Notes in Torts (Jurado, 2009)

October 16, 2018

Note: prior the exam, (1) get all definitions/ doctrines in the cases; (2) identify
in each case who is liable for damages and legal basis for holding him liable.

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault
or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if
there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)

 Tort = wrong; culpa-aquiliana; quasi-delict (QD)

 Tort may be an offense against an individual; but in the same time, it may be
a crime.

 Traditional concept of QD = excludes intentional or malicious acts and acts

arising from pre-existing contracts; However, SC held that tortous acts or
omission gives rise to two obligations: one based on crime committed and
another based on QD. And the injured party is free to choose one or both, but
he may not recover twice. Thus, there is no longer distinction between
intentional and negligent injuries.

Tort (Quasi-delict; culpa- Crime (Delict)

aquiliana)
Broader in scope There can be no crime unles there is a
law punishing it.
Criminal intent is not necessary Criminal intent is essential.
Right violated is a private right Right violated is a public one (wrong
against the state)
Every QD gives rise to damages Some crimes (i.e. contempt; illegal
possession of firearm) does not give
rise to damages.
Preponderance of evidence Proof beyond reasonable doubt
Reparation or indemnification of Imprisonment, fine, or both; accessory
injury or damages penalties.
 Tort may also arise from contractual relations (e.g. contract induced by
fraudulent representation; misappropriation of trust fund [which may be a
tort or a breach of contract])

 Can there be a tort or QD in breach of contract?

GR: If there exist pre-existing contractual relation between the parties,

 the proper cause of action is breach of contract (culpa-contractual),
and not anchored on QD/culpa-aquiliana
EX:
(1) when there is a deliberate and malicious violation of the contract; (i.e.
performance of contract is palpably wanton, reckless, malicious, in bad
faith, oppressive or obscure)
(2) when the act that breaks a contract may be a source of QD/tort, the
contractual relations of the parties does not bar recovery of damage
anchored on QD
(3) interference with contractual relations when a person induced another to
violate latter's contract with a third person.

Tort (Quasi-delict; culpa- Breach of contract (culpa

aquiliana; culpa ex-contractual) contractual)
Negligence is direct, substantive Negligence if merely incidental to
and indeoendent the performance of contractual
obligation.
Generally, no existing contractual Existence of pre-existing obligation.
obligations between the parties;
except when the breach itself is a
cource of QD/tort
Defense of GFF in GFF in selection/supervision is not a
selection/supervision is available defense. What is material is that a
contractual obligation is merely
breached.
No presumption of negligence. GR: No presumption of negligence
EX: unless the law specifically
provides (i.e. contract of carriage)
 Quasi-delict is used in the code so as to avoid inclusion of other source of
obligations/damages arising from law, contracts, quasi-contract and delict.

 Element of QD:

(1) damage – loss, hurt or harm which results from an injury.

(2) negligence – failure to observe the degree of diligence which the

circumstances demands; failure to do what a reasonable man would have
done in the circumstances; or doing what a reasonable man would not do
in given circumstances.
 negligence is not absolute, but relative depending upon the situation
of the parties
 test of determining negligence: Would a prudent man, in the position
of the person to whom the negligence is attributed, foresee harm to
 ther person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about
to be pursued.

(3) causal connection between the damage and negligence.

 Proximate cause – cause which, in natural and continuous sequence
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and
without which the result would have not occurred.

 Recovery of moral damages in case of breach of contract:

GR: Moral damages is not recoverable in cases of breach of contract (i.e.

breach of contract of carriage) as it is not one of the enumeration
under Art. 2219;
EX:
(1) in cases when mishap resulted to death of passengers;
(2) in cases when the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith.

 Art. 2176 covers not only acts “not punishable by law” but also acts
criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent.

 In case of different award of damages in two different proceedings (i.e.

criminal and civil case), the aggrieved party may recover only to bigger
award of the two. (note: he may not recover twice, only the bigger award).

 Instances when Art. 216 is not applicable:

(1) When a fault or negligence is punished as law as a crime, Art. 2176 is

not applicable. (i.e. in case of homicide through reckless imprudence,
or estafa.
(2) When there exist a pre-existing contractual relationship of ER-EE
(3) the action prescribed (prescription = 4 years)
(4) Injury is a result of fortuitous event
(5) damnum absque injuria

 Medical malpractice (i.e. medical negligence), elements: (1) duty; (2)

breach; (3) injury; and (4) proximate cause.

 Is hospital liable for medical malpractice?

US Doctrine

 Schloendorff Doctrine. Doctrine which regards a physicial, vene if

employes, as an independent contractor because the skill he exercised and
 the lack of control exerted over his work.

 Respondeat superior. The employer is liable for the acts of its employee

In the Philippines, hospitals are liable for medical malpractice.

 highest degree of diligence is required in practice of medicine.

 hospital exercises control in hiring/firing consultants and in the

conduct of their work within hospital premises. For the purpose of
allocating responsibility in medical negligence, ER-EE exists between
hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians;

 under the principle of apparent authority (holding out doctrine; agency

by estoppel), actions of the principal somehow misled the public to
believe that such relationship exists. Here, the principal is bound by
the acts of his agent

 Captain of the Ship Doctrine. Applicable to medical malpractice. Under

this doctrine, a surgeon is likened to a captain of the ship in that it
is his duty to control everything going on in the operating room. Thus,
the responsibility is in the hands of the lead surgeon.

 Doctrine of Corporate Negligence. Hospitals now tend to organize a highly

professional environment. Accordingly, the hospital has the duty to
exercise reasonale care to protect from harm all patients admitted into
its facility for medical treatment. Of the hospital will fail to do so,
the Doctrine of Corporate Negligence will apply.

 Res Ipsa Loquitur – let the thing speaks for itself. If a thing or
instrumentality which caused the injury complained of was under the
control of the defendant, and the resulting injury would not happen had
there been a proper care then there is prima facie evidence that the
injury arose from his lack of care, in the absence of proof to the
contrary.

Elements of Res Ipsa loquitur:

(1) Occurrence of an injury
(2) The thing which causes the injury was under the control and management
of the defendant;
(3) Occurrence was such in the ordinary course of things, would not have
happened if those who had control has proper care
(4) Absence of explanation ny the defendant.
  Test of Negligence of Health Care Providers. Did the health care
providers either fail to do something which a reasonably prudent health
care providers would have not done, and the failure or action caused
injury to the patient.

Art. 2177. Responsibility 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. (n)