CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICTS

Q WHAT IS QUASI-DELICT?

1. Obligation (resulting from)

2. Act or omission through fault or negligence (Causing)
3. Damage to another (person, property or right).
4. No pre-existing obligation.

BASIC PRINCIPLE OF QD

Even if DAMAGE is done if no NEGLIGENCE OR FAULT = No LIABILITY.

WHAT IS FAULT/ NEGLIGENCE?

FAULT - Act or omission or conduct contrary to what should be done. (Positive Act)

NEGLIGENCE – Failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care,
precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand whereby such other person suffers injury.
(Omission)

No “Duty-To Act” Rule

If D is not placed under a special relation with P to act for the benefit of P = NO LIABILITY

ELEMENTS OF QD

Act or omission of D
Fault or negligence of D
Damage to P in his person, property or right.
Direct Causal Relation between a/o and damage
No pre-existing obligation.

BURDEN OF PROOF
Rests in P unless for a particular incident (Art 2180, 2183 & 2191, Negligence is presumed.

CULPA AQUILIANA or EXTRA-CONTRACTUAL

Wrong Independent of Contract

CULPA CONTRACTUAL
Wrong within the performance of contract.

IS ACQUITTAL IN CC BAR TO CIVIL ACTION FOR CA?

NO, but there is a bar for double indemnity under Art 2177.

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN NEGLIGENCE CASES

Nature of the obligation
Circumstances of the person
Circumstances of time
Circumstances of the place

DISTINCTION IN CONTRACTUAL NEGLIGENCE AND EXTRA-CONTRACTUAL NEGLIGENCE

CN – Mere failure to comply is presumed negligence

ECN – Negligence must be shown because it is the meat of the action/corpus quasi-delicti.

FORTUITOUS EVENT
Defense, unless exempted by law stipulation, assumption of risk, or prior negligence.

DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR

Burden of evidence is shifted to the tortfeasor.

EMERGENCY RULE
Compelled to act instantly wo reflection – NO NEGLIGENCE

STANDARD CARE OF PROFESSIONALS

Compliance with customs and best practices SOP – No Malpractice
Article 2180. PRINCIPLE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)

 Liability for tort committed by himself and by others.

 Called also as “DOCTRINE OF IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE
 Key: The vicar must be in special relationship with the main author of the tort.

Parents – due to parental authority

Guardian –Guardian de facto if give wrong education
Owners/Manager of Business/enterprise
Other owners/managers (General Owners)
State (for Special Agents only) (Distinguish Governmental and Proprietary)
Teachers/Head of Arts/Trades
Property (For Minor/Insane without Parents/Guardian)
Owner of Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers/Processors of foodstuff, etc.
Proprietor of collapsing building

DEFENSES
- Due diligence
(Not available in criminal or contractual negligence but available in QD)
Article 2181. Right to Reimbursement

 Payor of Damage Claim can seek reimbursement from the author of the injury who is
personally liable.

Article 2182. Minor or Insane Tortfeasor without Parent or Guardian

 No personal liablity but only property liability in case where a guardian ad litem is
appointed by court.

Article 2183. Liability of Animal Possessor

 Presumed Negligence if animal causes harm or injury. (Even if escape or lost)
Philosophy: Natural Equity & Social Interest.
 Defense: Force majeure or fault of P.

Article 2184. Liability of MV Owners in Vehicular Accidents

1. Solidary with Driver if MV Owner is inside MV and could have exercised due diligence.
2. MVO not liable for negligence if driver is competent and MVO has no reasonable opportunity to prevent
act or continuing negligent act of driver.
3. Driver is presumed negligent if found guilty of reckless driving or violating TR twice in 2 months
preceding the accident.

Article 2185. Presumed Negligence vs. Driver of MV violating Traffic Regulation

Presumed Negligence:

Article 2186. REQUISITE BOND for owners of Motor Vehicle to answer for INJURY or DAMAGE

Article 2187. Liability of Manufacturers and Processors of FoodStuffs, other goods . . . to “CONSUMERS”

Strict Liability Rule Application:

Conditions:
Due to Use of Noxious or Harmful Substances in products.

Q Is defense of No Contractual Relations or due diligence tenable?

No. Under the Rule of Strict Liability, public policy demands that consumers injured must be
compensated. Manufacturers are in best position to anticipate the harm and guard the consumer
from harm.

Q What is the scope of the term “CONSUMER”

Includes USER and purchaser.

Article 2188. Presumed Negligence for carrying DANGEROUS WEAPONS or SUBSTANCES.

Presumed Negligence: If DEATH or INJURY arises due to the above condition.
Exception: By virtue of Occupation carrying is indispensable.
Article 2189. Liablity of Provinces, Cities, & Municipalities due to DEFECTIVE CONDITIONS of ROADS,
BRIDGES, PUBLIC BUILDING and other PUBLIC OWRKS.

 Ownership of Public Works is immaterial.

 True Test: Who has CONTROL or SUPERVISION over such public works?

Article 2190. Liablity of Proprietor of a Building due to collapse (Total or Partial)

Presumed Negligence: Cause of collapse is lack of maintenance/necessary repair. Owner is liable.

Article 2191. Liablity of Proprietors for maintaining RISKY OBJECTS

Two Principles applicable to this:

1. Principle of Created Risk – One who introduces dangerous (inanimate) objects (whether by
necessity or profit) in society and such objects causing injury to another shall be liable for
damages. Philosophy: He exposes others to danger.
2. Principle of Presumed Negligence – Proof of Fault or Negligence is UNNECESSARY.

Article 2192. Damage caused due to defect in construction.

Q Who should be liable?
Engineer or Architect or Contractor or all of them under Art. 1723

Q What does Art. 1723 provide?

 Collapse of bldg w/in 15 years from completion = (Engr. or Acht)
 Contractor is also liable if BUILDING FALLS w/in 15 years from completion due to:
 Defect in Construction;
 Defect or inferior quality of materials used;
 Violation of Terms of Contract.
 Supervising Engr. or Acht liaible with Contractor
 Acceptance of Bldg from completion NOT deemed WAIVER.

Article 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or part thereof, is responsible for damages
caused by things thrown or falling from the same.

Q What is the scope of term “head of family”?

It is not limited to owner but even lessee.
Instance: Leaking faucet from higher level of the building causing damage to occupants below.

Article 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for QD is solidary.

Q What do you mean by the term JOINT TORTFEASORS?

It includes all persons who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance,
cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, approve of it after it is done for their benefit.
(Note, although called “joint”, the real liability is “solidary)

Common instances:
LGU & Corporation running a public market whose defective infrastructures caused harm (Jimenez
vs. City of Manila, 150 SCRA 510 [1987])

Co-Owners of business where ee driver caused harm (De Leon Brokerage Co., Inc. vs. CA, 4 SCRA
517 [1962]

Driver of Gasoline Tanker ran over deceased solidarily liaible with owner of Tanker (Malipol vs. Tan,
55 SCRA 202 [1974]).

Q What is Concert of Action?

Where 2 or more D “act in concert” or motivated by a “common plan” in causing QD or harm to P.

Q What is Breach of Common Duty?

Where 2 or more D under a common duty to P fail in performing such common duty.
 (NOTE: But if the Harm is Indivisible, even if 2 or more D acted independently of each other, if their
acts constitute INDEPENDENTLY CONCURRING TORTS causing harm to P, the tort is treated as
JOINT TORT).

Q What is the liability of Ds in Joint Tort?

If harm is indivisible = Joint and Solidary.
If harm is divisible & apportionable = Joint

Q What is the prescription of action upon a QD?

4 years. (Art. 1146 (2) provides that action upon QD must be instituted w/in 4 years.)

Q What is the prescription of action for illegal dismissal?

4 years. (New Imus Lumber vs. NLRC, 221 SCRA 589 [1993] - not only simple money claim but
reinstatement)

Q What is the reckoning time in counting the prescriptive period?

From the time the QD occurred or was committed. (Not from discovery)
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

Q What is the CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS of Tort Liability for Tortious interference?

Contract as a property right – (No person shall be deprived of his property; No law impairing the
obligations of contracts shall be passed.

OTHER BASES:
 Solemnity of Contracts
 Integrity & Security of Contractual Relations
 Fulfillment of Contracts
 Freedom of Party to Contract

Q What is tortious interference?

Art. 1314 CC - Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for
damages to the other contracting party.

It is preceded by Art 1311 which says that CONTRACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES, THEIR ASSIGNS AND HEIRS. (Privity of Contract)

Q SCOPE OF VIOLATION?
 Existing Contract
 Not to enter into Contract
 Prevent from entering into Contract

Q Can action upon a contract be possible involving a party outside of the contract?
Yes, under 1314. (Tortious Interference); expanded to Art. 20, and 21 CC.

Art. 20 CC (Willful or Negligent Act contrary to law = QUASI-DELICT)

Q What is the legal consequence against the violator?

INDEMNITY. (No one who suffers material damage cannot be without relief)

Under this Article the act could either be a FELONY or QUASI-DELICT

Art. 21 CC (Willful Acts contrary to morals, good customs or public policy)

This is a legal remedy for the “UNTOLD NUMBER OF MORAL WRONGS.”

Ex: Impregnating a woman who, without the promise of marriage by the man, would not have
succumbed to his bestial desire.

Ex: Not showing up in marriage ceremony after all preps and publicity.

Ex: Electric Co. cutting connection w/o prior notice.

Q Does interference in FREE ENTERPRISE or TRADE COMPETITION amount to TORT?

NO, it is regarded as privileged and constitutive only of “damnum absque injuria”
 Provided:

 The actions are fair and fall within the province of “SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE CONDUCT.”

 The business advances for its own, and not to inflict harm on another.

Q Distinguish Deceit from Tortious Interference?

In deceit, the loss suffered by P is directly induced by D. Does not presuppose a contract.

In Tortious Interference the loss is suffered by P because a TP induces the other contractual party
to violate the contract. Presupposes a contract.

Q Who are the usual defendants in TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE?

The VIOLATING CONTRACTUAL PARTY and the TP INDUCER.

Q Elements of tortious interference

1. Valid Contract;
2. Knowledge of the Existence of Contract (by the Inducer);
3. Malice (by the Inducer);
4. Causal Relation between the inducement and the breach;
5. Damage or injury;
6. Absence of Legal Justification; (ex: Rubio vs. CA 141 SCRA 488 [1986]

 (Unpaid Seller warns another Seller not to proceed with the sale because the
prospective buyer has not paid his obligations to the Unpaid Seller)
 Giving Advice in GF
 CIBI

Q INDUCEMENT is a misnomer
It is sufficient that a TP meddles in the contractual relations of both parties, resulting in one party
violating the contract.

Q Does INDUCEMENT give rise to tortious liability?

NO. It must result in breach and damage or injury.

Q WHAT USUALLY DEFEATS TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CASE?

1. Absence of Breach;
2. Lack of privity;
3. Illegal Contract;
4. Contract to Marry

Q EXTENT OF LIABILITY OF:

TORTFEASOR-INDUCER - Not more than what the P could recover from the party-D.

PARTY INDUCED – GF/BF. If GF only the natural result of breach;

If BF, all damages.

Q Does negligent interference fall within this rule on tortious interference?

No.