TORTS JURISPRUDENTIAL DOCTRINES 2010-2011

NEGLIGENCE/QUASI-DELICT/TORTS
1. It ls u rule ln negllgence sults thut the plulntlff hus the burden of provlng by u
preponderunce of evldence the motorlsts breuch ln hls duty of cure owed to the
plulntlff, thut the motorlst wus negllgent ln fulllng to exerclse the dlllgence
requlred to uvold ln|ury to the plulntlff, und thut such negllgence wus the
proxlmute cuuse of the ln|ury suffered. (Helrs of Redentor Completo vs. Albuydu
Jr., GRN 172200, July 6, 2010)
2. The blcycle occuples u legul posltlon thut ls ut leust equul to thut of other vehlcles
luwfully on the hlghwuy, und lt ls fortlfled by the fuct thut usuully more wlll be
requlred of u motorlst thun u blcycllst ln dlschurglng hls duty of cure to the other
becuuse of the physlcul udvuntuges the uutomoblle hus over the blcycle. Whlle
the duty of uslng reusonuble cure fulls ullke on u motorlst und u blcycllst, due to
the lnherent dlfferences ln the two vehlcles, more cure ls requlred from the
motorlst to fully dlschurge the duty thun from the blcycllst. (Helrs of Redentor
Completo vs. Albuydu Jr., GRN 172200, July 6, 2010)
3. When un ln|ury ls cuused by the negllgence of un employee, u legul presumptlon
lnstuntly urlses thut the employer wus negllgent, whlch presumptlon muy be
rebutted only by u cleur showlng on the purt of the employer thut he exerclsed the
dlllgence of u good futher of u fumlly ln the selectlon und supervlslon of hls
employee. (Helrs of Redentor Completo vs. Albuydu Jr., GRN 172200, July 6,
2010)
4. The clvll llublllty of the employer for the negllgent ucts of hls employee ls ulso
prlmury und dlrect, owlng to hls own negllgence ln selectlng und supervlslng hls
employee. (Helrs of Redentor Completo vs. Albuydu Jr., GRN 172200, July 6,
2010)
5. Wlth respect to the supervlslon of employees, employers should formulute
stundurd operutlng procedures, monltor thelr lmplementutlon, und lmpose
dlsclpllnury meusures for breuches thereof. (Helrs of Redentor Completo vs.
Albuydu Jr., GRN 172200, July 6, 2010)
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
1. When un ln|ury ls cuused by the negllgence of un employee, u legul presumptlon
lnstuntly urlses thut the employer wus negllgent, whlch presumptlon muy be
rebutted only by u cleur showlng on the purt of the employer thut he exerclsed the
dlllgence of u good futher of u fumlly ln the selectlon und supervlslon of hls
employee. (Helrs of Redentor Completo vs. Albuydu Jr., GRN 172200, July 6,
2010)
2. The clvll llublllty of the employer for the negllgent ucts of hls employee ls ulso
prlmury und dlrect, owlng to hls own negllgence ln selectlng und supervlslng hls
employee. (Helrs of Redentor Completo vs. Albuydu Jr., GRN 172200, July 6,
2010)
3. Wlth respect to the supervlslon of employees, employers should formulute
stundurd operutlng procedures, monltor thelr lmplementutlon, und lmpose
dlsclpllnury meusures for breuches thereof. (Helrs of Redentor Completo vs.
Albuydu Jr., GRN 172200, July 6, 2010)
NEGLIGENCE
1. Common currlers, us u generul rule, ure presumed to huve been ut fuult or negllgent
lf the goods they trunsported deterloruted or got lost or destroyed. Mere proof of
dellvery of the goods ln good order to u common currler und thut of thelr urrlvul ln
bud order ut thelr destlnutlon constltutes u prlmu fucle cuse of fuult or negllgence
ugulnst the currler. (Unsworth Trunsport Internutlonul Phlllpplnes, Inc. GRN 166250,
|uly 26, 2010)
2. As buslness uffected wlth publlc lnterest, und becuuse of the nuture of thelr
functlons, bunks ure under obllgutlon to treut the uccounts of thelr deposltors wlth
metlculous cure, ulwuys huvlng ln mlnd the flduclury nuture of thelr relutlonshlp.
(Unsworth Trunsport Internutlonul Phlllpplnes, Inc. GRN 166250, |uly 26, 2010)
NEGLIGENCE
1. It ls the plulntlff who hus to prove by u preponderunce of evldence: (1) the dumuges
suffered by the plulntlff; (2) the fuult or negllgence of the defendunt or some other
person for whose uct he must respond: (3) und the connectlon of cuuse und effect
between the fuult or negllgence und the dumuges lncurred. (Brlones vs. Mucubugdul,
GRN 150666, August 3, 2010)
QUASI-DELICTS/TORTS/VICARIOUS LIABILITY
1. Where the cuuse of uctlon ugulnst the drlver wus bused on dellct, lt ls error to hold
the employer |olntly und severully lluble wlth hlm, bused on quusl-dellct under urtlcle
2176 und 2180 of the Clvll Code these legul provlslons pertuln to the vlcurlous
llublllty of un employer for quusl-dellcts thut un employee hus commltted und do not
upply to clvll llublllty urlslng from dellct. If ut ull, the employers llublllty muy only be
subsldlury. (Culung vs People, GRN 190696, August 3, 2010)
QD
1. Before the employers subsldlury llublllty ls enforced, udequute evldence must exlst
estubllshlng thut (1) they ure lndeed the employers of the convlcted employees; (2)
they ure enguged ln some klnd of lndustry; (3) the crlme wus commltted by the
employees ln the dlschurge of thelr dutles; und (4) the executlon ugulnst the lutter
hus not been sutlsfled due to lnsolvency. (Culung vs People, GRN 190696, August 3,
2010)
NEGLIGENCE
1. Negllgence ls deflned us the omlsslon to do somethlng whlch u reusonuble mun,
gulded upon those conslderutlons whlch ordlnurlly regulute the conduct of humun
uffulrs, would do, or the dolng of somethlng whlch u prudent mun und reusonuble
mun could not do. (BPI vs Suurez, GRN 167750, Murch 15, 2010)
2. BPI must ut ull tlmes mulntuln u hlgh level of metlculousness und should guurd
ugulnst ln|ury uttrlbutuble to negllgence or bud fulth on lts purt. (BPI vs Suurez, GRN
167750, Murch 15, 2010)
QD
1. Under Artlcle 1161 of the Clvll Code, un ln|ured purty muy enforce hls clulm for
dumuges bused on the clvll llublllty urlslng from the crlme under Artlcle 100 of the
RPC or he muy opt to flle un lndependent clvll uctlon for dumuges under the Clvll
Code. Unllke the subsldlury llublllty of the employer under Artlcle 103 of the RPC,
the llublllty of the employer, or uny person for thut mutter, under Artlcle 2176 of the
Clvll Code ls prlmury und dlrect, bused on u persons own negllgence. (Pucls vs.
Morules, GRN 169467, Februury 25, 2010)
2. A hlgher degree of cure ls requlred of someone who hus ln hls possesslon or under
hls control un lnstrumentullty extremely dungerous ln churucter, such us dungerous
weupons or substunces. (Pucls vs. Morules, GRN 169467, Februury 25, 2010)
3. A gun store owner ls presumed to be knowledgeuble ubout flreurms sufety und
should huve known never to keep u louded weupon ln hls store to uvold
unreusonuble rlsk of hurm or ln|ury to others. (Pucls vs. Morules, GRN 169467,
Februury 25, 2010)
NEGLIGENCE
1. Petltloners were negllgent by fulllng to exerclse the hlgher degree of cure, cuutlon
und foreslght lncumbent upon the school, lts udmlnlstrutors und teuchers. (St.
Josephs College vs Mlrundu, GRN 182353, June 29, 2010)
2. The mlshup whlch huppened durlng the sclence experlment wus foreseeuble by the
school, lts offlcluls und teuchers. (St. Josephs College vs Mlrundu, GRN 182353,
June 29, 2010)
3. When u pussenger dles or ln|ured ln the dlschurge of u contruct of currluge, lt ls
presumed thut the common currler ls ut fuult or negllgent. (Cruz vs. Sun Hollduys,
Inc., GRN 186312, June 29, 2010)
4. The elements of u fortultous event ure: (u) the cuuse of the unforeseen und
unexpected occurrence, or the fullure of the debtors to comply wlth thelr obllgutlons,
must huve been lndependent of humun wlll; (b) the event thut constltuted the cuso
fortulto must huve been lmposslble to foresee or, lf foreseeuble, lmposslble to uvold;
(c) the occurrence must huve been such us to render lt lmposslble for the debtors to
fulflll thelr obllgutlon ln u normul munner; und (d) the obllgor must huve been free
from uny purtlclputlon ln the uggruvutlon of the resultlng ln|ury to the credltor. (Cruz
vs. Sun Hollduys, Inc., GRN 186312, June 29, 2010)
5. To fully free u common currler from uny llublllty, the fortultous event must huve been
the proxlmute und only cuuse of the loss. (Cruz vs. Sun Hollduys, Inc., GRN 186312,
June 29, 2010)
6. Artlcle 1764 vls-u-vls urtlcle 2206 of the Clvll Code holds the common currler ln
breuch of lts contruct of currluge thut results ln the deuth of u pussenger lluble to puy
the followlng: (1) lndemnlty for deuth, (2) lndemnlty for loss of eurnlng cupuclty, und
(3) morul dumuges. (Cruz vs. Sun Hollduys, Inc., GRN 186312, June 29, 2010)
NEGLIGENCE/QD/VICARIOUS LIABILITY 1-3
1. When un ln|ury ls cuused by the negllgence of un employee, there lnstuntly urlses u
presumptlon of the luw thut there wus negllgence on the purt of the employer, elther
ln the selectlon or ln the supervlslon over hlm ufter such selectlon. (OMC Currlers vs.
Nubuu, GRN 148974, July 2, 2010)
2. The exlstence of supervlsory pollcles cunnot be cusuully lnvoked to overturn the
presumptlon of negllgence on the purt of the employer. (OMC Currlers vs. Nubuu,
GRN 148974, July 2, 2010)
3. Normully, employers keep flles concernlng the quullflcutlons, work experlence,
trulnlng, evuluutlon, und dlsclpllne of thelr employees the fullure of petltloners to
put forth evldence to substuntlute the testlmonles of the wltnesses ls certulnly futul to
lts cuuse. (OMC Currlers vs. Nubuu, GRN 148974, July 2, 2010)
4. Morul dumuges ure not lntended to enrlch u plulntlff ut the expense of the defendunt.
(OMC Currlers vs. Nubuu, GRN 148974, July 2, 2010)
5. The rule on the uwurd of uttorneys fees ls thut there must be u |ustlflcutlon for the
sume. In the ubsence of u stutement why uttorneys fees were uwurded, the sume
should be dlsullowed. (OMC Currlers vs. Nubuu, GRN 148974, July 2, 2010)
6. To |ustlfy un uwurd of uctuul dumuges, there must be competent proof of the uctuul
umount of loss. An uppellute court ls clothed wlth umple uuthorlty to revlew rullngs
even lf they ure not usslgned us errors, especlully so lf the court flnds thut thelr
conslderutlon ls necessury ln urrlvlng ut u |ust declslon of the cuse before lt. (OMC
Currlers vs. Nubuu, GRN 148974, July 2, 2010)
7. Awurd of compensutlon for loss of eurnlng cupuclty ls not grunted to the helrs of u
college freshmun where there ls no sufflclent evldence on record to show thut the
vlctlm would eventuully become u professlonul. (OMC Currlers vs. Nubuu, GRN
148974, July 2, 2010)

TORTS
1. Every mun hus u rlght to bulld, keep, und be fuvored wlth u good nume. A purty ls
obllged to respect the other purtys good nume even though they ure opposlng purtles
ln the unluwful detulner cuse. A vlolutlon of the prlnclple embodled ln Artlcle 19 of
the Clvll Code constltutes un ubuse of rlghts, u tortuous conduct. (Munuloto vs
Veloso III, GRN 171365, October 6, 2010)
2. Whlle u prevulllng purty ln u cuse ls free to copy und dlstrlbute coples of u fuvoruble
|udgment to the publlc, he must not do so wlth the lntent of humlllutlng the other
purty und destroylng the lutters good nume und repututlon ln the communlty.
(Munuloto vs Veloso III, GRN 171365, October 6, 2010)
3. Good fulth refers to the stute of the mlnd whlch ls munlfested by the ucts of the
lndlvlduul concerned. Good fulth ls presumed und he who ulleges bud fulth hus the
duty to prove the sume. (Munuloto vs Veloso III, GRN 171365, October 6, 2010)

NEGLIGENCE/QD
1. Foreseeublllty ls the fundumentul test of negllgence to be negllgent, u defendunt
must huve ucted or fulled to uct ln such u wuy thut un ordlnury reusonuble mun would
huve reullzed thut certuln lnterests of certuln persons were unreusonubly sub|ected to
u generul but deflnlte cluss of rlsks. (Phlllpplne Huwk Corporutlon vs Lee, GRN
166869, Februury 16, 2010)
2. Whenever un employees negllgence cuuses dumuge or ln|ury to unother, there
lnstuntly urlses u presumptlon thut the employer fulled to exerclse the due dlllgence
of u good futher of u fumlly ln the selectlon or supervlslon of lts employees.
(Phlllpplne Huwk Corporutlon vs Lee, GRN 166869, Februury 16, 2010)


RES IPSA LOQUITOR
1. It ls u rule of evldence whereby negllgence of the ulleged wrongdoer muy be lnferred
from the mere fuct thut the uccldent huppened, provlded thut the churucter of the
uccldent und clrcumstunces uttendlng lt leud reusonubly to the bellef thut ln the
ubsence of negllgence lt would not huve occurred und thut the thlng whlch cuused
ln|ury ls shown to huve been under the munugement und control of the ulleged
wrongdoer. (Bontlluo vs. Geronu, GRN 176675, September 15, 2010)
2. Res lpsu loqultor ls not u rlgld or ordlnury doctrlne to be perfunctorlly used but u rule
to be cuutlously upplled, dependlng upon the clrcumstunces of euch cuse. (Bontlluo
vs. Geronu, GRN 176675, September 15, 2010)
3. The lnstrument whlch cuused the dumuge or ln|ury wus not even wlthln respondents
excluslve control us Dr. Jubugut wus excluslvely ln control und munugement of the
unestheslu und endotrucheul tube. Requlrements before the doctrlne of res lpsu
loqultor cun ullow the mere exlstence of un ln|ury to |ustlfy u presumptlon of
negllgence on the purt of the person who controls the lnstrument cuuslng the ln|ury.
(Bontlluo vs. Geronu, GRN 176675, September 15, 2010)
ABUSE OF RIGHTS/ HUMAN RELATIONS
1. In the context of u credlt curd relutlonshlp, ulthough there ls nelther u contructuul
stlpulutlon nor u speclflc luw requlrlng the credlt curd lssuer to uct on the credlt curd
holders offer wlthln u deflnlte perlod of tlme, the prlnclples set out ln Artlcle 19 of
the Clvll Code provlde the stundurd by whlch to |udge the credlt curd compunys
uctlons. (Puntuleon vs. Amerlcun Express Internutlonul, GRN 174269, August 25,
2010)
2. It ls un elementury rule ln our |urlsdlctlon thut good fulth ls presumed und thut the
burden of provlng bud fulth rests upon the purty ulleglng lt. So long us the credlt curd
compuny exerclses lts rlghts, performs lts obllgutlons, und generully ucts wlth good
fulth, wlth no lntent to cuuse hurm, even lf lt muy occuslonully lnconvenlence others,
lt cunnot be held lluble for dumuges. (Puntuleon vs. Amerlcun Express Internutlonul,
GRN 174269, August 25, 2010)
3. A person who knowlngly und volunturlly exposes hlmself to dunger cunnot clulm
dumuges for the resultlng ln|ury. (Puntuleon vs. Amerlcun Express Internutlonul,
GRN 174269, August 25, 2010)

DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA/ HUMAN RELATIONS/ ABUSE OF RIGHTS
1. There ls u muterlul dlstlnctlon between dumuges und ln|ury ln|ury ls the lllegul
lnvuslon of u legul rlght whlle dumuge ls the loss, hurt, hurm whlch results from the
ln|ury. There cun be dumuge wlthout ln|ury ln those lnstunces ln whlch the loss or
hurm wus not the result of u vlolutlon of u legul duty. (Puntuleon vs. Amerlcun
Express Internutlonul, GRN 174269, August 25, 2010)
NEGLIGENCE
1. To uscertuln who umong the pllots of ulrcruft lnvolved ln un uccldent ls lluble for
negllgence, reference must be mude to the uppllcuble rules governlng the speclflc
trufflc munugement of ulrcrufts ut un ulrport. The Rules of the Alr of the Alr
Trunsportutlon Offlce upply to ull ulrcrufts reglstered ln the Phlllpplnes. (GSIS vs
Puclflc Alrwuys Corporutlon, GRN 170414, August 25, 2010)
2. For dlsregurdlng PALs rlght of wuy, PAC pllots were grossly negllgent. Gross
negllgence ls one thut ls churucterlzed by the wunt of even sllght cure, uctlng or
omlttlng to uct ln u sltuutlon where there ls u duty to uct, nor lnudvertently but
wlllfully und lntentlonully wlth u consclous lndlfference to consequences lnsofur us
other persons muy be uffected. (GSIS vs Puclflc Alrwuys Corporutlon, GRN 170414,
August 25, 2010)
3. Slnce the pllots-ln-commund huve the flnul uuthorlty us to the dlsposltlon of the
ulrcruft, they cunnot, ln cuse u colllslon occurs, puss the blume to ATO for lssulng
cleurunces thut turn out to be unsultuble. (GSIS vs Puclflc Alrwuys Corporutlon, GRN
170414, August 25, 2010)
4. Under the Rules of the Alr, the ulrcruft on tuke-off roll undlsputedly hus the rlght of
wuy. (GSIS vs Puclflc Alrwuys Corporutlon, GRN 170414, August 25, 2010)
PROXIMATE CAUSE/NEGLIGENCE
1. Proxlmute cuuse ls deflned us thut cuuse, whlch, ln nuturul und contlnuous sequence,
unbroken by uny efflclent lntervenlng cuuse, produces the ln|ury, und wlthout whlch
the result would not huve occurred. When u plulntlffs own negllgence ls the
lmmedlute und proxlmute cuuse of hls ln|ury, he cunnot recover dumuges. (GSIS vs
Puclflc Alrwuys Corporutlon, GRN 170414, August 25, 2010)

NEGLIGENCE
1. The luw lmposes u duty of extruordlnury dlllgence on the collectlng bunk to scrutlnlze
checks deposlted wlth lt, for the purpose of determlnlng thelr genulneness und
regulurlty. (Go vs. Metrobunk, GRN 168842, August 11, 2010)
2. As u mutter of pructlce, bunk tellers would not recelve nor honor such check whlch
they belleve to be uncleur, wlthout the counter-slgnuture of lts druwer. (Equltuble PCI
Bunk vs. Tun, GRN 165339, August 23, 2010)
PROXIMATE CAUSE/NEGLIGENCE
1. Proxlmute cuuse ls thut cuuse whlch, ln u nuturul und contlnuous sequence, unbroken
by uny efflclent lntervenlng cuuse, produces the ln|ury, und wlthout whlch the result
would not huve occurred. The bunk on whlch the check ls druwn, known us the
druwee bunk ls under strlct llublllty to puy to the order of the puyee ln uccordunce
wlth the druwers lnstructlons us reflected on the fuce und by the terms of the check
puyment mude before the dute speclfled by the druwer ls cleurly ugulnst the druwee
bunks duty to lts cllent. (Equltuble PCI Bunk vs. Tun, GRN 165339, August 23,
2010)
NEGLIGENCE
1. Negllgence ls deflned us the fullure to exerclse the stundurd of cure thut u reusonubly
prudent would huve exerclsed ln u slmllur sltuutlon. (Hospltul Munugement Servlces
vs. Employees Assoclutlon, GRN 176287, Junuury 31, 2011)
2. In some cuses, the Court hud ruled thut unctlonlng un errlng employee wlth
suspenslon would sufflce us the extreme penulty of dlsmlssul would be too hursh.
(Hospltul Munugement Servlces vs. Employees Assoclutlon, GRN 176287, Junuury
31, 2011)
ABUSE OF RIGHTS
1. The elements of ubuse of rlghts ure: (2) there ls u legul rlght or duty; (b) exerclsed ln
bud fulth; und (c) for the sole lntent of pre|udlclng or ln|urlng unother. (Gonzules vs.
Phlllpplne Commerclul und Internutlonul Bunk, GRN180257, Februury 23, 2011)
NEGLIGENCE
1. Negllgence ls the omlsslon to do somethlng whlch u reusonuble mun, gulded upon
those conslderutlons whlch ordlnurlly regulute the conduct of humun uffulrs, would
do, or the dolng of somethlng whlch u prudent mun und reusonuble mun could not
do. (Murques vs Fur Eust Bunk und Trust Compuny, GRN 171379, Junuury 10, 2011)
Negllgence/QD
1. The Court cunnot be u luwyer und tuke the cudgels for u purty who hus been ut fuult
or negllgent. (Loudmusters Customs Servlces vs. Glodel Brokeruge Corporutlon,
GRN 179446, Junuury 10, 2011)
2. The responslblllty of two or more persons who ure lluble for u quusl-dellct ls solldury.
(Loudmusters Customs Servlces vs. Glodel Brokeruge Corporutlon, GRN 179446,
Junuury 10, 2011)
3. Whenever un employees negllgence cuuses dumuge or ln|ury to unother, there ls
lnstuntly urlses u presumptlon |urls tuntum thut the employer fulled to exerclse
dlllgentlsslml putrl fumllles ln the selectlon or supervlslon of lts employees.
(Loudmusters Customs Servlces vs. Glodel Brokeruge Corporutlon, GRN 179446,
Junuury 10, 2011)
4. Where severul cuuses produclng un ln|ury ure concurrent und euch ls un efflclent
cuuse wlthout whlch the ln|ury would not huve huppened, the ln|ury muy be
uttrlbuted to ull or uny of the cuuses und recovery muy be hud ugulnst uny or ull of
the responslble persons ulthough under the clrcumstunces of the cuse, lt muy uppeur
thut one of them wus more culpuble, und thut the duty owed by them to the ln|ured
person wus not the sume. (Loudmusters Customs Servlces vs. Glodel Brokeruge
Corporutlon, GRN 179446, Junuury 10, 2011)
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
1. Contrlbutory negllgence ls conduct on the purt of the ln|ured purty, contrlbutlng us u
legul cuuse to the hurm he hus suffered, whlch fulls below the stundurd to whlch he ls
requlred to conform for hls own protectlon. (Seulouder Shlpplng vs. Grund Cement
Munufucturlng, GRN 167363, December 15, 2010)
NEGLIGENCE
1. The Court holds thut Seulouder hud the responslblllty to lnform ltself of the prevulllng
weuther condltlons ln the ureus where lts vessel wus set to sull. Petltloner cunnot
merely rely on other vessels for weuther updutes und wurnlngs on upprouchlng
storms, us whut huppened ln thls cuse. (Seulouder Shlpplng vs. Grund Cement
Munufucturlng, GRN 167363, December 15, 2010)
ABUSE OF RIGHTS
1. When u rlght ls exerclsed ln u munner whlch does not conform wlth the norms
enshrlned ln Artlcle 19 und results ln dumuge to unother, u legul wrong ls thereby
commltted for whlch the wrongdoer must be held responslble. (Munzunul vs. Ilusorlo,
GRN 189311, December 6, 2010)