Characterization

D
K

Cangco Case
1. Sources of juridical
tie
a. Delict
b. Quasi- delict
2. Elements necessary
for the Cause of
Action
3. Defenses Available
4. Damages Being
received
Barredo/ Elcano Case
1. Interest Involved
2. When they may arise; it
QD has to be statutory
3. Purpose
a. QD- Indemnify
b. D- to correct
4. Quantum of Evidence
5. Possibility of
compromise
a. Purely Civil- ok
b. Criminal- x

Characterization- you have to properly identify the

situation WON it is a QD, K, or D to know the following.
1. If you are a plaintiff, what do you need to allege/
establish in the complaint.
2. Establish the defense that may be raised by the D.
3. What damages can be recovered.

Remember:
1. A single act or omission may give rise to multiple causes of action (Fabre
case)
 Ex. A single accident may give rise to many causes of action
2. A single act may also have multiple defendants (LRTA Case)
 Breach of K= LRT
 QD= Security Agency
 QD= Security Guard

Elements of QD
1. Damage suffered by the plaintiff
 easy to detect
 2. Fault/negligence of defendant or some other person the
defendant must answer
Statutory definition of Negligence- Art. 1173
 Fault- intentional
o Elcano Case
 Negligence- failure to do something that an ordinary prudent man would
do (wwjd)- Picart case
 Diligence- law, contract (common carrier, banks)
*these 3 are facts driven so this should always be determined by the facts

Fault or Negligence of the Defendant

o You can have one defendant
o You can have joint tortfeasors (Art. 2194)
o Those who are liable for torts are solidary liable (Cerezo case)
o Examples of joint tortfeasors
o 2 liable for QD (PNCC case)
o 1 for QD; another for Breach of K
 LRTA- 2194
 Sps. Perena vs. Zarate
 Bus- Breach of contract
 PNRC- QD
Burden of proof
 GR: Plaintiff has the burden of proof by preponderance of evidence
 What type of evidence must be presented?
o Depends on what kind of negligence you want to establish
 Factual witness
 Expert witness- specialized knowledge
 EXCEPTION: When negligence is presumed/inferred
1. RIL
 Event would not occur if someone were not negligent.
 Exclusive control of the defendant to the thing that caused the
injury.
 Not guilty of contributory negligence or is not the proximate
cause
 No direct evidence
2. Violation of traffic rules & regulations
 Marinduque case
 You have to determine if its just a private law/rule
o Just an evidence of negligence but not presumption
 Law/ Statute ordinance
o Gives a presumption of negligence
3. Defendant is a possessor of dangerous weapons/ substances
 Presumption arises only when someone dies or g3ts injured
  If the defendant shows that the weapon is used for business, no
more presumption
o But plaintiff can still prove negligence
4. Vicarious liability

3. Causal connection between 1 & 2

 Element of Proximate Cause (Taylor case)
GR: in Breach of K, no need to prove that breach was proximate cause
EXCEPTION:
a. Assessment of damages (Bataclan case)
b. Relevant for the defense (Art. 1761, 1762)
 Isaac case, Tan case

4. No pre-existing contract between plaintiff

 This is based from Art. 2176
 Exception to this is case of Air France, when the tort itself breach the
contract
i. Contrast with PSBA case

DEFENSES
1. Negligence of Plaintiff as PC of injuries, 2. Contributory Negligent, 3. LCC
Examples:
a) Plaintiff’s Negligence as the PC - cannot recover
 If plaintiff is the proximate cause= cannot recover

b) Plaintiff – NPC
Defendant- Con Negligence
Defendant- LCC
= Plaintiff cannot recover

c) Plaintiff- CN
Defendant- PC
=Plaintiff can recover

d) P1- ante N
P2- Sub N
P2- LCC
Party 1 sued Party 2
= P2 is at fault (Picart)
 e) P1- subsequent N
P2- ante N
P1- LCC
P2 sued P1
= P1 liable because P1 had LCC

LCC has 2 point of views

1) Picart - whole
2) Bank of A - mitigated

Once the elements of RIL are proven to exist- you can disprove it- you have to prove
you aren’t negligent

LCC is also known as the doctrine of “discovered peril”.

4. Assumption of Risk
 This one causes associated risks covering the activity- i.e. it is expected;not
merely possible

Elements:
a) Plaintiff knows
b) Plaintiff understands
c) Plaintiff voluntary/freely expose himself

5. Prescription
 4 years from the time of injury/when injury occurred
 doctrine of relation/ relations back theory
o by fiction of law

6. Fortuitous event
a) the cause of the unforeseen and enexpected occurrence was independent of
the human will
b) it was impossible to foresee the event which constituted the caso fortuito, or
if it could be foreseen, it is impossible to avoid
c) the occurences must be such as to render it impossible to perform an
obligation in a normal manner
d) the person tasked to perform the obligation must not have participated in
any course of conduct that aggravated the accident

7. Waiver
 Statutory basis= Article 6
 You can waive simple negligence (Valenzuela)
 Cannot waive gross- (Sabina)
o Because bad faith, fraud
 o 1170- waivers for action of future fraud is void

8. Emergency Rule
 One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act
without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the
impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method,
unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own
negligence.

9. Damnum Absque Injura

Injury
- Illegal invasion of a legal right
Damage
- Loss, hurt, or harm
Damages
- Indemnification or compensation awarded for damage suffered

ART 2184 RA 10586

Type of Vehicle Motor vehicle Motor vehicle
Person’s Liable Owner/driver Owner/driver
Defenses Owner exercised diligence Owner exercise extra
in trying to prevent the ordinary diligence in
mishap selection and supervision
Extent of liablity Solidary for damages Solidary for fine and
damages