QUASI-DELICT (ART.
2176): Whoever by act or omission brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who
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.
COMPLETE DEFENSES: P A D E P
1. PLAINTIFF’S OWN NEGLIGENCE: Where the immediate
cause of an accident resulting in an injury is the plaintiff’s
own act, which contributed to the principal occurrence as
one of its determining factors, he cannot recover damages
for the injury.
DOCTRINE OF ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE- One who
maintains on his premises dangerous
instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to
attract children in play, and who fails to exercise
ordinary care to prevent children from playing
therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of
tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child
is technically a trespasser in the premises.
2. ASSUMPTION OF RISK: The doctrine of assumption of risk
means that one who voluntarily exposes himself to an
obvious, known and appreciated danger assumes the risk
of injury that may result therefrom.
Knowledge of the risk is the watchword of assumption of
risk.
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 of ordinary prudence
who appears in contributory negligence.
 The plaintiff must know that the risk is present;
as to the specific risk
 The plaintiff must further understand its nature;
and
 The plaintiff’s choice to incur it must be free and
voluntary.
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE- An intervening
cause, to be considered efficient, must be one not
produced by a wrongful act or omission, but
independent of it, and adequate to bring the injurious
results.
3. DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE: The doctrine of last
clear chance provides that where both parties are
negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later
in point of time than that of the other, or where it is
impossible to determine whose fault or negligence
had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending
harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the
consequences arising therefrom.
 The antecedent negligence of a person does not
preclude recovery of damages caused by the
supervening negligence of the latter, who had the last
fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the
exercise of due diligence.
4. EMERGENCY RULE: Under the emergency rule, an
individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation of
danger and is required to act without much time to
consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the
impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to
undertake what subsequently and upon reflection may
appear to be a better solution, unless the emergency was
brought by his own negligence.
 The conduct which is required of an individual in such
cases is dictated not exclusively by the suddenness of
the event which absolutely negates thoughtful care,
but by the over-all nature of the circumstances
5. PRESCRIPTION: Art. 1146. The following actions must be
instituted within four years:
A. Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
B. Upon a quasi-delict
-The day the quasi-delict occurred or was committed
-The institution of a criminal action cannot have the
effect of interrupting the institution of a civil action
based on a quasi-delict
INCOMPLETE DEFENSE
1. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE (ART. 2179): is conduct
on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal
cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below
the standard which he is required to conform for his
own protection.
It is an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary
care on the part of the person injured which,
concurring with the defendant's negligence, is the
proximate cause of the injury.
LIABILITY FOR ACT OR OMISSION (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.
xxx
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.
1. BY THE TORTFEASOR
JOINT TORTFEASOR (ART. 2194): No actor’s negligence
ceases to be a proximate cause merely because it does not
exceed the negligence of other actors. Each wrongdoer is
responsible for the entire result and is liable as though
 Point of reference: Victim
 Liability due to breach albeit, different sources of
obligations
 Solidary liability
2. VICARIOUS LIABILITY/ IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE (ART. 2180):
Parental liability is made a natural or logical consequence
of the duties and responsibilities of parents — their
parental authority — which includes the instructing,
controlling and disciplining of the child.
 The legislature which adopted our Civil Code has
elected to limit extra-contractual liability to cases in
which moral culpability can be directly imputed to
the persons to be charged.
 Parental liability is anchored upon parental authority
-Actual custody and control is required
-Coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the
discharge of such duties
-Liability is direct and primary. Such that the diligence
of a good father of a family is a valid and substantial
defense.