failed to prove the exact amount of
damage with certainty as required by law, the CA was correct
in awarding temperate damages, in lieu of actual damages.
NOTE: In this case, proof may have been provided to entitle
De Guzman for actual damages. However, the same was not
able to produce the necessary proof in order that it may be
awarded actual damages. As a result thereof, the Court made
its own estimate which resulted to temperate damages.
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
RADIOWEALTH FINANCE CO v DEL ROSARIO
Spouses Del Rosario failed to pay their obligations to Radiowealth.
The related promissory note contained provisions relating to
charges in case of default.
The Court held that where the Promissory Note provides for a late
payment of 2.5% monthly, attorneys fees equivalent to 25% of
the amount due in case a legal action is instituted and 10% of the
same amount as liquidated damages, said liquidated damages
should no longer be imposed for being unconscionable. Such
damages should also be deemed included in the 2.5 percent
monthly penalty.
CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORP v ASEA BROWN BOVERI INC.
Continental Cement incurred production losses due to the
failure of Asea Brown to repair the broken equipment of the
former, constituting breach of their contract.
Continental Cement was adjudged by the Court as entitled to
penalties in the amount of P987.25 per day from the time of
delay, August 30, 1990, up to the time the Kiln Drive Motor
was finally returned to petitioner.
Under Article 1226 of the Civil Code, the penalty clause takes
the place of indemnity for damages and the payment of
interests in case of non-compliance with the obligation,
unless there is a stipulation to the contrary. In this case, since
there is no stipulation to the contrary, the penalty in the
amount of P987.25 per day of delay covers all other damages
(i.e. production loss, labor cost, and rental of the crane)
claimed by petitioner.
NOTE: Liquidated damages are can be denominated in the
form of penalties. Moreover, they can only be found in
contracts.
AUF-SOL | 2017 | GONZALES, K. | SALTA
TORTS AND DAMAGES FINALS REVIEWER 14

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES to the payment for the legal services of a counsel. Rather,
attorneys fees herein referred to represent a form of damage
CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v VASQUEZ paid to the winning party as indemnity for the cost of litigation.

The airline seats of spouses Daniel and Maria Luisa Vasquez were
involuntarily upgraded for their flight back to Manila.

The deletion of the award for exemplary damages by the Court of

Appeals is correct. It is a requisite in the grant of exemplary
damages that the act of the offender must be accompanied by
bad faith or done in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent manner.
Such requisite is absent in this case. Moreover, to be entitled
thereto the claimant must first establish his right to moral,
temperate, or compensatory damages. Since the Vazquezes are
not entitled to any of these damages, the award for exemplary
damages has no legal basis.

BRIGHT MARITIME CORP v FANTOMIAL

Bright Maritime Corporation, a recruitment agency,

prevented Ricardo Fantonial from the leaving and complying
with his contract of overseas employment.

Due to their negligent act, the Court held BMC liable to

respondent for exemplary damages, which are imposed by
way of example or correction for the public good in view of
petitioners act of preventing respondent from being
deployed on the ground that he was not yet declared fit to
work on the date of his departure, despite evidence to the
contrary. Such act, if tolerated, would prejudice the
employment opportunities of our seafarers who are qualified
to be deployed, but prevented to do so by a manning agency
for unjustified reasons. Exemplary damages are imposed not
to enrich one party or impoverish another, but to serve as a
deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially
deleterious actions.

ATTORNEYS FEES

KAISAHAN AT KAPATIRAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA AT KAWANI

SA MWC-EAST ZONE UNION v MANILA WATER COMPANY

The case deals with the deletion of the CA of the award of

attorneys fees to a union by the Labor Arbiter and upheld by the
NLRC.

Article 111 of the Labor Code, as amended, contemplates the

extraordinary concept of attorneys fees and that Article 111 is an
exception to the declared policy of strict construction in the
award of attorneys fees (10% cap).

NOTE: The restrictions in the Labor Code as to the percentage of

attorneys fees will not in any way affect the amount that can be
given in its extraordinary concept. This amount does not pertain

AUF-SOL | 2017 | GONZALES, K. | SALTA