TORTS AND DAMAGES

I. THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

A. THE CONCEPT OF A TORT

1. TORT IN COMMON LAW

a. Etymology

Quasi-delict is what is known as“Tort” in Anglo-American Law. It is taken directly from

the French word and is a derivation of the Latin word “torquere” or “tortus” meaning to twist
or crook. The term was adopted in the old English language but it gradually disappeared from
common usage as a general synonym for wrong.

b. Definition

TORT is an unlawful violation of private right, not created by contract, and which gives
rise to an action for damages. It is an act or omission producing injury to another, without any
previous existing lawful relation of which the said act or omission may be said to be a natural
outgrowth or incident.

A private or civil wrong or injury, other than breach of contract, for which the court will
provide a remedy in the form of an action for damages.

c. Common Theme

It is a legal wrong committed upon person or property independent of contract.

2. TORT UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW

a. Existence of Philippine Tort Law

I. Intent of the framers

The framers of the Code, seeking to remedy the defect of the old Code which merely
stated the effects of the law, but failed to draw out its spirit, incorporated certain fundamental
precepts which were "designed to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of
good conscience" and which were also meant to serve as "for human conduct [that] should
run as golden threads through society, to the end that law may approach its supreme ideal,
which is the sway and dominance of justice."

To fix the dividing lines between those cases in which a man is liable for harm which he
has done, and those in which he is not.

II. Civil Code Test

Art. 1902. Any person who by any act or omission causes damage to another by his fault
or negligence shall be liable for the damage so done.

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

limited to negligent act or omission and excludes willingness or intent

b. Scope of Philippine Tort Law

Article 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.

Article 20 provides that every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently
causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same.

Article. 21. Any person who willfully 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.

Thus, if the provision does not provide a remedy for its violation, an action for damages
under either Article 20 or Article 21 of the Civil Code would be proper.

c. Definition of tort under Philippine Law

NAGUIAT vs. NLRC[ G.R. No. 116123 March 13, 1997]

“tort” consists in the violation of a right given or the omission of a duty imposed by
law. Simply stated, tort is a breach of a legal duty.
VINZONS-CHATO v. FORTUNE[ G.R. No. 168512 June 19, 2007]

A tort is a wrong, a tortuous act which has been defined as the commission or omission
of an act by one, without right, whereby another receives some injury, directly or indirectly,
in person, property, or reputation.

Civil liability in tort is determined by the conduct and not by the mental state of the
tortfeasor, and there are circumstances under which the motive of the defendant has been
rendered immaterial.

D. Elements of Tort

ELEMENTS OF TORTS
1.Act or omission;
2.Damage or injury is caused to another;
3.Fault or negligence is present;
4.There is no pre-existing contractual relations between the parties;
5.Causal connection between damage done and act/omission.

GARCIA v. SALVADOR[ G.R. No. 168512 March 20, 2007]

1.Duty;
2.Breach;
3.Injury;
4.Proximate causation.

LUCAS v. TUAŇO[ G.R. No. 178763 April 29, 2007]

1.Duty - to exercise that degree of care, skill and diligence;
2.There is breach of duty of care, skill and diligence, or the improper performance of
such duty, when the patient is injured;
3.Negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury. And the proximate cause of an
injury is that cause, which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would
not have occurred.
 3. PURPOSE OF TORT LAW

1.To provide a peaceful means for adjusting the rights of parties who might otherwise
take the law into their own hands;
2.Deter wrongful conduct;
3.To encourage socially responsible behavior; and
4.To restore injured parties to their original condition, insofar as the law can do this, by
compensating them for their injury.

B. THE CONCEPT OF QUASI DELICT

1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

FAUSTO BARREDO v. SEVERINO GARCIA AND TIMOTEA ALMARIO [ G.R. No.

L-48006, July 8, 1942]

Doctrines: Quasi-delict or "culpa aquiliana" is a separate legal institution under the Civil
Code with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent
from delict or crime. Upon this principle and on the wording and spirit article 1903 of the
Civil Code, the primary and direct responsibility of employers may be safely anchored.

PEDRO ELCANO, ET AL., V. REGINAL HILL ET AL.

Doctrines: Acquittal of Reginal Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability
for quasi-delict, hence that acquittal is not a bar to the instant action against him. The
marriage of a minor child does not relieve the parents of the duty to see to it that the child,
while still a minor, does not give answerable for the borrowings of money and alienation or
encumbering of real property which cannot be done by their minor married child without
their consent.

2. Nature

Art. 1157. Obligations arise from:

1.Law;
2.Contracts;
3. Quasi-contracts;
4.Acts or omissions punished by law; and
5.Quasi-delicts. (1089a)
 3. Governing Provisions

Art. 1162. Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the provisions of
Chapter 2, Title XVII of this Book, and by special laws. (1093a)

4. Definition

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

5. Scope

a. Intentional Acts

JOSE CANGCO v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.[ 30 Phil 768]

If the master has not been guilty of any negligence whatever in the selection and
direction of the servant, he is not liable for the acts of the latter, whatever done within the
scope of his employment or not, if the damage done by the servant does not amount to a
breach of the contract between the master and the person injured.

The liability arising from extra-contractual culpa is always based upon a voluntary act or
omission which, without willful intent, but by mere negligence or inattention, has caused
damage to another.

ELCANO v. HILL[ 77 SCRA 100 – May 26, 1977]

While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child
(Article 327, Civil Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes place “by the marriage
of the minor child”, it is, however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399, emancipation by
marriage of the minor is not really full or absolute. Thus “Emancipation by marriage or by
voluntary concession shall terminate parental authority over the child’s person. It shall enable
the minor to administer his property as though he were of age, but he cannot borrow money
or alienate or encumber real property without the consent of his father or mother, or guardian.
He can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his father, mother or guardian.”

NATIVIDAD ANDAMO, ET AL., v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT ET AL.

(1990)

The adjoining landowners have mutual and reciprocal duties which require that each
must use his own land in a reasonable manner so as not to infringe upon the rights and
interests of others. Although we recognize the right of an owner to build structures on his
land, such structures must be so constructed and maintained using all reasonable care so that
they cannot be dangerous to adjoining landowners and can withstand the usual and expected
forces of nature. If the structures cause injury or damage to an adjoining landowner or a third
person, the latter can claim indemnification for the injury or damage suffered.

GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH v. COURT OF APPEALS[ 219 SCRA 115]

Article 21 of the Civil Code which provides: Any person who willfully 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.

Breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong per se. Article 21 was meant to
expand the concepts of torts and quasi delict. It is meant to cover situations such as this case
where the breach complained of is not strictly covered by existing laws. It was meant as
a legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human
foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books – such as the absence of a
law penalizing a the breach of promise to marry.

b. Damage to Property

PORFIRIO P. CINCO v. HON. MATEO CANONOY ET AL. (1979)[ G.R. No. L-

33171 May 31, 1979]

Nature and character of his action was quasi-delictual predicated principally on Articles
2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code.
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 primary and direct responsibility of employers and their presumed negligence are
principles calculated to protect society.
The separate and independent civil action for a quasi-delict is also clearly recognized in
Section 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court:

SEC. 3. When civil action may proceed independently.—In the cases provided in Articles 32,
33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil action may be
brought by the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall
require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party
recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action.
Secs. 3(a) and 3(b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, which should be suspended after
the criminal action has been instituted is that arising from the criminal offense not the civil
action based on quasi-delict.
Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or
omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the
criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
Article 2176 of the Civil Code (supra), is so broad that it includes not only injuries to
persons but also damage to property
The word "damage" is used in two concepts: the "harm" done and "reparation" for the
harm done.

6. ELEMENTS

NATIVIDAD v. ANDAMO, ET AL., V. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT ET

AL. (1990)

All the Elements of a Quasi-delict are Present, to wit:

(a) Damages suffered by the plaintiff;
(b) Fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must
respond;
(c) The connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant
and the damages incurred by the plaintiff.

C. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TORT AND QUASI-DELICT

QUASI-DELICT is HOMOLOGOUS BUT NOT IDENTICAL to tort under the

common law, which includes not only negligence, but also intentional criminal acts, such as
assault and battery, false imprisonment and deceit.

1.District Concept
 Spanish concept: Quasi-delict is a civil law concept.

Anglo-American or common law concept: TORT is broader than culpa aquiliana because
it includes not only negligence , but intentional criminal acts as well, viz., assault and battery,
deceit and the like.

Philippine concept: Torts is the blending of common-law and civil law system

2.Framework

In Philippines legal system (envision by the commission responsible for the drafting of
the NCC): intentional and malicious acts, with certain exceptions are to be governed by the
RPN, while negligent acts or omissions are to be governed by the CC.

The term quasi-delict was deliberately used by the code commission to designate
obligations which do not arise from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or criminal offenses. The
term tort was not used because it is broader in coverage as it covers, acts which are
intentional or malicious, which latter acts in the general plan of the Philippine legal
system,are governed by the Penal code (see: Report, Code Commission, pp. 161-162)
The province of torts is wrongs (imposed as rules of law) and the province of contract is
agreements or promises (created by promises of parties (H.De Leon).

D. QUASI-DELICT AND DELICT

1.Distinguishing Quasi-Delict and Delict

BASIS QUASI-DELICT DELICT OR CRIME

1 Legal There can be a quasi-delict as long as
. basis of there is fault or negligence resulting
liability in damage or injury to another. It is
broader in scope than crime
2 Criminal Criminal intent is not necessary for
. Intent quasi-delict to exist. Fault or
negligence without intent will suffice.
3 Nature of Right violated is a private right.
There can be no crime unless
there is a law clearly punishment
the act.
Criminal intent is essential for
criminal liability to exist
Right violated is a public one.
 . right Quasi-delict is a wrongful act against Crime is wrong against the state.
violated a private individual.
4 Liability Every quasi-delict give rise to liability Some crime (e.g. contempt,
. for for damages illegal possession of firearm) do
damages not give rise to liability for
damages
5 Proofs Proof of the fault or negligence The guilt of the accused must be
. needed requires only preponderance of proved beyond reasonable doubt
evidence
6 Sanction Reparation or indemnification of the Punishment is either
. or penalty injury or damage imprisonment, fine or both;
sometimes other accessory
penalties are imposed

BARREDO V. GARCIA,

Quasi-delict or culpa acquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code of the
Philippines is entirely distinct and independent from a delict or crime under the Revised
Penal Code.

2. Overlap Between Quasi-Delict and Delict

BARREDO v. GARCIA

The same negligent act causing damage may produce civil liability (subsidiary) arising
from a crime under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines; or create an
action for quasi-delicto or culpa aquiliana under Articles 2179 and 2180 of the Civil Code
and the parties are free to choose which course to take.

In the instant case, the negligent act of Fontanilla produces two (2) liabilities of Barredo:

1. a subsidiary one because of the civil liability of Fontanilla arising from the latter’scriminal
negligence under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, and

2.Barredo’s primary and direct responsibility arising from his presumed negligence as an
employer under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Since the plaintiffs are free to choose what
remedy to take, they preferred the second, which is within their rights. This is the more
expeditious and effective method of relief because Fontanilla was either in prison or just been
released or had no property. Barredo was held liable for damages.

ELCANO V. HILL

Art. 2176 covers not only punishable by law, but also criminal in character, whether
intentional, voluntary, or negligent.
Civil action lays even the acquittal in criminal case
Culpa Aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law.

ANDAMO V. IAC

The recitals of the complaint, the alleged presence of damage to the petitioners, the act or
omission of Respondent Corporation supposedly constituting fault or negligence, and the
causal connection between the act and the damage, with no pre-existing contractual
obligation between the parties make a clear case of a quasi delict or culpa aquiliana.

L.G. FOODS V. PHILDELFA[ G.R. No. 158995, Sept. 26, 2006]

Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the liability of the employer is direct or immediate.
It is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior showing
of insolvency of such employee.