Negligence is the omission to do something
which a reasonable man guided by those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do, or the
doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable man would do
The test for determining whether or not a
person is negligent in doing an act causing
injury or damage to the person or property of
another is:
Would a prudent man in the position to whom
negligence is attributed foresee harm to the
person injured as a reasonable consequence
of the course about to be pursued?
If so the law imposes the duty on the doer to
take precaution against its mischievous results
and the failure to do so constitute negligence.
2176- whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or
negligence is obliged to pay for the damage
done, such fault or negligence, if there is no
pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties is called quasi-delict.
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or
negligence under the preceding article is
entirely separate and distinct from the civil
liability arising from negligence under the
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of
the defendant
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence
was the immediate and proximate cause of his
injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his
negligence was only contributory, the
immediate and proximate cause of the injury
being the defendant's lack of due care, the
plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts
shall mitigate the damages to be awarded
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article
2176 is demandable not only for one's own
acts or omissions, but also for those of
persons for whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or
incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the
damages caused by the minor children who
live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by
the minors or incapacitated persons who are
under their authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an
establishment or enterprise are likewise
responsible for damages caused by their
employees in the service of the branches in
which the latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages
caused by their employees and household
helpers acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks, even though the former are
not engaged in any business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it
acts through a special agent; but not when the
damage has been caused by the official to
whom the task done properly pertains, in
which case what is provided in Article 2176
shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of
arts and trades shall be liable for damages
caused by their pupils and students or
apprentices, so long as they remain in their
custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall
cease when the persons herein mentioned
prove that they observed all the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent damage.
Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage
caused by his dependents or employees may
recover from the latter what he has paid or
delivered in satisfaction of the claim
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the
owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the
former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by
the use of the due diligence, prevented the
misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a
driver was negligent, if he had been found
guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice within the next
preceding two months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the
provisions of Article 2180 are applicable.
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of
his rights and in the performance of his duties,
act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law,
wilfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or
injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.
Art 2176
Includes not only negligent acts but also
intentional acts as well
Dulay vs CA
Facts:
Altercation between Dulay and
Benigno a security guard in the big bang sa
alabang as a result dulay died

Important matters:
Liability of an ER under art. 2180 is direct
immediate & not conditioned upon prior
recourse against the negligent EE & prior
showing of the insolvency of the EE
Defense: ER must prove that they exercised
diligence of a good father in the selection and
supervision of the EE to be exonerated from
liability
Art.33 of the civil code
Physical injuries includes Consummated,
frustrated, attempted homicide
Civil action for quasi delict can proceed
independently of the criminal action
Andamo vs IAC
The acquittal or conviction in the criminal case
is entirely irrelevant in the civil case,
Elements of Q.D
1. Damages suffered by the Plaintiff
2. Fault or negligence of the defendant or
some other person for whose acts he
must respond
3. The connection of the cause and
effect between the fault or negligence
of the defendant and damage incurred
by the plaintiff
A civil action lies against the offender in a
criminal act, whether or not he is prosecuted
or found guilty or acquitted provided that the
offended party is not allowed to recover
damages on both scores, entitled only to the
bigger award of the two
Philippine rabbit vs PP
What is deemed instituted in every criminal
prosecution is the civil liability arising from the
crime, even if the civil action is filed
separately, the ex delicto civil liability in the
criminal prosecution remains. (not those
liabilities arising from QD, Contract QC even if
a civil action is separately filed the ex delicto in
the criminal prosecution remains
Judgement of conviction will bind the ER)
Criminal case:
ER is subsidiary liable upon showing that the
EE is insolvent
Sec 1 rule 111
(Only the civil liability of the accused arising
from the crime charged is deemed impliedly
instituted) unless waived reserved or institutes
it prior to the criminal action
Padilla vs CA
The extinction of the civil action by reason of
acquittal in the criminal case refers exclusively
to the civil liability ex delicto
The acquittal of the defendant in the criminal
case would not constitute an obstacle in filing
of a civil case based in the same acts which
led to the criminal prosecution
Civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal
where the acquittal is based on reasonable
doubt
Cangco vs Manila railroad Co.
Breach of contract
Reason: failure to exercise due care in its
performance
Liability of ER: direct and immediate
In QD: it may be rebutted by proof of exercise
of due care or diligence in the selection and
supervision of their EE
Respondeat superior
Master is liable in every case
QD: burden of proof rest upon the Plaintiff to
prove negligence
Breach of contract: prove the contract and its
nonperformance is sufficient prima facie to
warrant recovery
Casupanan vs Laroya
Criminal case is based on culpa punishable
under RPC
Civil case is based on Culpa aquilliana
punishable under art 2176 & 2177 of the civil
code
What is deemed instituted in rule III of the
rules of court is the civil liability arising from
the offense charged (civil liability ex delicto) all
other actions under article 32, 33, 34 & 2176
of the civil code are no longer deemed
instituted & may be filed separately &
prosecuted independently even without any
reservation in the criminal action
Failure to reserve is not a waiver to file a
separate and independent civil action
Suspension of civil action until final judgment
of the criminal action not also applicable to art.
32,33,34 & 2176
LRTA vs Navidad
Common carrier is burdened with the duty of
exercising utmost diligence in ensuring the
safety of passengers

Air France vs. Carrascuso
Breach of contract (contract of carriage)
Responsibility of an ER for the tortious act of
its EE
Any person who willfully causes loss or injury
to another in a manner that is contrary to
morals good customs and public policy shall
compensate the latter for damage.
A contract to transport passenger it is attended
with public duty.
In this case: it is a violation of public duty by
the plaintiff a case of QD damages are proper
Exemplary damages: acted in wanton,
fraudulently, reckless, oppressive, malevolent
manner
Santos vs Pizardo
The prescription of the action ex quasi delicto
does not operate as a bar to an action to
enforce the civil liability arising from the crime
especially as it has been reserved
Quasi Delict:
4 years from the accrual of the cause of action
civil liability ex delicto (reserved)
10 years from finality of judgement
offended party has the choice between an
action to enforce civil liability arising from the
crime RPC or QD under the civil code
Urbano vs IAC
Proximate cause : that cause in a natural and
continuous sequence unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury
and without which the result would have not
occurred.
Tetanus
A short incubation period severe disease 2-3
days the mortality is 100%
If the remote cause did nothing more than
furnish the condition or give rise to the
occasion by which the injury was made
possible if there intervened between such prior
remote cause and the injury would not have
happened
A person while not criminally liable may still be
civilly liable
Bataclan vs Medina
Breach of contract
Negligence on the part of medina
transportation
Proximate cause is the overturning of the bus
If the only cause of plaintiff’s injury is his own
fault then he cannot recover damages.
Contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who
is partly responsible for his own injury should
not be entitled to recover damages in full but
must bear the consequences of his own
negligence, if indeed there was a contributory
negligence on the part of the victim then it is
proper to reduce the award for damages
Picart vs smith
The test by which to determine the existence
of negligence in a particular case may be
stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing
the alleged negligent act use that person
would have used in the same situation? If not,
then he is guilty of negligence.
Reasonable men govern their conduct by the
circumstances which are before them or
known to them. They are not, and are not
supposed to be, omniscient of the future.
Hence they can be expected to take care only
when there is something before them to
suggest or warn of danger. Could a prudent
man, in the case under consideration, foresee
harm as a result of the course actually
pursued? If so, it was the duty of the actor to
take precautions to guard against that harm.
Last clear chance:
the negligence of the defendant succeeded
the negligence of the plaintiff by an
appreciable interval. Under these
circumstances the law is that the person who
has the last fair chance to avoid the impending
harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the
consequences, without reference to the prior
negligence of the other party.
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 liable for
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
Bustamante vs CA
last clear chance applies in a suit between the
owners & drivers of colliding vehicles, it does
not arise where a passenger demands
responsibility from the carrier to enforce its
contractual obligations.
The negligence of the plaintiff does not
preclude a recovery for the negligence of the
defendant where it appears that the Defendant
by exercising reasonable care & prudence
might have avoided injurious consequences to
the Plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff’s
negligence
The person who has the last clear chance or
opportunity of avoiding an accident
notwithstanding the negligent acts of his
opponent or that of a 3rd person imputed to the
opponent is considered solely responsible for
the consequence of the accident
Ramos vs CA
Issue:
1.In finding that the negligence of the
respondents did not cause the unfortunate
comatose condition of petitioner Elinda ramos.
2.In not applying the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur
res ipsa loquitur: "the thing or the transaction
speaks for itself."
the fact of the occurrence of an injury,
taken with the surrounding circumstances,
may permit an inference or raise a
presumption of negligence, or make out a
plaintiff's prima facie case, and present a
question of fact for defendant to meet with an
explanation.
Where the thing which caused the
injury complained of is shown to be under the
management of the defendant or his servants
and the accident is such as in ordinary course
of things does not happen if those who have
its management or control use proper care, it
affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of
explanation by the defendant, that the accident
arose from or was caused by the defendant's
want of care.
it is considered as merely evidentiary
or in the nature of a procedural rule. 18 It is
regarded as a mode of proof, or a mere
procedural of convenience since it furnishes a
substitute for, and relieves a plaintiff of, the
burden of producing specific proof of
negligence.
Requisites must be satisfactorily shown:
1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily
does not occur in the absence of someone's
negligence;
2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the
exclusive control of the defendant or
defendants; and
3. The possibility of contributing conduct which
would make the plaintiff responsible is
eliminated.
the fundamental element is the "control of
instrumentality"
Hence, in cases where the res ipsa loquitur is
applicable, the court is permitted to find a
physician negligent upon proper proof of injury
to the patient, without the aid of expert
testimony, where the court from its fund of
common knowledge can determine the proper
standard of care.
Medical negligence elements
a. Duty
b. Breach
c. Injury
d. Proximate causation
Res ipsa loquitur
There is a need to prove the negligence of the
defendant so that the plaintiff may be able to
recover.
The presumption of evidence in this doctrine is
merely rebuttable, not conclusive
It is an exception to the rule that QD is cases
the burden of proof lies in the plaintiff to show
negligence of the defendant. It has been
resorted to settle the issue of liability of a
person where no DIRECT EVIDENCE can be
presented.
Permit an inference of the negligence of the
defendant. It is a rule of evidence
Mckee vs IAC
it is manifest that no negligence could be
imputed to Jose Koh. Any reasonable and
ordinary prudent man would have tried to
avoid running over the two boys by swerving
the car away from where they were even if this
would mean entering the opposite lane.
Avoiding such immediate peril would be the
natural course to take particularly where the
vehicle in the opposite lane would be several
meters away and could very well slow down,
move to the side of the road and give way to
the oncoming car. Moreover, under what is
known as the 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."
assuming, arguendo that Jose Koh is
negligent, it cannot be said that his negligence
was the proximate cause of the collision.
Proximate cause has been defined as:
that cause, which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and
without which the result would not have
occurred. And more comprehensively, the
proximate legal cause is that acting first and
producing the injury, either immediately or by
setting other events in motion, all constituting
a natural and continuous chain of events, each
having a close causal connection with its
immediate predecessor, the final event in the
chain immediately effecting the injury 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 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.
it cannot be said that the same caused the
eventual injuries and deaths because of the
occurrence of a sufficient intervening event,
the negligent act of the truck driver, which was
the actual cause of the tragedy. The entry of
the car into the lane of the truck would not
have resulted in the collision had the latter
heeded the emergency signals given by the
former to slow down and give the car an
opportunity to go back into its proper lane.
Even if Jose Koh was indeed negligent, the
doctrine of last clear chance finds application
here.
Last clear chance is a doctrine in the law of
torts which states that the contributory
negligence of the party injured will not defeat
the claim for damages if it is shown that the
defendant might, by the exercise of
reasonable care and prudence, have avoided
the consequences of the negligence of the
injured party. In such cases, the person who
had the last clear chance to avoid the mishap
is considered in law solely responsible for the
consequences thereof.
Vestil vs IAC
Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or
whoever may make use of the same is
responsible for the damage which it may
cause, although it may escape or be lost.
Defenses: Contributory negligence
“This responsibility shall cease only in case
the damage should come from force majeure
or from the fault of the person who has
suffered damage.”
It is not based on negligence or on the
presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or
user of the animal causing the damage
It is based on natural equity and on the
principle of social interest that he who possess
animals for his utility pleasure or service must
answer for the damage which such animal
may cause
It does matter if the dog was tame and was
merely provoked by a child into biting her. It
covers also tame ones
What is important is the one who is in
possession of the animal at the time the
incident occurred
Art. 216. In default of parents or a judicially
appointed guardian, the following person shall
exercise substitute parental authority over the
child in the order indicated:
(1) The surviving grandparent, as provided in
Art. 214;
(2) The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-
one years of age, unless unfit or disqualified;
and
(3) The child's actual custodian, over twenty-
one years of age, unless unfit or disqualified.
Whenever the appointment or a judicial
guardian over the property of the child
becomes necessary, the same order of
preference shall be observed. (349a, 351a,
354a)
Art. 217. In case of foundlings, abandoned
neglected or abused children and other
children similarly situated, parental authority
shall be entrusted in summary judicial
proceedings to heads of children's homes,
orphanages and similar institutions duly
accredited by the proper government agency.
Art. 218. The school, its administrators and
teachers, or the individual, entity or institution
engaged in child are shall have special
parental authority and responsibility over the
minor child while under their supervision,
instruction or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all
authorized activities whether inside or outside
the premises of the school, entity or institution.
Art. 219. Those given the authority and
responsibility under the preceding Article shall
be principally and solidarily liable for damages
caused by the acts or omissions of the
unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial
guardians or the persons exercising substitute
parental authority over said minor shall be
subsidiarily liable.
The respective liabilities of those referred to in
the preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is
proved that they exercised the proper
diligence required under the particular
circumstances.
All other cases not covered by this and the
preceding articles shall be governed by the
provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts.
Tamargo vs CA
Doctrine of imputed negligence: vicarious
liability
Where a person is not only liable for torts
committed by himself but also for torts
committed by others with whom he has a
certain relationship and for whom he is
responsible.
The natural parents had actual custody of
minor adelberto and they are indispensable
parties to the suit for damages
Natural parents were held liable inspite of
the retroactive effects of the decree of
adoption
Retroactive effect may not be given to
decree of adoption as to impose a liability
upon the adopting parents
Defense : article 2180 responsibility shall
cease when the persons herein mentioned
prove that they observed all the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent damage.
influence of the school & within its premises
Whether semester has not yet begun or has
ended.
There is no substantial distinction between the
academic and non-academic schools in so far
as torts committed by their students are
concerned. Same vigilance is expected from
the teacher over the students under his control
and supervision
Teacher in charge- one designated by the
dean, principal, or other administrative
superior to exercise supervision over the
pupils
Custody- does not connote immediate and
actual physical control but refers more to the
influence exerted on the child & discipline
instilled in him as a result of such influence
Students shall be within the control & under
the influence of the school authorities at the
time of the occurrence of the injury
This does not mean that such custody be co-
terminus with the semester
The school may exculpate itself from liability
by the proof that it exercised the diligence of a
bonus pater familias
Law does not require that the offending
student be of minority if age
Castilex vs Vasquez

Cuadra vs Monfront 4th par of 2180 5th par of 2180

A civil suit was subsequently instituted against Applies to owners Applies to employers
Alfonso Monfort the father of the Defendant and managers of an in general whether
There is nothing from which it may be inferred establishment or or not engaged in
that the defendant could have prevented the enterprise any business or
damage by the observance of the due care or industry
that he was remiss of his parental authority Covers negligent act Encompasses
Basis of vicarious liability is fault or negligence of EE’s committed negligent acts of
It is presumed and may be rebutted either in the service EE’s acting within
of the branches or the scope of their
Amadora vs CA on occasion of their assigned task
Parents of alfredo filed a civil action for functions
damages against Colegio de san jose It is an expansion of
recoletos,its rector, principal, dean of boys, the the 4th par.
physics teacher together with damon
SC:
The school was directly impleaded and is Negligent acts of EE’s acting within the scope
sought to be liable under art 2180 of their assigned even though committed
neither in the service of the branches nor on
It should apply to all school’s academic as well the occasion of their functions
as non-academic
Teachers apply to students and pupils Par 5 of 2180
Heads of establishment of arts and trade Whether or not engaged in any business or
applies to apprentice industry an ER is liable for the torts committed
by EE’s within the scope of his assigned tasks.
The student is in the custody of the school
authorities as long as he is under the control &
The plaintiff must show to hold the ER liable
that the EE was acting within the scope of his
assigned task when the tort complained of was
committed it is only then that the ER will
interpose the defense of due diligence in the
selection and supervision of the EE
Operation of ER motor vehicle in going to
or from meals
Not ordinarily acting within the scope of his
employment in the absence of evidence of
some special business benefit to the ER. If
used to reduce time-off and so devote more
time to the performance of his duties it
supports the finding that an EE is acting within
the scope of his employment
Operation of ER’s vehicle in going to or
from work
Not part of his service to his ER
If ER derives some special benefit from having
the EE drive home in the ER’s vehicle
EE continues in the service of his ER until he
actually reaches home
Use of ER vehicle Outside Regular working
hours
ER who loans his motor vehicle to an EE for
latters personal use outside of regular working
hours is generally not liable for the EE’s
negligent operation of the vehicle
In this case the principles are applicable
Based on RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR not
BONUS PATER FAMILIAS
Castilex had no duty show that it exercised the
diligence of a good father of a family in
providing ABAD with a service vehicle
Justice and equity require that CASTILEX be
relieved of the vicarious liability
Equitable leasing vs Suyom
the registered owner of a motor vehicle is
solidary liable for the injuries and damages
caused by the negligence of the driver in spite
the fact that the vehicle may have already
been subject of an unregistered deed of sale
in favor of another person
art 103 ER’s may be held subsidiary liable for
felonies committed by their EE’s in the
discharge of the latters duties
art 2176 ER’s liability is direct and primary it
does not require that the EE is insolvent
aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify
the owner so that if any accident happens or
any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle
on the public highways responsibility thereof
can be fixed on a definite individual, the
registered owner
moral damages not punitive in nature but are
designed to compensate and alleviate in some
way the physical suffering, mental anguish ,
fright , serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation and similar injury unjustly caused a
person.
It is in a category of an award designed to
compensate the claimant for actual injury
suffered not to impose penalty to the wrong
doer.
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be
recovered in the following and analogous
cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical
injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other
lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of
defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted,
raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this
article, may also recover moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and
brothers and sisters may bring the action
mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order
named.
Guilatco vs CA
The liability of public corporations for damages
arising from injuries suffered by pedestrians
from defective condition of roads is expressed
in the civil code
Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities
shall be liable for damages for the death of, or
injuries suffered by, any person by reason of
the defective condition of roads, streets,
bridges, public buildings, and other public
works under their control or supervision.
It is not necessary for the defective road or
street to belong to the province city or
municipality for liability to attach
The article only requires that either control or
supervision is exercised over the defective
road or street.
The article applies in particular to the liability
arising from “defective streets, public buildings
and other public works”
Moral damages are in the nature of an award
to compensate the claimaint for actual injury
suffered but for some reason cannot be
proven
(1) First, the proximate cause of the injury
must be the claimee's acts.
(2) Second, there must be compensatory
or actual damages as satisfactory proof of the
factual basis for damages.
(3) Third, the award of moral damages
must be predicated on any of the cases
enumerated in the Civil Code.
Assessment of the amount is left to the
discretion of court.
Quezon city government vs dacara
To award moral damages, a court must be
satisfied with proof of the following requisites:
(1) an injury -- whether physical, mental, or
psychological -- clearly sustained by the
claimant;
(2) a culpable act or omission factually
established;
(3) a wrongful act or omission of the defendant
as the proximate cause of the injury sustained
by the claimant; and
(4) the award of damages predicated on any of
the cases stated in Article 2219
the award must be anchored on a definite
showing that respondent actually experienced
emotional and mental sufferings, it must be
proved clear and convincingly.
Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a
matter of right. While granting them is subject
to the discretion of the court, they can be
awarded only after claimants have shown their
entitlement to moral, temperate or
compensatory damages
The question that remains, therefore, is
whether exemplary damages may be awarded
in addition to compensatory damages.
Article 2231 of the Civil Code mandates that in
cases of quasi-delicts, exemplary damages
may be recovered if the defendant acted with
gross negligence.
Gross negligence means such utter want of
care as to raise a presumption that the
persons at fault must have been conscious of
the probable consequences of their
carelessness, and that they must have
nevertheless been indifferent (or worse) to the
danger of injury to the person or property of
others.
The negligence must amount to a reckless
disregard for the safety of persons or property.
Such a circumstance obtains in the instant
case.
Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides that
exemplary damages may be imposed by
way of example or correction for the public
good. The award of these damages is
meant to be a deterrent to socially
deleterious actions.
Del carmen vs bacoy
Negligence is presumed under the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitur.
[w]here the thing that caused the injury
complained of is shown to be under the
management of the defendant or his servants;
and the accident, in the ordinary course of
things, would not happen if those who had
management or control used proper care, it
affords reasonable evidence in the absence of
a sufficient, reasonable and logical explanation
by defendant that the accident arose from or
was caused by the defendants want of care.
Res ipsa loquitur is merely evidentiary, a mode
of proof, or a mere procedural convenience,
since it furnishes a substitute for, and relieves
a plaintiff of, the burden of producing a specific
proof of negligence
The requisites of the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur as established by jurisprudence are as
follows:
1) the accident is of a kind which does not
ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent;
2) the cause of the injury was under the
exclusive control of the person in charge and
3) the injury suffered must not have been due
to any voluntary action or contribution on the
part of the person injured
The operator on record of a vehicle is primarily
responsible to third persons for the deaths or
injuries consequent to its operation, regardless
of whether the employee drove the registered
owners vehicle in connection with his
employment.
Madeja vs Caro
Art33
The civil action for damages which it allows to
be instituted is ex-delicto. This is manifest from
the provision which uses the expressions
"criminal action" and "criminal prosecution."
This conclusion is supported by the comment
of the Code Commission.
The general rule is that when a criminal action
is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil
liability arising from the offense charged is
impliedly instituted with the criminal action,
unless the offended party reserves his right to
institute it separately; and after a criminal
action has been commenced, no civil action
arising from the same offense can be
prosecuted.
The present article creates an exception to this
rule when the offense is defamation, fraud, or
physical injuries, In these cases, a civil action
may be filed independently of the criminal
action, even if there has been no reservation
made by the injured party; the law itself in this
article makes such reservation; but the
claimant is not given the right to determine
whether the civil action should be scheduled or
suspended until the criminal action has been
terminated. The result of the civil action is thus
independent of the result of the civil action."
it is apparent that the civil action against Dr.
Japzon may proceed independently of the
criminal action against her.
Amonoy vs guitierez
Damnum absque injuria. Under this principle,
the legitimate exercise of a persons rights,
even if it causes loss to another, does not
automatically result in an actionable injury.
The law does not prescribe a remedy for the
loss. This principle does not, however, apply
when there is an abuse of a persons right, or
when the exercise of this right is suspended or
extinguished pursuant to a court order. Indeed,
in the availment of ones rights, one must act
with justice, give others their due, and observe
honesty and good faith.
Well-settled is the maxim that damage
resulting from the legitimate exercise of a
persons rights is a loss without injury --
damnum absque injuria -- for which the law
gives no remedy.[9] In other words, one who
merely exercises ones rights does no
actionable injury and cannot be held liable for
damages.
Although the acts of petitioner may have been
legally justified at the outset, their continuation
after the issuance of the TRO amounted to an
insidious abuse of his right. Indubitably, his
actions were tainted with bad faith. Had he not
insisted on completing the demolition,
respondents would not have suffered the loss
that engendered the suit before the RTC.
Verily, his acts constituted not only an abuse
of a right, but an invalid exercise of a right that
had been suspended when he received the
TRO from this Court on June 4, 1986. By then,
he was no longer entitled to proceed with the
demolition.
Article 19, known to contain what is commonly
referred to as the principle of abuse of rights,
sets certain standards which may be observed
not only in the exercise of one’s rights but also
in the performance of one’s duties. These
standards are the following: to act with justice;
to give everyone his due; and to observe
honesty and good faith.
The law, therefore, recognizes the primordial
limitation on all rights: that in their exercise,
the norms of human conduct set forth in Article
19 must be observed.
A right, though by itself legal because
recognized or granted by law as such, may
nevertheless become the source of some
illegality.
When a right is exercised in a manner which
does not conform with norms enshrined in
Article 19 and results in damage to another, a
legal wrong is thereby committed for which the
wrongdoer must be held responsible
Wassmer vs Velez
mere breach of promise to marry is not an
actionable wrong. But to formally set a
wedding and go through all the above-
described preparation and publicity, only to
walk out of it when the matrimony is about to
be solemnized, is quite different. This is
palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good
customs for which defendant must be held
answerable in damages in accordance with
Article 21 aforesaid.
Bunag vs CA
It is true that in this jurisdiction, we adhere to
the time-honored rule that an action for breach
of promise to marry has no standing in the civil
law, apart from the right to recover money or
property advanced by the plaintiff upon the
faith of such promise. Generally, therefore, a
breach of promise to marry per se is not
actionable, except where the plaintiff has
actually incurred expenses for the wedding
and the necessary incidents thereof.
However, the award of moral damages is
allowed in cases specified in or analogous to
those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil
Code. Correlatively, under Article 21 of said
Code, in relation to paragraph 10 of said
Article 2219, any person who wilfully causes
loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy shall compensate the latter for moral
damages.
Article 21 was adopted to remedy the
countless gaps in the statutes which leave so
many victims of moral wrongs helpless even
though they have actually suffered material
and moral injury, and is intended to vouchsafe
adequate legal remedy for that untold number
of moral wrongs which is impossible for human
foresight to specifically provide for in the
statutes.
Under the circumstances obtaining in the case
at bar, the acts of petitioner in forcibly
abducting private respondent and having
carnal knowledge with her against her will, and
thereafter promising to marry her in order to
escape criminal liability, only to thereafter
renege on such promise after cohabiting with
her for twenty-one days, irremissibly constitute
acts contrary to morals and good customs.
These are grossly insensate and
reprehensible transgressions which
indisputably warrant and abundantly justify the
award of moral and exemplary damages,
pursuant to Article 21 in relation to paragraphs
3 and 10, Article 2219, and Article 2229 and
2234 of Civil Code.
LAO vs CA
Malicious prosecution has been defined as an
action for damages brought by one against
whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit or other
legal proceeding has been instituted
maliciously and without probable cause, after
the termination of such prosecution, suit or
other proceeding in favor of the defendant
therein.
As thus defined, the fact of termination of the
criminal prosecution, civil suit or legal
proceeding maliciously filed and without
probable cause, should precede the complaint
for malicious prosecution.
Such a complaint states a cause of action if it
alleges:
(a) that the defendant was himself the
prosecutor or at least instigated the
prosecution;
(b) that the prosecution finally terminated in
the acquittal of the plaintiff;
(c) that in bringing the action the prosecutor
acted without probable cause, and
(d) that the prosecutor was actuated by
malice, i.e., by improper and sinister motives.
Globe mackay vs tobias
Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the
government of human relations and for the
maintenance of social order, it does not
provide a remedy for its violation. Generally,
an action for damages under either Article 20
or Article 21 would be proper.
Article 20, which pertains to damage arising
from a violation of law, provides that:
Art. 20. Every person who contrary to law,
wilfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the
same.
However, in the case at bar, petitioners claim
that they did not violate any provision of law
since they were merely exercising their legal
right to dismiss private respondent. This does
not, however, leave private respondent with no
relief because Article 21 of the Civil Code
provides that:
Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or
injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.
the right to institute criminal prosecutions
cannot be exercised maliciously and in bad
faith.

To constitute malicious prosecution, there

must be proof that the prosecution was
prompted by a design to vex and humiliate a
person and that it was initiated deliberately by
the defendant knowing that the charges were
false and groundless

petitioners still insist that the award of

damages was improper, invoking the principle
of damnum absque injuria.

principle of damnum absque injuria, damage

or loss which does not constitute a violation of
a legal right or amount to a legal wrong is not
actionable

Defenses
Fortuitous event – in order that a person be
exempted from liability due to F.E it must be
the proximate and only cause of loss or
damage

That the person must be free from any

previous negligence
If it is coupled by negligence the defendant
cannot be exempted from liability

Damnun absque Injuria- “damage without

injury”
Injury means- illegal invasion of a right
Damage- is the loss hurt or harm which results
from injury
Damages- recompense or compensation
awarded for the damage suffered

Negligence of other party or shifting of

responsibility from the defendant to the plaintiff

Doctrine of last clear chance

Contributory negligence – it does not

exempt liability it merely reduces whatever
liablity the court may impose upon the
defendant

Emergency rule

Diligence in the selection and supervision

of EE’s

Prescription

Assumption of risk