3D 1819 TORTSSB Reviewer Finals PDF

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I. Table of Maxims and Phrases and Concepts, Principles, Doctrines,

and Requisites/Elements
A. Maxims p. 2
B. General Considerations p. 3
C. Negligence p. 4
D. Affirmative Duties p. 7
3D Reviewer Series E. Malpractice
F. Negligence of Selected Business Organizations
p. 8
p. 10
G. Defenses in Negligence Cases p. 11
Vol. II. Finals H. Causation p. 11
I. Human Relations: Intentional Torts p. 17
J. Human Dignity p. 22
K. Independent Civil Action p. 25
TORTS & DAMAGES L. Civil Liability Arising from Delict p. 29
(Atty. Sta. Barbara) M. The Defendants p. 30
N. Strict Liability p. 33
O. Product and Service Liability p. 35
P. Business Torts p. 40
Q. Damages p. 42
PART II. Doctrines of Cases Under the 2018-2019 Syllabus
Prepared by: 3D (2018-2019) A. Preliminary Considerations p. 50
ALMAZAR, Victor Emmanuel I. B. Concept of Torts p. 50
AUREA, Charmaine Key C. C. Quasi-Delicts p. 51
BLANCAFLOR, Leticia Marie C. D. Negligence p. 55
CABRAL, Alyanna Angelina M.
E. Causation p. 62
DELA CRUZ, Camille Victoria D.
F. Persons Liable p. 65
GALANG, Victor Kenner S.
G. Interference with Contractual Relations p. 71
GUMELA, Jimson Leandro V.
IBE, Gerald Lance T. H. Torts with Independent Civil Actions p. 72
JUSTO, Karl Earvin M. I. Abuse of Rights p. 75
KIONG, Shaira Kasey L. J. Acts Contrary to Law p. 75
MARQUEZ, Jones Harvey I. K. Acts Contrary to Morals, Good Customs, or Public Policy p. 76
MENDIOLA, Iris L. L. Violation of Human Dignity and Privacy p. 76
PALTING, Lexter E. M. Unjustified Refusal or Neglect of a Public Servant to Perform Official p. 77
RIPA, Ana Mae M. Duties
SANTIAGO, Anne Christelle A. N. Cyber Torts p. 77
TOLENTINO, Hannah C. O. Maritime Torts p. 78
TORRES, Joanne Louis F. P. Toxic Torts p. 79
UNARCE, Julia Antoinette S. Q. Damages p. 79
Use at your own risk.

PART I. TABLE OF MAXIMS and PHRASES AND CONCEPTS, PRINCIPLES, Sic utero tuo ut alienum non laedas An owner cannot use his property in
DOCTRINES, and REQUISITES/ELEMENTS such a manner as to injure the rights of
others.
MAXIMS and PHRASES Sine Causa (Recovery of a property) obtained
Maxim Translation/Meaning without legal grounds
Alterum non laedere To hurt no one by word or deed Sui juris Of age; independent
Condictio Causa Data Non Secuta A party who had performed in Turpis Causa (Recovery of property) obtained for an
anticipation of a counter-performance immoral purpose
by the other party which did not follow Ubi jus ibi remedium There is no wrong without a remedy
Condictio Indebiti Paying or giving another something that Vienen a ser como una sola Become as one personality by the
was not due him personalidad, por refundicion de la del merging of the person of the employees
Contra bonus mores Abuse of right dependiente en la de quien le emplea y in that of him who employs and utilizes
Damnum absque injuria Damage without injury utiliza (Spanish) him
De minimis non curat lex The law does not care or bother with Vigilantibus et non dormientibus It is to the vigilant and not to those who
trifles equitas subvenit sleep on their rights that equity lends
Denuncia Falsa False accusation under 2219(8) of the assistance.
Civil Code Volenti non fit injuria Doctrine of Assumption of Risk
Die gutten sitten A person who willfully causes damage to Widderechtlich, d’une maniere illicite Whoever wrongfully causes damage to
another in a manner contrary to morality another, either deliberately or
is bound to compensate the other for the negligently, owes reparation to him.
damage.
Die gutten sitten, moeurs Whoever deliberately causes injuries to
another in a way contrary to morality
owes reparation to him.
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui The burden of proof is on the one who
negat declares, not on one who denies
Ex Injustia Causa (Recovery of property) obtained on
grounds not worthy of protection by law
Hominis enim ad deos nulla re propius In nothing are men more like gods than
accedut quam salute hominibus dando in coming to the rescue of their fellow
men.
In loco parentis In the place of a parent
In pari delicto In equal fault; in a similar offense or
crime; equal in guilt or in legal fault
Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste The precepts of law are: To live honestly,
vivere, alterum non laedere, suum to hurt no one, to give every one his due.
cuique tribuere
Juris et de jure Conclusive presumptions of law
Juris tantum Rebuttable presumption
Justicia est constans et perpetua Justice is steady and unceasing
voluntas jus suum disposition to render every man his due
Novus actus interviens New intervening act
Oberlandesgericht German Appellate Court
Qui iure suo utitur neminem laedit A person is not liable for damages
resulting from the exercise of one’s right
Qui jure suo utitur nullum damnum facit One who exercises a right does no injury
Reichsgericht German Supreme Court
Res ipsa loquitur The thing speaks for itself
ALMAZAR • AUREA • BLANCAFLOR • CABRAL • DELA CRUZ • GALANG • GUMELA • IBE • JUSTO • KIONG • MARQUEZ • MENDIOLA • PALTING • RIPA • SANTIAGO • TOLENTINO • TORRES • UNARCE 2
PRINCIPLES, DOCTRINES, and REQUISITES/ELEMENTS Garcia doctrine The same given act can result in civil liability not only
under the Penal Code but also under the Civil Code.
References: Aquino, De Leon, Largo, Sangco, and Tolentino
Barredo v. Garcia (1942)
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Cangco v. Manila Railroad Citing Manresa, the liability arising from extra-
Principle Doctrine/Requisites Co. (1918) contractual culpa is always based upon a voluntary act
Tort An unlawful violation of private right, not created by or omission which, without willful intent, but by mere
contract, and which gives rise to an action for negligence or inattention, has caused damage to
damages. It is an act or omission producing an injury another.
to another, without any previous existing lawful Makati Stock Exchange, A reiteration that the sources of obligation under Art.
relations of which the said act or omission may be Inc. v. Campo (2009) 1157 of the NCC are exclusive.
said to be a natural outgrowth or incident. Major purposes of tort (1) To provide a peaceful means for adjusting the
Kinds of tort liabilities (1) Intentional torts law rights of parties who might otherwise take the
(2) Negligence law into their own hands;
(3) Strict liability (2) To deter wrongful conduct;
Intentional torts Include conduct where the actor desires to cause the (3) To encourage socially responsible behavior; and
consequences of his act or believe the consequences (4) To restore injured parties to their original
are substantially certain to result from it. condition, insofar as the law can do this, by
compensating them for their injury.
Include assault, battery, false imprisonment, Purpose of Art. 2176, NCC Seeks to reduce the risks and burden of living in the
defamation, invasion of privacy, and interference of society and to allocate them among the members of
property society.
Negligence Involves voluntary acts or omissions that result in
injury to others, without intending to cause the same. Phoenix Construction, Inc. v. IAC (1987)
The actor fails to exercise due care in performing such General purpose of tort To protect different interests in the society
acts or omissions. law
Art. 1902, OCC Any person who by any act or omission causes Business of the law of To fix the dividing lines between those cases in which
damage to another by his fault or negligence shall be torts a man is liable for harm which he has done, and those
liable for the damage so done. in which he is not
Daywalt doctrine Art. 1902 [of the OCC includes] any culpable act; and Fundamental principles (1) Equity and justice
by “culpable act” the Court means any act which is being upheld under the (2) Democracy
blameworthy when judged by accepted legal NCC (3) Respect for human dignity
standards. The idea thus expressed is undoubtedly Principles of equity and Demand that persons who may have been damaged by
broad enough to include any rational conception of justice the wrongful or negligent act of another be
liability for the tortious acts likely to be developed in compensated
any society.
Justice is the giving to each man what is proper to him
Daywalt v. La Corporacion de los Padres Agustinos (The Republic).
Recoletos (1919)
Art. 2176, NCC Whoever by act or omission causes damage to Equity has been defined as justice according to natural
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to law and right; justice outside legality.
pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if Principle of democracy Democracy, being more than a mere form of
there is no pre-existing contractual relation between government, affecting as it does, the very foundations
the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by of human life and happiness, cannot be overlooked by
the provisions of this Chapter. an integral civil code.
Elcano doctrine Culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts Principle of human The sacredness of human personality is a concomitant
which may be punished by law. dignity of every plan for human amelioration. If human
personality is not properly exalted, then the laws are
Elcano v. Hill (1977) indeed defective.
Corrective Justice The victim has a correlative right to recover for his underlie the breach of contractually bound is no bar to the application of
losses. In the eyes of those who espouse the view that contract quasi-delict provisions to the case.
tort law has the moral purpose of promoting Sir John Salmonds’ two (1) Cases when a person may be required to perform
corrective justice among individuals, tort law could groups of cases where some duty which already lies upon him
only be seen as part of private law and it risked there is concurrence of independently of any contract
incoherence if it sought to pursue social goals. To quasi-delict and (2) Cases where the defendant has taken upon
them, tort law is about individual, not social contractual breach himself a duty by contract that did not previously
responsibility. exist except by virtue of the contract
Nominate Torts As pointed out by Dean Pound, Roman law and Elements of tort liability (1) Duty;
English law begin with a set of nominate for negligence (2) Breach;
delicts/nominate torts. In Roman law, there were (3) Injury; and
furtrum (conversion), rapina (forcible conversion) (4) Proximate cause
and injuria (wilfull aggression upon personality). All Concept of duty in our Duty refers to the underlying “general duty of care”
these involved dolus, i.e. intentional aggression. jurisdiction which is in the nature of a public duty. This general
duty is a given and is no longer part of the elements of
NEGLIGENCE the cause of action that must be established. Liability
Principle Doctrine/Requisites for negligence based on quasi-delict is based on pre-
1. STATUTORY BASIS AND REQUISITES existing obligation or duty to observe the standards of
Art. 1157, NCC Obligations arise from: care set by society in dealing with other persons. The
(1) Law; plaintiff need not allege and prove the presence of
(2) Contracts; duty in order to successfully recover.
(3) Quasi-contracts; Relational concept of duty Whether the relation between the parties warrants
(4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and used in the US the imposition upon one of an obligation of care for
(5) Quasi-delicts. the benefit of the other
Requisites of quasi-delict (1) There must be an act or omission constituting
fault or negligence; Note that this is not used in our jurisdiction
(2) Damage caused by the said act or omission; and Requisites of obligation (1) Active subject
(3) Causal relation between the damage and the act based on quasi-delict (2) Passive subject
or omission (3) Prestation
The fourth requisite of It is no longer being cited in majority of cases because (4) Vinculum juris
“absence of pre-existing it is now well-settled that an action based on quasi-
contractual relation” delict can be maintained even if there is an existing In quasi-delict, it is the wrongful or negligent act or
contractual relation between the parties. However, omission itself which creates the vinculum juris.
the same is considered but an exception to the general Art. 365, RPC Imprudence and negligence. — xxx
rule that there must be no pre-existing contractual Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but
relation between the parties. without malice, doing or failing to do an act from
which material damage results by reason of
When an act constitutes a breach of contract would inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the
have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual person performing or failing to perform such act,
liability, the contract can be said to have been taking into consideration his employment or
breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition
apply (American Express Int’l v. Cordero). and other circumstances regarding persons, time and
Concentric fields The field of non-contractual obligation is much place.
broader than that of contractual obligation, Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution
comprising, as it does, the whole extent of juridical displayed in those cases in which the damage
human relations (Cangco v. Manila Railroad [1918]). impending to be caused is not immediate nor the
Test of whether a quasi- Where, without a pre-existing contract between two danger clearly manifest.
delict can be deemed to parties, an act or omission can nonetheless amount to xxx
an actionable tort by itself, the fact that the parties are Elements of Art. 365, RPC (1) The offender does or fails to do an act;
(2) The doing or the failure to do that act is voluntary; reason of his own for such conduct (referred to as
(3) It is without malice; the collateral object);
(4) The material damage results from the reckless 4) The probability that the collateral object will be
imprudence; and attained by the conduct which involves risk to the
(5) There is inexcusable lack of precaution on the principal (the utility of risk); and
part of the offender, taking into consideration his 5) The probability that the collateral object will be
employment or occupation, degree of attained without taking the risk (the necessity of
intelligence, physical condition, and other the risk).
circumstances regarding persons, time, and place. Hand test Since there are occasions when every vessel will
Test to determine Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act break from her moorings, and, since, if she does, she
presence of negligence use that reasonable care and caution which an becomes to those about her, the owner’s duty, as in
ordinarily prudent person would have used in the other similar situations, to provide against resulting
same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. injuries is a function of three variables:
(1) That the probability that she will break away;
Could a prudent man, in the cause under (2) The gravity of the resulting injury, is she does;
consideration, foresee harm as a result of the course (3) The burden of adequate precautions.
actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of the actor to Learned Hand Formula If the probability be called P; the injury L; and the
take precautions to guard against harm. burden B; liability depends upon whether B is less
Test of foreseeability In determining whether the actor was negligent, the than L multiplied by P; i.e., whether B is less than PL.
court will place itself in the position of the actor and Cost of precaution The reasonable response of a reasonable man
see if a prudent man could have foreseen the harm depends on the magnitude of risk. If the risk is real
that would result if the conduct is pursued. and is not small, the cost of precaution is irrelevant
but is the risk, although real, is fairly small, one
Even if the particular injury was not foreseeable, the considers the cost of precaution.
risk is still foreseeable if possibility of injury is Emergency rule The law takes stock of impulses of humanity when
foreseeable. “To be negligent, a defendant must have placed in threatening or dangerous situations and
acted or failed to act in such a way that an ordinary does not require the same standard of the thoughtful
reasonable man would have realized that certain and reflective care from persons confronted by
interests of certain persons were unreasonably unusual and oftentimes threatening conditions.
subjected to a general but definite class of risks.”
Diligence before the fact This diligence may include the duty to investigate. An individual who suddenly finds himself in a
Where the situation suggests investigation and situation of danger and is required to act without
inspection in order that its danger may fully appear, much time to consider the best means that may be
the duty to make such investigation and inspection is adopted to avoid the impending danger is not guilty
imposed. of negligence if he fails to undertake what
Risk benefit analysis “By balancing the risk, in the light of the social value subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a
of the interest threatened, and the probability and better solution, unless the emergency was brought by
extent of harm against the value of the interest which his own negligence.
the actor is seeking to protect, and the expedience of
the course pursued.” Moreover, one who suddenly finds himself in a place
of danger, and is required to act without time to
Reasonableness may depend upon: consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid
1) The magnitude of risk (A risk is more likely to be the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he
unreasonable the greater it is); fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection
2) The value or importance of that which is exposed may appear to have been a better method, unless the
to the risk, which is the object that the law desires emergency in which he finds himself is brought about
to protect, and may be called the principal object; by his own negligence.
3) A person who takes a risk of injuring the principal
object usually does so because he has some
Theory of implied In the case of young children, and other persons not to the train going to Clapham which was patronized
invitation to visit the fully sui juris, an implied license might sometimes by ordinary individuals or the common men.
premises of another arise when it would not on behalf of others. Thus Manabat doctrine A person in control of an automobile who crosses a
leaving a tempting thing for children to play with railroad, even at a regular road crossing, and who
exposed, where they would be likely to gather for that does not exercise the precaution, and that control
purpose, may be equivalent to an invitation to them over it as to be able to stop the same almost
to make use of it; and, perhaps if one were to throw immediately upon the appearance of a train, is guilty
away upon his premises, near the common way, of criminal negligence, providing a collision occurs
things tempting to children, the same implication and injury results.
should arise. Mestres doctrine Where a person is nearing a street crossing toward
which a car is approaching, the duty is on the party to
The owner's failure to take reasonable precautions to stop and avoid collision who can most readily adjust
prevent the child form entering premises at a place himself to the exigencies of the case, and where such
where he knows or ought to know that children are person can do more readily, the motorman has a right
accustomed to roam about or to which their childish to presume that such duty will be performed.
instincts and impulses are likely to attract them is at Pennsylvania rule An unyielding duty to stop, as well as to look and
least equivalent to an implied license to enter, and listen, no matter how clear the crossing or the tracks
where the child does not enter under such conditions on either side.
the owner's failure to make reasonable precaution to Negligence per se Failure to follow the statute involved constitutes a
guard the child against the injury from unknown or breach of the legal duty imposed and fixed by the
unseen dangers, placed upon such premises by the statute. Since negligence is a breach of legal duty, the
owner, is clearly a breach of duty, a negligent violator of a statute is then negligent as a matter of
omission, for which he may and should be held law.
responsible, if the child is actually injured, without Open texture Communications of standards of behavior, however
other fault on its part than that it had smoothly they work over the great mass of ordinary
entered on the premises of a stranger without his cases, would, at some point where their application is
express invitation or permission. in question, prove indeterminate. They will have what
Doctrine of attractive This serves as a limitation to the rule on contributory has been termed an “open texture”.
nuisance (also known as negligence. Under this rule, an owner is liable if he
“turntable doctrine” or maintains in his presence dangerous It is a feature of the human predicament (and so of the
“torpedo doctrine”) instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to legislative one) that we labor under two connected
lure children in play and he fails to exercise ordinary handicaps whenever we seek to regulate,
care to prevent children of tender age from playing unambiguously and in advance, some sphere of
therewith or resorting thereto. conduct by means of general standards to be used
without further official direction on particular
Liability exists even if the child is a trespasser so long occasions. The first handicap is our relative ignorance
as he is not of sufficient age or discretion. These of fact; the second is our relative indeterminacy of
include railway turntables, explosives, electrical aim.
conduits, smoldering fires, and rickety structures. Degree of Care Required The degree of care required in the operation of an
Clapham omnibus What should be determined in negligence cases is of Automobile Operators automobile on the public highways is correlative with
what is foreseeable to a good father of a family. A good the conditions confronting the operator, such as the
father of a family is likewise referred to as the presence or absence of other travelers and their
reasonable man, man of ordinary intelligence and apparent ability to care for themselves, the
prudence, or ordinary reasonable prudent man. In unobstructedness of the views, etc.
English law, he is sometimes referred to as the man Speeding as a Test of The speed limit is not always a test of diligence.
on the Clapham omnibus. Negligence Driving at a lesser speed is no guaranty of due care.
The motorist must not only keep within the speed
Clapham is an area in England where ordinary people limit but must observe due care; and the latter is
used to reside and the Clapham omnibus used to refer
always determined by the surrounding circumstances 3. GROSS NEGLIGENCE- is materially greater than
of person, time and place. ordinary negligence, and consists of an entire absence
Diligence of Pedestrians The rules regarding the duties of persons driving of care or an absence of even slight care or diligence;
vehicles or engines capable of causing injury, or even it implies a thoughtless disregard for consequences or
death, through negligent operation, are predicated an indifference to the rights or welfare of others.
upon the assumption that a corresponding degree of
care is exercised by the person injured. AFFIRMATIVE DUTIES
Law of the road The “Law of the Road” is the custom or practice that Principle Doctrine/Requisites
has become crystallized into an accepted system of But-for test The difference between real nonfeasance and pseudo-
rules regulating travel on highways. It was ruled that nonfeasance can be formulated by transforming the
the very fact of speeding is indicative of imprudent but-for test so that it attends not to the actual injury
behavior. It is also part of the law of the road that a but to the risk of injury.
drive must slow down before negotiating a curve. Liability of tortfeasor to (1) The defendant tortfeasor was negligent to the
Res ipsa loquitur Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be rescuer (Requisites to person rescued and such negligence caused the
under the management of the defendant, and the make a tortfeasor liable to peril or appearance of peril to the person
accident is such as in the ordinary course of things the rescuer) rescued;
does not happen if those who have the management (2) The peril or appearance of peril was imminent
use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the (3) A reasonably prudent person who would have
absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the concluded such peril or appearance of peril
accident arose from want of care. existent; and
Requisites of res ipsa (1) The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does (4) The rescuer acted with reasonable care in
loquitur not occur in the absence of someone's effectuating the rescue.
negligence; No duty-to-act rule General Rule: Unless the defendant has assumed a
(2) It is caused by an instrumentality within the duty to act, or stands in a special relationship to the
exclusive control of the defendant or defendants; plaintiff, defendants are not liable in tort for a pure
and failure to act for the plaintiff’s benefit.
(3) The possibility of contributing conduct which The exceptional cases in which a duty of care may
would make the plaintiff responsible is require reasonable affirmative steps by the defendant
eliminated. include:
a. The defendant or his instrumentalities,
There exists a fourth requisite under American innocently or not, have created risks or caused harm
jurisprudence, that is, that the defendant fails to offer to the plaintiff;
any explanation tending to show that the injury was b. The defendant is in a special relationship to
caused by his or her want of due care. the plaintiff that is deemed to create a duty of care
Control of the Control of the instrumentality which caused the that encompasses affirmative action;
instrumentality damage is the fundamental element. Such element of c. The defendant takes affirmative action that is
control must be shown to be within the dominion of either cut short or performed negligently; and
the defendant. In order to have the benefit of the rule, The defendant has assumed a duty of affirmative care
a plaintiff, in addition to proving injury or damage; by action or promise that evinces such an assumption.
must show a situation where it is applicable, and must No duty to control others General Rule: In a large number of cases the
establish that the essential elements of the doctrine defendant himself does not directly injure the plaintiff
were present in a particular incident. but instead fails to prevent the risk of injury by
Degrees of negligence 1. SLIGHT NEGLIGENCE- the failure to exercise great another, the immediate tortfeasor is not merely
or extraordinary care; negligent but often he carries out a criminal attack on
2. ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE- is the want of ordinary the plaintiff. The question is whether the defendant,
care and diligence, that is, such care and diligence as who could have prevented the injury by a warning, or
an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under by exercising control he had over the attacker, or
the same or similar circumstances; otherwise, is under any duty to do so.
Exceptions:
a. Statutes may impose a duty to take action
and to use care to protect others. The proof of such breach must likewise rest upon the
b. The defendant is under a duty to use a testimony of an expert witness that the treatment
reasonable care for the plaintiff’s safety where the accorded to the patient failed to meet the standard
defendant is in a special relationship with the level of care, skill, and diligence which physicians in
plaintiff. the same general neighborhood and in the same
c. The defendant is under a duty to use general line of practice ordinarily possess and
reasonable care for the plaintiff’s safety when the exercise in like cases.
defendant is in a special relationship with the Two inquiries in (1) Whether the doctor’s actions in fact causes the
immediate tortfeasor and in a position to control his causation in malpractice harm to the patient; and
tortious behavior or at least to minimize risks to the (2) Whether these were the proximate cause of the
plaintiff by some means. patient’s injury
What needs to be proved To successfully pursue a claim. The plaintiff must
MALPRACTICE in malpractice prove by preponderance of evidence that
Principle Doctrine/Requisites (1) the physician either failed to do something which
Code of Hammurabi If a physician makes a deep incision upon a man with a reasonably prudent health care provider would
his bronze lancet and cause a man’s death or operate have done, or that he did something that a
on the eye socket of a man with his bronze lancet and reasonably prudent provider would not have
destroy the man’s eyes, they shall cut off his hand. done; and
Hippocrates’ oath I will follow that method of treatment which (2) the failure or action caused injury to the patient
according to my ability and judgment, I consider for Res ipsa loquitur in In cases involving medical negligence, the doctrine of
the benefit of my patients and abstain from whatever medical malpractice res ipsa loquitur allows the mere existence of an injury
is deleterious and mischievous… While I continue to to justify a presumption of negligence on the part of
keep this oath unviolated may it be granted to me to the person who controls the instrument causing the
enjoy life and practice this art, respected by all men at injury, provided that the following requisites concur:
all times but should I trespass and violate this oath, (1) The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does
may the reverse be my lot. not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence;
Elements of malpractice (1) An act or omission constituting fault or (2) It is cause by an instrumentality within the
negligence; exclusive control of the defendant or defendants;
(2) Damage suffered by the injured party; and and
(3) The causal relation between the damage and the (3) The possibility of contributing conduct which
act or omission. would make the plaintiff responsible is
Locality rule Each physician has a duty to have a practical working eliminated.
knowledge of the facilities, equipment, resources and
options reasonably available to him or her as well as In cases where the res ipsa loquitur is applicable, the
the practical limitations on the same. court is permitted to find a physician negligent upon
proper proof of injury to the patient, without the aid
The doctor must be aware of the specialized services of expert testimony, where the court from its fund of
or facilities available in his area. Hence, to a certain common knowledge can determine the proper
extent, local medical custom and facilities in the standard of care.
community may affects the duty of care of doctors but Lost chance rule The loss of chance of achieving a favorable outcome
only in the sense that the “content of the duty of care or of avoiding an adverse consequence should be
may be informed by local medical custom but never compensable and should be valued approximately,
subsumed by it”. rather than treated as an all-or-nothing proposition.
Neighborhood rule A physician is under a duty to the patient to exercise Preexisting conditions must, of course, be taken into
that degree of care, skill and diligence which account in valuing the interest destroyed. When those
physicians in the same general neighborhood in the preexisting conditions have not absolutely
same general line of practice ordinarily possess and preordained an adverse outcome, however, the
exercise in like cases. chance of avoiding it should be approximately
compensated even if that chance is not better than within the four corners of the operating room. It
even. enunciates the liability of the surgeon not only for the
Doctrine of informed Unless excused, the doctor must secure the consent of wrongful acts of those who are under his physical
consent his patient to a particular treatment or an control but also those wherein he has extension of
investigative procedure. Consent is an integral part of control.
the physician-patient relationship and doctors are Requisites for the (1) There is employer-employee relationship
duty bound to obtain an authorization for care carried vicarious liability of between the hospital and the physician (under
out in their offices or elsewhere. hospitals Article 2180), or
Elements of liability (1) The physician had a duty to disclose material (2) If the doctrine of apparent authority can be
under the doctrine of risks; applied, that is, it the hospital holds out to the
informed consent (2) The physician failed to disclose or inadequately patient that the physician is an agent.
disclosed those risks; Doctrine of apparent A hospital can be held vicariously liable for the
(3) As a direct and proximate result of the failure to authority negligent acts of a physician providing care at the
disclose, the patient consented to treatment she hospital, regardless of whether the physician is an
otherwise would not have consented to; and independent contractor, unless the patient knows, or
(4) The plaintiff was injured by the proposed should have known, that the physician is an
treatment independent contractor (Casumpang v. Cortejo).
Objective reasonable The causality issue is resolved on an objective basis: Doctrine of corporate Regardless of its relationship with the doctor, the
patient test “in terms of what a prudent person in the patient’s responsibility or hospital may be held directly liable to the patient for
position would have decided if suitably informed of corporate negligence its own negligence or failure to follow established
the perils bearing significance”. doctrine standard of conduct to which it should conform as a
Two types of causation (1) Adequate disclosure would have caused the corporation.
under objective plaintiff to decline the treatment, and Medication error A nurse, being one of the health care professionals
reasonable patient test (2) The treatment proximately caused injury to the who may be responsible in the administration of the
plaintiff medicine to the patient, may commit medication
Professional disclosure A charge of failure to disclose should be judged by the error. Negligence with respect to the administration
standard standards of the reasonable practitioner. The of drugs may take many forms including giving the
question under the standard is: did the doctor wrong medication to the patient, administering the
disclose the information that, by established medical drugs using the wrong dosage and not within the time
practice, is required to be disclosed? or schedule prescribed by the doctor, erroneous way
Reasonable patient The test for determining whether a particular peril of administering the drug like the mode of injection,
standard must be divulged is its materiality to the patient’s erroneous medication route, failure to not a change in
decision: all risks potentially affecting the decision the order of the physician, failure to discontinue the
must be unmasked. Under this standards, adequate medication, use of unsterile needle, administering
disclosure “required the physician to discuss the medicine to the wrong patient, and failure to note the
nature of the proposed treatment, whether it was allergic reaction of the patient.
necessary or merely elective, the risks, and the Res ipsa loquitur in order The principle of res ipsa loquitur should be applied in
available alternatives and their risks and benefits.” processing error in case of cases of this character. The druggist has the sole
Two steps in reasonable (1) The scientific nature of the risk must be pharmacists control of the drug he offers for sale, either harmful or
patient standard ascertained, i.e., the nature of the harm which harmless. His relation to the community is such that
may result and the probability of the occurrence. there is an obligation cast upon him to see that no
(2) The trier of fact must then decide whether that harmful or poisonous drugs shall be delivered to a
probability of that type of harm is a risk which a customer when a harmless one is asked for; proof of a
reasonable patient would consider in deciding on mistake or inadvertence upon the part of the druggist
treatment. furnishes an inference sufficient to establish a prima
Captain of the ship The surgeon is likened to ship captain who must not facie case. It raises presumption which entitles the
doctrine only be responsible for the safety of the crew but also customer to recover unless that presumption is
of the passengers of the vessel. The head surgeon is rebutted.
made responsible for everything that goes wrong
Determination of The (SL-RN) medical community in the particular kind of case, and
Degree of Learning and a showing that the physician in question negligently
Skill Required of a departed from this standard in his treatment.
Physician or Surgeon in Special or Limited As regards special or limited practitioners, the rules
His Treatment of a (1) The state of medical or surgical science at Practitioners and standards governing the duty and liability of
Particular Case physicians and surgeons in the performance of
the time;
professional services are applicable to practitioners
of the kindred branches of the healing art, such as
chiropodists, chiropractors, Christian science healers,
(2) The locality in which the physician practices; dentists, practitioners of naturopathy, nurses,
optometrists and opticians and operators of X-ray
machines.
Elements of lawyer 1) Lawyer-client relationship
(3) The general rules and principles of the particular malpractice 2) Duty
school of medicine which he follows; and 3) Cause in fact
4) Proximate cause
5) Damage
6) In criminal-case malpractice, the duties
(4) The nature of the case and the condition of the include the duties of professional care and
patient. competence, but also includes the special duties of
Locality Rule The state of medical or surgical science at the time. fiduciaries and the duty to provide certain
The locality in which a physician practices is likewise information to the client, somewhat analogous to the
important in determining the degree of skill and care obligation of medical practitioners to provide
required of him, and the rule is frequently stated that patients with information
a physician or surgeon is required, or is only required, Standard of Care of Attorneys owe clients the skill, care, knowledge, and
to exercise the same degree of care Lawyers diligence exercised by reasonable and prudent
lawyers in similar circumstances. Under this
and skill exercised by physicians and surgeons in
standard, not every professional mistake is
good standing engaged in the same general line of
negligence
practice in the same locality or neighborhood”
Lawyer’s Tort Liability to In most jurisdictions, absent fraud or other bad faith,
Error in Judgment Rule “A physician is not liable for error in his judgment
Non-clients an attorney is not liable for negligent conduct to non-
when he applies ordinary and reasonable skill and
client third party. There is no duty owed to a non-
care, or his best judgment, or keeps within recognized
client to avoid negligently inflicted economic harm.
and approved methods or common practice, or if he
forms his judgment after a careful or proper
Some jurisdictions have permitted a limited
examination or investigation”
expansion of the duty beyond clients in certain
Evidential Rule “Inasmuch as the causes of the injuries involved in
particularly compelling circumstances. Where an
malpractice actions are determinable only in the light
attorney understood that the client’s intent was to
of scientific knowledge, it has been recognized that
benefit a third party, in some contexts that third party
expert testimony is usually necessary to support the
is permitted to sue for legal malpractice
conclusion as to causation.
Adarne v. Aldaba An attorney is not bound to exercise extraordinary
Essentially, it requires two-pronged evidence: diligence, but only a reasonable degree of care and
evidence as to the recognized standards of the skill having reference to the character of the business
medical community in the particular kind of case, and he undertakes to do
a showing that the physician in question negligently
departed from this standard in his treatment. NEGLIGENCE OF SELECTED BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS
Liability of Hospitals Essentially, it requires two-pronged evidence: Principle Doctrine/Requisites
evidence as to the recognized standards of the Built-in obligation of Institutions of learning must meet the implicit or
schools ‘built-in’ obligation of providing their student with an
atmosphere that promotes or assists in attaining its by unforeseen accidents and other occurrences of
primary undertaking of imparting knowledge. similar nature.
Inference of negligence Where a patron of a theater or other place of public Elements of caso fortuito (1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected
amusement is injured, and the thing that caused the occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to
injury is wholly and exclusively under the control and comply with his obligation, must be independent
management of the defendant, and the accident is of the human will;
such as in the ordinary course of events would not (2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which
have happened if proper care had been exercised, its constitutes the ‘caso fortuito’, or if it can be
occurrence raises a presumption or permits of an foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid;
inference of negligence on the part of the defendant. (3) The occurrence must be such as to render it
impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation
DEFENSES IN NEGLIGENCE CASES in a normal manner; and
Principle Doctrine/Requisites (4) The obligor must be free from any participation
Comparative negligence In the broadest sense, comparative negligence rules in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the
rule include any rule under which the relative degree of creditor.
negligence of the parties is considered in determining Doctrine of relations or That principle of law by which an act done at one time
whether, and to what degree, either should be relations back doctrine is considered by fiction of law to have been done at
responsible for his negligence. The rules involve some antecedent period. It is a doctrine which,
apportionment of damages. Under the “pure” type of although of equitable origin, has a well-recognized
comparative negligence, the plaintiff’s contributory application to proceedings at law; a legal fiction
negligence does not operate to bar his recovery invented to promote the ends of justice or prevent
altogether but does serve to reduce his damage in injustice and occurrence of injuries where otherwise
proportion to his fault. there would be no remedy.
Contributory negligence Contributory negligence is a conduct on the part of
the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the CAUSATION
harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard Principle Doctrine/Requisites
to which he is required to conform for his own 1. CONCEPT OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
protection. Proximate cause That cause which, in natural and continuous
Test There is contributory negligence when the party’s act sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
showed lack of ordinary care and foresight that such cause, produces the injury, and without which the
act could cause him harm or put his life in danger. result would not have occurred.
Last clear chance The historical function of that doctrine in the common
law was to mitigate the harshness of another common Note that this definition is the most widely-quoted, and
law doctrine or rule – that of contributory negligence. had been adopted in our jurisdiction in Bataclan v.
The common law notion of last clear chance Medina (1957).
permitted courts to grant recovery to a plaintiff who Other definitions (1) The proximate legal cause is that acting first and
has also been negligent provided that the defendant producing the injury, either immediately or by
had the last clear chance to avoid the casualty and Note that according to settling other events in motion, all constituting a
failed to do so. Aquino, these definitions, natural and continuous chain of events, each
Assumption of risk; (1) The plaintiff must know that the risk is present; which include the element having a close causal connection with its
requisites (2) He must further understand its nature; and of foreseeability, are immediate predecessor, the final event in the
(3) His choice to incur it is free and voluntary misleading and chain immediately affecting the injury as a natural
Express consent There is assumption of risk it the plaintiff, in advance, inconsistent with the and probable result of the cause which first acted,
perspective has expressly waived his right to recover damages for provisions of the NCC, under such circumstances that the person
the negligent act of the defendant. because under the NCC, the responsible for the first event should, as an
Caso fortuito An unexpected event or act of God which could actor is liable for the ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have
neither be foreseen nor resisted, such as floods, damages which resulted reasonable ground to expect at the moment his
torrents, shipwrecks, conflagrations, lightning, from his acts, whether the act or default that an injury to some person might
compulsion, insurrections, destruction of buildings probably result therefrom.
same is foreseen or may be attributed to all or any of the causes and
unforeseen. Note that this also appeared in Bataclan v. Medina recovery may be had against any or all of the
(1957) responsible persons although under the
circumstances of the case, it may appear that one of
(2) The concept of proximate cause is well defined in them was more culpable, and that the duty owed by
our corpus of jurisprudence as any cause which, in them to the injured person was not the same. No
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by actor’s negligence ceases to be a proximate cause
any efficient intervening cause, produces the merely because it does not exceed the negligence of
result complained of and without which would other actors. Each wrongdoer is responsible for the
not have occurred and from which it ought to entire result and is liable as though his acts were the
have been foreseen or reasonably anticipated by sole cause of the injury.
a person of ordinary care that the injury
complained of or some similar injury, would (Far Eastern Shipping Co. v. CA [1998])
result therefrom as a natural and probable
consequence. Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or
omission of two or more persons, although acting
Note that this definition is found in Pilipinas Bank v. CA independently of each other, are, in combination, the
(1994), citing People v. Desalina. direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third
People v. Desalina In this case, the proximate cause of the injury person and it is impossible to determine in what
sustained by the drawer due to a wrongful dishonor proportion each contributed to the injury, either is
of a check he issued was the bank employee’s posting responsible for the whole injury, even though his act
of a previous deposit by the drawer in the account of alone might not have caused the entire injury, or the
another depositor with the same first name. same damage might have resulted from the acts of the
Remote cause That cause which some independent force merely other tortfeasor.
took advantage of to accomplish something not the
natural effect thereof. (Sabido v. Custodio [1966])
Nearest cause The last link in the chain of events; the nearest in Vinluan v. CA (1966) Where there is concurrent causes or negligence, the
point of time or relation. joint tortfeasors are solidarily liable.
Rodriguez v. Manila Where the embers that were negligently emitted from Tamayo v. Senora (2010) A tricycle bumped a motorcycle crossing an
Railroad Co. one of the trains of the defendant resulted in a fire in intersection, pushing the same into the path of a
one of the houses near the tracks, which was truck. The Court held both the drivers of the tricycle
communicated to two other houses due to the wind, and truck solidarily liable because of their concurrent
the defendant is still liable for the fire communicated negligence, since there would have been no impact if
to the other two houses. Since the fire originated in the truck itself as not moving.
the negligent acts of the defendant, it is immaterial Art. 2179, NCC When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the
that the fire was communicated to the two other immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
houses through the first house through the action of cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was
the wind instead of directly from the locomotive. only contributory, the immediate and proximate
Effect of concurrent Where several causes combine to produce injuries, a cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due
causes person is not relieved from liability because he is care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the
responsible for only one of them, it being sufficient courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
that the negligence of the person charged with injury Bernardo v. Legaspi The plaintiff cannot recover if the negligence of both
is an efficient cause without which the injury would (1914) the plaintiff and the defendant can be considered the
not have resulted to as great an extent, and that such concurrent proximate cause of the injury.
cause is not attributable to the person injured. Proof of causation There must be proof of the causal connection before
the alleged tortfeasor may be made liable.
Where several causes producing an injury are US v. Ortega (1906) Here, it was established that the alleged tortfeasor
concurrent and each is an efficient cause without prescribed a medicine on the victim who was a child
which the injury would not have happened, the injury and who seemed to improve after the medicine was
administered. Also established was the death of the Necessary condition A circumstance in whose absence the event cannot
child. Still, since no attempt was made to show that occur. Its non-existence ensures in the same sense
the medicine was the cause of the child’s death, the that its effect do not exist,
accused was acquitted. Sufficient condition A circumstance in whose presence the event must
2. TESTS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE occur. The existence of the cause ensures that its
Tests of proximate cause (1) Cause-in-fact tests effects also exist.
(2) Policy tests of negligence Chain of causation The cause of the cause is the cause of the effect. There
is liability by the original actor for all the
First, we determine if the defendant’s negligence was consequences which may be attributed to his act.
the cause-in-fact of the damage to the plaintiff. Cone of causation If we look into the past of any given event, there is an
If no, the inquiry stops. If yes, the inquiry shifts to the infinite number of events, each of which is a necessary
question of limit of liability of the defendant. condition of the given event and so, as much as any
Second, anent the question of limit of liability, resort other, is its cause
will be had to the policy tests. Net of causation At each point, influences, forces, events, precedent
Cause-in-fact tests (1) But-for test or sine qua non test and simultaneous meet, and the radiation from each
(2) Substantial factor test point extents to infinitely.
(3) NESS test Duplicative cause Occurs when two or more sets operate
But-for test or sine qua The defendant’s conduct is the cause-in-fact if the simultaneously to produce the effect
non test damage would not have resulted had there been no Pre-emptive cause Occurs when, through coming about first in time, one
negligence on the part of the defendant. Conversely, causal set trumps another, potential set lurking in the
the defendant’s negligent conduct is not the cause-in- background. The causal potency of the latter is
fact if the accident could not have been avoided in the frustrated.
absence thereof. Policy tests (1) Foresight perspective
Substantial factor test The negligent conduct is the cause-in-fact of the (a) Foreseeability test
damage if it was a substantial factor in producing the (b) Natural and probable consequence test
injuries. In order to be a substantial factor in (c) Natural and ordinary or direct consequences
producing the harm, the causes set in motion by the test
defendant must continue until the moment of the (2) Directness perspective
damage or at least down the setting in motion of the (a) Hindsight test
final active injurious force which immediately (b) Orbit of risk test
produced or preceded the damage. (c) Substantial factor test
Types of dangerous (1) Inherently dangerous
Note that whenever this test is applied, the same is conditions (2) Placing a thing not dangerous in itself in a
being applied both as cause-in-fact test and a policy dangerous position
test. (3) Dangerous due to defect
Egg-skull or thin skull rule A tortfeasor whose act, superimposed upon a prior
This test is important in cases where there are latent condition, results in an injury may be liable for
concurrent causes damages. The tortfeasor is required to take the victim
NESS test The negligent act or omission is a cause-in-fact of the as he finds him, and is liable even though the negligent
damage if it is a necessary element of a sufficient set. act caused an injury that is greater than what is
Otherwise stated, whether a particular condition usually experienced by a normal person because of a
qualifies as a causally relevant factor will depend on prior condition of the plaintiff.
whether it was necessary to complete a set of 3. EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE
conditions jointly sufficient to account for the given Efficient intervening One that destroys the causal connection between the
occurrence. cause negligent act and injury and thereby negatives
liability.
Here, it is acknowledged that the candidate cause is
just part of the sufficient set. This is equivalent to the pre-emptive cause referred
to in the NESS test.
and is based on the reasoning that the additional
There is no efficient intervening cause if the force harm is either:
created by the negligent act or omission have either: (1) A part of the original injury; or
(1) Remained active itself, or (2) The natural and probable consequences of the
(2) Created another force which remained active tortfeasor’s original negligence; or
until it directly caused the result, or (3) The normal incidence of medical care
(3) Created a new active risk of being acted upon by necessitated by the tortfeasor’s original
the active force that caused the result negligence.
Test of sufficiency of The test of the sufficiency of an intervening cause to
intervening cause defeat recovery for negligence is found in its nature If at all, there will only be an efficient intervening
and manner in which it affects the continuity of cause where the original tortfeasor is not liable if the
operation of the primary cause or the connection injured failed to exercise reasonable care in securing
between it and the injury. It must break the continuity the services of a competent physician or surgeon.
of causal connection between the original negligent People v. Acuram (2000) The perceived delay in giving medical treatment does
act or omission and the injury so that the former not break at all the causal connection between the
cannot be said to have been the efficient cause of the wrongful act of the appellant and the injuries
latter. sustained by the victim.
Effect of unforeseen and An unforeseen and unexpected act or cause of a third
A cause is not an intervening cause if it is already in unexpected act or cause person may not be considered efficient intervening
operation at the time the negligent act is committed. cause if it is duplicative in nature or if it merely
Rodrigueza v. Manila Here, the embers that were negligently emitted from aggravated the injury that resulted because of a prior
Railroad Co. one of the trains of the defendant resulted in a fire in cause, or if the third person’s act is part of the causal
one of the houses near the tracks, which was set, together with the defendant’s negligence, that
communicated to two other houses due to the wind. operated to cause the injury.
The wind cannot be considered an intervening cause Africa v. Caltex (1966) The Court, held, with respect to the contention that
because it was already in operation at the time the the fire in the gasoline station occurred while gasoline
negligent act of the defendant was performed. Also, was being unloaded was caused through the acts of a
even if the wind was not yet operating, it still cannot stranger who, without authority, passed through the
be considered an efficient intervening cause because gasoline station and negligently threw a lighted
it did not break the chain of causation. match, assuming arguendo that said be true, that it
McKee v. IAC (1992) The plaintiff may be negligent but the defendant’s does not extenuate defendant’s negligence. The
negligence preempted the effect of such negligence. In intervention of an unforeseen and unexpected cause
this case, the plaintiff, while driving in a highway, is not sufficient to relieve the wrongdoer from
swerved his car to the opposite lane to avoid two consequences of negligence, if such negligence
children. As a result, a speeding truck going to the directly and proximately cooperates with the
opposite direction bumped the plaintiff’s car. independent cause in the resulting injury.
Phoenix Construction v. CA Foreseeable intervening causes cannot be considered Bataclan v. Medina (1957) At around 2 am, a bus overturned, with four
(1987) sufficient intervening causes. If the intervening cause passengers stuck and unable to get out of the
is one which in ordinary human experience is overturned bus. After half an hour came about 10
reasonably to be anticipated, or one which the men, one of them carrying a lighted torch made of
defendant has reason to anticipate under the bamboo, fueled with petroleum. Upon approaching
particular circumstances, the defendant may be the bus, a fierce fire immediately started, burning the
negligent, among other reasons, because of failure to bus and the four stuck passengers along with it. The
guard against it; or the defendant may be negligent Court held that in this case, the proximate cause of the
only for that reason. death of the stuck passengers was still the
Effect of medical A tortfeasor is liable for the consequence of overturning of the bus. It may be that ordinarily, when
treatment negligence, mistake, or lack of skill of a physician or a passenger bus overturns, and pins down a
surgeon whose treatment aggravated the original passenger, merely causing him physical injuries, if
injury, the same being a normal and foreseeable risk, through some event, unexpected and extraordinary,
the overturned bus is set on fire, say, by lightning, or stairway if there had not been a fire in the
if some highwaymen after looting the vehicle sets it neighborhood which caused the students to panic and
on fire, and the passenger is burned to death, one rush headlong for the stairs in order to go down. But
might still contend that the proximate cause of his it was precisely such contingencies or events that the
death was the fire and not the overturning of the authors of the ordinance had in mind, for under
vehicle. But in the present case and under the normal conditions one stairway would be adequate
circumstances obtaining in the same, we do not for the occupants of the building. The general
hesitate to hold that the proximate cause of the death principle is that the violation of a statute or ordinance
of Bataclan was the overturning of the bus, this for the is not rendered remote as the cause of an injury by the
reason that when the vehicle turned not only on its intervention of another agency if the occurrence of
side but completely on its back, the leaking of the the accident, in the manner in which it happened, was
gasoline from the tank was not unnatural or the very thing which the statute or ordinance was
unexpected; that the coming of the men with a lighted intended to prevent.
torch was in response to the call for help, made not 4. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
only by the passengers, but most probably, by the Contributory negligence Conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing
driver and the conductor themselves, and that as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which
because it was very dark (about 2:30 in the morning), falls below the standard to which he is required to
the rescuers had to carry a light with them; and conform for his own protection.
coming as they did from a rural area where lanterns Effect if plaintiff’s The negligence of the plaintiff is not contributory
and flashlights were not available, they had to use a negligence is the only negligence if it is the only cause, that is, it is necessary
torch, the most handy and available; and what was cause and sufficient to produce the result. In this situation
more natural than that said rescuers should defendant’s act or omission is neither necessary nor
innocently approach the overturned vehicle to extend sufficient to cause damage or injury. This situation
the aid and effect the rescue requested from them. In may include the cases when only the plaintiff was
other words, the coming of the men with the torch negligent (or when it is pre-emptive in nature) while
was to be expected and was a natural sequence of the the defendant is not negligent or defendant’s
overturning of the bus, the trapping of some of its negligence is not part of the causal set or the causal
passengers and the call for outside help. chain.
Teague v. Fernandez A vocational school has only one stairway, in violation Effect if there are Where the plaintiff’s negligence may have duplicative
(1973) of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila which compound causes effect, that is, it is sufficient to bring about the effect
requires at least two. A fire broke out at a neighboring but his negligence occurs simultaneously with that of
place, which led to shouts of “Fire!” thereby causing the defendant. The latter’s negligence is equally
panic, resulting to a stampede, which led to the sufficient but not necessary for the effect because the
injuries and death. However, the fire did not actually damage would still have resulted due to the
reach the institute. Nonetheless, the Court held that negligence of the plaintiff. It is submitted that in these
the violation was not a prior and remote cause, and cases, no recovery can be had. The plaintiff’s
has a causal connection with the resulting injuries and negligence is not merely contributory because it is a
death, and that the proximate cause in this case was concurring proximate cause.
the overcrowding at the stairway. Accordingly, it Effect if plaintiff’s Where the plaintiff’s negligence is not sufficient to
ruled that the violation was a continuing one, since negligence, together with cause the injury while defendant’s negligence is also
the ordinance was a measure of safety designed to defendant’s negligence, is not equally sufficient, in that the effect would result
prevent a specific situation which would pose a part of the same causal set only if both are present together with normal
danger to the occupants of the building. That situation background conditions. It is believed that the
was undue overcrowding in case it should become plaintiff’s negligence can still be considered merely
necessary to evacuate the building, which, it could be contributory. It is submitted that the determination of
reasonably foreseen, was bound to happen under proximate cause in these cases is only a matter of
emergency conditions if there was only one stairway degree of participation. In this situation, it is believed
available. It is true that in this particular case there that apportionment should be made and each of the
would have been no overcrowding in the single candidate causes given a percentage of participation,
in the discretion of the court. Under a pure (3) The injury suffered must not have been due to any
comparative negligence regime, the apportionment to voluntary action or contribution on the part of the
both parties may result in the reduction of the liability person injured.
of the defendant to more than half. It is believed, Other terms Doctrine of supervening negligence or doctrine of
however, that the reduction cannot be more than fifty discovered peril
percent (50%) in this jurisdiction because reduction Prevailing view on its The doctrine, having been introduced in our
by more than fifty percent (50%) is no longer applicability in our jurisdiction by Picart v. Smith, has been reiterated, or
consistent with a finding that the defendant’s jurisdiction at least discussed, in a number of cases leading us to
negligence was the proximate cause of the damage or conclude that the weight of authority indicates that
injury. the doctrine is applicable in this jurisdiction.
Effect if defendant’s The defendant’s negligence may be sufficient and Minority view on its It is a matter for debate whether, or to what extent, it
negligence is the only necessary to cause the damage and plaintiff’s act or applicability in our has found its way into the Civil Code of the
cause omission is neither necessary nor sufficient. Damage jurisdiction Philippines.
to the plaintiff was solely the result of the defendant’s
negligence. However, the plaintiff’s negligence may The historical function of that doctrine in the common
have increased or aggravated the resulting damage or law was to mitigate the harshness of another common
injury. In this particular case, the liability of the law doctrine or rule — that of contributory
defendant should also be mitigated under the negligence. The common law rule of contributory
contributory negligence rule or under the doctrine of negligence prevented any recovery at all by a plaintiff
avoidable consequences, as the case may be. who was also negligent, even if the plaintiff’s
Doctrine of avoidable Under the doctrine of avoidable consequences, a negligence was relatively minor as compared with the
consequences party cannot recover damages flowing from the wrongful act or omission of the defendant. The
consequences which that party could reasonably have common law notion of last clear chance permitted
avoided. Corollary to this principle, the person who courts to grant recovery to a plaintiff who had also
reasonably attempts to minimize his damages can been negligent provided that the defendant had the
recover expenses incurred. last clear chance to avoid the casualty and failed to do
so.
Note: The doctrine of avoidable consequences is to be
distinguished from the doctrine of contributory Accordingly, it is difficult to see what role, if any, the
negligence. Although in this jurisdiction, both operate common law last clear chance doctrine has to play in
to prevent full recovery, contributory negligence a jurisdiction where the common law concept of
occurs either before or at the time of the wrongful act contributory negligence as an absolute bar to
or omission of the defendant. On the other hand, the recovery by the plaintiff, has itself been rejected, as it
doctrine of avoidable consequences arise after the has been in Article 2179 of the Civil Code of the
wrongful act of the defendant Philippines.
5. DOCTRINE OF THE LAST CLEAR CHANCE
Doctrine The person who has the last fair chance to avoid the Under Article 2179, the task of a court, in technical
impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with terms, is to determine whose negligence — the
the consequences, without reference to the prior plaintiff’s or the defendant’s — was the legal or
negligence of the other party. proximate cause of the injury. That task is not simply
Also known as (1) Doctrine of discovered peril or even primarily an exercise in chronology or
(2) Humanitarian doctrine physics, as the petitioners seem to imply by the use of
(3) Doctrine of intervening negligence terms like “last” or “intervening” or “immediate.” The
(4) Known danger rule relative location in the continuum of time of the
(5) Rule of Davies v. Mann plaintiff’s and the defendant’s negligent acts or
Requisites (1) The accident is of a kind which does not ordinarily omissions, is only one of the relevant factors that may
occur unless someone is negligent; be taken into account. Of more fundamental
(2) The cause of the injury was under the exclusive importance are the nature of the negligent act or
control of the person in charge; and omission of each party and the character and gravity
of the risks created by such act or omission for the (4) If defendant’s negligence is a concurrent cause
rest of the community. and which was still in operation up to the time the
injury was inflicted. The doctrine cannot be
(Phoenix Construction, Inc. v. IAC [1987]) extended into the field of joint tortfeasors as a test
of whether only one of them should be liable, and
Note that according to Aquino, this is the correct view. it cannot be invoked as between defendants
Third view In some states in the United States, the two doctrines concurrently negligent;
— doctrine of comparative negligence and doctrine of (5) Where the plaintiff, a passenger, filed an action
the last clear chance — are not considered against a carrier based on contract;
inconsistent in any way. (6) If the actor, though negligent, was not aware of
Picart v. Smith Plaintiff, who was riding a pony on a bridge, the danger or risk brought about by a prior fraud
improperly pulled his horse over to the right side or negligent act.
upon seeing an automobile ahead. The driver of the
automobile, however, guided his car towards the HUMAN RELATIONS: INTENTIONAL TORTS
plaintiff without diminution of speed until he was Principle Doctrine/Requisites
only a few feet away. He then turned right but passed GENERAL CONCEPTS
so closely that the horse was frightened, leading Elements of intent (1) It is a state of mind
plaintiff to be thrown off. While plaintiff was guilty of (2) About consequences of an act (or omission) and
antecedent negligent for planting himself on the not about the act itself, and
wrong side of the road, the defendant was also (3) It extends not only to having in mind a purpose
negligent. Nonetheless, applying the doctrine of the (or desire) to bring about given consequences but
last clear chance, the driver is liable, since his also to having in mind a belief (or knowledge) that
negligence succeeded that of the plaintiff by an given consequences are substantially certain to
appreciable interval. result from the act.
Phil. Bank of Commerce v. The Court applied the doctrine by ruling that even Willful Intention to do an act and desire to achieve the
CA (1997) assuming that the plaintiff was negligent in entrusting outcome which is considered by the plaintiff in tort
cash to a dishonest employee, thus providing the action as injurius.
latter with the opportunity to defraud the company, Intent vs. negligence Intent involves certainty of the harm, while
yet it cannot be denied that the petitioner bank, thru negligence involves knowledge which is short of
its teller, had the last clear opportunity to avert the substantial certainty.
injury incurred by its client, simply by faithfully Good faith The state of mind which is manifested by the acts of
observing their self-imposed validation procedure. the individual concerned. It consists of the intention
Glan People’s Lumber and A jeep plowed into a truck that was at full stop. The to abstain from takin an unconscionable and
Hardware v. IAC (1989) Court considered the driver of the jeep to have the last unscrupulous advantage of another. It is presumed.
clear chance of avoiding the accident. Bad faith Does not simply connote bad judgment or simple
Cases when the doctrine (1) If only the defendant was negligent, and not the negligence; it involves a dishonest purpose or some
was held inapplicable plaintiff; moral obloquy and conscious doing of a wrong, a
(2) The party charged (defendant) is required to act breach of known duty due to some motives or interest
instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud.
avoided by the application of all means at hand Malice Connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response
after the peril is or should have been discovered; to duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior and
at least in cases in which any previous negligence unjustifiable harm.
of the party charged cannot be said to have Requisites of bad faith (1) That the actor knew or should have known that a
contributed to the injury; particular course of action is wrong or illegal; and
(3) If the incident occurred in an instant and there (2) That despite such actual or imputable knowledge,
was no appreciable time that could have afforded the actor, voluntarily, consciously and out of his
the victim a last clear opportunity to avoid the own free will, proceeds with such course of
collision action.
Catch-all provisions Arts. 19, 20, and 21 of the NCC. no defense that the petitioner was motivated by no ill-
will or grudge.
Said provisions, by introducing malice in the
commission of torts, enlarge the concept of tortious Note that according to Aquino, good faith is not
acts and embody in our law the Anglo-American necessarily an excuse in tort under Arts. 19 and 21. Note
concept of tort. also that according to him, the concept of wrong under
said articles that the law seeks to address is not defined
Art. 19 is the general rule which governs the conduct by evil intent. The evil ends are not necessarily
of human relations. By itself, it is not the basis of an controlling. Actionable wrong under said provisions is
actionable tort. It describes the degree of care considered independent of the state of mind of the
required so that an actionable tort may arise when it author or actor.
is alleged together with Art. 20 or Art. 21. Otherwise Velayo v. Shell Co. of the The Court held the defendant liable under Article 19
stated, while Art. 19 lays down a rule of conduct for Phils. for disposing of its property in order to escape the
the government of human relations and for the reach of a creditor.
maintenance of social order, it does not provide a Sevilla v. CA and The Court held that a principal is liable under Article
remedy for its provision; generally, an action for Valenzuela v. CA 19 in terminating the agency when terminating the
damages under either Art. 20 or Art. 21 would be agency would deprive the agent of his legitimate
proper. business.
Grand Union Supermarket, A person who was falsely accused of theft in a
Art. 20 concerns violations of existing law as basis for Inc. v. Espino, Jr. (1979) supermarket, and who was, by reason of such
an injury. Art. 20 is the general sanction for all other accusation, subjected to acts which brought and
provisions of law which do not especially provide caused him humiliation and embarrassment, is
their own sanction. entitled to moral damages under Articles 19 and 21 in
relation to Article 2219. Nonetheless, since
Art. 21 concerns injuries that may be cause by acts petitioners acted in good faith in trying to protect and
which are not necessarily proscribed by law. The legal recover their property, a right which the law accords
issues herein revolve around whether such outcome them, no exemplary damages were awarded.
should be considered a legal injury on the part of the
plaintiff or whether the commission of the act was Note that according to Aquino, in this case, the alleged
done in violation of the standards of care required in good faith in trying to protect one’s property was not
Art. 19. considered a legal excuse for the award of damages
because the acts of the petitioners in subjecting the
An action can only prosper when the plaintiff suffers respondent to humiliation and embarrassment were
damage, material or otherwise. wrongful.
Ruiz v. Sec. of Nat’l Defense The court dismissed a complaint seeking merely to be When a person can be (1) If a person willfully adopts wrongful means, or
(1963) recognized as architects of a building, as there was no considered to be in bad (2) If he or she acts for wrongful ends
damage, material or otherwise, in this case. faith
Art. 19, NCC Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in Elements of abuse of right (1) There is a legal right or duty;
the performance of his duties, act with justice, give in our jurisdiction (2) The legal right or duty is exercised in bad faith;
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. and
Art. 20, NCC Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or (3) The exercise if for the sole intent of prejudicing or
negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify injuring another.
the latter for the same. Elements of abuse of right (1) The exercise of a right which is objective and
Art. 21, NCC Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to according to the SC of apparently legal;
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good Spain (2) Damage or injury to an interest not specifically
customs or public policy shall compensate the latter protected by a legal precept; and
for the damage. (3) Immorality or anti-social character of the damage
Llorente v. Sandiganbayan The defendant may be guilty of tort under Arts. 19 and or injury caused either with intent to injure or
(1991) 21 even if the tortfeasor did not act with ill-will. It is without serious or legitimate purpose
Velayo v. Shell Co. of the There is abuse of right where a creditor, taking temporary restraining order was issued by the
Phils. (1956) advantage of his knowledge that insolvency appellate court.
proceedings were to be instituted by the debtor if the Petrophil Corp. v. CA There is abuse of right when a contracting party
creditors did not come to an understanding as to the (2001) terminated its hauling contract with the other
manner of distribution of the insolvent’s asset among (whereby the latter supplied trucks for the hauling of
them, and believing it most probable that they would the products of the former) because he sympathized
not arrive at such understanding, schemed and with the picketing workers of the other.
transferred its credit to a sister company in the US, UE v. Jader (2000) There is abuse of right where an educational
which, in turn, secured a writ of attachment in the institution misled a student into believing that the
court thereby gaining control over said plane. latter had satisfied all the requirements for
PNB v. CA (1978) There is abuse of right when a bank twice disapproved graduation when such is not the case.
a proposed lease of a sugar quota by its debtor, where Absolute rights Absolute rights can never be the basis of liability.
the disapproval was made knowing that the
agricultural year was about to expire, at which time Example of an absolute right is the right not to enter
the mortgagor would not be able to utilize the sugar into a contract.
quota. De Tavera v. Phil. There is no abuse of right where the defendants acted
Uypitching v. Quiamco There is abuse of right where the mortgagee Tuberculosis Society strictly in accordance with the constitution and by-
(2006) recovered the mortgaged vehicle preliminary to the (1982) laws of an association or with a contract, as when the
enforcement of its right to foreclose on the mortgage petitioner was removed as executive director by the
in case of default. board in accordance with the constitution and by-
Valenzuela v. CA (1990) There is abuse of right if the principal unreasonably laws.
terminated an agency agreement for selfish reasons. Manzanal v. Illusorio There is no abuse of right in the sending of demand
Arlegui v. CA (2002) There is abuse of right where one of the officers of an (2010) letters by the non-stock corporation to its member for
association of the tenants of an apartment building, the payment of unpaid charges if the tenor of the
which was formed to represent them in the letters do not deviate from the standard practice of
negotiation with the owner for the purchase of their pursuing the satisfaction of the obligation of the
respective units, surreptitiously purchased the member.
building and sold one of the unit to another officer of Custodio v. CA (1996) There is no abuse of right when an owner of a lot that
said association, in violation of the trust reposed on adjoins the highway fenced his property in the
them as officers and negotiators. absence of an easement of right of way.
Llorente v. CA (1991) There is abuse of right where the public officer who Andrade v. CA (2001) There is no abuse of right when a teacher was placed
had authority to approve and disapprove clearances in the list of excess teachers when the action was not
of resigning employees, in practice, disregards a motivated by undue motives.
condition imposed by the rules for the issuance of USC v. CA (1988) There is no abuse of right if a school does not confer
clearances, withheld action on the clearance of one upon a student a degree with honors, since
employee, while issuing clearances to the other conferment of honors is an exercise of discretion in
employees similarly situated. accordance with the rules.
Villanueva v. Rosqueta There is abuse (and an unlawful exercise) of right Garciano v. CA (1992) There is no abuse of right where the board members
(2010) when a party refuses to abide by a Court order resigned, and the principal and some teachers
enjoining him from doing an act, which is otherwise allegedly threatened to resign en masse due to the
lawful. As in this case where the superior officer reinstatement of a teacher who was previously
prevented a subordinate from performing her duties dismissed from service. They were merely exercising
as Deputy Commissioner despite the preliminary their right to free speech. Further, they actually did
injunction issued by the court against her nothing to physically prevent the plaintiff from
replacement. reassuming the post.
Amonoy v. Sps. Gutierrez There is abuse of right where the petitioners Diaz v. Davao Light and There is no abuse of right or malicious prosecution for
(2001) commenced the demolition of the house of the private Power Co., Inc. (2007) the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for
respondents under the authority of a writ of prosecution should he or she be unsuccessful, for the
demolition issued by the trial court against which a
law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the (3) The act is done with intent to injure.
right to litigate. Formula There is on formula that can be used to determine
Baron’s Marketing Corp. v. There is no abuse of right where the defendant what is contrary to morals, nor to establish what is
CA (1998) rejected defendant’s offer of settlement and instead good custom or what is consistent with public order
filed an action for collection, absent an intention to or public policy. Cases are to be determined on a case-
prejudice or injure. to-case basis.
Dart Phils., Inc. v. Sps. There was no abuse of right in the refusal of the Rationale The inclusion of Article 21 is due to the belief that
Calogcog (2009) petitioner to renew the distributorship agreement for every good law draws its breath of life from morals.
the distribution of “Tupperware” products entered The provision is a prudent earnest of justice in the
into with the plaintiffs, since the exercise of its right to face of the impossibility of enumerating, one by one,
protect its own business was not impelled by any evil all wrongs which cause damage.
motive designed, whimsically and capriciously to Breach of promise to As a general rule, breach of promise to marry by itself
injure or prejudice defendant. marry is not actionable. The exceptions are where:
Astroland Developers, Inc. There was no abuse of right when one of the parties (1) There was financial damage
v. GSIS (2004) cancelled the provisions of a Project Management (2) Social humiliation was caused to one of the
Agreement for the development of a certain parcel of parties
land conformably with the terms thereof, as the (3) There was moral seduction
agreement itself allowed unilateral cancellation Heart balm suits The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry
thereof without need of judicial action. per se is not an actionable wrong. Congress
DBP v. CA (2004) There was no abuse of right when the mortgagee deliberately eliminated from the draft of the New Civil
foreclosed the mortgage over the property of the Code the provisions that would have made it so. The
debtors, as the creditor has the right to file an reason therefor is that the history of breach of
application for extrajudicial mortgage under the promise suits in the United States and in England has
mortgage contract. shown that no other action lends itself more readily
Doctrine of Clausula Sic There is the consideration that even the principle to abuse by designing women and unscrupulous men.
Stantibus imposing the duty of faithful performance of contracts It is this experience which has led to the abolition of
is limited by the higher principle of good faith. If a rights of action in the so-called “Heart Balm” suits in
contract may be rescinded in case of a mistake many of the American States.
concerning its necessary original basis, then there De Jesus v. Syquia An action may be maintained if the plaintiff incurred
must be some relief also in case such basis is expenses for the wedding and other incidents thereof.
subsequently changed in an intolerable degree. Wassmer v. Velez (1964) An action may be maintained if the defendant and the
Lesser (or least) evil rule As between two evils, one is justified in choosing the plaintiff formally set the wedding and went through
lesser evil all the preparations and publicity but the defendant
Prohibition against taking A person entitled to the exercise of a right should walked out of it when the matrimony was about to be
justice by own hand resort to the competent authority to enforce such solemnized.
rights. Bunag, Jr. v. CA (1992) There may be an action where the defendant forcibly
Exceptional cases (1) the right of parents to punish their children with abducted the plaintiff ad had carnal knowledge with
permitting a person to moderation; her against her will, and thereafter promised to marry
take justice into his own her in order to escape criminal liability, only to
hands (2) the right of an owner of land to cut off roots of thereafter renege on such promise after cohabiting
trees in the adjoining tenement which penetrate into with her for 21 days.
Baksh v. CA (1993) Where a man’s promise to marry is in fact the
his land; and
proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a
woman and his representation to fulfill that promise
(3) the right of a person to abate a nuisance
thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving
extrajudicially.
of herself unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he
Elements of acts contra (1) There is an act which is legal;
had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that
bonus mores (2) The act is contrary to morals, good custom, public
the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive
order, or public policy; and
device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to
obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the finding that defendant did not intend to fulfill his
award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because promises.
of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and Pe v. Pe (1962) The circumstances under which defendant, a married
deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and man, tried to win the 24-year old girl’s affection
reputation which followed thereafter. It is essential, cannot lead to any other conclusion than that it was
however, that such injury should have been he who, through an ingenious scheme or trickery,
committed in a manner contrary to morals, good seduced the latter to the extent of making her fall in
customs or public policy. love with him. Here, the defendant frequented the
girl’s house on the pretext that he wanted to teach her
In this case, the Court held defendant liable because it how to pray the rosary. Due to the frequency of such
was his fraudulent and deceptive protestations of visits, which was allowed because he was a collateral
love for and promise to marry plaintiff that made her relative, the two eventually fell in love and conducted
surrender her virtue and womanhood to him and to clandestine affairs. When the rumors about the illicit
live with him on the honest and sincere belief that he affair reached her parents, he was forbidden to visit,
would keep said promise, and it was likewise these and was also sought to be deported by the parents.
fraud and deception on appellant’s part that made Nonetheless, they continued their love affair until she
plaintiff’s parents agree to their daughter’s living-in disappeared from home. To the Court, there is no
with him preparatory to their supposed marriage. other conclusion that can be drawn from this chain of
events except that the defendant not only
The in pari delicto rule does not apply in breach of deliberately, but through a clever strategy, succeeded
promise to marry cases where the defendant is guilty in winning the affection and love of the girl to the
of moral seduction. extent of having illicit relations with her. He had thus
Constantino v. Mendez Mere sexual intercourse is not by itself a basis for committed an injury to her family in a manner
(1992) recovery. Damages could only be awarded if sexual contrary to morals, good customs and public policy as
intercourse is not a product of voluntariness and contemplated under Article 21.
mutual desire. Here, plaintiff’s attraction to defendant US v. Buenaventura The essential feature is seduction, that in law is more
is the reason why she surrendered her womanhood. than mere sexual intercourse, or a breach of a
Had she been induced or deceived because of a promise of marriage; it connotes essentially the idea
promise of marriage, she could have immediately of deceit, enticement, superior power or abuse of
severed her relation with defendant when she was confidence on the part of the seducer to which the
informed after their first sexual contact that he was a woman has yielded. To constitute seduction there
married man. Her declaration that they repeated their must in all cases be some sufficient promise or
sexual intercourse only indicates that passion, and inducement and the woman must yield because of the
not the alleged promise of marriage, was the moving promise or other inducement. If she consents merely
force that made her submit herself to Ivan. from carnal lust and the intercourse is from mutual
Tanjanco v. CA (1966) No case is made under Article 21 where the facts desire, there is no seduction. Accordingly, it is not
stand out that for one whole year, the plaintiff, a seduction where the willingness arises out of sexual
woman of adult age, maintained intimate sexual desire or curiosity of the female, and the defendant
relations with defendant, with repeated acts of merely affords her the needed opportunity for the
intercourse. Such conduct is incompatible with the commission of the act. It has been emphasized that to
idea of seduction. Plainly, there is here voluntariness allow a recovery in all such cases would tend to the
and mutual passion; for had the appellant been demoralization of the female sex, and would be a
deceived, had she surrendered exclusively because of reward for unchastity by which a class of
the deceit, artful persuasions and wiles of the adventuresses would be swift to profit.
defendant, she would not have again yielded to his Principle of self-help The owner or lawful possessor must use only such
embraces, much less for one year, without exacting force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or
early fulfillment of the alleged promises of marriage, prevent an invasion or usurpation of property;
and would have cut short all sexual relations upon otherwise, he shall be liable for damages.
State of necessity As a rule, a person cannot interfere with the right of (5) Right to privacy
ownership of another. By way of exception, Art. 432 (6) Right to peace of mind
allows interference with another’s property under 1. PRIVACY
certain conditions Sec. 1, Art. III, 1987 No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
Tort of trespass to and/or Under the RPC, or Art. 451 of the NPC. However, both Constitution property without due process of law, nor shall any
deprivation of real require intent or bad faith in order to be liable for person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
property damages. Sec. 2, Art. III, 1987 The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
Tort of trespass to Extends to all cases of deprivation of property, even Constitution houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
personal property in the absence of criminal liability. searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
Elements of malicious (1) The fact of the prosecution and the further fact purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
prosecution that the defendant was himself the prosecutor, warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
and that the action was finally terminated with an cause to be determined personally by the judge after
acquittal; examination under oath or affirmation of the
(2) That in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
without probable cause; and particularly describing the place to be searched and
(3) The prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal the persons or things to be seized.
malice. Sec. 3(1), Art. III, 1987 The privacy of communication and correspondence
Constitution shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the
Note that According to Aquino, this applies as well to court, or when public safety or order requires
civil cases. otherwise as prescribed by law.
Acquittal in malicious Includes to dismissal by the prosecutor after Sec. 6, Art. III, 1987 The liberty of abode and of changing the same within
prosecution preliminary investigation. Constitution the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired
Public humiliation except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall
the right to travel be impaired except in the interest
HUMAN DIGNITY of national security, public safety, or public health, as
Principle Doctrine/Requisites may be provided by law.
Art. 26, NCC Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, Sec. 8, Art. III, 1987 The right of the people, including those employed in
privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other Constitution the public and private sectors, to form unions,
persons. The following and other similar acts, though associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to
they may not constitute a criminal offense shall law shall not be abridged.
produce a case of action for damages, prevention and Sec. 17, Art. III, 1987 No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
other relief: Constitution himself.
(1) Prying into the privacy of another’s residence; Morfe v. Mutuc (1968) Adopting the Griswold doctrine, the Court held that
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or the right to privacy as such is accorded recognition
family relations of another; independently of its identification with liberty; in
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from itself, it is fully deserving of constitutional protection.
his friends; Ople v. Torres (1998) The Court declared an administrative order
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his establishing a national computerized identification
religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of reference system void for violating the right to
birth, physical defect, or other personal condition. privacy, the essence of which is the right to be let
Scope The violations mentioned in Art. 26 are not exclusive alone. It held that the order lacked the essential
but are merely examples and do not preclude other factors to safeguard the privacy and guaranty the
similar or analogous acts (Concepcion v. CA [2000]). integrity of the information. It also confirmed that the
right to privacy is recognized and enshrined in Secs.
Art. 26 protects the following principal rights: 1, 2, 3(1), 6, 8, and 17 of the 1987 Constitution.
(1) Right to personal dignity Griswold doctrine The US SC invalidated a statute which made the use of
(2) Right to personal security contraceptives a criminal offense on the ground of its
(3) Right to family relations amounting to an unconstitutional invasion of the right
(4) Right to social intercourse
to privacy of married persons. The right of privacy has Social Justice Society v. Provisions of R.A. No. 9165 requiring mandatory,
a constitutional foundation. DDB (2008) random, and suspicionless drug testing of students
are constitutional and do not violate the right to
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) privacy of students. The same is true for officers or
employees of public or private offices. However, the
Note that this is a US case. rule is different with respect to an accused who is
Zones of privacy Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our charged before the prosecutor’s office, whose right to
laws. Within these zones, any form of intrusion is privacy and right against self-incrimination shall be
impermissible unless excused by law and in violated.
accordance with customary legal process. (In the Fernando v. St. An ordinance requiring an 80% see-through fence is
Matter of the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Scholastica’s College unconstitutional for being violative of the right to
Corpus of Sabio v. Gordon [2006]) privacy.
Reasonable expectation of (1) Whether by his conduct, the individual has Protection of privacy (1) NCC: Arts. 26, 32, and 723
privacy exhibited an expectation of privacy under rules and statutes (2) RPC: Arts. 229, 280, 290, 291, and 292
(2) Whether this expectation is one that society (3) Anti-Wiretapping Law
recognizes as reasonable (4) Security of Bank Deposits Act
(5) Intellectual Property Code
What is reasonable is determined by the factual (6) ROC: Sec. 24, Rule 130(C)
circumstances of the case. Also, other factors, such as (7) Habeas data
customs, physical surroundings and practices of a (8) Data Privacy Act
particular activity, may serve to create or diminish Habeas data A remedy available to any person whose right to
this expectation. privacy in life, liberty or security is threatened by an
Ilusio v. Bildner (2000) The constitutional right to privacy may be violated if unlawful act or omission of a public official or of a
the court will force a person to let other people have private individual or entity engaged in the gathering,
access to him. A person who is not incapacitated — collecting or storing of data or information regarding
with full mental capacity and with the right of choice the person, family, home and correspondence of the
— may not be the subject of visitation rights even by aggrieved party.
his relatives against his free choice. Facets of privacy (1) Physical privacy
Pollo v. Constantino-David The CSC did not violate the right to privacy of its (2) Informational privacy
(2011) employees when the latter’s files in the office (3) Decisional privacy
computer was opened, copied and examined as part (4) Proprietary privacy
of the administrative investigation, since the Physical privacy Refers to the privacy that is felt in physical space;
employees were put on notice under an express denotes seclusion, solitude, security or bodily
computer policy of the CSC. integrity.
Informational privacy The right of individuals to control information about
Independent of an express computer policy, the SC themselves; denotes confidentiality, secrecy or
explained that the relevant circumstances to consider anonymity, especially with respect to
include: (1) the employee’s relationship to the item correspondence, conversation and records.
seized, (2) whether the item was in the immediate Decisional privacy The right of individuals to make certain kinds of
control of the employee when it was seized, and (3) fundamental choices with respect to their personal
whether the employee took actions to maintain his and reproductive autonomy; denotes liberty,
privacy in the item. Thus, where the employee used a freedom, choice or autonomy in decision making
password on his computer, did not share his office about sex, reproduction, marriage, family, and health
with co-workers and kept the same locked, he had a care.
legitimate expectation of privacy and any search of Proprietary privacy Limits the use of a person’s name, likeness, identity,
that space and items located therein must comply or other attributes of identity and exclusive
with the [Constitutional provision against possession.
unreasonable searches and seizures].
Action per quod servitium Actions of trespass by a master, for beating or ill using Pavesich v. New England The right to privacy has its foundation in the instincts
amisit his servant, descriptive of the special damage he had Mut. L. Ins. Co. of nature. When the law guarantees to one the right to
himself sustained the enjoyment of his life, it gives to him something
Types of invasion to (1) Intrusion upon the plaintiff’s seclusion or solitude more than the mere right to breathe. The liberty
privacy or into his private affairs (or intrusion) which he derives from natural law, and which is
(2) Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts recognized by municipal law, embraces far more than
about the plaintiff (or publication of private facts) freedom from physical restraint. Personal liberty
(3) Publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light embraces the right of privacy.
in the public eye (or making one appear before Ople v. Torres (1998), As the area of relevance, political or scientific,
the public in an objectionable false light) dissenting opinion of J. expands, there is strong psychological pressure to
(4) Appropriation for the defendant’s advantage, of Mendoza yield some ground of privacy. But this is a fact of life
plaintiff’s likeness or name (or commercial to which we must adjust, as long as the intrusion into
appropriation of likeness of another) the domain of privacy is reasonable.
Persons entitled to relief (1) Generally, only natural persons, since the basis of Standard used in The standard to be applied is that of a person of
the right to privacy is an injury to the feelings and determining tort liability ordinary sensibilities. It is relative to the customs of
sensibilities of the party time and place, and is determined by the norm of an
(2) However, a juridical entity can invoke the right ordinary person.
against unreasonable searches and seizures Intrusion in the internet Only if engaged in unlawful access.
Publication of private (1) There is a public disclosure
Note that the right to privacy is purely personal in facts (2) The facts disclosed are a private fact
nature and only the person whose privacy is claimed to (3) The matter is one which would be offensive and
have been violated may invoke it. Such right can be objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary
subject to waiver of such person. sensibilities
Douglas v. Stokes (1912) Where a photographer who was employed to make a Requisites of an (1) Publicity is given to any private or purely
photograph of the corpses of twin children, who had actionable violation of the personal information about a person
been born partially joined together, and to make 12 right to privacy (2) Without the latter’s consent
copies of the picture and no more, but contrary to (3) Regardless of whether or not such publicity
agreement, made other photographs from the constitutes a criminal offense
negatives and procured a copyright thereon, the Defense of With respect to public figures, liability will attach only
parents of the children could recover damages against newsworthiness where the defendant is guilty of knowing and
the photographer on account of their humiliation and recklessly disregarding the truth.
wounded feeling and sensibilities resulting from the False light The gravamen is the embarrassment of being in made
exhibition of the photographs to others. into something he is not
Commercial To protect various aspects of an individual’s identity
Note that this is a US case. appropriation of likeness from commercial exploitation: name, likeness,
Rationale The rationale underlying the privacy protections in achievements, identifying characteristics, actual
the civilian idea of tort is inherently personality or performances and fictitious characters created by a
dignity-based, rather than animated by the libertarian performer.
idea of being “left alone” in areas delimitated by space. 2. INTERFERENCE WITH FAMILY AND OTHER RELATIONS
Ople v. Torres (1998), What marks off a man from a beast is intellect and Alienation of affection of (1) Valid marriage
concurring opinion of J. spiritual faculty, and consequently, a sense of shame. spouse (2) Wrongful conduct by the defendant with the
Romero Such vague stirrings of the desire to be “left alone” led plaintiff’s spouse
to the development of the concept of privacy. (3) Loss of affection or consortium
Cordero v. Buigasco The constitutional guarantees of life, liberty and the (4) Causal relation between the defendant’s conduct
(1972) pursuit of happiness, as well as the right to security and the deprivation of affection
against unlawful search and seizure, even natural law, 3. VEXATION AND HUMILIATION
have been variously mentioned or suggested, as the Emotional distress tort (1) Conduct of the defendant was intentional or in
bases and theories of the right to privacy. reckless disregard of the plaintiff
(2) Conduct was extreme and outrageous (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(3) Causal connection between the defendant’s (5) Freedom of suffrage;
conduct and the plaintiff’s mental distress (6) The right against deprivation of property without
(4) Plaintiff’s mental distress was extreme and severe due process of law;
Severe emotional distress In some jurisdictions, refers to any type of severe and (7) The right to a just compensation when private
disabling emotional or mental condition which may property is taken for public use;
be generally recognized and diagnosed by (8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
professionals trained to do so, including PTSD, (9) The right to be secured in one’s person, house,
neurosis, psychosis, chronic depression, or phobia. papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
Parasitic damages Damages, the award of which, depend on the and seizures;
existence of another tort instead of an independent (10) The liberty of abode and of changing the
tort for intentional infliction of emotional distress same;
4. SEXUAL HARASSMENT (11) The privacy of communication and
Elements of the crim of (1) Offender has or had a sexual or dating correspondence;
violence against women relationship with the offended woman (12) The right to become a member of association
through harassment (2) Offender, by himself or through another, commits or societies for purposes not contrary to law;
an act or series of acts of harassment against the (13) The right to take part in a peaceable
woman assembly to petition the Government for redress
(3) The harassment alarms or causes substantial of grievances;
emotional or psychological distress to her (14) The right to be free from involuntary
Kinds (1) Quid pro quo cases servitude in any form;
(2) Hostile environment cases (15) The right of the accused against excessive
Quid pro quo cases Sexual favors are elicited in return for something bail;
Hostile environment Involve the allegation of an offensive or abusive (16) The right of the accused to be heard by
cases environment, or where the refusal to grant a sexual himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature
favor would result in an intimidating, hostile, or and cause of the accusation against him, to have a
offensive environment speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face
Requisites of hostile (1) Plaintiff was subjected to sexual advances, to face, and to have compulsory process to secure
environment cases requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or the attendance of witness in his behalf;
physical conduct of sexual nature (17) Freedom from being compelled to be a
(2) The conduct was unwelcome witness against one’s self, or from being forced to
(3) The conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive confess guilty, or from being induced by a
to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment promise of immunity or reward to make such
and create an abusive working environment confession, except when the person confessing
becomes a State witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and
INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION
unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed
Principle Doctrine/Requisites
or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has
not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and
1. VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
Art. 32, NCC Any public officer or employee, or any private In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether
individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, or not the defendant’s act or omission constitutes a
defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to
any of the following rights and liberties of another commence an entirely separate and distinct civil
person shall be liable to the latter for damages: action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil
(1) Freedom of religion; action shall proceed independently of any criminal
(2) Freedom of speech; prosecution (if the latter be instituted) and may be
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a proved by a preponderance of evidence.
periodical publication;
The indemnity shall include moral damages. his rival. Here, no recovery can be had, though
Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. the statements are false and malicious, and
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable though special damage is alleged.
from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a Doctrine of Unfavorable A statement which puffs or exaggerates the quality of
violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. Comparison one’s own product is not ordinarily actionable;
2. DEFAMATION, FRAUD, AND PHYSICAL INJURIES expresses an opinion, the truth or falsity of which is
Art. 33, NCC In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a difficult or impossible of ascertainment (As opposed
civil action for damges entirely separate and distinct to an assertion of fact, not subject to the same frailties
from the criminal action, may be brought by the of proof, implying that the party making the
injured party. Such civil action shall proceed statement is fortified with the substantive facts
independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall necessary to make it – actionable).
require only a preponderance of evidence. Doctrine of Election of In its broad sense, it refers to the choice of by a party
Defamation Slander and defamation against natural persons Remedies to an action of one of 2 or more co-existing remedial
Defamation, when committed by means of writing, rights, where several such rights arise out of the same
printing, lithography engraving, radio, phonograph, facts; but the term has been generally limited to a
painting or theatrical or cinematographic exhibition, choice by a party between inconsistent remedial
or any similar means, is called “libel”, and when rights, the assertion of one being necessarily a
committed orally, it is called “slander.” Libel is a repudiation of another.
malicious and public imputation of a crime, or of a Right of Election and The proscription against recovering damages twice
vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, Waiver of Remedies for the same act or omission of the defendant in Art.
condition, status or circumstances tending to cause implicit in Art. 2177 2177 requires: (a) an election by the plaintiff between
the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or an action for damages based on Art. 100 of RPC, and
juridical person, or to blacken the memory of the one one based on any of the independent civil actions
who is dead. (Art. 353, Revised Penal Code) Elements provided in Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of NCC; and (b)
of Libel a waiver of the cause of action repudiated, precisely
1. The imputation must be defamatory; to insure the said proscription. The aforementioned
2. It must have been given publicity; and causes of action are inconsistent remedies because
3. It must be malicious they are governed by different laws. For this reason,
4. The victim must be identifiable the required election must be made at the pleading
Entities offended stage so that the parties and the Court can determine
1. The State or society in which he lives; and under which law or Code the claim for damages shall
The individual member of the society or private be tried and decided. This being so, there can be no
person who was damaged or injured by the common question of law, identity of parties and cause
punishable act or omission of action and relief prayed for as would warrant
3 different classes or 1. Those where, though the alleged libelous consolidation of the criminal with the civil action for
grades of defamatory statement is made in reference to goods or damages.
statements in reference to product, there are also included libelous words Derivative Responsibility The derivative character of the employer’s
the goods or products of in reference to the vendor or producer, which responsibility under the Philippine law is manifest
tradesmen impute to him, in connection with the goods or from the circumstance that the civil liability of both
product, fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or
the employee and his employer are founded on the
reprehensible business methods.
2. Those where the alleged libelous statements is same causative act or omission, and on the fact that
made merely as to the quality of the goods or the payment by either of the civil liability arising
product of another. In these cases, special therefrom (civil liability under RPC and NCC) will
damage must be alleged and proved, otherwise, foreclose any further civil action against both.
no recovery can be had.
3. Those where the alleged libelous statements
amount to no more than assertions by one
tradesman that his goods are superior to those of
Having elected to sue the employer in the first place, Involuntary public figures Those who become public figures through no
the plaintiff could not maintain a second suit for the purposeful actions of their own
same cause of action against the employee. All-purpose public figures Persons who attain a status according to which they
assumed roles of special prominence in the affairs of
society
Limited-purpose public Those who have thrust themselves to the forefront of
What Art. 2177 proscribes is the injured party suing figures particular public controversies in order to influence
for damages arising from the same punishable act or the resolution of the issues involved
omission twice – once on civil liability arising from Defamation resulting “The general rule is that public officials can be held
culpa criminal under the RPC and again on civil from Negligence personally liable for acts claimed to have been
liability arising from quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana performed in connection with official duties where
under the Civil Code – whether from the author of said they have acted ultra vires or where there is showing
act or omission, or from those having supervision and of bad faith.
control over him; and a suit against either under one Immunity from suit cannot institutionalize
of said causes of action will foreclose a subsequent irresponsibility and non-accountability nor grant a
suit on the basis of the other cause of action. privileged status not claimed by any other official of
the Republic.”
Test in determining A charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to Slander by Deed A slap on the face is an unlawful aggression. It is a
defamatory character induce the hearers to suppose and understand that physical assault coupled with a willful disregard of
the person or persons against whom they were the integrity of one’s person. This is especially true if
uttered were guilty of certain offense, or are sufficient the aggrieved party is a person in authority.
to impeach their honesty, virtue, or reputation, or to Slanderous Utterances The gravity of the defamatory words uttered depends
hold the person or persons up to public ridicule. not only upon their sense and grammatical meaning,
Standard The ordinary or average reader judging them separately, but also upon the special
Requirement of It must have been seen or heard by a third party circumstances of the case and the antecedents or
publication relationships between the offended party and the
Doctrine of fair comment While in general, every discreditable imputation offender which might tend to prove the intention of
publicly made is deemed false, because every man is the offender at the time.
presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, Elements of Libel and 1. Publication - Sending a letter in a sealed
and every false imputation is deemed malicious, Defamation envelope through a messenger is not publication. If
nevertheless when the discreditable imputation is sending a letter “not shown to be sealed” is
directed against a public person in his public capacity, publication, sending an “unsealed letter” should a
it is not necessarily actionable. In order for such to be fortiori be held to be publication.
so actionable, it must either be a false allegation of 2. Malice - Malice is the term used to indicate
fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the the fact that the offender is prompted by personal ill-
comment is an expression of opinion, based on will or spite and speaks not in response to duty, but
established facts, then it is immaterial that the merely to injure the reputation of the person
opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might defamed.
reasonably be inferred from the facts, The malice or ill-will either must be proved - malice
Public figure Any person who, by his accomplishments, fame, mode in fact; or may be taken for granted in view of the
of living, or by adopting a profession or calling which grossness of the imputation - malice in law.
gives the public a legitimate interest in his doings, his Malice in law is presumed in every defamatory
affairs and his character, has become a public imputation, except in the 2 cases involving privileged
personage. communications specified in Art. 354 of the Revised
Kinds of public figures (1) Involuntary Penal Code. Whenever the defamatory imputation
(2) All-purpose appears in a privileged communication, the
(3) Limited-purpose prosecution must prove malice in fact.
3. Privileged matters - the doctrine rests upon
public policy, which looks to the free and unfettered
administration of justice, though in some instance reckless imprudence under Art. 100 in relation to Art.
afford an immunity to the evil-evil-deposed and 365 of the Revised Penal Code;
malignant slanderer. (2) A civil action for physical injuries arising
Absolutely privileged communications - the occasion from quasi-delict under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code;
is an absolute bar to the action; qualifiedly privileged and
communication - the law raises only a prima facie (3) A civil action for physical injuries under Art.
presumption in favour of the occasion. 33 of the Civil Code.
Fraud Refers to all kinds of deception — whether through Civil liability under Art. 100 of the RPC
insidious machination, manipulation, concealment or • Arising from deliberate and from negligent
misrepresentation — that would lead an ordinarily acts or omissions punished by law; and
prudent person into error after taking the • Only the civil action arising therefrom may
circumstances into account. be affected by the institution, pendency, or result of
Elements of fraud (1) The defendant must have made false the criminal action
representation to the plaintiff; Quasi-delict under Art. 2176 or Physical Injuries
(2) The representation must be one of fact; under Art. 31 of the Civil Code
(3) The defendant must know that the • May be filed directly and independently of
representation is false or be reckless about the institution, pendency or result of the criminal
whether it is false; action. without making prior reservation of the right
(4) The defendant must have acted on the false to do so.
representation; • Instituting a civil action for either cause of
(5) The defendant must have intended that the action constitutes in itself both and election and
representation should be acted on; and reservation thereof.
The plaintiff must have suffered damage as result of Only an action for damages based on quasi-delict may
acting on the representation. be maintained against both the employee ad his
Scienter With respect to the requirement of knowledge of employer simultaneously.
defendant, it is also enough that said defendant has no Battery Intentional infliction of harmful or offensive bodily
sufficient basis of information to make representation contact.
or what is known as “scienter.” Assault An intentional conduct by one person directed at
When fraud is present (1) Maker knows or believes that the matter is not as another which places the latter in apprehension of
he represents it to be; or immediate bodily harm or offensive act
(2) He does not have the confidence in the accuracy 3. NEGLECT OF DUTY
of his representation that he states or implies; or Art. 34, NCC When a member of a city or municipal police force
(3) He knows that he does not have the basis for his refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any
representation that he states or implies person in case of danger to life or property, such
Physical injuries The term “physical injuries” should be understood to peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, ad
mean bodily injury, and not the crime of physical the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily
injuries a defined in the Revised Penal Code. responsible therefor. The civil action herein
The term “physical injuries” under Art. 33 of the Civil recognized shall be independent of any criminal
Code is unqualified and as an independent alternative proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall
cause of action to the civil liability provided in Art. suffice to support such action.
100 of the Revised Penal Code inferably includes civil Elements of a civil action 1. The defendant is a member of the city or
liability for all kinds of physical injuries, whether under Art. 34 of NCC municipal police force;
caused by a deliberate or by a negligent act or 2. The plaintiff either sought police assistance
omission. or protection against danger to his life or
Causes of Action where physical injuries result from a property, or the defendant was aware of
negligent act or omission: plaintiff’s need of such assistance or
(1) A civil action for damages arising from the protection, but the latter refused or failed to
quasi-offense of physical injuries resulting from render the same;
3. As a consequence of such refusal or failure recourse accorded to him into an alternative and
to render such assistance or protection, the optional right which he may or may not avail of.
plaintiff suffered the damages claimed; Acquittal on reasonable Let us now proceed to examine and analyze Art. 29 of
4. The civil action for such claims may be doubt will not extinguish the Civil Code modifying the rule “no criminal, no civil
brought directly against the derelict the civil liability of the liability” under Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code.
policeman who is primarily and personally accused This Art. Presupposes that:
liable for said damages; and (1) The private offended party opted to recover
5. Such civil action for damages may be his damages on the basis of the offender’s civil
instituted independently of the institution liability arising from the crime he committed under
or pendency of any criminal proceedings Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code;
arising from the same dereliction and (2) He opted to institute his civil action based
regardless of the results thereof, and may be thereon, expressly or impliedly, with the criminal
proved by preponderance of evidence. action;
(3) The accused was acquitted in the criminal
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM DELICT action on reasonable doubt as to his guilt;
Principle Doctrine/Requisites (4) The said ground of acquittal was declared by
Alternative Causes of Thus, while Article 1161 of the Civil Code provides the court in its judgement or is clearly inferable from
Action under Article that civil actions arising from criminal offences shall the text thereof.
1161, Civil Code be governed in general by the penal laws, the same Where all of the aforementioned assumptions are
are subject to: (1) the provisions of Art. 2177 of the present, Art. 29 automatically reserves for the private
Chapter of Quasi-delicts; and (2) the pertinent offended party the right to institute an independent
provisions of the Chapter on Human Relations and of civil action for damages based on the same act or
that regulating damages, of the Civil Code. omission and prove it by a preponderance of evidence
In the case of intentional felonies, the injured party despite the fact that the offender was held not to be
likewise has 2 options, to wit: (1) Institute a civil criminally liable; and that the injured party has
action for damages arising from the act or omission previously opted to recover his damages ex delicate
complained of as a felony which is not a quasi-offence; under Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code.
or (2) institute an independent civil action to enforce Acquittal on the ground There is absolute certainty that the accused cannot be
only the civil liability for the damage or injury caused that the facts in support held criminally liable either for the trim charged or
by the same act or omission in the cases covered by thereof alleged and nor the crimes proved on the basis of said facts. As to
Arts. 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code, whether or not admitted do not the crime charged, because they did not commit that
such causative act or omission also constitutes a constitute the crime crime; and as to the crime proved, because they were
criminal offense, separately from the offender’s charged but some other not indicated for said crimes. For the same reasons,
criminal liability and absolutely without regard either crime they cannot be held civilly liable either for the offence
to the institution or the result of the criminal action, charged or for that proved by the facts admitted or
as expressly provided in said articles. undenied.
Civil Action for Damages Underlying this provision is the assumption that the An accused whose case The dismissal of the criminal case did not extinguish
ex delicto under Article person who committed the punishable act or has already been the civil liability since the dismissal was because of
100 of the Revised Penal omission also caused damage or injury to another’s dismissed could still be insufficiency of evidence and not a declaration from
Code person, honour, or property. And this rule applies to held civilly liable jointly the court in a final judgment that the fact from which
all civil obligations arising from punishable acts or with his other co-accused the civil action might arise did not exist.
omissions, whether committed intentionally or in a judgment of acquittal
negligently, under Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code. Need to allege and prove The offended party must present proof of damages in
No longer the sole but With the amendment of Art. 1092 of the old by Art. damages and determine the criminal action to recover the same which he may
only an Alternative Cause 1161 of the new Civil Code, the right of the injured who are entitled thereto do even if there is no allegation thereof in the
of Action party to obtain relief for the damage or injury caused complaint or information. There no damages are
to him by a punishable act or omission under Art. 100 proved but the offended party actively participated in
of the Revised Penal Code has evolved from the only the prosecution of the criminal action, it is logical and
reasonable to presume that no damages were
sustained by him or that he has waived the civil action Effect of Acquittal of The acquittal of the accused in the criminal case may
therefor. Accused on the Civil or may not relieve him of his civil liability arising from
In case of homicide, however, the Court had in several Liability of those the offence charged, generally depending on the
cases awarded the current indemnity for death upon responsible for his acts or ground of acquittal as declared in the judgment or
conviction on a plea of guilt of the accused, even omission inferable therefrom, and whether or not the civil
without proof of damages, on the obvious theory that action is reserved.
it could take judicial notice thereof, and it is The extinction of the criminal and civil actions
mandatorily required to do so. referred to in Sec. 3(c) of Rule 111 contemplates
The Criminal and Civil The conviction or acquittal of the accused in the exclusively the criminal and civil liability provided for
Actions are for Distinct criminal action would generally be inconsequential to in Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code, or what Sec. 1
and Separate Liabilities the civil action against him. To be entitled to damages of the same Rule describes as “The civil action based
even when instituted the injured party need not be the victim of a crime or on the same punishable act or omission considered as
together of a criminal act. It is sufficient for him to show that a quasi-delict or non-punishable act or omission
the defendant’s wrongful act or omission is the under the provisions on independent civil actions in
proximate cause of his damage or injury and prove the Chapter on Human Relations of the Civil Code.
the same by preponderance of evidence. Excusas absolutorias Scattered throughout our Penal Code are other
Thus, from a judgment convicting the accused, 2 grounds of exemption from criminal liability for the
appeals may accordingly be taken. The accused may doing of an act generally punishable by law, some of
seek a review of the judgment in both actions. which are applicable to all crimes and others to
However, the private complainant or offended party certain crimes. Our Code gives them no special name.
may appeal only with respect to the civil action, either They are called excusas absolutorias or grounds of
because the lower court has refused or failed to award absolution.
damages, or because that awarded is unsatisfactory to
him and for other grounds. THE DEFENDANTS
Jurisdiction over Criminal Sec 32 of B.P. 129 provides that the MTC shall have Principle Doctrine/Requisites
Case sufficient to vest exclusive jurisdiction over all offences punishable Art. 2194, NCC The responsibility of two or more person who are
Jurisdiction over Civil xxx, regardless of other imposable accessory or other liable for quasi-delict is solidary.
Action regardless of penalties, including the civil liability arising from such Apportionment of liability Joint tortfeasors are not liable pro rate. The damages
amount and kind of other offences or predicated thereon, irrespective of cannot be apportioned among them, except among
damages claimed therein kind, nature, value or amount thereof. themselves. They cannot insist upon an
In sum, if the court has jurisdiction over the criminal apportionment, for the purpose of paying an aliquot
action, it will have jurisdiction over the civil action part. They are jointly and severally liable for the full
based on or arising from the offence charged therein. amount (Worcester v. Ocampo).
May the aggrieved party The only civil action which must be reserved and is Comparative negligence As between the two persons who are responsible, it
who reserves his right to deemed instituted with the criminal action if not rule among defendants can be established that the extent of participation of
institute a separate civil reserved and will consequently be adjudged with the one party in causing the loss may be greater than the
action opt for and latter under Sec. 1 of Rule 111 is that based on civil participation of another party. The shares of the
subsequently institute liability arising from the offence charged. Such civvil persons who are responsible are not necessarily
anyone of the actions he is liability is that based on Art. 100 of the Revised Penal equal. Instead of dividing the loss, share and share
entitled to bring Code primarily. alike, the liability of one may be bigger. The rule
The only civil action contemplated in the Civil Code should apply to joint tortfeasors as between
which may be brought separately is the independent themselves. While each tortfeasor may be made liable
civil action provided in Art. 33 which the injured for the entire claim to the injured party, one
party may bring provided he reserves his right to do tortfeasor may ultimately share more than the other
so under Sec. 2 of Rule 111. tortfeasor as between themselves (joint tortfeasors).
This suggests that any general reservation to institute Art. 2180, NCC The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
a separate civil action should be construed as leaving demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions,
this right of election open. but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the novel and is considered by some as the basis of
mother, are responsible for the damages caused by responsibility of employer in American law.
the minor children who live in their company. Rules under Art. 2180, (1) Article 2180 makes teachers and heads liable for
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the par. 7 (Summary) acts of students and apprentices whether the
minors or incapacitated persons who are under their latter are minors or not.
authority and live in their company. (2) The teacher-in-charge is liable for the acts of his
The owners and managers of an establishment or students. The school and administrators are not
enterprise are likewise responsible for damages liable.
caused by their employees in the service of the (3) By way of exception, it is only the head of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on the school, not the teacher, who is held liable where
occasion of their functions. the injury cause in a school of arts and trade.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by (4) The liability of the teacher subsists whether the
their employees and household helpers acting within school is academic or non-academic.
the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the (5) Liability is imposed only if the pupil is already in
former are not engaged in any business or industry. the custody of the teacher or head. The student is
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts in the custody of the school authorities as long as
through a special agent; but not when the damage has he is under the control and influence of the school
been caused by the official to whom the task done and within its premises, whether the semester
properly pertains, in which case what is provided in has not yet begun or has already ended.
Article 2176 shall be applicable. Enterprise theory of What has emerged as the modern justification for
Lastly, teacher or heads of establishments of arts and vicarious liability vicarious liability is a rule of policy, a deliberate
trades shall be liable for damages caused by their allocation of a risk. The losses caused by the torts of
pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they employees, which as a practical matter are sure to
remain in their custody. occur in the conduct of the employer's enterprise, are
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease placed upon that enterprise itself, as a required cost
when the persons herein mentioned prove that they of doing business. They are placed upon the employer
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family because, having engaged in an enterprise, which will
to prevent damage. on the basis of all past experience involve harm to
Doctrine of vicarious There is vicarious liability where a person is not only others through the tort of employees, and sought to
liability or imputed liable for torts committed by himself, but also for torts profit by it, it is just that he, rather than the innocent
negligence committed by others with whom he has certain injured plaintiff, should bear them; and because he is
relationship and for whom he is responsible. better able to absorb them, and to distribute them,
Doctrine of respondeat The liability is strictly imputed, that is, the employer through prides, rates or liability insurance, to the
superior is liable not because of his act or omission but because public, and so to shift them to society, to the
of the act or omission of the employee. What is community at large. Added to this is the makeweight
material is not whether the employer exercised due argument that an employer who is held strictly liable
care but the conduct of the employee. Consequently, is under the greatest incentive to be careful in the
under this doctrine, the employer cannot escape selection, instruction and supervision of his servants,
liability by claiming that he exercised due diligence in and to take every precaution to see that the enterprise
the selection or supervision of the employee. is conducted safely.
Saguisag amendment “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to derogate Requisites of vicarious (1) Employer-employee relationship between the
from the duty or responsibility of parents and liability of employers person sought to be made vicariously liable and
guardians mentioned in the second and third the negligent employee;
paragraphs of Article 2180 of the Civil Code.” (2) Liability for quasi-delict of the employee; and
Deep pocket policy It is imposing vicarious liability on parents of persons (3) Performance by the employee of the task
who are above 18 and below 21. The parents are still assigned by the employer or the latter’s
being made liable because they are the persons who authorized representative or employee when
are financially capable of satisfying any judgment damage or injury was inflicted through fault or
obligation. It should be noted that such policy is not negligence was committed.
Requisites of Employer’s 1. That an employee has committed a crime in Kabit system The registered owner rule is applicable whenever the
Subsidiary Civil Liability discharge of his duties; persons involved are engaged in what is known as the
under Art. 103 of RPC 2. That said employee is insolvent and has not kabit system. The kabit system is an arrangement
satisfied his civil liability; and whereby a person who has been granted a certificate
3. That employer is engaged in some kind of of public convenience allows other persons who own
industry. motor vehicles to operate them under his license,
Note: sometimes for a fee or percentage of the earnings.
Requisites of subsidiary (1) That the person sought to be made liable is
The right to enforce subsidiary civil liability under liability of employer indeed the employer of the convicted accused;
Art. 103 of RPC is necessarily predicated upon the under the RPC (2) That the employer is engaged in any kind of
existence of an employer-employee relationship. industry;
(3) That the employee was convicted of the offense
Under 2180 of NCC, the employer need not be committed in the discharge of his duties; and
engaged in any industry to be liable for the tort of his (4) That the employee is insolvent.
employee. Ipso facto liability The employer becomes ipso facto subsidiarily liable
Borrowed employee rule An employer-employee exists even if the employee upon the conviction of his employee and upon proof
was loaned by the employer to another because of the latter’s insolvency. In the same manner, the
control over the employee subsists. So long as control acquittal of the employee wipes out not only the said
over the employees subsists, the employer is still employer’s liability but the subsidiary liability as well.
liable under Article 2180. Public impact projects The local government unit cannot escape liability by
claiming that its officials do not have knowledge of the
The same rule applies if the employee was assigned to existence of excavations on its road; the obligation to
another person or entity. For instance, the liability of make the road safe is a continuing obligation.
a Municipality remains even if the driver was
assigned to the Mayor. The Court explained that too often in the zeal to put
Test: performance of The vicarious liability attaches only when the up “public impact” projects such as beautification
assigned task tortuous conduct of the employee relates to, or is in drives, the end is more important than the manner in
the course of his employment. The question to ask which the work is carried out. Because of this
should be whether, at the time of the damage or obsession for showing off, such trivial details as
injury, the employer is engaged in the affairs or misplaced flowerpots betray the careless execution of
concerns of the employer, or independently, in that of the projects, causing public inconvenience and
his own. While the employer incurs no liability when inviting accidents.
an employee’s conduct, act or omission is beyond the Liability of municipalities General Rule: A municipality is not liable for the
range of employment, a minor deviation from the negligent acts of its servants while they are
assigned task of an employee, however, does not performing a governmental duty or function.
affect the liability of an employer.
Fellow servant rule Exempts from liability an employer where the injury Exception: Municipalities, in many jurisdictions, are
was caused through the negligence of a fellow- invested with the full and complete control over the
servant or employee streets and bridges within their corporate limits and
Registered owner rule The rule in this jurisdiction is that the person who is charged with the duty of keeping them in repair, they
the registered owner of a vehicle is liable for any are liable in damages for injuries sustained as a
damages caused by the negligent operation of the consequence of their failure to use due care to keep
vehicle although the same was already sold or them in reasonably safe condition for public travel.
conveyed to another person at the time of the Two aspects of liability of 1) Public aspect – government entity exercising
accident. The registered owner is liable to the injured the State governmental functions, where liable only for the acts
party subject to his right of recourse against the of special agents
transferee or the buyer. 2) Private or business aspect – corporate
capacity, as when it engages in some private
enterprise, where it may be held liable just as any Art. 2193, NCC The head of a family that lives in a building or part
other employer for the acts of its employees thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things
Special agent The State’s agent, if a public official, must not only be thrown or falling from the same.
specially commissioned to do a particular task but Principle of Presumed When an inanimate object causes damage to another,
that such task must be foreign to said official’s usual Negligence the owner thereof becomes liable; proof of fault or
governmental functions. If the State’s agent is not a negligence is unnecessary because this is presumed
public official, and is commissioned to perform non- Head of the family The term is not limited to the owner of the building
governmental functions, then the State assumes the and it may even include the lessee thereof.
role of an ordinary employer and will be held liable as Dingcong v. Kanaan The co-lessee of the property was made liable for the
such of its agent’s tort. Where the government (1941) act of a guest who left the faucet open causing water
commissions a private individual for a special to fall from the 2nd floor and to damage the goods of
governmental task, it is acting through a special agent the respondent (plaintiff) in the floor below.
within the meaning of this provision.
Note that although Art. 1910 of the OCC (now 2193 of
STRICT LIABILITY the NCC) was cited, there was no finding that the
Principle Doctrine/Requisites liability in said provision is strict liability.
Strict liability A tort wherein the person is made liable independent Art. 1711, NCC Owners of enterprises and other employers are
of fault or negligence upon submission of proof of obliged to pay compensation for the death of or
certain facts. The conduct is generally not wrongful in injuries to their laborers, workmen, mechanics or
itself but the wrong consists in causing harm by other employees even though the event may have
engaging in certain types of risky activities. been purely accidental or entirely due t a fortuitous
cause, if the death or personal injury arose out of and
Examples are Art. 2187 of the NCC and Art. 100 of the in the course of the employment. The employer is also
Consumer Act. liable for compensation if the employee contracts any
Art. 2183, NCC The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use illness or disease caused by such employment or as
of the same is responsible for the damage which it the result of the nature of the employment. If the
may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This mishap was due to the employee’s own notorious
responsibility shall cease only in case the damage negligence, or voluntary act, or drunkenness, the
should come from force majeure or from the fault of employer shall not be liable for compensation. When
the person who has suffered damage. the employer’s lack of due care contributed to his
Ferae naturae Non-domesticated animals death or injury, the compensation shall be equitably
Ibardo v. Nava (1963) Here, the plaintiff, to get to the house of another to reduced.
have a foot-wound treated, had to go through the yard Art. 1712, NCC If th death or injury is due to the negligence of a
of the defendant who made use of a dog belonging to fellow-worker, the latter and the employer shall be
another to guard their copras, and entered under the solidarily liable for compensation. If a fellow-
assurance of the latter that the dog would not bite her, worker’s intentional or malicious act is the only cause
the Court held both the owner and the defendant of the death or injury, thee employer shall not be
liable under Art. 2183 as they exercised joint control answerable, unless it should be shown that the latter
over the dog. The defendant was liable not only did not exercise due diligence in the selection or
because the dog was kept on her premises with her supervision of the plaintiff’s fellow-worker.
knowledge and consent but also because she made Art. 694, NCC A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment,
use thereof. condition of property, or anything else which:
Wild beast theory The true rule of law is that the person who for his own (1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of
purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps others; or
there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must (2) Annoys or offends the senses; or
keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima (3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality;
facie answerable for all the damage which is the or
natural consequence of its escape.
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of Velasco v. Manila Electric No one is entitled to absolute quiet in the enjoyment
any public highway or street, or any body of Co. (1971) of his property; he may only insist upon a degree of
water; or quietness consistent with the standard of comfort
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property prevailing in the locality in which he dwells.
Art. 682, NCC Every building or piece of land is subject to the Strict liability in nuisance There is strict liability on the part of the owner or
easement which prohibits the proprietor or possessor of the property, including the successive
possessor from committing nuisance through noise, owners or possessors, where a nuisance is found
jarring, offensive odor, smoke, heat, dust, water, glare because he is obliged to abate the same irrespective
and other causes. of the presence or absence of fault or negligence.
Rationale of easement It is a proper limitation upon ownership. It is a Remedies (1) Public nuisance
against nuisance manifestation of the principle that every person (a) Prosecution under the Penal Code or any
should so use his property as not to cause damage or local ordinance; or
injury to others. (b) Civil action
Nuisance under the Code (1) Public or private premises maintained and used (c) Abatement, without judicial proceedings
on Sanitation of the Phils. in a manner injurious to health; (2) Private nuisance
(2) Breeding places and harborages of vermin; (a) Civil action; or
(3) Animals and their carcasses which are injurious (b) Abatement, without judicial proceedings
to health; Nuisance under the (1) Obstructing or blocking the exit ways or across to
(4) Accumulation of refuse Revised Fire Code of the buildings clearly marked for fire safety purposes
(5) Noxious matter or waste water discharged Phils. xxx;
improperly in streets; (2) Constructing gates, entrances and walkways to
(6) Animals stockage maintained in a manner buildings components and yards which obstruct
injurious to health; the orderly and easy passage of fire fighting
(7) Excessive noise; and vehicles and equipment;
(8) Illegal shanties in public or private properties. (3) Obstructing designated fire lanes or access to fire
Kinds of nuisance (1) Old classification hydrants; and
(a) Per se (4) Locking fire exits during period when people are
(b) Per accidens inside the building.
(2) New classification Fire hazard Any condition or act which increases or may cause an
(a) Public increase in the probability of the occurrence of fire, or
(b) Private which may obstruct, delay, hinder or interfere with
The Homeowners Assoc. of A construction without provision for accumulation or fire fighting operations and safeguarding of life and
El Deposito, Barrio disposal of waster matters and constructed without property (Sec. 3, Revised Fire Code of the Phils.)
Corazon de Jesus, San Juan, building permits contiguously to and therefore liable Rationale for the The abatement of nuisance is brought about by the
Rizal v. Lood (1972) to pollute one of the main water pipelines which imprescriptibility of demands of public health and safety. Neglect to
supplies potable water to the Greater Manila area is a action to abate a nuisance protect the health and safety of citizens will not justify
nuisance per se. continuation of the danger to them.
Bengzon v. Prov. of A water pumping plant that was constructed and Nuisance of noise A noise may constitute an actionable nuisance, but it
Pangasinan (1936) operated in close proximity to the residence of the must be a noise which affects injuriously the health or
plaintiff, in such a way that the plaintiff’s property comfort of ordinary people in the vicinity to an
was rendered uninhabitable because of the noise, unreasonable extent (Tortorella v. Traiser & Co., Inc.
smoke, vibrations, odors and sparks coming from the [1933]).
plant, was considered a nuisance.
De Ayala v. Barreto (1916) The construction of a brewery that was supposed to Note that this is a US case.
be operated with a minimum offense to nearby Art. 22, NCC Every person who, through an act of performance by
residents, in a locality of semi-industrial character, in another, or any other means, acquires or comes into
that what noise or smell the is produced by the possession of something at the expense of the latter
brewery cannot be held to be unreasonable, was not without just or legal ground, shall return the same to
a nuisance. him.
Elements of accion in rem (1) That the defendant has been enriched (6) An Act to Penalize Fraudulent Advertising,
verso (2) That the plaintiff has suffered a loss Mislabeling or Misbranding of Any Product,
(3) That the enrichment of the defendant is without Stocks, Bonds, Etc.
just or legal ground, and (7) An Act to Provide Security Against Fraud in the
(4) That the plaintiff has no other action based on Kind of Sawn Lumber Offered for Sale
contract, quasi-contract, crime or quasi-delict. (8) An Act to Declare Illegal the Possession, Sale or
Shinryo Phils. Co., Inc. v. To substantiate a claim for unjust enrichment, the Distribution of Fish or Other Aquatic Animals
RRN, Inc. (2010) claimant must unequivocally prove that another party Stupefied, Disabled or Killed by Means of
knowingly received something of value to which he Dynamite or Other Explosive or Toxic Substances
was not entitled and that the state of affairs are such and Providing Penalties Therefor, as amended
that it would be unjust for the person to keep the (9) An Act to Regulate the Sale of Veterinary Biologics
benefit. Unjust enrichment is a term used to depict and Medicinal Preparations
result or effect of failure to make remuneration of or (10) An Act Regulating the Collection, Processing
for property or benefits received under circumstances and Sale of Human Blood, and the Establishment
that give rise to legal or equitable obligation to and Operation of Blood Banks and Blood
account for them; to be entitled to remuneration, one Processing Laboratories
must confer benefit by mistake, fraud, coercion, or (11) An Act Regulating the Practice of Pharmacy,
request. Unjust enrichment is not itself a theory of as amended
reconvey. Rather, it is a prerequisite for the (12) An Act to Ensure the Safety and Purity of
enforcement of the doctrine of restitution. Food, Drugs, and Cosmetics Being Made Available
Allied Banking Corp. v. Lim Herein, the bank which pre-terminated and to the Public by Creating the Food and Drug
Sio Wan (2008) withdrawn, without plaintiff (respondent)’s consent, Administration Which Shall Administer and
the latter’s money market placement, the proceeds of Enforce the Laws Pertaining Thereto, as amended
which was then deposited to said bank’s account in Alternative theories that (1) Fraud or misrepresentation
another bank, extinguishing its indebtedness, was may be used to justify (2) Breach of warranty
held to be unjustly enriched at the expense of another. product liability (3) Negligence
(4) Civil liability arising from criminal liability
PRODUCT AND SERVICE LIABILITY (5) Strict liability
Principle Doctrine/Requisites Principle of Created Risks When a person introduces in society a dangerous
Product liability law The law that governs the liability of manufacturers object, for necessity or for profit, he exposes others to
and sellers for damages resulting from defective danger. If it injures another, even without negligence
products: on the part of the owner or proprietor, he should be
(1) Consumer Act liable for the damages caused
(2) An Act to Regulate the Sale of Viruses, Serums, 1. FRAUD OR MISREPRESENTATION
Toxins, and Analogous Products in the Philippine Basis Art. 33, NCC
Islands Unactionable The law does not exact good faith from a seller in
(3) An Act to Prevent the Importation, Manufacture, misrepresentation vague commendations of his wares which are
Sale or Transportation within the Philippine manifestly open to difference of opinion, which do not
Islands of Adulterated or Misbranded Paris imply untrue assertions concerning matters of direct
Green, Lead Arsenates, Lime-Sulphur observations, and as to which it always has been
Compounds, and Other Insecticides and understood the world over that such statements are
Fungicides, and Regulating Traffic Therein, and to be distrusted.
for Other Purposes Art. 1340, NCC The usual exaggerations in trade, when the other
(4) An Act to Regulate the Manufacture, Importation, party had an opportunity to know the facts, are not in
and Sale of Galvanized Iron, Barbed Wire, and themselves fraudulent.
Nails, and for Other Purposes Fraud under the Chapter I of Title II thereof expressly provides for
(5) An Act to Prevent the Adulteration of, and Consumer Act protection against deceptive, unfair and
Deception in the Sale of Paints and Paint Materials unconscionable sales acts and practices.
in the Philippine Islands
Remedies under the (1) Injunction, and/or Coca-Cola Bottler’s Phils., A complaint states a cause of action based on quasi-
Consumer Act (2) Damages, and Inc. v. CA (2011) delict if it makes reference to the reckless and
(3) Such other orders as the court may deem fit to negligent manufacture of adulterated food items
redress the injury intended to be sold for public consumption.
2. WARRANTIES Proof of negligence in In product liability law, special laws and the rules and
Art. 1546, NCC Any affirmation of fact or any promise by the seller product liability law regulations of proper government agencies already
relating to the thing is an express warrant if the impose certain standards. Certain acts or omissions
natural tendency of such affirmation or promise is to are expressly prohibited by statute thereby making
induce the buyer to purchase the same, and if the the violation thereof negligence per se.
buyer purchases the thing relying thereon. No 4. DELICT
affirmation of the value of the thing, nor any Basis Criminal negligence under Arts. 365 or 366 of the
statement purporting to be a statement of the seller’s RPC, as the case may be; or under special laws, for
opinion only, shall be construed as a warranty, unless violation thereof
the seller made such affirmation or statement as an US v. Sy Cong Bieng The employee of the appellant, while in charge of the
expert and it was relied upon by the buyer. latter’s store, in the ordinary course of business, sold
Implied warranties In the law on Sales, certain implied warranties are coffee, which was found to have been adulterated
natural elements of the contract, which include the with an admixture of peanuts and other substances,
warranty against hidden defects and the warranty of was held liable for violation of the Pure Foods and
fitness and merchantability. Drugs Act, even without the knowledge of the fact of
Remedies under the NCC (1) Accion redhibitoria, with damages adulteration, since a violation of a special law
(2) Accion quanti minors, with damages generally does not require intent.
Elements to prove It must be established by the plaintiff that: 5. STRICT LIABILITY
liability on the basis of (1) They sustained injury because of the product; Art. 2187, NCC Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks,
breach of implied (2) The injury occurred because the product was toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for
warranty defective or unreasonably unsafe; and death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful
(3) The defect existed when the product left the substances used, although no contractual relation
hands of the (manufacturer or seller). exists between them and the consumers.
Del Rosario v. CA (1997) Privity between the manufacturer and the vendee is Escola v. Coca-Cola The plaintiff, a waitress in a restaurant, who while
not necessary before liability can be imposed for Bottling Co. (1944) placing into the refrigerator bottled products of the
breach of warranty given to the public. defendant that had been delivered 36 hours earlier,
Warranty under the (1) Requires that formalities be observed sustained severe injuries in her hand because a bottle
Consumer Act (2) Operative from the moment of sale exploded thereon was awarded damages, on the basis
(3) Period within which the express warranty shall of an inference of defendant’s negligence under the
be enforceable may be stipulated upon by the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
seller and consumer
(4) Implied warranty on merchantability, if J. Traynor, in his concurring opinion, which Judge
accompanying the express warranty, shall be of Sangco believes to be applicable in our jurisdiction,
equal duration with the latter argued that the negligence should no longer be
(5) Other implied warrant shall endure not less than singled out as the basis of the plaintiff’s right to
60 days nor more than 1 year following the sale recover in cases of similar factual background.
(6) Records and reports to be kept by the distributors Accordingly, he opined, that it should now be
and retailers recognized that a manufacturer incurs absolute
(7) Retailer shall be subsidiarily liable; and its liability when an article that he placed on the market,
recourse shall be to proceed against the knowing that it is to be used without inspection,
distributor or manufacturer proves to have defect that causes injury to human
(8) The warranty of the manufacturer extends as well being.
to the end-buyer.
3. NEGLIGENCE Note that this is a US case.
Greenman v. Yuba Power In this case, a piece of wood suddenly flew out of a (4) Reputable manufacturers do in fact stand behind
Products, Inc. (1962) power tool (that could be used as a saw, a drill, and a heir products, replacing and repairing those
wood lathe) while being used by the plaintiff, striking which prove to be defective, and many of them
him in the forehead and resulting to serious injuries. issue agreements to do so. Therefore, all should
The court sustained the award of damages using J. be responsible when injury results from a normal
Traynor’s strict liability theory. To establish the use of a product
manufacturer’s liability, it was sufficient that the (5) The manufacturer is in a better position to protect
plaintiff proved that he was injured while using the against harm, by insuring against liability for it,
power tool in a way it was intended to be used and as and, by adding the costs of the insurance to the
a result of a defect in design and manufacture of price of the product, to pass the loss on to the
which plaintiff was not aware, the tool was unsafe for general public
its intended use. (6) Strict liability can already be accomplished by a
series of actions, in which the consumer first
Note that this is a US case. recovers from the retailer on a warranty, and
De Salas v. San Miguel The plaintiff, a sari-sari store owner, placed n a small liability on warranties is then carried back
Brewery (1964) chiller 5 or 6 bottles of defendant’s Pale Pilsen. After through the intermediate dealers to the
about 4 hours, upon opening the lid, one of the bottles manufacturer. The process is time-consuming,
burst, with some of its splinters getting into her right expensive, and wasteful; there should be a short-
eye. The CA concluded that the defendant was liable cut
for negligence whether it be based on quasi-delict (7) By placing the product on the market, the seller
under Art. 2187, using to this effect the doctrine of res represents to the public that it is fit; and he
ipsa loquitur, or from the point of view of contract intends and expects that it will be purchased and
under Art. 1566. consumed in reliance upon that representation.
The middleman is no more than a conduit, a
It follows under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur that mechanical device through which the thing sold
if the bottle was in fact excessively charge, an reaches the consumer
inference of defendant’s negligence would arise. (8) The costs of accidents should be placed
Persons liable under the (1) Manufacturer, i.e., Any person who manufactures,
Consumer Act assembles or processes consumer products,
Note that this was a CA case. Note further that except that if the goods are manufactured,
according to Aquino, the interpretation of the CA in this assembled or processed for another person who
case is not the correct approach, since the CA relied attaches his own brand name to the consumer
upon res ipsa loquitur, a negligence theory, in applying products, the latter shall be deemed to be the
Art. 2187, which is a strict liability tort, i.e., one not manufacturer. In case of imported products, the
requiring proof of negligence. manufacturer’s representatives or, in his absence,
Strict liability under the Art. 97 hereof expressly provides for liability for the importer, shall be deemed the manufacturer.
Consumer Act defective products independently of fault. Strict (2) Tradesman or seller (which may, under specific
liability herein also extends to defective services circumstances, include a supplier or a
under Art. 99. distributor), provided:
Rationale of strict liability (1) The consumer finds it too difficult to prove (a) It is not possible to identify the manufacturer,
of manufacturers negligence against the manufacturer builder, producer or importer;
(2) Strict liability provides an effective and necessary (b) The product is supplied, without clear
incentive to manufacturers to make their identification of the manufacturer, producer,
products as safe as possible builder or importer; and
(3) Res ipsa loquitur is in fact, in some case, to impose (c) He does not adequately preserve perishable
liability upon producers who have not in fact been goods
negligent; therefore, negligence should be
dispensed with The party making the payment to the damaged party
may exercise the right to recover a part of the whole
of the payment made against the other responsible (1) The usefulness and desirability of the product;
parties, in accordance with their part or (2) The safety aspects of the product;
responsibility in the cause of the damage effected. (3) The availability of a substitute product which
Kinds of defects in (1) Manufacturing or production defect would meet the same need and not be as unsafe;
products (2) Design defect (4) The manufacturer’s ability to eliminate the
(3) Packaging and presentation defect unsafe character of the product without
(4) Absence of appropriate warning impairing its usefulness or making it too
Manufacturing defect In general, a manufacturing or production defect is expensive to maintain its utility;
one that differs from the manufacturer’s intended (5) The user’s ability to avoid danger by the exercise
result or from other ostensibly identical units of the of care in the use of the product;
same product line. The design itself is not defective (6) The user’s anticipated awareness of the dangers
but the product does not comply with the design. Such inherent in the product and their avoidability,
defect results from some mishap in the because of general public knowledge of the
manufacturing process itself, improper obvious condition of the product, or of existence
workmanship, or because defective materials were of suitable warning or instructions; and
used in construction. (7) The feasibility, on the part of the manufacturer, of
Design defect Can be established by comparing the design with spreading the loss by setting the price of the
standards established by law or by government product or carrying liability insurance.
agencies. Reasonable alternative The existence of a safer, practical alternative design
Tests in design defect in (1) Consumer expectation test design must be proved by showing:
the absence of specific (2) Risk-utility test (1) That the plaintiff’s injuries would have been
standards prescribed by (a) Reasonable alternative design eliminated or in some way reduced by the use of
law or rules the alternative design; and
Note that the use of one test does not preclude the use (2) That by taking into consideration such factors as
of the other. In fact, some courts use the reasonable the (a) intended use of the product, (b) its styling,
alternative design to determine what is to be expected cost and desirability, (c) its safety aspects, (d)
by the consumer. foreseeability of the particular accident, (v) the
Consumer expectation A product may be found defective in design if the likelihood of the injury, and the probable
test plaintiff demonstrates that the product failed to seriousness of the injury if that accident occurred,
perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would (f) the obviousness of the defect, and (g) the
expect when used in an intended or reasonably manufacturer’s ability to eliminate the defect, the
foreseeable manner. To determine whether a product utility of the alternative design outweighed the
contains a dangerous defect depends upon the utility of the design actually used.
reasonable expectation of the ordinary consumer Test under the Consumer The Consumer Act adopts the consumer expectation
concerning the characteristics of the type of product Act test in determining what is defective.
involved. If the average consumer would reasonably
anticipate the dangerous condition of the product and Note, however, that according to Aquino, it is also
fully appreciate the attendant risk of injury, it would possible for the risk-utility test to creep into the concept
not be unreasonably dangerous and defective. This is of what is reasonable expected.
an objective test and is not dependent upon the Consumer under the The consumer includes the buyer and other users of
knowledge of the particular injured consumer. Consumer Act the product. The buyer pays for the safety precautions
Risk-utility test The test is whether a reasonable alternative design and guarantees of injury compensation via the
would, at a reasonable cost, have reduced the associated price increases. One who buys a product
foreseeable risk of harm posed by the product and, if frequently contemplates that others, typically family
so, whether the omission of the alternative design by members, friends or employees, will use it. In making
the seller or a predecessor in the distributive chain the purchase decision, the buyer presumably gives
rendered the product not reasonably safe. equal consideration to the welfare of these other
users, including employees. The buyer does not have
The court is called upon to consider relevant factors: to give greater consideration to the interest of other
users, since they can only reasonable expect the The law likewise contains special requirement for the
amount of product safety that is acceptable to the packaging of consumer products for children.
buyer. The interests of these parties coincide, making Knowledge of the In Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co. (1980), the court held
it defensible to conceptualize the consumer as manufacturer vis-à-vis the that a manufacture cannot be held liable for failure to
including both the buyer and any reasonably duty to warn warn of a danger which it would be impossible to
foreseeable user of the product. know based on the present stare of human
Packaging and The defect may result because the manufacturer knowledge.
presentation defect deviated from its self-imposed norm in packaging the
product or in distributing the same. The original may The dissenting opinion in said case held that the
not be defective but there was deviation therefrom. It knowledge of the manufacturer is not important,
may also be because the original norm in packaging since in strict liability actions, the focus is on the
or presenting the product may in itself be defective. condition of the product and not on the conduct of the
manufacturer or seller.
This defect can be included under the broad concept
of manufacturing defect or design defect; or may Note that according to Aquino, the dissenting opinion
likewise consist of the manufacturer’s failure to warn is the better view and is more consistent with the
the consumer as mandated by the Consumer Act. provisions of the Consumer Act, for primarily two
Absence of appropriate The importance of complying with the duty to warn reasons: (1) violations of special are considered malum
warning was explained in Liriano v. Hobart Corp. (1999): prohibitum and do not require intent, and (2) what is
material is not the manufacturer’s knowledge but the
A warning can do more than exhort its audience to be consumer’s reasonable expectation.
careful. It can also affect what activities the people Proof of defect Proof of existence of defect is often difficult and
warned choose to engage in. The value of warning can complex in product liability cases, as among others,
lie as much in making known the existence of the product may have been destroyed.
alternatives as in communicating the fact that a
particular choice is dangerous. The duty to warn is While strictly speaking, res ipsa loquitur has no
not obviated merely because a danger is clear. application to a strict liability case, the inferences that
are at the core of this doctrine apply with equal force
A warning can convey at least two types of messages. to strict liability cases. Thus, the fact that the product
One states that a particular place, object, or activity is went wrong may, in proper cases, give rise to a
dangerous. Another explains that people need not permissible inference that it was defective and that
risk the danger posed by such a place, object, or the defect existed when it left the hands of the
activity in order to achieve the purpose for which they defendant.
might have taken that risk.
In addition, US courts have used the Malfunction
Note that this is a US case. doctrine, a doctrine involving circumstantial
Duty to warn under the As a policy, the State shall enforce compulsory evidence, in product liability cases.
Consumer Act labeling, and fair packaging to enable the consumer to Malfunction doctrine A product defect may be inferred by circumstantial
obtain accurate information as to the nature, quality evidence that:
and quantity of the contents of the consumer (1) The product malfunctioned
products and to facilitate his comparison of the value (2) The malfunctioned occurred during a proper use,
of such products. and
Minimum labeling (1) Whether it is flammable or inflammable (3) The product had not been altered or misused in a
requirements under the (2) Directions for use, if necessary manner that probably caused the malfunction
Consumer Act (3) Warning of toxicity What the plaintiff should (1) That the product was defective;
(4) Wattage, voltage or amperes allege and prove (2) That the product was manufactured by the
(5) Process of manufacture used if necessary defendant; and
(3) That the defective product was the cause in fact of
his injury
Defenses under the (1) Product defects contract is made to leave their service is valid and is
Consumer Act (a) That it did not place the product on the not contrary to public policy.
market Lumley v. Gye (1853) Here, the plaintiff, as manager of a theater, had
(b) That although it did place the product on the entered into a contract with an opera singer, whereby
market such product has no defect she bound herself for a period to sing in the plaintiff’s
(c) That the consumer or a third party is solely at theater. The defendant, knowing of the existence of
fault the contract, and as alleged, maliciously intending to
(2) Service defects injure the plaintiff, enticed and procured said opera
(a) That there is no defect in the service singer to leave the plaintiff’s employment. It was held
rendered; that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages.
(b) That the consumer or third party is solely at
fault Note that this is an English case.
Temperton v. Russel Herein, the defendant procured to be breached a
BUSINESS TORTS (1893) contract for the supply of building material. The court
Principle Doctrine/Requisites held that the right of action for maliciously procuring
Scope (1) Interference with contractual relations a breach of contract is not confined to contract for
(2) Interference with prospective advantage personal services, but extends to contracts in general.
(3) Unfair competition
(4) Securities-related fraud Note that this is an English case.
Nature Business torts are sometimes in the nature of non- South Wales Miners Certain miners employed in the plaintiff’s collieries,
possessory invasion of the interest of another. One Federation v. Glamorgan acting under the order of the executive council of the
becomes liable in an action for damages for a non- Coal Co. (1905) defendant federation, violated their contract with the
trespassory invasion of another’s interest in the plaintiff by abstaining from work on certain days. The
private use and enjoyment of asset if: federation and council acted without any actual
(1) The other has property rights and privileges with malice or ill-will towards the plaintiff, and the only
respect to the use or enjoyment interfered with; object of the order in question was that the price of
(2) The invasion is substantial; the coal might thereby be kept up, a factor which
(3) The defendant’s conduct is a legal cause of the affected the miner’s wage scale. The court held that no
invasion; and sufficient justification was shown and, thus, the
(4) The invasion is either intentional and federation was liable.
unreasonable, or unintentional and actionable
under general negligence rules. Note that this is an English case.
Exceptions to privity of (1) Contracts containing stipulations pour atrui Gilchrist v. Cuddy (1915) In this case, the defendant, the owner of a
contracts (2) Contracts intended to defraud creditors cinematographic film, let it under a rental contract to
Interference with Considered tortious because it violates the rights of the plaintiff for a specified period of time. In violation
contractual relations the contracting parties to fulfill the contract and to of the terms of this agreement, the defendant
have it fulfilled, to reap the profits resulting proceeded to turn over the film, also under a rental
therefrom, and to compel the performance by the contract, to the co-defendants. Plaintiff then resorted
other party. to the CFI and procured an injunction restraining the
Rationale The theory is that a right derived from a contract is a co-defendants from exhibiting the film in their
property right tat entitles each party to protection theater. The Court held that the injunction was not
against the entire world and any damage to said improperly granted, although the defendants did not,
property should be compensated. at the time their contract was made, know the identity
Art. 1314, NCC Any third person who induces another to violate his of the plaintiff as the person holding the prior
contract shall be liable for damages to the other contract but did know the existence of a contract in
contracting party. favor of someone.
Dharamdas v. Haroomall An agreement that those executing the contract will
(1916) not induce the employees of those with whom the It was also said arguendo, that the defendant would
have been liable in damages under Art. 1902 of the
OCC, if the action had been brought by the plaintiff to through FNF Trading in West Germany and sold the
recover damages. same to the Philippines. The House of Mayfair in
Daywalt v. La Corporacion The right introduced Lumley v. Gye, which was England was duped int o believing that the goods
de los Padres Agustinos subsequently introduced in our jurisdiction through ordered through the FNF Trading were to be shipped
Recoletos (1919) Gilchrist v. Cuddy, had its origin in a common law rule in Nigeria.
that any person who entices a servant from his U-bix Corp. v. Milleken & There is no malicious interference when an employee
employment is liable in damages to the master. The Co. (2008) resigned and transferred to another employer.
master’s interest in the service rendered by his Lagon v. CA (2005) The word “induce” refers to a situation where a
employee is considered as a distinct subject of person causes another to choose one course of
juridical right. conduct by persuasion or intimidation. In this case,
the petitioner allegedly induced the heirs of the late
It is authority for the proposition that one who buys Sepi to sell the property to him despite the alleged
something which he knows has been sold to some renewal of the original lease with the deceased
other person can be restrained from using that thing landowner. The Court, however, found that there was
to the prejudice of the person having the prior and no proof of malice or bad faith in repurchasing the
better right. Thus, a person or entity that is not a party property.
to a contract of sale may be held liable for damages for Requisite of lack of legal Where the protection of the actor’s interest is
advising the seller not to perform the contract. justification involved, there is simply a privilege to invade equal or
inferior interest, but not superior one.
Whatever may be the character of the liability which Right to interfere in (1) The defendant’s purpose is a justifiable one
a stranger to a contract may incur by advising or competition in business (2) The actor employs no means of fraud or deception
assisting one of the parties to evade performance, the that are regarded as unfair
stranger cannot become more extensively liable in So Ping Bun v. CA (1999) There was no tortious interference in this case as the
damages for the non-performance of the contract intrusion was impelled by purely economic motives.
than the party in whose behalf he intermeddles. It is sufficient if the impetus of his conduct lies in a
Elements of the tort of (1) Existence of a valid contract; proper business interest rather than in wrongful
interference with (2) Knowledge on the part of the third person of the motives. In this case, petitioner’s firm asked the lessor
contractual relation existence of the contract; and to execute a lease contract over the same property
(3) Interference of the third person without legal that was occupied by the respondent corporation.
justification or excuse.
Tayag v. Lacson (2004) In this case, certain tenant farmers occupying a parcel Note that in this case, while no damages were awarded,
of land registered in the name of the respondents the lease contract was still nullified.
executed a deed of assignment in favor of the Inocencio v. Hospicio de Here, the lessor entered into a contract of lease with
petitioner for the respective rights of the San Jose (2013) the sublessees although the lessee had the right to
landholdings possessed by them. Later, they informed enter into a sublease with the sublessees.
the petitioner of their collective decision to sell all Nonetheless, in this case, it does not appear that the
their rights to respondents. The Court held that the lessor was motivated by spite or ill will.
respondents were not liable under Art. 1314 partly Extent of liability The defendant found guilty of interference with
because the agreement that was allegedly violated contractual relations cannot be held liable for more
was subversive of public policy and the letter and than the amount for which the party who was induced
spirit of agrarian laws. to break the contract can be held liable.
Yu v. CA (1993) The Court ruled that the ploy of the character
employed in this case is akin to inducement of a party On the other hand, the liability of the party who
to renege on or violate his undertaking under a breached the contract is dependent on the existence
contract. In this case, respondent, the former dealer of good faith or bad faith, as provided for in Art. 2201.
of petitioner, who is the exclusive distributor of the Go v. Cordro (2010) Where the defendant was found to have maliciously
House of Mayfair wall-covering products in the interfered with an exclusive distributorship
Philippines, for the same goods, purchased the agreement, the defendant was made liable for the
merchandise from the House of Mayfair in England balance of the commission which the plaintiff (agent)
should have received from the sale of a vessel and (2) Disparagement of products (Sec. 168.3[c])
which the principal did not pay in violation of the Int’l News Service v. Assoc. The defendant was held to be guilty of unfair
agreement plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Press (1918) competition when it appropriated news taken from
Interference with Here, there is no contract yet and the defendant is bulletins issued by the complainant. The court stated
prospective advantage only being sued for inducing another not to enter into that while news of current events are not
a contract with the plaintiff. copyrightable and may be regarded as common
Tuttle v. Buck (1909) Defendant was a wealthy banker and a man of property, nonetheless, competitors are under a duty
considerable influence in the community. He to conduct its own business so as not to unnecessarily
maliciously established a barber shop and employed or unfairly in jure that of the other.
his influence to attract the customers of the plaintiff’s
barber shop. The defendant’s sole purpose in Note that this is a US case.
establishing his shop was to ruin the plaintiff. The Predatory pricing Practice of selling below costs in the short run in the
court held that the defendant was liable for damages, hope of obtaining monopoly gains later, after driving
ratiocinating that when a man starts an opposition the competition out of the market.
place of business, not for the sake of profit himself, but Gokongwei v. SEC (1979) The laws prohibiting monopolies and combinations in
regardless of loss to himself, and for the sole purpose restraint of trade are designed to preserve free and
of driving his competitor out of business, and with the unfettered competition as the rule of trade. It rests on
intention of himself retiring upon the the premise that the unrestrained interaction of
accomplishment of his malevolent purpose, he is competitive forces will yield the best allocation of our
guilty of a wanton wrong and an actionable tort. economic resources, the lowest prices and the highest
quality.
Note that this is a US case. Basis of action against Art. 21, for violation of the provisions of the Securities
Art. 28, NCC Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or securities-related torts Regulation Code, and civil liability arising from delict,
industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of for violation of criminal provisions therein
force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other Objective of securities To protect those who do not know market conditions
unjust, oppressive or high-handed method shall give legislation from the overreachings of those who do.
rise to a right of action by the person who thereby Fraud under the There is no hard and fast rule on what constitutes
suffers damage. Securities Regulations fraud. The reason being that if there is such, some
Requisites of unfair (1) It must involve an injury to a competitor or trade Code might endeavor to conceive some devious and
competition rival, and shadowy way of evading the law. It is thus more
(2) It must involve acts which are characterized as advisable to deal with each case as it arises.
“contrary to good conscience, ” or “shocking to
judicial sensibilities,” or otherwise unlawful; in There are also civil liabilities for damages on account
the language of our law, these include force, of false statements in the registration statement and
intimidation, deceit, machination or any other the materials and documents attached thereto.
unjust, oppressive or high-handed method.
Unfair competition under The State shall regulate or prohibit private DAMAGES
the 1987 Constitution monopolies when the public interest so requires. No Principle Doctrine/Requisites
combinations in restraint of trade or unfair Rationale According to the Code Commission, the measure of
competition shall be allowed (Art. XIV, Sec. 2). damages is of far-reaching importance in every legal
Unfair competition under Art. 186 on monopolies and combinations in restraint system. Upon it depends the just compensation for
the RPC of trade every wrong or breach of contract.
unfair competition under Penalizes all forms of anti-competitive agreements, Art. 2195, NCC The provisions of this Title shall be respectively
the Philippine abuse of dominant position and anti-competitive applicable to all obligations mentioned in Article.
Competition Act mergers and acquisitions, with the objective of 1157.
protecting consumer welfare and advancing domestic Art. 2196, NCC The rules under this Title are without prejudice to
and international trade and economic development. special provisions on damages formulated elsewhere
Unfair competition under (1) Passing off of one’s product as that of another in this Code. Compensation for workmen and other
the IPC (Secs. 168.2 and 168.3[a][b])
employees in case of death, injury or illness is petitioner’s property. The Court held the petitioners
regulated by special laws. Rules governing damages had an absolute right over their property and their act
laid down in other laws shall be observed insofar as of fencing and enclosing the same was an act which
they are not in conflict with this Code. they may lawfully perform in the employment and
Art. 2197, NCC Damages may be: exercise of said right since there was no easement of
(1) Actual or compensatory; right of way.
(2) Moral; Equitable Banking Corp. v. In this case, the petitioner, a credit card company,
(3) Nominal; Calderon (2004) cancelled a respondent’s credit card pursuant to the
(4) Temperate or moderate; provisions of the credit card agreement allowing
(5) Liquidate; or automatic suspension of the credit card if the holder
(6) Exemplary or corrective. exceeded the limit provided for the cars. There is no
Art. 2198, NCC The principles of the general law on damages are injury if the cardholder suffered because of the
hereby adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent dishonor of the card by a merchant.
with this Code. FAJ Construction and Dev. The doctrine does not apply where the owner
Damages The pecuniary compensation, recompense, or Corp. v. Saulog (2015) suffered damages because of a building contractor’s
satisfaction for an injury sustained, or as otherwise defective and delayed work and unjustified
expressed, the pecuniary consequences which the law abandonment of the project.
imposes for the breach of some duty or violation of Cebu Country Club, Inc. v. The doctrine does not find application where the
some right. It is the recompense or compensation Elizagaque (2008) defendant abused its right in disapproving the
awarded for the damage suffered. plaintiff’s application for membership in a club.
Farolan v. Salmac The damage resulting from the act of the
Involves any and all manifestations of life: physical or Marketing Corp. (1991) Commissioner of Customs in withholding the release
material, moral or psychological, mental or spiritual, of certain importation because of an erroneous
financial, economic, social, political and religious. interpretation of law was in the nature of a damnum
Nature of a complaint for A complaint for damages is a personal action. absque injuria. The Court held that it is its duty to see
damages to its that public officers are not hampered in the
Form of damages In actions for damages, courts should award an performance of their duties or in making decisions for
amount to the winning party and not its amount fear of personal liability for damages due to honest
equivalent in property. the damages that should be mistakes.
awarded should be the money value of such damages. Saba v. CA (1990) The adverse result of an action does not per se make
Heirs of Borlado v. CA An order to pay, as damages, the quantity of 100 the action wrongful and subject the action to payment
cavans of palay every year for a specified period, was of damages.
deleted by the Court, ratiocinating that palay is not Heirs of Nala v. Cabansag A lawyer and his client cannot be made liable for
legal currency in the Philippines. (2008) sending demand letters to vacate to the present
Damnum absque injuria In theses, cases there is no liability even if there is possessor of the property. The property belonged to
damage because there is no injury, as in those the lawyer’s client and they alleged that the same
instances in which the loss or harm was not the result property was conveyed to another by the trustees to
of a violation of a legal duty. Where the case is one of whom the client entrusted his property for his
damnum absque injuria, the conjunction of damages children. The trustees sold the property without the
and wrong is absent. There can be no actionable client’s knowledge. Hence, the demand to vacate was
wrong if either one or the other is wanting. made in good faith.
Proof of pecuniary loss Necessary to successfully recover actual damages; but
Consequently, this does not apply if the plaintiff not necessary for all other kinds of damages.
suffered damages as a result of defendant’s act or
omission or breach. To recover [actual] damages, the amount of loss must
Injury The legal invasion of a legal right not only be capable of proof but must actually be
Custodio v. CA (1996) Herein, the petitioners enclosed their property and proven with a reasonable degree of certainty,
the owners and tenants of the adjoining lots were premised upon competent proof or best evidence
thereby prevented from passing through the obtainable of the actual amount thereof.
be that sum of money which will put the party who
The claimant has the burden of proof, which is has been injured or who has suffered in the same
preponderance of evidence. position as he would have been in in if he had not
Art. 2216, NCC No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his
moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary compensation or reparation. The primary object of an
damages may be adjudicated. The assessment of such award in civil action, and the fundamental principle
damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the or theory on which it is based, is just compensation,
discretion of the court, according to the indemnity or reparation for the loss or injury
circumstances of each case. sustained by the injured party so that he may be made
1. ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES whole or restored as nearly as possible prior to the
Art. 2199, NCC Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is injury.
entitled to an adequate compensation only for such Measure of damages Based on the principle of restitutio in integrum, the
pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. general rule is that the damage is measured on the
Such compensation is referred to as actual or plaintiff’s loss and not on the defendant’s gain.
compensatory damages.
Algarra v. Sandejas The purpose of the law in awarding actual damages is By way of exception, damages are measured by the
to repair the wrong that has been done, to benefit that has accrued to the defendant in certain
compensate for the injury inflicted, and not to impose cases. The theory is that the benefits derived by the
a penalty. Actual damages are not dependent on nor defendant pertain to or could have been received by
graded by the intent with which the wrongful act is the plaintiff because only the plaintiff is supposed to
done. Actual damages are compensatory only. profit from the activity involved.
“Compensatory damages” as indicated by the word Art. 1170, NCC Those who in the performance of their obligations are
employed to characterize them, simply make good or guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in
replace the loss caused by the wrong. any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable
Art. 2200, NCC Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not for damages.
only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of the Art. 2201, NCC In contract and quasi-contracts, the damages for
profits which the obligee failed to obtain. which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable
Kinds or components of (1) Daño emergente or damnum emergens shall be those that are the natural and probable
actual damages (2) Lucro cesante or ganacias frustradas or lucrum consequences of the breach of the obligation, and
cessans which the parties have foreseen or could have
reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was
Note that both may be concurrently awarded. constituted.
Daño emergente or Pertains to the loss of what a person already
damnum emergens possesses. In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude,
Lucro cesante or lucrum Refers to the failure to receive as a benefit that would the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which
cessans have pertained to him. This includes the damages may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance
awarded for loss or impairment of earning capacity. of the obligation.
Radio Communications of Compensatory damages can be awarded for injury to Interests of the promisee (1) Expectation interest
the Phils. v. CA (1981) one’s business reputation or business standing or for sought to be preserved by (2) Reliance interest
loss of goodwill and loss of customers or shippers the remedy in case of (3) Restitution interest
who shifted their patronage to competitors. failure to comply with a
Art. 2202, NCC In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendants shall be contract FGU ins. Corp. v. G.P. Sarmiento Trucking Corp.
liable for all damages which are the natural and Expectation interest The promisee’s interest in having the benefit of his
probable consequences of the act or omission bargain by being put in as good a position as he would
complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been in had the contract been performed.
have been foreseen or could have reasonably been Reliance interest The promisee’s interest in being reimbursed for loss
foreseen by the defendant. caused by reliance on the contract by being put in as
Restitutio in integrum The basic principle for the measure of damages in food a position as he would have been in had the
tort. The amount to be awarded to the plaintiff should contract not been made.
Restitution interest The promisee’s interest in having restored to him any corporate officers of the employer of the deceased
benefit that he has conferred on the other party. may also suffice
Applicability of proximate While proximate causation need not be established to Art. 2206, NCC The amount of damages for death caused by a crime
cause in breach of prove breach of contract, the moment breach of or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos,
contract contract is established, the plaintiff must also even though there may have been mitigating
establish the causal connection between the breach circumstances. In addition:
and the damage before he can recover. (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of
Damages in breach of General Compensatory Damages – those which are earning capacity of the deceased, and the
contract the natural and necessary result of the wrongful act indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter;
or omission asserted as the foundation of the liability such indemnity shall in every case be assessed
and include those which follow as a conclusion of law and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on
from the statement of the fact of injury. (Result of account of permanent physical disability not
injury) caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity
at the time of his death;
Special Compensatory Damages – actually, but not (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support
necessarily, result from the injury and which arise according to the provisions of Article 291, the
from special circumstances of the cases. Damages (by recipient who is not an heir called to the
competent evidence) are directly traceable to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or
failure to discharge the obligation. (MUST BE intestate succession, may demand support from
SPECIALLY PLEADED) the person causing the death, for a period not
Art. 2203, NCC The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the exceeding five years, the exact duration to be
diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the fixed by the court;
damages resulting from the act or omission in (3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate
question. descendants and ascendants of the deceased may
Art. 2204, NCC In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be demand moral damages for mental anguish by
respectively increased or lessened according to the reason of the death of the deceased.
aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Art. 1764, NCC Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be
Art. 2205, NCC Damages may be recovered: awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book,
(1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in concerning Damages. Article 2206 shall also apply to
cases of temporary or permanent personal injury; the death of a passenger caused by the breach of
(2) For injury to the plaintiff’s business standing or contract by a common carrier.
commercial credit. Art. 2207, NCC If the plaintiff’s property has been insured, and he has
Formula (no business) Net Earning Capacity = [⅔ x (80 – age of the victim at received indemnity from the insurance company for
the time of death)] x (Gross Annual Income - Living the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of
Expenses) contract complained of, the insurance company shall
Formula (has business) Net Earning Capacity = [⅔ x (80 – age of the victim at be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the
the time of death)] x [(Gross Annual Income – wrongdoer or the person who has violated the
Necessary Expenses) - Living Expenses] contract. If the amount paid by the insurance
Presumption as to In the absence of proof of the amount of living company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the
expenses expenses, the same is fixed at 50%; while expenses for aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the
the operation of business, in the absence of proof, is deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury.
fixed at 80% Art. 2208, NCC In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and
Exceptions to the rule (1) Self-employed earning less than the minimum expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot
requiring documentary wage under current labor laws be recovered, except:
evidence (2) Employed as a daily wage earner earning less (1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
than the minimum wage under current labor laws (2) When the defendant’s act or omission has
(3) Award of temperate damages compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third
(4) Testimonial evidence sufficiently establishes the persons or to incur expenses to protect his
loss as in the case when the testimonies of the interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against (3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be
the plaintiff; awarded, that the defendant acted upon the
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or advice of counsel;
proceeding against the plaintiff; (4) That the loss would have resulted in any event;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident (5) That since the filing of the action, the defendant
bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff’s has done his best to lessen the plaintiff’s loss or
plainly valid, just and demandable claim; injury.
(6) In actions for legal support; 2. MORAL DAMAGES
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household Art. 2217, NCC Moral damages include physical suffering, mental
helpers, laborers and skilled workers; anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen’s reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
compensation and employer’s liability laws; humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability pecuniary computation, moral damages may be
arising from a crime; recovered if they are the proximate result of the
(10) When at least double judicial costs are defendant’s wrongful act or omission.
awarded; Rationale and purpose Purpose is essentially indemnity or reparation and
(11) In any other case where the court deems it not punishment or correction. They are awarded to
just and equitable that attorney’s fees and enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions
expenses of litigation should be recovered or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral
In all cases, the attorney’s fees and expenses of suffering he has undergone by reason of the
litigation must be reasonable. defendant’s culpable action.
Art. 2209, NCC If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of
money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity Restoration of the spiritual status quo ante
for damages, there being no stipulation to the Art. 2218, NCC In the adjudication of moral damages, the sentimental
contrary, shall be the payment of interest agreed value of property, real or personal, may be
upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal considered.
interest, which is six per cent per annum. Art. 2219, NCC Moral damages may be recovered in the following and
Art. 2210, NCC Interest may, in the discretion of the court, be allowed analogous cases:
upon damages awarded for breach of contract. (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
Art. 2211, NCC In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part of the (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
damages may, in a proper case, be adjudicated in the (3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious
discretion of the court. acts;
Art. 2212, NCC Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it (4) Adultery or concubinage;
is judicially demanded, although the obligation may (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
be silent upon this point. (6) Illegal search;
Art. 2213, NCC Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated (7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
claims or damages, except when the demand can be (8) Malicious prosecution;
established with reasonable certainty. (9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;
Art. 2214, NCC In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the (10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26,
plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35
recover. The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped,
Art. 2215, NCC In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts, the or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also
court may equitably mitigate the damages under recover moral damages.
circumstances other than the case referred to in the The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers
preceding article, as in the following instances: and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of
(1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the this article, in the order named.
terms of the contract; Art. 2220, NCC Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for
(2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a awarding moral damages if the court should find that,
result of the contract; under the circumstances, such damages are justly
due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract actual loss, or where it would be physically
where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad impossible for him to perform the contract. However,
faith. recovery should not be limited to nominal where
3. NOMINAL DAMAGES there are actual damages as a result of breach;
Art. 2221, NCC Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right plaintiff is entitled to substantial damages.
of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by (5) Torts
the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and Only nominal damages can be recovered for a tort
not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for where there is no evidence from which damage can be
any loss suffered by him. calculated or where actual damages cannot be
Rationale, purpose, and Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right determined.
effects of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by Art. 2223, NCC The adjudication of nominal damages shall preclude
the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and further contest upon the right involved and all
not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for accessory questions, as between the parties to the
any loss suffered by him. suit, or their respective heirs and assigns.
4. TEMPERATE OR MODERATE DAMAGES
Damages in name only and not in amount. The
amount is left to the discretion of the court Art. 2224, NCC Temperate or moderate damages, which are more
Nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory than nominal but less than compensatory damages,
damages. may be recovered when the court finds that some
pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can
An adjudication of nominal damages shall preclude not, from the nature of the case, be proved with
further contest upon the right involved and all certainty.
accessory questions, as between the parties to the Art. 2225, NCC Temperate damages must be reasonable under the
suit, or their respective heirs and assigns. circumstances.
Art. 2222, NCC The court may award nominal damages in every 5. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
obligation arising from any source enumerated in Art. 2226, NCC Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the
Article 1157, or in every case where any property parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach
right has been invaded. thereof.
Case where recoverable (1) Every obligation arising from law, contracts, Functions of liquidated (1) To provide for liquidated damages; and
quasi-contracts, crimes and quasi-delict; damages (2) To strengthen the coercive force of the obligation
(2) Breach of legal duty or the invasion of a legal by the threat of greater responsibility in the event
right and no actual damages resulted or was proved; of breach.
(3) Non-perfection of an appeal due to failure of Examples of liquidated (1) Lease: For premature termination of a lease
the counsel to pay the docket fee; damages contract or abandonment by the lessee or tenant
(4) Breach of contract of the leased property.
In breach of contract, nominal damages may be (2) Attorney’s fees
awarded if no actual or substantial damage resulted (3) Construction contracts: For failure to finish the
from the breach or no damage has been shown. works within the period agreed upon by the
a. Actual damage is uncertain or not susceptible parties without justifiable reasons and after the
of proof; owner makes a demand
b. Damages are too remote, conjectural and (4) Non-involvement clause: A clause in an
speculative to form a basis of legal recovery; employment contract prohibiting the employee
c. Indefiniteness in the terms of the contract, from engaging in or being involved with another
there is no basis for establishing any measure of business or corporation
damages for its breach and the injured party fails to Tiu v. Platinum Plans Phil., The petitioner was hired by respondent under an
bring himself within them. Inc. (2007) employment contract with a non-involvement clause,
Nominal damages may be awarded when the plaintiff with the former violating the same, thus being made
contributed to the loss, where, by the exercise of liable to pay liquidated damages to the latter. The
reasonable diligence he could have prevented an Court held that a non-involvement clause is not
necessarily void for being in restraint of trade as long In common law, there is preference in the use of
as there are reasonable limitations as to time, trade, exemplary damages when the award is to account for
and place. In this case, the non-involvement clause injury to feelings and for the sense of indignity and
has a time limit, i.e., 2 years from the time the humiliation suffered by a person as a result of an
petitioner’s employment with respondent ends. The injury that has been maliciously and wantonly
clause also has a trade limit, i.e., the petitioner is inflicted. On the other hand, the terms punitive or
prohibited from engaging only in businesses akin to vindictive damages are often used to refer to those
respondent’s business. Thus, the Court sustained the species of damages that may be awarded against a
award of damages. person to punish him for his outrageous conduct.
Also, the Court held that liquidated damages may not In either case, these damages are intended in food
be equitable reduced if it appears that even from the measure to deter the wrongdoer and others like him
start, the defendant had not shown the least intention from similar conduct in the future.
to fulfill the non-involvement clause in good faith.
Art. 2227, NCC Liquidated damages, whether intended as an Note that according to the Reports of the Code
indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if Commission, the Commission used the term “corrective”
they are iniquitous or unconscionable. in lieu of “punitive” in harmony with the modern theory
Rationale for the The reason is that in both cases [whether as of penology.
reduction indemnity or as penalty], the stipulation is contra Requisites for the award (1) They may be imposed by way of example in
bonus mores under Article 1326 (now 1306). of exemplary damages addition to compensatory damages, and only
Factors to be considered (1) The type, extent and purpose of the penalty; after the claimant’s right to them has been
in fixing the amount (2) The nature of the obligation; established;
(3) The mode of the breach and its consequences; (2) They cannot be recovered as a matter of right,
(4) The supervening realities; their determination depending upon the amount
(5) The standing and relationship of the parties; and of compensatory damages that may be awarded
(6) The like. to the claimant;
Art. 2228, NCC When the breach of the contract committed by the (3) The act must be accompanied by bad faith or done
defendant is not the one contemplated by the parties in wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent
in agreeing upon the liquidated damages, the law manner.
shall determine the measure of damages, and not the Art. 2230, NCC In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of
stipulation. the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was
6. EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGES committed with one or more aggravating
Art. 2229, NCC Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by circumstances. Such damages are separate and
way of example or correction for the public good, in distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended
addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or party.
compensatory damages. Definition of aggravating The term aggravating circumstances used by the Civil
Purpose of exemplary Exemplary damages are required by public policy to circumstances, as used in Code, the law not having specified otherwise, is to be
damages suppress wanton acts. They are imposed as a Art. 2230 of the NCC understood in its broad or generic sense. The
deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb commission of an offense has a two-pronged effect,
socially deleterious actions. one on the public as it breaches the social order and
ASJ Corp. v. Evangelista The award of exemplary damages is justified where a the other upon the private victim as it causes personal
(2008) person’s conduct flouts the norms of society — sufferings, each of which is addressed by,
honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique respectively, the prescription of heavier punishment
tribuere (to live honestly, to hurt no one, to give every for the accused and by an award of additional
one his due). damages to the victim. The increase of the penalty or
Use of terms Exemplary or corrective damages is also known as a shift to a graver felony underscores the
“punitive” or “vindictive” damages. These terms are exacerbation of the offense by the attendance of
generally, but not always, used interchangeably. aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or
qualifying, in its commission. Unlike the criminal
liability which is basically a State concern, the award Sig-an v. Villanueva (2009) Exemplary damages were awarded in this case, where
of damages, however, is likewise, if not primarily, the creditor defendant acted oppressively by
intended for the offended party who suffers thereby. pestering the debtor to pay interest and threatened to
It would make little sense for an award of exemplary block the latter’s transaction if he or she would not
damages to be due the private offended party when pay interest.
the aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be Art. 2233, NCC Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter
withheld when it is qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or of right; the court will decide whether or not they
qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a should be adjudicated.
distinction that should only be of consequence to the Art. 2234, NCC While the amount of the exemplary damages need not
criminal, rather than to the civil liability of the be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is entitled
offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before
an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or the court may consider the question of whether or not
qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an exemplary damages should be awarded. In case
award of exemplary damages within the unbridled liquidated damages have been agreed upon, although
meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code. no proof of loss is necessary in order that such
People v. Cristobal (1996) Exemplary damages were awarded against an liquidated damages may be recovered, nevertheless,
accused who sexually assaulted a pregnant woman, before the court may consider the question of
because by such an act, the accused has shown moral granting exemplary in addition to the liquidated
corruption, perversity and wickedness. damages, the plaintiff must show that he would be
People v. Matrimonio Exemplary damages were imposed to deter fathers entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory
(1992) with perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior damages were it not for the stipulation for liquidated
from abusing their own daughters. damages.
People v. Llagas (2009) In this case, while the circumstance of use of deadly Nature of exemplary A claim for exemplary damages is ancillary to the
weapon cannot be appreciated for the purpose of damages claim for moral, temperate or compensatory
imposing a heavier penalty where it was not alleged damages.
in the information, it can be considered as basis for an Art. 2235, NCC A stipulation whereby exemplary damages are
award of exemplary damages. renounced in advance shall be null and void.
Art. 2231, NCC In quasi-delict, exemplary damages may be granted if
the defendant acted with gross negligence.
Far East Bank and Trust In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages are granted if the
Co. v. CA (1995) defendant is shown to have been so guilty of gross
negligence as to approximate malice.
Mercury Drug Corp. v. Sps. The Court upheld the award of exemplary damages in
Huang (2007) this case, ratiocinating that the wanton acts
committed by the truck driver need be suppressed,
and employers should be more circumspect in the
observance of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of their employees. Here, the driver of the
truck was without a license at the time of the accident
due to having been previously ticketed for reckless
driving. He also failed to step on his breaks
immediately after the impact, which, had he done so,
the injuries which the victim sustained could have
been greatly reduced.
Art. 2232, NCC In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award
exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a
wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent manner.
PART II. DOCTRINES OF CASES UNDER THE 2018-2019 SYLLABUS
2. BAKSH v. CA
A. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS (G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993)
• The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable
1. SAGRADA ORDEN DE PREDICADORES DEL SANTISIMO ROSARIO DE FILIPINAS v. wrong. The history of breach of promise suits in the United States and in England
NACOCO has shown that no other action lends itself more readily to abuse by designing
(G.R. No. L-3756, June 30, 1952) women and unscrupulous men. It is the experience which has led the abolition of
• We can not understand how the trial court, from the mere fact that plaintiff- rights of action in the so-called Heart Balm suits.
appellee was the owner of the property and the defendant-appellant the occupant, • Article 2176 of the Civil Code is limited to negligent acts or omissions and excludes
which used for its own benefit but by the express permission of the Alien Property the notion of willfulness or intent. Quasi-delict is a civil law concept while torts is
Custodian of the United States, so easily jumped to the conclusion that the occupant an Anglo-American or common law concept. Torts is much broader than culpa
is liable for the value of such use and occupation. If defendant-appellant is liable at aquiliana because it includes not only negligence, but intentional criminal acts as
all, its obligations, must arise from any of the four sources of obligations, namely, well as assault and battery, false imprisonment and deceit.
law, contract or quasi-contract, crime, or negligence. (Article 1089, Spanish Civil • Where a man’s promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of
Code.) Defendant-appellant is not guilty of any offense at all, because it entered the his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter
premises and occupied it with the permission of the entity which had the legal becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress,
control and administration thereof, the Allien Property Administration. Neither proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that promise was only
was there any negligence on its part. There was also no privity (of contract or a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to
obligation) between the Alien Property Custodian and the Taiwan Tekkosho, which obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant
had secured the possession of the property from the plaintiff-appellee by the use of to Article 21 not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and
duress, such that the Alien Property Custodian or its permittee (defendant- deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed
appellant) may be held responsible for the supposed illegality of the occupation of thereafter. It is essential, however, that such injury should have been committed in
the property by the said Taiwan Tekkosho. The Allien Property Administration had a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
the control and administration of the property not as successor to the interests of • In a breach of promise to marry where there had been carnal knowledge, moral
the enemy holder of the title, the Taiwan Tekkosho, but by express provision of law damages may be recovered:
(Trading with the Enemy Act of the United States, 40 Stat., 411; 50 U.S.C.A., 189). “x x x if there be criminal or moral seduction, but not if the intercourse was due to
Neither is it a trustee of the former owner, the plaintiff-appellee herein, but a mutual lust (Hermosisima v. CA, G.R. No. L142628). In other words, if the cause be the
promise to marry, and the effect be the carnal knowledge, there is a chance that there
trustee of then Government of the United States (32 Op. Atty. Gen. 249; 50 U.S.C.A.
was criminal or moral seduction, hence recovery of moral damages will prosper. If it
283), in its own right, to the exclusion of, and against the claim or title of, the enemy be the other way around, there can be no recovery of moral damages, because here
owner. mutual lust has intervened. x x x” (Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Vol.
I, Eleventh ed., 1984, 91-92).
B. CONCEPT OF TORTS together with actual damages, should there be any, such as the expenses for the
wedding preparations.
1. NAGUIAT v. NLRC
(G.R. No. 116123, March 13, 1997) 3. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. v. FIRST FARMERS MILLING CO., INC.
• CFTI failed to comply with this law-imposed duty or obligation. Consequently, its (G.R. No. L-29041, March 24, 1981)
stockholder who was actively engaged in the management or operation of the • Plaintiff-appellant's allegation "that defendants NIDC and PNB have extended loans
business should be held personally liable. Section 100 of the Corporation Code to defendant sugar mill x x x, to assist in the illegal creation and operation of said
specifically imposes personal liability upon the stockholder actively managing or mill, hence, a joint tortfeasor in the trespass of plaintiff's rights. x x x" is, therefore,
operating the business and affairs of the close corporation. Sergio Naguiat is held a mere conclusion not warranted by suf-ficient facts. What appears from the record
solidarily liable for corporate tort because he had actively engaged in the is that PNB and NIDC came into the picture in the ordinary and usual course of its
management and operation of CFTI, a close corporation. This is evidenced by his business after the borrowing entity had established itself as capable of being
posting the surety bond required by this Court for the issuance of a temporary treated as a new milling district (FFMC is officially designated as Mill District No.
restraining order enjoining the execution of the assailed NLRC Resolutions, only 49) because it could already operate and had its array of adhering planters. "The
Sergio F. Naguiat, in his individual and personal capacity, principally bound himself doing of an act which is in itself perfectly law-ful will not render one liable as for a
to comply with the obligation thereunder. tort, simply because the unintended effect of such act is to enable or assist another
• Our jurisprudence is wanting as to the definite scope of "corporate tort." person to do or accomplish a wrong", assuming, of course, that there was such a
Essentially, "tort" consists in the violation of a right given or the omission of a duty wrong.
imposed by law. Simply stated, tort is a breach of a legal duty.
C. QUASI-DELICTS • Well-entrenched is the doctrine that Article 2176 covers not only acts committed
with negligence, but also acts which are voluntary and intentional.
1. CONCEPT AND REQUISITES • The issue of negligence is factual in nature. Whether a person is negligent or not is
a question of fact, which, as a general rule, we cannot pass upon in a petition for
1. CINCO v. CANONOY review on certiorari, as our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law.
(G.R. No. L-33171, May 31, 1979) • As the employer of Pajarillo, Safeguard is primarily and solidarily liable for the
• The concept of quasi-delict, as enunciated in Article 2176 of the Civil Code, is so quasi-delict committed by the former. Safeguard is presumed to be negligent in the
broad that it includes not only injuries to persons but also damage to property. It selection and supervision of his employee by operation of law. This presumption
makes no distinction between “damage to persons” on the one hand and “damage may be overcome only by satisfactorily showing that the employer exercised the
to property” on the other. Indeed, the word “damage” is used in two concepts: the care and the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and the
“harm” done and “reparation” for the harm done. And with respect to “harm” it is supervision of its employee.
plain that it includes both injuries to person and property since “harm” is not • In the selection of prospective employees, employers are required to examine them
limited to personal but also to property injuries. as to their qualifications, experience, and service records. On the other hand, due
diligence in the supervision of employees includes the formulation of suitable rules
2. ELCANO v. HILL and regulations for the guidance of employees and the issuance of proper
(G.R. No. L-24803, May 26, 1977) instructions intended for the protection of the public and persons with whom the
• Barredo vs. Garcia aka Garcia Doctrine: In this jurisdiction, the separate employer has relations through his or its employees and the imposition of
individuality of a cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code has been fully necessary disciplinary measures upon employees in case of breach or as may be
and clearly recognized, even with regard to a negligent act for which the wrongdoer warranted to ensure the performance of acts indispensable to the business of and
could have been prosecuted and convicted in a criminal case and for which, after beneficial to their employer. To this, we add that actual implementation and
such a conviction, he could have been sued for this civil liability arising from his monitoring of consistent compliance with said rules should be the constant concern
crime. Although J. V. House could have been criminally prosecuted for reckless or of the employer, acting through dependable supervisors who should regularly
simple negligence and not only punished but also made civilly liable because of his report on their supervisory functions. To establish these factors in a trial involving
criminal negligence, nevertheless this Court awarded damages in an independent the issue of vicarious liability, employers must submit concrete proof, including
civil action for fault or negligence under Article 1902 of the Civil Code. documentary evidence.
• Under the proposed Article 2177, acquittal from an accusation of criminal
negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent 4. INIEGO v. PURGANAN
civil action, not for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, but for damages (G.R. No. 166876, March 24, 2006)
due to a quasi-delict or 'culpa aquiliana'. But said article forestalls a double • Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are primarily and effectively actions for
recovery." the recovery of a sum of money for the damages suffered because of the defendant’s
• The marriage of a minor child does not relieve the parents of the duty to see to it alleged tortious acts, and are therefore capable of pecuniary estimation. The
that the child, while still a minor, does not give answerable for the borrowings of damages claimed in such actions represent the monetary equivalent of the injury
money and alienation or encumbering of real property which cannot be done by caused to the plaintiff by the defendant, which are thus sought to be recovered by
their minor married child without their consent. the plaintiff. This money claim is the principal relief sought, and is not merely
incidental thereto or a consequence thereof. It bears to point out that the complaint
3. SAFEGUARD SECURITY AGENCY, INC. v. TANGCO filed by private respondent before the RTC actually bears the caption "for
(G.R. No. 165732, December 14, 2006) DAMAGES."
• An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil
liabilities on the part of the offender, i.e., (1) civil liability ex delicto, under Article 5. CHAN, JR. v. IGLESIA NI CRISTO, INC.
100 of the Revised Penal Code; and (2) independent civil liabilities, such as those (G.R. No. 160283, October 14, 2005)
(a) not arising from an act or omission complained of as a felony, e.g., culpa • For the damage caused to respondent, petitioner and Yoro are jointly liable as they
contractual or obligations arising from law under Article 31 of the Civil Code, are joint tortfeasors. Verily, the responsibility of two or more persons who are
intentional torts under Articles 32 and 34, and culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 liable for a quasi-delict is solidary. As a general rule, joint tortfeasors are all the
of the Civil Code; or (b) where the injured party is granted a right to file an action persons who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance,
independent and distinct from the criminal action under Article 33 of the Civil Code. cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is
Either of these liabilities may be enforced against the offender subject to the caveat done, if done for their benefit. Indubitably, petitioner and Yoro cooperated in
under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the offended party cannot recover committing the tort. They even had provisions in their MOA as to how they would
damages twice for the same act or omission or under both causes. divide the treasure if any is found within or outside petitioners property line. Thus,
the MOA, instead of exculpating petitioner from liability, is the very noose that contract between the parties. A liability for tort may arise even under a contract,
insures that he be so declared as liable. where tort is that which breaches the contract. Stated differently, when an act
which constitutes a breach of contract would have itself constituted the source of a
6. FGU INS. CORP. v. CA quasi-delictual liability, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort,
(G.R. No. 118889, March 23, 1998) thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply (LRT vs. Navidad).
• The liability imposed by Art. 2180 arises by virtue of a presumption juris tantum of • As explained by respondent himself, he could have used his card upon verification
the negligence on the part of the persons made responsible thereunder, derived by the sales clerk of Watson that indeed he is the authorized cardholder. This could
from their failure to exercise due care and vigilance over the acts of subordinates have been accomplished had respondent talked to petitioner’s representative,
to prevent them from causing damage. Yet, as correctly observed by respondent enabling the latter to determine that respondent is indeed the true holder of the
court, Art. 2180 is hardly applicable because none of the circumstances mentioned card. Clearly, no negligence which breaches the contract can be attributed to
therein obtains in the case under consideration. Respondent FILCAR being engaged petitioner. If at all, the cause of respondent’s humiliation and embarrassment was
in a rent-a-car business was only the owner of the car leased to Dahl-Jensen. As his refusal to talk to petitioner’s representative.
such, there was no vinculum juris between them as employer and employee.
Respondent FILCAR cannot in any way be responsible for the negligent act of Dahl- 9. CARAVAN TRAVEL AND TOURS INT’L, INC. v. ABEJAR
Jensen, the former not being the employer of the latter. We now correlate par. 5 of (G.R. No. 170631, February 10, 2016)
Art. 2180 with Art. 2184 of the same Code which provides: "In motor vehicle • In cases where both the registered-owner rule and Article 2180 apply, the plaintiff
mishap, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the must first establish that the employer is the registered owner of the vehicle in
vehicle, could have by the use of due diligence, prevented the misfortune . . . If the question. Once the plaintiff successfully proves ownership, there arises a disputable
owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180 are applicable." presumption that the requirements of Article 2180 have been proven. As a
Obviously, this provision of Art. 2184 is neither applicable because of the absence consequence, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show that no liability
of master-driver relationship between respondent FILCAR and Dahl-Jensen. under Article 2180 has arisen. This disputable presumption, insofar as the
Clearly, petitioner has no cause of action against respondent FILCAR on the basis of registered owner of the vehicle in relation to the actual driver is concerned,
quasi-delict; logically, its claim against respondent FORTUNE can neither prosper. recognizes that between the owner and the victim, it is the former that should carry
the costs of moving forward with the evidence. The victim is, in many cases, a
7. VERGARA v. CA hapless pedestrian or motorist with hardly any means to uncover the employment
(G.R. No. 77679, September 30, 1987 [Resolution]) relationship of the owner and the driver, or any act that the owner may have done
• It is undisputed that private respondent suffered damages as a result of an act or in relation to that employment. The registration of the vehicle, on the other hand,
omission of petitioner. The issue of whether or not this act or omission can be is accessible to the public.
considered as a “negligent” act of omission was passed upon by the trial court. The
findings of said court, affirmed by the respondent court, which we are not prepared 10. ST. MARTIN POLYCLINIC, INC. v. LWV CONSTRUCTION CORP.
to now disturb, show that the fact of occurrence of the “vehicular accident” was (G.R. No. 217426, December 4, 2017)
sufficiently established by the police report and the testimony of Patrolman • In effect, negligence cannot be presumed, and thus, must be proven by him who
Masiclat. And the fact of negligence may be deduced from the surrounding alleges it. Therefore, if the plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he was damaged
circumstances thereof. According to the police report, “the cargo truck was because of the negligent acts of the defendant, he has the burden of proving such
travelling on the right side of the road going to Manila and then it crossed to the negligence. It is even presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns.
centre line and went to the left side of the highway; it then bumped a tricycle; and • In this regard, it was therefore incumbent upon respondent to show that there was
then another tricycle; and then said cargo truck rammed the store-warehouse of already negligence at the time the Medical Report was issued, may it be through
the plaintiff.” evidence that show that standard medical procedures were not carefully observed
or that there were already palpable signs that exhibited Raguindin's unfitness for
• According to the driver of the cargo truck, he applied the brakes but the latter did
deployment at that time.
not work due to mechanical defect. Contrary to the claim of petitioner, a mishap
caused by defective breaks cannot be considered as fortuitous in character.
2. AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A CRIME
Certainly, the defeats were curable and the accident preventable.
11. L.G. FOODS CORP. v. PAGAPONG-AGRAVIADOR
8. AMERICAN EXPRESS INT’L, INC. v. CORDERO
(G.R. No. 158995, September 26, 2006)
(G.R. No. 138550, October 14, 2005) • Victims of negligence or their heirs have a choice between an action to enforce the
• In order that an obligation based on quasi-delict may arise, there must be no civil liability arising from culpa criminal under Article 100 of the Revised Penal
preexisting contractual relation between the parties. But there are exceptions. Code, and an action for quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) under Articles 2176 to 2194
There may be an action for quasi-delict notwithstanding that there is a subsisting of the Civil Code.
• If the action chosen is for quasi-delict, the plaintiff may hold the employer liable for • In other words, if an accused is acquitted based on reasonable doubt on his guilt,
the negligent act of its employee, subject to the employer's defense of exercise of his civil liability arising from the crime may be proved by preponderance of
the diligence of a good father of the family. On the other hand, if the action chosen evidence only. However, if an accused is acquitted on the basis that he was not the
is for culpa criminal, the plaintiff can hold the employer subsidiarily liable only author of the act or omission complained of (or that there is declaration in a final
upon proof of prior conviction of its employee. judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist), said acquittal
• The employer is liable for damages caused by his employees and household helpers closes the door to civil liability based on the crime or ex delicto. In this second
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former is not instance, there being no crime or delict to speak of, civil liability based thereon or
engaged in any business or industry. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the ex delicto is not possible. In this case, a civil action, if any, may be instituted on
liability of the employer is direct or immediate. It is not conditioned upon prior grounds other than the delict complained of.
recourse against the negligent employee and a prior showing of insolvency of such • As regards civil liability arising from quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana, same will not
employee. be extinguished by an acquittal, whether it be on ground of reasonable doubt or
• Had the respondent spouses elected to sue the petitioners based on Article 103 of that accused was not the author of the act or omission complained of (or that there
the Revised Penal Code, they would have alleged that the guilt of the driver had is declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might
been proven beyond reasonable doubt; that such accused driver is insolvent; that arise did not exist). The responsibility arising from fault or negligence in a quasi-
it is the subsidiary liability of the defendant petitioners as employers to pay for the delict is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence
damage done by their employee (driver) based on the principle that every person under the Penal Code. An acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely
criminally liable is also civilly liable. irrelevant in the civil case based on quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.
• Since there was no conviction in the criminal case against the driver, precisely
because death intervened prior to the termination of the criminal proceedings, the 3. AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A BREACH OF CONTRACT
spouses' recourse was, therefore, to sue the petitioners for their direct and primary
liability based on quasi-delict. 14. FGU INS. CORP. v. G.P. SARMIENTO TRUCKING CORP.
(G.R. No. 141910, August 6, 2002)
12. PHIL. RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. PEOPLE • In culpa contractual, upon which the action of petitioner rests as being the subrogee
(G.R. No. 147703, April 14, 2004) of Concepcion Industries, Inc., the mere proof of the existence of the contract and
• What is deemed instituted in every criminal prosecution is the civil liability arising the failure of its compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding right of relief. The
from the crime or delict per se (civil liability ex delicto), but not those liabilities law, recognizing the obligatory force of contracts, will not permit a party to be set
arising from quasi-delicts, contracts or quasi-contracts. In fact, even if a civil action free from liability for any kind of misperformance of the contractual undertaking
is filed separately, the ex delicto civil liability in the criminal prosecution remains, or a contravention of the tenor thereof. A breach upon the contract confers upon
and the offended party may -- subject to the control of the prosecutor -- still the injured party a valid cause for recovering that which may have been lost or
intervene in the criminal action, in order to protect the remaining civil interest suffered.
therein. • He can show extenuating circumstances, like proof of his exercise of due diligence
(normally that of the diligence of a good father of a family or, exceptionally by
13. MANLICLIC v. CALAUNAN stipulation or by law such as in the case of common carriers, that of extraordinary
(G.R. No. 150157, January 25, 2007) diligence) or of the attendance of fortuitous event, to excuse him from his ensuing
• The extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111 [now liability.
Section 2 (b) of Rule 111], refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 • Respondent trucking corporation recognizes the existence of a contract of carriage
of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as between it and petitioners assured, and admits that the cargoes it has assumed to
a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in deliver have been lost or damaged while in its custody. In such a situation, a default
the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been on, or failure of compliance with, the obligation in this case, the delivery of the
committed by the accused. goods in its custody to the place of destination - gives rise to a presumption of lack
• A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code of care and corresponding liability on the part of the contractual obligor the burden
with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and being on him to establish otherwise. GPS has failed to do so.
independent from a delict or crime – a distinction exists between the civil liability
arising from a crime and the responsibility for quasi-delicts or culpa extra- 15. CALALAS v. CA
contractual. The same negligence causing damages may produce civil liability (G.R. No. 122039, May 31, 2000)
arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or create an action for quasi-delicts or • In an action for a breach of contract of carriage, it is immaterial that the proximate
culpa extra-contractual under the Civil Code. It is now settled that acquittal of the cause of the collision was the negligence of the driver of the other vehicle in the
accused, even if based on a finding that he is not guilty, does not carry with it the collision. The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-
extinction of the civil liability based on quasi delict. delict, not in actions involving breach of contract. The doctrine is a device for
imputing liability to a person where there is no relation between him and another respondents failed to discharge the burden of proving that they exercised due
party. In such a case, the obligation is created by law itself. But, where there is a diligence in providing a safe learning environment for their students.
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, it is the parties themselves • Article 1170 of the Civil Code provides that those who are negligent in the
who create the obligation, and the function of the law is merely to regulate the performance of their obligations are liable for damages. Accordingly, for breach of
relation thus created. contract due to negligence in providing a safe learning environment, respondent
• By way of exception, moral damages are recoverable in a breach of contract in cases FEU is liable to petitioner for damages.
in which the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith, as provided in Art. 2220. The fact
that, after a collision, the driver failed to assist his passenger in going to a nearby 17. HUANG v. PHIL. HOTELIERS, INC.
hospital because it was the driver of the other vehicle who took said passenger to (G.R. No. 180440, December 5, 2012)
the hospital, does not imply that petitioner was utterly indifferent to the plight of • The doctrine of respondeat superior finds no application in the absence of any
his injured passenger. If at all, it is merely implied recognition by the driver of the showing that the employees of respondents PHI and DTPCI were negligent. Since
other vehicle that he was the one at fault for the accident. Thus, moral damages in this case, the trial court and the appellate court found no negligence on the part
cannot be recovered. of the employees of respondents PHI and DTPCI, thus, the latter cannot also be held
• The taking of an “extension seat” in a jeepney (because the jeepney was filled to its liable for negligence and be made to pay the millions of pesos damages prayed for
capacity) does not amount to an implied assumption of risk. Contending otherwise by petitioner.
is akin to arguing that the injuries to the many victims of the tragedies in our seas
should not be compensated merely because those passengers assumed a greater 18. AIR FRANCE v. CARRASCOSO
risk of drowning by boarding an overloaded ferry. (G.R. No. L-21438, September 28, 1966)
• The defense of caso fortuito must fail where the driver, while unloading a • Although the relation of passenger and carrier is contractual both in origin and
passenger, parked his jeepney with its body protruding 2 meters into the highway, nature nevertheless the act that breaks the contract may be also a tort.
since he should have foreseen the danger of doing so.
4. SPECIFIC CASES OF LIABILITY
16. SALUDAGA v. FEU
(G.R. No. 179337, April 30, 2008) a. POSSESSOR OF ANIMALS
• When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment, there is established
a contract between them, resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties are 19. VESTIL v. IAC
bound to comply with. For its part, the school undertakes to provide the student (G.R. No. 74431, November 6, 1989)
with an education that would presumably suffice to equip him with the necessary • Article 2183 of the Civil Code holds the possessor liable even if the animal should
tools and skills to pursue higher education or a profession. On the other hand, the "escape or be lost" and so be removed from his control. And it does not matter
student covenants to abide by the school’s academic requirements and observe its either that as the petitioners also contend, the dog was tame and was merely
rules and regulations. provoked by the child into biting her. The law does not speak only of vicious
• Institutions of learning must also meet the implicit or built-in obligation of animals but covers even tame ones as long as they cause injury.
providing their students with an atmosphere that promotes or assists in attaining • In the proceedings, Purita Vestil insists that she is not the owner of the house or of
its primary undertaking of imparting knowledge. Necessarily, the school must the dog left by her father as his estate has not yet been partitioned and there are
ensure that adequate steps are taken to maintain peace and order within the other heirs to the property. While it is true that she is not really the owner of the
campus premises and to prevent the breakdown thereof. (Philippine School of house, which was still part of Vicente Miranda's estate, there is no doubt that she
Business Administration v. CA, 205 SCRA 729 [1992]). and her husband were its possessors at the time of the incident in question.
• It is undisputed that petitioner was enrolled as a sophomore law student in
respondent FEU. As such, there was created a contractual obligation between the b. PRODUCT LIABILITY
two parties. On petitioner’s part, he was obliged to comply with the rules and
regulations of the school. On the other hand, FEU, as a learning institution is 20. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. v. CA
mandated to impart knowledge and equip its students with the necessary skills to (G.R. No. 110295, October 18, 1993)
pursue higher education or a profession. At the same time, it is obliged to make sure • Under American law, the liabilities of the manufacturer or seller of injury-causing
to take adequate steps to maintain peace and order within the campus. products may be based on negligence, breach of warranty, tort, or other grounds
• It is settled that in culpa contractual, the mere proof of the existence of the contract such as fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Quasi-delict, as defined in Article 2176
and the failure of its compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding right of relief. of the Civil Code, (which is known in Spanish legal treatises as culpa aquiliana, culpa
In the instant case, there is a prima facie showing that respondents failed to comply extra-contractual or quasi-delitos) is homologous but not identical to tort under the
with its obligation to provide a safe and secure environment to its students and that common law, which includes not only negligence, but also intentional criminal acts,
such as assault and battery, false imprisonment, and deceit.
• The vendor could likewise be liable for quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil • Proximate cause is defined as that which, in the natural and continuous sequence,
Code, and an action based thereon may be brought by the vendee. While it may be unbroken by any efficient, intervening cause, produces the injury, and without
true that the pre-existing contract between the parties may, as a general rule, bar which the result would not have occurred. In order to establish a motorist's liability
the applicability of the law on quasi-delict, the liability may itself be deemed to arise for the negligent operation of a vehicle, it must be shown that there was a direct
from quasi-delict, i.e., the act which breaks the contract may also be a quasi-delict. causal connection between such negligence and the injuries or damages
Thus, in Singson vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, (23 SCRA 1117 [1968]) this complained of. Thus, negligence that is not a substantial contributing factor in the
Court stated: "We have repeatedly held, however, that the existence of a contract causation of the accident is not the proximate cause of an injury. The head injuries
between the parties does not bar the commission of a tort by the one against the sustained by Dayata at the point of impact proved to be the immediate cause of his
other and the consequent recovery of damages therefor. Indeed, this view has been, death, as indicated in the post-mortem findings. His skull was crushed as a result of
in effect, reiterated in a comparatively recent case. Thus, in Air France vs. the accident. Had petitioner immediately stopped the jeepney, it would still not
Carrascoso, involving an airplane passenger who, despite his first-class ticket, had have saved the life of the victim as the injuries he suffered were fatal.
been illegally ousted from his first-class accommodation and compelled to take a
seat in the tourist compartment, was held entitled to recover damages from the air- 3. ST. LUKE’S COLLEGE OF MEDICINE-WILLIAM H. QUASHA MEMORIAL
carrier, upon the ground or tort on the latter's part, for, although the relation FOUNDATION v. SPS. PEREZ
between the passenger and a carrier is 'contractual both in origin and nature . . . the (G.R. No. 222740, September 28, 2016)
act that breaks the contract may also be a tort.'" Otherwise put, liability for quasi- • The elements of simple negligence as follows: (1) that there is lack of precaution on
delict may still exist despite the presence of contractual relations. the part of the offender, and (2) that the damage impending to be caused is not
immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest.
D. NEGLIGENCE • The standard test in determining whether a person is negligent in doing an act
whereby injury or damage results to the person or property of another is this: could
1. CONCEPT 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
1. TISON v. SPS. POMASIN actually pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that
(G.R. No. 173180, August 24, 2011) course or to take precautions to guard against its mischievous results, and the
• Under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, the legal presumption of negligence arises if failure to do so constitutes negligence. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by
at the time of the mishap, a person was violating any traffic regulation. However, in the ignoring of the admonition born of this provision, is always necessary before
Sanitary Steam Laundry, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we held that a causal connection negligence can be held to exist.
must exist between the injury received and the violation of the traffic regulation. It • Petitioners failed to take the necessary precautions to guard their students against
must be proven that the violation of the traffic regulation was the proximate or legal foreseeable harm. As correctly found by the CA, petitioners were remiss in
cause of the injury or that it substantially contributed thereto. Negligence, inspecting the premises of the Cabiao Community Clinic and in ensuring that the
consisting in whole or in part, of violation of law, like any other negligence, is necessary permits were in order. These precautions could have minimized the risk
without legal consequence unless it is a contributing cause of the injury. to the safety of the victims.
• In the case at bar, it was amply shown that petitioners and the victims were bound
2. GAID v. PEOPLE by the enrollment contracts, and that petitioners were negligent in complying with
(G.R. No. 171636, April 7, 2009) their obligation under the said contracts to ensure the safety and security of their
• Negligence has been defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the students. For this contractual breach, petitioners should be held liable.
interests of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. The 2. STANDARD OF CONDUCT
elements of simple negligence: are (1) that there is lack of precaution on the part of
the offender; and (2) that the damage impending to be caused is not immediate or a. ORDINARY PRUDENT PERSON
the danger is not clearly manifest. The standard test in determining whether a
person is negligent in doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the person 4. PNR CORP. v. VIZCARA
or property of another is this: could a prudent man, in the position of the person to (G.R. No. 190022, February 15, 2012)
whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable • In Layugan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, negligence was defined as the omission
consequence of the course actually pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the to do something which a reasonable man, guided by considerations which
actor to refrain from that course or to take precautions to guard against its ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of
mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitutes negligence. Reasonable something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. It is the failure to
foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the admonition born of this provision, observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care,
is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist.
precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such • Aquino failed to exercise the utmost diligence of a very cautious person. A
other person suffers injury. reasonably prudent person would have foreseen that bringing children to an
• To determine the existence of negligence, the time-honored test was: Did the excavation site, and more so, leaving them there all by themselves, may result in an
defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution accident. An ordinarily careful human being would not assume that a simple
which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, warning "not to touch the stone" is sufficient to cast away all the serious danger
then he is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect adopts the standard supposed that a huge concrete block adjacent to an excavation would present to the children.
to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the Roman Moreover, a teacher who stands in loco parentis to his pupils would have made sure
law. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to that the children are protected from all harm in his company.
the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law considers
what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary 6. JARCO MARKETING CORP. v. CA
intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that. (G.R. No. 129792, December 21, 1999)
• Both courts ruled that the petitioners fell short of the diligence expected of it, taking • In our jurisdiction, a person under nine years of age is conclusively presumed to
into consideration the nature of its business, to forestall any untoward incident. In have acted without discernment, and is, on that account, exempt from criminal
particular, the petitioners failed to install safety railroad bars to prevent motorists liability. The same presumption and a like exemption from criminal liability obtains
from crossing the tracks in order to give way to an approaching train. Aside from in a case of a person over nine and under fifteen years of age, unless it is shown that
the absence of a crossing bar, the “Stop, Look and Listen” signage installed in the he has acted with discernment. Since negligence may be a felony and a quasi-delict
area was poorly maintained, hence, inadequate to alert the public of the impending and required discernment as a condition of liability, either criminal or civil, a child
danger. A reliable signaling device in good condition, not just a dilapidated “Stop, under nine years of age is, by analogy, conclusively presumed to be incapable of
Look and Listen” signage, is needed to give notice to the public. It is the negligence; and that the presumption of lack of discernment or incapacity for
responsibility of the railroad company to use reasonable care to keep the signal negligence in the case of a child over nine but under fifteen years of age is a
devices in working order. Failure to do so would be an indication of negligence. rebuttable one, under our law. The rule, therefore, is that a child under nine years
Having established the fact of negligence on the part of the petitioners, they were of age must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a
rightfully held liable for damages. matter of law.
• The reasonable or prudent man is a hypothetical person used as a legal standard • Even if we attribute contributory negligence to ZHIENETH and assume that she
especially to determine whether someone acted with negligence. This hypothetical climbed over the counter, no injury should have occurred if we accept petitioners'
person exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct that society requires theory that the counter was stable and sturdy. For if that was the truth, a frail six-
of its members for the protection of their own and of others' interests. year old could not have caused the counter to collapse. The physical analysis of the
counter by both the trial court and Court of Appeals and a scrutiny of the evidence
b. CHILDREN on record reveal otherwise, i.e., it was not durable after all. Shaped like an inverted
"L," the counter was heavy, huge, and its top laden with formica. It protruded
5. YLARDE v. AQUINO towards the customer waiting area and its base was not secured.
(G.R. No. L-33722, July 29, 1988)
• Where the school is academic rather than technical or vocational in nature, c. PROFESSIONALS
responsibility for the tort committed by the student will attach to the teacher in
charge of such student, following the first part of the provision. This is the general 7. LI v. SPS. SOLIMAN
rule. In the case of establishments of arts and trades, it is the head thereof, and only (G.R. No. 165279, June 7, 2011)
he, who shall be held liable as an exception to the general rule. In other words, • This Court has recognized that medical negligence cases are best proved by
teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their students except where the opinions of expert witnesses belonging in the same general neighborhood and in
school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be the same general line of practice as defendant physician or surgeon. The deference
answerable (Amadora v. CA). of courts to the expert opinion of qualified physicians stems from the former's
• The degree of care required to be exercised must vary with the capacity of the realization that the latter possess unusual technical skills which laymen in most
person endangered to care for himself. It should be remembered that Ylarde was instances are incapable of intelligently evaluating, hence the indispensability of
only ten years old at the time of the incident. As such, he is expected to be playful expert testimonies.
and daring. • The doctrine of informed consent within the context of physician-patient
• The digging done by the pupils can’t pass as part of their Work Education. A single relationships goes far back into English common law. As early as 1767, doctors
glance at the picture showing the excavation and the huge concrete block would were charged with the tort of "battery" (i.e., an unauthorized physical contact with
reveal a dangerous site requiring the attendance of strong, mature laborers and not a patient) if they had not gained the consent of their patients prior to performing a
ten-year old grade-four pupils. surgery or procedure.
• There are four essential elements a plaintiff must prove in a malpractice action • Stated differently, what should be disclosed depends on what a reasonable person,
based upon the doctrine of informed consent: "(1) the physician had a duty to in the same or similar situation as the patient, would deem material in deciding
disclose material risks; (2) he failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those whether to proceed with the proposed treatment.
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; and (4) 8. CRUZ v. CA
plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment." The gravamen in an informed (G.R. No. 122445, November 18, 1997)
consent case requires the plaintiff to "point to significant undisclosed information • Court stated that in accepting a case, a doctor in effect represents that, having the
relating to the treatment which would have altered her decision to undergo it. needed training and skill possessed by physicians and surgeons practicing in the
• The element of ethical duty to disclose material risks in the proposed medical same field, he will employ such training, care and skill in the treatment of his
treatment cannot thus be reduced to one simplistic formula applicable in all patients. He therefore has a duty to use at least the same level of care that any other
instances. Further, in a medical malpractice action based on lack of informed reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a condition under the same
consent, "the plaintiff must prove both the duty and the breach of that duty through circumstances.
expert testimony. • It is in this aspect of medical malpractice that expert testimony is essential to
• "Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what establish not only the standard of care of the profession but also that the physician's
shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without conduct in the treatment and care falls below such standard. Further, inasmuch as
his patient's consent, commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages." the causes of the injuries involved in malpractice actions are determinable only in
• The court observed that the duty to disclose should not be limited to medical usage the light of scientific knowledge, it has been recognized that expert testimony is
as to arrogate the decision on revelation to the physician alone. Thus, respect for usually necessary to support the conclusion as to causation.
the patient's right of self-determination on particular therapy demands a standard • The lack of provisions; the failure to conduct pre-operation tests on the patient; and
set by law for physicians rather than one which physician may or may not impose the subsequent transfer of Lydia to the San Pablo Hospital and the reoperation
upon themselves. The scope of disclosure is premised on the fact that patients performed on her by the petitioner do not indicate, without expert testimony, that
ordinarily are persons unlearned in the medical sciences. petitioner was recklessly imprudent in the exercise of her duties as a surgeon. Thus,
• The physician is not expected to give the patient a short medical education, the the absence of the fourth element of reckless imprudence: that the injury to the
disclosure rule only requires of him a reasonable explanation, which means person or property was a consequence of the reckless imprudence.
generally informing the patient in nontechnical terms as to what is at stake; the
therapy alternatives open to him, the goals expectably to be achieved, and the risks 9. BORROMEO v. FAMILY CARE HOSPITAL, INC.
that may ensue from particular treatment or no treatment. (G.R. No. 191018, January 25, 2016)
• As to the issue of demonstrating what risks are considered material necessitating • In this case, Dr. Reyes is not an expert witness who could prove Dr. Inso's alleged
disclosure, it was held that experts are unnecessary to a showing of the materiality negligence. His testimony could not have established the standard of care that Dr.
of a risk to a patient's decision on treatment, or to the reasonably, expectable effect Inso was expected to observe nor assessed Dr. Inso's failure to observe this
of risk disclosure on the decision. standard. His testimony cannot be relied upon to determine if Dr. Inso committed
Carpio’s Dissent: errors during the operation, the severity of these errors, their impact on Lilian's
• Under the patient standard of materiality, a doctor is obligated to disclose that probability of survival, and the existence of other diseases/conditions that might or
information which a reasonable patient would deem material in deciding whether might not have caused or contributed to Lilian's death. Dr. Avila testified in his
to proceed with a proposed treatment. capacity as an expert in medical jurisprudence, not as an expert in medicine,
• In our view, the patient's right to self-decision shapes the boundaries of the duty to surgery, or pathology. The testimonies of expert witnesses Dr. Hernandez and Dr.
reveal. That right can be effectively exercised only if the patient possesses enough Ramos carry far greater weight than that of Dr. Reyes. The petitioner's failure to
information to enable an intelligent choice. The scope of the physician's present expert witnesses resulted in his failure to prove the respondents'
communications to the patient, then, must be measured by the patient's need, and negligence. The preponderance of evidence clearly tilts in favor of the respondents.
that need is the information material to the decision. Thus, the test for determining Res Ipsa Loquitur is not applicable in cases such as the present one where the
whether a particular peril must be divulged is its materiality to the patient's defendant's alleged failure to observe due care is not immediately apparent to a
decision: all risks potentially affecting the decision must be unmasked. layman. These instances require expert opinion to establish the culpability of the
• What constitutes informed consent in a given case emanates from what a defendant doctor. It is also not applicable to cases where the actual cause of the
reasonable person in the patient's position would want to know. This standard injury had been identified or established.
regarding what a physician must disclose is described as the prudent patient • The petitioner cannot invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to shift the burden of
standard; it has been embraced by a growing number of jurisdictions since the evidence onto the respondent. Res ipsa loquitur, literally, "the thing speaks for
Canterbury decision. itself;" is a rule of evidence that presumes negligence from the very nature of the
accident itself using common human knowledge or experience. The application of
this rule requires: (1) that the accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily
occur unless someone is negligent; (2) that the instrumentality or agency which necessary precautions for handling the US dollar bills in question, and in selecting
caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged with and supervising its employees. It is significant that the BSP certified that the falsity
negligence; and (3) that the injury suffered must not have been due to any of the US dollar notes in question, which were “near perfect genuine notes,” could
voluntary action or contribution from the injured person. The concurrence of these be detected only with extreme difficulty even with the exercise of due diligence.
elements creates a presumption of negligence that, if unrebutted, overcomes the • The relationship existing between the petitioners and the respondent that resulted
plaintiff's burden of proof. The rule is not applicable in cases such as the present from a contract of loan was that of a creditor-debtor. Even if the law imposed a high
one where the defendant's alleged failure to observe due care is not immediately standard on the latter as a bank by virtue of the fiduciary nature of its banking
apparent to a layman. These instances require expert opinion to establish the business, bad faith or gross negligence amounting to bad faith was absent. Hence,
culpability of the defendant doctor. It is also not applicable to cases where the there was no legal basis for holding the respondent liable for moral and exemplary
actual cause of the injury had been identified or established. damages.
3. DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE 4. PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
10. GSIS v. PACIFIC AIRWAYS CORP. 13. STANDARD INS. CO., INC. v. CUARESMA
(G.R. Nos. 170414, 170418, & 170460, August 25, 2010) (G.R. No. 200055, September 10, 2014)
• Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous • On the basis of the foregoing decision (Casupanan v. Laroya), therefore, petitioner,
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and who is subrogated to the rights of Cham, the accused in the criminal case instituted
without which the result would not have occurred. In this case, the fact that PACs by respondents, cannot be guilty of forum shopping for its separate civil action is
pilots disregarded PALs right of way and did not ask for updated clearance right expressly allowed to proceed independently of the criminal action involved herein.
before crossing an active runway was the proximate cause of the collision. Were it • It must be noted, however, that notwithstanding the allowance of the instant
not for such gross negligence on the part of PACs pilots, the collision would not have petition to proceed independently of the criminal action, the claims of petitioner
happened. cannot be sustained in the absence of satisfactory evidence proving its right
thereto.
11. BAÑO v. BACHELOR EXPRESS, INC. • In civil cases, basic is the rule that the party making allegations has the burden of
(G.R. No. 191703, March 12, 2012) proving them by a preponderance of evidence. He must rely on the strength of his
• Gross negligence has been defined as one that is characterized by the want of even own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defense offered by his opponent.
slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not This principle equally holds true, even if the defendant had not been given the
inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to opportunity to present evidence because of a default order
consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.
• Having thus encroached on the opposite lane in the process of overtaking the 14. JOSEFA v. MERALCO
jeepney, without ascertaining that it was clear of oncoming traffic that resulted in (G.R. No. 182705, July 18, 2014)
the collision with the approaching dump truck driven by deceased Asumbrado, • Nonetheless, in some cases where negligence is difficult to prove, the doctrine of
Salvaa was grossly negligent in driving his bus. He was remiss in his duty to res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant or
determine that the road was clear and not to proceed if he could not do so in safety. some other person who is charged with negligence where the thing or transaction
speaks for itself. This doctrine postulates that, as a matter of common knowledge
12. SPS. CARBONELL v. METROBANK and experience and in the absence of some explanation by the defendant who is
(G.R. No. 178467, April 26, 2017) charged with negligence, the very nature of occurrences may justify an inference of
• The General Banking Act of 200 demands of banks the highest standards of integrity negligence on the part of the person who controls the instrumentality causing the
and performance. As such, the banks are under obligation to treat the accounts of injury. In other words, res ipsa loquitur is grounded on the superior logic of
their depositors with meticulous care. However, the banks’ compliance with this ordinary human experience that negligence may be deduced from the mere
degree of diligence is to be determined in accordance with the particular occurrence of the accident itself.
circumstances of each case. • The procedural effect of res ipsa loquitur in quasi-delict cases is that the
• Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one’s duties; it is a defendant's negligence is presumed. In other words, the burden of evidence shifts
negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act to the defendant to prove that he did not act with negligence. This doctrine thus
in a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and effectively furnishes a bridge by which the complainant, without knowledge of the
intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other cause of the injury, reaches over to the defendant, who knows or should know the
persons may be affected. cause, for any explanation of care exercised by him to prevent the injury. For this
• The CA and the RTC both found that the respondent had exercised the diligence doctrine to apply, the complainant must show that: (1) the accident is of such
required by law in observing the standard operating procedure, in taking the character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened except for the
defendant's negligence; (2) the accident must have been caused by an agency or
instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the person charged 18. REAL v. BELO
with the negligence complained of; and (3) the accident must not have been due to (G.R. No. 146224, January 26, 2007)
any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured. • In other words, there must be an entire exclusion of human agency from the cause
of injury or loss. It is established by evidence that the fire originated from leaking
15. BJDC CONSTRUCTION v. LANUZO fumes from the LPG stove and tank installed at petitioner's fastfood stall and her
(G.R. No. 161151, March 24, 2014) employees failed to prevent the fire from spreading and destroying the other
• The party alleging the negligence of the other as the cause of injury has the burden fastfood stalls, including respondent's fastfood stall. Such circumstances do not
to establish the allegation with competent evidence. If the action based on support petitioner's theory of fortuitous event.
negligence is civil in nature, the proof required is preponderance of evidence. • Whenever an employee's negligence causes damage or injury to another, there
instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise
16. DEL CARMEN, JR. v. BACOY diligentissimi patris families in the selection (culpa in eligiendo) or supervision
(G.R. No. 173870, April 25, 2012) (culpa in vigilando) of its employees. To avoid liability for a quasi-delict committed
• Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, "[w]here the thing that caused the injury by his employee, an employer must overcome the presumption by presenting
complained of is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his convincing proof that he exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family
servants; and the accident, in the ordinary course of things, would not happen if in the selection and supervision of his employee. In this case, petitioner not only
those who had management or control used proper care, it affords reasonable failed to show that she submitted proof that the LPG stove and tank in her fastfood
evidence — in the absence of a sufficient, reasonable and logical explanation by stall were maintained in good condition and periodically checked for defects but
defendant — that the accident arose from or was caused by the defendant's want she also failed to submit proof that she exercised the diligence of a good father of a
of care." family in the selection and supervision of her employees. For failing to prove care
• Res ipsa loquitur is "merely evidentiary, a mode of proof, or a mere procedural and diligence in the maintenance of her cooking equipment and in the selection and
convenience, since it furnishes a substitute for, and relieves a plaintiff of, the burden supervision of her employees, the necessary inference was that petitioner had been
of producing a specific proof of negligence." It "recognizes that parties may negligent.
establish prima facie negligence without direct proof, thus, it allows the principle
to substitute for specific proof of negligence. It permits the plaintiff to present along 19. SOUTHEASTERN COLLEGE, INC. v. CA
with proof of the accident, enough of the attending circumstances to invoke the (G.R. No. 126389, July 10, 1998)
doctrine, create an inference or presumption of negligence and thereby place on • In order that a fortuitous event may exempt a person from liability, it is necessary
the defendant the burden of proving that there was no negligence on his part." that he be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by reason of which the
• The doctrine is based partly on "the theory that the defendant in charge of the loss may have been occasioned. An act of God cannot be invoked for the protection
instrumentality which causes the injury either knows the cause of the accident or of a person who has been guilty of gross negligence in not trying to forestall its
has the best opportunity of ascertaining it while the plaintiff has no such possible adverse consequences.
knowledge, and is therefore compelled to allege negligence in general terms." • It bears emphasizing that a person claiming damages for the negligence of another
has the burden of proving the existence of fault or negligence causative of his injury
17. MACALINAO v. ONG or loss. The facts constitutive of negligence must be affirmatively established by
(G.R. No. 146635, December 14, 2005) competent evidence, not merely by presumptions and conclusions without the
• The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can be invoked only when under the basis in fact. Private respondents, in establishing the culpability of petitioner,
circumstances, direct evidence is absent and not readily available. This is based in merely relied on the aforementioned report submitted by a team which made an
part upon the theory that the defendant in charge of the instrumentality which ocular inspection of petitioner's school building after the typhoon. As the term
causes the injury either knows the cause of the accident or has the best opportunity imparts, an ocular inspection is one by means of actual sight or viewing. What is
of ascertaining it while the plaintiff has no such knowledge, and is therefore visual to the eye though, is not always reflective of the real cause behind. For
compelled to allege negligence in general terms and rely upon the proof of the instance, one who hears a gunshot and then sees a wounded person, cannot always
happening of the accident in order to establish negligence. The inference which the definitely conclude that a third person shot the victim. It could have been self-
doctrine permits is grounded upon the fact that the chief evidence of the true cause, inflicted or caused accidentally by a stray bullet. The relationship of cause and effect
whether culpable or innocent, is practically accessible to the defendant but must be clearly shown. In the present case, other than the said ocular inspection,
inaccessible to the injured person. no investigation was conducted to determine the real cause of the partial unroofing
of petitioner's school building. Private respondents did not even show that the
5. DEFENSES plans, specifications and design of said school building were deficient and defective.
Neither did they prove any substantial deviation from the approved plans and
a. FORTUITOUS EVENT specifications. Nor did they conclusively establish that the construction of such
building was basically flawed. In light of the foregoing, we find no clear and danger. The duty of exercising this high degree of diligence and care extends to
convincing evidence to sustain the judgment of the appellate court. We thus hold every place where persons have a right to be."
that petitioner has not been shown negligent or at fault regarding the construction
and maintenance of its school building in question and that typhoon "Saling" was 22. ABROGAR v. COSMOS BOTTLING CO.
the proximate cause of the damage suffered by private respondents’ house. With (G.R. No. 164749, March 15, 2017)
this disposition on the pivotal issue, private respondents claim for actual and moral • The doctrine of assumption of risk means that one who voluntarily exposes himself
damages as well as attorney's fees must fail. Petitioner cannot be made to answer to an obvious, known and appreciated danger assumes the risk of injury that may
for a purely fortuitous event. More so because no bad faith or willful act to cause result therefrom. It rests on the fact that the person injured has consented to relieve
damage was alleged and proven to warrant moral damages. the defendant of an obligation of conduct toward him and to take his chance of
injury from a known risk, and whether the former has exercised proper caution or
20. PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC. v. SPS. SARANGAYA III not is immaterial. In other words, it is based on voluntary consent, express or
(G.R. No. 147746, October 25, 2005) implied, to accept danger of a known and appreciated risk; it may sometimes
• The exempting circumstance of caso fortuito may be availed only when: (a) the include acceptance of risk arising from the defendant's negligence, but one does not
cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence was independent of the human ordinarily assume risk of any negligence which he does not know and appreciate.
will; (b) it was impossible to foresee the event which constituted the caso fortuito As a defense in negligence cases, therefore, the doctrine requires the concurrence
or, if it could be foreseen, it was impossible to avoid; (c) the occurrence must be of three elements, namely: (1) the plaintiff must know that the risk is present; (2)
such as to render it impossible to perform an obligation in a normal manner and he must further understand its nature; and (3) his choice to incur it must be free
(d) the person tasked to perform the obligation must not have participated in any and voluntary. According to Prosser: "Knowledge of the risk is the watchword of
course of conduct that aggravated the accident. assumption of risk."
• In fine, human agency must be entirely excluded as the proximate cause or • The doctrine of assumption of risk had no application to Rommel. Contrary to the
contributory cause of the injury or loss. In a vehicular accident, for example, a notion of the CA, the concurrence of the three elements was not shown to exist.
mechanical defect will not release the defendant from liability if it is shown that the Rommel could not have assumed the risk of death when he participated in the race
accident could have been prevented had he properly maintained and taken good because death was neither a known nor normal risk incident to running a race.
care of the vehicle. Although he had surveyed the route prior to the race and should be presumed to
• The circumstances on record do not support the defense of Pascual. Clearly, there know that he would be running the race alongside moving vehicular traffic, such
was no caso fortuito because of his want of care and prudence in maintaining the knowledge of the general danger was not enough, for some authorities have
car. required that the knowledge must be of the specific risk that caused the harm to
him.
b. ASSUMPTION OF RISK • In theory, the standard to be applied is a subjective one, and should be geared to
the particular plaintiff and his situation, rather than that of the reasonable person
21. ILOCOS NORTE ELECTRIC CO. v. CA of ordinary prudence who appears in contributory negligence. He could not have
(G.R. No. 53401, November 6, 1989) appreciated the risk of being fatally struck by any moving vehicle while running the
• It has been held that a person is excused from the force of the rule, that when he race. Instead, he had every reason to believe that the organizer had taken adequate
voluntarily assents to a known danger he must abide by the consequences, if an measures to guard all participants against any danger from the fact that he was
emergency is found to exist or if the life or property of another is in peril, or when participating in an organized marathon. Stated differently, nobody in his right
he seeks to rescue his endangered property. mind, including minors like him, would have joined the marathon if he had known
• The maxim "volenti non fit injuria" relied upon by petitioner finds no application in of or appreciated the risk of harm or even death from vehicular accident while
the case at bar. It is imperative to note the surrounding circumstances which running in the organized running event. Without question, a marathon route safe
impelled the deceased to leave the comforts of a roof and brave the subsiding and free from foreseeable risks was the reasonable expectation of every runner
typhoon. The deceased, accompanied by the former two, were on their way to the participating in an organized running event.
latter's grocery store "to see to it that the goods were not flooded." • Neither was the waiver by Rommel, then a minor, an effective form of express or
• Furthermore, the deceased, at the time the fatal incident occurred, was at a place implied consent in the context of the doctrine of assumption of risk. There is ample
where she had a right to be without regard to petitioner's consent as she was on authority, cited in Prosser, to the effect that a person does not comprehend the risk
her way to protect her merchandise. Hence, private respondents, as heirs, may not involved in a known situation because of his youth, or lack of information or
be barred from recovering damages as a result of the death caused by petitioner's experience, and thus will not be taken to consent to assume the risk.
negligence.
• Petitioner was negligent in seeing to it that no harm is done to the general public". c. EMERGENCY RULE
. . considering that electricity is an agency, subtle and deadly, the measure of care
required of electric companies must be commensurate with or proportionate to the 23. VALENZUELA v. CA
(G.R. Nos. 115024 & 117944, February 7, 1996) dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription, but instead allowed the
• An actor who is confronted with an emergency is not to be held up to the standard complaint for damages ex delicto to be prosecuted on the merits, considering
of conduct normally applied to an individual who is in no such situation. The law petitioners' allegations in their complaint, opposition to the motion to dismiss and
takes stock of impulses of humanity when placed in threatening or dangerous motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal, insisting that the action was
situations and does not require the same standard of thoughtful and reflective care to recover civil liability arising from crime. This does not offend the policy that the
from persons confronted by unusual and oftentimes threatening conditions. reservation or institution of a separate civil action waives the other civil actions.
• Under the "emergency rule" an individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation The rationale behind this rule is the avoidance of multiple suits between the same
of danger and is required to act without much time to consider the best means that litigants arising out of the same act or omission of the offender. However, since the
may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails stale action for damages based on quasi delict should be considered waived, there
to undertake what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a better is no more occasion for petitioners to file multiple suits against private respondents
solution, unless the emergency was brought by his own negligence. as the only recourse available to them is to pursue damages ex delicto. This
interpretation is also consistent with the bar against double recovery for obvious
d. DUE DILIGENCE reasons.
24. RAMOS v. PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF THE P.I. f. PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE

(G.R. No. L-22533, February 9, 1967)
• From Article 2180 two things are apparent: (1) That when an injury is caused by 26. RAMOS v. C.O.L. REALTY CORP.
the negligence of a servant or employee there instantly arises a presumption of law (G.R. No. 184905, August 28, 2009)
that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either in the • If the master is injured by the negligence of a third person and by the concurring
selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after the selection, contributory negligence of his own servant or agent, the latter’s negligence is
or both; and (2) that the presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure, and imputed to his superior and will defeat the superiors action against the third
consequently may be rebutted. It follows necessarily that if the employer shows to person, assuming of course that the contributory negligence was the proximate
the satisfaction of the court that in selection and supervision he has exercised the cause of the injury of which complaint is made.
care and diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption is overcome and he • Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous
is relieved from liability. sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and
• Our Supreme Court had occasion to put it down as a rule that "In order that the without which the result would not have occurred. And more comprehensively, the
defendant may be considered as having exercised all the diligence of a good father proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either
of a family, he should not have been satisfied with the mere possession of a immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and
professional driver's license; he should have carefully examined the applicant for continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its
employment as to his qualifications, his experiences and record of service." immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury
Defendant Company has taken all these steps. as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such
circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary
e. PRESCRIPTION prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of
his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom
25. SPS. SANTOS v. PIZARDO • If Aquilino heeded the MMDA prohibition against crossing Katipunan Avenue from
(G.R. No. 151452, July 29, 2005) Rajah Matanda, the accident would not have happened. It was manifest error for
• At the time of the filing of the complaint for damages in this case, the cause of action the Court of Appeals to have overlooked the principle embodied in Article 2179 of
ex quasi delicto had already prescribed. Nonetheless, petitioners can pursue the the Civil Code, that when the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and
remaining avenue opened for them by their reservation, i.e., the surviving cause of proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages.
action ex delicto. This is so because the prescription of the action ex quasi delicto • Rodels contributory negligence has relevance only in the event that Ramos seeks to
does not operate as a bar to an action to enforce the civil liability arising from crime recover from respondent whatever damages or injuries he may have suffered as a
especially as the latter action had been expressly reserved. The dismissal of the result; it will have the effect of mitigating the award of damages in his favor. In other
action based on culpa aquiliana is not a bar to the enforcement of the subsidiary words, an assertion of contributory negligence in this case would benefit only the
liability of the employer. Once there is a conviction for a felony, final in character, petitioner; it could not eliminate respondent’s liability for Aquilinos negligence
the employer becomes subsidiarily liable if the commission of the crime was in the which is the proximate result of the accident.
discharge of the duties of the employees. This is so because Article 103 of the
Revised Penal Code operates with controlling force to obviate the possibility of the 27. MERALCO v. REMOQUILLO
aggrieved party being deprived of indemnity even after the rendition of a final (G.R. No. L-8328, May 18, 1956)
judgment convicting the employee. Seen in this light, the trial court should not have
• To hold the Defendant liable in damages for the death of Magno, such supposed
negligence of the company must have been the proximate and principal cause of the 1. SPS. VERGARA v. SONKIN
accident, because if the act of Magno in turning around and swinging the galvanized (G.R. No. 193659, June 15, 2015)
iron sheet with his hands was the proximate and principal cause of the • While the proximate cause of the damage sustained by the house of respondents
electrocution, then his heirs may not recover. was the act of petitioners in dumping gravel and soil onto their property, thus,
• The Court ruled that the principal and proximate cause of the electrocution was not pushing the perimeter wall back and causing cracks thereon, as well as water
the electric wire, evidently a remote cause, but rather the reckless and negligent act seepage, the former is nevertheless guilty of contributory negligence for not only
of Magno in turning around and swinging the galvanized iron sheet without taking failing to observe the 2-meter setback rule under the National Building Code, but
any precaution, such as looking back toward the street and at the wire to avoid its also for disregarding the legal easement constituted over their property. As such,
contacting said iron sheet, considering the latter’s length of 6 feet. It was also respondents must necessarily and equally bear their own loss.
caused in some measure by the too close proximity of the “media agua” or rather
its edge to the electric wire of the company by reason of the violation of the original 2. CAGAYAN II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. RAPANAN
permit given by the city and the subsequent approval of said illegal construction of (G.R. No. 199886, December 3, 2014)
the “media agua.” • Had Camilo driven the motorcycle at an average speed, the three passengers would
not have been thrown off from the vehicle towards the shoulder and eventually
28. LAMBERT v. HEIRS OF CASTILLON strangulated by the electric wires sitting thereon. Moreover, it was also negligent
(G.R. No. 160709, February 23, 2005) of Camilo to have allowed two persons to ride with him and for Rapanan to ride
• The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly with them when the maximum number of passengers of a motorcycle is two
responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but including the driver. This most likely even aggravated the situation because the
must bear the consequences of his own negligence. The defendant must be held motorcycle was overloaded which made it harder to drive and control. When the
liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence. plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
• In this case, the abrupt and sudden left turn by Reynaldo without first establishing cannot recover damages.
his right of way, was the proximate cause of the mishap which claimed the life of
Ray and injured Sergio. The cause of the collision is traceable to the negligent act of 3. PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. IAC
Reynaldo for, as the trial court correctly held, without that left turn executed with (G.R. No. L-65295, March 10, 1987)
no precaution, the mishap in all probability would not have happened. • Cause and condition. Many courts have sought to distinguish between the active
• However, it was established that Ray, at the time of the mishap: was driving the "cause" of the harm and the existing "conditions" upon which that cause operated.
motorcycle at a high speed; was tailgating the Tamaraw jeepney; has imbibed one If the defendant has created only a passive static condition which made the damage
or two bottles of beer; and was not wearing a protective helmet. These possible, the defendant is said not to be liable. But so far as the fact of causation is
circumstances, although not constituting the proximate cause of his demise and concerned, in the sense of necessary antecedents which have played an important
injury to Sergio, contributed to the same result. part in producing the result, it is quite impossible to distinguish between active
forces and passive situations, particularly since, as is invariably the case, the latter
29. PBCOM v. CA are the result of other active forces which have gone before. The defendant who
(G.R. No. 97626, March 14, 1997) spills gasoline about the premises creates a "condition," but the act may be culpable
• The seventy-eight (78)-year-old, yet still relevant, case of Picart v. Smith, provides because of the danger of fire. When a spark ignites the gasoline, the condition has
the test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case which done quite as much to bring about the fire as the spark; and since that is the very
may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use risk which the defendant has created, the defendant will not escape responsibility.
that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have Even the lapse of a considerable time during which the "condition" remains static
used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. will not necessarily affect liability; one who digs a trench in the highway may still
• Applying the above test, it appears that the bank's teller, Ms. Azucena Mabayad, was be liable to another who falls into it a month afterward.
negligent in validating, officially stamping and signing all the deposit slips prepared • "Cause" and "condition" still find occasional mention in the decisions; but the
and presented by Ms. Yabut, despite the glaring fact that the duplicate copy was not distinction is now almost entirely discredited. So far as it has any validity at all, it
completely accomplished contrary to the self-imposed procedure of the bank with must refer to the type of case where the forces set in operation by the defendant
respect to the proper validation of deposit slips, original or duplicate, as testified to have come to rest in a position of apparent safety, and some new force intervenes.
by Ms. Mabayad herself. But even in such cases, it is not the distinction between "cause" and "condition"
which is important, but the nature of the risk and the character of the intervening
E. CAUSATION cause."
• "Foreseeable Intervening Causes. If the intervening cause is one which in ordinary
1. PROXIMATE CAUSE human experience is reasonably to be anticipated, or one which the defendant has
reason to anticipate under the particular circumstances, the defendant may be defendant's — was the legal or proximate cause of the injury. That task is not simply
negligent, among other reasons, because of failure to guard against it; or the or even primarily an exercise in chronology or physics, as the petitioners seem to
defendant may be negligent only for that reason. Thus one who sets a fire may be imply by the use of terms like "last" or "intervening" or "immediate." The relative
required to foresee that an ordinary, usual and customary wind arising later will location in the continuum of time of the plaintiff's and the defendant's negligent
spread it beyond the defendant's own property, and therefore to take precautions acts or omissions, is only one of the relevant factors that may be taken into account.
to prevent that event. The person who leaves the combustible or explosive material
exposed in a public place may foresee the risk of fire from some independent 4. MENDOZA v. SPS. GOMEZ
source. . . . In all of these cases there is an intervening cause combining with the (G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014)
defendant's conduct to produce the result, and in each case the defendant's • In the case at bar, Mendoza's violation of traffic laws was the proximate cause of
negligence consists in failure to protect the plaintiff against that very risk. the harm.
• Obviously the defendant cannot be relieved from liability by the fact that the risk • Mendoza's employer may also be held liable under the doctrine of vicarious liability
or a substantial and important part of the risk, to which the defendant has subjected or imputed negligence. Under such doctrine, a person who has not committed the
the plaintiff has indeed come to pass. Foreseeable intervening forces are within the act or omission which caused damage or injury to another may nevertheless be held
scope of the original risk, and hence of the defendant's negligence. The courts are civilly liable to the latter either directly or subsidiarily under certain circumstances.
quite generally agreed that intervening causes which fall fairly in this category will In our jurisdiction, vicarious liability or imputed negligence is embodied in Article
not supersede the defendant's responsibility. 2180 of the Civil Code and the basis for damages in the action under said article is
• Thus it has been held that a defendant will be required to anticipate the usual the direct and primary negligence of the employer in the selection or supervision,
weather of the vicinity, including all ordinary forces of nature such as usual wind or both, of his employee.
or rain, or snow or frost or fog or even lightning; that one who leaves an obstruction
on the road or a railroad track should foresee that a vehicle or a train will run into 2. REMOTE CAUSE
it.
• The risk created by the defendant may include the intervention of the foreseeable 5. ST. MARY’S ACADEMY v. CARPITANOS
negligence of others. . . . [T]he standard of reasonable conduct may require the (G.R. No. 143363, February 6, 2002)
defendant to protect the plaintiff against `that occasional negligence which is one • In order that there may be a recovery for an injury, however, it must be shown that
of the ordinary incidents of human life, and therefore to be anticipated.' Thus, a the injury for which recovery is sought must be the legitimate consequence of the
defendant who blocks the sidewalk and forces the plaintiff to walk in a street where wrong done; the connection between the negligence and the injury must be a direct
the plaintiff will be exposed to the risks of heavy traffic becomes liable when the and natural sequence of events, unbroken by intervening efficient causes. In other
plaintiff is run down by a car, even though the car is negligently driven; and one words, the negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury. For, negligence,
who parks an automobile on the highway without lights at night is not relieved of no matter in what it consists, cannot create a right of action unless it is the
responsibility when another negligently drives into it. ---" proximate cause of the injury complained of. And the proximate cause of an injury
• The last clear chance doctrine of the common law was imported into our is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
jurisdiction by Picart vs. Smith but it is a matter for debate whether, or to what intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not
extent, it has found its way into the Civil Code of the Philippines. The historical have occurred. In this case, the respondents failed to show that the negligence of
function of that doctrine in the common law was to mitigate the harshness of petitioner was the proximate cause of the death of the victim. Respondents Daniel
another common law doctrine or rule — that of contributory negligence. The spouses and Villanueva admitted that the immediate cause of the accident was not
common law rule of contributory negligence prevented any recovery at all by a the negligence of petitioner or the reckless driving of James Daniel II, but the
plaintiff who was also negligent, even if the plaintiff's negligence was relatively detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep. Hence, liability for the accident,
minor as compared with the wrongful act or omission of the defendant. The whether caused by the negligence of the minor driver or mechanical detachment of
common law notion of last clear chance permitted courts to grant recovery to a the steering wheel guide of the jeep, must be pinned on the minors parents
plaintiff who had also been negligent provided that the defendant had the last clear primarily. The negligence of petitioner St. Marys Academy was only a remote cause
chance to avoid the casualty and failed to do so. Accordingly, it is difficult to see of the accident. Between the remote cause and the injury, there intervened the
what role, if any, the common law last clear chance doctrine has to play in a negligence of the minors parents or the detachment of the steering wheel guide of
jurisdiction where the common law concept of contributory negligence as an the jeep.
absolute bar to recovery by the plaintiff, has itself been rejected, as it has been in
Article 2179 of the Civil Code of the Philippines 3. CONCURRENT CAUSES
• Is there perhaps a general concept of "last clear chance" that may be extracted from
its common law matrix and utilized as a general rule in negligence cases in a civil 6. SABIDO v. CUSTODIO
law jurisdiction like ours? We do not believe so. Under Article 2179, the task of a (G.R. No. L-21512, August 31, 1966)
court, in technical terms, is to determine whose negligence — the plaintiff's or the
• Although the negligence of the carrier and its driver is independent, to its execution, (G.R. No. 72964, January 7, 1988)
of the negligence of the truck driver and its owner, both acts of negligence are the • A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action if such remote cause
proximate cause of the death of Agripino Custodio. In fact, the negligence of the first did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which
two (2) would not have produced this result without the negligence of petitioners' the injury was made possible, if there intervened between such prior or remote
herein. What is more, petitioners' negligence was the last, in point of time, for cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the
Custodio was on the running board of the carrier's bus sometime before injury, even though such injury would not have happened but for such condition or
petitioners' truck came from the opposite direction, so that, in this sense, occasion. If no danger existed in the condition except because of the independent
petitioners' truck had the last clear chance. cause, such condition was not the proximate cause. And if an independent negligent
• The rule is, however, that. "According to the great weight of authority, where the act or defective condition sets into operation the circumstances, which result in
concurrent or successive negligent acts or omission of two or more persons, injury because of the prior defective condition, such subsequent act or condition is
although acting independently of each other, are, in combination, the direct and the proximate cause.
proximate cause of a single injury to a third person and it is impossible to determine • There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause and its subsequent
in what proportion each contributed to the injury, either is responsible for the infection, for failure to take necessary precautions, with tetanus may have been the
whole injury, even though his act alone might not have caused the entire injury, or proximate cause of Javier's death with which the petitioner had nothing to do.
the same damage might have resulted from the acts of the other tort-feasor." • Javier suffered a 2-inch incised wound on his right palm when he parried the bolo
which Urbano used in hacking him. 22 days after this incident, he suffered the
4. EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE symptoms of tetanus. The following day, he died.
• If the wound of Javier inflicted by the appellant was already infected by tetanus
7. TEAGUE v. FERNANDEZ germs at the time, it is more medically probable that Javier should have been
(G.R. No. L-29745, June 4, 1973) infected with only a mild cause of tetanus because the symptoms of tetanus
• According to the petitioner "the events of fire, panic and stampede were appeared on the 22nd day after the hacking incident or more than 14 days after the
independent causes with no causal connection at all with the violation of the infliction of the wound. Therefore, the onset time should have seen more than six
ordinance." The weakness in the argument springs from a faulty juxtaposition of days. Javier, however, died on the second day from the onset time. The more
the events which formed a chain and resulted in the injury. It is true that the credible conclusion is that at the time Javier's wound was inflicted by the appellant,
petitioner's non-compliance with the ordinance in question was ahead of and prior the severe form of tetanus that killed him was not yet present. Consequently,
to the other events in point of time, in the sense that it was coetaneous with its Javier's wound could have been infected with tetanus after the hacking incident.
occupancy of the building. But the violation was a continuing one, since the Considering the circumstance surrounding Javier's death, his wound could have
ordinance was a measure of safety designed to prevent a specific situation which been infected by tetanus 2 or 3 or a few, but not 20 to 22 days before he died.
would pose a danger to the occupants of the building. That situation was undue • The medical findings, however, lead us to a distinct possibility that the infection of
overcrowding in case it should become necessary to evacuate the building, which, the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between the time
it could be reasonably foreseen, was bound to happen under emergency conditions Javier was wounded to the time of his death. The infection was, therefore, distinct
if there was only one stairway available. It is true that in this particular case there and foreign to the crime.
would have been no overcrowding in the single stairway if there had not been a fire
in the neighborhood which caused the students to panic and rush headlong for the 5. LAST CLEAR CHANCE
stairs in order to go down. But it was precisely such contingencies or event that the
authors of the ordinance had in mind, for under normal conditions one stairway 9. ENGADA v. CA
would be adequate for the occupants of the building. Thus, as stated in 38 American (G.R. No. 140698, June 20, 2003)
Jurisprudence, page 841: "The general principle is that the violation of a statute or • In this case, no convincing evidence was produced by petitioner to support his
ordinance is not rendered remote as the cause of an injury by the intervention of invocation of the doctrine. Instead, what has been shown is the presence of an
another agency if the occurrence of the accident, in the manner in which it emergency and the proper application of the emergency rule. Petitioner's act of
happened, was the very thing which the statute or ordinance was intended to swerving to the Tamaraw's lane at a distance of 30 meters from it and driving the
prevent." To consider the violation of the ordinance as the proximate cause of the Isuzu pick-up at a fast speed as it approached the Tamaraw, denied Iran time and
injury does not portray the situation in its true perspective; it would be more opportunity to ponder the situation at all. There was no clear chance to speak of.
accurate to say that the overcrowding at the stairway was the proximate cause and
that it was precisely what the ordinance intended to prevent by requiring that there 10. CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORP. v. CA
be two stairways instead of only one. Under the doctrine of the cases cited by the (G.R. No. 138569, September 11, 2003)
respondents, the principle of proximate cause applies to such violation • The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent but
the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is
8. URBANO v. IAC impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who had
the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the concurring negligence resulted in injury or damage to a third party, they become
loss. joint tortfeasors and are solidarily liable for the resulting damage under Article
• The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent but 2194 of the Civil Code.
the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is
impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who had 2. VICARIOUS LIABILITY
the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the
loss. a. PARENTS
• L.C. Diaz was not at fault that the passbook landed in the hands of the impostor.
Solidbank was in possession of the passbook while it was processing the deposit. 2. FUELLAS v. CADANO
After completion of the transaction, Solidbank had the contractual obligation to (G.R. No. L-14409, October 31, 1961)
return the passbook only to Calapre, the authorized representative of L.C. Diaz. • The father is liable. The particular law that governs this case is Article 2180, the
Solidbank failed to fulfill its contractual obligation because it gave the passbook to pertinent portion of which provides: "The father and, in case of his death or
another person. incapacity, the mother, are responsible for damages caused by the minor children
• Solidbank's failure to return the passbook to Calapre made possible the withdrawal who live in their company." Since children and wards do not yet have the capacity
of the P300,000 by the impostor who took possession of the passbook. Under to govern themselves, the law imposes upon the parents and guardians the duty of
Solidbank's rules on savings account, mere possession of the passbook raises the exercising special vigilance over the acts of their children and wards in order that
presumption of ownership. It was the negligent act of Solidbank's Teller No. 6 that damages to third persons due to the ignorance, lack of foresight or discernment of
gave the impostor presumptive ownership of the passbook. Had the passbook not such children and wards may be avoided. If the parents and guardians fail to comply
fallen into the hands of the impostor, the loss of P300,000 would not have with this duty, they should suffer the consequences of their abandonment or
happened. Thus, the proximate cause of the unauthorized withdrawal was negligence by repairing the damage caused". The particular law that governs this
Solidbank's negligence in not returning the passbook to Calapre. case is Article 2180, the pertinent portion of which provides: "The father and, in
case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for damages caused by
F. PERSONS LIABLE the minor children who live in their company." To hold that this provision does not
apply to the instant case because it only covers obligations which arise from quasi-
1. TORTFEASOR/S delicts and not obligations which arise from criminal offenses, would result in the
absurdity that while for an act where mere negligence intervenes the father or
1. LOADMASTERS CUSTOMS SERVICES, INC. v. GLODEL BROKERAGE CORP. mother may stand subsidiarily liable for the damage caused by his or her son, no
(G.R. No. 179446, January 10, 2011) liability would attach if the damage is caused with criminal intent. Verily, the void
• Accordingly, there can be no contract of agency between the parties. Loadmasters apparently exists in the Revised Penal Code is subserved by this particular
never represented Glodel. Neither was it ever authorized to make such provision of our Civil Code, as may be gleaned from some recent decisions of this
representation. It is a settled rule that the basis for agency is representation, that Court which cover equal or identical cases.
is, the agent acts for and on behalf of the principal on matters within the scope of
his authority and said acts have the same legal effect as if they were personally 3. RODRIGUEZ-LUNA v. IAC
executed by the principal. On the part of the principal, there must be an actual (G.R. No. 62988, February 28, 1985)
intention to appoint or an intention naturally inferable from his words or actions, • The Court of Appeals, in reducing Luna’s life expectancy from 30 to 10 years said
while on the part of the agent, there must be an intention to accept the appointment that his habit and manner of life should be taken into account, i.e. that he had been
and act on it. Such mutual intent is not obtaining in this case. engaged in car racing as a sport both here and abroad - a dangerous and risky
• Where there are several causes for the resulting damages, a party is not relieved activity tending to shorten his life expectancy. That Luna had engaged in car racing
from liability, even partially. It is sufficient that the negligence of a party is an is not based on any evidence on record. That Luna was engaged in go-kart racing is
efficient cause without which the damage would not have resulted. It is no defense the correct statement but then go-kart racing cannot be categorized as a dangerous
to one of the concurrent tortfeasors that the damage would not have resulted from sport for go-karts are extremely low slung, low powered vehicles, only slightly
his negligence alone, without the negligence or wrongful acts of the other larger than foot-pedalled four wheeled conveyance. It was error on the part of the
concurrent tortfeasor. Court of Appeals to have disturbed the determination of the trial court which it had
• There is no contribution between joint tortfeasors whose liability is solidary since previously affirmed
both of them are liable for the total damage. Where the concurrent or successive • The petitioners now pray that the award of attorney’s less be with interest at the
negligent acts or omissions of two or more persons, although acting independently, legal rate from the date of the filing of the complaint. There is merit in this prayer.
are in combination the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third The attorney’s fees were awarded in the concept of damages in a quasi-delicate case
person, it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the and under the circumstances interest as part thereof may be adjudicated at the
injury and either of them is responsible for the whole injury. Where their
discretion of the court. (See Art. 2211, Civil Code.) As with the other damages her to be, under the care and supervision of the teacher. And as far as the act which
awarded, the interest should accrue only from the date of the trial court’s decision. caused the injury was concerned, it was an innocent prank not unusual among
children at play and which no parent, however careful, would have any special
4. LIBI v. IAC reason to anticipate much less guard against it. Nor did it reveal any mischievous
(G.R. No. 70890, September 18, 1992) propensity or indeed any trait in the child’s character which would reflect
• Parents are and should be held primarily liable for the civil liability arising from unfavorably on her upbringing and for which the blame could be attributed to her
criminal offenses committed by their minor children under their legal authority or parents.
control, or who live in their company, unless it is proven that the former acted with
the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent such damages. b. TEACHERS AND HEADS OF INSTITUTIONS
• That primary liability is premised on the provisions of Article 101 of the Revised
Penal Code with respect to damages ex delicto caused by their children 9 years of 6. ST. JOSEPH’S COLLEGE v. MIRANDA
age or under, or over 9 but under 15 years of age who acted without discernment; (G.R. No. 182353, June 29, 2010)
and, with regard to their children over 9 but under 15 years of age who acted with • As found by both lower courts, the proximate cause of Jaysons injury was the
discernment, or 15 years or over but under 21 years of age, such primary liability concurrent failure of petitioners to prevent the foreseeable mishap that occurred
shall be imposed pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code. during the conduct of the science experiment. Petitioners were negligent by failing
• Under said Article 2180, the enforcement of such liability shall be effected against to exercise the higher degree of care, caution and foresight incumbent upon the
the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother. However, under the school, its administrators and teachers.
Family Code, this civil liability is now, without such alternative qualification, the • Moreover, petitioners cannot simply deflect their negligence and liability by
responsibility of the parents and those who exercise parental authority over the insisting that petitioner Tabugo gave specific instructions to her science class not
minor offender. to look directly into the heated compound. Neither does our ruling in St. Marys
• The diligence of a good father of a family required by law in a parent and child preclude their liability in this case.
relationship consists, to a large extent, of the instruction and supervision of the • In marked contrast, both the lower courts similarly concluded that the mishap
child. which happened during the science experiment was foreseeable by the school, its
• The parents of Libi who was then a minor between 18 and 19 years of age and living officials and teachers. This neglect in preventing a foreseeable injury and damage
with them, were gravely remiss in their duties as parents in not diligently equates to neglect in exercising the utmost degree of diligence required of schools,
supervising the activities of their son, despite his minority and immaturity, so much its administrators and teachers, and, ultimately, was the proximate cause of the
so that it was only at the time of Wendell's death that they allegedly discovered that damage and injury to Jayson. As we have held in St. Marys, for petitioner [St. Marys
he was a CANU agent and that Cresencio's gun was missing from the safety deposit Academy] to be liable, there must be a finding that the act or omission considered
box. as negligent was the proximate cause of the injury caused because the negligence
must have a causal connection to the accident.
5. CUADRA v. MONFORT
(G.R. No. L-24101, September 30, 1970) 7. AMADORA v. CA
• The underlying basis of the liability imposed by Article 2176 is the fault or (G.R. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988)
negligence accompanying the act or the omission, there being no willfulness or • Article 2180 should apply to all schools, academic as well as non-academic. Where
intent to cause damage thereby. When the act or omission is that one of person for the school is academic rather than technical or vocational in nature, responsibility
whom another is responsible, the latter then becomes himself liable under Article for the tort committed by the student will attach to the teacher in charge of such
2180, in the different cases enumerated therein. student, following the first part of the provision. This is the general rule. In the case
• The basis of this vicarious, although primary, liability is as in Article 2176, fault or of establishments of arts and trades, it is the head thereof, and only he, who shall
negligence, which is presumed from that which accompanied the causative act or be held liable as an exception to the general rule. In other words, teachers in general
omission. The presumption is merely prima facie and may therefore be rebutted. shall be liable for the acts of their students except where the school is technical in
This is the clear and logical inference that may be drawn from the last paragraph of nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable. Following the
Article 2180, which states “that the responsibility treated of in this Article shall canon of reddendo singula singulis, “teachers” should apply to the words “pupils
cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the and students” and “heads of establishments of arts and trades” to the word
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.” “apprentices.”
• In the present case there is nothing from which it may be inferred that the • The reason for the disparity can be traced to the fact that historically the head of
defendant could have prevented the damage by the observance of due care, or that the school of arts and trades exercised a closer tutelage over his pupils than the
he was in any way remiss in the exercise of his parental authority in failing to head of the academic school. The old schools of arts and trades were engaged in the
foresee such damage or act which caused it. On the contrary, his child was at school, training of artisans apprenticed to their master who personally and directly
where it was his duty to send her and where she was, as he had the right to expect instructed them on the technique and secrets of their craft. The head of the school
of arts and trades was such a master and so was personally involved in the task of classes or sections to which they are assigned. It is not necessary that at the time of
teaching his students, who usually even boarded with him and so came under his the injury, the teacher be physically present and in a position to prevent it. Custody
constant control, supervision and influence. By contrast, the head of the academic does not connote immediate and actual physical control but refers more to the
school was not as involved with his students and exercised only administrative influence exerted on the child and the discipline instilled in him as a result of such
duties over the teachers who were the persons directly dealing with the students. influence. Thus, for the injuries caused by the student, the teacher and not the
The head of the academic school had then (as now) only a vicarious relationship parent shall be held responsible if the tort was committed within the premises of
with the students. Consequently, while he could not be directly faulted for the acts the school at any time when its authority could be validly exercised over him.
of the students, the head of the school of arts and trades, because of his closer ties Assuming that it was the physics teacher who was the teacher-in-charge, his
with them, could be so blamed. It is conceded that the distinction no longer obtains absence when the tragedy happened cannot be considered against him because he
at present in view of the expansion of the schools of arts and trades, the consequent was not supposed or required to report to school on that day. And while it is true
increase in their enrollment, and the corresponding diminution of the direct and that the offending student was still in the custody of the teacher-in-charge even if
personal contact of their heads with the students. Article 2180, however, remains the latter was physically absent when the tort was committed, it has not been
unchanged. In its present state, the provision must be interpreted by the Court established that it was caused by his laxness in enforcing discipline upon the
according to its clear and original mandate until the legislature, taking into account student. On the contrary, the private respondents have proved that they had
the changes in the situation subject to be regulated, sees fit to enact the necessary exercised due diligence, through the enforcement of the school regulations, in
amendment. maintaining that discipline.
• The rector, the high school principal and the dean of boys cannot be held liable • The liability imposed by Article 2180 is supposed to fall directly on the teacher or
because none of them was the teacher-in-charge as previously defined. Each of the head of the school of arts and trades and not on the school itself. If at all, the
them was exercising only a general authority over the student body and not the school, whatever its nature, may be held to answer for the acts of its teachers or
direct control and influence exerted by the teacher placed in charge of particular even of the head thereof under the general principle of respondeat superior, but
classes or sections and thus immediately involved in its discipline. The evidence of then it may exculpate itself from liability by proof that it had exercised the diligence
the parties does not disclose who the teacher-in-charge of the offending student of a bonus paterfamilias. Thus, the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos cannot be held
was. The mere fact that the victim had gone to school that day in connection with directly liable under the article because only the teacher or the head of the school
his physics report did not necessarily make the physics teacher the teacher-in- of arts and trades is made responsible for the damage caused by the student or
charge of the victim’s killer. Even assuming that the physics teacher was the apprentice. Neither can it be held to answer for the tort committed by any of the
teacher-in-charge, there is no showing that he was negligent in enforcing discipline other private respondents for none of them has been found to have been charged
upon the killer or that he had waived observance of the rules and regulations of the with the custody of the offending student or has been remiss in the discharge of his
school or condoned their non-observance. duties in connection with such custody.
• In the absence of a teacher-in-charge, it is probably the dean of boys who should be • The teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades directly held to answer for
held liable, especially in view of the unrefuted evidence that he had earlier the tort committed by the student may use as defense that he had taken the
confiscated an unlicensed gun from one of the students and returned the same later necessary precautions to prevent the injury complained of in order to exonerate
to him without taking disciplinary action or reporting the matter to higher himself from the liability imposed by Article 2180.
authorities. While this was clearly negligence on his part, for which he deserves • The teacher will be held liable not only when he is acting in loco parentis for the
sanctions from the school, it does not necessarily link him to the shooting of law does not require that the offending student be of minority age. Unlike the
Amador as it has not been shown that the confiscated and returned pistol was the parent, who will be liable only if his child is still a minor, the teacher is held
gun that killed the victim. answerable by the law for the act of the student under him regardless of the
• As long as it can be shown that the student is in the school premises in pursuance student’s age.
of a legitimate student objective, in the exercise of a legitimate student right, and • The Court is disposed not to expect from the teacher the same measure of
even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment of a responsibility imposed on the parent for their influence over the child is not equal
legitimate student privilege, the responsibility of the school authorities over the in degree. Obviously, the parent can expect more obedience from the child because
student continues. Thus, at the time the victim was fatally shot, he was still in the the latter’s dependence on him is greater than on the teacher. It need not be
custody of the authorities of Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos notwithstanding that the stressed that such dependence includes the child’s support and sustenance
fourth year classes had formally ended. It was immaterial if he was in the school whereas submission to the teacher’s influence, besides being coterminous with the
auditorium to finish his physics experiment or merely to submit his physics report period of custody, is usually enforced only because of the students’ desire to pass
for what is important is that he was there for a legitimate purpose. the course. The parent can instill more lasting discipline on the child than the
• It is the teacher-in-charge who must answer for his students’ torts, in practically teacher and so should be held to a greater accountability than the teacher for the
the same way that the parents are responsible for the child when he is in their tort committed by the child.
custody. The teacher-in-charge is the one designated by the dean, principal, or • And if it is also considered that under the article in question, the teacher or the head
other administrative superior to exercise supervision over the pupils in the specific of the school of arts and trades is responsible for the damage caused by the student
or apprentice even if he is already of age — and therefore less tractable than the 9. PASCO v. CFI OF BULACAN, BR. V
minor — then there should all the more be justification to require from the school (G.R. No. 54357, April 25, 1988)
authorities less accountability as long as they can prove reasonable diligence in • We find no necessity of discussing the applicability of the Article to educational
preventing the injury. After all, if the parent himself is no longer liable for the institutions (which are not schools of arts and trades) for the issue in this petition
student’s acts because he has reached majority age and so is no longer under the is actually whether or not, under the article, the school or the university itself (as
former’s control, there is then all the more reason for leniency in assessing the distinguished from the teachers or heads) is liable. We find the answer in the
teacher’s responsibility for the acts of the student. negative, for surely the provision concerned speaks only of "teachers or heads."
8. PALISOC v. BRILLANTES 10. SALVOSA v. IAC

(G.R. No. L-29025, October 4, 1971) (G.R. No. 70458, October 5, 1988)
• The rationale of such liability of school heads and teachers for the tortious acts of • Under the penultimate paragraph of Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, teachers or heads
their pupils and students, so long as they remain in their custody, is that they stand, of establishments of arts and trades are liable for "damages caused by their pupils
to a certain extent, as to their pupils and students, in loco parentis and are called and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody." The rationale
upon to "exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child" This is of such liability is that so long as the student remains in the custody of a teacher,
expressly provided for in Articles 349, 350 and 352 of the Civil Code. In the law of the latter "stands, to a certain extent, in loco parentis [as to the student] and [is]
torts, the governing principle is that the protective custody of the school heads and called upon to exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the [student]."
teachers is mandatorily substituted for that of the parents, and hence, it becomes Likewise, "the phrase used in [Art. 2180 - 'so long as (the students) remain in their
their obligation as well as that of the school itself to provide proper supervision of custody' means the protective and supervisory custody that the school and its
the students' activities during the whole time that they are at attendance in the heads and teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as long as they are at
school, including recess time, as well as to take the necessary precautions to protect attendance in the school, including recess time.
the students in their custody from dangers and hazards that would reasonably be • Petitioners also raise the issue that, under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, a school
anticipated, including injuries that some students themselves may inflict willfully which offers both academic and technical vocational courses cannot be held liable
or through negligence on their fellow students. for a tort committed by a student enrolled only in its academic program; however,
• The basis of the presumption of negligence of Art. 1903 (now 2180) is some culpa considering that Jimmy B. Abon was not in the custody of BCF when he shot
in vigilando that the parents, teachers, etc., are supposed to have incurred in the Napoleon Castro, the Court deems it unnecessary to pass upon such other issue.
exercise of their authority and where the parent places the child under the effective
authority of the teacher, the latter, and not the parent, should be the one 11. SOLIMAN, JR. v. TUAZON
answerable for the torts committed while under his custody, for the reason that the (G.R. No. 66207, May 18, 1992 [Resolution])
parent is not supposed to interfere with the discipline of the school nor with the • In Philippine School of Business Administration (PSBA) v. Court of Appeals, the
authority and supervision of the teacher while the child is under instruction. The Court held that Article 2180 of the Civil Code was not applicable where a student
school itself, likewise, has to respond for the fault or negligence of its school head had been injured by one who was an outsider or by one over whom the school did
and teachers under the same cited article. not exercise any custody or control or supervision. At the same time, however, the
• "So long as (the students) remain in their custody" means the protective and Court stressed that an implied contract may be held to be established between a
supervisory custody that the school and its head and teachers exercise over the school which accepts students for enrollment, on the one hand, and the students
pupils and students for as long as they are at attendance in the school, including who are enrolled, on the other hand, which contract results in obligations for both
recess time. There is nothing in the law that requires that for such liability to attach, parties.
the pupil or student who commits the tortious act must live and board in the school, • The Court is not unmindful of the attendant difficulties posed by the obligation of
as erroneously held by the lower court, and the dicta in Mercado (as well as in schools, above-mentioned, for conceptually a school, like a common carrier, cannot
Exconde) on which it relied, must now be deemed to have been set aside by the be an insurer of its students against all risks. This is specially true in the populous
present decision. student communities of the so-called "university belt" in Manila where there have
• The Court, in People vs. Pantoja, after noting the decline in the purchasing power of been reported several incidents ranging from gang wars to other forms of
the Philippine peso, had expressed its "considered opinion that the amount of hooliganism. It would not be equitable to expect of schools to anticipate all types of
award of compensatory damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict should violent trespass upon their premises, for notwithstanding the security measures
now be P12,000.00." The Court thereby adjusted the minimum amount of installed, the same may still fail against an individual or group determined to carry
"compensatory damages for death caused by a crime or quasidelict" as per Article out a nefarious deed inside school premises and environs. Should this be the case,
2206, Civil Code, from the old stated minimum of P3,000.00 to P12,000.00, which the school may still avoid liability by proving that the breach of its contractual
amount is to be awarded "even though there may have been mitigating obligation to the students was not due to its negligence, here statutorily defined to
circumstances" pursuant to the express provisions of said codal article. be the omission of that degree of diligence which is required by the nature of
obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of person, time and place.
performing his functions. Furthermore, employer-employee relationship cannot be
c. OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF ESTABLISHMENTS assumed. It is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the relationship by
preponderance of evidence.
12. PHIL. RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. PHIL-AMERICAN FORWARDERS, INC. • An employer-employee relationship still exists even if the employee was loaned by
(G.R. No. L-25142, March 25, 1975) the employer to another person or entity because control over the employee
• The terms "employer" and "owner and manager of establishment or enterprise" as subsists. In the case under review, the Municipality of Koronadal remains to be
used in Article 2180 of the Civil Code do not include the manager of a corporation Lozano's employer notwithstanding Lozano's assignment to Mayor Miguel
owning a truck the reckless operation of which allegedly resulted in the vehicular (Lozano’s superior). Significantly, no negligence may be imputed against a fellow
accident from which the damage arose. employee (Mayor Miguel) although the person may have the right to control the
• Under Article 2180 the term "manager" is used in the sense of "employer" and does manner of the vehicle's operation. In the absence of an employer-employee
not embrace a "manager" who may himself be regarded as an employee or relationship establishing vicarious liability, the driver's negligence should not be
dependiente of his employer. attributed to a fellow employee who only happens to be an occupant of the vehicle.
The negligence of a subordinate employee or subagent is not to be imputed to a
d. EMPLOYERS superior employee or agent, but only to the master or principal.
• Mayor Miguel was neither Lozano's employer nor the vehicle's registered owner.
13. LRTA v. NAVIDAD There existed no causal relationship between him and Lozano or the vehicle used
(G.R. No. 145804, February 6, 2003) that will make him accountable for Marvin's death. Mayor Miguel was a mere
• The foundation of LRTA’s liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to passenger at the time of the accident.
indemnify the victim arises from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure
to exercise the high diligence required of the common carrier. In the discharge of 15. FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE v. IAC
its commitment to ensure the safety of passengers, a carrier may choose to hire its (G.R. No. 75112, August 17, 1992)
own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an independent firm • He (defendant) need not have an official appointment for a driver's position in
to undertake the task. In either case, the common carrier is not relieved of its order that the petitioner may be held responsible for his grossly negligent act, it
responsibilities under the contract of carriage. being sufficient that the act of driving at the time of the incident was for the benefit
• Should Prudent be made likewise liable? If at all, that liability could only be for tort of the petitioner. Hence, the fact that Funtecha was not the school driver or was not
under the provisions of Article 2176 and related provisions, in conjunction with acting with the scope of his janitorial duties does not relieve the petitioner of the
Article 2180, of the Civil Code. The premise, however, for the employer’s liability is burden of rebutting the presumption juris tantum that there was negligence on its
negligence or fault on the part of the employee. Once such fault is established, the part either in the selection of a servant or employee, or in the supervision over him.
employer can then be made liable on the basis of the presumption juris tantum that • Supervision includes the formulation of suitable rules and regulation for the
the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection and guidance of its employees and the issuance of proper instructions intended for the
supervision of its employees. The liability is primary and can only be negated by protection of the public and persons with whom the employer has relations
showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee, a factual through his employees
matter that has not been shown. Absent such a showing, one might ask further, how • An employer is expected to impose upon its employees the necessary discipline
then must the liability of the common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent called for in the performance of any act indispensable to the business and beneficial
contractor, on the other hand, be described? It would be solidary. A contractual to their employer
obligation can be breached by tort and when the same act or omission causes the
injury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana, Article 16. CASTILEX INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. VASQUEZ, JR.
2194 of the Civil Code can well apply. (G.R. No. 132266, December 21, 1999)
• Regrettably for LRT, as well as perhaps the surviving spouse and heirs of the late • Whether the fault or negligence of the employee is conclusive on his employer as in
Nicanor Navidad, this Court is concluded by the factual finding of the Court of American law or jurisprudence, or merely gives rise to the presumption juris
Appeals that “there is nothing to link (Prudent) to the death of Nicanor (Navidad), tantum of negligence on the part of the employer as in ours, it is indispensable that
for the reason that the negligence of its employee, Escartin, has not been duly the employee was acting in his employer’s business or within the scope of his
proven x x x.” This finding of the appellate court is not without substantial assigned task.
justification in our own review of the records of the case.
17. REYES v. DOCTOLERO
14. SPS. JAYME v. APOSTOL (G.R. No. 185597, August 2, 2017)
(G.R. No. 163609, November 27, 2008) • Similarly, we find no employer-employee relationship between MCS and
• To make the employee liable under par. 5 and 6 of Art. 2180, it must be established respondent guards. The guards were merely assigned by Grandeur to secure MCS'
that the injurious or tortuous act was committed at the time the employee was premises pursuant to their Contract of Guard Services. Thus, MCS cannot be held
vicariously liable for damages caused by these guards' acts or omissions. Neither liable if the physician is the ostensible agent of the hospital. This exception is also
can it be said that a principal-agency relationship existed between MCS and known as the doctrine of apparent authority.
Grandeur. Paragraph 5 of Article 2180 of the Civil Code may be applicable to • Under the doctrine of apparent authority, a hospital can be held vicariously liable
Grandeur, it being undisputed that respondent guards were its employees. To rebut for the negligent acts of a physician providing care at the hospital, regardless of
the presumption of negligence, Grandeur must prove two things: first, that it had whether the physician is an independent contractor, unless the patient knows, or
exercised due diligence in the selection of respondents Doctolero and Avila, and should have known, that the physician is an independent contractor. The elements
second, that after hiring Doctolero and Avila, Grandeur had exercised due diligence of the action have been set out as follows:
in supervising them. Here, both the RTC and the CA found that Grandeur was able • For a hospital to be liable under the doctrine of apparent authority, a plaintiff must
to sufficiently prove, through testimonial and documentary evidence, that it had show that: (1) the hospital, or its agent, acted in a manner that would lead a
exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and hiring of its reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent
security guards. As testified to by its HRD head Ungui, and corroborated by was an employee or agent of the hospital; (2) where the acts of the agent create the
documentary evidence including clearances from various government agencies, appearance of authority, the plaintiff must also prove that the hospital had
certificates, and favorable test results in medical and psychiatric examinations. The knowledge of and acquiesced in them; and (3) the plaintiff acted in reliance upon
question of diligent supervision, however, depends on the circumstances of the conduct of the hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary care and prudence.
employment. Ordinarily, evidence demonstrating that the employer has exercised • The element of holding out on the part of the hospital does not require an express
diligent supervision of its employee during the performance of the latter's assigned representation by the hospital that the person alleged to be negligent is an
tasks would be enough to relieve him of the liability imposed by Article 2180 in employee. Rather, the element is satisfied if the hospital holds itself out as a
relation to Article 2176 of the Civil Code. Here, Grandeur's HRD head, Ungui, provider of emergency room care without informing the patient that the care is
likewise testified on Grandeur's standard operational procedures, showing the provided by independent contractors.
means by which Grandeur conducts close and regular supervision over the security • The element of justifiable reliance on the part of the plaintiff is satisfied if the
guards assigned to their various clients. Grandeur also submitted as evidence plaintiff relies upon the hospital to provide complete emergency room care, rather
certificates of attendance to various seminars and the memoranda both those than upon a specific physician.
commending respondents for their good works and reprimanding them for • In this regard, the hospital need not make express representations to the patient
violations of various company policies. We agree with the CA that these may be that the treating physician is an employee of the hospital; rather a representation
considered, as they are related to the documents and testimonies adduced during may be general and implied.
trial to show Grandeur's diligence in the supervision of the actual work • The doctrine of apparent authority is a species of the doctrine of estoppel. Article
performance of its employees. 1431 of the Civil Code provides that through estoppel, an admission or
• On the matter of selection of employees, in order that the owner of a vehicle may representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be
be considered as having exercised all diligence of a good father of a family, he denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. Estoppel rests on this
should not have been satisfied with the mere possession of a professional driver's rule: Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally
license; he should have carefully examined the applicant for employment as to his and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such
qualifications, his experience and record of service. These steps appellant failed to belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission,
observe. be permitted to falsify it.
• The second factor focuses on the patient’s reliance. It is sometimes characterized
18. NOGALES v. CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER as an inquiry on whether the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of the
(G.R. No. 142625, December 19, 2006) hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary care and prudence
• In other words, private hospitals, hire, fire and exercise real control over their • The conception that the hospital does not undertake to treat the patient, does not
attending and visiting consultant staff. While consultants are not, technically undertake to act through its doctors and nurses, but undertakes instead simply to
employees, a point which respondent hospital asserts in denying all responsibility procure them to act upon their own responsibility, no longer reflects the fact.
for the patient’s condition, the control exercised, the hiring, and the right to Present day hospitals, as their manner of operation plainly demonstrates, do far
terminate consultants all fulfill the important hallmarks of an employer-employee more than furnish facilities for treatment. They regularly employ on a salary basis
relationship, with the exception of the payment of wages. In assessing whether such a large staff of physicians, nurses and internes [sic], as well as administrative and
a relationship in fact exists, the control test is determining. Accordingly, on the basis manual workers, and they charge patients for medical care and treatment,
of the foregoing, we rule that for the purpose of allocating responsibility in medical collecting for such services, if necessary, by legal action. Certainly, the person who
negligence cases, an employer-employee relationship in effect exists between avails himself of hospital facilities expects that the hospital will attempt to cure him,
hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians. Here no proof was shown to not that its nurses or other employees will act on their own responsibility
show control by the hospital so on this basis the complaint lacks merit BUT • As a general proposition, a hospital may not be held for the acts of an anesthetist
• In general, a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor- who was not an employee of the hospital, but one of a group of independent
physician. There is, however, an exception to this principle. The hospital may be
contractors. Vicarious liability for medical malpractice may be imposed, however, (G.R. No. 201787, September 25, 2013)
under an apparent, or ostensible, • A lease contract is not essentially personal in character. Thus, the rights and
• Agency theory, or, as it is sometimes called, agency by estoppel or by holding out. obligations therein are transmissible to the heirs. The general rule, therefore, is that
Essential to the creation of apparent authority are words or conduct of the heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their predecessors-in-interest except
principal, communicated to a third party, that give rise to the appearance and belief when the rights and obligations arising therefrom are not transmissible by their
that the agent possesses authority to act on behalf of the principal. Also, the third nature, stipulation or provision of law. (Sui Man Hui Chan v. CA, 468 Phil. 244
party must reasonably rely upon the appearance of authority created by the [2002])
principal. Finally, the third party must accept the services of the agent in reliance • Section 6 of the parties’ lease contract provides that “this contract is
upon the perceived relationship between the agent and the principal. nontransferable unless prior consent of the lessor is obtained in writing.” Section 6
refers to transfers inter vivos and not transmissions mortis causa. What Section 6
e. STATE seeks to avoid is for the lessee to substitute a third party in place of the lessee
without the lessor’s consent. This merely reiterates that Article 1649 of the Civil
19. SPS. FONTANILLA v. MALIAMAN Code provides: “The lessee cannot assign the lease without the consent of the
(G.R. Nos. 55963 & 61045, December 1, 1989) lessor, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary.”
• The State assumes a limited liability for the damage caused by the tortious acts or • In this case, the death of German did not terminate the lease contract executed with
conduct of its special agent. The State's agent, if a public official, must not only be HDSJ, but instead continued with Ramon as the lessee. Therefore, Ramon had a
specially commissioned to do a particular task but that such task must be foreign right to sublease the premises since the lease contract did not contain any
to said official's usual governmental functions. If the State's agent is not a public stipulation forbidding subleasing.
official, and is commissioned to perform non-governmental functions, then the • Tortious interference has the following elements: existence of a valid contract;
State assumes the role of an ordinary employer and will be held liable as such for knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of the contract; and
its agent's tort. Where the government commissions a private individual for a interference of the third person without legal justification or excuse. HDSJ did not
special governmental task, it is acting through a special agent within the meaning commit tortious interference. The third element was not present.
of the provision.
• The functions and activities, which can be performed only by the government, are 2. GO v. CORDERO
more or less generally agreed to be "governmental" in character, and so the State is (G.R. Nos. 164703 & 164747, May 4, 2010)
immune from tort liability. On the other hand, a service which might as well be • In Yu v. Court of Appeals, this Court ruled that the right to perform an exclusive
provided by a private corporation, and particularly when it collects revenues from distributorship agreement and to reap the profits resulting from such performance
it, the function is considered a "proprietary" one, as to which there may be liability are proprietary rights which a party may protect. Thus, injunction is the
for the torts of agents within the scope of their employment. appropriate remedy to prevent a wrongful interference with contracts by strangers
• The National Irrigation Administration is an agency of the government exercising to such contracts where the legal remedy is insufficient and the resulting injury is
proprietary functions, by express provision of Rep. Act No. 3601. Section 1 thereof irreparable.
refers to it as a “body corporate” and Section 2 further spells out some of NIA’s • While it is true that a third person cannot possibly be sued for breach of contract
proprietary functions. Since it is a corporate body performing non-governmental because only parties can breach contractual provisions, a contracting party may sue
functions, it now becomes liable for the damage caused by the accident resulting a third person not for breach but for inducing another to commit such breach.
from the tortious act of its driver-employee. • The elements of tort interference are: (1) existence of a valid contract; (2)
• Evidently, there was negligence in the supervision of the driver for the reason that knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of a contract; and (3)
they were travelling at a high speed within the city limits and yet the supervisor of interference of the third person is without legal justification.
the group, failed to caution and make the driver observe the proper and allowed
speed limit within the city. Under the situation, such negligence is further 3. LAGON v. CA
aggravated by their desire to reach their destination without even checking (G.R. No. 119107, March 18, 2005)
whether the vehicle suffered damage from the object it bumped, thus showing • The purchase by petitioner of the subject property, during the supposed existence
imprudence and recklessness on the part of both the driver and the supervisor in of private respondent’s lease contract with the late Bai Tonina Sepi, did not
the group. constitute tortuous interference for which petitioner should be held liable for
• In this particular case, the NIA assumes the responsibility of an ordinary employer damages, because (1) he had no knowledge of the lease contract, and (2) assuming
and as such, it becomes answerable for damages. he had, such knowledge alone was not sufficient to make him liable for tortuous
interference. With respect to his claim of lack of knowledge, he conducted his own
G. INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS personal investigation and inquiry, and unearthed no suspicious circumstance that
would have made a cautious man probe deeper and watch out for any conflicting
1. INOCENCIO v. HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE claim over the property. An examination of the entire property’s title bore no
indication of the leasehold interest of private respondent. Even the registry of • While it would certainly be too naive to expect that violators of human rights would
property had no record of the same. With respect to the second reason, there was easily be deterred by the prospect of facing damage suits, it should nonetheless be
no malice or bad faith on the part of the petitioner. Petitioner’s purchase of the made clear in no uncertain terms that Article 32 of the Civil Code makes the persons
subject property was merely an advancement of his financial or economic interests, who are directly, as well as indirectly, responsible for the transgression, joint
absent any proof that he was enthused by improper motives. Furthermore, the tortfeasors.
records do not support the allegation of private respondent that petitioner induced • The Code Commission deemed it necessary to hold not only public officers but also
the heirs of Bai Tonina Sepi to sell the property to him. The word “induce” refers to private individuals civilly liable for violation of the rights enumerated in Article 32
situations where a person causes another to choose one course of conduct by of the Civil Code.
persuasion or intimidation. The records show that the decision of the heirs of the • Article 32 was patterned after the "tort" in American law. A tort is a wrong, a
late Bai Tonina Sepi to sell the property was completely of their own volition and tortious act which has been defined as the commission or omission of an act by one,
that petitioner did absolutely nothing to influence their judgment. without right, whereby another receives some injury, directly or indirectly, in
• The elements of tortuous interference with contractual relations are as follows: (a) person, property, or reputation. Presence of good motive, or rather, the absence of
existence of a valid contract; (b) knowledge on the part of the third person of the an evil motive, does not render lawful an act which is otherwise an invasion of
existence of the contract and (c) interference of the third person without legal another's legal right; that is, liability in tort is not precluded by the fact that
justification or excuse. As regards the first element, the existence of a valid contract defendant acted without evil intent.
must be duly established. As to the second element, it requires that there be • While the Civil Code, specifically, the Chapter on Human Relations is a general law,
knowledge on the part of the interferer that the contract exists, since he cannot be Article 32 of the same Chapter is a special and specific provision that holds a public
made liable for interfering with a contract he is unaware of. While it is not necessary officer liable for and allows redress from a particular class of wrongful acts that
to prove actual knowledge, he must nonetheless be aware of the facts which, if may be committed by public officers. Compared thus with Section 38 of the
followed by a reasonable inquiry, will lead to a complete disclosure of the Administrative Code, which broadly deals with civil liability arising from errors in
contractual relations and rights of the parties in the contract. Anent the third the performance of duties, Article 32 of the Civil Code is the specific provision which
element, defendant may be held liable only when there was no legal justification or must be applied in the instant case precisely filed to seek damages for violation of
excuse for his action or when his conduct was stirred by a wrongful motive. To constitutional rights.
sustain a case for tortuous interference, the defendant must have acted with malice
or must have been driven by purely impious reasons to injure the plaintiff. In other 2. VINZONS-CHATO v. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORP.
words, his act of interference cannot be justified. (G.R. No. 141309, December 23, 2008 [Resolution])
• As a general rule, justification for interfering with the business relations of another • There are two kinds of duties exercised by public officers: the "duty owing to the
exists where the actor’s motive is to benefit himself. Such justification does not exist public collectively" (the body politic), and the "duty owing to particular
where the actor’s motive is to cause harm to the other. it is not necessary that the individuals," thus:
interferer’s interest outweigh that of the party whose rights are invaded, and that 1. Of Duties to the Public. — The first of these classes embraces those officers
an individual acts under an economic interest that is substantial, not merely de whose duty is owing primarily to the public collectively — to the body politic
minimis, such that wrongful and malicious motives are negatived, for he acts in self- — and not to any particular individual; who act for the public at large, and who
protection. Moreover, justification for protecting one’s financial position should not are ordinarily paid out of the public treasury
be made to depend on a comparison of his economic interest in the subject matter 2. Of Duties to Individuals. — The second class above referred to includes
with that of the others. It is sufficient if the impetus of his conduct lies in a proper those who, while they owe to the public the general duty of a proper
business interest rather than in wrongful motives. administration of their respective offices, yet become, by reason of their
• The interference is penalized because it violates the property rights of a party in a employment by a particular individual to do some act for him in an official
contract to reap the benefits that should result therefrom. capacity, under a special and particular obligation to him as an individual. They
serve individuals chiefly and usually receive their compensation from fees paid
H. TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS by each individual who employs them
• In determining whether a public officer is liable for an improper performance or
1. VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS non-performance of a duty, it must first be determined which of the two classes of
duties is involved. For, indeed, as the eminent Floyd R. Mechem instructs, "[t]he
1. VINZONS-CHATO v. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORP. liability of a public officer to an individual or the public is based upon and is co-
(G.R. No. 141309, June 19, 2007) extensive with his duty to the individual or the public. If to the one or the other he
• The rule in this jurisdiction is that a public officer may be validly sued in his/her owes no duty, to that one he can incur no liability." Stated differently, when what is
private capacity for acts done in the course of the performance of the functions of involved is a "duty owing to the public in general", an individual cannot have a cause
the office, where said public officer: (1) acted with malice, bad faith, or negligence; of action for damages against the public officer, even though he may have been
or (2) where the public officer violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff. injured by the action or inaction of the officer. In such a case, there is damage to the
individual but no wrong to him. In performing or failing to perform a public duty, 4. DULAY v. CA
the officer has touched his interest to his prejudice; but the officer owes no duty to (G.R. No. 108017, April 3, 1995)
him as an individual • The term "physical injuries" in Article 33 has already been construed to include
• Juxtaposed with Article 32 of the Civil Code, the principle may now translate into bodily injuries causing death. It is not the crime of physical injuries defined in the
the rule that an individual can hold a public officer personally liable for damages on Revised Penal Code. It includes not only physical injuries but also consummated,
account of an act or omission that violates a constitutional right only if it results in frustrated, and attempted homicide. Although it was held that no independent civil
a particular wrong or injury to the former. This is consistent with this Court's action may be filed under Article 33 where the crime is the result of criminal
pronouncement in its June 19, 2007 Decision (subject of petitioner's motion for negligence, it must be noted however, that Torzuela, the accused in the case at bar,
reconsideration) that Article 32, in fact, allows a damage suit for "tort for is charged with homicide, not with reckless imprudence, whereas the defendant in
impairment of rights and liberties." It may be recalled that in tort law, for a plaintiff Marcia was charged with reckless imprudence. Therefore, in this case, a civil action
to maintain an action for damages for the injuries of which he complains, he must based on Article 33 lies.
establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant
owed the plaintiff, meaning a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal 5. SALTA v. DE VEYRA
responsibility by the person causing it. Indeed, central to an award of tort damages (G.R. No. Nos. L-37733 & L-38035, September 30, 1982)
is the premise that an individual was injured in contemplation of law • Under Article 31 of the New Civil Code, it is made clear that the civil action
• Webster Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Investigation, permitted therein to be filed separately from the criminal action may proceed
has emerged as the leading case on the victim's entitlement to recover money independently of the criminal proceedings "regardless of the result of the latter." It
damages for any injuries suffered as a result of flagrant and unconstitutional abuses seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that the civil actions mentioned in Article
of administrative power. In this case, federal narcotics officers broke into Bivens' 33, permitted in the same manner to be filed separately from the criminal case, may
home at 6:30 a.m. without a search warrant and in the absence of probable cause. proceed similarly regardless of the result of the criminal case.
The agents handcuffed Bivens, searched his premises, employed excessive force, • That there is allegation of negligence is also unmistakably shown when the
threatened to arrest his family, subjected him to a visual strip search in the federal complaint states that "the defendant as manager of Malolos Branch, in gross
court house, fingerprinted, photographed, interrogated and booked him. When violation of the bank rules and regulations, and without exercising necessary
Bivens was brought before a United States Commissioner, however, charges against prudence,. . . extended a number of credit accommodations. . ." On this allegation of
him were dismissed. On the issue of whether violation of the Fourth Amendment negligence alone, the civil case may be maintained as an entirely independent
"by a federal agent acting under color of authority gives rise to a cause of action for action from the criminal case. Consequently, Section 3(c), Rule III of the Revised
damages consequent upon his constitutional conduct", the U.S. Supreme Court held Rules of Court has no application thereto.
that Bivens is entitled to recover damages for injuries he suffered as a result of the
agents' violation of the Fourth Amendment. 6. BORJAL v. CA
• However, it is extremely dubious whether a Bivens action against government tax (G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999)
officials and employees may prosper, if we consider the pronouncement of the U.S. • In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable
Supreme Court in Schweiker v. Chilicky, that a Bivens remedy will not be allowed although it is not necessary that he be named. It is also not sufficient that the
when other "meaningful safeguards or remedies for the rights of persons situated offended party recognized himself as the person attacked or defamed, but it must
as (is the plaintiff)" are available. It has also been held that a Bivens action is not be shown that at least a third person could identify him as the object of the libelous
appropriate in the civil service system or in the military justice system. publication. Regrettably, these requisites have not been complied with in the case
at bar.
2. DEFAMATION, FRAUD, AND PHYSICAL INJURIES • Identification is grossly inadequate when even the alleged offended party is himself
unsure that he was the object of the verbal attack. It is well to note that the
3. MADEJA v. CARO revelation of the identity of the person alluded to came not from petitioner Borjal
(G.R. No. L-51183, December 21, 1983) but from private respondent himself when he supplied the information through his
• There are at least two about Art. 33 of the Civil Code which are worth noting, 4 June 1989 letter to the editor. Had private respondent not revealed that he was
namely: (I) The civil action for damages which it allows to be instituted is ex-delicto. the "organizer" of the FNCLT referred to in the Borjal articles, the public would have
This is manifest from the provision which uses the expressions "criminal action" remained in blissful ignorance of his identity. It is therefore clear that on the
and "criminal prosecution." This conclusion is supported by the comment of the element of identifiability alone the case falls.
Code Commission; and (2) The term "physical injuries" is used in a generic sense. • A privileged communication may be either absolutely privileged or qualifiedly
It is not the crime of physical injuries defined in the Revised Penal Code. It includes privileged. Absolutely privileged communications are those which are not
not only physical injuries but consummated, frustrated and attempted homicide. actionable even if the author has acted in bad faith. An example is found in Sec. 11,
(Carandang vs. Santiago) Art. VI, of the 1987 Constitution which exempts a member of Congress from liability
for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any Committee thereof. Upon the
other hand, qualifiedly privileged communications containing defamatory • Even assuming that the contents of the articles are false, mere error, inaccuracy or
imputations are not actionable unless found to have been made without good even falsity alone does not prove actual malice. Errors or misstatements are
intention or justifiable motive. To this genre belong "private communications" and inevitable in any scheme of truly free expression and debate. Consistent with good
"fair and true report without any comments or remarks.” faith and reasonable care, the press should not be held to account, to a point of
• Indisputably, petitioner Borjal's questioned writings are not within the exceptions suppression, for honest mistakes or imperfections in the choice of language. There
of Art. 354 of The Revised Penal Code for, as correctly observed by the appellate must be some room for misstatement of fact as well as for misjudgment. Only by
court, they are neither private communications nor fair and true report without any giving them much leeway and tolerance can they courageously and effectively
comments or remarks. However this does not necessarily mean that they are not function as critical agencies in our democracy.
privileged. To be sure, the enumeration under Art. 354 is not an exclusive list of
qualifiedly privileged communications since fair commentaries on matters of 7. MVRS PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. ISLAMIC DA’WAH COUNCIL OF THE PHILS., INC.
public interest are likewise privileged. The rule on privileged communications had (G.R. No. 135306, January 28, 2003)
its genesis not in the nation's penal code but in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution • Defamation is made up of the twin torts of libel and slander the one being, in
guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press. As early as 1918, in United States general, written, while the other in general is oral. In either form, defamation is an
v. Cañ ete, 20 this Court ruled that publications which are privileged for reasons of invasion of the interest in reputation and good name. This is a relational interest
public policy are protected by the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech. since it involves the opinion others in the community may have, or tend to have of
This constitutional right cannot be abolished by the mere failure of the legislature the plaintiff.
to give it express recognition in the statute punishing libels. • The law of defamation protects the interest in reputation the interest in acquiring,
• To reiterate, fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and retaining and enjoying ones reputation as good as ones character and conduct
constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. The doctrine of fair warrant. The mere fact that the plaintiffs’ feelings and sensibilities have been
comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made offended is not enough to create a cause of action for defamation. Defamation
is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially requires that something be communicated to a third person that may affect the
proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the opinion others may have of the plaintiff.
discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, • Although the gist of an action for defamation is an injury to reputation, the focus of
it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to a a defamation action is upon the allegedly defamatory statement itself and its
public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a predictable effect upon third persons. A statement is ordinarily considered
comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, defamatory if it tends to expose one to public hatred, shame, obloquy, contumely,
based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be odium, contempt, ridicule, aversion, ostracism, degradation or disgrace.
mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts. • Consequently as a prerequisite to recovery, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove
• The raison d'etre for the New York Times doctrine was that to require critics of as part of his prima facie case that the defendant (1) published a statement that was
official conduct to guarantee the truth of all their factual assertions on pain of libel (2) defamatory (3) of and concerning the plaintiff.
judgments would lead to self-censorship, since would-be critics would be deterred • If the defamatory statements were directed at a small, restricted group of persons,
from voicing out their criticisms even if such were believed to be true, or were in they applied to any member of the group, and an individual member could maintain
fact true, because of doubt whether it could be proved or because of fear of the an action for defamation. When the defamatory language was used toward a small
expense of having to prove it. group or class, including every member, it has been held that the defamatory
• While, generally, malice can be presumed from defamatory words, the privileged language referred to each member so that each could maintain an action. This small
character of a communication destroys the presumption of malice. The onus of group or class may be a jury, persons engaged in certain businesses, professions or
proving actual malice then lies on plaintiff, private respondent Wenceslao herein. employments, a restricted subdivision of a particular class, a society, a football
He must bring home to the defendant, petitioner Borjal herein, the existence of team, a family, small groups of union officials, a board of public officers, or
malice as the true motive of his conduct. engineers of a particular company.
• Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to • If defamatory words are used broadly in respect to a large class or group of persons,
injure the reputation of the person defamed, and implies an intention to do ulterior and there is nothing that points, or by proper colloquium or innuendo can be made
and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive. to apply, to a particular member of the class or group, no member has a right of
• Furthermore, to be considered malicious, the libelous statements must be shown action for libel or slander. Where the defamatory matter had no special, personal
to have been written or published with the knowledge that they are false or in application and was so general that no individual damages could be presumed, and
reckless disregard of whether they are false or not. "Reckless disregard of what is where the class referred to was so numerous that great vexation and oppression
false or not" means that the defendant entertains serious doubt as to the truth of might grow out of the multiplicity of suits, no private action could be maintained.
the publication, or that he possesses a high degree of awareness of their probable This rule has been applied to defamatory publications concerning groups or classes
falsity. It is the essence of the crime of libel. of persons engaged in a particular business, profession or employment, directed at
associations or groups of association officials, and to those directed at • If mere fault or negligence in one's acts can make him liable for damages for injury
miscellaneous groups or classes of persons. caused thereby, with more reason should abuse or bad faith make him liable. A
• An individual Muslim has a reputation that is personal, separate and distinct in the person should be protected only when he acts in the legitimate exercise of his right,
community. Each Muslim, as part of the larger Muslim community in the Philippines that is, when he acts with prudence and in good faith, but not when he acts with
of over five (5) million people, belongs to a different trade and profession; each has negligence or abuse.
a varying interest and a divergent political and religious view -some may be
conservative, others liberal. A Muslim may find the article dishonorable, even 3. YUCHENGCO v. THE MANILA CHRONICLE PUBLISHING CORP.
blasphemous; others may find it as an opportunity to strengthen their faith and (G.R. No. 184315, November 28, 2011 [Resolution])
educate the non-believers and the "infidels." There is no injury to the reputation of • It was elucidated that while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the
the individual Muslims who constitute this community that can give rise to an government of human relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does not
action for group libel. Each reputation is personal in character to every person. provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under either
Together, the Muslims do not have a single common reputation that will give them Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper.
a common or general interest in the subject matter of the controversy. • The question of whether or not the principle of abuse of rights has been violated
resulting in damages under Article 20 or other applicable provision of law, depends
I. ABUSE OF RIGHTS on the circumstances of each case. In the present case, it was found that Coyiuto, Jr.
indeed abused his rights as Chairman of The Manila Chronicle, which led to the
1. NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN v. REYES publication of the libelous articles in the said newspaper, thus, entitling petitioner
(G.R. No. 154259, February 28, 2005) to damages under Article 19, in relation to Article 20.
• The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria ("to which a person assents is not esteemed • Consequently, the trial court and the CA correctly awarded moral damages to
in law as injury") refers to self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury which petitioner. Such damages may be awarded when the transgression is the cause of
precludes the recovery of damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily petitioners’ anguish. Further, converse to Coyiuto, Jr.’s argument, although
exposed himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing so. As formulated by petitioner is claiming damages for violation of Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code,
petitioners, however, this doctrine does not find application to the case at bar still such violations directly resulted in the publication of the libelous articles in the
because even if respondent Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave the newspaper, which, by analogy, is one of the ground for the recovery of moral
party, petitioners, under Articles 19 and 21 of the New Civil Code, were still under damages under (7) of Article 2219.
obligation to treat him fairly in order not to expose him to unnecessary ridicule and
shame. J. ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW
2. UE v. JADER 1. ARCO PULP AND PAPER CO., INC. v. LIM

(G.R. No. 132344, February 17, 2000) (G.R. No. 206806, June 25, 2014)
• When a student is enrolled in any educational or learning institution, a contract of • When a party reneges on his or her obligations arising from contracts in bad faith,
education is entered into between said institution and the student. The professors, the act is not only contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy; it is also a
teachers or instructors hired by the school are considered merely as agents and violation of Article 1159. Breaches of contract become the basis of moral damages,
administrators tasked to perform the school's commitment under the contract. not only under Article 2220, but also under Articles 19 and 20 in relation to Article
• It is the contractual obligation of the school to timely inform and furnish sufficient 1159. Persons who have the right to enter into contractual relations must exercise
notice and information to each and every student as to whether he or she had that right with honesty and good faith. Failure to do so results in an abuse of that
already complied with all the requirements for the conferment of a degree or right, which may become the basis of an action for damages. Article 19 is the
whether they would be included among those who will graduate. general rule which governs the conduct of human relations. By itself, it is not the
• Absence of good faith must be sufficiently established for a successful prosecution basis of an actionable tort. Article 19 describes the degree of care required so that
by the aggrieved party in a suit for abuse of right under Article 19 of the Civil Code. an actionable tort may arise when it is alleged together with Article 20 or Article
• Educational institutions are duty-bound to inform the students of their academic 21. When parties act in bad faith and do not faithfully comply with their obligations
status and not wait for the latter to inquire from the former. The conscious under contract, they run the risk of violating Article 1159 of the Civil Code. Article
indifference of a person to the rights or welfare of the person/persons who may be 2219, therefore, is not an exhaustive list of the instances where moral damages may
affected by his act or omission can support a claim for damages. be recovered since it only specifies, among others, Article 21. When a party reneges
• Petitioner cannot pass on its blame to the professors to justify its own negligence on his or her obligations arising from contracts in bad faith, the act is not only
that led to the delayed relay of information to respondent. When one of two contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy; it is also a violation of Article
innocent parties must suffer, he through whose agency the loss occurred must bear 1159. Breaches of contract become the basis of moral damages, not only under
it. Article 2220, but also under Articles 19 and 20 in relation to Article 1159.
2. GARCIA, JR. v. SALVADOR relations of the Civil Code, without need of proof that the wrongful act complained
(G.R. No. 168512, March 20, 2007) of had caused any physical injury upon the complainant.
• The foregoing provision provides the legal basis for the award of damages to a party
who suffers damage whenever one commits an act in violation of some legal 3. CARPIO v. VALMONTE
provision. This was incorporated by the Code Commission to provide relief to a (G.R. No. 151866, September 9, 2004)
person who suffers damage because another has violated some legal provision. • By openly accusing respondent as the only person who went out of the room before
• For health care providers, the test of the existence of negligence is: did the health the loss of the jewelry in the presence of all the guests therein, and ordering that
care provider either fail to do something which a reasonably prudent health care she be immediately bodily searched, petitioner virtually branded respondent as the
provider would have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably thief. True, petitioner had the right to ascertain the identity of the malefactor, but
prudent health care provider would not have done; and that failure or action caused to malign respondent without an iota of proof that she was the one who actually
injury to the patient; if yes, then he is guilty of negligence. stole the jewelry is an act which, by any standard or principle of law is
• Thus, the elements of an actionable conduct are: 1) duty, 2) breach, 3) injury, and impermissible. Petitioner had willfully caused injury to respondent in a manner
4) proximate causation. The duty breached is the non following of the laws which is contrary to morals and good customs. Her firmness and resolve to find her
requiring clinical laboratories to be administered by a physician and that only after missing jewelry cannot justify her acts toward respondent. She did not act with
the physician reviewed the records should the latter be released to the patients. justice and good faith for apparently, she had no other purpose in mind but to
This violation is a breach of duty. prejudice respondent. Certainly, petitioner transgressed the provisions of Article
19 in relation to Article 21 for which she should be held accountable.
K. ACTS CONTRARY TO MORALS, GOOD CUSTOMS, OR PUBLIC POLICY
L. VIOLATION OF HUMAN DIGNITY AND PRIVACY
1. WASSMER v. VELEZ
(G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964) 1. SPS. HING v. CHOACHUY
• Ordinarily, a mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to (G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013)
formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described preparation and • In this day and age, video surveillance cameras are installed practically everywhere
publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is for the protection and safety of everyone. The installation of these cameras,
quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for however, should not cover places where there is reasonable expectation of privacy,
which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article unless the consent of the individual, whose right to privacy would be affected, was
21 of the new Civil Code. obtained. Nor should these cameras be used to pry into the privacy of another's
• The acts of Velez did not constitute a mere breach of promise to marry. They had residence or business office as it would be no different from eavesdropping, which
applied for a license to contract marriage, Invitations were printed and distributed is a crime under R.A. No. 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Law. Thus, there was a
to relatives, friends and acquaintances and expenses were made in purchasing violation of privacy where the cameras installed spans through a good portion of
wedding attires. A matrimonial bed, with accessories, was bought. Bridal showers petitioner’s land, without their consent.
were given and gifts received. And then, with but two days before the wedding, • The right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code covers business offices
defendant, who was then 28 years old,: simply left a note for Wassmer stating: "Will where the public are excluded therefrom and only certain individuals are allowed
have to postpone wedding — My mother opposes it ... " He enplaned to his home to enter.
city in Mindanao, and the next day, the day before the wedding, he wired plaintiff:
"Nothing changed rest assured returning soon." But he never returned and was 2. CONCEPCION v. CA
never heard from again. (G.R. No. 120706, January 31, 2000)
• It is petitioner's position that the act imputed to him does not constitute any of
2. PATRICIO v. LEVISTE those enumerated in Arts. 26 and 2219. In this respect, the law is clear. The
(G.R. No. 51832, April 26, 1989) violations mentioned in the codal provisions are not exclusive but are merely
• The act of private respondent in hitting petitioner on the face is contrary to morals examples and do not preclude other similar or analogous acts. Damages therefore
and good customs and caused the petitioner mental anguish, moral shock, wounded are allowable for actions against a person's dignity, such as profane, insulting,
feelings and social humiliation. Private respondent has to take full responsibility humiliating, scandalous or abusive language. Under Art. 2217 of the Civil Code,
for his act and his claim that he was unaware of what he had done to petitioner moral damages which include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
because of drunkenness is definitely no excuse and does not relieve him of his anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation,
liability to the latter. and similar injury, although incapable of pecuniary computation, may be recovered
• The fact that no actual or compensatory damage was proven before the trial court, if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission.
does not adversely affect petitioner’s right to recover moral damages. Moral
damages may be awarded in appropriate cases referred to in the chapter on human 3. MANALOTO v. VELOSO III
(G.R. No. 171365, October 6, 2010) • St. Louis Realty's employee was grossly negligent in mixing up the Aramil and
• Article 19 was intended to expand the concept of torts by granting adequate legal Arcadio residences in a widely circulated publication like the Sunday Times. To suit
remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human its purpose, it never made any written apology and explanation of the mix-up. It
foresight to provide specifically in statutory law. If mere fault or negligence in one's just contented itself with a cavalier "rectification."
acts can make him liable for damages for injury caused thereby, with more reason • Persons, who know the residence of Doctor Aramil, were confused by the distorted,
should abuse or bad faith make him liable. The absence of good faith is essential to lingering impression that he was renting his residence from Arcadio or that Arcadio
abuse of right. Good faith is an honest intention to abstain from taking any had leased it from him. Either way, his private life was mistakenly and
unconscientious advantage of another, even though the forms or technicalities of unnecessarily exposed. He suffered diminution of income and mental anguish.
the law, together with an absence of all information or belief of fact which would
render the transaction unconscientious. In business relations, it means good faith M. UNJUSTIFIED REFUSAL OR NEGLECT OF A PUBLIC SERVANT TO PERFORM
as understood by men of affairs. OFFICIAL DUTIES
• While Article 19 may have been intended as a mere declaration of principle, the
"cardinal law on human conduct" expressed in said article has given rise to certain 1. AMARO v. SUMANGUIT
rules, e.g., that where a person exercises his rights but does so arbitrarily or (G.R. No. L-14986, July 31, 1962)
unjustly or performs his duties in a manner that is not in keeping with honesty and • The refusal of appellee Chief of Police to give complainants assistance, which it was
good faith, he opens himself to liability. The elements of an abuse of rights under his duty to do as an officer of the law, constitutes an actionable dereliction on
Article 19 are: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; appellee's part in the light of Article 27 of the Civil Code.
(3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another • The fact, cited by the court below in the order subject to review, that appellants
• The philosophy behind Art. 26 underscores the necessity for its inclusion in our have another recourse (in connection with the crime of illegal discharge of firearms
civil law. The Code Commission stressed in no uncertain terms that the human supposedly committed against one of them) as by filing their complaint directly
personality must be exalted. The sacredness of human personality is a concomitant with the city attorney of Silay or by lodging an administrative charge against
consideration of every plan for human amelioration. The touchstone of every appellee herein, does not preclude this action for damages under Article 27 of the
system of law, of the culture and civilization of every country, is how far it dignifies Civil Code and hence does not justify its dismissal.
man. If the statutes insufficiently protect a person from being unjustly humiliated,
in short, if human personality is not exalted — then the laws are indeed defective. N. CYBER TORTS
Thus, under this article, the rights of persons are amply protected, and damages are
provided for violations of a person's dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind. 1. VIVARES v. ST. THERESA’S COLLEGE
• It is petitioner's position that the act imputed to him does not constitute any of (G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014)
those enumerated in Arts. 26 and 2219. In this respect, the law is clear. The • Facebook extends its users an avenue to make the availability of their Facebook
violations mentioned in the codal provisions are not exclusive but are merely activities respect their choice as to "when and to what extent to disclose facts about
examples and do not preclude other similar or analogous acts. Damages therefore [themselves] — and to put others in the position of receiving such confidences."
are allowable for actions against a person's dignity, such as profane, insulting, Ideally, the selected setting will be based on one's desire to interact with others,
humiliating, scandalous or abusive language. Under Art. 2217 of the Civil Code, coupled with the opposing need to withhold certain information as well as to
moral damages which include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious regulate the spreading of his or her personal information. Needless to say, as the
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, privacy setting becomes more limiting, fewer Facebook users can view that user's
and similar injury, although incapable of pecuniary computation, may be recovered particular post.
if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission. • It is through the availability of said privacy tools that many OSN users are said to
have a subjective expectation that only those to whom they grant access to their
4. GREGORIO v. CA profile will view the information they post or upload thereto.
(G.R. No. 179799, September 11, 2009) • Before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her OSN activity, it is fi􏰄rst
• In an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, it must be alleged and necessary that said user, in this case the children of petitioners, manifest the
established that Sansio and Datuin were impelled by legal malice or bad faith in intention to keep certain posts private, through the employment of measures to
deliberately initiating an action against Gregorio, knowing that the charges were prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility. And this intention can materialize in
false and groundless, intending to vex and humiliate her.As previously mentioned, cyberspace through the utilization of the OSN's privacy tools. In other words,
Gregorio did not allege this in her complaint. utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation, in cyber world, of the user's
invocation of his or her right to informational privacy.
5. ST. LOUIS REALTY CORP. v. CA • Considering that the default setting for Facebook posts is "Public," it can be
(G.R. No. L-46061, November 14, 1984) surmised that the photographs in question were viewable to everyone on
Facebook, absent any proof that petitioners' children positively limited the
disclosure of the photograph. If such were the case, they cannot invoke the • Section 4(b)(3) of the Cybercrime Law (RA 10175) punishes Computer-related
protection attached to the right to informational privacy. Identity Theft (intentional acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession, alteration,
• It is well to emphasize at this point that setting a post's or pro􏰄le detail's privacy to or deletion of identifying information belonging to another, whether natural or
"Friends" is no assurance that it can no longer be viewed by another user who is juridical, without right).
not Facebook friends with the source of the content. The user's own Facebook • Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws. Within these zones, any
friend can share said content or tag his or her own Facebook friend thereto, form of intrusion is impermissible unless excused by law and in accordance with
regardless of whether the user tagged by the latter is Facebook friends or not with customary legal process.
the former. Also, when the post is shared or when a person is tagged, the respective • Two constitutional guarantees create these zones of privacy: (a) the right against
Facebook friends of the person who shared the post or who was tagged can view unreasonable searches and seizures, which is the basis of the right to be let alone,
the post, the privacy setting of which was set at “Friends." and (b) the right to privacy of communication and correspondence. In assessing the
• As applied, even assuming that the photos in issue are visible only to the sanctioned challenge that the State has impermissibly intruded into these zones of privacy, a
students' Facebook friends, respondent STC can hardly be taken to task for the court must determine whether a person has exhibited a reasonable expectation of
perceived privacy invasion since it was the minors' Facebook friends who showed privacy and, if so, whether that expectation has been violated by unreasonable
the pictures to Tigol. Respondents were mere recipients of what were posted. They government intrusion.
did not resort to any unlawful means of gathering the information as it was • The usual identifying information regarding a person includes his name, his
voluntarily given to them by persons who had legitimate access to the said posts. citizenship, his residence address, his contact number, his place and date of birth,
Clearly, the fault, if any, lies with the friends of the minors. Curiously enough, the name of his spouse if any, his occupation, and similar data. The law punishes
however, neither the minors nor their parents imputed any violation of privacy those who acquire or use such identifying information without right, implicitly to
against the students who showed the images to Escudero. cause damage. Petitioners simply fail to show how government effort to curb
computer-related identity theft violates the right to privacy and correspondence as
2. DISINI, JR. v. SEC. OF JUSTICE well as the right to due process of law.
(G.R. Nos. 203335, 203299, 203306, 203359, 203378, 203391, 203407, 203440,
203453, 203454, 203469, 203501, 203509, 203515, 203518, February 18, 2014) O. MARITIME TORTS
• The elements of libel are: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition
concerning another; (b) publication of the charge; (c) identity of the person 1. FAR EASTERN SHIPPING CO. v. CA
defamed; and (d) existence of malice. (G.R. Nos. 130068 & 130150, October 1, 1998)
• There is "actual malice" or malice in fact when the offender makes the defamatory • The Supreme Court affirms respondent court's finding that Capt. Gavino failed to
statement with the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether measure up to such strict standard of care and diligence required of pilots in the
it was false or not. The reckless disregard standard used here requires a high degree performance of their duties. It is disconcertingly riddled with too much incertitude
of awareness of probable falsity. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the and manifests a seeming indifference for the possibly injurious consequences his
conclusion that the accused in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the commands as pilot may have. Prudence required that he, as pilot, should have made
statement he published. Gross or even extreme negligence is not sufficient to sure that his directions were promptly and strictly followed. As correctly noted by
establish actual malice. the trial court — Moreover, assuming that he did indeed give the command to drop
• Where the offended party is a public official or a public figure: The prosecution the anchor on time, as pilot he should have seen to it that the order was carried out,
bears the burden of proving the presence of actual malice in instances where such and he could have done this in a number of ways, one of which was to inspect the
element is required to establish guilt. The defense of absence of actual malice, even bow of the vessel where the anchor mechanism was installed. Of course, Captain
when the statement turns out to be false, is available where the offended party is a Gavino makes reference to a commotion among the crew members which
public official or a public figure, as in the cases of Vasquez (a barangay official) and supposedly caused the delay in the execution of the command. This account was
Borjal (the Executive Director, First National Conference on Land Transportation). reflected in the pilot's report prepared four hours later, but Capt. Kavankov, while
Since the penal code and implicitly, the cybercrime law, mainly target libel against not admitting whether or not such a commotion occurred, maintained that the
private persons, the Court recognizes that these laws imply a stricter standard of command to drop anchor was followed "immediately and precisely." Hence, the
"malice" to convict the author of a defamatory statement where the offended party Court cannot give much weight or consideration to this portion of Gavino's
is a public figure. testimony. An act may be negligent if it is done without the competence that a
• Where the offended party is a private individual: The prosecution need not prove reasonable person in the position of the actor would recognize as necessary to
the presence of malice. The law explicitly presumes its existence (malice in law) prevent it from creating an unreasonable risk of harm to another. Those who
from the defamatory character of the assailed statement. For his defense, the undertake any work calling for special skills are required not only to exercise
accused must show that he has a justifiable reason for the defamatory statement reasonable care in what they do but also possess a standard minimum of special
even if it was in fact true. knowledge and ability. Every man who offers his services to another, and is
employed, assumed to exercise in the employment such skills he possess, with a
reasonable degree of diligence. In all these employments where peculiar skill is exclusive control of the petitioners. Third, records do not show that ATI's
requisite, if one offers his services he is understood as holding himself out to the negligence had in any way contributed to the damage caused to its unloader.
public as possessing the degree of skill commonly possessed by others in the same
employment, and if his pretensions are unfounded he commits a species of fraud P. TOXIC TORTS
on every man who employs him in reliance on his public profession. Furthermore,
there is an obligation on all persons to take the care which, under ordinary 1. FERNANDO v. CA
circumstances of the case, a reasonable and prudent man would take, and the (G.R. No. 92087, May 8, 1992)
omission of that care constitutes negligence. Generally, the degree of care required • Toilets and septic tanks are not nuisances per se as defined in Article 694 of the
is graduated according to the danger a person or property attendant upon the New Civil Code which would necessitate warning signs for the protection of the
activity which the actor pursues or the instrumentality which he uses. The greater public. While the construction of these public facilities demands utmost compliance
the danger the greater the degree of care required. What is ordinary under with safety and sanitary requirements, the putting up of warning signs is not one of
extraordinary of conditions is dictated by those conditions; extraordinary risk those requirements.
demands extraordinary care. Similarly, the more imminent the danger, the higher • Considering the nature of the task of emptying a septic tank especially one which
the degree of care. has not been cleaned for years, an ordinarily prudent person should undoubtedly
• Where a compulsory pilot is in charge of a ship, the master being required to permit be aware of the attendant risks. The victims are no exception; more so with Mr.
him to navigate it, if the master observes that the pilot is incompetent or physically Bertulano, an old hand in this kind of service, who is presumed to know the hazards
incapable, then it is the duty of the master to refuse to permit the pilot to act. But if of the job. His failure, therefore, and that of his men to take precautionary measures
no such reasons are present, then the master is justified in relying upon the pilot, for their safety was the proximate cause of the accident.
but not blindly. Under the circumstances of this case, if a situation arose where the • We held that when a person holds himself out as being competent to do things
master, exercising that reasonable vigilance which the master of a ship should requiring professional skill, he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit
exercise, observed, or should have observed, that the pilot was so navigating the the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular work which he attempts
vessel that she was going, or was likely to go, into danger, and there was in the to do. The fatal accident in this case would not have happened but for the victims'
exercise of reasonable care and vigilance an opportunity for the master to intervene negligence.
so as to save the ship from danger, the master should have acted accordingly. The
master of a vessel must exercise a degree of vigilance commensurate with the Q. DAMAGES
circumstances. Inasmuch as the matter of negligence is a question of fact, we defer
to the findings of the trial court, especially as this is affirmed by the Court of 1. CONCEPT OF DAMAGES
Appeals. But even beyond that, our own evaluation is that Capt. Kabankov's shared
liability is due mainly to the fact that he failed to act when the perilous situation 1. SPS. CUSTODIO v. CA
should have spurred him into quick and decisive action as master of the ship. In the (G.R. No. 116100, February 9, 1996)
face of imminent or actual danger, he did not have to wait for the happenstance to • Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which
occur before countermanding or overruling the pilot. By his own admission, Capt. results from the injury; and damages are the recompense or compensation
Kabankov concurred with Capt. Gavino's decisions, and this is precisely the reason awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury in
why he decided not to countermand any of the latter's orders. Inasmuch as both those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal
lower courts found Capt. Gavino negligent, by expressing full agreement therewith duty. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria. The plaintiff must
Capt. Kabankov was just as negligent as Capt. Gavino. establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant
owed to the plaintiff a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility
2. UNKNOWN OWNER OF THE VESSEL M/V CHINA JOY v. ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. by the person causing it. The underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the
(G.R. No. 195661, March 11, 2015 [Resolution]) premise that an individual was injured in contemplation of law. Thus, there must
• To establish a plaintiff's right to recovery for quasi-delicts, three elements must first be the breach of some duty and the imposition of liability for that breach before
exist, to wit: (a) damages to the plaintiff; (b) negligence by act or omission of which damages may be awarded; it is not sufficient to state that there should be tort
defendant personally, or some person for whose acts it must respond, was guilty; liability merely because the plaintiff suffered some pain and suffering. In order that
and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the damage. the law will give redress for an act causing damage, that act must be not only
• The application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are found to be attendant in the hurtful, but wrongful. There must be damnum et injuria. If, as may happen in many
case at bar. First, the co-mingling of the two foreign metal objects with the soybean cases, a person sustains actual damage, that is, harm or loss to his person or
meal cargo and the consequent damage to ATI's unloader is an accident which property, without sustaining any legal injury, that is, an act or omission which the
ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence. Second, the law does not deem an injury, the damage is regarded as damnum absque injuria.
foreign metal objects were found in the vessel's Hold No. 2, which is within the • The act of petitioners in constructing a fence within their lot is a valid exercise of
their right as owners, hence, the case is that of a damnum absque injuria.
intended in good measure to deter the wrongdoer and others like him from similar
2. ESTOLAS v. ACENA conduct in the future.
(G.R. No. 157070, January 14, 2005) • In the civil aspect, the presence of an aggravating circumstance, even if not alleged
• Damages are not presumed; the first requisite for the recovery of moral damages is in the information but proven during trial would entitle the victim to an award of
that there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly exemplary damages. Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can
sustained by the claimant. There must be proof of physical suffering, mental be awarded, not only due to the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, etc. The claimant must satisfactorily prove the where the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous
factual basis and causal connection thereof with the defendant’s acts. Thus, the conduct of the offender.
ultimate question that must be asked is: did respondent Acena suffer damages from • In the case at bar, the crimes were aggravated by dwelling, and the murders
petitioner Estolas wrongful act of issuing Memorandum Order No. 30 and from her committed were further made atrocious by the fact that the victims are innocent,
acts of bad faith as discussed above? defenseless minors – one is a mere 3½-year-old toddler, and the other a 13-year-
• Considering that petitioner Salvador cannot be made liable for moral damages, old girl. The increase in the amount of awards for damages is befitting to show not
neither can he answer for exemplary damages, the latter being allowed only in only the Court's, but all of society's outrage over such crimes and wastage of lives.
addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. • Summary of imposition of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages:
I. For those crimes like, Murder, Parricide, Serious Intentional Mutilation,
3. PEOPLE v. JUGUETA Infanticide, and other crimes involving death of a victim where the penalty
(G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016) consists of indivisible penalties:
• In criminal cases where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, there 1.1 Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua
are three kinds of damages awarded by the Court; namely: civil indemnity, moral, because of RA 9346:
and exemplary damages. Likewise, actual damages may be awarded or temperate a. Civil indemnity — P100,000.00
damages in some instances. b. Moral damages — P100,000.00
• Civil indemnity ex delicto is the indemnity authorized in our criminal law for the c. Exemplary damages — P100,000.00
offended party, in the amount authorized by the prevailing judicial policy and apart 1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated:
from other proven actual damages, which itself is equivalent to actual or a. Frustrated:
compensatory damages in civil law. This award stems from Article 100 of the RPC i. Civil indemnity — P75,000.00
which states, "Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable." ii. Moral damages — P75,000.00
• In our jurisdiction, civil indemnity is awarded to the offended party as a kind of iii. Exemplary damages — P75,000.00
monetary restitution or compensation to the victim for the damage or infraction b. Attempted:
that was done to the latter by the accused, which in a sense only covers the civil i. Civil indemnity — P50,000.00
aspect. Thus, in a crime where a person dies, in addition to the penalty of ii. Exemplary damages — P50,000.00
imprisonment imposed to the offender, the accused is also ordered to pay the iii. Exemplary damages — P50,000.00
victim a sum of money as restitution. 2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the
• Moral damages, upon the other hand, may be awarded to compensate one for abovementioned:
manifold injuries such as physical suffering, mental anguish, serious anxiety, a. Civil indemnity — P75,000.00
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social humiliation. These damages b. Moral damages — P75,000.00
must be understood to be in the concept of grants, not punitive or corrective in c. Exemplary damages — P75,000.00
nature, calculated to compensate the claimant for the injury suffered. Although 2.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated:
incapable of exactness and no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that a. Frustrated:
moral damages may be awarded, the amount of indemnity being left to the i. Civil indemnity — P50,000.00
discretion of the court, it is imperative, nevertheless, that (1) injury must have been ii. Moral damages — P50,000.00
suffered by the claimant, and (2) such injury must have sprung from any of the iii. Exemplary damages — P50,000.00
cases expressed in Article 2219 and Article 2220 of the Civil Code. b. Attempted:
• Exemplary damages are also known as "punitive" or "vindictive" damages, and are i. Civil indemnity — P25,000.00
intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, and as a vindication of ii. Moral damages — P25,000.00
undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment iii. Exemplary damages — P25,000.00
for those guilty of outrageous conduct. The terms punitive or vindictive damages II. For Simple Rape/Qualified Rape:
are often used to refer to those species of damages that may be awarded against a 1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua
person to punish him for his outrageous conduct. In either case, these damages are because of RA 9346:
a. Civil indemnity — P100,000.00
b. Moral damages — P100,000.00 In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, the amount of damages is the same as
c. Exemplary damages— P100,000.00 the above if the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated but merely although death did not occur.
attempted: 1.2 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds and could have died
a. Civil indemnity — P50,000.00 if not for a timely medical intervention, the following shall be awarded:
b. Moral damages — P50,000.00 a. Civil indemnity — P75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages — P50,000.00 b. Moral damages — P75,000.00
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the c. Exemplary damages — P75,000.00
abovementioned: 1.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries:
a. Civil indemnity — P75,000.00 a. Civil indemnity — P50,000.00
b. Moral damages — P75,000.00 b. Moral damages — P50,000.00
c. Exemplary damages — P75,000.00 c. Exemplary damages — P50,000.00
2.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated, but merely 2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the
attempted: abovementioned:
a. Civil indemnity — P25,000.00 a. Civil indemnity — P75,000.00
b. Moral damages — P25,000.00 b. Moral damages — P75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages — P25,000.00 c. Exemplary damages — P75,000.00
III. For Complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code where In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, the amount of damages is the same as
death, injuries, or sexual abuse results, the civil indemnity, moral damages and the above if the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua.
exemplary damages will depend on the penalty, extent of violence and sexual 2.2 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds and could have died
abuse; and the number of victims where the penalty consists of indivisible if not for a timely medical intervention, the following shall be awarded:
penalties: a. Civil indemnity — P50,000.00
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua b. Moral damages — P50,000.00
because of RA 9346: c. Exemplary damages — P50,000.00
a. Civil indemnity — P100,000.00 2.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries:
b. Moral damages — P100,000.00 a. Civil indemnity — P25,000.00
c. Exemplary damages — P100,000.00 b. Moral damages — P25,000.00
1.2 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the c. Exemplary damages — P25,000.00
abovementioned: In Robbery with Physical Injuries, the amount of damages shall likewise be
a. Civil indemnity — P75,000.00 dependent on the nature/severity of the wounds sustained, whether fatal or
b. Moral damages — P75,000.00 non-fatal.
c. Exemplary damages — P75,000.00 The above Rules do not apply if in the crime of Robbery with Homicide, the
The above Rules apply to every victim who dies as a result of the crime robber/s or perpetrator/s are themselves killed or injured in the incident.
committed. In other complex crimes where death does not result, like in Where the component crime is rape, the above Rules shall likewise apply, and
Forcible Abduction with Rape the civil indemnity, moral and exemplary that for every additional rape committed, whether against the same victim or
damages depend on the prescribed penalty and the penalty imposed, as the other victims, the victims shall be entitled to the same damages unless the
case may be. other crimes of rape are treated as separate crimes, in which case, the damages
IV. For Special Complex Crimes like Robbery with Homicide, Robbery with awarded to simple rape/qualified rape shall apply.
Rape, Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, Robbery with Arson, Rape with V. In other crimes that result in the death of a victim and the penalty consists
Homicide, Kidnapping with Murder, Carnapping with Homicide or Carnapping of divisible penalties, i.e., Homicide, Death under Tumultuous Affray,
with Rape, Highway Robbery with Homicide, Qualified Piracy, Arson with Infanticide to conceal the dishonour of the offender, Reckless Imprudence
Homicide, Hazing with Death, Rape, Sodomy or Mutilation and other crimes Resulting to Homicide, Duel, Intentional Abortion and Unintentional Abortion,
with death, injuries, and sexual abuse as the composite crimes, where the etc.:
penalty consists of indivisible penalties: 1.1 Where the crime was consummated:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua a. Civil indemnity — P50,000.00
because of RA 9346: b. Moral damages — P50,000.00
a. Civil indemnity — P100,000.00 1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated, except those
b. Moral damages — P100,000.00 crimes where there are no stages, i.e., Reckless Imprudence and Death
c. Exemplary damages — P100,000.00 under tumultuous affray:
a. Frustrated: damage suffered is, consequently, imposed on the party claiming the same who
i. Civil indemnity — P30,000.00 should adduce the best evidence available in support thereof, like sales and delivery
ii. Moral damages — P30,000.00 receipts, cash and check vouchers and other pieces of documentary evidence of the
b. Attempted: same nature.
i. Civil indemnity — P20,000.00
ii. Moral damages — P20,000.00 5. MAGAT v. MEDIALDEA
If an aggravating circumstance was proven during the trial, even if not alleged (G.R. No. L-37120, April 20, 1983)
in the Information, in addition to the above mentioned amounts as civil • Indisputably, the parties, both businessmen, entered into the aforesaid contract
indemnity and moral damages, the amount of P50,000.00 exemplary damages with the evident intention of deriving some profits therefrom. Upon breach of the
for consummated; P30,000.00 for frustrated; and P20,000.00 for attempted, contract by either of them, the other would necessarily suffer loss of his expected
shall be awarded. profits. Since the loss comes into being at the very moment of breach, such loss is
VI. A. In the crime of Rebellion where the imposable penalty is reclusion real, "fixed and vested" and, therefore, recoverable under the law.
perpetua and death occurs in the course of the rebellion, the heirs of those who • The phrase "in any manner contravene the tenor" of the obligation includes any
died are entitled to the following: illicit act or omission which impairs the strict and faithful fulfillment of the
a. Civil indemnity — P100,000.00 obligation and every kind of defective performance.
b. Moral damages — P100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages — P100,000.00 6. GATCHALIAN v. DELIM
B. For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds in the course of the (G.R. No. 56487, October 21, 1991)
rebellion and could have died if not for a timely medical intervention, the • Actual damages may not be awarded for unrealized revenue in the case of a
following shall be awarded: substitute teacher whose employment as such was occasional and episodic,
a. Civil indemnity — P75,000.00 contingent upon the availability of vacancies for substitute teachers, because
b. Moral damages — P75,000.00 damages may not be awarded on the basis of speculation and conjecture.
c. Exemplary damages — P75,000.00 • Actual damages may be awarded for the cost of plastic surgery for the removal of a
C. For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries: scar incurred from an injury due to the fault of the defendant. A person is entitled
a. Civil indemnity — P50,000.00 to the physical integrity of his or her body; if that integrity is violated or diminished,
b. Moral damages — P50,000.00 actual injury is suffered for which actual or compensatory damages are due and
c. Exemplary damages — P50,000.00 assessable. Plaintiff is entitled to be placed as nearly as possible in the condition
VII. In all of the above instances, when no documentary evidence of burial or that she was before the mishap. A scar, especially one on the face of the woman,
funeral expenses is presented in court, the amount of P50,000.00 as temperate resulting from the infliction of injury upon her, is a violation of bodily integrity,
damages shall be awarded. giving rise to a legitimate claim for restoration to her conditio ante. If the scar is
relatively small and does not grievously disfigure the victim, the cost of surgery may
2. ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES be expected to be correspondingly modest.
4. OCEANEERING CONTRACTORS (PHILS.), INC. v. BARRETO 3. MORAL DAMAGES

(G.R. No. 184215, February 9, 2011)
• In finding Oceaneering’s petition impressed with partial merit, uppermost in our 7. REGALA v. CARIN
mind is the fact that actual or compensatory damages are those damages which the (G.R. No. 188715, April 6, 2011)
injured party is entitled to recover for the wrong done and injuries received when • An award of moral damages calls for the presentation of 1) evidence of besmirched
none were intended. Pertaining as they do to such injuries or losses that are actually reputation or physical, mental or psychological suffering sustained by the claimant;
sustained and susceptible of measurement, they are intended to put the injured 2) a culpable act or omission factually established; 3) proof that the wrongful act or
party in the position which he was before he was injured. omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the damages sustained by the
• Article 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an claimant; and 4) the proof that the act is predicated on any of the instances
adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly expressed or envisioned by Article 2219 and Article 2220 of the Civil Code.
proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages. • While the Court harbors no doubt that the incidents which gave rise to this dispute
• Conformably with the foregoing provision, the rule is long and well settled that have brought anxiety and anguish to respondent, it is unconvinced that the damage
there must be pleading and proof of actual damages suffered for the same to be inflicted upon respondent's property was malicious or willful, an element crucial to
recovered. In addition to the fact that the amount of loss must be capable of proof, merit an award of moral damages under Article 2220 of the Civil Code. Any
it must also be actually proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised pecuniary loss or damage suffered by respondent cannot be established as the
upon competent proof or the best evidence obtainable. The burden of proof of the records are bereft of any factual evidence to establish the same. Nominal damages
may thus be adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, respondent herein, language and highly scornful reference" was given her. The social and financial
which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, petitioner herein, may be standing of a claimant of moral damages may be considered in awarding moral
vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for damages only if he or she was subjected to contemptuous conduct despite the
any loss suffered by him. offender's knowledge of his or her social and financial standing.
8. EXPERTRAVEL & TOURS, INC. v. CA 10. BARZAGA v. CA

(G.R. No. 130030, June 25, 1999) (G.R. No. 115129, February 12, 1997)
• Moral damages are not punitive in nature but are designed to compensate and • We therefore sustain the award of moral damages. It cannot be denied that
alleviate in some way the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, petitioner and his family suffered wounded feelings, mental anguish and serious
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and anxiety while keeping watch on Christmas day over the remains of their loved one
similar injury unjustly caused to a person. Although incapable of pecuniary who could not be laid to rest on the date she herself had chosen. There is no
computation, moral damages, nevertheless, must somehow be proportional to and gainsaying the inexpressible pain and sorrow Ignacio Barzaga and his family bore
in approximation of the suffering inflicted. Such damages, to be recoverable, must at that moment caused no less by the ineptitude, cavalier behavior and bad faith of
be the proximate result of a wrongful act or omission the factual basis for which is respondent and his employees in the performance of an obligation voluntarily
satisfactorily established by the aggrieved party. entered into.
• An award of moral damages would require certain conditions to be met; to wit: (1)
First, there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly 11. FRANCISCO v. FERRER, JR.
sustained by the claimant; (2) second, there must be a culpable act or omission (G.R. No. 142029, February 28, 2001)
factually established; (3) third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the • To recover moral damages in an action for breach of contract, the breach must be
proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) fourth, the award palpably wanton, reckless, malicious, in bad faith, oppressive or abusive. Under the
of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219. provisions of this law, in culpa contractual or breach of contract, moral damages
• Although the institution of a clearly unfounded civil suit can at times be a legal may be recovered when the defendant acted in bad faith or was guilty of gross
justification for an award of attorney's fees, such filing, however, has almost negligence (amounting to bad faith) or in wanton disregard of his contractual
invariably been held not to be a ground for an award of moral damages. The obligation and, exceptionally, when the act of breach of contract itself is constitutive
rationale for the rule is that the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on of tort resulting in physical injuries.
the right to litigate. The anguish suffered by a person for having been made a • Moral damages are in the category of an award designed to compensate the
defendant in a civil suit would be no different from the usual worry and anxiety claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer.
suffered by anyone who is haled to court, a situation that cannot by itself be a cogent The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear
reason for the award of moral damages. If the rule were otherwise, then moral and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith. It is not enough
damages must every time be awarded in favor of the prevailing defendant against that one merely suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish, serious anxiety as the
an unsuccessful plaintiff. result of the actuation of the other party. Invariably such action must be shown to
have been willfully done in bad faith or with ill motive."
9. KIERULF v. CA • An award of moral damages would require certain conditions to be met, to wit: (1)
(G.R. Nos. 99301 & 99343, March 13, 1997) first, there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly
• The established guideline in awarding moral damages takes into consideration sustained by the claimant; (2) second, there must be culpable act or omission
several factors, some of which are the social and financial standing of the injured factually established; (3) third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the
parties and their wounded moral feelings and personal pride. This Court cannot proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) fourth, the award
remind the bench and the bar often enough that in order that moral damages may of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219" of the Civil Code.
be awarded, there must be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, It must again be stressed that moral damages are emphatically not intended to
fright and the like. While no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral enrich a plaintiff at the expense of the defendant. When awarded, moral damages
damages may be awarded, the amount of indemnity being left to the discretion of must not be palpably and scandalously excessive as to indicate that it was the result
the court, it is nevertheless essential that the claimant should satisfactorily show of passion, prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial court judge" or appellate
the existence of the factual basis of damages and its causal connection to court justices.
defendant's acts. This is so because moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary
estimation, are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant 12. DARINES v. QUIÑONES
for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. (G.R. No. 206468, August 2, 2017)
• The social and financial standing of Lucila cannot be considered in awarding moral • Going now to the main issue, the Court fully agrees with the CA ruling that in an
damages. The factual circumstances prior to the accident show that no "rude and action for breach of contract, moral damages may be recovered only when a) death
rough" reception, no "menacing attitude," no supercilious manner," no "abusive of a passenger results; or b) the carrier was guilty of fraud and bad faith even if
death does not result; and that neither of these circumstances were present in the • In this case, two facts have been established by the appellate and trial courts: that
case at bar. The CA correctly held that, since no moral damages was awarded then, respondent suffered a loss caused by petitioner; and that respondent failed to
there is no basis to grant exemplary damages and attorney's fees to petitioners. sufficiently establish the amount due to him, as no actual receipt was presented.
• The principle that, in an action for breach of contract of carriage, moral damages
may be awarded only in case (1) an accident results in the death of a passenger; or 6. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
(2) the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith, is pursuant to Article 1764, in relation
to Article 2206(3) of the Civil Code, and Article 2220 thereof. 15. PNB v. CA
• Clearly, unless it is fully established (and not just lightly inferred) that negligence (G.R. No. 108630, April 2, 1996)
in an action for breach of contract is so gross as to amount to malice, then the claim • Under Art. 2232 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be awarded if a party
of moral damages is without merit. acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.
• Here, petitioners impute negligence on the part of respondents when, as paying However, they cannot be recovered as a matter of right; the court has yet to decide
passengers, they sustained injuries when the bus owned and operated by whether or not they should be adjudicated.
respondent Quiñ ones, and driven by respondent Quitan, collided with another • Jurisprudence has set down the requirements for exemplary damages to be
vehicle. Petitioners propounded on the negligence of respondents, but did not awarded: (1) They may be imposed by way of example in addition to compensatory
discuss or impute fraud or bad faith, or such gross negligence which would amount damages, and only after the claimant's right to them has been established; (2) They
to bad faith, against respondents. There being neither allegation nor proof that cannot be recovered as a matter of right, their determination depending upon the
respondents acted in fraud or in bad faith in performing their duties arising from amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded to the claimant; (3) The
their contract of carriage, they are then not liable for moral damages. act must be accompanied by bad faith or done in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive
or malevolent manner.
4. TEMPERATE DAMAGES
7. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
13. TAN v. OMC CARRIERS, INC.
(G.R. No. 190521, January 12, 2011 [Resolution]) 16. TITAN CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. UNI-FIELD ENTERPRISES, INC.
• Nonetheless, absent competent proof on the actual damages suffered, a party still (G.R. No. 153874, March 1, 2007)
has the option of claiming temperate damages, which may be allowed in cases • On the other hand, the law also allows parties to a contract to stipulate on liquidated
where, from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be damages to be paid in case of breach. A stipulation on liquidated damages is a
adduced although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some penalty clause where the obligor assumes a greater liability in case of breach of an
pecuniary loss. obligation. The obligor is bound to pay the stipulated amount without need for
• The photographs the petitioners presented as evidence show the extent of the proof on the existence and on the measure of damages caused by the breach.
damage done to the house, the tailoring shop and the petitioners' appliances and • The delivery receipts and sales invoices expressly stipulated the payment of
equipment. Irrefutably, this damage was directly attributable to Arambala's gross interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees in case of overdue accounts and
negligence in handling OMC's truck. Unfortunately, these photographs are not collection suits. Petitioner did not only bind itself to pay the principal amount, it
enough to establish the amount of the loss with certainty. Thus, temperate damages also promised to pay (1) interest of 24% per annum on overdue accounts,
are awarded. compounded with the principal obligations as they accrue; (2) 25% liquidated
• In the past, we awarded temperate damages in lieu of actual damages for loss of damages based on the outstanding total obligation; and (3) 25% attorney's fees
earning capacity where earning capacity is plainly established but no evidence was based on the total claim including liquidated damages. Since petitioner freely
presented to support the allegation of the injured party's actual income. In the entered into the contract, the stipulations in the contract are binding on petitioner.
present case, the income-earning capacity of the deceased was never disputed. • On the allegation that the delivery receipts and sales invoices are in the nature of
Hence, the petitioners are entitled to temperate damages to compensate for contracts of adhesion, the Court has repeatedly held that contracts of adhesion are
damages for loss of the earning capacity of the deceased. as binding as ordinary contracts. Those who adhere to the contract are in reality
free to reject it entirely and if they adhere, they give their consent. It is true that on
5. NOMINAL DAMAGES some occasions the Court struck down such contract as void when the weaker party
is imposed upon in dealing with the dominant party and is reduced to the
14. SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORP. v. DMC-CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES, INC. alternative of accepting the contract or leaving it, completely deprived of the
(G.R. No. 193914, November 26, 2014) opportunity to bargain on equal footing.
• Nominal damages are 'recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and
must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of 8. ATTORNEY’S FEES
any kind or where there has been a breach of contract and no substantial injury or
actual damages whatsoever have been or can be shown. 17. FRANCISCO v. CO
(G.R. No. 151339, January 31, 2006) because of a flat tire. In view of their emergency situation, they could not have done
• Contrary to the pronouncement of the Court of Appeals, the mere fact that anything to avoid getting hit by the bus. More significantly, petitioner knew that
petitioners were constrained to litigate in order to protect and assert their rights respondents were not the cause of the accident. This is evident from its failure to
does not ipso facto entitle them to attorney’s fees. What Article 2208 (2) of the Civil even make a prior formal demand on them before initiating the suit.
Code provides, in order that attorney’s fees may be awarded, is that the defendants • Even a cursory examination of the police investigation report and other pertinent
act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur data at the time would show that there was no reason to implead respondents. The
expenses to protect his interest. It is settled that the fact that the party was carelessness and lack of diligence of petitioner destroy its claim of good faith.
compelled to litigate and incur expenses to protect and enforce their claim does not Accordingly, the award of attorney’s fees should be sustained.
justify the award of attorney's fees. The general rule is that attorney's fees cannot
be recovered as part of damages because of the public policy that no premium
should be placed on the right to litigate. The award of attorney's fees must be
deleted where the award of moral and exemplary damages were eliminated.
18. PHILCOMSAT v. GLOBE TELECOM, INC.

(G.R. Nos. 147324 & 147334, May 25, 2004)
• The award of attorney’s fees is the exception rather than the rule, and must be
supported by factual, legal and equitable justifications. In previously decided cases,
the Court awarded attorney’s fees where a party acted in gross and evident bad
faith in refusing to satisfy the other party’s claims and compelled the former to
litigate to protect his rights; when the action filed is clearly unfounded, or where
moral or exemplary damages are awarded.
• However, in cases where both parties have legitimate claims against each other and
no party actually prevailed, such as in the present case where the claims of both
parties were sustained in part, an award of attorney’s fees would not be warranted.
• Exemplary damages may be awarded in cases involving contracts or quasi-
contracts, if the erring party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or
malevolent manner. In the present case, it was not shown that Globe acted
wantonly or oppressively in not heeding Philcomsat’s demands for payment of
rentals. It was established during the trial of the case before the trial court that
Globe had valid grounds for refusing to comply with its contractual obligations after
1992.
19. INDUSTRIAL INS. CO., INC. v. BONDAD

(G.R. No. 136722, April 12, 2000)
• Attorney’s fees may be awarded by a court if one who claims it is compelled to
litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect one’s interests by reason
of an unjustified act or omission on the part of the party from whom it is sought.
• The Court held that in justifying the award of attorney’s fees and other litigation
expenses, respondents were compelled to litigate an unfounded suit because of
petitioner’s negligence and lack of prudence in not verifying the facts before filing
this action. In affirming the award of moral damages, it accepted the trial courts
justification that respondents had "been recklessly and without basis x x x
impleaded by the plaintiff in spite of the clear language in the Traffic Investigation
Report x x x submitted by Pfc. Agapito Domingo."
• The records show that petitioners suit against respondents was manifestly
unjustified. In the first place, the contact between the vehicles of respondents and
of Morales was completely due to the impact of the onrushing bus. Moreover, even
a cursory examination of the events would show that respondents were not even
remotely the cause of the accident. Their vehicle was on the shoulder of the road

3D 1819 TORTSSB Reviewer Finals PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3D 1819 TORTSSB Reviewer Finals PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I. Table of Maxims and Phrases and Concepts, Principles, Doctrines,

Use at your own risk.

3. DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE 4. PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE

24. RAMOS v. PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF THE P.I. f. PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE

8. PALISOC v. BRILLANTES 10. SALVOSA v. IAC

2. UE v. JADER 1. ARCO PULP AND PAPER CO., INC. v. LIM

4. OCEANEERING CONTRACTORS (PHILS.), INC. v. BARRETO 3. MORAL DAMAGES

8. EXPERTRAVEL & TOURS, INC. v. CA 10. BARZAGA v. CA

18. PHILCOMSAT v. GLOBE TELECOM, INC.

19. INDUSTRIAL INS. CO., INC. v. BONDAD

You might also like