Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TORTS
I. Preliminary Considerations B. DEFINITION OF QUASI-DELICT
(3) Strict Liability – one is liable independent The concept of quasi-delict does not cover
of fault or negligence. It only requires proof intentional acts. The liability arising from from
of a certain set of facts. Liability here is extra-contractual culpa is always based upon a
based on the breach of an absolute duty to voluntary act or omission, which, without willful
make something safe. It most often applies intent, but by mere negligence or inattention,
to ultra-hazardous activities or in product has caused damage to another [Cango v Manila
liability cases. It is also known as “absolute Railroad, G.R. No. 12191 (1918)]
liability” or liability without fault.”
The concept of quasi-delict is so broad that it
Strict liability is imposed by articles 1314, includes not only injuries to persons but also
1711, 1712, 1723, 2183, 2184, 2187, 2189,
damage to property [Cinco v Canonoy, G.R. No.
2190, 2191, 2192, 2193.
L-33171 (1979)]
A.2. ACCORDING TO SCOPE
(1) General – Tort liability is based on any of C. CULPA AQUILIANA DISTINGUISHED FROM
the three categories: intentional, negligent, CRIME
strict liability
(2) Specific – Includes trespass, assault, A quasi-delict is a separate source of obligation
under Article 1157.
battery, negligence, products liability, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence
under the preceding article is entirely separate defendant for the benefit of the plaintiff, and it is
and distinct from the civil liability arising from alleged that the plaintiff has failed or refused to
negligence under the Penal Code. But the perform the contract, it is not necessary for the
plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the plaintiff to specify in his pleadings whether the
same act or omission of the defendant. breach of the contract is due to willful fault or to
negligence on the part of the defendant, or of his
RPC, Art. 100. Every person criminally liable servants or agents. Proof of the contract and of
for a felony is also civilly liable. its nonperformance is sufficient prima facie to
warrant a recovery. [Cangco v. Manila Railroad,
A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate supra]
legal institution under the Civil Code, with a
substantivity all its own, and individuality that is D.3. AS TO APPLICABILITY OF THE
entirely apart and independent from a delict or DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
crime. However, the same negligent act causing The doctrine of proximate cause [to establish the
fault or negligence of the defendant] is
damage may produce civil liability arising from a
applicable only in actions for quasi-delict, not in
crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal actions involving breach of contract [Calalas v.
Code, or create an action for quasi-delict CA, G.R. No. 122039 (2000)].
[Barredo v Garcia, G.R. No. 48006 (1942)]
D.4. AS TO THE DEFENSE OF AN EMPLOYER
An act or omission causing damage to another FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF AN EMPLOYEE
may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on As it is not necessary for the plaintiff in an action
the part of the offender—for civil liability ex for breach of contract to show that the breach
delicto, and independent civil liabilities. The was due to the negligent conduct of the
choice is with the plaintiff who makes known his defendant or his servants, proof on the part of
cause of action in his initiatory pleading or the defendant that the negligence or omission of
complaint [LG Foods v Philadelfa, G.R. No. his servants or agents caused the breach of
158995 (2006)] contract would not constitute a defense to the
action [Cangco v. Manila Railroad, supra].
D. CULPA AQUILIANA DISTINGUISHED FROM
CULPA CONTRACTUAL; PRESENCE OF Presence of Contactual Relations
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS The Supreme Court held there may instances
where there can be a quasi-delict even when
D.1. AS TO SOURCE there is a contract between the parties. The test
In culpa aquiliana or non-contractual obligation, (whether a quasi-delict can be deemed to
it is the wrongful or negligent act or omission underlie the breach of a contract) can be stated
itself which creates the vinculum juris, whereas thusly: Where, without a pre-existing contract
in contractual relations, the vinculum exists between two parties, an act or omission can
independently of the breach of voluntary duty nonetheless amount to an actionable tort by
assumed by the parties when entering into the itself, the fact that the parties are contractually
contractual relation [Cangco v. Manila Railroad, bound is no bar to the application of quasi-delict
supra]. provisions to the case [Far East v. CA, G.R. No.
108164 (1995)].
D.2. AS TO BURDEN OF PROOF
When the source of the obligation upon which II. QUASI-DELICT
the plaintiff’s cause of action depends is a
negligent act or omission, the burden of proof Elements: [PNR v. Brunty, G.R. No. 169891
rests upon the plaintiff to prove the negligence— (2006)]
if he does not his action fails. But when the facts (a) Damage to the plaintiff
averred show a contractual undertaking by (b) Negligence by act/omission of the defendant
(c) Connection of the cause and effect between been held to be tantamount to gross negligence
the fault/negligence of the defendant and the which is want of even slight care and diligence
damage incurred by the plaintiff. [Ameda v Rio, G.R. No. L-6870 (1954)].
A. NEGLIGENCE
A.1. DEFAULT STANDARD OF CARE: GOOD
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor FATHER OF A FAMILY
consists in the omission of that diligence which
is required by the nature of the obligation and Test: Did the defendant in doing the alleged
corresponds with the circumstances of the negligent act use that reasonable care and
persons, of the time and of the place. When caution which an ordinarily prudent man would
negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of have used in the same situation? If not, then he
Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall is negligent. Negligence in a given case is not
apply. determined by reference to the personal
judgment of the actor in the situation before him,
If the law or contract does not state the diligence but is determined in the light of human
which is to be observed in the performance, that experience and the facts involved in the
which is expected of a good father of a family particular case. Conduct is said to be negligent
shall be required. when a prudent man in the position of the
tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect
Negligence is the omission to do something harmful to another was sufficiently probable to
which a reasonable man, guided by those warrant his foregoing the conduct or guarding
considerations which ordinarily regulate the against its consequences [Picart v Smith, G.R.
conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing No. L-12219 (1918)].
of something which a prudent and reasonable
man would not do [Layugan v. IAC, G.R. No. A.2. STANDARD OF CARE NEEDED IN
73998 (1988)]. SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES
The diligence with which the law requires the (1) Operators of Motor Vehicles
individual to at all times govern his conduct Because of inherent differences between
varies with the nature of the situation in which he motorists and cyclists, the former being
is placed and the importance of the act which he capable of greater speed and destruction,
is to perform [Jorge v Sicam, G.R. No. 159617 operators of motor vehicles have a higher
(2007)]. standard in his duty of care [Anonuevo v CA,
G.R. No. 130003 (2004)].
To determine whether there has been
negligence by the defendant, this 2-step (2) Banks
analysis may be used: 1) determine the The law imposes on banks high standards in
diligence required of the actor under the view of the fiduciary nature of banking.
circumstances, and 2) determine whether the Section 2 of Republic Act No. 8791 (RA
actor has performed the diligence required. 8791), which took effect on 13 June 2000,
Failing the second step would lead to the declares that the State recognizes the
conclusion that the defendant has been ‘fiduciary nature of banking that requires
negligent. high standards of integrity and performance.’
This fiduciary relationship means that the
By jumping into the sea, the employee failed to bank’s obligation to observe high standards
exercise even slight care and diligence and of integrity and performance is deemed
displayed a reckless disregard of the safety of written into every deposit agreement
his person. His death was caused by his between a bank and its depositor. The
notorious negligence. Notorious negligence has fiduciary nature of banking requires banks to
assume a degree of diligence higher than conservative expression, "ordinary care"
that of a good father of a family with reference to the business of a
[Consolidated Bank v CA, G.R. No. 138569 druggist…must be held to signify "the
(2003)]. highest practicable degree of prudence,
thoughtfulness, and vigilance, and most
(3) Experts (In General) exact and reliable safeguards consistent
Those who undertake any work calling for with the reasonable conduct of the business
special skills are required not only to in order that human life may not constantly
exercise reasonable care in what they do be exposed to the danger flowing from the
but also possess a standard minimum of substitution of deadly poisons for harmless
special knowledge and ability. In all medicine. [US v Pineda, G.R. No. L-12858
employments where peculiar skill is requisite, (1918)]”
one who offers his services is understood as
holding himself out to the public as Mistake is negligence and care is no
possessing the degree of skill commonly defense [Mercury Drug v De Leon, G.R. No.
possessed by others in the same 165622 (2008)].
employment [Far Eastern Shipping, G.R. No.
130068 (1998)]. (6) Possessor of Extremely Dangerous
Instrumentalities
When a person holds himself out as being [A] higher degree of care is required of
competent to do things requiring someone who has in his possession or
professional skill, he will be held liable for under his control an instrumentality
negligence if he fails to exhibit the care and extremely dangerous in character, such as
skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular dangerous weapons or substances. Such
work which he attempts to do [Culion v person in possession or control of
Philippine Motors, G.R. No 32611 (1930)]. dangerous instrumentalities has the duty to
take exceptional precautions to prevent any
(4) Doctors injury being done thereby. Unlike the
Whether or not a physician has committed ordinary affairs of life or business which
an ‘inexcusable lack of precaution’ in the involve little or no risk, a business dealing
treatment of his patient is to be determined with dangerous weapons requires the
according to the standard of care observed exercise of a higher degree of care [Pacis v
by other members of the profession in good Morales, G.R. No. 169467 (2010)].
standing under similar circumstances
bearing in mind the advanced state of the (7) Children
profession at the time of treatment of The conduct of an infant of tender years is
present state of medical science. It is in this not to be judged by the same rule, which
aspect of medical malpractice that expert governs that of an adult. …The care and
testimony is essential to establish not only caution required of a child is according to his
the standard of care of the profession but maturity and capacity only, and this is to be
also that the physician’s conduct in the determined in each case by the
treatment and care falls below such circumstances of the case [Taylor v Manila
standard [Cruz v CA, GR. No. 122445 Railroad, G.R. No. 4977 (1910)].
(1997)]
No contributory negligence can be imputed
(5) Pharmacists to children below 9 years old [Jarco
The profession of pharmacy, it has been Marketing v CA, G.R. No. 129792 (1999)].
said again and again, is one demanding
care and skill. Even under the first
The degree of care required to be exercised
must vary with the capacity of the person Note: If the owner was NOT inside the vehicle,
endangered to care for himself. …The Art. 2180 applies.
standard of conduct to which a child must
conform for his own protection is that degree The presumption is against the owner of the
of care ordinarily exercised by children of motor vehicle. He has the burden of proving due
the same age, capacity, discretion, diligence. Thus, once a driver is proven
knowledge and experience under the same negligent in causing damage, the law presumes
or similar circumstances [Ylarde v Aquino, the vehicle owner equally negligent and imposes
G.R. No. L-33722 (1988)]. upon the latter the burden of proving proper
selection and supervision of employee as a
A.3. PRESUMPTIONS OF NEGLIGENCE defense.
Note: For the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to apply, Under Article 2180
it must appear that the injured party had no
knowledge as to the cause of the accident, or Persons Actor
that the party to be charged with negligence has Vicariously Liable
superior knowledge or opportunity for Father and, in case Minor children who live in
explanation of the accident. of his death or their company
incapacity, the
A.4. PERSONS LIABLE mother
(1) The direct tortfeasor
Guardians Minors or incapacitated
persons who are under their Whenever the appointment or a judicial
authority and live in their guardian over the property of the child
company becomes necessary, the same order of
preference shall be observed.
Owners and Employees in the service of
managers of an the branches in which the
FC, Art. 217. In case of foundlings, abandoned
establishment or latter are employed or on
neglected or abused children and other
enterprise the occasion of their
children similarly situated, parental authority
functions
shall be entrusted in summary judicial
Employers Employees and household proceedings to heads of children's homes,
helpers acting within the orphanages and similar institutions duly
scope of their assigned accredited by the proper government agency.
tasks, even though the
former are not engaged in Art 2180, par 2 of the Civil Code which holds the
any business or industry father liable for damages has been modified by
the Family Code and PD 603. Art. 211 of the FC
State Special agent
declares joint parental authority of the mother
Teachers or heads Pupils and students or and father over common children. The parent(s)
of establishments apprentices, so long as they exercising parental authority are liable for the
of arts and trades remain in their custody torts of their children.
(a) Persons exercising parental authority Who are liable for minors?
(1) Parents/Adoptive parents
Art. 2180 (2). The father and, in case of his (2) Court-appointed guardians
death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible (3) Substitute Parental Authorities
for the damages caused by the minor children (a) Grandparents
who live in their company. (b) Oldest qualified sibling over 21 years old
(c) Child’s actual custodian, provided he is
FC, Art. 221. Parents and other persons qualified and over 21 years old.
exercising parental authority shall be civilly (4) Special Parental Authorities
liable for the injuries and damages caused by (a) School
the acts or omissions of their unemancipated (b) Administrators
children living in their company and under their (c) Teachers
parental authority subject to the appropriate (d) Individual, entity, or institution engaged
defenses provided by law. in child care
“Custody” means the protective and supervisory This Court still employs the "control test" to
custody that the school, its head and teachers determine the existence of an employer-
exercise over the pupils, for as long as they are employee relationship between hospital and
in attendance in school, which includes recess doctor. Under the "control test", an employment
time [Palisoc v. Brillantes, G.R. No. L-29025 relationship exists between a physician and a
(1971)]. hospital if the hospital controls both the means
and the details of the process by which the
As long as it is shown that the student is in the physician is to accomplish his task. The Court
school premises pursuant to a legitimate student earlier ruled that there was employer-employee
objective, in the exercise of a legitimate right, or relationship between the doctor and employee
the enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege, but reversed itself upon motion for
the responsibility of the school authorities over reconsideration. They still held the hospital liable
the student continues [Amadora v CA, G.R. No. on the basis of agency and corporate
L-47745 (1988)]. responsibility [Professional Services v. CA and
Agana, G.R. No. 126297 (2010)].
(c) Owners/managers of
establishments/employers “Within the scope of their assigned task” in Art.
2180 includes any act done by an employee in
Art. 2180 (4). The owners and managers of an
furtherance of the interests, or for the account of
establishment or enterprise are likewise
the employer at the time of the infliction of the
responsible for damages caused by their
injury or damage [Filamer v CA, G.R. No. 75112
employees in the service of the branches in
(1990)].
which the latter are employed or on the occasion
of their functions. Basis of liability
Employer’s negligence in
Art. 2180 (5). Employers shall be liable for the (1) The selection of their employees (culpa in
damages caused by their employees and eligiendo)
household helpers acting within the scope of (2) The supervision over their employees (culpa
their assigned tasks, even though the former in vigilando)
are not engaged in any business or industry.
Presumption of Negligence
“Owners and managers of an establishment or The presentation of proof of the negligence of its
enterprise” does not include a manager of a employee gives rise to the presumption that the
corporation. (Spanish term “directores” connotes defendant employer did not exercise the
diligence of a good father of a family in the
“employer.” But manager of a corporation is not selection and supervision of its employees
an employer, but rather merely an employee of [Lampesa v. De Vera, G.R. No. 155111 (2008)].
the owner.) [Philippine Rabbit v. Philam
TH TH
Forwarders, G.R. No. L-25142 (1975)]. DISTINCTION BETWEEN T HE 4 AND 5
PARAGRAPHS OF ART. 2180
The liability imposed upon employers with A distinction must be made between the two
respect to damages occasioned by the provisions to determine what is applicable. Both
negligence of their employees to whom they are provisions apply to employers: the fourth
not bound by contract is based on the paragraph, to owners and managers of an
employer’s own negligence, such as when he establishment or enterprise; and the fifth
places a powerful automobile in the hands of a paragraph, to employers in general, whether or
not engaged in any business or industry. The not available. The employer cannot appeal the
fourth paragraph covers negligent acts of conviction [Fernando v. Franco (1971)].
employees committed either in the service of the
branches or on the occasion of their functions, Note: The liability of the employer under Art.
while the fifth paragraph encompasses negligent 103 RPC is subsidiary.
acts of employees acting within the scope of
their assigned task. The latter is an expansion of Registered Owner Rule
the former in both employer coverage and acts The registered owner of the vehicle is primarily
included. Negligent acts of employees, whether responsible to the public for whatever damage
or not the employer is engaged in a business or or injury the vehicle may have caused, even if
industry, are covered so long as they were he had already sold the same to someone else.
acting within the scope of their assigned task, The policy is the easy identification of the owner
even though committed neither in the service of who can be held responsible so as not to
the branches nor on the occasion of their inconvenience or prejudice the third party injured
functions. For, admittedly, employees oftentimes [Cadiente v. Macas (2008)]. The registered
wear different hats. They perform functions owner, however, has the right to be indemnified
which are beyond their office, title or designation by the real or actual owner of the amount that he
but which, nevertheless, are still within the call of may be required to pay as damages for the
duty [Castilex Industrial Corp. v. Vasquez, G.R. injury caused to the plaintiff [Orix Metro Leasing
No. (1999)]. v. Mangalinan (2012)]. This rule applies even if
the vehicle is leased to third persons. The
DEFENSE OF DILIGENCE IN SELECTION AND liability of the registered owner is subject to his
SUPERVISION right of recourse against the transferee or buyer.
Due diligence in the supervision of employees
includes the formulation of suitable rules and (d) The State
regulations for the guidance of employees and
1987 Constitution, Art. XVI, Sec. 3. The State
the issuance of proper instructions intended for
may not be sued without its consent.
the protection of the public and persons with
whom the employer has relations through his or
Art. 2180 (3). The State is responsible in like
her employees and the imposition of necessary
manner when it acts through a special agent;
disciplinary measures upon employees in case
but not when the damage has been caused by
of breach or as may be warranted to ensure
the official to whom the task done properly
performance of acts as indispensable to the
pertains, in which case what is provided in
business of and beneficial to their employee
Article 2176 shall be applicable.
[Metro Manila Transit v. CA, G.R. No. 104408
(1993)].
Instances where the State gives its consent
to be sued
Due diligence in the selection of employees
(1) Art. 2180 (6) is an example of an express
require that the employer carefully examined the
legislative consent. Here, the State assumes
applicant for employment as to his qualifications,
a limited liability for the acts of its special
his experience and record of service.
agents.
(2) Art. 2189 provides for state liability for
Criminal Negligence
damages caused by defective condition of
The vicarious liability of the employer for criminal
public works.
negligence of his employee is governed by RPC
(3) Local Government Code provides for the
103. Conviction of the employee conclusively
liability of local government units for
binds the employer. Defense of due diligence in
wrongful exercise of its proprietary (as
the selection and supervision of the employee is
opposed to its governmental) functions. The
latter is the same as that of a private between the damage suffered by the plaintiff
corporation or individual. [Mendoza v. De and the act or omission of the defendant.
Leon (1916)]
Where the particular harm sustained was
A special agent is one who receives a definite reasonably foreseeable at the time of the
and fixed order or commission, foreign to the defendant’s misconduct, his act or omission is
exercise of the duties of his office if he is a the legal cause thereof. Foreseeability is the
special official. This concept does not apply to fundamental basis of the law of negligence. To
any executive agent who is an employee of the be negligent, the defendant must have acted or
active administration and who on his own failed to act in such a way that an ordinary
responsibility performs the functions which are reasonable man would have realized that certain
inherent in and naturally pertain to his office interests of certain persons were reasonably
[Merritt v. Government of the Philippine Islands, subjected to a general but definite class of risks.
G.R. No. 11154 (1960)]. [JARENCIO]
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of Elements [Albenson v. CA, G.R. No. 88694
his rights and in the performance of his duties, (1993)]:
act with justice, give everyone his due, and (a) There is a legal right or duty;
observe honesty and good faith. (b) Which is exercised in bad faith;
(c) For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
Generally, the exercise of any right must be in another.
accordance with the purpose for which it was
established. It must not be excessive or unduly
harsh; there must be no intention to injure
another.
Case Legal Right and Injury Doctrine
Amonoy v. Gutierrez Right to demolish another’s house on his The principle of damnum absque
(2001) own property. injuria does not apply when the
Amonoy obtained a judgment in his favor for exercise of the legal right is
Gutierrez to vacate. A demolition order was suspended or extinguished pursuant
issued but the court suspended it with a to a court order. The exercise of a
TRO. Amonoy proceeded with the right ends when the right disappears,
demolition. In a complaint for damages, he and it disappears when it is abused,
claims the principle of damnum absque especially to the prejudice of others.
injuria.
Nikko Hotel Manila Right to forbid uninvited guests from Article 19, known to contain what is
Garden v. Reyes entering the party. commonly referred to as the principle
(2005) of abuse of rights, is not a panacea
Ruby Lim’s throwing out of complainant
Reyes, as a gatecrasher in a private party, for all human hurts and social
was merely in exercise of her duties as grievances. The object of this article
Executive Secretary of the hotel where the is to set certain standards which must
party was held, and did not constitute a be observed not only in the exercise
violation of Article 19. of one’s rights but also in the
performance of one’s duties.
Art. 23. Even when an act or event causing Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity,
damage to another’s property was not due to personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
the fault or negligence of the defendant, the neighbors and other persons. The following
latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the and similar acts, though they may not
act or event he was benefited. constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a
cause of action for damages, prevention and
Art. 2142. Certain lawful, voluntary and other relief:
unilateral acts give rise to the juridical relation (1) Prying into the privacy of another’s
of quasi-contract to the end that no one shall residence;
be unjustly enriched or benefited at the (2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life
expense of another. or family relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated
Art. 2143. The provisions for quasi contracts in from his friends;
this Chapter do not exclude other quasi- (4) Vexing or humiliating another on account
contracts which may come within the purview of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life,
of the preceding article. place of birth, physical defect, or other
personal condition.
One person should not be permitted to unjustly
enrich himself at the expense of another, but Article 26 specifically applies to intentional acts
should be required to make restitution of, or for which fall short of being criminal offenses. It
property or benefits received, retained, or itself expressly refers to tortious conduct which
appropriated where it is just and equitable that "may not constitute criminal offenses." The
such restitution be made, and where such action purpose is precisely to fill a gap or lacuna in the
involves no violation or frustration of law or law where a person who suffers injury because
opposition to public policy, either directly or of a wrongful act not constituting a crime is left
indirectly. without any redress. Under Article 26, the
person responsible for such act becomes liable
Enrichment at the expense of another is not per for "damages, prevention and other relief." In
se forbidden. It is such enrichment without just short, to preserve peace and harmony in the
or legal cause that is contemplated here. Just family and in the community, Article 26 seeks to
and legal cause is always presumed, and the eliminate cases of damnum absque injuria in
plaintiff has the burden of proving its absence. human relations [MVRS Publications v. Islamic
Da'wah Council, G.R. No. 135306 (2003)].
The restitution must cover the loss suffered by
the plaintiff but it can never exceed the amount The principal rights protected under this
of unjust enrichment of the defendant if it is less provision are the following:
than the loss of the plaintiff. (1) The right to personal dignity
(2) The right to personal security
Requisites:
(3) The right to family relations
(a) That the defendant has been enriched;
(4) The right to social intercourse
(b) That the plaintiff has suffered a loss;
(5) The right to privacy
(6) The right to peace of mind extend to places where he has the right to
exclude the public or deny them access” [Sps.
Note: Coverage of Art. 26 is not limited to those Hing v. Choachuy, G.R. No. 179736 (2013)].
enumerated therein, the enumeration being
merely examples of acts violative of a person’s Types of invasion of privacy
rights to dignity, personality, privacy and peace (1) Publication of embarrassing private facts –
of mind. Other “similar acts” are also covered The interest here is the right to be free from
within the scope of the article. unwarranted publicity, wrongful publicizing
of private affairs and activities, as these are
VIOLATION OF PERSONAL DIGNITY outside the ambit of legitimate public
In order to be actionable it is not necessary that concern.
the act constitutes a criminal offense. The
remedy afforded by the law is not only the Public figures enjoy a limited right to privacy
recovery of damages. “Prevention and other as compared to ordinary individuals [Ayer v.
relief” is also available. In other words, injunction Capulong, G.R. No. 82380 (1988)].
and other appropriate reliefs may also be
obtained by the aggrieved party. (2) Intrusion upon plaintiff’s private affairs
This is not limited to situations where the
VIOLATION OF PRIVACY wrongdoer physically trespasses into
Privacy is the right to be let alone, or to be free one’s property.
from unwarranted publicity, or to live without
Generally, there is no invasion of privacy
unwarranted interference by the public in
when journalists report something that
matters in which the public is not necessarily
occurs in the public realm, except when
concerned. This right is purely personal in
the acts of the journalist are to an extent
nature, such that it can be invoked only by the
that it constitutes harassment.
person actually injured, it is subject to a proper
RA 4200: It is illegal for any person not
waiver, and it ceases upon death. However, the
authorized by both parties to any private
privilege may be given to heirs of a deceased to
communication to secretly record such
protect his memory, to protect the feelings of the
communication.
living heirs.
(3) Publicity which puts one in a false light in the
Reasonableness of Expectation of Privacy
public eye – The interest here is in not being
Test: [Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685 (1998)]
made or forced to appear before the public
(1) Whether by one’s conduct, the individual
in an objectionable false light or position.
has exhibited an expectation of privacy
(2) Whether this expectation is one that society
Tort of putting in false
recognizes and accepts as reasonable Defamation
light
The general rule is that the right to privacy may The embarrassment of Concerns the
only be invoked by natural persons. Juridical a person being reputational harm to a
persons cannot invoke this because the basis to portrayed as something person
this right is an injury to the feelings and he is not
sensibilities of the injured party, and a
Statement should be Publication is satisfied
corporation has none of those. The exception is
actually made in public even if communicated
where the right to privacy is invoked along with
to only one specific
the right against unreasonable searches and
third person
seizures. “An individual’s right to privacy under
Article 26(1) of the Civil Code should not be
(4) Commercial appropriation of likeness of
confined to his house or residence as it may image – It consists of appropriation, for the
defendant’s benefit or advantage (ex. used abetted her original suit for annulment, or
in defendant’s advertisement), of the her subsequent divorce; she appears to
plaintiff’s name or likeness (picture or have acted independently, and being of age,
portrait).
she was entitled to judge what was best for
DISTURBANCE OF PEACE OF MIND her and ask that her decisions be respected.
The disturbance of the mental and emotional Her parents, in so doing, certainly cannot be
tranquility of the plaintiff by the defendant is a charged with alienation of affections in the
legal injury in itself and, therefore, a sufficient absence of malice or unworthy motives,
cause of action for damages, injunction, and which have not been shown, good faith
other relief. A person, however, cannot be held being always presumed until the contrary is
liable for damages for the mental or emotional proved [Tenchavez v. Escaño, G.R. No. L-
disturbance of the plaintiff which was due to the 19671 (1965)].
latter’s susceptibility to such disturbance, where
the defendant had no knowledge of such LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
peculiar susceptibility. The tendency of the law The plaintiff Aleko E. Lilius also seeks to
is to secure an interest in mental comfort only to recover the sum of P2,500 for the loss of
the extent of the ordinary sensibilities of men. what is called Anglo-Saxon common law
"consortium" of his wife, that is, "her
Interference with Relations services, society and conjugal
An interference with the continuance of companionship", as a result of personal
unimpaired interests founded upon the relation injuries which she had received from the
in which the plaintiff stands toward one or more accident now under consideration. Inasmuch
third persons [Prosser and Keeton]. as a wife's domestic assistance and
KINDS: conjugal companionship are purely personal
(1) Family relations and voluntary acts which neither of the
(2) Social relations spouses may be compelled to render, it is
(3) Economic relations necessary for the party claiming indemnity
(4) Political relations for the loss of such services to prove that
the person obliged to render them had done
Family Relations so before he was injured and that he would
ALIENATION OF AFFECTION be willing to continue rendering them had he
This is a cause of action in favor of a not been prevented from so doing [Lilius v.
husband against one who wrongfully Manila Railroad Company, G.R. No. L-
alienates the affection of his wife, depriving 39587 (1934)].
him of his conjugal rights to her consortium,
that is, her society, affection, and assistance. CRIMINAL CONVERSATION (ADULTERY)
Interference with the marital relations by
Elements: committing adultery with one of the spouses.
(a) Wrongful conduct of the defendant: This is obvious enough in the case of rape
intentional and malicious enticing of a but also applies where the adulterous
spouse away from the other spouse spouse consented to or initiated the
(b) Loss of affection or consortium intercourse. [PROSSER AND KEETON, p.
Note: Complete absence of affection 917]
between the spouses is not a defense.
(c) Causal connection between such Social Relations
conduct and loss (1) Meddling with or disturbing family
relations
There is no evidence that the parents of
Vicenta, out of improper motives, aided and Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind of his Elements of tort interference: [So Ping Bun v.
neighbors and other persons. The following CA, G.R. No. 120554 (1999)]
and similar acts, though they may not (a) Existence of a valid contract
constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a (b) Knowledge on the part of the third person of
cause of action for damages, prevention and the existence of contract; and
other relief; (c) Interference of the third person is without
xxx legal justification or excuse.
2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or
family relations of another; Everyone has a right to enjoy the fruits and
advantages of his own enterprise, industry, skill
Developed as an offshoot of the action for and credit. He has no right to be protected
enticing away a servant and depriving the against competition; but he has a right to be free
master of the proprietary interest in [the from malicious and wanton interference,
servant’s] services until there has been a disturbance or annoyance. If disturbance or loss
gradual shift of emphasis away from comes as a result of competition, or the exercise
“services” and toward a recognition of more of like rights by others, it is damnum absque
intangible elements in the domestic relations, injuria, unless some superior right by contract or
such as companionship and affection. otherwise is interfered with. Thus, a plaintiff
[PROSSER AND KEETON, p. 916] loses his cause of action if the defendant
provides a sufficient justification for such
INTRIGUING TO CAUSE ANOTHER TO BE ALIENATED interference, which must be an equal or superior
FROM HIS FRIENDS right in themselves. The defendant may not
A person who committed affirmative acts legally excuse himself on the ground that he
intended to alienate the existing friendship of acted on a wrong understanding of his own
one with his friends is liable for damages. A rights, or without malice, or bona fide, or in the
man is a social being and for being so, he best interests of himself [Gilchrist v. Cuddy, G.R.
needs friends to socialize with and to No. 9356 (1915)].
depend upon in case of need. To alienate
him wrongfully or with malice from his Bad faith/Malice is required to make the
friends is to cause him suffering for which he defendant liable for damages in cases of
is entitled to damages. tortuous interference [So Ping Bun v. CA,
supra].
Economic Relations
A.6 DERELICTION OF DUTY
Art. 1314. Any person who induces another to
violate his contract with another person shall Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral
be liable for damages to the other contracting loss because a public servant or employee
party. refuses or neglects, without just cause, to
perform his official duty may file an action for
Tort liability may be imposed upon a defendant damages and other relief against the latter,
who intentionally and improperly interferes with without prejudice to any disciplinary
the plaintiff’s rights under a contract with another administrative action that may be taken.
person if the interference causes the plaintiff to
lose a right under the contract or makes the This applies only to acts of nonfeasance or the
contract rights more costly or less valuable. This nonperformance of some acts which a person is
law of interference of contract is part of a larger obliged or has responsibility to perform. The
body of tort law aimed at protection of duty of the public servant must be ministerial in
relationships [PROSSER AND KEETON]. character. If the duty is discretionary, he is not
liable unless he acted in a notoriously arbitrary and liberties of another person shall be liable
manner. to the latter for damages:
(1) Freedom of religion
The defense of good faith is not available (2) Freedom of speech
because an officer is under constant obligation (3) Freedom to write for the press or to
to discharge the duties of his office, and it is not maintain a periodical publication
necessary to show that his failure to act was due (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention
to malice or willfulness. (5) Freedom of suffrage
(6) The right against deprivation of property
Requisites: [Amaro v. Sumanguit, G.R. No. L- without due process of law
14986 (1962)] (7) The right to just compensation when
(a) Defendant is a public officer charged with a
property is taken for public use
performance of a duty in favor of the plaintiff;
(8) The right to equal protection of the laws
(b) He refused or neglected without just cause
(9) The right to be secure in one’s person,
to perform the duty;
house, papers and effects against
(c) Plaintiff sustained material or moral loss as
unreasonable searches and seizures
a consequence of such non-performance;
(10)The liberty of abode and of changing the
(d) The amount of such damages, if material.
same
(11)The right to privacy of communication and
A.7. UNFAIR COMPETITION
correspondence
(12)The right to become a member of
Art. 28. Unfair competition in agricultural,
associations and societies for purposes
commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor
not contrary to law
through the use of force, intimidation, deceit,
(13)The right to take part in a peaceable
machination or any other unjust, oppressive or
assembly and petition the government for
highhanded method shall give rise to a right of
redress of grievances
action by the person who thereby suffers
(14)The right to be free from involuntary
damage.
servitude in any form
B. INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS (15)The right of the accused against excessive
bail
Rule 111, Sec. 3, ROC. In the cases provided (16)The right of the accused to be heard by
for in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil himself and counsel, to be informed of the
Code of the Philippines, the independent civil nature and the cause of the accusation
action may be brought by the offended party. It against him, to have a speedy and public
shall proceed independently of the criminal trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, to
action and shall require only a preponderance have compulsory process to secure the
of evidence. In no case, however, may the attendance of witnesses on is behalf;
offended party recover damages twice for the (17)Freedom from being compelled to be a
same act or omission charged in the criminal witness against one’s self, or from being
action. forced to confess his guilt, or from being
induced by a promise of immunity or
B.1. VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL reward to make such confession, except
RIGHTS when the person confessing becomes a
State witness.
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any (18)Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel
private individual, who directly or indirectly and unusual punishment, unless the same
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner is imposed or inflicted in accordance with
impedes or impairs any of the following rights a statute which has not been judicially
declared unconstitutional; of the criminal prosecution, and shall require
(19)Freedom of access to the courts only a preponderance of evidence.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, The civil action for damages that Article 33
whether or not the defendant’s act or omission allows to be instituted is ex-delicto. This is
constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved manifest from the provision which uses the
party has a right to commence an entirely expressions “criminal action” and “criminal
separate and distinct civil action for damages, prosecution”. Quoting Tolentino, the Court ruled
and for other relief. Such civil action shall that this provision is an exception to the general
proceed independently of any criminal rule that the civil action for recovery of civil
prosecution (if the latter be instituted) and may liability arising from the offense charged is
be proved by a preponderance of evidence. impliedly instituted with the criminal action.
Where the offense is defamation, fraud, or
The indemnity shall include moral damages. physical injuries, a civil action may be filed
Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. independently of the criminal action, even
though no reservation is made [Madeja v. Caro,
The responsibility herein set forth is not G.R. No. 51183 (1983)].
demandable from a judge unless his act or (1) Defamation – the offense of injuring a
omission constitutes a violation of the Penal person’s character, fame or reputation
code or any other penal statute. through false or malicious statements.
Defamation is an invasion of a relational
Article 32 speaks of a particular specie of an interest since it involves the opinion which
“act” that may give rise to an action for damages others in the community may have, or tend
against a public officer, and that is, a tort for to have, of the plaintiff.
impairment of rights and liberties. [Vinzons-
Chato v. Fortune, supra] Elements of libel pursuant to RPC, Art.
353:
Article 32 is clear that not only public officers but (a) An allegation or imputation of a
also private individuals can incur civil liability for discreditable act or condition concerning
violation of rights enumerated therein. Because another
the provision speaks of an officer, employee or (b) Publication of the imputation
person “directly or indirectly” responsible for the (c) Identity of the person defamed
violation of the constitutional rights and liberties (d) Existence of malice
of another, it is not the actor alone who must
answer for damages under Article 32. It is not Where the defamation is alleged to have
even necessary that the defendant should have been directed at a group or class, it is
acted with malice or bad faith, otherwise, it essential that the statement must be so
would defeat its main purpose, which is the sweeping or all-embracing as to apply to
effective protection of individual rights. [Silahis v. every individual in that group or class, or
Soluta, G.R. No. 163087 (2006)] sufficiently specific so that each individual in
the class or group can prove that the
B.2. DEFAMATION, FRAUD, PHYSICAL defamatory statement was specifically
INJURIES pointed to him [MVRS Publications, Inc. v.
Islamic, supra].
Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and
physical injuries, a civil action for damages, In determining whether certain utterances
entirely separate and distinct from the criminal are defamatory, the words used are to be
action, may be brought by the injured party. construed in their entirety and taken in their
Such civil action shall proceed independently plain, natural and ordinary meaning, as they
would naturally be understood by persons in the Revised Penal Code, for it is difficult
hearing or reading them, unless it appears to believe that the Code Commission would
that they were used and understood in have used terms in same article—some in
another sense. When malice in fact is this general and others in its technical sense.
proven, assertions and proofs that the In other words, the term “physical injuries”
libelous articles are qualifiedly privileged should be understood to mean bodily injury,
communications are futile, since being not the crime of physical injuries, because
qualifiedly privileged communications merely the terms used with the latter are general
prevents the presumption of malice from terms [Carandang v. Santiago and Valenton,
attaching in a defamatory imputation G.R. No. L-8238 (1955)].
[Yuchengco v. Manila Chronicle, G.R. No.
184315 (2009)]. Paje was acquitted of the charge of
homicide and double serious physical
(2) Fraud – Estafa under RPC, 315; Article 33 injuries through reckless imprudence on the
does not cover violations of B.P. 22. ground that the collision was a pure accident
and the negligence charged against him did
(3) Physical Injuries (Assault and Battery) not exist. In a separate civil action to enforce
Battery civil liability filed by the heirs of the
Battery is the actual infliction of any unlawful deceased, the Court ruled that criminal
or unauthorized violence on the person of negligence is not one of the three crimes
another, irrespective of its degree. The law mentioned in Article 33, which authorizes
protects the interest of the individual in the institution of an independent civil action.
freedom from bodily harm or any impairment Although in the case of Dyogi v. Yatco, the
of the physical integrity of the body. Court held that the term “physical injuries”
includes homicide, it is borne in mind that
Assault the charge against Paje was for reckless
Assault is an intentional, unlawful offer of imprudence resulting in homicide, and the
physical injury to another by force unlawfully law penalizes the negligent or careless act,
directed toward the person of another, under not the result thereof [Corpus v. Paje, G.R.
such circumstances as to create a well- No. L-26737 (1969)].
founded fear of imminent peril, coupled with
the apparent present ability to effectuate the B.3. NEGLECT OF DUTY
attempt if not prevented. The law seeks to
protect the interest of the individual in Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal
freedom from offensive bodily touching police force refuses or fails to render aid or
although no actual harm is done. protection to any person in case of danger to
life or property, such peace officer shall be
Defamation and fraud (in Art. 33) are used in primarily liable for damages, and the city or
their ordinary sense because there are no municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible
specific provisions in the Revised Penal therefor. The civil action herein recognized
Code using these terms as names of shall be independent of any criminal
offenses defined therein, so that these two proceedings, and a preponderance of
terms defamation and fraud must have been evidence shall suffice to support such action.
used not to impart to them any technical
meaning in the laws of the Philippines, but in Art. 34 covers a situation where:
their generic sense. With these apparent (1) There is danger to the life or property of a
circumstances in mind, it is evident that the person;
term “physical injuries” could not have been
used in its specific sense as a crime defined
(2) A member of a city or municipal police force responsible for the damage which it may
who is present in the scene refused or failed cause, although it may escape or be lost. This
to render aid or protection to the person; and responsibility shall cease only in case the
(3) Damages are caused whether to the person damage should come from force majeure or
and/or property of the victim. from the fault of the person who has suffered
damage.
Nature of liability
(1) Of the police officer – Primary Since the law makes no distinction, this is
(2) City or municipality – Subsidiary applicable to both wild (in case the wild animal is
kept) and domestic animals. It is enough that
The defense of having observed the diligence of defendant is the possessor, owner, or user of
a good father of a family to prevent the damage the animal at the time it caused the damage
is not available to the city/municipality. complained of, to hold him liable therefor.
Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible Under Article 2190, the plaintiff is required to
for damages caused: prove:
(1) By the explosion of machinery which has (a) The total or partial collapse of a building or
not been taken care of with due diligence, structure
and the inflammation of explosive (b) That the defendant is the proprietor
substances which have not been kept in a (c) That the collapse was due to the lack of
safe and adequate place; necessary repairs
(2) By excessive smoke, which may be
harmful to persons or property; Note: There is no requirement to prove
(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near negligence.
highways or lanes, if not caused by force
majeure; Under Article 2191, with the exception of No. 1,
(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers negligence is also not an issue.
or deposits of infectious matter,
constructed without precautions suitable to The owner or proprietor of a place of public
the place. amusement impliedly warrants that the
premises, appliances and amusement devices
Art. 2192. If damage referred to in the two are safe for the purpose for which they are
preceding articles should be the result of any designed, the doctrine being subject to no other
defect in the construction mentioned in article exception or qualification than that he does not
1723, the third person suffering damages may contract against unknown defects not
proceed only against the engineer or architect discoverable by ordinary or reasonable means
or contractor in accordance with said article, [Gotesco Investment Corp. v. Chatto, G.R. No.
within the period therein fixed. 87584 (1992)].
Acceptance of the building, after completion, Art. 1712. If the death or injury is due to the
does not imply waiver of any of the cause of negligence of a fellow worker, the latter and
action by reason of any defect mentioned in the employer shall be solidarily liable for
the preceding paragraph. compensation. If a fellow worker's intentional
malicious act is the only cause of the death or
The action must be brought within ten years injury, the employer shall not be answerable,
following the collapse of the building. unless it should be shown that the latter did
not exercise due diligence in the selection or
Engineer or architect who drew up the plans and supervision of the plaintiff's fellow worker.
specifications is liable if the building collapses
within 15 years due to: Alarcon, a teacher, hired Urzino and Azaña to
(1) A defect in those plans and specifications; or dig a well on his land; in the course of which
(2) Due to the defects in the ground. Urzino died of asphyxia. The Court found that
under the principle of ejusdem generis, said
Contractor is liable if the edifice falls within 15 “other employers” mentioned in Article 1711
years due to: must be construed to refer to persons who
(1) Defects in the construction; belong to a class analogous to “owners of
(2) The use of materials of inferior quality enterprises”, such as those operating a business
furnished by the contractor; or or engaged in a particular industry or trade,
(3) Due to any violation of the terms of the requiring its managers to contract the services of
contract. laborers, workers and/or employees. Alarcon,
not owning any enterprise, did not fall under the
Here, the plaintiff need only prove that such category of “other employers” [Alarcon v.
conditions (defects) exist, and need not prove Alarcon, G.R. No. L-15692 (1961)].
that negligence of the defendant be the cause of
the conditions. Situations covered:
(1) Death or injury arising out of or in the course
A.5. OWNERS OF ENTERPRISES OR OTHER of employment – here, the employer is liable
EMPLOYERS even if the event which caused the death or
injury was purely accidental or due to a
Art. 1711. Owners of enterprises and other fortuitous event
employers are obliged to pay compensation (2) Illness or disease caused by their
for the death of or injuries to their laborers, employment or as the result of the nature of
workmen, mechanics or other employees, the employment
even though the event may have been purely
accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause, Defenses available to the employer:
if the death or personal injury arose out of and (1) When death or injury is not caused by a
in the course of the employment. The fellow worker
The mishap due to the employee’s own Under the foregoing provision, liability is not
notorious negligence or voluntary act, or made to depend upon fault or negligence of the
drunkenness manufacturer or processor. The provision
(2) When death or injury is caused by a fellow likewise dispensed with any contractual relation
worker between the manufacturer and the consumer,
General rule: The employer is solidarily thereby clearly implying that liability is imposed
liable with the fellow worker causing the by law as a matter of public policy.
death or injury
Exception: If the only cause of the death Proof of negligence under this provision is not
or injury was the fellow worker’s necessary; as such, traditional contract and
intentional or malicious act warranty defenses as (1) lack of privity; (2) lack
Exception to the exception: If it is shown of reliance on a warranty; (3) lack of notice to
that the employer did not exercise due the defendant of the breach of warranty; and (4)
diligence in the selection and supervision disclaimer of implied warranties are inapplicable.
of the fellow worker causing the death or
injury Requisites of liability
(a) Defendant is a manufacturer or possessor of
A.6. HEAD OF A FAMILY FOR THINGS foodstuff, drinks, toilet articles and similar
THROWN OR FALLING goods;
(b) He used noxious or harmful substances in
Art 2193. The head of a family that lives in a the manufacture or processing of the
building or a part thereof, is responsible for foodstuff, drinks or toilet articles consumed
damages caused by things thrown or falling or used by the plaintiff;
from the same. (c) Plaintiff’s death or injury was caused by the
product so consumed or used; and
The purpose of the law is to relieve the injured (d) The damages sustained and claimed by the
party of the difficulty of determining and proving plaintiff and the amount thereof.
who threw the thing or what caused it to fall, or
that either was due to the fault or negligence of Burden of proof
any particular individual. The burden of proof that the product was in a
defective condition at the time it left the hands of
Lessee is considered as the head of the family. the manufacturer and particular seller is upon
It is enough that he lives in and has control over the injured plaintiff.
it [Dingcong v. Kanaan, G.R. No. L-47033
(1941)]. Who may recover
Although the article used the term “consumer”,
A.7. PRODUCTS LIABILITY such term includes a “user” and “purchaser” of
the injuriously defective food product or toilet
i. MANUFACTURERS / PROCESSORS OF
article. The person who may recover need not
FOODSTUFFS be the purchaser of the foodstuff or toilet article.
Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of ii. CONSUMER ACT – RA 7394, SECS. 92-107
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar (CH. 1)
goods shall be liable for death or injuries
caused by any noxious or harmful substances Consumer Act Provisions
used, although no contractual relation exists Article 4. Definition of Terms.
between them and the consumers.
(n) "Consumer" means a natural person who is
a purchaser, lessee, recipient or prospective
purchaser, lessor or recipient of consumer (c) the time it was put into circulation.
products, services or credit.
A product is not considered defective because
(as) "Manufacturer" means any person who another better quality product has been placed
manufactures, assembles or processes in the market. The manufacturer, builder,
consumer products, except that if the goods producer or importer shall not be held liable
are manufactured, assembled or processed for when it evidences:
another person who attaches his own brand (a) that it did not place the product on the
name to the consumer products, the latter market;
shall be deemed the manufacturer. In case of (b) that although it did place the product on
imported products, the manufacturer's the market such product has no defect;
representatives or, in his absence, the (c) that the consumer or a third party is solely
importer, shall be deemed the manufacturer. at fault.
Article 92. Exemptions. – If the concerned Article 98. Liability of Tradesman or Seller. –
department finds that for good or sufficient The tradesman/seller is likewise liable, pursuant
reasons, full compliance with the labeling to the preceding article when:
requirements otherwise applicable under this (a) it is not possible to identify the manufacturer,
Act is impracticable or is not necessary for the builder, producer or importer;
adequate protection of public health and (b) the product is supplied, without clear
safety, it shall promulgate regulations identification of the manufacturer, producer,
exempting such substances from these builder or importer;
requirements to the extent it deems consistent (c) he does not adequately preserve perishable
with the objective of adequately safeguarding goods. The party making payment to the
public health and safety, and any hazardous damaged party may exercise the right to
substance which does not bear a label in recover a part of the whole of the payment
accordance with such regulations shall be made against the other responsible parties,
deemed mislabeled hazardous substance. in accordance with their part or responsibility
in the cause of the damage effected.
Article 97. Liability for the Defective Products.
– Any Filipino or foreign manufacturer, Article 99. Liability for Defective Services. –
producer, and any importer, shall be liable for The service supplier is liable for redress,
redress, independently of fault, for damages independently of fault, for damages caused to
caused to consumers by defects resulting from consumers by defects relating to the rendering
design, manufacture, construction, assembly of the services, as well as for insufficient or
and erection, formulas and handling and inadequate information on the fruition and
making up, presentation or packing of their hazards thereof.
products, as well as for the insufficient or
inadequate information on the use and The service is defective when it does not
hazards thereof. provide the safety the consumer may rightfully
expect of it, taking the relevant circumstances
A product is defective when it does not offer into consideration, including but not limited to:
the safety rightfully expected of it, taking (a) the manner in which it is provided;
relevant circumstances into consideration, (b) the result of hazards which may
including but not limited to: reasonably be expected of it;
(a) presentation of product (c) the time when it was provided.
(b) use and hazards reasonably expected of
it; A service is not considered defective because
of the use or introduction of new techniques. sub-paragraph (a) of the second paragraph of
this Article, and replacement of the product is
The supplier of the services shall not be held not possible, it may be replaced by another of
liable when it is proven: a different kind, mark or model: Provided, That
(a) that there is no defect in the service any difference in price may result thereof shall
rendered; be supplemented or reimbursed by the party
(b) that the consumer or third party is solely at which caused the damage, without prejudice
fault. to the provisions of the second, third and
fourth paragraphs of this Article.
Article 100. Liability for Product and Service
Imperfection. – The suppliers of durable or Article 101. Liability for Product Quantity
nondurable consumer products are jointly Imperfection. – Suppliers are jointly liable for
liable for imperfections in quality that render imperfections in the quantity of the product
the products unfit or inadequate for when, in due regard for variations inherent
consumption for which they are designed or thereto, their net content is less than that
decrease their value, and for those resulting indicated on the container, packaging, labeling
from inconsistency with the information or advertisement, the consumer having
provided on the container, packaging, labels or powers to demand, alternatively, at his own
publicity messages/advertisement, with due option:
regard to the variations resulting from their (a) the proportionate price
nature, the consumer being able to demand (b) the supplementing of weight or measure
replacement to the imperfect parts. differential;
(c) the replacement of the product by another
If the imperfection is not corrected within thirty of the same kind, mark or model, without
(30) days, the consumer may alternatively said imperfections;
demand at his option: (d) the immediate reimbursement of the
(a) the replacement of the product by another amount paid, with monetary updating
of the same kind, in a perfect state of use; without prejudice to losses and damages if
(b) the immediate reimbursement of the any.
amount paid, with monetary updating,
without prejudice to any losses and The provisions of the fifth paragraph of Article
damages; 99 shall apply to this Article.
(c) a proportionate price reduction.
The immediate supplier shall be liable if the
The parties may agree to reduce or increase instrument used for weighing or measuring is
the term specified in the immediately not gauged in accordance with official
preceding paragraph; but such shall not be standards.
less than seven (7) nor more than one
hundred and eighty (180) days. Article 102. Liability for Service Quality
Imperfection. – The service supplier is liable
The consumer may make immediate use of for any quality imperfections that render the
the alternatives under the second paragraph of services improper for consumption or
this Article when by virtue of the extent of the decrease their value, and for those resulting
imperfection, the replacement of the imperfect from inconsistency with the information
parts may jeopardize the product quality or contained in the offer or advertisement, the
characteristics, thus decreasing its value. consumer being entitled to demand
alternatively at his option:
If the consumer opts for the alternative under (a) the performance of the services, without
any additional cost and when applicable; by a component or part incorporated in the
(b) the immediate reimbursement of the product or service, its manufacturer, builder or
amount paid, with monetary updating importer and the person who incorporated the
without prejudice to losses and damages, component or part are jointly liable.
if any;
(c) a proportionate price reduction. A.8. NUISANCE
Reperformance of services may be entrusted Art. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission,
to duly qualified third parties, at the supplier's establishment, business, condition of property,
risk and cost. or anything else which:
(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety
Improper services are those which prove to be of others; or
inadequate for purposes reasonably expected (2) Annoys or offends the senses; or
of them and those that fail to meet the (3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or
provisions of this Act regulating service morality; or
rendering. (4) Obstructs or interferes with the free
passage of any public highway or street,
Article 103. Repair Service Obligation. – When or any body of water; or
services are provided for the repair of any (5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.
product, the supplier shall be considered
implicitly bound to use adequate, new, original Art. 696. Every successive owner or
replacement parts, or those that maintain the possessor of property who fails or refuses to
manufacturer's technical specifications unless, abate a nuisance in that property started by a
otherwise authorized, as regards to the latter former owner or possessor is liable therefor in
by the consumer. the same manner as the one who created it.
Article 104. Ignorance of Quality Imperfection. Art. 697. The abatement of a nuisance does
– The supplier's ignorance of the quality not preclude the right of any person injured to
imperfections due to inadequacy of the recover damages for its past existence.
products and services does not exempt him
from any liability. Art. 698. Lapse of time cannot legalize any
nuisance, whether public or private.
Article 105. Legal Guarantee of Adequacy. –
The legal guarantee of product or service Nuisance is a condition and not an act or failure
adequacy does not require an express to act, so that if a wrongful condition exists, the
instrument or contractual exoneration of the person responsible for its existence is
supplier being forbidden. responsible for the resulting damages to others.
Possessor of an animal or For the damage the animal may cause Force majeure
whoever makes use of them Fault of the person who
even if the animal is lost or suffered damage
escaped
Owner of Motor Vehicle Motor vehicle mishaps Solidary liability only if the
owner was in the vehicle and if
he could have prevented it thru
due diligence
If not in vehicle, apply Art. 2180
for his liability as employer
Manufacturers and Death and injuries caused by any Absence of contractual relation
processors of foodstuffs, noxious or harmful substances used not a defense
drinks, toilet articles and
similar goods
Defendant in possession of Death or injury results from such Possession or use thereof is
dangerous weapons/ possession indispensable in his occupation or
substances such as firearms business
and poison
Provinces, Cities and The death or injuries suffered by any The defective public work is not
Municipalities person by reason of the defective under the LGU’s control or
condition of roads, streets, bridges, supervision
public buildings, and other public works
Proprietor of building/ (a) Total or partial collapse of building Responsibility for collapse should
structure or structure if due to lack of be due to the lack of necessary
necessary repairs repairs
(b) Explosion of machinery which has
not been taken cared of with due
diligence, and the inflammation of
explosive substances which have
not been kept in a safe and
adequate place
(c) By excessive smoke, which may be
harmful to persons or property
(d) By falling of trees situated at or
near highways or lanes, if not
caused by force majeure
(e) By emanations from tubes, canals,
sewers or deposits of infectious
matter, constructed without
precautions suitable to the place
Engineer or Architect If within 15 years from completion of the Action not brought within 10 years
structure, the same should collapse by from collapse
reason of:
(a) Defects in the plans or
specifications; or
(b) Defects in the ground.
In addition:
Note: Such an exception to documentary proof
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss requirement only exists as to the loss of earning
of the earning capacity of the deceased, capacity.
and the indemnity shall be paid to the
heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in IN RAPE CASES
every case be assessed and awarded by No statutory basis but in several cases the court
the court, unless the deceased on account awards compensatory damages to victims of
of permanent physical disability not rape.
caused by the defendant, had no earning
capacity at the time of his death; Civil indemnity, in the nature of actual and
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the
finding of the fact of rape. [People v. Astrologo, General Rule
G.R. No. 169873 (2007)]. Attorney’s fees and costs of litigation are
recoverable IF stipulated.
The SC held that it could not be proven that the
age of the victim was such that it would support Exceptions
a penalty of death. Thus, it imposed reclusion If there is no stipulation, they are recoverable
perpetua instead. But SC said that this should only in the following cases:
not affect the civil liability to be imposed, and (1) By reason of malice or bad faith
maintained the same at Php. 75,000 [People v. (a) When exemplary damages are awarded
Bartolini, G.R. No. 179498 (2010)]. (b) In case of a clearly unfounded civil
action
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPENSES OF (c) Where defendant acted in gross and
LITIGATION evident bad faith
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation,
(d) When at least double judicial costs are
attorney's fees and expenses of litigation,
awarded
other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered,
(1) By reason of plaintiff’s indigence in
except:
(a) Actions for legal support
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
(b) Actions for recovery of wages of
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has
laborers, etc.
compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third
(c) Actions for workmen’s compensation
persons or to incur expenses to protect his
interest;
(2) By reason of crimes in
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution (a) Criminal cases of malicious
prosecution
against the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action (b) Separate actions to recover civil
liability arising from crime
or proceeding against the plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and (3) By reason of equity
evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the (a) Where the defendant’s act compelled
plaintiff's plainly valid, just and plaintiff to litigate with third persons
demandable claim; (b) Where the Court deems it just and
(6) In actions for legal support; equitable
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of
Note: In all cases, attorney’s fees and costs of
household helpers, laborers and skilled
workers; litigation must be reasonable.
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's
Even if expressly stipulated, attorney’s fees
compensation and employer's liability
are subject to control by the Courts.
laws;
Attorney’s fees in CC 2208 is an award made in
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil
favor of the litigant, not of his counsel, and the
liability arising from a crime;
litigant, not his counsel, is the judgment creditor
(10) When at least double judicial costs are who may enforce the judgment for attorney's
awarded; fees by execution [Quirante v. IAC, G.R. No.
(11) In any other case where the court deems it 73886 (1989)].
just and equitable that attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation should be recovered. Attorney's fees cannot be recovered except in
cases provided for in CC 2208 [MERALCO v.
In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses Ramoy, G.R. No. 158911 (2008)].
of litigation must be reasonable.
Attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation are reasonable certainty.
recoverable only in the concept of actual
damages, not as moral damages nor judicial Interest accrues when:
costs. Hence, such must be specifically prayed (1) The obligation consists in the payment of a
for…and may not be deemed incorporated within sum of money
a general prayer for "such other relief and (2) Debtor incurs in delay
remedy as this court may deem just and (3) There being no stipulation to the contrary
equitable [Briones v Macabagdal, G.R. No.
150666 (2010)]." No interest may be recovered on unliquidated
(not fixed in amount) claims or damages, except
For CC 2208 (2), an adverse decision does when the demand can be established with
not ipso facto justify an award of attorney’s fees reasonable certainty at the Court’s discretion.
to the winning party. Even when a claimant is
compelled to litigate with third persons or to Compounding of interest
incur expenses to protect his rights, still Interest due shall earn legal interest from the
attorney’s fees may not be awarded where no time it is judicially demanded, although the
sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected obligation may be silent on the point.
in a party’s persistence in a case other than an Note that interest due can earn only at 6%,
erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his whether the rate of interest of the principal is
cause [Bank of America v. Philippine Racing greater than 6%.
Club, G.R. No. 150228 (2009)].
Determination of legal interest
INTEREST
(1) When an obligation, regardless of its source
Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the
(i.e., law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts
payment of a sum of money, and the debtor
or quasi-delicts) is breached, the
incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, contravenor can be held liable for damages.
there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall
(2) With regard particularly to an AWARD OF
be the payment of the interest agreed upon,
INTEREST in the concept of actual and
and in the absence of stipulation, the legal
compensatory damages, the RATE of
interest, which is six per cent per annum.
interest, as well as the ACCRUAL thereof, is
imposed, as follows [Eastern Shipping Lines
Art. 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the v. CA, (1994) as modified by Nakar v.
court, be allowed upon damages awarded for Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871 (2013)]:
breach of contract.
BASE RATE ACCRUAL
Art. 2211. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest
(a) When the (a)That To be
as a part of the damages may, in a proper obligation is which computed from
case, be adjudicated in the discretion of the
breached, and it may default, i.e.,
court. consists in the have from JUDICIAL
PAYMENT OF A been or
Art. 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest SUM OF stipulate EXTRAJUDICI
from the time it is judicially demanded, MONEY, i.e., a d in AL demand
although the obligation may be silent upon this loan or writing. under and
point. forbearance of (b) In the subject to the
money, the absence provisions of
Art. 2213. Interest cannot be recovered upon interest due of Article 1169 of
unliquidated claims or damages, except when should be- stipulatio the Civil Code.
the demand can be established with n, the
BASE RATE ACCRUAL BASE RATE ACCRUAL
rate of reasonably
interest ascertained).
shall be (d) When the 6% per From
6% per JUDGMENT of annum FINALITY
annum the court UNTIL ITS
(legal awarding a sum SATISFACTIO
interest) of money N, this period
(b) Furthermo Legal From the time becomes final being deemed
re, the INTEREST interest it is and executory, to be an
DUE shall itself JUDICIALLY whether or not the equivalent to a
earn demanded. case consists in forbearance of
(c) When an 6% per If claim or the payment of a credit.
obligation, NOT annum. damages are sum of money
constituting a loan LIQUIDATED,
or forbearance of from default, Note:
money, is i.e., from The new rate of legal interest (6%) in Nacar
breached, an judicial or does not apply to judgments that have become
interest on the extrajudicial final and executory prior to July 1, 2013.
AMOUNT OF demand. (Art.
DAMAGES 1169, Civil Start of Delay
awarded may be Code) (1) Extrajudicial: Demand letter
imposed at the (2) Judicial: Filing of complaint
discretion of the If (3) Award
court. UNLIQUIDATE
D, from the Duty to Minimize
The actual base time the Art. 2203. The party suffering loss or injury
for the demand can must exercise the diligence of a good father of
computation of be established a family to minimize the damages resulting
legal interest shall with from the act or omission in question.
be on the amount reasonable
finally adjudged. certainty. Article 2203 of the Civil Code exhorts parties
Hence, the suffering from loss or injury to exercise the
interest shall diligence of a good father of a family to minimize
begin to run the damages resulting from the act or omission
only FROM in question. One who is injured then by the
THE DATE wrongful or negligent act of another should
THE exercise reasonable care and diligence to
JUDGMENT minimize the resulting damage. Anyway, he can
OF THE recover from the wrongdoer money lost in
COURT IS reasonable efforts to preserve the property
MADE (at injured and for injuries incurred in attempting to
which time the prevent damage to it [Lim and Gunnaban vs. CA,
quantification G.R. No. 125817 (2002)].
of damages
may be Burden of Proof
deemed to The DEFENDANT has the burden of proof to
have been establish that the victim, by the exercise of the
diligence of a good father of a family, could have (2) Besmirched reputation
mitigated the damages. In the absence of such (3) Mental anguish
proof, the amount of damages cannot be (4) Fright
reduced. (5) Moral shock
(6) Wounded feelings
Note:
(7) Social humiliation
The victim is required only to take such steps as
(8) Serious anxiety
an ordinary prudent man would reasonably
adopt for his own interest. (9) Similar injury