Notes in Torts (Jurado, 2009)

October 16, 2018

Note: prior the exam, (1) get all definitions/ doctrines in the cases; (2) identify in each case who is
liable for damages and legal basis for holding him liable.

 Tort = wrong; culpa-aquiliana; quasi-delict (QD)

 Tort may be an offense against an individual; but in the same time, it may be a crime.

 Traditional concept of QD = excludes intentional or malicious acts and acts arising from pre-
existing contracts; However, SC held that tortous acts or omission gives rise to two obligations:
one based on crime committed and another based on QD. And the injured party is free to choose
one or both, but he may not recover twice. Thus, there is no longer distinction between
intentional and negligent injuries.

Tort (Quasi-delict; culpa-aquiliana) Crime (Delict)

Broader in scope
Criminal intent is not necessary
Right violated is a private right
Every QD gives rise to damages
Preponderance of evidence
Reparation or indemnification of injury
or damages
There can be no crime unles there is a law
punishing it.
Criminal intent is essential.
Right violated is a public one (wrong against
the state)
Some crimes (i.e. contempt; illegal
possession of firearm) does not give rise to
damages.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt
Imprisonment, fine, or both; accessory
penalties.

 Tort may also arise from contractual relations (e.g. contract induced by fraudulent
representation; misappropriation of trust fund [which may be a tort or a breach of contract])

 Can there be a tort or QD in breach of contract?

 GR: If there exist pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, the proper cause of
action is breach of contract (culpa-contractual), and not anchored on QD/culpa-aquiliana
EX:
(1) when there is a deliberate and malicious violation of the contract; (i.e. performance of
contract is palpably wanton, reckless, malicious, in bad faith, oppressive or obscure)
(2) when the act that breaks a contract may be a source of QD/tort, the contractual relations of
the parties does not bar recovery of damage anchored on QD
(3) interference with contractual relations when a person induced another to violate latter's
contract with a third person.

Tort (Quasi-delict; culpa-aquiliana; Breach of contract (culpa contractual)

culpa ex-contractual)

Negligence is direct, substantive and Negligence if merely incidental to the

indeoendent performance of contractual obligation.

Generally, no existing contractual Existence of pre-existing obligation.

obligations between the parties; except
when the breach itself is a cource of
QD/tort

Defense of GFF in selection/supervision is GFF in selection/supervision is not a defense.

available What is material is that a contractual obligation
is merely breached.

No presumption of negligence. GR: No presumption of negligence

EX: unless the law specifically provides (i.e.
contract of carriage)

 Quasi-delict is used in the code so as to avoid inclusion of other source of obligations/damages

arising from law, contracts, quasi-contract and delict.

 Element of QD:

(1) damage – loss, hurt or harm which results from an injury.

(2) negligence – failure to observe the degree of diligence which the circumstances
 demands; failure to do what a reasonable man would have done in the circumstances; or
doing what a reasonable man would not do in given circumstances.
 negligence is not absolute, but relative depending upon the situation of the parties
 test of determining negligence: Would a prudent man, in the position of the person
to whom the negligence is attributed, foresee harm to ther person injured as a
reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued.

(3) causal connection between the damage and negligence.

 Proximate cause – cause which, in naural and continuous sequence
unbroken by any efficient interveneing cause, produces the injury and without which the
result would have not occurred.

 Recovery of moral damages in case of breach of contract:

GR: Moral damages is not recoverable in cases of breach of contract (i.e. breach of contract of carriage)
as it is not one of the enumeration under Art. 2219;
EX:
(1) in cases when mishap resulted to death of passengers;
(2) in cases when the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith.

 Art. 2176 covers not only acts “not punishable by law” but also acts criminal incharacter,
whether intentional and voluntary or negligent.

 In case of different award of damages in two different proceedings (i.e. criminal and civil case),
the aggrieved party may recover only to bigger award of the two. (note: he may not recover
twice, only the bigger award).

 Instances when Art. 216 is not applicable:

(1) When a fault or negligence is punished as law as a crime, Art. 2176 is not applicable. (i.e.
in case of homicide through reckless imprudence, or estafa.
(2) When there exist a pre-existing contractual relationship of ER-EE
(3) the action prescribed (prescription = 4 years)
(4) Injury is a result of fortuitous event
 (5) damnum absque injuria

 Medical malpractice (i.e. medical negligence), elements: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) injury; and
(4) proximate cause.

 Is hospital liable for medical malpractice?

US Doctrine
 Schloendorff Doctrine. Doctrine which regards a physicial, vene if employes, as an
independent contractor because the skill he exercised and the lack of control exerted over
his work.
 Respondeat superior. The employer is liable for the acts of its employee

In the Philippines, hospitals are liable for medical malpractice, because:

 (1) hospital exercises control in hiring/firing consultants and in the conduct of their work
within hospital premises. For the purpose of allocating responsibility in medical
negligence, ER-EE exists between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians;
 (2) under the principle of apparent authority (holding out doctrine; agency by estoppel),
actions of the principal somehow misled the public to believe that such relationship exists.
Here, the principal is bound by the acts of his agent

 Res Ipsa Loquitur -