Report on Torts and

Damages
By: KEVIN PAUL M. LAVINA
What is “Volenti non fit
injuria” ?
 "to a willing person, no injury is done." This doctrine
holds that a person who knowingly and willingly
puts himself in a dangerous situation cannot sue
for any resulting injuries.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/volenti_non_fit_i
njuria
 Volenti non fit injuria is a defence in tort that
means where a person engages in an event
accepting and aware of the risks inherent in that
event, then they cannot later complain of, or
seek compensation for an injury suffered during
the event. This is used often to defend against tort
actions as a result of a sports injury.
 Sample Cases involving
“Volenti non fit injuria”

Inserting your hand to the

fence to get a thing who
went inside it and you
were bitten by a dog

a husband sued his wife

for damages as a result of
her alleged adultery. The
claim was barred as the
evidence revealed that
he had connived in the
adultery.
Nikko Hotel vs. Roberto Reyes

FACTS
 Mr. Reyes attended the personal party thrown for the
hotel’s manager, Mr. Masakazu Tsuroka, on account of
Dr. Violeta Filart vouching for his attendance, to which
she agreed. While at the buffet table, Ruby Lim,
executive secretary of Hotel Nikko, allegedly ordered
him to leave the party in a loud voice, effectively
embarrassing him in front of many people. Petitioner,
on the other hand, contends that she asked the
respondent to leave in a discreet manner. Petitioner
prays for the reversal of the decision of CA against
them.
Nikko Hotel vs. Roberto Reyes

ISSUE
 Did the petitioner violate articles 19 and 21 of the Civil
Code thus entitling the respondent for compensation
of damages?
Nikko Hotel vs. Roberto Reyes

HELD
 Petitioner did not violate articles 19 and 21 for there
was no intention on her part to humiliate Reyes as
demonstrated by the fact that she was close to be
able to kiss the respondent while she was asking him to
leave. The decision of CA was reversed and of RTC
Quezon City affirmed.
Velayo vs Shell

 Prior to 1948, Commercial Airlines (CALI) owed P170k

(abt. $79k) to Shell Company. CAL offered its C-54
plane aspayment to Shell Company (the plane was in
Calif ornia) but Shell at that time declined as it thought
CALI had sufficientmoney to pay its debt
 1948 however, CALI was going bankrupt so it called
upon an informal meeting of its creditors.
 Fitzgerald sent a telegraph message to Shell USA
advising thelatter that Shell Philippines is assigning its
credit to Shell USA in the amount of $79k, thereby
effectively collecting almostall if not the entire
indebtedness of CALI to Shell Philippines.
 Velayo vs Shell

 Shell USA petitioned before a California court to have the plane

be the subject of a writ of attachmentwhich was granted.
 September 1948, the other creditors learnedof the assignment
made by Shell. This prompted these other creditors to file their
own complaint of attachment againstCALI’s assets.
 CALI then filed for insolvency proceedings to protect its assets in
the Philippines from being attached.Alfredo Velayo’s
appointment as CALI’s assignee was approved in lieu of the
insolvency proceeding. In order for him torecover the C-54
plane in California, it filed for a writ of injunction against Shell
Philippines in order for the latter to restrainShell USA from
proceeding with the attachment and in the alternative that
judgment be awarded in favor of CALI fordamages double the
amount of the C-54 plane.
Issue

 Whether or not Shell is liable for damages considering

that it did not violate any law
 Baksh vs CA

 Petitioner was a medicine student at Lyceum

Northwestern Colleges at Dagupan City. He was an
Iranian exchange student and was 29 years old.
Respondent was a former waitress on a luncheonette,
and was 22 years old. Petitioner was allegedly the lover
of the respondent, and was said to promise marriage to
the latter, which convinced her to live with him in his
apartment. It was even alleged that the petitioner went
to the house of the respondent to inform her family
about the marriage on the end of the semester.
However, the marriage did not materialize, with several
beatings and maltreatment experienced by the
respondent from the petitioner.
Baksh vs. C.A

 The case was filed in the RTC of Pangasinan, and the

decision was held in favor of the respondent. However,
the petitioner claimed that the judgment of the RTC
was an error, for the claims of the respondent are not
true, and that he did not know about the custom of the
Filipinos; his acts were in accordance of his custom. The
decision of the RTC was affirmed in toto by the Court of
Appeals. Hence, the petitioner filed an appeal to the
Supreme Court.
Issue

 Whether or not the respondent could claim payment

for the damages incurred by the petitioner.
 RULING:

 Mere breach of marriage is not punishable by law. However,

since the respondent was proved to have a good moral
character, and that she had just let her virginity be taken
away by the petitioner since the latter offered a promise of
marriage, then she could ask for payment for damages.
Furthermore, since she let her lover, the petitioner,
“deflowered” her since she believed that his promise to marry
was true, and not due to her carnal desire, then she could
have her claims against the petitioner. Moreover, the father of
the respondent had already looked for pigs and chicken for
the marriage reception and the sponsors for the marriage,
and then damages were caused by the petitioner against the
respondents, which qualified the claims of the respondent
against the petitioner.