Chapter 1. - General Concepts Culpa Contractual v. Culpa Aquiliana v.

Culpa Criminal

“Torts”​ - class of legal wrongs C. Contractual C. Aquiliana C. Criminal

Three (3) Classifications of Torts in the Philippines Negligence

1. Intentional tort​ (Art. 19-35, NCC) merely incident direct, direct,

- If an actor desires to cause the to the substantive, substantive,
consequences of his act or that he performance of independent independent of a
believes that the consequences of his acts an obligation contract
are certain to cause damage to another already existing
because of a
2. Negligent tort​ (Art. 2176-2194, NCC) contract
- The fault or negligence of the obligor
consists in the omission of that diligence Pre-existing Obligation
which is required by the nature of the
obligation and corresponds with the present none none
circumstances of the persons of the time
and place Proof Needed

3. Strict liability tort ​(Art. 694-707; 2183; 2187; preponderance preponderance proof beyond
2193, NCC) of evidence of evidence reasonable
- The resulting injury is sufficient or that it doubt
is enough that the law, by reason of public
Defense of ​doagfoaf ​in the selection and supervision
policy, imposes liability upon the
defendant
not proper, proper and not a proper
- Akin to the principle of ​res ipsa loquitur
complete complete defense;
defense; may defense automatic guilt
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and
mitigate
in the performance of his duties, ​act with justice​, ​give
damages
everyone his due​, and ​observe honesty and good faith​.
Who has burden of proof
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, ​wilfully or
negligently causes damage to another​, shall indemnify the if there is a victim has to accused is
latter for the same. contract, it is prove presence presumed
presumed that of negligence innocent until
Art. 21. Any person who ​wilfully causes loss or injury to the debtor is at proven guilty;
another in a manner that is ​contrary to morals, good fault; he must prosecution
customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for prove absence of must prove
the damage. negligence negligence of
accused
Fault v. Negligence

“Fault” - failure to take reasonable steps to prevent
causing harm to the person, that a reasonable man would
have foreseen to be put at risk.
“Negligence” - the omission to do something which a
reasonable man would do, or the doing of something which
a prudent and reasonable man would not do
“Culpa aquiliana” - includes not only negligent acts, but
also intentional acts as well as assault and battery
Chapter 2. - Quasi-delicts
​ hoever by act or omission causes damage to
Art. 2176. W
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is
called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of
this Chapter.

Elements of Quasi-delict​ (NDCP)

1. Negligent ​act or omission
2. Damages ​to the plaintiff
 3. Connection of ​cause and effect b
​ etween such
negligence and damages
4. No pre-existing contractual relationship
between the parties
PSBA v. CA
Liability of school if a student is killed in the campus is
based on breach of contract not quasi-delict.
Air France v. Carrascoso
For one to be liable for tort even if there is a contract, there
must be an act independent of the contract that violates
the contract (​contractual tort​)
Elcano v. Hill
Article 2176, where it refers to “fault or negligence,” covers
not only acts “not punishable by law” but also acts criminal
in character; whether intentional and voluntary or
negligent
Dulay v. CA
Under Article 2180 of NCC, when the injury is caused by
the negligence of the employee, there instantly arises a
presumption of law that there was negligence on the part
of the master or employer either in the selection of the
servant or employee, or in supervision over him after
selection or both. The liability is direct and immediate.
Test of negligence
Would a prudent man in the position of the person to
whom negligence is attributed foresee harm to the person
injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to
be pursued? ​If so​, the law imposes the duty on the doer to
take precaution against its mischievous results and the
failure to do so constitutes negligence ​(Heddy Gan Yu v. CA)
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
Where both parties are guilty of negligence, but the
negligent act of one succeeds that of the other by an
appreciable interval of time, the one who has the last
reasonable opportunity to avoid the impending harm and
fails to do so, is chargeable with the consequences, without
reference to the prior negligence of the other party ​(Picart
v. Smith)
Emergency Rule
One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is
required to act without time to consider the best means
that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not
guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently
and upon reflection may appear to have been a better
method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is
brought about by his own negligence ​(Heddy Gan Yu v. CA)
Doctrine of last clear chance applies in a suit between
the owners and drivers of colliding vehicles; not
against carriers
The doctrine does not arise where a passenger demands
responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual
obligations. For it would be inequitable to exempt the
negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the
ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of
negligence ​(Philippine Rabbit v. IAC)
Last clear chance applied to a bank
PBCOM v. CA
Even assuming that RMC was negligent in entrusting funds
to a dishonest employee, yet, the bank had the last clear
opportunity to avert the injury incurred by its client,
simply by faithfully observing its self-imposed validation
procedure.
Negligence plus fortuitous event equals liability
NAPOCOR v. CA
The negligent manner with which the spillway gates of the
Angat Dam were opened, caused the extraordinary large
volume of water rushed out of the gates.
If upon the happening of a fortuitous event or an
act of God, there concurs a corresponding fraud,
negligence, delay or violation or contravention in any
manner of the tenor of the obligation, which results in loss
or damage, the obligor cannot escape liability.
Res Ipsa Loquitur
- “The thing speaks for itself”
- The occurrence of an accident implies negligence
- Presumption of negligence is merely rebuttable,
not conclusive
- Burden of proof of absence of negligence lies with
the defendant
Medical malpractice and the application of the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
Four (4) elements in medical negligence cases:​ (DBIP)
1. Duty
2. Breach
3. Injury
4. Proximate causation
Requisites before the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may
be applied to medical negligence: ​(DAC)
1. The occurrence is the kind of thing that ​does not
ordinarily happen without negligence
2. The occurrence must have been caused by an
agency ​or instrumentality within the exclusive
control of the defendant
3. The occurrence was not due to ​contribution ​or
voluntary action of the plaintiff
Doctrine is not a rigid doctrine
It is generally restricted to situations in malpractice cases
where a layman is able to say, as a matter of common
knowledge and observation, that the consequences of
professional care were not as such as would ordinarily
have followed if due care had been exercised
Doctrine of Informed Consent
- A physician has a duty to disclose what a
reasonably prudent physician, in the exercise of
reasonable care, would disclose to his patient as to
whatever grave risks of injury might be incurred
from a proposed course of treatment, ​so that a
patient may intelligently exercise his judgment by
reasonably balancing the probable risks against
the probable benefits.
Four (4) elements of malpractice action based upon
the doctrine of informed consent:​ (DFCI)
1. The physician had a ​duty ​to disclose material
risks
2. He ​failed ​to disclose or inadequately disclosed
those risks
3. As a direct and proximate result of the failure to
disclose, the patient ​consented ​to treatment she
otherwise would not have consented to
4. Plaintiff was ​injured ​by the proposed treatment
Defenses in quasi-delicts cases
1. Principle of ​damnum absque injuria
2. Force majeure
Damnum Absque Injuria
- “Damage without injury”
- If there is no legal wrong or violation of a right,
the act of a person may not result in an action for
damages
Force Majeure
- “Irresistible force”
- No liability on defendant
“Fortuitous event” - one which is not foreseeable or even
if foreseen, it could not have been avoided
Elements of fortuitous event or force majeure​ (IU-FF)
1. The cause of the breach of the obligation must be
independent ​of the human will
2. The event must be either ​unforeseeable ​or
unavoidable
3. The event must be such as to render it impossible
for the debtor to ​fulfill ​his obligation in a normal
manner
4. The debtor must be ​free ​from any participation in,
or aggravation of the injury to the creditor
Instances when there is liability even in cases of
fortuitous event
- When the law expressly specifies it (Art. 1942, Art.
1979, Art. 2147, Art. 2148)
Art. 1942. The ​bailee ​is liable for the loss of the thing, even
if it should be through a fortuitous event: (DKALS)
(1) If he ​devotes ​the thing to any purpose different from
that for which it has been loaned;
(2) If he ​keeps ​it longer than the period stipulated, or after
the accomplishment of the use for which the
commodatum has been constituted;
(3) If the thing loaned has been delivered with ​appraisal
of its value, unless there is a stipulation exempting the
bailee from responsibility in case of a fortuitous event;
(4) If he ​lends ​or leases the thing to a third person, who is
not a member of his household;
(5) If, being able to ​save ​either the thing borrowed or his
own thing, he chose to save the latter.
Art. 1979. The ​depositary ​is liable for the loss of the thing
through a fortuitous event: (SUDA)
(1) If it is so ​stipulated​;
(2) If he ​uses ​the thing without the depositor’s permission;
(3) If he ​delays ​its return;
(4) If he ​allows ​others to use it, even though he himself
may have been authorized to use the same
Art. 2147. The ​officious manager shall be liable for any
fortuitous event: (UP-FA)
(1) If he ​undertakes ​risky operations which the owner
was not accustomed to embark upon;
(2) If he has ​preferred ​his own interest to that of the
owner;
(3) If he ​fails ​to return the property or business after
demand by the owner;
(4) If he assumed the management in ​bad faith
Art. 2148. Except when the management was assumed to
save property or business from imminent danger, the
officious manager ​shall be liable for fortuitous events:
(MU-IP)
(1) If he is ​manifestly unfit ​to carry on the management;
(2) If by his ​intervention ​he ​prevented ​a more competent
person from taking up the management.
Robbery as a fortuitous event
Austria v. CA
The unforeseen event, the robbery in this case, did not take
place without the concurrent fault on the debtor’s part.
Hijacking of plane, a fortuitous event
Gacal v. PAL
The hijacking of a plane during martial law was considered
as a fortuitous event or a force majeure. This is so because
the security of the airport during martial law was not the
concern of the PAL.
Contributory Negligence
- Conduct on the part of the injured party,
contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has
suffered, which falls below the standard to which
he is required to conform for his own protection
(Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela v. CA)
Diligence in selection and supervision
Fabre and Cabil v. CA
Fabres did not consider the fact that Cabil has been driving
for school children only, from their homes to the school.
They had hired him only after a two-week apprenticeship.
Pursuant to Arts. 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code,
Cabil’s negligence gave rise to the presumption that his
employers, (the Fabres) were themselves negligent in the
selection and supervision of their employee.
Civil Liability Arising From Negligence and Crime
Art. 2177. R ​ esponsibility for fault or negligence under the
preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the
civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code.
But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the
same act or omission of the defendant.
Effect of acquittal in the criminal case
- Even if the accused is acquitted, he can still be
held civilly liable
- The quantum of evidence to obtain the guilt of the
accused is beyond reasonable doubt, while to hold
a person civilly liable, only preponderance of
evidence is required, hence, the court would
merely say that the case is more of civil rather
than criminal
Doctrine of Proximate Cause and Contributory
Negligence; effect
“Proximate cause” - that adequate and efficient causes
which in the natural order of events and under the
particular circumstances surrounding the case would
naturally produce the event.
If the act of a person causes damage to another and it is the
proximate cause of the damage done, t​ here is no question
that he is liable.
But if the injured party has concurring negligence that
aggravated the injury​, he can recover damages, but the
court would temper of the award of damages because of
contributory negligence of the injured party.
Lambert Ramos v. COL Realty Corp. vis-a-vis NPC v.
Heirs of Noble Casionan
In ​Ramos​, the violation of the traffic rule of MMDA was
considered as a contributory negligence which absolved
Ramos of his liability. While in ​NPC​, violation of pocket
mining prohibition was not considered as a contributory
negligence for the electrocution of Noble by the sagging
high tension wires which was ruled as an accident waiting
to happen.
Vicarious liability
- “Imputed negligence”
- Liability attributed to an individual not on the
basis of his/her conduct but because of the
conduct of another for which s/he becomes legally
responsible
- primary and solidary liability
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but
also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
The ​father ​and, in case of his death or incapacity,
the ​mother​, are responsible for the damages caused by the
minor children who live in their company.
Guardians ​are liable for damages caused by the
minors or incapacitated persons who are under their
authority and live in their company.
The ​owners ​and ​managers ​of an establishment or
enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by
their employees in the service of the branches in which the
latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers ​shall be liable for the damages caused
by their employees and household helpers acting within
the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former
are not engaged in any business or industry.
The ​State ​is responsible in like manner when it
acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has
been caused by the official to whom the task done properly
pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176
shall be applicable.
Lastly, ​teachers ​or ​heads of establishments of
arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their
pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain
in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall
cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage.
1 - Liability of parents
- No longer alternative
“Deep pocket rule” - that damages can be obtained from
co-defendants based on who is capable of paying, rather
than who was found to be more negligent
Maria Teresa Cuadra v. Alfonso Monfort
The culprit’s father is not liable for he could not have
prevented the damage, which happened at school, where
the child was ought to be under the supervision of the
school authorities.
Liability of emancipated child’s father
Elcano v. Hill
The marriage of a minor does not relieve its parents of the
duty to see to it that the child, while still a minor, does not
give cause to any litigation.

Parent’s defense
Defense of ​diligence of a good father of a family in the
supervision and instruction of the child. If they fail to
prove the defense, they may be held solidarily liable. ​(Libi
v. IAC)

When adopting parents are liable

- When there is a transfer of custody, instruction,
supervision or parental control to the adopting
parents

Tamargo v. CA
The minor was the subject of an adoption proceeding at
the time he killed a playmate. The natural parents were
held liable in spite of the retroactive effects of the decree of
adoption. This is so because at the time of the incident, the
adopting parents had ​no actual or physical custody over
the adopted child​.

2 - Liability of owners and managers

- Term manager is synonymous with employer

Phil. Rabbit v. PhilAm Forwarders

The term manager is used in the sense of employer, not
employee, hence, the manager is not held liable.

3 - Liability of employers not engaged in any business

or industry
- Employee must be acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks

Duavit v. CA
An owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident
involving the said vehicle if the same was driven without
his consent or knowledge and by a person not employed
by him.

Liability of employer of a student-scholar

Filamer Christian Institute v. IAC
Funtecha, who was tasked to clean the school, is an
employee of Filamer. He need not have an official
appointment for a driver’s position in order that the
petitioner may be held responsible for his grossly
negligent act, it being sufficient that the act of driving at
the time of the incident was for the benefit of the
petitioner.