TORTS and

DAMAGES
Prof. Rommel Casis
B2013
Aboy | Al | Anisah | Arianne
Camille | Crys | Cy
Eden | Faye | Incess
Jill | Karen | Lala
Lia | Loraine | Mark
Mary B | Mary M
Sophie | Welga

B2013 2
TORTS and DAMAGES

TORTS PROVISIONS AND READINGS

Elements of quasi-delict
Quasi-delict and delict
Quasi-delict and contract
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 quasidelict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)
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. (n)
Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud,
negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof,
are liable for damages. (1101)
Art. 1171. Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations. Any
waiver of an action for future fraud is void. (1102a)
Art. 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind
of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts,
according to the circumstances. (1103)

Concept of Negligence
Standard of Conduct
Children
Experts
Medical Professionals
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that
diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with
the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence
shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
Degrees of Negligence
Burden of Proof and presumptions
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant
acted with gross negligence.
RULE 131
Burden of Proof and Presumptions
SECTION 1. Burden of proof. Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the
amount of evidence required by law. (1a, 2a)

Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise
declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not
be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable. (1105a)

Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if
the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence,
prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if
he had been found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least
twice within the next preceding two months.

Art. 2178. The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasidelict. (n)

If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180 are
applicable. (n)
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving
a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating
any traffic regulation. (n)

B2013 3
TORTS and DAMAGES
Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the
defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons
or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when the possession or use
thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. (n)
Art. 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or
deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes
only:
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
(3) Act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
(5) Order or act of competent public authority.
Art. 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the
preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers
are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove
that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733.
Defenses against charge of negligence
Plaintiffs negligence is proximate cause
Contributory negligence of plaintiff
Fortuitous event
Plaintiffs assumption of risk/volenti non fit injuria
Prescription

The Tortfeasor
Vicarious Liability
Parents/Guardians
Teachers
Owners/Managers of Establishment
Employers
State
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 quasidelict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if
the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence,
prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if
he had been found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least
twice within the next preceding two months.
Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict
is solidary. (n)

Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce
the damages that he may recover.

Family code
Art. 216. In default of parents or a judicially appointed guardian, the following
person shall exercise substitute parental authority over the child in the order
indicated:
(1) The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art. 214;
(2) The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or
disqualified; and
(3) The child's actual custodian, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or
disqualified.
Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian over the property of the child
becomes necessary, the same order of preference shall be observed. (349a, 351a,
354a)

Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise
declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not
be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable. (1105a)

Art. 217. In case of foundlings, abandoned neglected or abused children and other
children similarly situated, parental authority shall be entrusted in summary judicial
proceedings to heads of children's homes, orphanages and similar institutions duly
accredited by the proper government agency. (314a)

Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the
defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts
shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. (n)

B2013 4
TORTS and DAMAGES
Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or
institution engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and
responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or
custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or
outside the premises of the school, entity or institution. (349a)
Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article
shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions
of the unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the persons
exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.
The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not
apply if it is proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the
particular circumstances.
All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by
the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. (n)
Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly
liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their
unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority
subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law. (2180(2)a and (4)a )
Art. 236. Emancipation for any cause shall terminate parental authority over the
person and property of the child who shall then be qualified and responsible for all
acts of civil life. (412a)
Revised Penal Code
Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases.
The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of
Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does not include exemption
from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules:
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts
committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of
age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without
discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal
authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their
part.
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his
authority, legal guardianship or control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane,

imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting property
exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law.
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose
benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the
benefit which they may have received.
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount for
which each one shall be liable.
When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately,
or when the liability also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the
inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damages have been
caused with the consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be
made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations.
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the persons using
violence or causing the fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be
no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that
part of their property exempt from execution.
Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of
establishments. In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers,
tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for
crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of
municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have been
committed by them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery
or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the
value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the
innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods
within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such
innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the care and
vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's employees.
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons.
The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to
employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for
felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees
in the discharge of their duties.

B2013 5
TORTS and DAMAGES
RA 9344
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of age
or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from
criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program
pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise
be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program,
unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be
subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include
exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing
laws.

Civil Code
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.
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.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons
who are under their authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise
responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches
in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the
former are not engaged in any business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not
when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly
pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for
damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain
in their custody.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein
mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage. (1903a)
Art. 2181.
Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may
recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim.
(1904)
Independent Civil Actions
Violation of Civil and Political Rights
Defamation, Fraud, Physical injuries
Neglect of Duty
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or
indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of
the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for
damages:
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not
contrary to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government for
redress of grievances;
(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public
trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure
the attendance of witness in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from
being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or

B2013 6
TORTS and DAMAGES
reward to make such confession, except when the person confessing becomes a
State witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the
same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been
judicially declared unconstitutional; and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or
omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to
commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other
relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if
the latter be instituted), and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be
adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or
omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for
damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought
by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal
prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to
render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such
peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall
be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be
independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall
suffice to support such action.
Art. 35. When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges
another with the same, for which no independent civil action is granted in this
Code or any special law, but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to
believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or
fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring a civil action for
damages against the alleged offender. Such civil action may be supported by a
preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant's motion, the court may require
the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should
be found to be malicious.

If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be presented by

the prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the termination
of the criminal proceedings.
Human Relations Torts
Abuse of Rights
Acts Contra Bonus Mores
Breach of Promise to marry; seduction and sexual assault
Malicious prosecution
Public Humiliation
Unjustified Dismissal
Illegal Acts
Dereliction of duty
Unfair Competition
Violation of Human Dignity
Art. 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.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Art. 21. Any person who wilfully 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.
Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of
mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though
they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for
damages, prevention and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence:
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in
life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or
employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may
file an action for damages and other relief against he latter, without prejudice to
any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.

B2013 7
TORTS and DAMAGES
Art. 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or
in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other
unjust, oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the
person who thereby suffers damage.
Possessor of Animals
Thrown/Falling from a building
Death/injuries in the course of employment
Product Liability
Interference with contractual relations
Liability of local government units
Proprietors of buildings
Engineer/Architect of collapsed building
Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is
responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost.
This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force
majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage. (1905)
Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof, is
responsible for damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same. (1910)
Art. 1711. Owners of enterprises and other employers are obliged to pay
compensation for the death of or injuries to their laborers, workmen, mechanics or
other employees, even though the event may have been purely accidental or
entirely due to a fortuitous cause, if the death or personal injury arose out of and in
the course of the employment. The employer is also liable for compensation if the
employee contracts any illness or disease caused by such employment or as the
result of the nature of the employment. If the mishap was due to the employee's
own notorious negligence, or voluntary act, or drunkenness, the employer shall not
be liable for compensation. When the employee's lack of due care contributed to
his death or injury, the compensation shall be equitably reduced.
Art. 1712. If the death or injury is due to the negligence of a fellow worker, the
latter and the employer shall be solidarily liable for compensation. If a fellow
worker's intentional malicious act is the only cause of the death or injury, the
employer shall not be answerable, unless it should be shown that the latter did not
exercise due diligence in the selection or supervision of the plaintiff's fellow
worker.

Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and
similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful
substances used, although no contractual relation exists between them and the
consumers. (n)
Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be
liable for damages to the other contracting party. (n)
Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the
death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of
roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control
or supervision. (n)
Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages
resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of
necessary repairs. (1907)
Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused:
(1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care of with due
diligence, and the inflammation of explosive substances which have not been kept
in a safe and adequate place;
(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or property;
(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, if not caused by
force majeure;
(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious matter,
constructed without precautions suitable to the place. (1908)
Art. 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding articles should be the result
of any defect in the construction mentioned in Article 1723, the third person
suffering damages may proceed only against the engineer or architect or
contractor in accordance with said article, within the period therein fixed. (1909)
Art. 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the plans and specifications for a
building is liable for damages if within fifteen years from the completion of the
structure, the same should collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and
specifications, or due to the defects in the ground. The contractor is likewise
responsible for the damages if the edifice falls, within the same period, on account
of defects in the construction or the use of materials of inferior quality furnished by
him, or due to any violation of the terms of the contract. If the engineer or
architect supervises the construction, he shall be solidarily liable with the
contractor.

B2013 8
TORTS and DAMAGES
Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply waiver of any of the
cause of action by reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of the building.
(n)

The supplier of the services shall not be held liable when it is proven:
(a) that there is no defect in the service rendered;
(b) that the consumer or third party is solely at fault.

Art. 97. Liability for the Defective Products. - Any Filipino or foreign manufacturer,
producer, and any importer, shall be liable for redress, independently of fault, for
damages caused to consumers by defects resulting from design, manufacture,
construction, assembly and erection, formulas and handling and making up,
presentation or packing of their products, as well as for the insufficient or
inadequate information on the use and hazards thereof.

Art. 106. Prohibition in Contractual Stipulation. - The stipulation in a contract of a

clause preventing, exonerating or reducing the obligation to indemnify for damages
effected, as provided for in this and in the preceding Articles, is hereby prohibited,
if there is more than one person responsible for the cause of the damage, they
shall be jointly liable for the redress established in the pertinent provisions of this
Act. However, if the damage is caused by a component or part incorporated in the
product or service, its manufacturer, builder or importer and the person who
incorporated the component or part are jointly liable.

A product is defective when it does not offer the safety rightfully expected of it,
taking relevant circumstances into consideration, including but not limited to:
(a) presentation of product;
(b) use and hazards reasonably expected of it;
(c) the time it was put into circulation.
A product is not considered defective because another better quality product has
been placed in the market.

Damages
Definition, concept
Actual or Compensatory
Interest
Mitigation of Liability

The manufacturer, builder, producer or importer shall not be held liable when it
evidences:
(a) that it did not place the product on the market;
(b) that although it did place the product on the market such product has no
defect;
(c) that the consumer or a third party is solely at fault.
Art. 99. Liability for Defective Services. - The service supplier is liable for redress,
independently of fault, for damages caused to consumers by defects relating to the
rendering of the services, as well as for insufficient or inadequate information on
the fruition and hazards thereof.
The service is defective when it does not provide the safety the consumer may
rightfully expect of it, taking the relevant circumstances into consideration,
including but not limited to:
(a) the manner in which it is provided;
(b) the result of hazards which may reasonably be expected of it;
(c) the time when it was provided.

A service is not considered defective because of the use or introduction of new

techniques.

Art. 2195. The provisions of this Title shall be respectively applicable to all
obligations mentioned in Article 1157.
Art. 2197. Damages may be:
(1) Actual or compensatory;
(2) Moral;
(3) Nominal;
(4) Temperate or moderate;
(5) Liquidated; or
(6) Exemplary or corrective.
Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal,
temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages, may be adjudicated. The assessment
of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court,
according to the circumstances of each case.
Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an
adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly
proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.
Art. 2200. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the
loss suffered, but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain. (1106)

B2013 9
TORTS and DAMAGES
Art. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who
acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable
consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen
or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.
In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be
responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the nonperformance of the obligation. (1107a)
Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages
which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission
complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could
have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.
Art. 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good
father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in
question.
Art. 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased
or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Art. 2205. Damages may be recovered:
(1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent
personal injury;

causing the death, for a period not exceeding five years, the exact duration to be
fixed by the court;
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the
deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death
of the deceased.
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation,
other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate
with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy
the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim;
(6) In actions for legal support;
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled
workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's
liability laws;
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's
fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.
In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.

(2) For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit.

Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall
be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating
circumstances. In addition:

Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the
debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the
contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of
stipulation, the legal interest, which is six per cent per annum. (1108)

(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the
deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity
shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on
account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no
earning capacity at the time of his death;

Art. 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the court, be allowed upon damages
awarded for breach of contract.

(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of
Article 291, the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by
the law of testate or intestate succession, may demand support from the person

Art. 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially
demanded, although the obligation may be silent upon this point. (1109a)

Art. 2211. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part of the damages may, in a
proper case, be adjudicated in the discretion of the court.

B2013 10
TORTS and DAMAGES
Art. 2213. Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages,
except when the demand can be established with reasonably certainty.

The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the
action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.

Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce
the damages that he may recover.

Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral
damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are
justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant
acted fraudulently or in bad faith.

Art. 2215. In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts, the court may equitably
mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in the
preceding article, as in the following instances:
(1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract;
(2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract;
(3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded, that the defendant
acted upon the advice of counsel;
(4) That the loss would have resulted in any event;
(5) That since the filing of the action, the defendant has done his best to lessen the
plaintiff's loss or injury.
Moral Damages
Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation,
and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages
may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act
for omission.
Art. 2219.
Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:

Nominal Damages
Temperate Damages
Liquidated Damages
Exemplary/Corrective Damages
SECTION 2. - Nominal Damages
Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff,
which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or
recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss
suffered by him.
Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from
any source enumerated in Article 1157, or in every case where any property right
has been invaded.
Art. 2223. The adjudication of nominal damages shall preclude further contest
upon the right involved and all accessory questions, as between the parties to the
suit, or their respective heirs and assigns.

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

SECTION 3. - Temperate or Moderate Damages

The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No.
3 of this article, may also recover moral damages.

Art. 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract,
to be paid in case of breach thereof.

Art. 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less
than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some
pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the
case, be provided with certainty.
Art. 2225. Temperate damages must be reasonable under the circumstances.
SECTION 4. - Liquidated Damages

B2013 11
TORTS and DAMAGES
Art. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty,
shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable.
Art. 2228. When the breach of the contract committed by the defendant is not the
one contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon the liquidated damages, the law
shall determine the measure of damages, and not the stipulation.

SECTION 5. - Exemplary or Corrective Damages

Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or
correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or
compensatory damages.
Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability
may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid
to the offended party.
Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant
acted with gross negligence.

Art. 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary
damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent manner.
Art. 2233. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right; the court
will decide whether or not they should be adjudicated.
nArt. 2234. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the
plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory
damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary
damages should be awarded. In case liquidated damages have been agreed upon,
although no proof of loss is necessary in order that such liquidated damages may
be recovered, nevertheless, before the court may consider the question of granting
exemplary in addition to the liquidated damages, the plaintiff must show that he
would be entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages were it not for
the stipulation for liquidated damages.
Art. 2235. A stipulation whereby exemplary damages are renounced in advance
shall be null and void.

B2013
TORTS | Prof. Casis | Provisions and Readings
THE CONCEPT OF TORT VS. QUASI-DELICT
Torts and Damages (Aquino)
Tort Defined

An unlawful violation of private right, not created by contract, and which gives
rise to an action for damages (common law).

An act or omission producing an 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 (Robles vs. Castillo).

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. It is a
violation of a duty imposed by general law or otherwise upon all persons
occupying the relation to each other which is involved in a given transaction
(Blacks Law Dictionary).
Tort in common law includes:
1. Intentional tortsconduct where the actor desires to cause the consequences
of his act or believes the consequences are substantially certain to result from
it (e.g. assault, battery, false imprisonment, defamation, invasion of privacy
and interference of property).
2. Negligenceinvolves voluntary acts or omissions which result in injury to
others, without intending to cause the same. The actor fails to exercise due
care in performing such acts or omissions.
3. Strict liability in torta person is made liable independent of fault or
negligence upon submission of proof of certain facts.
Philippine Tort Law
Sources
1. Roman Law (obligations quasi ex delicto in the Institutes)
a. Liability of a judge who misconducts a case or gives a wrong
decision.
b. Liability of an occupier of a building for double the damage caused
by anything thrown or forced out of the building, no matter by
whom, on to a public placerecognized in Art. 2193.
c. Liability of the occupier if he keeps any object suspended from the
building which would do damage if it fell.
d. Liability of the shop keeper, innkeeper or keeper of a stable for any
theft or damage caused by slaves or employees, or in case of the
innkeepers, of permanent residentsrecognized in Art. 2000 as part
of contract law.
2. Spanish, French and Anglo-American Law

3.

New Civil CodeArt. 1157 includes quasi-delict as a source of obligation

classified as extra-contractual obligation as governed by Arts. 2176 to
2194 (Chapter 2) and other tort provisions.

Scope and Applicable Laws

The Code Commission decided against the use of the word tort because
tort in Anglo-American law is much broader than the Spanish-Philippine
concept of obligations arising from non-contractual negligence. Tort in
Anglo-American jurisprudence includes not only negligence, but also
intentional criminal acts such as assault and battery, false imprisonment and
deceit. The general plan sought to be implemented in the New Civil Code was
for intentional acts to be governed by the Revised Penal Code.

Statutory provisions that recognize tort liability and use the term tort
include Secs. 21 (on corporation by estoppel) and 100(5) (on personal liability
of stockholders for corporate torts) of the Corporation Code, Art. 58 of the
Child and Youth Welfare Code (on liabilities of parents for torts committed by
their children) and Sec. 17(a)(6) of the Ship Mortgage Decree (on preferred
maritime liens).

Naguiat vs. NLRC: Tort is a breach of legal duty. It essentially consists in the
violation of a right given or omission of statutory duty imposed by law.
1.

Catch-all provisionsArts. 19, 20 and 21 introduced malice in the commission

of torts and provide for general concepts that make persons liable for every
conceivable wrongful act. Philippine laws include the following torts:
a. Defamation
b. Fraud
c. Physical injuries
d. Violation of constitutional rights
e. Negligence
f. Interference with contractual relations
g. Violation of privacy
h. Malicious prosecution
i.
Product liability
j.
Strict liability for possession of animals
k. Abuse of right (Art. 19)
l.
Acts which violate good morals and customs (Art. 21)

12

2. Expanded scope of quasi-delict

Art. 1902, Old Civil Code
Has been applied to an alleged case of
malicious
interference
in
the
performance of contract (Daywalt vs. La
Corporacion de los Padres Agustinos
Recoletos) and to a tort case involving
fraud (Silva vs. Peralta).

Art. 2176, New Civil Code

The same broad interpretation of quasidelict had been given to Art. 2176, the
provision in quasi-delict under the new
Civil Code, in Elcano and Elcano vs. Hill
and Hill so as to include intentional acts.
However, it should be noted that the
cases which adopt the view that Art.
2176 covers intentional acts did so in
order to justify the application of Art.
2180 on the vicarious liability of parents
and employers.
With respect to
parents, the distinction is no longer
material because their vicarious liability
under Art. 221 of the Family Code
covers intentional acts of their children.

3. View that Art. 2176 is limited to negligence

In Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Company, the Court cited Manresa who declared
that 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. According to Padilla, the insertion of
the word intentional in the Andamo case is an inaccurate obiter and the same
should be read as voluntary. This view is reiterated by Chief Justice Davide in
Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. Court of Appeals.

Comments and Cases on Torts and Damages (De Leon)

Meaning of Tort and Tortious Conduct
1. Torta common law expression used in French to mean wrong. It is
derived from the Latin tortus, meaning twisted. In the absence of a
statutory definition, a tort is a legal wrong that causes harm for which the
violator is subject to civil liability.
2. Tortious acta wrongful act. It is the commission or omission of an act by
one, without right, whereby another receives some injury, directly or
indirectly, in person, property, or reputation.

Definitions of Tort
The fundamental concept of a tort is a wrongful act or omission resulting in breach
of a private legal duty (as distinguished from a mere breach of contractual duty)
and damage from said breach of duty of such a character as to afford a right of
redress at law in favor of the injured party against the wrongdoer.

A tort is a wrong independent of contract, or a breach of duty which the law,

as distinguished from a mere contract, has imposed (Western V. Tele. Co. vs.
Taylor).

A tort is a violation of a private legal right other than a mere breach of

contract, express or implied (Bankers Fidelity Life Ins. Co. vs. Harrison).

A tort is a legal concept possessing the basic elements of a wrong with

resultant injury and consequential damage which is cognizable in a court of
law (86 CJS 922).

A tort consists in a violation of a duty imposed by general law or otherwise

upon all persons occupying the relation to each other which is involved in a
given transaction (Coleman vs. California Yearly Meeting of Friends Church).

A tort is an act or omission violative of a private right existing in one or

more persons, whether natural or artificial, which right does not depend
directly on the assent of the person or persons owing the relative duty,
which directly results in damage to him or them having the right and for
which the law undertakes to give an appropriate private remedy to the
injured person against the wrongdoer (Downs vs. McCampbell).

A tort is the unlawful violation of a private legal right, other than a mere
breach of contract, express or implied; or, it may be the violation of a
public duty, by reason of which some special damage accrues to the
individual (Parsons vs. Foshee).

A tort consists in the violation of a right given or the omission of a duty

imposed by law (Naguiat vs. NLRC).
Kinds of Wrongs
1. As to against whom it is committed
a. Civilprivate wrong.
b. Criminalregarded as an offense against the public and is penalized by
law as a crime or felony.
2.

As to intent
a. Intentionalthe defendant is consciously aware that his conduct is
wrongful.
b. Negligentthe defendant does not intend an invasion of plaintiffs right
but is aware that, by his behavior, he is taking unreasonable risks.

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
c.

Reckless, gross or wanton wronga species of negligence which imports

knowledge and consciousness of the high risk of harm resulting from his
conduct as to be equivalent to an intentional wrong.

Civil Code Reader (Sison)

The term quasi-delict was chosen to express those obligations that do not arise
from law, contracts, quasi-contracts or criminal offenses.
Other Possible Terms
Culpa extra-contractual or
contractual fault
Aquilian fault
Tort (from Anglo-American law)

extra-

Objections
Does not exclude quasi-contractual or
penal obligations
Lex Aquilia is too ancient
Much broader than the SpanishPhilippine concept of obligations arising
from non-contractual negligence

Arts. 2204 to 2206 have been deemed necessary to cope with the alarming
increase of motor vehicle mishaps while new provisions on the liability of
manufacturers of foodstuffs and similar foods as well as possessors of dangerous
weapons or substances have also been formulated in Arts. 2207 and 2208.
Philippine Law on Torts and Damages (Sangco)
Origin and Nature of the term Quasi-Delict
Delict
Quasi-Delict
Roman
Generic term covering actions for Covers cases of liability imposed
Law
furtum, rapina, damnum iniuria, on the ground of expediency.
datum and iniuria; there must be
either wrongful intent (as in
furtum, rapina or iniuria) or
negligence (as in the Lex Aquilia).
French
An unlawful act infringing the Barredo vs. Garcia: A separate
Law
right of another and causing legal institution under the Civil
damage, such act being imputable Code with a substantivity all its
to its author, and not constituting own, and individuality that is
the fulfillment of some legal entirely apart and independent
obligation on his part, or the from delict or crime (covers injury
exercise of a right. The act must caused by negligence).
be done knowingly, and with
intent to cause injury (confined to
intentional injury).
English
No distinction since the term tort covers both intentional and
Law
negligent injury as well as strict liability.

Tort Liability in Civil and Common Law Jurisdictions

Roman (Civil) Law
Common Law
Emphasis on wrongful act as determined by a social and moral tradition old enough
to be practically questioned, and enforced at first by those who possessed religious
as well as moral authority.
rd
Aquilian law3 century BC; concept The law will not suffer a wrong to be
of reparation through a wrong or delict without a remedy.
The damnum
which required the payment of money element is an effective constituent of a
for property damaged by a wrongful cause of action, if not its exclusive basis.
act (iniuria).
Foundation for claims in torts in Never formulated a general definition
modern civil law and received classic of tort. A claim for reparatory damages
formulation in the famous section of should be within one of the listed
the French Civil Code, A-1382:
nominate torts, otherwise no recovery
Every act whatsoever of an individual could be had. The list is large and
which causes injury to another obliges permits of numerous approximations
the one by whose fault (faute) it has such that few wrongful situations
occurred to make reparation for it.
escaped legal remedies.
Two popular feelings about wrongs:
1. A wrong-doer should be made to pay because he has done wrong (notion
of wrong doing); and
2. An innocent person damaged should be made whole because he has
been damaged (damage notion).
Culpa Aquiliana as a General Theory of Delictual Liability
Roman Law and English Law

Set of nominate delicts or nominate torts such as furtum (conversion), rapina

(forcible conversion) and iniuria (willful aggression upon personality) in Roman
Law, all of which involved dolus (intentional aggression).
French Civil Code

Transformed the idea of Aquilian culpa into a general theory of delictual

liability where liability is to be based on a culpable act. Elements are: act,
culpability, causation and damage.

Preserved a liability without fault, whereby parents and teachers may be held
for injuries by minors under their charge, masters for injuries by their
apprentices, employers for injuries by employees and those in charge of
animals for injuries by such animals.

14

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
Philippine Law

Should we generalize our whole system of tort liability by means of one

principle of liability for fault only (as what the French sought to do) or should
we admit another source of delictual liability alongside of fault (as the French
law does in fact and is coming to do in theory)?

Three types of delictual liability under our law:

1. Liability for intentional harmno liability without fault
2. Liability for untinentional culpable harmno liability without fault
3. Liability in certain cases for unintended, non-culpable harmhistorical
anomalies or grounds to revise our notions of tort liability?

QUASI-DELICT AND DELICT

Comments and Cases on Torts and Damages (De Leon)
Crime or Delict
Quasi-Delict
Criminal or malicious intent or criminal Only NEGLIGENCE
negligence
Affects PUBLIC interest
Concerns PRIVATE interest
Generally has TWO liabilities: criminal Only CIVIL liability is present
and civil
Punishment or correction
Indemnification of the offended party
Liability CANNOT be compromised
Can be compromised
Guilt of the accused must be proved Fault or negligence of the defendant
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
may be proved by PREPONDERANCE OF
EVIDENCE
Liability of the person responsible for Liability of the person responsible for
the author of the negligence act or the author of the negligent act or
omission is SUBSIDIARY
omission is DIRECT and PRIMARY
Punished only if there is a penal law Includes ALL acts in which any kind of
covering them
fault or negligence intervenes
Institution of Criminal and/or Civil Actions
1. Acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence whether based on
reasonable doubt or not is NOT a bar to a subsequent civil action, not for
civil liability arising from criminal negligence but for damages due to a
quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana. Art. 2177, however, forestalls a double
recovery.
2. If the fault or negligence is purely civil, the action for damages can only
be based on quasi-delict (or breach of contract). If it is also criminal, the
injured party has the option to file:

a)

3.

4.

A criminal action in which case the civil action for the recovery of
civil liability arising from the offenses is deemed impliedly instituted;
or
b) To maintain a separate civil action to recover damages on the theory
of quasi-delict and not based on the criminal liability of the
defendant.
The separate civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal
prosecution, and notwithstanding the pendency or the result of the
latter.
Both cases, one criminal and the other civil, may be filed simultaneously
or successively as there is no identity of causes of action between them.
A decision rendered in one is not necessarily res judicata in the other.

DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE:
SANGCO (10-12)
The amount of care demanded by the standard of reasonable conduct must be
proportionate to the apparent risk.
SLIGHT NEGLIGENCE - an absence of that degree of vigilance which persons of
extraordinary prudence and foresight are accustomed to use. (failure to exercise
care)
GROSS NEGLIGENCE described as failure to exercise even that care which a
careless person would use. There is no generally accepted meaning, but the
probability is that it signifies more than ordinary inadvertence or inattention, but
less than conscious indifference to consequences. (extreme departure from the
ordinary standard of care)
WILFUL, WANTON, AND RECKLESS quasi-intent, lying between intent to do
harm and the mere reasonable risk of harm to another. They apply to conduct
which is still merely negligent but which is so far from a proper state of mind that it
is treated in many respects as if it were intended (actor has intentionally done an
act of unreasonable character in disregard of a risk known to him or so obvious that
he must be taken to have been aware of it, and so great as to make it highly
probably that harm would follow).
There is often NO CLEAR DISTINCTION between the above and gross, and the two
have tended to merge and take on the same meaning as an AGGRAVATED form of
negligence, differing in QUALITY rather than in DEGREE from ordinary lack of care.

15

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

SANGCO (27-32)
RES IPSA LOQUITOR the facts or circumstances attending an injury may be such
as to raise a presumption, or permit an inference, of negligence on the part of the
defendant, or some other person who is charged with negligence.

Effects:
1. Presumption of negligence
2. Burden of proof shifts
3. Need for expert testimony is dispensed with

It relates to the MODE rather than the BURDEN of establishing negligence.

Tan case (Jam transit)

(Note: Included in the new outline but wasnt discussed in class)
Theres testimony and pictures but the court still applied RIL.

It is NOT an exception to the rule of initial presumption of negligence, but is

DESCRIPTIVE of a class of cases wherein the initial presumption is overcome by
evidence inherently carrying with it implications of negligence without the
necessity of proof of specific facts or conduct.

WHEN DOES IT APPLY? Upon the satisfaction of 3 conditions:

1. The accident was of a kind which ordinarily does not occur unless
someone is negligent
2. The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the
exclusive control of the person charged with negligence
3. The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or
contribution on the part of the person injured
COURTS ADD A FURTHER CONDITION:
4. Plaintiff had no knowledge or means of knowledge as to the cause of the
accident
DEFENSES
1. Plaintiffs negligence
2. Contributory negligence
3. Fortuitous event
4. Assumption of risk
5. Due diligence
6. Damnum absque injuria
7. Prescription
8. Double recovery
Notes from class:
Requisites:
1. Nature of the accident
2. Control of the thing
3. No contributory negligence
4. Absence of direct evidence (from the cases)

DIFFERENT TESTS
De Leon, pp 221 225
Tests of Proximate Cause:
1. But for test defendants conduct is the cause of the injury which would not
have been sustained if the defendant had not been negligent. Conversely, the
defendants conduct cannot be said to be the proximate cause of the accident
unless the accident could have been avoided without such negligent act. For
the defendant to be held liable, the plaintiff must establish that but for the
defendants culpable conduct or activity, the plaintiff would not have been
injured.
2.

Cause-in-fact test a cause-in-fact relation must exist between the

defendants conduct and plaintiffs injury before liability may arise. The first
step is to determine whether the defendants conduct in point of fact was a
factor in causing plaintiffs damage. The question is whether his conduct
played such a part in causing the damage as would make him the author of
such damage and liable therefore in the eyes of the law.

3.

Substantial factor test under this test, if the actors conduct is a substantial
factor in bringing about harm to another, the fact that the actor neither
foresaw nor should have foreseen the extent of the harm or the manner in
which it occurred, does not prevent him from being liable. In order to be a
substantial factor in producing the harm, the causes set in motion by the
defendant must continue until the moment of the damage or at least down
the setting in motion of the final active injurious force which immediately
produced or preceded the damage. In other words, if the harmful result would
not have come about had the defendant not been negligent, his conduct is a
substantial factor and there would be legal causation.

16

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
4.

Foreseeability test if the defendant could not reasonably foresee any injury
as a result of his act, or if his conduct was reasonable in the light of what he
could anticipate, there is no negligence, and no liability. The defendant is not
liable for injurious consequences which could not have been foreseen or
reasonably anticipated under all the facts as they existed. Liability is limited to
the original risk he created.

DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE

Known in other jurisdictions as: doctrine of discovered peril; of
supervening negligence; of gross negligence; the humanitarian doctrine
Statements of the doctrine, with Sangco quoting from Bustamante v. CA:
1) The negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the
negligence of the defendant where it appears that the defendant, by
exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided
injurious consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding plaintiffs
negligence.
2) A person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an
accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent or that
of a third person imputed to the opponent is considered in law
solely responsible for the consequences of the accident.
Uses:
1) Allows a negligent plaintiff to claim from a negligent defendant
2) As a defense to defeat a claim for damages
Who may make use of the doctrine:
1) the plaintiff to eliminate his own negligence as a bar to recovery
2) the defendant to prove that the plaintiff had the last clear
opportunity and thus establish that the he was guilty of contributory
negligence which proximately caused the accident and will bar his
recovery
Note that some jurisdictions view the doctrine as merely a phase of
proximate cause. In such cases, the doctrine renders the plaintiffs
negligence as merely a remote cause of the incident. To invoke the
doctrine under this view, there must be a time sequencean interval in
which the plaintiffs act of negligence is complete and in which the
defendant, by the exercise of reasonable care, has had an opportunity to
avert disaster.
Elements:
a. First version of the elements according to Sangco
1) the plaintiff was in a position of danger which he is unable to escape
from by reason of his own negligence

2)

the defendant knew that a. the plaintiff was in danger; and knew, or
should have known by exercising ordinary care that b. the plaintiff
was unable to escape from the danger
3) the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident by
exercising ordinary care but failed, and the accident occurred as a
proximate result of such failure
b. Second version of the elements according to Sangco
1) the plaintiff placed himself in a dangerous situation because of his
own negligence
2) the defendant saw, or, in exercising reasonable care, should have
discovered the said dangerous situation
3) in time to avoid injuring him; and
4) that notwithstanding such notice, negligently failed or refused to
use every reasonable means at his command to avoid the impending
injury
5) thus resulting in injury to the plaintiff
It is applicable in a suit between the owners and drivers of two vehicles.
It is not applicable:
1) As between joint tortfeasors to test whether only one of them
should be liable because of his discovery of the plaintiffs peril
2) As between defendants concurrently negligent
3) As against third persons

INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS

Under Art. 32.
The reasons of the Code Commission for adopting Art. 32, as discussed by
Sangco, are:
1) To avoid the bottleneck of criminal proceedings at the level of the
Fiscal (who might either have too many cases, believes the
evidence was insufficient, or was disinclined to prosecute fellow
public officials).
2) To avoid having to meet the requirement of proof beyond
reasonable doubt, which often prevented the appropriate
punishment
3) To address those subtle means of trampling upon rights & liberties
which do not constitute direct and open violations of the RPC
Under this provision, the victim of a punishable violation of the
enumerated rights can choose between filing a civil action under Art. 100
of the RPC or an independent civil action for damages under Art. 32 of
the CC. There is no such option with regard to non-punishable violations
or those acts or omissions which do not constitute criminal offenses.

17

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
-

Note that the right to institute such independent civil action under Art.
32 is absolutely independent of the institution and result of the criminal
action. Otherwise, it would render Art. 32 meaningless and would go
against Art. 31, which provides that the action may proceed
independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of
the latter.

Under Art. 34.

Application: This specifically covers only members of city or municipal
police forces.
Requisites:
1) The defendant is a member of the city or municipal police force.
2) The plaintiff either sought police assistance or prosecution against
danger to his life or property, or he was aware of plaintiffs need for
assistance or protection but he refused or failed to render the same
3) As a consequence of such failure or refusal, the plaintiff suffered the
damages claimed
4) The civil action for such claims may be brought directly against the
derelict policeman who is primarily and personally liable for said
damages
5) Such civil action may be instituted independently of the institution
or pendency of any criminal proceedings and regardless of the result
thereof, and may be proved by preponderance of evidence
Because at the city or municipal level, the protection of life and property
is a basic function of government and the main justification for having a
police force, members of the police force are held directly and personally
liable for damages caused by their refusal or failure to render this basic
service.
It may constitute a criminal dereliction of duty, but the individual injured
also has the option of proceeding directly for the vindication of his
private right.
This leads to one of the exceptions to the principle of non-suability of the
state, because since the policeman is usually insolvent, the law secures
payment of damages by holding the City or Municipality subsidiarily
liable. Unlike the liability provided in Arts. 102 and 103 of the RPC,
however, the conviction of the defendant policeman is absolutely
immaterial to the city or municipalitys subsidiary liability.

Under Art. 35
Application: In all cases not covered by Arts. 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the
Code or by a special law, anyone who believes himself a victim of a
criminal offense (but the judge or prosecuting attorney finds no
reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been instituted and
refuses to institute proceeding) may bring a civil action for damages
under this article.
Nature: this civil action for damages under Art. 35 and Art. 30 is based on
civil liability arising from a criminal offense under Art. 100 of the RPC, and
is instituted ahead or separately from the criminal action, which is why it
will be suspended upon the filing of the criminal action during its
pendency, and also why it may be consolidated with the criminal action.
Art. 35 is different from Art. 30 in that in Art. 30, the plaintiff is not
required to file an indemnity bond, presumably because there is no
possibility that it was maliciously instituted.
This article presumes several propositions in fact and law, to wit:
1) The aggrieved party has opted not only to recover his damages in a
civil action under Art. 100 of the RPC but also to institute such civil
action ahead of and separately from the criminal action
2) The said party believes that the act or omission which caused the
damage is punishable by law and constitutes a criminal offense
3) The CC or any special law doesnt grant him the right to institute a
civil action for such damages independently of the criminal action to
enforce the alleged offenders criminal liability
4) The said party is granted the right to institute such civil action for
damages w/n the criminal action upon w/c it is based is filed;
prosecute it to final judgment, and prove it by preponderance of
evidence, if no criminal action is filed during its pendency
5) If a criminal action is filed during its pendency, the civil action will be
suspended until final judgment is rendered. It may also be
consolidated with the criminal action
6) If no criminal action is filed because the judge or prosecutor finds no
prima facie case has been established or that there is no reason to
believe that a crime has been established, the Court may, upon
defendants motion, require the plaintiff to file an indemnity bond in
case the complaint should be found to be malicious
7) Where a criminal action is subsequently instituted, presumably no
indemnity bond may be sought since there is no apparent
justification for it.

18

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
PRODUCT LIABILITY
Art. 2187
Nature: It is a strict liability tort. Thus, proof of negligence is unnecessary, and
the traditional defenses of 1) lack of privity; 2) lack of reliance on a warranty;
3) lack of notice to the defendant of breach of warranty; and 4) disclaimer of
implied warranties; are inapplicable. This is because the purpose of strict
liability is to prevent a manufacturer from defining the scope of his
responsibility for harm caused by his products. Note, however, that this article
permits recovery based not only on strict liability but also on negligence,
warranty, and deceit.
o Contributory negligence will diminish recovery, regardless of
whether it is sought under strict liability or negligence.
The injured plaintiff can choose between recovery under this article or for
breach of contract and warranty. In both cases, liability would be strict.
Requisites:
1) The defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the
defendants product, including the defendants relation with
the product
2) A causal connection between such condition and the plaintiffs
injuries or damage.
Limitations
Who may be held liable under this article: Only manufacturers and
processors, even though no contractual relation exists between them and
the consumer.
o Sangco points out the dilemma this produces, that is, the consumer
may not be able to recover damages for injuries sustained because
the manufacturers of such injury-producing products are generally
beyond the jurisdiction of the courts, especially those not licensed to
do business in the Philippines. He says there is then a need for
amendatory legislation. Meanwhile, he suggests that the strict
liability be extended to other sellers as a matter of public policy on
the principle that when one of two innocent parties must suffer, the
one who made the injury possible must bear the consequences
thereof, based on the Human Relations provisions.
Products covered: Limited to food products (canned, bottled, or
packaged goods intended for human consumption, all kinds of beverages)
and toilet articles (cosmetics and lotions, and drugs taken to maintain or
restore health).

Note: the seller of products which are quite incapable of being made
safe for their intended and ordinary use (i.e. in the field of drugs),
when the said products are properly prepared and marketed and
proper warning is given where the situation calls for it, is not to be
held to strict liability for unfortunate consequences attending their
use.
Consumer as contemplated in this article includes the user and
purchaser of the toilet articles and cosmetics.
Defective Product: is one which isnt reasonably fit for the ordinary
purposes for which such articles are sold and used; one which fails to
match the average quality of like products
Compensable damages expressly limited to death or injuries caused by
any noxious or harmful substances used by manufacturers and
processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles, and similar goods.
Degree of Diligence required of manufacturers of food: utmost care and
caution
Re: the duty of the manufacturer or seller to give a warning: A manufacturer
or seller of a product which, to his actual and constructive knowledge, involves
danger to users has a duty to give warning of such danger. No duty to warn
arises with respect to a product which is not in fact dangerous.
Burden of Proof: The plaintiff has to prove that the product was in a defective
condition when it left the hands of the manufacturer and particular seller.
Burden of Proof: The plaintiff also has to establish that such defective
condition proximately caused his injuries or damages. Note, however, that
medical testimony is not necessary to prove proximate causation; neither is it
necessary that every possible cause other than the food in question be
excluded to establish that such food product was the causative agency.
Re: the proof needed: According to Sangco, to which Sir Casis agreed, res ipsa
loquitur cannot be used to prove a defect in a product, unless the product is
one whose character and content must necessarily have remained unchanged
since it left the manufacturers position. If there was an opportunity for the
defect to have subsequently developed, res ipsa loquitur will not apply.
Re: the proof needed: Expert scientific testimony is generally necessary to
prove the defect in the product.

19

CASE DOCTRINES
CASE TITLE
DATE
The concept of a tort v. quasi-delict
Damage, damages, and injury

Naguiat v. NLRC

Vinzons-Chato v.
Fortune

13 March
1997

19 June
2007

FACTS/HELD

DOCTRINE

NOTES

Respondents taxi drivers sued their

employer Clark Field Taxi, Inc. (CFTI), its
president Sergio F. Naguiat, and Naguiat
Enterprises (NE), where Sergio is also
director and stockholder, for non-payment
of separation pay after CFTIs cessation of
operations not due to serious business
losses.

Our jurisprudence is wanting as to the definite

scope of corporate tort. Essentially, 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.

Corporate tort
The definition provided in this
case should be considered as an
obiter.
Can Naguiat be made liable
without the discussion of
corporate tort? Yes. Through the
use of the Labor Code, citing the
definition of an employer.
Tort defined as a breach of a legal
duty is too broad- does tort
include victimless wrongs? There
are wrongs which do not have
private complainants.

Art.32 was patterned after a tort. A tort is a

wrong, a tortious 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.
There are cases in which it has been stated that
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.

Definition of tort as a wrong is

too broad- tantamount to
covering religious and natural
laws.
NCC Art.32 a tort for impairment
of rights and liberties
Why did the SC consider Art 32.
as a tort? Because they have to
decide whether bad faith or
malice is relevant. In tort, bad
faith is irrelevant.
Must there be intent to harm?

Held: petition partially granted.

-Respondents were regular employees of
CFTI, hence liable for payment of separation
pay.
-NE not liable as it has a different personality
with that of CFTI.
-Sergio Naguiat solidarily liable with CFTI as
its president for being an employer as
defined in the Labor Code. Moreover, he
was personally liable for corporate torts (not
paying separation pay under LC Art.283) as a
stockholder actively managing or operating
the business and affairs of their close
(family) corporations CFTI and NE (Corp.
Code Sec.100, par.5).
Petitioner VInzons-Chato, as Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, reclassified Champion,
Hope and More cigarette brands of Fortune
from local brands to locally manufactured
cigarettes bearing a foreign brand subject
said brands to a higher tax. Fortune filed a
suit for damages under NCC Art.32. She
moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a cause of action for lack of allegation
of malice and bad faith.
Held: CA decision affirming TC order denying
motion to dismiss affirmed. Complaint of

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Barredo v. Garcia

8 July 1942
(Old CC)

Fortune stated a cause of action under NCC

Art.32. Not necessary to allege malice and
bad faith and alleging violation of
constitutional right sufficient.

x x x liability in tort is not precluded by the fact

that defendant acted without evil intent.

Respondents child Faustino died in a headon collision between Barredos taxi driven by
Fontanilla and a carretela where said child
was riding. Fontanilla was found negligent
and was sentenced in a separate criminal
proceeding. Barredo was now sued for
damages by respondents for the death of
their child caused by Fontanillas negligence.
Held:CA decision affirmed.
Barredo primarily and directly liable for
damages under Old CC Art.1903 (NCC
Art.2180) as employer of Fontanilla.

Differences between crimes under the RPC and

culpa aquiliana under the CC:
Crimes affect public interest; cuasi-delitos
are only of private concern.
Penal Code punishes or corrects criminal
acts; Civil Code merely repairs the damage by
means of indemnification.
Delicts are punished only if there is a penal
law clearly covering them; quasi-delicts
include all acts in which any kind of fault or
negligence intervenes (broader).
Reasons for the holding:
RPC Art.365 punishes not only reckless but
also simple negligence. Holding that CC
provisions on quasi-delicts refer only to fault
or negligence not punished by law will render
it nugatory.
There are numerous cases of criminal
negligence which may not be proven beyond
reasonable doubt (for criminal cases) but can
be proven with preponderance of evidence
(for civil cases) and resort to the latter will
lessen unvindicated civil wrongs.
To provide a more expeditious way of
obtaining relief than through criminal
proceeding by holding defendant (employer
in this case) primarily and directly liable.
To re-establish an ancient and additional
remedy and civil action independent of a
criminal prosecution to better safeguard
private rights.

No. Tort can also be committed

negligently.
Is the description of tort in this
case binding? No. The SC already
cited the intent behind Art. 32
that bad faith is irrelevant in
violations of constitutional right.
Sane act may fall under both
culpa-aquiliana
or
criminal
negligence
Problem here: no overlap
between Old CC and RPC- CC
provides for acts or omissions
attended by fault or negligence
not punished by law, hence there
will be no recovery if quasi-delict
arose from criminal negligence.
Hence, Bocobo, J. declared that
there was a concurrence in scope.
Not all quasi-delicts are crimes,
but there must be an intersection
between delicts and quasi-delicts.
If Old CC Art.1093 taken literally
(acts or omissions x x x not
punishable by law), there will be
no culpa aquiliana at all- negligent
acts are punishable by law as
well.
Reason for holding (4) is a policy
judgment- promotion of quasidelicts as cause of action.

21

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Elcano v. Hill

Cinco v. Canonoy

26 May 1977

31 May 1979

Reginald Hill, then a minor (later

emancipated by marriage), was charged for
the killing of plaintiffs-appellants son but
was acquitted for lack of intent to kill,
coupled with mistake. Plaintiffs-appellants
then filed a complaint for recovery of
damages against Reginald and his father
Marvin.
Held: Marvin Hill is still liable under NCC
Art.2180. Parental authority is terminated
upon emancipation by marriage but it is not
absolute as the emancipated minor can sue
and be sued in court only with the assistance
of his father, mother or guardian. Reginald,
although married, was living with and
getting subsistence from his father at the
time of the killing. Reginald was still
subservient to and dependent to Marvin. By
reason of equity, as Reginald is already of
age, the liability of Marvin is made
subsidiary to his son.

We here hold, in reiteration of Garcia,

that culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and
negligent acts which may be punishable by law.

Petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of

damages arising from a mishap involving his
car and a jeepney against private
respondents owners and driver of said
jeepney. A criminal case was later filed
against the driver wherein private
respondents moved for the suspension of
the earlier civil action pending final
determination of the criminal case, which
motion was granted.
Held: petition granted. City court ordered to
proceed with the civil case.
The civil action, being grounded on quasidelict, may proceed as a separate and
independent civil action as provided in NCC
Art.2177 and ROC Rule 111, Sec.2 (now
Sec.3)

The concept of quasi-delict, as enunciated in

Article 2176 of the Civil Code, is so broad that it
includes not only injuries to persons but also
damage to property. It makes no distinction
between damage to persons on the one hand
and damage to property on the other. Indeed,
the word damage is used in two concepts:
the harm done and reparation for the harm
done. And with respect to harm it is plain that
it includes both injuries to person and property
since harm is not limited to personal but also
to property injuries. In fact, examples of quasidelict in the law itself include damage to
property. An instance is Article 2191(2) of the
Civil Code which holds proprietors responsible
for damages caused by excessive smoke which
may be harmful to persons or property.
we

Intentional acts can give rise to

cause of action for quasi-delict.
Elcano clarified Barredo v. Garcia
ruling- 2176 does not cover only
negligent acts but also intentional
acts as evident by omission of
not punishable by law of CC Art.
1093 in NCC Art.1162. Also,
Bocobo, J. referred to a Sentencia
regarding estafa/fraud (hence
intentional).
Bocobo and Barredo, JJ.- both
motivated by sense of justice. In
Elcano, if intentional acts were
not under Art.2176 with respect
to 2180, Elcanos cannot recover
through vicarious liability. After
enactment of Family Code, the
spirit behind Elcano does not exist
anymore.
Art 2177- civil liability arising
from negligence under the Penal
Code creates an impression
that it only covers criminal acts.
Current ROC does not require
anymore the reservation in the
criminal proceeding of the right
to institute an independent civil
action based on the same criminal
act.

22

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Gashem Shookat
Baksh v. CA

Coca-Cola Bottlers
Philippines, Inc. V.
CA

People v Ballesteros

19 February
1993

18 October
1993

29 January
1998

Private respondent Gonzales filed a suit for

damages (based on NCC Art.21) arising from
petitioners breach of promise to marry her.
Held: petition denied.
Petitioner liable for damages under NCC
Art.21 as the proximate cause of the victims
acceptance of his love was his promise to
marry and the proximate cause of her having
sexual congress with him is his
representation to fulfil said promise, where
in fact he had no intention of marrying her.
the breach of promise to marry was
attended by moral seduction and hence
actionable.
Private respondent Geronimo filed an action
for damages against petitioner for alleged
reckless and negligent manufacture of Coke
(with fiber-like substance) and Sprite (with
plastic matter) resulting to the plummeting
of her sales and eventual joblessness and
destitution. CA reversed TC holding that
action was based on implied warranty and
not on quasi-delict and has already
prescribed because of being filed 6 months
after delivery of the thing sold.
Held: petition denied.
Cause of action of private respondent based
on quasi-delict and therefore prescribes in 4
years (NCC Art.1146). This is supported by
the allegations in the complaint referring to
reckless and negligent manufacture of
adulterated food items intended to be sold
for public consumption.
Accused-appellants Ballesteros, et al were
charged with and convicted of murder,
qualified by treachery, by shooting the
victims, 2 of which died while 4 others were
injured.
Held: Motive in committing a crime is not
essential for conviction. Defense of alibi
must fail because they failed to prove
physical impossibility of being in the locus

Quasi-delict is limited to negligent acts or

omissions and excludes the notion of
wilfulness or intent. Tort includes not only
negligence, but intentional criminal acts as
well. In the general scheme of the Philippine
legal system envisioned by the Civil Code
Commission, intentional and malicious acts,
with certain exceptions, are to be governed by
the RPC while negligent acts or omissions are
to be covered by NCC Art.2176. (In between
intentional and malicious acts and negligent acts
or omissions are injurious acts covered by NCC
Art.21.)
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.

Damages the pecuniary compensation,

recompense, or satisfaction for an injury
sustained, or as otherwise expressed, the
pecuniary consequences which the law imposes
for the breach of some duty or the violation of
some right.

Reversion
to the
classical
definition of quasi-delict.
Elcano ruling: equates culpa
aquilana to tort due to the
inclusion of intentional acts in Art
2176.
If Art.2176, sentence 2 includes
intentional acts, then tort = quasidelict?

23

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Custodio v. CA

9 February
1996

delicti or its immediate vicinity. Only moral

certainty and absolute certainty is required
of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Conviction affirmed with modification.
Petitioners fenced their properties which
blocked the pathway where tenants of
private respondents pass to and from the
apartment they leased. Ultimately, the
tenants left. Private respondents filed an
action for the grant of easement of right of
way in their favor, which was granted, and
upon appeal were granted damages.
Held: TC judgment reinstated.
The award of damages has no substantial
legal basis and was based merely on private
respondents unrealized profits when their
tenants left. The lot of petitioners were not
subjected to any servitude, even in favor of
private respondents, when the fence was
constructed and hence said construction
was made pursuant to their absolute right
over their property. Whatever damage may
have been incurred by respondents was
damnum absque injuria.

Injury- illegal invasion of a legal right.

Damage- loss, hurt, or harm which results from
the injury.
Damages- recompense or compensation
awarded for the damage suffered.
Damnum absque injuria- there is damage
without injury when the loss or harm was not
the result of a violation of a legal duty.
The law will give redress for an act causing
damage when such act is not only hurtful but
also wrongful. There must be damnum et
injuria.

Damage- physical effect; proof of

injury
Damages- what one gets upon
winning the case, pecuniary
Injury-illegal invasion of a legal right;
necessary as this gives rise to a
cause of action
Art.2176 refers to an injury, not
merely damage

24

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
CASE TITLE
Elements of quasi-delict
Quasi-delict and delict
Quasi-delict and contract

PNR v Brunty

BPI v Lifetime
Marketing
Corporation

Garcia v Salvador

Gregorio v CA

DATE

FACTS/HELD

DOCTRINE

November 2,
2006

Ethel Brunty sued PNR for the death of her

daughter when their Mercedes Benz smashed
with the PNR Train. PNR failed to provide the
necessary safety device to ensure the safety of
motorists in crossing the railroad track.

In order to sustain a claim based on quasidelict, the following requisites must concur: (1)
damage to plaintiff; (2) negligence, by act or
omission, of which defendant, or some person
for which whose acts he must respond was
guilty; and (3) connection of cause and effect
between such negligence and damage.

June 25,
2008

March 20,
2007

September
1, 2009

SC held that PNR is liable for damages based

on Art 2176.
Laurel is the former sales agent of LMC who
deposited collections in different branches of
PNB and were machine validated by BPIs
teller. However, these were reversed to an
amount of P2.7M verbally and with the tellers
failing to retrieve the duplicate original copies
of the deposit slips.
SC held LMC liable.
Ranida and her father Ramon filed a case
against Garcia and Castro for the erroneous
interpretation of Ranidas test result indicating
she is positive for Hepatitis B. She lost her job
and suffered serious mental anxiety while her
father was hospitalized and lost business
opportunities.
SC held
Gregorio was arrested in QC while visiting her
husband and 2 daughters, she was only
released when her husband posted bond. She
filed a complaint against Sansio ad Datuin for
damages for falsely indicating an address in
the complaint. She says she suffered
incalculable damage and the respondents
disregarded Art 26 which provides that every
person shall respect the dignity, personality,
privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors
and other persons. SC held that the elements
of Art 2176 are all present.

NOTES

There are three elements of quasi-delict: (a)

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

SC applied the elements of Quasidelict as if Tort is synonymous

with Quasi-delict.

The elements of an actionable conduct are: (1)

duty (2) breach (3) injury, and (4) proximate
causation.

A violation of Statutory duty is

negligence.

In every tort case filed under Art 2176 of the

CC, the plaintiff has to prove by a
preponderance of evidence: (1) the damages
suffered by him; (2) the fault or negligence of
the defendant or some other person to whose
act he must respond; (3) the connection of
cause and effect between the fault or
negligence and the damages incurred; and (4)
that there must be no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties.

25

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Barredo v Garcia

Andamo v IAC

Occena v Icamina

July 8, 1942

November 6,
1990

January 22,
1990

In road between Malabon and Navotas, headon collision between taxi of Malate Taxicab
and carretela guided by Pedro Dimapilis
causing overturning of the carretela and death
of Garcia (16 year old).
SC held that the parents may bring separate
civil action against Barredo making him
primarily liable and directly responsible under
Art 1903 of CC as employer of Fontanilla.
Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette
constructed waterpaths and contrivances
including an artificial lake within its land
adjacent to the land of spouses Emmanuel and
Natividad Andamo. This allegedly inundated
and eroded the spouses land and caused a
young man to drown which endangered their
lives and their laborers.
SC held that the corporation can be held liable
for damages under Art 2176 and 2177 of CC
on quasi-delict.
OCcena instated criminal complaint for Grave
Oral Defamation against Vagafria for uttering
the following words: Gago ikaw nga Barangay
Captain, montisco, traidor, malugus, Hudas
and other statements of similar import.
Although Vagafria was convicted there was no
award of damages.
SC held that Occena is entitled to damages.

L.G. Foods v
Philadelphia

September
26, 2006

LG Food Corporaton is the owner of Ford Fiera

Van driven by Ferrer, their salesman. It hit and
caused the death of Vallejera, 7 years old.
Ferrer committed suicide. So the parents are
claiming damages from the corporation.

A quasi-delict or culpa-aquiliana is a separate

legal institution under the CC, with a
substantivity all its own, and individuality that is
entirely apart and independent from a delict or
crime.

The elements of quasi-delict: (1) damage

suffered by plaintiff (2) fault or negligence of
the defendant, or some other person for whose
acts he must respond; and (3) the connection of
cause and effect between the fault or
negligence of the defendant and the damages
incurred by the plaintiff.

Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses

are governed by Art 100 of RPC in relation to
Art 2177 of CC on quasi-delict. A crime has a
dual character: (1) as an offense against the
State (2) an offense against private persons.
In the ultimate alanysis, what gives rise to the
civil liability is really the obligation of everyone
to repair or to make whole the damage caused
whether done intentionally or negligently and
whether or not punishable by law.
An act or omission causing damage to another
may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on
the part of the offender, civil action arising from
culpa criminal and action for quasi-delict under
Art 2176 to 2194 of CC. The liability of the
employer is direct and immediate.

It is not damage, it should be

injury.

26

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
Sacks of watermelons were left upon the
platform. Cangco, on a dark night, while
steeping off came in contact with the
watermelon which caused him to slip and fall
violently on the platform. He was drawn under
the moving car and his right arm was badly
crushed and lacerated. It took 6 meters before
the car came to a full stop. His arm was
amputated.
Cangco v Manila
Railroad

October 14,
1918

SC held that there was no contributory

negligence on his part.

Quasi-delict is broader than culpa contractual.

Vinculum
Juris

Liability
of
employer
Onus of
plaintiff

Defense

FGU Insurance v
Sarmiento

Calalas v. CA

August 6,
2002

31 May 200

GPS undertook to deliver 30 unites of Condura

SD white refrigerators aboard one of its Isuzu
truck driven by Lambert Eroles fro, the plant
site of Concepcion Industries, Inc. It was
traversing the north division road along
MacArthur highway when it collided with an
unidentified truck which damaged the
cargoes. FGU wants reimbursement from GPS.
SC held that GPS is presumed negligent.
Eliza Sunga was a PE student of Siliman
University. He rode a jeepney driven by
Calalas, as the jeep was full she was given a
stool and made to sit at the rear end of the
vehicle. While letting off passengers, an Isuzu
truck owned by Salva bumped the rear of the
jeep which caused Eliza to be in cast for 3
months.2 cases were filed, one of Sunga
afainst Calalas and of Calalas against Salva.
Calalas liable for damages based on breach of
contract of carriage. Res judicata does not

Quasi Delict

Breach of Contract

Created by
the
negligent
act or
omission
Presumed

It exists
independent of the
duty voluntary duty
assumed by the
parties
Direct and
Immediate

Fault or
negligence
of
defendant
Proof of
exercise of
diligence
required

Existence and
nonperformance of
contact
Prove performance
of contract or
contributory
negligence

Default results to a presumption of lack of care

and corresponding liability on the part of the
contractor obligor the burden being on him to
establish otherwise.

In cases of breach of contract of carriage, the

presumption of negligence arises upon the
breach of the contract. Proximate cause is not
necessary in cases of breach of contractual
obligation, the mere breach constitutes an
action in itself.

There is a difference between

actions on Contracts and quasidelicts.
In Contracts:
Source of Action: Negligence in
performance of obligation
Presumption
of
negligence:
existence of contract and its
breach leads to presumption of
negligence.
Doctrine of PC: Not applicable
Recovery of Moral Damages: Not

27

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
apply on the quasi-delict case filed by Calalas
against Salva.

recoverable (except in cases

where death was caused or where
there is BF or fraud.
In QD:
Source of Action: Negligence of
tortfeasor
Presumption of negligence: Must
be clearly established; negligence
is basis of action
Doctrine of PC: Applicable;
obligation created by law
Recovery of Moral Damages:
recoverable.

Batal v. San Pedro

Fores v. Miranda

27 Sept 2006

4 Mar 1959

Spouses San Pedro contracted Batal who

represented himself as a surveyor, to survey
there land and to build a perimeter fence.
After the fence was erected, the spouses were
sued because the fence encroached a right of
way. It was later found that it was Batals wife
who was a licensed geodetic engineer.Batal
promised to share in the costs of the suit
which he never did, so Spouses sued him.
Spouses Batal liable. This action is one of
breach of contract, negligence may either be
culpa aquilana, to which the wrongful act
createds a vinculum juris, or culpa contractual,
to which the fault or negligence incident in the
performance of the obligation already existing.
Action falls under Art. 1170 and 2201 CC.
While a vehicle driven by Luga was descending
the Sta. Mesa bridge at a an excessive speed,
Luga lost control which made it swerve and his
the wall bridge. Five passengers were injured,
including Miranda which suffered a fracture to
which he had a series of operations and PTs
on. Driver was convicted reckless imprudence
resulting in Serious PI.
Miranda is not entitled to Moral Damages.
This case does not fall under Articles 2219 and

Negligence may either be culpa aquilana or

culpa contractual. The first one gives rise to a
vinculum juris by way of a commission of a
wrongful act or negligence, the latter by virtue
of the contract, already has a vinculum juris
between the parties, and the fault or
negligence gives rise to an increase in liability of
the already existing obligation.

In cases of breach of contract, proof of

bad faith or fraud (wanton deliberate
misconduct), is essential to justify award
of moral damages
Breach of contract is not included in
Analogous cases stated in 2219, not only
because 2220 specifically provides for
damages that are caused by contractual
breach, but because 2176 excludes cases
of pre-existing contractual relationships.

In breach of contract, awards of

moral damages are not granted,
this is due to the advantageous
position of the victim and the
presumption of liability on the
part of the carrier upon mere
proof of injury of the passenger.
Also, unlike in QDs, a carrier
cannot make a defense that it
exercised the due diligence in
selection of its employees.

28

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
2220 which provide for cases where moral
damages are predicated. Actions on breach of
contract of transportation does not come
within the ambit of the rules.

Far East Bank and

Trust Company v. CA

Air France v. CA

23 Feb 1995

26 Sept 1966

Luna applied for a Fareastcard with far east

bank. He was also issued a supplemental card
for Clarita which was later lost. While the
replacement was in process, the Lunas card
was tagged as a HOT CARD or CANCELLED
CARD. Luna later used the card to pay for a
despedida lunch held at Intercon, but as the
card was not accepted, he paid in cash and
was deeply embarrassed. He then demanded
an apology from Far East. The VP of the bank
then sent letters to Luna and the restaurant to
explain the matter. But Luna still sued for
damages.
- Luna not entitled to exemplary and moral
damages. Far east bank not shown to be in
bad faith or have acted with malice. the
subsequent actions of the bank by sending
letters negates the bad faith imputed against
it for the recovery of damages.
Carrascoso rode Air France in first class for a
pilgrim trip to Lourdes. While in Bangkok
though, he was asked by the mangager to
vacate his seat because a white man had a
better right to the seat. A commotion
ensued when Carrascoso refused, but later
acceded to give up his seat. He then filed for
claim of damages.

Exception on awarding moral

damages:

defendant acted fraudulently

or in bad faith.

result in death 1764 makes a

common carrier subject to to
the rule in 2206 which
awards moral damages to the
spouse, descendant and
ascendant of a deceased
passenger by reason of
mental anguish due to the
death.
Under Articles 2220, 2201, 21, and 2219 states
that moral damages may be awarded in cases
of culpa contractual when there is gross bad
faith or a willful intent to cause harm.

A contract of transportation os different from

other contracts in that air-carriers sustain a kind
of relation with the public. The manner of
ejectment of Carrascoso which falls within the
wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive and
malevolent manner. the rude and discoreous
conduct of the employees of the carrier gives
the aggrieved passenger an action for damages

Held as QD though one of breach

of contract.

29

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
against the carrier.

PSBA v. CA

4 Feb 1992

Carrascoso entitled to moral and exemplary

damages as well as attys fees. The action of
the manager was in bad faith. Air France is
liable for the action of its employee.
Bautista died of a stabbing incident within the
premises of PSBA. the assailants are outsiders.
The defense of PSBA is that it cannot be
impleaded for the assailants are not from the
school and therefore it does not come within
the ambit of 2180.
PSBAs liability did not arise from 2180 or
culpa aquilana but from culpa contractual.

Vicente Syquia was interred by MMP. After a

month, when they were about to transfer
Vicentes remains to a newly purchased lot,
they found that the vault containing the casket
had hole in it and that water seeped into the
vault causing the casket and the remains to be
damaged and soiled.
Syquia v. CA (Mla
Memorial Park)

LRT Authority and

Roman v. Navidad
and Prudent Security
Agenct

27 Jan 1993

6 Feb 2003

MMP not liable either by culpa contractual or

culpa aquilana.

Navidad, who was drunk, already had a token

to ride the EDSA LRT when an altercation and
a fist fight ensued between him and Escartin,
LRTs guard. Navidad then fell on the tracks
just when a train was approaching. He was hit
and killed. CA held LRT and Roman (driver of
train) liable.

Article 2180 is for actions done by pupils of the

institution. This case, however is one of
contract for upon acceptance of the school of
students during enrolment, the school accepts
the responsibility of providing the students of
an environment conducive to learning.
Certainly, no student can absorb the intricacies
of physics or explore the realm of arts when
bullets are flying or where there looms around
the school premises a constant threat to life
and limb.

Culpa contractual
The contract that the parties
entered into was clear and the letters of
the contract should prevail. The tern
seal is not equitable to waterproof. It
simply means that it is closed.

Culpa Aquilana
Negligence is that omission of diligence
which is required by the nature of
obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of the persons, of the time
and place.
Although a pre-existing contractual
relations does not preclude an action for
culpa aquilana, this case does not show
negligence.
When a fault is established as in the case, the
presumption arises that the employer failed to
exercise due diligence in the selection of its
employees. the liability in this case is primary
and can only be negated by a factual showing of
exercise of due diligence.

Hole was so the vault would not

flow for it was rainy during those
days.
Sir: duh.

A contractual obligation can

be breached by tort and
when the same act or
omission causes the injury,
one resulting in culpa
contractual and one in culpa
aquilana, Art 2194 can apply.
When tort breaches the

30

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
LRT liable, Roman absolved. The responsibility
of LRT started upon the passengers purchase
of the ticket. LRT chose to hire the
employment of outsiders in pursuing its
responsibility to passengers. It is not absolved
from its responsibilities of making sure that
the passengers are safe.

Consolidated Bank v.
CA

11 Sept 2003

L.C. Diaz instructed one of its messengers to

deposit money to Solidbank. As the
transaction with Solidbank took time and the
messenger had to deposit to Allied Bank also,
he left to the the latter task. Upon the latters
return however, he was informed that the
passbook was given to someone else. A day
after it was found that 300k was withdrawn
from the acct. A case of estafa was filed
against one of L.C. messengers. It also
demanded Solidbank to return the money but
the latter refused.
The bank is liable to its depositor under culpa
contractual. the law imposes on the bank and
its tellers a higher degree of diligence in
safeguarding the depositors passbook. The
depositors must be insured that the passbooks
were returned to their duly authorized
representatives.

In cases of culpa contractual, once it is proved

that there is a breach of contract, a
presumption arises that the defendant was at
fault or negligent. To this, Solidbank failed to
discharge the burden. Solidbank had the
contractual obligation to give the passbook to
the representative of L.C. Diaz. The banks
negligence is the proximate cause of the injury
suffered by Diaz.

contract, a liability on tort

may arise even if there is a
pre-existing contract. In this
case the rules on tort can
apply.

*eto ata yung sinasabi ni sir

na paghahalo ng tort at
contract, kasi 2176 precludes
existence of contract, e under
this case it implies a change
in the nature of the rules of
actions, na mas logical isipin
na nasa catch all 19,20,21 ipa-pattern.. Isa din ata to sa
which would make an
interesting
final
exam
question niys. 8)
*bear in mind: fiduciary nature of
banking business, public interest
*The defense of Last clear chance
only mitigates the liability of the
bank but dies not absolve it. This
is a case of culpa contractual, to
which the contributory negligence
or last clear chance would
exonerate
the
defendants
liability.

31

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
CASE TITLE
DATE
Concept of Negligence
Standard of Conduct
Children
Experts
Medical Professionals

Picart v. Smith

15 Mar. 1918

FACTS/HELD

DOCTRINE

NOTES

Facts:
Picart was riding on his pony over the bridge.
He was on the wrong side of the road. Smith
approached from the opposite direction in his
car, and blew his horn to warn Picart.
However, Picart pulled the pony closely up
against the railing on the right side of the
bridge instead of going to the left. The horse
died and Picart was severely injured.

Test to determine negligence: Did the

defendant in doing the alleged negligent act
use that reasonable care and caution which
an ordinarily prudent person would have used
in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty
of negligence. [memorize]

Art. 1173: negligence = absence of

diligence

Held:
Smith was negligent. He had the right to
assume that the horse would move to the
proper side, but the control of the situation
had then passed entirely to him; and it was
his duty either to bring his car to an
immediate stop or, seeing that there were no
other persons on the bridge, to take the other
side and pass sufficiently far away from the
horse to avoid the danger of collision.

The existence of negligence in a given case is

not determined by reference to the personal
judgment of the actor in the situation before
him. The law considers what would be
reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the
man of ordinary intelligence and prudence
and determines liability by that.
The question as to what would constitute the
conduct of a prudent man in a given situation
must of course be always determined in the
light of human experience and in view of the
facts involved in the particular case.
Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by
ignoring of the suggestion born of this
prevision, is always necessary before
negligence can be held to exist.
Conduct is said to be negligent when a
prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor
would have foreseen that an effect harmful to
another was sufficiently probable to warrant
his foregoing conduct or guarding against its
consequences.

required by the nature: can be

diligent but still be negligent
Prudent man: based on what he
could have known
Standards vs. rules unfair, cannot
foresee all circumstances

32

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

PNR v. Brunty

2 Nov. 2006

Facts:
Mercelita, with Brunty and Garcia, was driving
a Mercedes Benz sedan at 2:00 a.m. and was
driving at around 70km/h when it drove past
of another vehicle. He was unaware that what
follows in front was an intersection with a
railroad track and the car smashed at a PNR
Train. Mercelita and Brunty died, while Garcia
was severely injured.
Held:
PNR is liable for damages under Art. 2176. It
was negligent for its failure to provide the
necessary safety device for the safety of
motorists passing the railroad track crossing.
Facts:
Jorge pawned jewelry with Sicam. Two armed
men entered the pawnshop and took cash
and jewelry inside the vault. Sicam alleged
that it was a fortuitous event.

Sicam v. Jorge

PNR v. CA

8 Aug. 2007

15 Oct. 2007

Held:
Sicam was negligent for failure to adopt
security measures in the pawnshop. In order
for FE to exempt one from liability, it is
necessary that one has committed no
negligence or misconduct that may have
occasioned the loss.
Facts:
Amores was traversing the railroad tracks in
Pandacan. Before crossing the railroad track,
he stopped for a while then proceeded
accordingly. Unfortunately, just as he was at
the intersection, a PNR train turned up and
collided with the car. After impact, the car
was dragged about 10 meters beyond the
center of the crossing. Amores died.
Held:
PNR was negligent. The train was running at a
fast speed. There was no crossing bar, and no
flagman or guard to man the intersection at

Negligence is the omission to do something

which a reasonable man, guided by those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do, or the
doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do.
Negligence is want of the care required by the
circumstances.

The diligence with which the law requires the

individual at all times to govern his conduct
varies with the nature of the situation in
which he is placed and the importance of the
act which he is to perform. [memorize]

Negligence is the failure to observe for the

protection of the interests of another person
that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance
which the circumstances justly demand,
whereby such other person suffers injury.

33

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Corinthian Gardens
v. Spouses Tanjangco

27 June 2008

all times was posted on the day of the

incident. A reliable signaling device in good
condition, not just a dilapidated Stop, Look
and Listen signage because of many years of
neglect, is needed to give notice to the public.
Facts:
Tanjangcos own lots in Corinthian Gardens.
Cuasos own adjacent lot. Before the Cuasos
constructed their house, Geodetic Engineer
De Dios made the survey on the lot of Cuasos.
Before, during and after the construction of
the said house, Corinthian conducted periodic
ocular inspections in order to determine
compliance with the approved plans.
However,
Cuasos
perimeter
fence
encroached on Tanjangcos lot.
Held:
Corinthian was negligent. It failed to exercise
the requisite diligence in insuring that the
Cuasos abide by its Manual of Rules and
Regulations, thereby resulting in the
encroachment on the Tanjangcos property.

Taylor v. Manila
Railroad

22 Mar. 1910

Facts:
Taylor, 15 yo, and Claparols, 12 yo, went
inside Manila Railroads power plant. They
took brass fulminating caps scattered on the
ground. They are intended for use in the
explosion of blasting charges of dynamite,
and have in themselves considerable
explosive power. On their way back, they met
Jessie, 9 yo, The boys then made a series of
experiments with the caps, and an explosion
followed. All of them were injured.
Held:
Manila Railroad is not liable. Its negligence in
leaving the caps exposed on its premises was
not the proximate cause of the injury
received. Taylor was a well-grown youth.

A negligent act is an inadvertent act; it may

be merely carelessly done from a lack of
ordinary prudence and may be one which
creates a situation involving an unreasonable
risk to another because of the expectable
action of the other, a third person, an animal,
or a force of nature.
A negligent act is one from which an ordinary
prudent person in the actors position, in the
same or similar circumstances, would foresee
such an appreciable risk of harm to others as
to cause him not to do the act or to do it in a
more careful manner.

While it is the general rule in regard to an

adult that to entitle him to recover damages
for an injury resulting from the fault or
negligence of another he must himself have
been free from fault, such is not the rule in
regard to an infant of tender years. The care
and caution required of a child is according to
his maturity and capacity only, and this is to
be determined in each case by the
circumstance of the case.

W/N Taylor is still a child for

purpose of determining negligence

34

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Jarco Marketing v.
CA

21 Dec. 1999

Facts:
nd
Criselda and Zhieneth, 6 yo, were at the 2
flr. of Syvels Dept. Store. Criselda
momentarily let go of her daughters hand to
sign her credit card slip at the payment and
verification counter. She suddenly felt a gust
of wind and heard a loud thud. Zhieneth was
on the floor, pinned by the gift-wrapping
counter. She died 14 days later.

An accident pertains to an unforeseen event

in which no fault or negligence attaches to
the defendant. It is a fortuitous circumstance,
event or happening; an event happening
without any human agency, or if happening
wholly or partly through human agency, an
event which under the circumstances is
unusual or unexpected by the person to
whom it happens.

Held:
Jarco was negligent. The store supervisors
were personally informed of the danger
posed by the unstable counter. Yet, neither
initiated any concrete action to remedy the
situation nor ensure the safety of the store's
employees and patrons as a reasonable and
ordinary prudent man would have done.

Accident and negligence are intrinsically

contradictory; one cannot exist with the
other. Accident occurs when the person
concerned is exercising ordinary care, which is
not caused by fault of any person and which
could not have been prevented by any means
suggested by common prudence.
The conclusive presumption favors children
below 9 yo in that they are incapable of
contributory negligence. In our jurisdiction, a
person under 9 yo is conclusively presumed to
have acted without discernment, and is, on
that account, exempt from criminal liability.
The same presumption and a like exemption
from criminal liability obtains in a case of a
person over 9 and under 15 yo, unless it is
shown that he has acted with discernment.
Since negligence may be a felony and a quasidelict and required discernment as a
condition of liability, either criminal or civil, a
child under 9 yo is, by analogy, conclusively
presumed to be incapable of negligence; and
that the presumption of lack of discernment
or incapacity for negligence in the case of a
child over 9 but under 15 yo is a rebuttable
one, under our law. The rule, therefore, is
that a child under 9 yo must be conclusively
presumed
incapable
of
contributory
negligence as a matter of law. (Sangco)

35

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
Facts:
Teacher Aquino asked his students to help
burying concrete blocks and ordered them to
dig. He left the children to level the loose soil.
3 of 4 children jumped into the pit. One
jumped on the concrete block causing it to
slide down. 2 were able to escape but Ylarde
sustained injuries and died.
Ylarde v. Aquino

Culion v. Philippine

29 Jul. 1988

30 Nov. 1930

Left by themselves, it was but natural for the

children to play around. In ruling that Ylarde
was imprudent, the lower court did not
consider his age and maturity. A minor
should not be held to the same degree of care
as an adult.

Held:
Aquino is liable. The work required adult
laborers. He required the children to remain
in the pit after they finished digging. He
ordered them to level the soil when a huge
stone was at brink of falling. He went to
another place and left them.

Facts:
Culion wanted to have the engine of its vessel
changed from gasoline to crude oil. Quest,
Phil. Motors manager, undertook the job. He
concluded that a new carburetor was needed
and thus installed a Zenith carburetor. The
carburetor was flooding, and gasoline, or
other fuel, was trickling freely from the lower
part to the carburetor to the floor. This fact
was called to Quest's attention, but he said
that, when the engine had gotten to running
well, the flooding would disappear. A back
fire occurred in the cylinder chamber and
destroyed the boat.
Held:
Quest was negligent. He had had ample
experience in fixing the engines of
automobiles and tractors, but it does not
appear that he was experienced in the doing
of similar work on boats. Possibly the dripping
of the mixture from the tank on deck and the

When a person holds himself out as being

competent to do things requiring professional
skill, he will be held liable for negligence if he
fails to exhibit the care and skill of one
ordinarily skilled in the particular work which
he attempts to do. [memorize]

Age of accountability
Exercise of poor judgment vs.
negligence

36

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
flooding of the carburetor did not convey to
his mind an adequate impression of the
danger of fire. The test of liability is not
whether the injury was accidental in a sense,
but W/N Quest was free from blame.
Facts:
Pineda is a registered pharmacist of long
standing and the owner of a drug store.
Santos bought from his medicine for his sick
horses. Believing that he had purchased the
potassium chlorate which he had asked for,
he put two of the packages in water and gave
the doses to two of his sick horses. The horses
died because of poisoning due to barium
chlorate.
US v. Pineda

22 Jan. 1918

Held:
Pineda was negligent, guilty of violating the
Pharmacy Law.

Mercury Drug v. De
Leon

17 Oct. 2008

Facts:
Judge De Leon consulted Dr. Milla about his
irritated left eye. The latter prescribed
Cortisporin Opthalmic and Ceftin to
relieve his eye problems. De Leon then went
to Mercury Drug to buy the prescribed
medicines. When the medicine was applied,
the irritation was not relieved and instead, he
felt searing pain. He then found out that he
was given an ear solution Cortisporin Otic
instead of the eye solution Cortisporin
Opthalmic. De Leon went back to Mercury to
confront pharmacist assistant Ganzon but he
received no apology from the latter. Ganzon
just said that she was not able to read the
prescription fully. The supervisor then said

The care required must be commensurate

with the danger involved, and the skill
employed must correspond with the superior
knowledge of the business which the law
demands.
As a pharmacist, he is made responsible for
the quality of all drugs and poisons which he
sells. It is provided that it shall be unlawful for
him to sell any drug or poison under any
"fraudulent name (i.e. giving of a false name
to the drug asked for).
The rule of caveat emptor cannot apply to the
purchase and sale of drugs. The vendor and
the vendee do not stand at arms length as in
ordinary transactions. An imperative duty is
on the druggist to take precautions to prevent
death or serious injury to anyone who relies
on his absolute honesty and peculiar learning.
The nature of drugs is such that examination
would not avail the purchaser anything.
The profession of pharmacy demands care
and skill, and druggists must exercise of a
specially high degree, the highest degree of
care known to practical men. Druggists must
exercise the highest practicable degree of
prudence and vigilance, and the most exact
and reliable safeguards consistent with the
reasonable conduct of the business, so that
human life may not constantly be exposed to
the danger of flowing from the substitution of
deadly poisons for harmless medicines.
One holding himself out as competent to
handle drugs, having rightful access to them,
and relied upon by those dealing with him to
exercise that high degree of caution and care

Presumption
of
negligence:
pharmacist gave wrong drugs

37

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
that they do not have a stock of Cortisporin
Opthalmic.
Held:
Mercury Drug and Ganzon are liable. As a
buyer, De Leon relied on the expertise and
experience of Mercury Drug and its
employees in dispensing him the right
medicine.
Facts:
[the
kulang-kulang
clinic]
Rowena
accompanied her mother Lydia to Perpetual
Help Clinic and General Hospital. Lydia was
examined by Cruz who found a "myoma" in
her uterus, and scheduled her for a
hysterectomy operation. The clinic was
untidy. During the operation, the doctor
asked them to buy tagamet ampoules and
blood. The oxygen supply also ran out. Lydia
went into shock and had to be transferred to
another hospital where she died.

Cruz v. CA

1997

Held:
Cruz was acquitted of reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide. No expert opinion was
presented to establish the doctors
negligence.

called for by the peculiarly dangerous nature

of the business, cannot be heard to say that
his mistake by which he furnishes a customer
the most deadly of drugs for those
comparatively harmless, is not in itself gross
negligence.

W/N doctor has committed an "inexcusable

lack of precaution" in the treatment of his
patient is to be determined according to the
standard of care observed by other members
of the profession in good standing under
similar circumstances bearing in mind the
advanced state of the profession at the time
of treatment or the present state of medical
science.
W/N a physician or surgeon has exercised the
requisite degree of skill and care in the
treatment of his patient is, in the generality of
cases, a matter of expert opinion. The
deference of courts to the expert opinion of
qualified physicians stems from its realization
that the latter possess unusual technical skills
which laymen in most instances are incapable
of intelligently evaluating. Expert testimony
should have been offered to prove that the
circumstances cited by the courts below are
constitutive of conduct falling below the
standard of care employed by other
physicians in good standing when performing
the same operation. It must be remembered
that when the qualifications of a physician are
admitted, there is an inevitable presumption
that in proper cases he takes the necessary
precaution and employs the best of his
knowledge and skill in attending to his clients,
unless the contrary is sufficiently established.

Physician: NOT guarantors

Expert testimony REQUIRED

38

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
In litigations involving medical negligence, the
plaintiff has the burden of establishing
negligence and for a reasonable conclusion of
negligence, there must be proof of breach of
duty on the part of the surgeon as well as a
casual connection of such breach and the
resulting death of his patient.

Professional Services
v. Agana

31 Jan. 2007

Facts:
Agana was rushed to Medical City General
Hospital because of difficulty of bowl
movement and bloody anal discharge. She
was diagnosed with "cancer of sigmoid"
A surgery was performed on her. Dr. Fuentes
completed the hysterectomy after which Dr.
Ampil took over. Days after Agana was
discharged, she complained of pain in her
anal region. She complained to the doctors
but the latter said it was only a natural
consequence. Agana went to US for further
treatment for 4 months. She was told that she
was free of cancer. After her return, her
daughter found a piece of gauze protruding
from her vagina. Dr. Ampil took the gauze out
by hand and assured her that pains would
soon vanish. But pain only intensified. Agana
then sought treatment from Polymedic
General Hospital, where another surgery was
performed. She died afterwards.
Held:
Dr. Ampil was negligent. Leaving of foreign
substances in the wound after the incision has
been closed is prima facie evidence and such
act is inconsistent with the due care claim. He
breached both duties: (1) to take out all
foreign objects and (2) inform patient in case
he was not able to remove all foreign objects.
PSI was also negligent. It failed to PSI failed to

Medical malpractice/negligence: Health care

provider failed to do something which a
reasonably prudent health care provider
would have done or he did something that a
reasonably prudent provider would not have
done.
Duties of hospital (Darling v. Charleston
Community)
(1) use of reasonable care in the maintenance
of safe and adequate facilities and equipment
(2) selection and retention of competent
physicians
(3) overseeing or supervision of all persons
who practice medicine within its walls
(4) formulation, adoption and enforcement of
adequate rules and policies that ensure
quality care for its patients
[see Week 9 for further discussion]

Liability of doctor vs. hospital

39

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Cantre v. Go

Cayao-Lasam v.
Spouses Ramolete

27 Apr. 2007

18 Dec. 2008

adduce evidence showing that it exercised

the diligence of a good father of a family in
the accreditation and supervision of doctors.
Facts:
Dr. Cantre is a specialist in Obstetrics and
Gynecology, who attended to Go. Go suffered
from profuse bleeding due to some parts of
placenta which were not completely taken
out from her womb after delivery. Various
medical procedures were performed to stop
the bleeding. The doctor also ordered for a
droplight to warm the patient and her baby.
Go's husband noticed a wound on the inner
portion her left arm. The husband asked the
doctors and the latter said it was due to the
blood pressure cuff. Later, it was found that
the injury was a burn caused by the droplight.
The injury was referred to a plastic surgeon
for skin grafting. However, Go's arm cannot
be restored and aside from the unsightly
mark, it also caused her pain.
Held:
Dr. Cantre is liable. The wound on Noras arm
is not an ordinary occurrence in the act of
delivering a baby. Such injury could not have
happened unless negligence had set in
somewhere.
Facts:
Editha was 3 months pregnant when she was
rushed to the Lorma Medical Center due to
vaginal bleeding. Lasam advised Editha to
undergo a Dilatation and Curettage Procedure
(D&C) or "raspa." The procedure was
performed and Editha was discharged with
the order to return four days later for check
up. However, it was only more than a month
later that Editha returned because of
vomiting and severe abdominal pains. The
attending physicians later informed Editha
that there was a dead fetus in her womb. She
was found to have a massive intra-abdominal

Physicians are not guarantors of care and,

they never set out to intentionally cause
injury to their patients. However, intent is
immaterial in negligence cases because where
negligence exists and is proven, it
automatically gives the injured a right to
reparation for the damage caused

Medical malpractice is a particular form of

negligence which consists in the failure of a
physician or surgeon to apply to his practice
of medicine that degree of care and skill
which is ordinarily employed by the
profession generally, under similar conditions,
and in like surrounding circumstances. In
order to successfully pursue such a claim, a
patient must prove that the physician or
surgeon either failed to do something which a
reasonably prudent physician or surgeon
would not have done, and that the failure or
action caused injury to the patient.

Expert testimony REQUIRED

40

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
hemorrhage and a ruptured uterus. Thus,
Editha had to undergo a procedure for
hysterectomy (surgical removal of the uterus,
resulting in the inability to become pregnant
(sterility)).

Lucas v. Dr. Tuano

21 Apr. 2009

Held:
Dr. Lasam is not liable. Spouses did not
present any expert testimony to support their
claim that the doctor failed to do something
which a reasonably prudent physician or
surgeon would have done. Also, the D&C
procedure having been conducted in
accordance with the standard medical
practice, it is clear that Edithas omission was
the proximate cause of her own injury and
not merely a contributory negligence on her
part.
Facts:
Lucas contracted sore eyes so he consulted
Dr. Tuao of the St. Lukes Medical Center.
Prior to this, he had been taking Maxitrol.
Upon his consultation, he was prescribed
another medicine and was told to return for
follow-up check-up. He returned a week later,
his eyes cleared but he developed Epidemic
Kerato Conjunctivitis (EKC), a viral infection.
For this, Maxitrol was prescribed. Lucas eye
condition continued to deteriorate resulting
to a steroid-induced glaucoma.
Held:
Dr. Tuano is not liable. There was absolute
failure on the part of petitioners to present
any expert testimony to establish his
negligence. Absent a definitive standard of
care or diligence required of Dr. Tuao under
the circumstances, there is no means to
determine whether he was able to comply
with the same in his diagnosis and treatment
of Peter.

There are four elements involved in medical

negligence cases: duty, breach, injury and
proximate causation.
As to this aspect of medical malpractice, the
determination of the reasonable level of care
and the breach thereof, expert testimony is
essential. Further, inasmuch as the causes of
the injuries involved in malpractice actions
are determinable only in the light of scientific
knowledge, it has been recognized that expert
testimony is usually necessary to support the
conclusion as to causation.

In treating his patient, a physician is under

a duty to [the former] to exercise that degree
of care, skill and diligence which physicians in
the same general neighborhood and in the
same general line of practice ordinarily
possess and exercise in like cases. Stated
otherwise, the physician has the duty to use
at least the same level of care that any other
reasonably competent physician would use to
treat
the
condition
under
similar
circumstances. This standard level of care,
skill and diligence is a matter best addressed
by expert medical testimony, because the
standard of care in a medical malpractice case
is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of
experts in the field.
There is breach of duty of care, skill and
diligence, or the improper performance of
such duty, by the attending physician when
the patient is injured in body or in health [and
this] constitutes the actionable malpractice.
Proof of such breach must likewise rest upon
the testimony of an expert witness that the

Expert testimony REQUIRED

41

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
treatment accorded to the patient failed to
meet the standard level of care, skill and
diligence which physicians in the same
general neighborhood and in the same
general line of practice ordinarily possess and
exercise in like cases.
The critical and clinching factor in a medical
negligence case is proof of the causal
connection between the negligence which the
evidence established and the plaintiffs
injuries. The plaintiff must plead and prove
not only that he has been injured and
defendant has been at fault, but also that the
defendants fault caused the injury. A verdict
in a malpractice action cannot be based on
speculation or conjecture. Causation must be
proven within a reasonable medical
probability based upon competent expert
testimony.

42

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
CASE TITLE
YEAR
FACTS/HELD
Degrees of Negligence | Burden of Proof and Presumptions | Res ipsa loquitur
Facts:
Filomeno worked as a seaman. He died from
drowning when he jumped into the water to
retrieve a 2-peso bill. The complaint filed by
his mother stated that the deceased died
while in the course of employment and while
performing duties as an ordinary seaman.
Held:
Mother CANNOT claim compensation.
Amedo v. Rio

1954

In jumping into the sea, deceased failed to

exercise even slight care and diligence and
dispalyed reckless disregard of the safety of
his person.
Although the death happened at the
time/place when/where he was working, his
death was consequence of his decision to
jump into the water and the hazardous
nature of such was not due specifically to the
nature of his employment.
Facts:
Truck belonging to petitioner turned over and
hit a coconut tree resulting in the death of
and injury to its laborers. There was a
prohibition to ride haulage trucks imposed by
the employer.

Marinduque v.
Workmens

1956

Held:
Victims CAN RECOVER. They are NOT
notoriously negligent.
Mere riding on a haulage truck or stealing a
ride thereon is not negligence ordinarily
because transportation by truck is not
dangerous per se.
Although the employer prohibited its
employees to ride the haulage trucks, its
violation does not constitute negligence per
se, but it may be an evidence of negligence.

DOCTRINE

NOTES

"arising out of" - the origin or cause of the

accident and are descriptive of its character

Requisites
to
recover
from
Workmens compensation Act:
(1) The accident must arise out of
the employment;
(2) It must happen in the course of
the employment; and
(3) It must not be caused by the
"notorious negligence" of the
employee.

in the course of - time, place, and

circumstances under which the accident takes
place
gross negligence - such entire want of care as
to raise a presumption that the person in
fault is conscious of the probable
consequences of carelessness, and is
indifferent, or worse, to the danger of injury
to person or property of others

Shore is 1 miles away and it is not

said that he is a good swimmer.
Cuervo v. Barretto case:
Employer ordered the employee to
jump into the water to protect the
property of company.
Determination of grossness:
degree of danger
factors that would justify it

Notorious negligence - same as gross

negligence
which
implies
"conscious
indifference to consequences", "pursuing a
course of conduct which would naturally and
probably result in injury"

43

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
Facts:
Spouses Ronquillo had not been blessed with
a child. They consulted with petitioner who is
a doctor at SLMC. Wife was advised to
undergo a procedure but on the scheduled
day of such procedur, the doctor did not
arrive without prior notice of its cancellation.
(doctor was on return flight from Hawaii and
failed to account for the time difference)
Ilao-Oreta v.
Ronquillo

Layugan v. IAC

2007

Held:
Doctor is NOT grossly negligent.
she sought to rectify her deeds and called the
spouses immediately upon her arrival.
She is only NEGLIGENT for not considering the
time difference.At the time she was
scheduling, she had just gotten married and
was preparing for her honeymoon. Her
negligence is attributable to human frailty
and not gross.
Procedure is merely for diagnosis adn did not
present any clear and apparent harm or
injury.
Facts:
Petitioner was repairing the tire of the cargo
truck which was parked on the side of the
national highway when it was bumped by the
truck driven by the respondent. Defendants
argue that petitioner was negligenf for not
installing early warning device. However,
driver testified that he saw the truck, applied
the brakes but hte latter did not function.

1968
Held:
Driver was NEGLIGENT for bumping into the
parked truck.
Whether the truck was parked askewed or
not is immaterial. There was lighted kerosene
lamp which serves as an early warning device.
Res Ipsa Loquitur is NOT APPLICABLE.
negligence was established by clear and

Gross negligence
- want or absence of or failure to exercise
slight care or diligence, or the entire
absence of care.
- thoughtless disregard of consequences
without exerting any effort to avoid them.
- characterized by want of even slight care,
acting or omitting to act in a situation
where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally
with a conscious indifference to
consequences in so far as other persons
may be affected.

Theres no recklessness in this case

which couldve been dangerous.

Negligence is the omission to do something

which a reasonable man, guided by those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do, or the
doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do

When theres evidence, judgment

will be based on evidence/facts and
not on presumptions.

TEST:
Did the defendant in doing the alleged
negligent act use that reasonable care and
caution which an ordinarily prudent person
would have used in the same situation? If not,
then he is guilty of negligence.
Res Ipsa Loquitur
- thing speaks for itself
- recognizes that prima facie negligence may
be established without direct proof and
furnishes a substitute for specific proof of

44

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
convincing evidence

Facts:
Ramos was advised to undergo a surgery to
remove the stones in her gallbladder. She was
admitted in the hospital with her sister-in-law
who was a registered nurse and dean of
College of Nursing of CMC.
Dr. Hosaka - doctor
Dra. Gutierrez - anasthesiologist
Something went wrong with the intubation.
She stayed in the hospital for 4 mos and was
comatosed.
Ramos v. CA

1999

Held:
Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is APPLICABLE.
Respondents were not able to rebut the
presumption of negligence.
Dra. Gutierrez failed to intubate the patient
as it was her first time to see the patient on
the day of the operation.

Cantre v. Go

2007

Dr. Hosaka failed to exercise proper authority

(as captain of the operative team) in
supervising the anasthesiologist.
Facts:
th
Petitioner gave birth to her 4 child. She
suffered from profuse bleeding and various
procedures were performed to stop the
bleeding. The doctor ordered for a droplight
to warm the patient and her baby. The
droplight caused a burn on her arm. Skin
grafting was done but an unsightly mark
remains and it still causes her pain.
Held:
Doctor is LIABLE.
Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows mere
existence of an injury to justify a presumption
of negligence on part of the person who

negligence
- invoked when and only when direct
evidence is absent/not readily available
Res ipsa loquitur is not an independent or
separate ground of liability but simply an
evidentiary or procedural rule.
Required:
1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily
does not occur in the absence of
someones negligence;
2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the
exclusive control of the defendant or
defendants; and
3. The possibility of contributing conduct
which would make the plaintiff
responsible is eliminated.
It does not automatically apply to all cases of
medical negligence as to mechanically shift
the burden of proof to the defendant to show
that he is not guilty of the ascribed
negligence.

Physicians are not guarantors of care and,

they never set out to intentionally cause
injury to their patients. However, intent is
immaterial in negligence cases because where
negligence exists and is proven, it
automatically gives the injured a right to
reparation for the damage caused

fundamental element is the "control

of instrumentality"
Application depends on the facts of
each case.
No expert testimony in this case.
GR: expert testimony needed (Cruz
v. CA)
E: if case can be gleaned from
common knowledge.
(Ramos v. CA)
RIL is not applicable in malpractice
suits if the only showing is that the
desired result was not accomplished
and if the problem is based on
medical science.

45

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
controls the instrument causing the injury.
1.

Batiquin v. CA
(Villegas)

Professional Services
v. Agana

Wound is not an ordinary occurrence in

the act of delivering a baby.
2. Whether the injury is caused by the
Blood pressure cuff or the droplight is
immaterial. Both are within exclusive
control of the physician in charge.
3. Victim was unconscious. She could not
have contributed to the injury as it was
outside of her control.
Facts:
Respondents baby was delivered thru
ceasarian operation performed by petitioner.
After leaving the hospital, she began to suffer
abdominal pains. She consulted another
doctor and was advised to undergo another
surgery. The new doctor found whitish-yellow
discharge on her ovaries and a piece of
rubber material in her uterus which appeared
to be part of a glove.

Res Ipsa Loquitur:

Where the thing which causes injury is shown
to be under the management of the
defendant, and the accident is such as in the
ordinary course of things does not happen if
those who have the management use proper
care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the
absence of an explanation by the defendant,
that the accident arose from want of care.

No proof directly linking Dr. Batiquin

to the rubber but under RIL, doctor
is liable.

Test:
Health care provider failed to do something
which a reasonably prudent health care
provider would have done or he did
something that a reasonably prudent provider
would not have done.

This case:
under exclusive control
(harder, more limited)

Duties of hospital

BASIS of RIL:
Common knowledge
What we know about the world

1996
Held:
Doctor (performed the ceasarian operation) is
LIABLE.

2007

Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is APPLICABLE.

1. Entire proceeding was under the
management of the defendant-doctor.
2. Other than the ceasarian operation,
there were no other operations
performed on the respondent.
Facts:
Agana was rushed to the hospital for difficulty
in bowel movement. Hysterectomy was
performed by Dr. Fuentes. Dr. Ampil took
over. Days after she was discharged, she
complained of pain in her anal region but
doctors said it was only a natural
consequence. She went to the US and told
that she was already free of cancer. Weeks
after her return, her daughter found a piece

(1) the use of reasonable care in the

Other cases:
under management of

46

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
of gauze protruding from her vagina. Dr.
Ampil took out the gauze but paid only
intensified. It is found that the gauze leads to
complications and another surgery was
performed.
Held:
Both doctors are LIABLE.
This is a case of medical malpractice.
Leaving of foreign substances in the wound
after the incision has been closed is prima
facie evidence and such act is inconsistent
with the due care claim.
Doctor has duty to:
1. To take out all foreign objects an
2. Inform patient in case he was not able to
remove all foreign objects.
Facts:
A construction worker fell 14 floors from the
Renaissance Tower in Pasig City which caused
his death. He and another worker were
performing their work on board a steel
platform when the bolt inserted to connect
the chain block came loose and caused the
whole platform to fall down.

DM Consunji v. CA

2001

Held:
Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is APPLICABLE.
1. No worker is going to fall from the 14th
floor of a building to the basement while
performing work in a construction site
unless someone is negligent
2. the construction site with all its
paraphernalia and human resources that
likely caused the injury is under the
exclusive control and management of
appellant
3. No contributory negligence was
attributed to the victim
Petitioner does not rebut the presumption.

maintenance of safe and adequate facilities

and equipment;
(2) the selection and retention of competent
physicians;
(3) the overseeing or supervision of all
persons who practice medicine within its
walls;
(4)
the
formulation,
adoption and
enforcement of adequate rules and policies
that ensure quality care for its patients

As a rule of evidence, the doctrine of res ipsa

loquitur is peculiar to the law of negligence
which recognizes that prima facie negligence
may be established without direct proof and
furnishes a substitute for specific proof of
negligence. It is based in part upon the theory
that the defendant in charge of the
instrumentality which causes the injury either
knows the cause of the accident or has the
best opportunity of ascertaining it and that
the plaintiff has no such knowledge, and
therefore is compelled to allege negligence in
general terms and to rely upon the proof of
the happening of the accident in order to
establish negligence.

and how things work

Problematic case
Theres evidence but RIL was
still applied
Case seems to imply that defense of
due care will not apply if RIL is
applied. (SIR said that this is not
accurate)

47

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
Facts:
Respondent owns a building leased by CAP. A
fire destroyed portions of the building
including a part occupied by CAP. The source
was an overheated coffee percolator.
Respondent asked CAP to vacate and to pay
for reparation. However, Respondent argues
nd
that the lease on the 2 floor (occupied by
CAP but was not destroyed by fire) is still
subsisting. CAP explained that they could not
re-occupy the units because they already
moved to a new location.

College Assurance v.
Belfranlt

2007

Held:
CAP is NEGLIGENT.
Res ipsa loquitiur is APPLICABLE.
1. The fire was not a spontaneous natural
occurrence but the outcome of a
human act or omission.
2. It originated in the store room which
petitioners had possession and control
of.
3. Respondent had no hand in the
incident.
Petitioners alone having knowledge of the
cause of the fire or the best opportunity to
ascertain it, and respondent having no means
to find out for itself, it is sufficient for the
latter to merely allege that the cause of the
fire was the negligence of the former and to
rely on the occurrence of the fire as proof of
such negligence. Petitioner should rebut the
presumption, which it fails to do.

Article 1667:
The lessee is responsible for the deterioration
or loss of the thing leased, unless he proves
that it took place without his fault. This
burden of proof on the lessee does not apply
when the destruction is due to earthquake,
flood, storm or other natural calamity.
GENERAL RULE:
lessee is liable for the deterioration or loss of
a thing leased.
EXCEPTION:
lessee must prove that the deterioration or
loss was due to a fortuitous event which took
place without his fault or negligence.

48

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

CASE TITLE
DATE
FACTS
Defenses against charge of negligence
Plaintiffs negligence is proximate cause
Contributory negligence of plaintiff
Fortuitous event
Plaintiffs assumption of risk/volenti non fit injuria
Prescription
Efren Magno was up on the media agua to fix
a leak. As he was handed a galvanized iron
sheet, he turned around and the sheet came
in contact with an electric wire of MEC
thereby electrocuting him and causing his
death.
Manila Electric Co. v
Remoquillon

Bernardo v Legaspi

Bernal v House and

Tacloban E. and Ice
Plant

18 May 1956

23 December
1914

30 January
1930

MEC was not held liable. His death was

primarily caused by his own negligence (the
reckless and negligent act of turning around
and swinging the sheet without taking any
precaution) and in some measure by the too
close proximity of the media agua or rather its
edge to the electric wire of the company by
reason of the violation of the original permit
given by the city and the subsequent illegal
construction of the media agua.
Action to recover damages from vehicular
accident. CFI had dismissed complaint as well
as cross-complaint.
Both plaintiff and defendant negligent in
handling their automobiles and that said
negligence was of such character and extent
on the part of both as to prevent either from
recovering.
During Holy Friday procession, the young girl
was allowed to walk in advance of her mother
when an automobile passed by scaring the
girl. She turned to run but fell into the street
gutter where there was hot water which
rd
came from ice plant. She died of 3 degree
burns all over her body.
There was no contributory negligence on the

DOCTRINE

NOTES

[citing some other work]

A prior and remote cause cannot be made the
basis of an action if it did nothing more than
furnish the condition or give rise to the
occasion by which the injury was made
possible, if there intervened between them
such prior or remote cause and the injury, a
distinct, successive, unrelated and efficient
cause of the injury even though such injury
would not have happened but for such
condition or occasion.

His negligence: Court had assumed

that he was a repairman trained and
experienced in fixing roof leaks.

Where the plaintiff in a negligence action, by

his own carelessness contributes to the
principal occurrence, that is to the accident,
as one of the determining causes thereof, he
cannot recover. This is equally true of the
defendant; and as both of them, by their
negligent acts, contributed to the determining
cause of the accident, neither can recover.

Plaintiffs negligence
was proximate cause of injury=
cannot recover
was contributory=
mitigated

Contributory negligence mitigates damages

Alternative: Should have sued the

stepbrother for building the house
too close to the wires.
Would have been different if wires
were hung near place of public
character.

Negligence of BOTH plaintiff and

defendant= they cannot recover
from each other

49

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
part of the mother. They had a perfect right
to be on the street when the procession was
held. There was nothing abnormal in allowing
a child to run a long a few paces in advance of
the mother. No one could have foreseen the
passing of the automobile and the frightening
of the child causing her to fall into the gutter
with hot water.
Franchise holder was held responsible for
permitting hot water to flow through the
public streets endangering the lives of
passersby
Esteban spouses sustained injuries after
running over a mound of earth and falling into
an open trench, the excavation undertaken by
PLDT for the installation of its underground
conduit system. Couple alleged that there
were no warning lights or signs.

PLDT v Esteban

NPC v Heirs of
Casionan

29 Sept 1989

27 Nov 2008

- Jeep had switched lanes

- Swerved hitting the mound
- Could not have been running at 25kph,
didnt have time to hit the brakes
- He had prior knowledge of the excavations
since he passed by the area everyday
The accident was due to the lack of
negligence of Antonio Esteban and was not
imputable to negligent omission on the part
of PLDT
NPC hung tension wires over a trail used by
members of the community. Over the years
the wires started to sag. Casionan, a pocket
miner, was horizontally carrying a 14-ft
bamboo pole which touched said sagging
wires and he was electrocuted.
There was no contributory negligence of
Casionans part.
The sagging wires were an accident waiting to

A person claiming damages for the negligence

of another has the burden of proving the
existence of such fault or negligence
causative thereof. The facts constitutive of
negligence must be affirmatively established
by competent evidence. Whosoever relies on
negligence for his cause of action has the
burden in the first instance of proving the
existence of the same if contested, otherwise
his action must fail.

Familiarity of the place; he already

knew of the excavations being
undertaken in the area

Contributory negligence is conduct on the

part of the injured party, contributing as a
legal cause to the harm he suffered, which
falls below the standard which he is required
to conform for his own protection.

Public character of the trail

Negligence despite knowledge

50

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
happen. If the transmission lines were
properly maintained by NPC, the pole carried
by Casionan would not have touched the
wires and he would not have been
electrocuted.

Genobiagon v CA

Rakes v Atlantic

12 Oct 1989

23 Jan 1907

The trail was regularly used by members of

the community but there were no warning
signs. The trail was the only viable way. He
should not be faulted for simply doing what
was ordinary routine to other workers in the
area.
At 730pm, Genobiagon, driving a rig bumped
into an old woman who was crossing the
street. She dies. It appears that the rig was
going too fast, not only because of the steep
downgrade of the road but also because it
was trying to overtake the rig in front of it.
Genobiagon claimed that it was the old
woman that bumped him
Contributory negligence not a defense in
criminal cases committed through reckless
imprudence.
Rakes was among a group of 8 AfricanAmericans transporting iron rails placed on
hand cars. At some point, the track sagged,
the tie broke, the rails slid off and caught the
Rakes leg which was afterwards amputated.
The depression in the track was caused by a
typhoon. A day before the accident, the
foreman noticed the depression and informed
the company. It was repaired by merely
straightening out the crosspiece
There were rules set for transporting the rails,
which it seems that Rakes did not follow.
Contributory negligence exists.
1. Atlantic:
It was the duty of [defendant] Atlantic to
build and maintain its track in reasonably

The alleged contributory negligence of the

victim, if any, does not exonerate the
accused. The defense of contributory
negligence does not apply in criminal cases
committed through reckless imprudence,
since one cannot allege the negligence of
another to evade the effects of his own
negligence.

Accident v Injury
Where the plaintiff contributes to the
principal occurrence, as one of its
determining factors, he cannot recover.
Where, in conjunction with the occurrence,
he contributes to his own injury, he may
recover the amount that the defendant
responsible for the event should pay for such
injury, less a sum deemed a suitable
equivalent for his own imprudence.

Cannot Recover
- Plaintiff
contributes
to
primary event (accident)
- Displacement of crosspiece of
track
May recover (less his own
imprudence)
- Plaintiff contributes only to his
own injury
- Walking by the side of the car
which did not cause accident
but was an element to his own
injury

51

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
sound condition, so as to protect its workmen
from unnecessary danger. In this respect,
Atlantic failed in its duty otherwise the
accident would not have occurred.
2. Rakes
There was a general prohibition made known
to the gang against walking at the side of the
car. Disobedience of Rakes in placing himself
in danger contributed in some degree to the
injury as a proximate although not as a
primary cause.
After dinner and drinks (1 bottle of beer),
Castillon and Labang roamed the city on a
motorbike (Castillon driving). They met an
accident when the jeep in front of them made
a sudden left turn. Castillon died and Labang
was seriously injured.

Lambert v Heirs of
Ray

Juntilla v Fontanar

There was contributory negligence on the

part of Castillon.

The underlying precept on contributory

negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly
responsible for his own injury should not be
entitled to recover damages in full but must
bear the consequences of his own negligence.
The defendant must thus be held liable only
for the damages actually caused by his
negligence (Syki v Begasa)

Cited Rakes re mitigation of

damages into 50-50 proportion
without discussing why

Characteristics of FE:
(1) the cause of the unforeseen and
unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of
the debtor to comply with his obligation must
be independent of the human will
(2) it must be impossible to foresee or if
foreseen, must be impossible to avoid
(3) the occurrence must be such as to render
it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his
obligation in a normal manner
(4) the obligor must be free from any
participation in the aggravation of the injury

What if no negligence (ie common

carrier made sure everything was in
order before trips) but product was
defective and this was unknown to
the CC?

23 Feb 2005

31 May 1985

Clearly the abrupt and sudden left turn of the

jeep without first establishing his right of way,
was the proximate cause of the mishap. But
at the time of the accident, Castillon was
found to have been (1) driving at a fast speed;
(2) tailgating the jeep; (3) imbibed one or two
bottles of beer; (4) not wearing a protective
helmet
Damages mitigated 50-50
Juntilla was a front seat passenger of jeep
driven by Camoro (registered under Fontanar
but owned by Banzon). Jeeps tire blows out;
Juntilla gets thrown out of jeep. He loses
consciousness and when he wakes up, he
finds a lacerated wound on his arm and his
omega watch missing.
There were specific acts of respondents to
show negligence on their part: speeding and
overloaded.
While it may be true that the tire that blew up

Life expectancy [2/3 (80-age at the

time of death)]
x
Gross annual income (GAI)
Living expenses (50%GAI)
= Net Earning Capacity

The manufacturer is considered as

being in law the agent or servant of
the carrier, as far as regards the
work of constructing the appliance.
The
good
repute
of
the
manufacturer will not relieve the

52

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
was still good because the grooves were still
visisble, this fact alone does not make the
explosion of the tire a fortuitous event.
No evidence was presented to show that the
accident was due to adverse road conditions
or that precautions were taken by the jeep
driver to compensate for any conditions liable
to cause accidents.
Typhoon Saling hit Metro Manila. The roof of
one of SCs building was partly ripped off,
blown away and landed on private
respondent Dimaanos house. Ocular
inspection: U-shaped formation of buildings
created a funnel-like structure thus building
received heaviest impact of wind; improper
anchorage of trusses to roof beams. Building
was declared a structural hazard.

Southeastern College
v CA

10 Jul 1998

Typhoon was a fortuitous event and

proximate cause.
Schools negligence was established. There
was no showing that the plans, specifications
and design of the building were deficient or
defective. Neither did they prove any
substantial deviation from the approved plans
nor was the construction flawed.
In fact, the same plans received the go signal
for the repairs.
Showing that there was annual maintenance
and no prior complaints of the same nature
were ever made

resulting to the creditor

carrier of liability.
The rationale is the fact that the
passenger has neither choice nor
control over the carrier in the
selection and use of the equipment
and appliances used by the carrier

In order that FE may exempt a person from

liability, it be necessary that he be free from
any previous negligence or misconduct by
reason of which the loss may have been
occasioned

Although not under res

loquitur, can RIL be used?
Had there been no storm

ipsa

53

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
Jorge pawned several pieces of jewelry at the
Agencia de RC Sicam owned by respondent
Sicam. In 1987, the pawnshop was robbed
and all of the Jorges pawned jewelry were
carted by the robbers.
Robbery per se is not a fortuitous event and
does not foreclose the possibility of
negligence of Sicam.
The very fact that he took security measures
show that the possibility of robbery was not
only foreseeable but actually foreseen and
anticipated.
The shop had inadequate security that could
have prevented the robbery.

Sicam v Jorge (supra)

8 Aug 2007

FE are extraordinary events not foreseeable

or avoidable. It is, therefore, not enough that
the event should not have been foreseen or
anticipated, as is commonly believed but it
must be one impossible to foresee or to
avoid. The mere difficulty to foresee the
happening is not impossibility to foresee the
same.
The burden of proving that the loss was due
to a fortuitous event rests on him who
invokes it. And in order for a fortuitous event
to exempt one from liability, it be necessary
that one has committed no negligence or
misconduct that may have occasioned the
loss.

Compare with:
Austria v CA
Robbery in 1961, woman carrying
pendant was walking unaccompanied,
robbed. She was not negligent,
criminality at that time had not
reached the level of incidence in more
recent years.
= Sicam robbery took place in 1987
when robbery was already prevalent
Hernandez v COA
Hernandez had encashed the checks
of his co-workers, had two options of
going home, he was robbed.
He was not negligent in choosing to go
home rather than going back to office:
lateness of the hour, he was moved
by the unselfish motive of giving the
salary of his co-workers the following
day, home was nearer.
Was robbed in a public utility vehicle
in broad daylight
=Pawnshop was under the control of
Sicam and they had the means to
screen persons entering the premises
and to protect unlawful intrusions.
Cruz
Employee was in a rush, decided to
take the LRT, bag was stolen including
government issued cellphone. Mode
of transit was influenced by time and
money considerations (she was in a
hurry to be at a meeting; mere
employee with no car); placing the
cellphone in a bag away from
covetous eyes and holding on to that
bag as she did is ordinarily sufficient
care of a cellphone while travelling on
board the LRT.

54

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

College Assurance v
Belfrant (supra)

22 Nov 2007

CAP was leasing units from Belfrant where a

fire broke out. Inspection was made by the
City Fire Marshal and found that the fire
started in the store room of CAP and that it
was caused by an overheated coffee
percolator.
It was the fire that caused the damage to the
units being occupied by petitioners and the
legal presumption is that they were liable for
the damage.
Afialda was taking care of Hisoles carabao
when it attacked him. He later died as a
consequence of his injuries.

Afialda v Hisole

Ilocos Norte v CA

29 Nov 1949

6 Nov 1989

The injury suffered by Afialda was one of the

risks as caretaker/ part of his job which he
had voluntarily assumed and for which he
must take the consequences.
It was the caretakers business to try to
prevent the animal from causing injury or
damage to anyone including himself.
Typhoon Gening hit Ilocos Norte on 29 June
1967. The morning after, Nana Belen set off
from her house to her grocery store to assess
the damage. She was followed by 2
employees who heard her scream ay! and
suddenly sink into the water. She was
apparently electrocuted. Inelco turned off its
electric current so her body could be
retrieved. Doctor confirmed that she died
from electrocution.
Although typhoons and floods are FE, it was
through Inelcos negligence that caused Nana
Belens death.
-typhoon was announced, they should have
anticipated and prepared for such incidents
-no linesmen checking on electric lines
-Inelco was still closed
-delay in closing the electric switch

NCC1667 The lessee is responsible for the

deterioration or loss of the thing leased,
unless he proves that it took place without his
fault. This burden of proof on the lessee does
not apply when the destruction is due to
earthquake, flood, storm or other natural
calamity.

RIL was actually applied.

The fire was not a spontaneous
natural occurrence but the outcome
of a human act or omission. It
originated in the store room which
CAP had possession and control of.

OCC1905
The possessor of an animal, or the one who
uses the same, is liable for any damages it
may cause, even if such animal should escape
or stray away.
This liability shall cease only in case the
damage should arise from force majeure or
from the fault of the person who may have
suffered it.

Caretaker= possessor/user
Has custody and control over the
animal and in a position to prevent
it from causing damage.

A person is excused from the force of the

rule, that when he voluntarily assents to a
known danger he must abide by the
consequences, if an emergency is found to
exist or if the life or property of another is in
peril, or when he seeks to rescue his
endangered property.

-- Emergency rule excusing

someone from volenti non fit injuria

Assuming the risks as part of ones

job

55

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
Volenti non fit injuria not applicable:
Nana was merely exercising her right to
protect her property from the floods
Roberto Reyes (Amay Bisaya) accompanied
Dr. Filart to the penthouse where a birthday
party for the Hotels GM was being held. He
decided to stay and partook of the buffet
meal.
Reyes: Lim (exec sec) told him to leave in a
loud voice thereby causing him shame and
embarrassment.
Kramer v CA

28 Feb 2005

13 Oct 1989

Doctrine of volenti non fit injuria not

applicable.
Even if Reyes assumed the risk of being asked
to leave, Lim and Filart were still under the
obligation to treat him fairly in order not to
expose him to shame.
But then, NCC 19 and 21 not applicable. She
was polite and discreet in asking him to leave
(close enough to kiss). Not a panacea for all
human hurts and social grievances.
1976- F/B Marjolea, a fishing boat owned by
the Kramers figured in a collision with M/V
Asia Philippines. The fishing boat sank.
1981- the Board of Marine Inquiry concluded
that the loss suffered by the Kramers was
attributed to the negligence of MV Asia-Phils
1985- Kramer filed complaint for damages
against Trans-Asia owner of the MV
Action has prescribed.
The 4 year prescription period must be
counted from the day of the collision and not
upon the final determination by the BMI of
the negligence of Trans-Asia

The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria (to

which a person assents is not esteemed in law
as injury) refers to self-inflicted injury or to
the consent to injury which precludes the
recovery of damages by one who has
knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to
danger, even if he is not negligent in doing so.

Assumption of risk=
recovery for damages

NCC1146
An action based on a QD must be instituted
within 4 years. The prescriptive period from
the day the QD is committed.

4 year prescriptive period

precludes

56

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
CASE TITLE
DATE
Proximate/Remote/ Concurrent cause
Efficient intervening cause
But for/ Substantial factor test
Cause v . Condition

FACTS/HELD

DOCTRINE

NOTES

Proximate Cause

Damage without Injury

(entitled to damages)

Damage
Damage with Injury

Negligence

Concurrent cause
(entitled to damages)
Remote Cause

(end)

Bataclan v Medina

1957

2am a tire of speeding bus burst. Bus fell into

a ditch. Gasoline began to leak from the
overturned bus. Rescuers, 1 with lighted torch
come from the rural area. Fierce fire engulfed
the bus.

Definition: Proximate cause is that cause,

which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening case,
produces the injury and without which the
result would not have occurred

Bus driver contends that the proximate cause

is the coming of a rescuer with torch which
set the bus on fire.

Long Defn: the proximate legal cause is that

acting first and producing the injury either
immediately or by setting other events in
motion, all constituting a natural and
continuous chain of events, each having a
close causal connection with its immediate
predecessor, the final event in the chain
immediately effecting the injury as a natural
and probable result of the cause which first
acted, under such circumstances that the
person responsible for the first event should,
as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent
person, have reasonable ground to expect at
the moment of his act or default that an in
jury to some person might probably result
therefrom.

Held: The overturning of the bus, and not the

fire that burned the bus, is the proximate
cause. The coming of the men with the torch
was to be expected and was a natural
sequence of the overturning of the bus, the
trapping of the passengers and the call for
outside help.
Speeding Front tire burst Bus
overturned Gasoline leaked People with
torch Fire Death

Memorize definition of proximate

cause, just the shorter one.
Underlined portion is the But for
test. This is stricter as compared to
the Substantial factor test in
Philippine rabbit v CA, below.

57

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
Gayetano and Ilano took a carromata to go to
a cockpit. When the carromata was about to
move, Araneta held the reins of the horse,
saying he hailed the carromata first. Driver
Pagnaya pulled the reins to take it away from
Aranetas control, as a result of which, the bit
came off the horses mouth. Pagnaya fixed
the bridle on the curb. The horse, free form
the control of the bit, moved away, causing
the carromata to hit a telephone booth and
caused it to crash. This frightened the horse
and caused it to run up the street with
Gayetano still inside the carromata. Gayetano
jumped or fell from the rig, causing injuries
from which he soon died.

Gabeto v Araneta

1921

Held: Aranetas act of stopping the rig was

too remote from the accident to be
considered the legal or proximate cause
thereof. After Pagnaya alighted, the horse
was conducted to the curb and an
appreciable interval of time elapsed before
the horse started to career up to the street.
Moreover, by getting out and taking his post
at the head of the horse, the driver was the
person primarily responsible for the control of
the animal, and Araneta cannot be charged
with liability for the accident resulting from
the action of the horse thereafter.
Araneta stopping the carromata?
Not the proximate cause
Araneta grabbing the reins?
No.
Pagnaya trying to grab back the reins?
Yes. It was the proximate cause.
Horse was conducted to the curb
appreciable interval of time Horse ran

APPRECIABLE INTERVAL OF TIME

There was an appreciable interval of

time in this case.
It is not the counting of the time but
the SERIES of events which
transpired.
An appreciable interval of time
would already elapse modifying the
original proximate cause of the
situation to be merely a remote
one. Once an efficient intervening
cause is proven, it automatically
transfers the possible proximate
cause to in the realm of remote
Same as in Urbano case, see below

58

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
A ship owned by FESC rammed into the apron
of the pier. Kavankov was the master of the
vessel. Gavino was the compulsory pilot.

Far East v CA

1998

Held: Both the compulsory pilot and the

master (and the owner of the vessel) are
solidarily liable. They are considered as joint
tortfeasors. Gavino was negligent for failing
to react on time; Kavankov was negligent in
leaving the entire docking procedure up to
Gavino instead of being vigilant.

A dump truck, owned by Phoenix, was parked

askew on the right hand side of the street, in
such a manner as to stick out onto General
Lacuna Street, partly blocking the way of
oncoming traffic. There were no early
warning devices placed near the truck. At
1:30 am, Dionisio was on his way home when
his car headlights allegedly suddenly failed.
He switched his headlights on bright and
saw the truck looming 2 meters away from
his car. His car smashed into the dump truck.

Phoenix
Construction v IAC

1987

Held: It is not the distinction between cause

and condition which is important, but the
nature of the risk and the character of the
intervening cause.
Dionisios negligence only contributory
Truck drivers lack of due care in parking the
truck askew immediate and proximate
cause.
Dionisio may recover damages though such
are subject to mitigation by the courts (Art.
2179, CC)

It is sufficient that his negligence, concurring

with one or more efficient causes other than
plaintiffs, is the proximate cause of the
injury.
Where several causes combine to produce
injuries, a person is not relieved from liability
because he is responsible for only one of
them, it being suifficient that the negligence
of the person charged with injury is an
efficient cause without which the injury
would not have resulted to as great an extent.

Foreseeable Intervening Cause

If the intervening cause is one which in
ordinary human experience is reasonably to
be anticipated, or one which the defendant
has reason to anticipate under the particular
circumstances, the defendant may be
negligent, among other reasons, because of
failure to guard against it; or the defendant
may be negligent only for that reason.

The proximate cause may not be

only one cause; incident can be
caused by several proximate causes
and these become concurrent with
each other.
If the concurrent act was the
proximate cause, the degree of
participation does not matter.
Liability of concurrent negligence =
solidary. It is impossible to
determine in what proportion each
contributed to the injury and either
of them is responsible for the whole
injury.
The cause is the active aspect
whereas the condition is the passive
action that may produce the injury.
It is difficult to distinguish between
a cause and a condition because of
the time element. A condition was
a cause at some point in time.
It cannot be cited in saying that
cause and condition are no longer
applicable in our jurisdiction
because it only said that it is
discredited.

59

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
Nissan owned by Dy Teban and Bus
purportedly due to a prime mover parked
alongside the shoulder curve which occupied
part of the highway with no early warning
devices. Petitioner did not implead the bus,
only the driver and owner of prime mover.
Dy Teban v Jose
Ching

2008

Held: Limbaga was negligent in parking the

prime mover on the national highway. He was
also negligent in not putting warning devices
(even improvised ones).
The skewed parking of the prime mover was
the proximate cause of the collision.
Mercury saleslady misread the prescription
and gave a sleeping pill to Baking instead of
med for blood sugar. After three days of
medication, Baking figured in an accident
because he fell asleep while driving.

Mercury Drug v
Baking

Pilipinas Bank v CA

2007

1994

Held: Prox Cause was the gross negligence of

Mercurys saleslady in selling Dormicum
instead of Diamicron to Baking. The vehicular
accident could have been prevented had the
respondent not taken the sleeping pill, and
afterwards fell asleep while driving.
Florencio Reyes issued two post-dated
checks. To cover the face value of the checks,
he requested PCIB to effect a withdrawal
from his savings account there and have it
deposited with his current account with
Pilipinas Bank. Santos, who made the deposit,
wrote the wrong account number on the
deposit slip, but wrote the name of Florencio
Reyes as the depositors name. The Current
Account Bookkeeper of Pilipinas Bank, seeing
that the account number coincided with the
name Florencio, deposited the amount in the
account of Florencio Amador.
Held: The proximate cause of the injury is the
negligence of Pilipinas Banks employee in

Proximate cause
Cause acting first and producing the injury,
either immediately OR by setting other events
in motion, all constituting a natural and
continuous chain of events, each having a
close causal connection with its immediate
predecessor.

Proximate cause is defined as any cause that

produces injury in a natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, such that the result would
not have occurred otherwise.
Proximate cause is determined from the facts
of each case, upon a combined consideration
of logic, common sense, policy, and
precedent.

Proximate cause is any cause which, in

natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the result complained of and without which
would not have occurred and from which it
ought to have been foreseen or reasonably
anticipated by a person of ordinary care that
the injury complained of or some similar
injury, would result therefrom as a natural
and probable cause.

added the element of foreseeability

to the proximate cause definition
espoused in Bataclan.
Casis says that this added element
has no basis in Law (based on Art.
2202). But this case Should be
applied when the same facts are
presented in a problem.

60

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
erroneously positing the cash deposit of
Reyes in the name of another depositor who
had a similar first name. The employee should
have continuously gone beyond mere
assumption.
October 23, 1980, Urbano hacked Javier in his
right palm. Javier was brought to a doctor
who issued a certificate stating the
incapacitation is from 7-9 days. On November
5, Javier was seen catching fish in dirty
shallow irrigation canals after a typhoon. On
November 14, he died of tetanus.

Urbano v IAC

Mckee v IAC

1988

1992

Held: The tetanus, not the hacking, was the

proximate cause of Javiers death. The death
of the victim must be the direct, natural and
logical consequence of the wounds inflicted
upon him by the accused. Medical findings
lead to a distinct possibility that the infection
of the wound by tetanus was an efficient
intervening cause later or between the time
Javier was wounded to the time of his death.
The infection was, therefore, distinct and
foreign to the crime.
A cargo truck and a Ford Escort were traveling
in opposite directions. When the car was 10
meters away from the bridge, 2 boys
suddenly darted into the cars lane. The car
driver blew the horn, swerved to the left and
entered the trucks lane. He then switched on
the headlights, braked, and attempted to
return to his lane. Before he could do so, his
car collided with the truck.
Held: Although it may be said that the act of
the car driver, if at all negligent, was the
initial act in the chain of events, it cannot be
said that the same caused the eventual
injuries and deaths because of the occurrence
of a sufficient intervening event, the negligent
act of the truck driver, which was the actual
cause of the tragedy. It was the truck drivers

Same doctrine in Gabeto and Bataclan cases

Same definition of proximate cause

with Bataclan case.

*wound was noted to be the remote cause.

Important: there should be a sequence of
events.
Events not time.

The efficient intervening cause destroys the

link between the negligent act and the injury.
emergency rule, "one who suddenly finds
himself in a place of danger, and is required
to act without time to consider the best
means that may be adopted to avoid the
impending danger, is not guilty of negligence,
if he fails to adopt what subsequently and
upon reflection may appear to have been a
better method, unless the emergency in
which he finds himself is brought about by his
own negligence.

There was also an appreciable lapse

of time between the hacking and
the death of the victim.
If the victim did not catch fish with
his hands, maybe different ruling, as
long as natural, logical consequence.

The car drivers entry into the lane

of the truck was necessary in order
to avoid what was, in the drivers
mind, a greater peril death or
injury of the two boys.
The efficient intervening cause
destroys the link between the
negligent act and the injury. An
efficient intervening cause should
occur
after
the
purported
proximate cause because it would
then be a condition.
An efficient intervening cause is
actually a proximate cause. In here,
though the IC is the sudden
appearance of 2 boys, court held
truck driver liable because of
emergency rule.

61

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
subsequent negligence in failing to take the
proper measure and degree of care necessary
to avoid the collision, which was the
proximate cause of the tragedy.
Magno was repairing the media agua when
he was electrocuted to death. The galvanized
iron sheet he was holding came in contact
with the electric wire.

Manila Electric V
Remoquillo

1956

Held: : Court said Meralco was not negligent.

But assuming it was Magnos heirs still cant
recover because the proximate cause of the
electrocution was not the electric wire but
the reckless and negligent act of Magno in
turning around and swinging the galvanized
iron sheet without precaution. It is assumed
that due to his age and experience, he was
qualified to do the job.

A vocational school for hair and beauty

culture had only one stairway, in violation of
an ordinance requiring 2 stairways. A fire
broke out in a nearby store and the students
panicked and caused a stampede. Four
students died.

Teague v Fernandez

1973

Held: though the petitioners non-compliance

was ahead of and prior to the other events,
such violation was a continuing one, since the
ordinance was a measure of safety
designed to prevent a specific situation which
would post a danger to the occupants of the
building:
overcrowding
in
case
of
emergencies. The violation was a continuing
violation in that the ordinance was a measure
of safety designed to prevent the specific
situation of undue crowding in case of
evacuation.

A prior and remote cause cannot be made the

basis of an action if such remote cause did
nothing more than furnish the condition or
give rise to the occasion by which the injury
was made possible, if there intervened
between such prior or remote cause and the
injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and
efficient cause of the injury, even though such
injury would not have happened but for such
condition or occasion. If no danger existed in
the condition except because of the
independent cause, such condition was not
the proximate cause. And if an independent
negligent act or defective condition sets into
operation the circumstances which result in
injury because of the prior defective
condition, such subsequent act or condition is
the proximate cause.
The general principle is that the violation of a
statute or ordinance is not rendered remote
as the cause of an injury by the intervention
of another agency if the occurrence of the
accident, in the manner in which it happened,
was the very thing which the statute or
ordinance was intended to prevent.

proximate cause: negligence of

repairman in turning with GI sheet,
The son could have sued
stepbrother of his father for building
the house so close to the wire

This is an exception to the efficient

intervening cause laid down in
Mckee, see above.
The Proximate Cause of the deaths
is the overcrowding brought about
by the violation. However, the court
did not specifically identify the
violation itself as the PC.
Effects of violation of statute is not
settled. It can be: a) negligence per
se, b) prima facie proof of
negligence, c) rebuttable proof of
negligence, d) proof of negligence

62

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Philippine Rabbit v
CA

1975

A jeep was carrying passengers to Pangasinan

when its right rear wheel became detached,
causing it to be unbalanced. The driver
stepped on the brake, which made the jeep
turn around, encroaching on the opposite
lane. A Philippine Rabbit Bus from the
opposite lane bumped the rear portion of the
jeep. Three passengers of the jeep died as a
result.
CA applied substantial factor test and held
bus liable.
Held: The Supreme Court was not convinced
by the application of the substantial factor
test. Even though the bus was driving at 8090 kph, it was still within the speed limit
allowed in highways. The bus driver had little
time to react and had no options available: it
could not swerve to the right (western
shoulder was narrow and had tall grasses;
already near the canal) or to the left (it would
have it the jeep head-on).
The house of Rodrigueza and 3 others were
burned when a passing train emitted a great
quantity of sparks from its smokestack.
Rodriguezas house was partly within the
property of the Manila Railroad.

Rodrigueza v Manila
Railroad

1921

Held: The fact that Rodriguezas house was

partly on the defendants property is an
antecedent condition that may have made
the fire possible but cannot be imputed as
contributory negligence because: (1) that
condition was not created by himself; (2) his
house remained on this ground by the
tolerance, and thus consent of the train
company; (3) even supposing the house to be
improperly there, this fact would not justify
the defendant in negligently destroying it.
Rodriguezas house was built on the same
spot before the defendant laid its tracks over
the land.

Substantial factor test: It is a rule under this

test that if the actors conduct is a substantial
factor in bringing about the harm to another,
the fact that the actor neither foresaw nor
should have foreseen the extent of the harm
or the manner in which it occurred does not
prevent him from being liable.

Substantial factor test - answers the

question: What is the greater cause
of the accident? Compared to the
but for test, this is less strict.
This case should not be cited for the
substantial factor test because the
SC did not apply the test; only the
CA did.
Memorize the test.

though the house was situated in its exposed

position was an antecedent condition that
may in fact have made the disaster possible,
this circumstance cannot be imputed to him
as contributory negligence destructive of his
right of action because (1)the condition was
not created by himself; (2)because his house
remained on this ground by toleration;
(3)because even supposing the house to be
improperly there, this fact would not justify
the defendant in negligently destroying it.

The house was built prior to the

railroad, and Manila Railroad did not
exert to eject him from the lot.
Condition = plaintiffs house was
partly within the defendants
property.
Cause = the sparks on the train
which was the negligent act of the
defendant.

63

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

CASE TITLE
Last clear chance

Picart vs. Smith

Bustamante vs. CA

Phoenix vs. IAC

YEAR

1918

1991

1987

FACTS/HELD

DOCTRINE

NOTES

Picart was riding his horse on the wrong

lane. Smiths car was from the opposite
direction. Smith steered to his left assuming
that Picart would turn to the proper lane.
Picart pulled the horse to the railing to his
right instead of going to the left (proper)
lane. Smith quickly turned to the right and
escaped hitting the horse. But the horse
became frightened and threw off Picart.
Smith was negligent. It was no longer within
the power of Picart to go to the proper lane
so he went to the railing a place of greater
safety. Control of the situation entirely
passed to Smith. Smith had the last clear
chance to avoid the impending harm. Picarts
contributory negligence was a remote cause
and will only reduce the damages.

LAST CLEAR CHANCE = of the law of

negligence as particularly applied to
automobile accidents. It cannot be invoked
where the negligence of the plaintiff is
concurrent with that of the defendant.
NEGLIGENCE = Did the defendant in doing the
alleged negligent act use that reasonable care
and caution which an ordinarily prudent
person would have used in the same
situation? If not, then he is guilty of
negligence.

Elements Of Last Clear Chance: [1]

plaintiffs
negligence
creating
danger/peril
to
himself,
[2]
defendants negligence, and *3+ time
and opportunity of the defendant to
see the plaintiffs negligence.

A truck and a bus were approaching from

opposite directions. Bus driver saw the front
wheels of the truck wiggling and the truck
heading to his lane. But the bus driver
believed it a joke and sped up to go up the
inclined part of the road and to overtake a
tractor. The bus and the truck sideswiped
each other. Last clear chance not
applicable. Suit was not between the
owners/drivers of the vehicles, but by the
heirs of deceased passengers against owners
and drivers of both vehicles. Doctrine cannot
be extended into the field of joint tortfeasors
as a test of whether only one of them should
be held liable.
Dionisio had some liquor and was driving his
car home. A dump truck owned by Phoenix
was parked askew on the right and was
partly blocking the way. There were no early
warning devices. Dionisio smashed into the
truck. No curfew pass was found on

LAST CLEAR CHANCE means that even though

a person's own acts may have placed him in a
position of peril, and an injury results, the
injured person is entitled to recovery. A
person who has the last clear chance or
opportunity of avoiding an accident,
notwithstanding the negligent acts of his
opponent is considered in law solely
responsible for the consequences.

Last clear chance cannot be invoked

as between defendants concurrently
negligent.

Arguing that truck driver's negligence was

merely a passive and static condition and
that Dionisio's negligence was an efficient
intervening cause is untenable. Distinctions
between cause and condition have
already been discredited. It is impossible to

Can last clear chance be reconciled

with 2179? According to Phoenix vs.
IAC: [1] in case of contributory
negligence, 2179 mitigates the
award of damages while the
application of last clear chance is

64

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Phil. Bank of
Commerce vs. CA

1997

Glan vs. IAC

1989

Dionisio. This explains why he was speeding

home with his headlights off. Dionisio was
contributorily negligent. NONETHELESS, the
legal and proximate cause of the accident
was the negligent manner in which the dump
truck was parked. The collision was a natural
and foreseeable consequence of the truck
driver's negligence. The dump truck created
an unreasonable risk of injury for anyone
driving.
RMC entrusted funds to its secretary for
depositing with PBC. However, the deposits
were not credited to RMCs account but to
the account of Yabuts husband, who had an
account with the same bank. PBC monthly
furnished RMC with statements but RMC
never checked such. Proximate cause of
the loss is the wanton and reckless
negligence of the teller in validating the
incomplete duplicate deposit slips. Failure of
RMC to discover the fraud soon enough
could not have returned the misappropriated
funds. Such was contributory negligence
which will only mitigate liability.
A jeep and a truck were coming from
opposite directions. The truck was already at
a stop when the jeep collided with it. Driver
of the jeep died. Driver of the truck was not
hurt. Both the jeep and the truck were
damaged. Heirs of the driver of the jeep filed
for damages against the driver and the
owner of the truck. The truck overrode
the painted stripe by 25cm but it was still
away by 11cm from the true center line of
the road. The jeep was the one intruding into
the lane of the truck. Also, the truck was at a
stop while the jeep was still 30m away.
Deceased jeep driver had last clear chance to
avoid the incident. His negligence is the
proximate cause of the collision.

distinguish between active forces and passive

situations. FUNCTION OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
DOCTRINE = to mitigate the harshness of
another common law doctrine contributory
negligence.

not affected by such contributory

negligence, [2] 2179 looks at the
nature of negligence while last clear
chance looks at the timing, [3] both
aim to determine proximate cause.

VDA. DE BATACLAN VS. MEDINA: PROXIMATE

CAUSE = in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
produces the injury, and without which the
result would not have occurred. LAST CLEAR
CHANCE = where both parties are negligent,
but the negligent act of one is appreciably
later in time than that of the other, or when it
is impossible to determine whose fault or
negligence should be attributed to the
incident, the one who had the last clear
opportunity to avoid the impending harm and
failed to do so is chargeable with the
consequences.
It is the duty of the party with the LAST CLEAR
CHANCE to seize the opportunity of
avoidance, and not to merely rely on a
supposed right to expect, that the other party
will swerve and leave him a clear path.

Which is the better measure of

negligence? Temporal = last clear
chance, or qualitative = 2179? [1]
last clear chance if the later act of
negligence is the cause of the injury,
[2] 2179 if the graver act of
negligence is the cause of the injury.

65

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Pantranco vs. Baesa

Canlas vs. CA

Consolidated Bank
vs. CA

Engada vs. CA

1989

2000

2003

2003

The Baesa family was aboard a passenger

jeep. A speeding Pantranco bus encroached
upon the lane of the jeep while managing a
curve. The jeep did not swerve. The result
was collision. Last clear chance doctrine
not applicable. For the doctrine to apply, it is
necessary that the person who allegedly had
the last clear chance to avert the accident
was aware of the existence of the peril. The
driver of the jeep was not aware of the peril
because it believed that the truck will go
back to its lane.
Canlas executed a Special Power of Attorney
empowering Maosca to mortgage his lands.
Then, Canlas agreed to sell the lands to
Maosca. Maosca issued checks but one of
them bounced. Maosca mortgaged the
lands to bank, with the help of impostor
owners. Maosca failed to pay the bank so
the bank foreclosed the mortgage.
Mortgage contract is null and void.
The bank must bear the loss. Respondent
bank did not observe the requisite diligence
in ascertaining the real identity of the people
who introduced themselves as owners - not
even a single identification card
The company sent a messenger to deposit
money. Since the transaction took time and
the messenger had to make another deposit,
he left the passbook with the bank. When he
returned, the teller told him that someone
else got the passbook. Next day, it was
discovered that 300,000 was withdrawn.
The bank is liable for culpa contractual. The
negligence of the banks teller was the
proximate cause of the loss. Doctrine of last
clear chance not applicable.
Iran drove a Tamaraw jeep. Engada drove a
speeding truck from the opposite direction.
The truck swerved and encroached upon the
lane of the Tamaraw. Owner of the

The doctrine applies only in a situation where

the plaintiff was guilty of antecedent
negligence but the defendant, who had the
last fair chance to avoid the impending harm,
failed to do so. LAST CLEAR CHANCE = can
never apply where the party charged is
required to act instantaneously, and if the
injury cannot be avoided by the application of
all means at hand after the peril is or should
have been discovered.

The negligence of a plaintiff does

not preclude a recovery for the
negligence of defendant where it
appears that the defendant, by
exercising reasonable care and
prudence, might have avoided
injurious consequences to plaintiff
notwithstanding his negligence.

LAST CLEAR CHANCE = where both parties are

negligent but the negligent act of one is
appreciably later in point of time than that of
the other, the one who had the last clear
opportunity to avoid the impending harm but
failed to do so, is chargeable with the
consequences arising therefrom.

Degree of diligence required of

banks is more than that of a good
father of a family in keeping with
their responsibility to exercise the
necessary care and prudence in
dealing even on a registered or
titled property. The business of a
bank is affected with public interest,
holding in trust the money of the
depositors.

In culpa contractual, once the plaintiff proves

a breach of contract, there is a presumption
that the defendant was at fault or negligent.
No need for LAST CLEAR CHANCE and
proximate cause doctrines. The burden is on
the defendant to prove that he was not at
fault or negligent.

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

66

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

PNR vs. Brunty

2006

2007

Lapanday vs. Angala

Tamaraw, who was on board, shouted to the

driver to avoid the truck. Tamaraw swerved
but the truck returned to its lane, resulting in
a collision. Engadas negligence is the
proximate cause of the collision. Iran could
not be faulted when in his attempt to avoid
the truck, he swerved. Iran was put in an
emergency situation which forced him to act
quickly. Last clear chance not applicable.
A car drove past another vehicle, unaware of
the railroad track up ahead. It collided with
the train. There was no flag bar or red light
signal at the railroad crossing to warn the
motorists. The flagman was only equipped
with a flashlight. Negligence of PNR was
the proximate cause of the accident. Railroad
companies owe to the public a duty of
exercising a reasonable degree of care to
avoid injury to persons and property at
railroad crossings.

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.

De Ocampo drove a crewcab. Borres drove a

pick-up. The pick-up was making a u-turn
when it bumped into the crewcab. De
Ocampo admitted applying the brakes only
after the collision. Last clear chance
applies. Both parties were negligent. The
pick-up executed a u-turn while at the outer
lane. The crewcab did not slow down when
he noticed the pick-up, and did not avoid the
collision. De Ocampo had the responsibility
of avoiding bumping the vehicle in front of
him.

LAST CLEAR CHANCE = where both parties are

negligent but the negligent act of one is
appreciably later than that of the other, or
where it is impossible to determine whose
fault or negligence caused the loss, the one
who had the last clear opportunity to avoid
the loss but failed to do so is chargeable with
the loss.

LAST CLEAR CHANCE = the antecedent

negligence of plaintiff does not preclude him
from recovering damages caused by the
supervening negligence of defendant, who
had the last clear chance to prevent the
impending harm by the exercise of due
diligence. The proximate cause of the injury
having been established to be the negligence
of PNR, last clear chance is no longer
applicable.

When to not apply last clear

chance? [1] action for breach of
contract of carriage by the
passengers, [2] when there is no
negligence on the part of the
plaintiff, [3] when it was not clear to
the defendant that there was a
perilous situation, [4] emergency
rule, [5] where plaintiff and
defendant concurrently negligent,
[6] where there are joint
tortfeasors, [7] when proximate
cause already established.
Last clear chance applies: [1] in
cases wherein both parties are
negligent, [2] where there is an
interval between the negligent acts
of the parties, [3] where it is
impossible to determine whose fault
or negligence constituted the
proximate cause.

67

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
CASE TITLE
The Tortfeasor

Worcester v.
Ocampo

DATE

27 Feb
1912

FACTS/ HELD

DOCTRINE

Published in the El Renacimiento and Muling

Pagsilang was the Birds of Prey editorial
which Worcester claims was libel was against
him. Impleaded were owners, directors,
writers and editors.

Each tort feasor liable not only for the tort in

which he participates in, but is jointly liable
with his tortfeasors.

All persons impleaded were correctly held

liable. Execution against their individual
property was likewise held proper.
Chapman was boarding a train when he was
hit by a car driven by the chauffeur of
Underwood. The car was passing the train on
the wrong side.
Chapman v.
Underwood

28 Mar 1914

Driver guilty of negligence but Underwood

not liable for the negligent act of his driver.
Driver acted suddenly, and it is not shown
that Underwood was given sufficient time to
correct his drivers act. Also, driver does not
fall within the list of persons in OCC1903 for
whose acts Underwood would be responsible.
Cadillac driven by Bernardo, Yu Khe Tais
driver, hit a carretela, in the process of
overtaking it, and a Mercury, ridden by Caedo
family.

Caedo v. Yu Khe Tai

18 Dec 1968

Bernardos negligence was the cause of the

accident. Yu Khe Tai was not held liable for
the acts of his driver for the latter had acted
suddenly and the former had no reasonable
opportunity to asses the risks involved and
warn the driver accordingly.

Joint tortfeasors are liable solidarily for the

tort they commit. They are not liable pro rata,
but liable for the entire amount.

Even when the owner is inside the vehicle, he

would not be held liable UNLESS he had
sufficient time to intervene in the negligent
acts of his driver which causes damage to
another.
(The act of the driver must be continued in
the presence of the owner for such a length
of time that the owner, by his acquiescence,
makes his drivers acts his own.)

2184 If the drivers negligence was the cause

of the accident, the owner who was riding the
vehicle at the time would be liable if he could
have prevented the same by the exercise of
due diligence. But there must be clear notice
of danger and sufficient time to act on it.
(a.k.a reasonable opportunity)
Test of owners negligence is his omission to
do that which the evidence of his own senses
tells him he should do in order to avoid the
accident. (a.k.a 1. Owners senses, 2.
circumstances)
Test of imputed negligence is to a great
degree, necessarily subjective. Car owners are
not held to a uniform and inflexible standard
of diligence as are professional drivers.

NOTES
Action based on tort.
Joint tortfeasors all persons who
command,
instigate,
promote,
encourage, advise, countenance,
cooperate in, aid or abet in the
commission of a tort, or who
approve of it after it is done, if done
for their benefit
2184 drafted with Chapman v.
Underwood in mind.
COURT did not decide on but
mentioned, whether owner of an
automobile driven by a competent
driver, would be responsible,
whether present or not, for the
negligent acts of his driver when the
automobile was a part of a business
enterprise and was being driven at
the time of the accident in
furtherance of the owners business
No prior negligence of the driver, no
negligence in selecting the driver.
Not respondeat superior but
paterfamilias the negligence of the
servant, if known to the master and
susceptible of timely correction by
him, reflects his own negligence is
he fails to correct it in order to
prevent injury or damage
(question lang yung nasa notes ko,
sorry! Tried answering though )
2180 v. joint tortfeasors
Basis for liability
2180: negligence of one for whom
one is responsible for, and own
negligence

68

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
Joint tortfeasors: same negligence
Negligence of car owners v. 2180:
Applicability
Owner: 2184, if in motor vehicle at
the time of accident
2180: applicable if not in motor
vehicle
When due diligence required:
Owner: time prior to accident
2180: selection and supervision
Vicarious liability Parents/ Guardians
Dante Capuno, 15 at the time, attended a
parade upon instruction of his teacher. On
the way home, he drove the jeep ridden by
other students. The jeep turned turtle and
two passengers died as a consequence of the
accident.

Exconde v. Capuno

Salen v. Balce

29 Jun 1957

27 Apr 1960

Delfin Capuno, father, held solidarily liable

with Dante. Liability based on the damage
caused by Dante who was living with him at
the time. Failed to prove due diligence of a
good father of a family.

Gumersindo Balce was a minor and living with

his father Severino, when he caused the
death of Carlos Salen. Salen was convicted of
homicide but had no property to his name to
pay for the civil indemnity hence action was
filed against his father, Severino.
Severino subsidiary liable for the crime

The father, and in case of his death of

incapacity, the mother, liable for the acts of
their minor child. Such liability is a natural
consequence of the parental authority (duty
of supporting them, keeping them in their
company, educating them and instructing
them in proportion to their means) exercised
parents over their minor children.
Parents shall be liable for the tortious act of
their minor children living with them although
at the time of the tort, the children were
under the direct control and supervision of an
academic
institution,
since
academic
institutions not included in 2180.

Civil code provisions apply where a void in the

RPC as to the liability of a parent whose child
committed a crime.
Parents imposed with subsidiary liability for
the payment of civil indemnity arising from a
crime committed by their child.

Academic institutions not included

in 2180.
Neither the head of the school, nor
the citys school supervisor, could
be held liable for the negligent act
of Dante because he was not then a
student of an institution of arts and
trades
Dissent (Reyes, JBL):
Where the parent places the child
under the teachers authority, the
latter should be held responsible for
the childs acts. The parent should
be relieved of liability since he
should not interfere with the
teachers authority while the former
has custody of the child. If there is
no authority, there should be no
liability.
RPC attaches civil liability to person
who has legal authority or control
(over an imbecile or insane person,
a minor below the age of 9, and a
minor between 9 and 15 years of
age who acts without discernment)
so as to not leave the act entirely
unpunished. But is silent as to the

69

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
committed by Gumersindo.
(Araneta v. Regalado cited as prior case which
imposed subsidiary liability to a parent for
criminal act of minor child)

Reginald Hill, married but dependent on his

father at the time, killed Agapito Elcon. He
was acquitted of the charge for lack of
intent, coupled with mistake.

Elcano v. Hill

Libi v. IAC

26 May 1977

18 Sept 1992
*en banc

Emancipation by marriage not absolute.

Parents may still be adjudged liable.

subsidiary liability of parents whose

child, who was between age of 9
and 15, who was acting with
discernment in the commission of a
crime. In such a case, CC provisions
apply to avoid absurdity of holding
parents liable for QD, but not crime,
committed by their child.
Sir casis and sir sison do not like this
case.
Elcano
doctrine
no
longer
applicable. FC provisions require age
of majority before marriage.

(Civil liability not extinguished by acquittal.)

Atty. Hill supposed to be primarily liable
under 2180 for the act of Reginald,
notwithstanding the latters emancipation
through marriage. However, since it is shown
at Reginald now of age, liability now only
subsidiary.

Wendell Libi shot former girlfriend Julie Ann

Gotiong before turning the gun unto him. The
gun used was licensed under the name of
Cresencio, Wendells father. Julie Anns
parents filed for recovery of damages arising
from vicarious liability of Cresencio.

Civil liability of parents liable for QD of their

minor children under 2180, is primary, not
subsidiary. To hold them merely subsidiary
liable would result in denying them the
defense of due diligence. Rules in 2180 and
2182 should apply.

Libi spouses primary liable for the crime

committed by Wendell as they were remiss in
their duties in not diligently supervising the
activities of Wendell, (re access to keys of
safety deposit box, discovery of missing gun,
photo of Wendell holding a gun) despite his
minority and immaturity.

2194 also finds parents solidarily liable with

minor child as they are joint tortfeasors.
Liability of parents for felonies committed by
their minor children is likewise primary, as
provided for by RPC 101, for the same reason.

Factors considered in this case:

1. Lack of capacity in judicial actions;
2. Dependence and subservience to
his father
3. Continuing duty of parents to
supervise their children in order to
prevent them from causing damage.
Sir likes this case
Inconsistent:
We agree with the conclusion of
respondent court that petitioners
should be held liable for the civil
liability based on what appears from
all indications was a crime
committed by their minor son.
Court admitting mistake:
Fuellas ruling: its not exactly
accurate to say that Fuellas prvided
for subsidiary liability of the parent
therein. A careful scrutiny shows
that what respondent court quoted
verbatim in its decision now on
appeal in the present case, and
which it attributed to Fuellas, was
the syllabus on the law report of

70

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
said case which spoke of subsidiary
liability.

Petition for adoption of 10-year old Adelberto

Bundoc had already been filed by Rapisura
spouses when Adelberto shot and killed
Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle. The
petition was approved subsequent to the
incident.

Tamargo v. CA

03 Jun 1992

Spouses Bundoc, Adelbertos natural parents,

adjudged proper parties. (No determination
of liability yet, only who would be
indispensable parties to the suit). The
granting of an adoption petition has
retroactive effect to the date of filing of the
same only as to matters which would benefit
the adopted child.
At the time of the shooting, the parental
authority could not be deemed transferred to
the Rapisura spouses. There was therefore no
presumption of parental dereliction on the
part of the Rapisura spouses, the Bundoc
spouses having actual custody. To burden the
adoptive parents with the liability for an act
they could not have foreseen and prevented
would be unfair.

Parents must have actual or physical custody

of the minor to be held liable.
Parental liability is, in other words, anchored
upon parental authority coupled with
presumed parental dereliction in the
discharge of duties accompanying such
authority. Being a mere presumption, the
same may still be overturned.

Jurisprudence prior to Libi:

Exconde: primary liability imposed
on parent for crime committed
Araneta: primary
Salen: subsidiary
Paleyan: primary
Elcano: primary, but held to be only
subsidiary
Principle of parental liability
designated as vicarious liability, or
the doctrine of imputed negligence
under Anglo-American tort law
Parental liability is made a natural
consequence of the duties and
responsibilities of parents; actions
imputable to them by reason of the
control exercised over them.
Basis of the parental liability for the
torts of a minor child is the
relationship existing between the
parents and the minor child living
with them and over whom, the law
presume, the parents exercise
supervision and control.
2180 modified by FC and PD 603 .
Liability is no longer successive
(both parents instead of father first,
then mother). Despite the lowering
of the age of majority from 21 to 18,
parents still liable for the tort
committed by their children below
21 years of age.

71

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
Vicarious liability Teachers
During a fight that ensued between Augusto
Mercado and Manel Quisumbing Jr., the
former gave successive blows and a cut to the
cheek using a razor to the latter.
Mercado v. CA

30 May 1960

The situation wherein the school would be

liable for the acts of its students does not
appear, since they were not held to be in the
custody of the school.

During recess while in the premises of Manila

Technical Institute, Virgilio Daffon killed
Dominador Palisoc through successive blows.
Head and teacher of MTI held liable as they
are in loco parentis and are called upon to
exercise reasonable supervision over the
conduct of the student.

Palisoc v. Brillantes

School cannot be held liable where the

students are not under its custody. Requires
students to live and board with the teacher
before liability attaches.

Concurring (Reyes, JBL):

Dissent saying that liability of the school
should be limited to the acts of its minor
students not in accordance with law. School
grouped apart from parents (whose liability is
limited to minor children), hence no basis to
limit the liability.
Dissent (Makalintal):
No reason to depart from Mercado ruling. To
hold otherwise would be to impose added
responsibility
without
commensurate
authority.
No reason to hold a substitute parent liable
when the real parent would be free from
liability on account of the attainment of the
age of majority.

Overturned Mercado doctrine. Students

under the custody of the school as long as
they are at attendance in school, even during
recess time.
Custody (memorize) protective and
supervisory custody that the school and its
heads and teachers exercise over the
students for as long as they are at attendance
in the school, even during recess time.

For the teacher to be liable instead

of the father of the erring student, it
is required that such student
remains in the custody of the
teacher, meaning that the student
lives and boards with the teacher.
Only in such cases does the control
and influence of the teacher
supersede that of the father to
transfer the liability.
Protective custody of the school
head and teachers is mandatorily
substituted for that of the parents,
and hence, it becomes their
obligation as well as that of the
school itself to provide the proper
supervision of the students
activities during the whole time that
they are at attendance in the
school, including recess time, as well
as to take reasonable precaution to
protect the students in their custody
from dangers and hazards that
would reasonably be anticipated,
including injuries that some
students may inflict wilfully or
negligently on their fellow students.

Court waiting for opportunity to

overturn Exconde doctrine but
needs to wait for situation where
liability would be imposed upon an
academic institution.

72

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
Alfredo Amadora was shot to death by Pablito
Daffon while submitting his physics
experiment which was a prerequisite for
graduation. The incident happened inside the
CSJ-R, an academic institution, auditorium.

Amadora v. CA

15 Apr 1988

Rector, HS principal, dean of boys, physics

teacher not liable, since they were not/not
shown to be the teacher-in-charge. School
cannot be held liable since only heads of
establishments or teachers-in-charge could be
held liable for the damage caused by
apprentices and students.
Concurring (Gutierrez):
2180 should be amended as regards the
liability of teachers and heads of
establishments. It is an unreasonable to
require the same to prove due diligence if
only to be relieved of liability from acts of
students where there could be no in loco
parentis relationship.
Jimmy Abon was both a student and
appointed armorer of the ROTC of the Baguio
Colleges Foundation when he shot Napoleon
Castro, a student of Baguio University, with
an unlicensed firearm the former obtained
from the armory. BCF is both an academic
and arts and trades institution.

Salvosa v. IAC

St. Marys Academy

v. Espinosa

05 Oct 1988

06 Feb 2002

At the time the incident happened, Abon was

supposed to be working and was under
orders of the commandant to keep the
armory secure. As such, Abon was held to be
not in attendance in school, nor in custody of
BCF. BCF cannot therefore be held liable
under 2180 for Abons acts which caused
damage.
A jeep, coming from an enrolment drive of St.
Marys and driven by James Daniel II, a
student, turned turtle. The jeep was owned
by Vivencio Villanueva. The accident resulted

2180 applies to all schools, whether for arts

and trades, or academic. Applying reddendo
singular singulis: teachers should apply to
pupils
and
students,
heads
of
establishments of arts and trades to
apprentices.

Basis for liability still in loco parentis

relationship

Teacher liable if tort committed within the

premises of the school at any time when
authority could be validly exercised by him.
Student under the custody of the school,
whether the semester has not yet begun or
has attended.

School may be liable for acts of its

teachers on the basis of the
principle of respondeat superior,
but may be relieved from liability
upon a showing of due diligence.

Test is whether the student is still subject to

the disciplinary control of the school and
whether student is within schools premises
in pursuance of a legitimate student
objective.

School only liable when the student who

committed the act which caused damage was
at attendance in the school or was under
custody of the same.

Absent any showing that the negligence of

persons exercising special parental authority
was the proximate cause of the injury, the
same having a causal connection to the

Reason for persons held liable:

nature of teaching relationship in
the past.

Teacher-in-charge

person
designated by an administrative
superior to exercise supervision
over students in specific classes to
which they are assigned.

Recess, as embraced in the concept

at attendance in school, refers to
the temporary adjournment of
school activities where the student
still remains within the call of the
mentor and is not permitted to
leave school premises. It does not
include dismissal.
Mere fact of being enrolled or being
in the premises of the school
without nothing more does not
constitute attending school nor
does it place the student under the
protective
and
supervisory
custody of the school.
Under
FC,
persons
(school,
administrators, teachers, individuals
or entities engaged in child care)
exercising special parental authority

73

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
in the death of Sherwin Carpitanos.
The cause of the accident was shown to be
the mechanical defect of the vehicle and not
the negligence of the school. It was likewise
shown that it was not the school which had
possession and control of the vehicle. St.
Marys held not to be liable as its negligence
is but a remote cause. Parents of Carpitanos
and owner of the jeep liable.
Vicarious Liability
Owners/Managers of Establishment
Employers
Vehicular collision- Injured Party filed
complaint for damages based on quasi-delict
or culpa aquiliana against the Company,
Manager and Driver. Manager interposed the
defense that he should not be held liable as
he was merely the MANAGER and NOT the
Philippine Rabbit v
EMPLOYER. RTC dismissed case against
1975
Philippine American
Manager, but Injured Party on appeal argued
that MANAGER is also a MAJOR OWNER of
the Company; thus, the veil of corporate
fiction should be pierced.

Philtranco v CA

Lampesa v De Vera

1997

2008

SC: Manager not liable since only coemployee.

Injured Party was riding his easy rider bicycle
when the bus being driven by Driver bumped
him. Bus was being pushed when the engine
started and the bus started abruptly and
suddenly.
SC: Philtranco solidarily liable with driver.
Truck was being parked by Driver when it slid
back and bumped a jeepney. The collision
resulted in the amputation of Injured Partys
left middle finger. Lower court already ruled
that Driver of truck was negligent.
SC: In present case, employer merely asked
for license. He should have carefully

accident, and that they had control over the

minor who caused the damage, persons
exercising special parental authority under
the FC, shall not be liable.

is primarily liable for the damages

caused by the minor under their
supervision, instruction or custody.

In case the requisites for liability are

established, the liability shall be primary.

Manager per Art 2180 pertains to

employer. Manager in this case, may also
be held as employee. As to corporate fiction,
this was only raised on appeal hence cannot
be considered.

The liability of the registered owner of a

public service vehicle for damages arising
from tortuous acts of the driver is primary,
direct, and joint and several (solidary) with
the driver. The recourse of Philtraco is to
recover from Driver who committed the fault
or negligence what it has paid.
When an employees negligence is
established, there arises a presumption that
the employer was negligent in the selection
and supervision of his employee. For
employer to rebut this presumption, he must
present evidence that he exercised due care
and diligence.

Approach was historical analysis of

Art 2180, taken into consideration
was the intent of the framers.
Language is confusing, however,
why use the word manager?

74

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
examined qualifications, experiences and
record of service; hence, Employer is
solidarily liable.
Municipal mayor was being driven for by
Driver who is an employee of the
municipality. Vehicle hit a minor which
resulted to latters death.

Spouses Jayme v
Apostol

2008

SC: Municipal mayor not solidarily liable with

the Driver as he is a co-empoyee. The SC
applied the four-fold test to determine
employer-employee
relationship
and
determined that the Municipality is the
employer, but it cannot be sued since it is an
agent of the State performing governmental
functions.
Jeepney loaded with eggs collided with a bus.
SC: Driver of bus and Employer liable.

Tan v Jam Transit

2009

Sophomore Law Student was shot by Security

Guard of the school. Student sued the School,
and alternatively the President of the school.
School sued the Security Agency and Security
Agencys President.

Saludaga v De
Jedud

2008

SC: School and Director cannot be held liable

since they are not the employers of Security
Guard.

First determine if there is employer-employee

relationship, then determine existence of
requisites for vicarious liability of employers
under Art 2180:

Should have sued as joint

tortfeasors because of own acts,
and not because of employeremployee relationship.

1. That the employee was chosen by the

employer personally or thru another;
2. That the service to be rendered is in
accordance with orders which the
employer has the authority to give at all
times; and
That the illicit act of the employee was on the
occasion or by reason of the functions
entrusted to him.
Whenever and employees negligence causes
damage or injury, there instantly arises a
presumption that the employer failed to
exercise diligentissimi patris families in the
selection (CULPA IN ELIGIENDO) or
supervision (CULPA IN VIGILANDO) of its
employees. Convincing proof must be
presented to overcome presumption.
As a general rule, the client or customer of a
security agency has no hand in selecting who
among the pool of security guards shall be
assigned to it; hence, it cannot be demanded
from client to observe the diligence in the
selection of the guards. The Security Agency
and Security Agents President were held
solidarily liable.

Negligence of the Secuirty Agency in

the supervision of the Security
Guard was established by its actions
AFTER THE FACT OF THE INCIDENT
when it allowed the Security Guard
to go on-leave without sanction.
Also, there was no discussion o the
responsibility of FEU as a school.

75

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
th

th

Manager of Castilex was on his way home

from a place notorious as haven for
prostitutes, pimps, and drug pushers and
addicts. The company-issued car Manager
was driving collided with the motorcycle of
the Injured Party when Manager took the
short cut and went against the flow of the
traffic. Injured Party subsequently died.

Art 2180 4 par vs 5 par

SC: Employer (Castilex) not solidarily liable

with Manager.

Covers negligent acts

of
employees
committed either in
the service of the
branches or on the
occasion of their
functions

th

4 Applies to owners
and managers of an
establishment
or
enterprise

th

5 Applies
to
employers
in
generalWON
employer
is
engaged
in
business or not
Encompasses
negligent acts of
employees acting
within the scope
of their assigned
tasks

th

- 5 paragraph is an expansion of the 4

paragraph

Castilex v Vasquez

1999

th

Not enough that company-issued

th
car as held in Valenzuela v CA; 4
paragraph
superfluous
since
th
covered by 5 .

th

th

STEPS in applying 4 /5 paragraph of Art

2180:
1. Establish ER-EE relationship;
2. Establish the negligence of employee;
3. Establish WON employee was acting
within the scope of his assigned task when
the tort complained of was committed
(NOT INCUMBENT upon the employer to
prove this; he who asserts and not he who
denies must prove);
4. Defense of diligence by the employer in
the selection and supervision of
employee.
To establish WON in the scope of assigned
tasks, key TEST is WON there is a SPECIAL
BENEFIT TO THE EMPLOYER.
Examples/Instances:
a. Going to or form meals- reduced time to
devote more for work
b. Going to or from work- spend more time

76

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Janitor-Scholar was driving the school jeep to

the home of the President of the School
where he was likewise residing. The school
jeep hit a pedestrian when it tried to avert
collision with another fast moving truck.

Filamer v IAN

1992

NPC v CA

1998

Valenzuela v CA

1996

working;
special
errand;
roving
commission
Outside regular working hours- company
meeting etc
The Labor Code serves merely as a guide since
not a labor issue.

SC: Employer of the Janitor-Scholar held

liable. The driving of the school jeep to the
home of President was for the benefit of the
School. The clause within the scope of their
assigned tasks, for purposes of raising the
presumption of liability of an employer,
includes any act done by an employee in
FURTHERANCE of the INTERESTS of the
employer or for the account of the employer.
Janitor- Scholar considered employee even
without official appointment; it being
sufficient that the act of driving was for the
benefit of the School.
Collision between truck owned by NPC and
jeepney resulted to death and physical
injuries. The heirs of the victims filed
complaint for damages against NPC and
PHESCO (contractor of NPC with the main
duty of supplying workers for NPC).
SC: NPC liable. PHESCO is a labor-only
contractor. NPC argued that even if PHESCO is
labor-only contractor, its liability will not
extend to third parties who are injured by the
employees of the labor-only contractor, but
shall only be limited to violations of the Labor
Code. SC held that argument of NPC is NOT
tenable because what is controlling is the fact
the NPC exercised control over the
employees.
Injured party was driving when she realized
she had a flat tire. She parked in a lit area and

What is the difference with Filamer

wherein LC was not applied? The
important consideration is who has
control over the person.

The unlimited use of the car PRINCIPALLY

serves the business and GOODWILL of the

Take into account nature of work of

employee. In this case, Defendant-

77

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
asked help to change the flat tire. A speeding
car (issued by the Defendant-Employer)
driven by Defendant-Driver hit Injured Party.
As a result of accident, the left leg of the
Injured Party had to be amputated.

Professional
Services v Agana
(part 1)

2007

SC:
Defendant-Driver grossly negligent;
Defendant-Employer
solidarily
liable.
Defendant-Employer has not demonstrated
that it exercised the care and diligence of a
good father of a family in entrusting its
company car to Defendant-Driver.
Injured party Natividad had her ovaries
removed by Dr. Fuentes. Dr. Ampil took over
after the hysterectomy and completed the
operation and closed the incision. Per count
of the nurse, 2 sponges were missing.
Natividad complained of pain. Dr. Ampil said
it was but normal effect of the operation.
Natividad went to US for treatment a dn was
told to be free of cancer. Still, Natividad
experienced pain. Natividads daughter found
gauze protruding from vagina of Natividad.
Dr. Ampil removed visible gauze, but pain still
persisted. Finally, Natividad went to another
doctor who found and removed the
remaining gauze that caused a recto-vaginal
fistula.
SC: HOSPITAL vicariously liable as employer of
Dr. Ampil.
a. SC traced history of doctor-hospital
relationship:
SCHLOENDROFF
DOCRTINEa
physician, even if under rhe hospitals
employ, is considered an independent
contractor in view of the skill he
exercises and the lack of control over
his work, and thus hospitals are
exempt from liability based in
RESPONDEAT
SUPERIORdoctrine
already losing efficacy

company and only INCIDENTALLY the private

purposes of the individual who actually uses
the car.

Driver was an assistant manager

who did not follow strict working
hours.

TESTS for VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF HOSPITALS:

NOT respondeat superior since

under respondeat superior, there is
a defense of diligence. Article 2180
as to determination of liability.

1.
2.
3.

ER-EE relationship
Ostensible agency
Corporate negligence and responsibility

78

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

RAMOS v CA- for purposes of

apportioning responsibility in medical
negligence cases, an ER-EE relationship
in effect exists between hospitals and
their
attending
and
visiting
physicians.
CONTROL TEST determinative of
existence of ER-EE relationship

b. APPARENT AUTHORITY/HOLDING OUT

THEORY/DOCTRINE
OF
OSTENSIBLE
AGENY/AGENCY BY ESTOPPEL- actuations
of hospital in leading the public to believe it
exercises control over doctors
c. CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE/RESPONSIBILITYbasis US jurisprudence- imposing duty on
hospital to hire sufficient staff, review of
treatment rendered, etc.

Professional
Services v Agana
(part 2)

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION filed by PSIcontentions of PSI: (1) no ER-EE relationship;

(2) Ramos v CA already reversed in a
subsequent resolution; (3) Doctrine of
ostensible agency not applicable as not
established that Natividad relied on hospitals
representation; and (4)Doctrine of corporate
responsibility not applicable since it was
established that Dr. Ampils negligence was
the proximate cause of injury.

2008

SC:
(1) ER-EE: PSI unable to disprove the control
it exercised over its physicians.
Interposed merely a general denial. SC
already ruled in Nograles v Capitol
Medical Center that the hospital need
not make express representations to the
patient that the treating physician is an
employee of the hospital; rather a
representation may be general and
implied.

SAME TESTS

79

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
(2) RAMOS vs CA NOT REVERSED: Change is
as to findings of FACT that clinic did not
exercise control over its consultant;
hence no ER-EE relationship.
(3) OSTENSILBE AGENCY: Not tenable;
Natividad knew Dr. Ampil as staff
member of Hospital.
CORPORATE
RESPONSIBILITY
UPHELD:
Hospital failed to properly discharge
responsibility of to properly supervise staff by
failure to conduct immediate investigation as
to missing gauzes.
SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDREATION
(accepted due to paramount public interest).
Contentions: (1) TC found no ER-EE
relationship; (2) On doctrine of ostensible
agency: Natividad went to Medical City
because of Dr. Ampil, and not the other way
around that Natividad went to Dr. Ampil
because of Medical City; On doctrine of
corporate negligence: Dr. Ampils as the
proximate cause.

Professional
Services v Agana
(part 3)

2010

SC: PSI liable to the Aganas not under the

principle of respondeat superior for lack of
evidence of an employment relationship with
Dr. Ampil but under the principle of
ostensible agency for the negligence of Dr.
Ampil and, pro hac vice, under the principle of
corporate negligence for its failure to perform
its duties as a hospital.
(1) NO ER- EE Relationship: This Court still
employs the "control test" to determine
the existence of an employer-employee
relationship between hospital and
doctor. As there was no dispute over the
RTC finding that PSI and Dr. Ampil had no
employer-employee relationship, such
finding became final and conclusive even
to this Court. RTC and CA held correctly.
There was insufficient evidence that PSI

SAME TESTS

80

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Mercury Drug v
Huang

2007

exercised the power of control or

wielded such power over the means and
the details of the specific process by
which Dr. Ampil applied his skills in the
treatment of Natividad.
(2) OSTENSIBLE AGENCY: (i) Hospital's
implied manifestation to the patient
which led the latter to conclude that the
doctor was the hospital's agent; and (ii),
the patient's reliance upon the conduct
of the hospital and the doctor, consistent
with ordinary care and prudence.
CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY: PSI admitted
that had Natividad Agana "informed the
hospital of her discomfort and pain, the
hospital would have been obliged to act on
it."
Injured Party driving private vehicle when
Mercury Drug (MD) truck suddenly swerved
to the side of the private vehicle causing it to
be hurled over the island of the road. Injured
Party was paralyzed from chest down and
requires
continuous
medical
and
rehabilitation treatment.

Employer has the burden of proving that it

exercised due diligience in the selection
(examination as to qualification, experience,
service record) and supervision of the
performance (formulation of SOP, monitoring
of their implementation and imposition if
disciplinary measures) of the employees
duties.

SC: Truck Driver negligent and MD failed to

exercise the diligence of a good father of a
family. Both solidarily liable.
Vicarious liability State

Meritt v
Government

1916

Injured Party was riding his motorcycle when

he was hit by an ambulance of a government
hospital. Because of incident, Injured Party
was not as proficient in his livelihood
anymore. He was a building contractor. After
the accident he could not do mental math
computations, climb work sites, etc. A
legislative act was enacted authorizing the
Injured Party to sue the Government.
SC: The Government NOT liable. Chauffeur of
an ambulance is NOT a special agent.

The State is only liable for acts of its agents,

officers and employees when they act as
special agents. A special agent is one who
receives a DEFINITE and FIXED ORDER or
COMMISSION, foreign to the exercise of the
duties of his office is he is a special official, so
that in representation of the State and being
bound to act as an agent thereof, he executes
the trust confided in him.

Example is Dean Leonen with

respect to the Mindanao peace
talks.

81

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
A lighted was ignited neat a drum into which
gasoline was being drained, thus causing a
fore in the warehouse of Emergency Control
Administration (ECA). The fire destroyed the
building owned by Injured Party.

Rosete v Auditor
General

Mendoza v De
Leon

Fontanilla v
Maliaman

SC: Government is not liable since ECA is NOT

a special agent per Meritt definition.
Members of the Municipal Council revoked
the lease of an exclusive ferry privilege
awarded to plaintiff. Plaintiff filed action for
damages.

1948
SC: Municipal officers are solidairly liable for
damages sustained by plaintiff since it is
performing corporate functions in the present
case.
Plaintiff sought damages against National
Irrigation Authority (NIA) because of damages
to his crops due to water seeping, percolating
and escaping NIAs canal.

1916

SC: NIA has a separate juridical personality,

separate and distinct from the government. It
is not a mere agency of the government but a
corporate body performing proprietary
functions. SC looked at the PRIMARY
FUNCTION of NIA.

Municipalities have two (2) functions:

governmental and corporate. In the
municipalities exercise of governmental
functions, the municipality is NOT liable for
acts of its agents since acting as agents of the
State. However, in the exercise of corporate
function, the municipality is liable because its
agents are acting as agents of the city.

MUNICIPALITY NOT PARTY to the

case. Were the municipality a party,
would have been liable for
damages.

In determining whether an entity is

performing governmental or proprietary
functions, what is primordial is its primary
function.

Article 2180 does not distinguish

and there is doubt whether
dichotomy exists (ACCFA v CUGCO).

82

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
CASE TITLE
DATE
FACTS
Independent Civil Actions
Violation of Civil and Political Rights
Defamation, Fraud, Physical injuries
Neglect of Duty
Petitioner MHP has the exclusive
franchise to sell and distribute GSP
merchandise. While respondents were
selling the same without authority. So
MHP asked the aid of Philippine
Constabulary to search and seize,
without warrant, the GSP merchandise
MHP Garments v
at private respondents stall. De
1994
CA
Guzman, ee of MHP, was present during
the PC operation and the confiscated
items were turned over to MHP for
safekeeping. The respondents want the
return of the items but failed to do so
hence they filed a case against
petitioner for damages and sums of
money.
Petitioner Panlilio, VP for Finance of
Silahis International Hotel, together
with his personal secretary, reporter
and a security guard, entered (under the
objection of union leader) the union
office to search for illegal drugs. They
found a plastic bag which contains
Silahis v Soluta
marijuana. Thereafter, Silahis filed a
case against Union members but the
case was dismissed because the
evidence was held inadmissible being a
result of unlawful search and seizure.
Afterwards, union members filed a case
against petitioners for damages.

Vinzons-Chato v
Fortune Part 1

2007

Petitioner BIR Commissioner issued

RMC 37-93 reclassifying Hope,
Champion and More as locally
manufactured cigarettes bearing a
foreign brand subject to 55% ad
valorem tax. Respondent assailed the

HELD

DOCTRINE

NOTES

De Guzman and MHP are held liable for

damages under Art 32 of CC. First, there
was an illegal search and seizure; Second,
petitioners were indirectly involved in
transgressing the right of respondents
against unreasonable searches and
seizures. They instigated the raid and De
Guzman actively participated in the sais
raid. MHP received the confiscated
garments for safekeeping; and despite
sufficiency of time and information, MHP
failed to report to Boy Scouts of the
Philippines for the proper application of
search warrant.

Art. 32 speaks of an officer or

employee or person directly
or indirectly responsible for
the
violation
of
the
constitutional rights and
liberties of another. Thus, it is
not the actor alone who must
answer for the damages or
injury caused to the aggrieved
party. (citing Aberca v Ver)

- Notice that even

private persons who
participate can be held
liable.

Respondent union members can recover

damages for violation of constitutional
rights pursuant to Art. 32, in relation to
Art. 2219 (6) and (10) of NCC. Petitioners
who orchestrated the illegal search are
jointly and severally liable for actual, moral
and exemplary damages to individual
respondents. This case does not fall under
valid warrantless searches and seizure.
They could have applied for a search
warrant given that they have reports
about the alleged illegal activity in the
union office.

Art. 32 speaks of an officer or

employee or person directly
or indirectly responsible for
the
violation
of
the
constitutional rights and
liberties of another. Thus, it is
not the actor alone who must
answer for the damages or
injury caused to the aggrieved
party. (citing Aberca v Ver)

- Here, private persons,

without the aid of
police authorities, were
the one who searched
the union office. They
are liable.

Vinzons-Chato can be held liable for

damages under Art. 32.

- The rule is that where there

are two acts, one of which is
special and particular and the
other general which, if
standing alone, would include
the same matter and thus

(1)The rule in this jurisdiction is that a

public officer may be validly sued in his
private capacity for acts done in the course

- PC raiding team should

have been included in
the complaint; but still
this omission will not
exculpate petitioners.

- Relates Art 32 to Art

2219 to show the
extent of liability.
- Even though Silahis
owns the office, the
union members are the
lawful occupants.
- The rule that special
over
general
is
applicable when they
have the same subject
matter

83

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
validity of RMC 37-39 and the SC in the
case CIR v SC held that RMC 37-39 has
fallen short of the requirement of a
valid administrative issuance. So
respondent in turn filed with RTC for
recovery of damages against petitioner,
not alleging bad faith or malice.
Respondent contended that the
issuance of RMC 37-39 violated its right
against deprivation of property without
due process of law and the right to
equal protection of the laws.

Vinzons-Chato v
Fortune Part II

2008

Petitioner moves to refer the case to

Honorable Court en banc. She contends
that the petition raises a legal question
that is novel and is of paramount
importance. The earlier decision sends a
chilling effect to public officers, and will
adversely affect the performance of
duties of superior public officers in
departments or agencies with rulemaking and quasi-judicial powers.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue will
have reason to hesitate or refrain from
performing his/her official duties.

of the performance of the functions of the

office, where said public office: (a) acted
with malice, bad faith, or negligence; and
(b) where the public officer violated a
constitutional right of the plaintiff.

conflict with the special act,

the special law must prevail
since it evinces the legislative
intent more clearly than that
of a general statute.

(2) The complaint filed by respondent

stated a cause of action and that the
decisive provision thereon is Art. 32, and
not Sec 38 and 39 of Administrative Code.
Special law prevails. The clear intention of
the legislature behind Art. 32, based on
the Code Commission, was to create a
distinct cause of action in the nature of
tort for violation of constitutional right,
irrespective of the motive or intent of the
defendant. While Secs 38-39 of AC broadly
deal with the liability of government
officials arising from errors in the
performance of their duties; the presence
of malice, good faith, and negligence are
vital elements that will make them liable.

- Bad Faith and Malice are not

necessary in action based on
Art. 32 of the NCC. Art. 32
deals
specifically
with
violation of constitutional
rights.

(3) Considering that bad faith and malice

are not necessary an action based on Art
32, the failure to specifically allege the
same will not amount to failure to state a
cause of action.
Vinzons-Chato cannot be held liable for
damages.
In determining whether a public officer is
liable for an improper or non-performance
of a duty, it must be determined which of
the two classes of duties- duties to the
public or duties to individuals- is involved.
When what is involved is a duty owing to
the public in general an individual cannot
have a cause of action for damages against
the public officer, even though he may
have been injured by the action or inaction
of the officer. In such case, there is

-Chapter on Human
relations is general law.
But Art. 32 of the same
chapter is a specific
provision that holds a
public officer liable for
and allows redress from
a particular class of
wrongful
acts
committed by public
officers.
- Bad faith requirement
is not overturned.

The rule is: an individual can

hold
a
public
officer
personally liable for damages
on account of an act or
omission that violates a
constitutional right only if it
results in a particular wrong
or injury to the former.

- Sir thinks that the

dichotomy- of duties to
the public and of duties
to
the
individualsexempts public officers
from being liable under
Art. 32; he thinks this is
stupid, looking at the
intent of the legislature
behind Art. 32
- Sir agrees with the
result but disagrees
with the ruling. The

84

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
damage to the individual but no wrong to
him.

Court could have simply

said that Vinzons-Chato
cannot be held liable
because this is a case of
injury without damage;
because,
after
all,
Fortune Tobacco did
not even pay a single
cent for taxes required
of them.

The exception is when the complaining

individual suffers a particular injury on
account of the public officers improper
performance or non-performance of his
public duty. He must show a wrong which
he specially suffers, and damage alone
does not constitute a wrong.
In this case, what is involved is a public
officers duty owing to public; no particular
injury is alleged hence there is no wrongful
act or omission to speak of in violation of
respondents
constitutional
right.
Moreover, SC in CIR v CA held that the
issuance of RMC 37-39 has fallen short of
the requirement of a valid administrative
issuance, and not that it is unconstitutional
therefore respondent has no cause of
action.

Madeja v Caro

1983

Dr. Japzon was accused of Homicide

with reckless imprudence. Offended
party reserved her right to file a
separate civil action. While the criminal
case is pending, Madeja sued Dr. Japzon
for damages. Judge Caro dismissed civil
case because the civil action may be
instituted only after final judgment has
been rendered in the criminal action
pursuant to Sec 3(a) Rule III of ROC.
Hence, this petition.

Judge Caro erred in dismissing the civil

case.
Section 2 Rule 111 of ROC is the applicable
provision, and not Sec 3(a) of the same
rule. Sec 2 of Rule 111 and Art. 33 provide
that an injured party may institute an
independent civil action, entirely separate
and distinct from the criminal action, in
cases of defamation, fraud and physical
injuries.
There are at least two things about Art. 33
of NCC which are worth noting:
(a) The civil action for damages which it
allows to be instituted is ex-delicto.
According to Tolentino, the rule is: when a
criminal action is instituted, the civil action

- This case does not

overturn the bad faith
requirement but it
implies
that
there
should be a prior
finding
of
unconstitutionality
before one could be
liable under Art. 32.

The term physical injuries is

used in generic sense. It is not
the crime of physical injures
defined in ROC. It includes not
only physical injuries but also
consummated
(death),
frustrated and attempted
homicide.

-Still it does not

overturn Corpus v Paje,
because this is only a
division case.

85

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
for recovery of civil liability arising from
the offense charge is impliedly instituted
with the criminal action, unless the
offended party reserves his right to
institute it separately; and after a criminal
action has been commenced, no civil
action arising from the same offense can
be prosecuted. Except, in cases of
defamation, fraud and physical injuries, a
civil case maybe filed independently.
(b) The term physical injuries is used in
generic sense because defamation and
fraud are used in its generic sense. It does
not refer to the crime of physical injuries in
RPC.

Arafiles v Phil
Journalist

2004

Despuig lodged a complaint against

petitioner for forcible abduction with
rape and forcible abduction with
attempted rape before Patrolman Chio
at
WPD.
Respondent
Morales
interviewed the victim and publishes a
story. After a year, petitioner Arafiles
filed against Morales for recovery of
damages under Art. 33, alleging that his
reputation was tarnished and he
became an object of public contempt
and ridicule; and that the news item
deferred his promotion to the position
of deputy administrator.

Corpus v Paje which states that reckless

imprudence or criminal negligence is not
included in Art. 33 of the NCC is not
authoritative. Only nine took part in the
decision and four of them merely
concurred in the result.
Morales cannot be held liable for
damages.
In actions for damages for libel, it is
axiomatic that the published work alleged
to contain libelous material must be
examined and viewed as whole. The
presentation of the news item subject of
petitioners complaint may have been in a
sensational manner, but it is not per se,
illegal.
Respondents could have been more
circumspect in their choice of words as the
headline and first seven paragraphs of the
news item give the impression that a
certain director of the NIAS actually
committed the crimes complained of by
Emelita. The succeeding paragraphs

- Art. 33 contemplates a civil

action for the recovery of
damages that is entirely
unrelated to the purely
criminal aspect of the case. A
civil action for libel under this
Art. shall be instituted and
prosecuted to final judgment
and proved by preponderance
of evidence separately from
and entirely independent of
the institution, pendency or
result of the criminal action.

- Here, the court even

states that newspapers
must enjoy a certain
degree of discretion;
they should be given
leeway and tolerance
- Criminal case and civil
case for the same act
may
proceed
independently of each
other.
- Art. 33 does not affect
in any way the criminal
action.

86

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
sufficiently convey to the readers,
however, that the narration of events was
only an account of what Emelita had
reported at the police headquarters.

MVRS v Islamic

Capuno v Pepsi
Cola

2003

1965

An article was published in Bulgar

stating: Para sa kanila (Muslim), ang
baboy ay isang sagradong bagay at
ginagawa nila itong Diyos. Respondent
Islamic Dawah Council of the
Philippines Inc. alleges that those words
were not published out of sheer
ignorance but with intent to hurt the
feelings, cast insult and disparage the
Muslims and Islam. Petitioners argue
that respondents were not the object of
the Art. and that it was merely an
expression of belief or opinion and was
published without malice nor intention
to cause damage, prejudice or injury to
Muslims. Respondent, in behalf of the
Muslim world, filed an action for libel
against petitioner.

MVRS cannot be held liable.

Punos Opinion:

Where defamation is alleged to have been

directed at a group or class, it is essential
that the statement must be so sweeping or
all-embracing as to apply to every
individual in that group or class, or
sufficiently specific so that each individual
in the class or group can prove the
defamatory statement specifically pointed
to him, so that he can bring an action
separately. (citing Newsweek v IAC).

Defamation is made up of the

twin torts of libel and slanderthe one being, in general,
written, while the other in
general is oral. In either form,
defamation in an invasion of
the interest in reputation and
good name. This is the
relational interest since it
involves the opinion of others
in the community may have,
or tend to have of the
plaintiff.

On January 3, 1953, a vehicular collision

between a Pepsi-Cola delivery truck and
a private car resulted in the death of the
driver of the private car, Capuno, and its
passengers, Paras and Buan. Elordi, the
truck driver, was charged with homicide
through reckless imprudence. Heirs of
Buan filed a separate complaint for
damages against Pepsi and Elordi but
parties eventually compromised hence

The civil action has already prescribed.

Here, there was no fairly identifiable

person who was allegedly injured by the
by the Bulgar article Since the persons
allegedly defamed could not be
identifiable, private respondents have no
individual cause of action; hence they
cannot sue for a class allegedly disparaged.
Private respondents must have cause of
action in common with the class to which
they belong to in order or the case to
prosper.

The present action is one for recovery of

damages based on quasi-delict, which
action must be instituted within 4 years.
The term physical injuries in Art. 33
includes bodily injuries causing death. In
other words, the civil action for damages
could have been commenced y appellants
immediately upon the death of their

It is necessary for the plaintiff

to prove as part of the prima
facie case that the defendant
(a) published a statement that
was (b) defamatory (3) of and
concerning the plaintiff. It
must appear that the plaintiff
is the person with reference
to whom the statement is
made.
- The term physical injuries
in Art. 33 includes bodily
injuries causing death.
- The prescriptive period of
four years shall begin to run
from the day the action may
be brought which means from
the day the quasi-delict
occurred or was committed.

- See requisites in
Punos opinion then
apply.
- insults are not enough;
youre feelings are not
enough; they should
affect how other people
look at you

- The Court said the

cause of action is quasidelict; but Sir said, Art.
33 is an independent
civil action, not a quasidelict.

87

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

International
Flavors v Argos

Corpus v Paje

2001

1969

the civil case was dismissed. After more

than 4 years from the date of collision
or on September 26, 1958, while the
criminal case is pending, the heirs of
Capuno commenced a civil action for
damages against respondent and Elordi
under Art. 33 and 31 of NCC. In 1959,
Elordi was acquitted of the charges
against him and respondents moved to
dismiss the pending civil case on
grounds that the action has already
prescribed; and that they were already
relieved from paying the petitioners
because it was already settled in their
compromise agreement with the heirs
of Buan.
Respondents were general managers for
petitioner IFFI. Costa was appointed
Managing Director of the company. He
and the respondents had serious
differences. Hence, when the position
of gm became redundant, respondents
agreed to terminate their services.
Thereafter, Costa issued a personal
announcement
which
described
respondents as persona non grata and
urged employees not to have further
dealings with them. Hence, respondents
filed a criminal complaint for libel
against Costa and later on filed a civil
case for damages against IFFI and Costa.
IFFI moved to dismiss the complaint
because it is one to enforce its
subsidiary liability under Art. 33.

decedent on January 3, 1953, and the

same would not have been stayed by the
filling of the criminal action for homicide
through reckless imprudence. But the
complaint here was filed only after the
lapse of more than four years.

A vehicular collision between a Victory

Liner bus driven by Paje and a jeepney
driven by Marcia resulted in the death
of Marcia and serious injuries of two
others. Heirs of Marcia filed an
information for homicide and double
serious physical injuries through

Yes, the acquittal of Paje in criminal case

bars the subsequent civil action filed
against him.

The prescription period was not

interrupted by the filing of the criminal
action inasmuch as they never waived nor
reserved to file the civil action separately

Respondents cannot sue IFFI for damages

based on subsidiary liability in an
independent civil action under Art. 33,
during the pendency of the criminal case
against its employee, Costa.
Art. 33 provides specifically that in cases of
defamation, a civil action for damages,
entirely separate and distinct from the
criminal action, may be brought by the
injured party. It does not apply to an
action against the ER to enforce its
subsidiary civil liability, because such
liability arises only after conviction of the
ee in the criminal case. Hence, any action
brought against the ER based on its
subsidiarily liability before the conviction
of its ee is premature.

(1) The extinction of the criminal action by

acquittal of the defendant on the ground
that the criminal act charged against him

Art. 33 does not apply to an

action against the ER to
enforce its subsidiary civil
liability, because such liability
arises only after conviction of
the employee in the criminal
case or when the employee is
adjudged guilty of the
wrongful act in a criminal
action and found to have
committed the offense in the
discharge of his duties.

- Reckless imprudence or
criminal negligence is not one
of
the
three
crimes
mentioned in Art. 33. Hence,
there is no independent civil
action for damages that may
be instituted in connection

- By invoking the
principle of respondeat
superior, respondents
also tried to rely on Art.
33 to hold IFFI primarily
liable for its ees
defamatory statements.
But the Court found
that they did not raise
the claim of primary
liability as a cause of
action in its complaint.
On
contrary,
they
sought to enforce the
alleged
subsidiary
liability of IFFI as er of
Costa, the accused in
pending criminal case
for libel, prematurely.
- opposite of Madeja v
Caro which says that
Reckless imprudence is
included in Art. 33.
- assuming arguendo,
this is a case based on

88

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
reckless imprudence against Paje and
reserved their right to institute a
separate civil action. Trial court found
Paje guilty. Pending appeal, heirs of
Marcia filed a separate civil action for
damages. Paje, later on, was however
acquitted of the criminal charges
against him because the incident is an
accident. Hence, Paje moved to dismiss
the civil case on the ground that his
acquittal barred the said action.

Bonite v Zosa

1988

Bonite was hit by a truck resulting to his

death. The heirs, without reserving
their right to institute a separate civil
action, filed a criminal complaint
charging the truck driver, Zosa, of
Homicide thru reckless imprudence. The
accused was however acquitted based
on reasonable doubt. Thereafter, the
heirs filed a civil case for damages
against Zosa. The lower court dismissed
the case on the ground that the action is
already res adjudicata; that petitioners
have failed to reserve the right to file an
independent civil action; and that the
plaintiffs have been represented by a
private prosecutor in the prosecution of
the criminal case.

does not exist, necessarily extinguished

also the civil action for damages based
upon the same act.
(2) Although the term physical injuries
used in Art. 33 includes homicide, it is
borne in mind that the charge against Paje
was for reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide, and not for homicide and
physical injuries. Art. 33 is not applicable,
since reckless imprudence or criminal
negligence is not one of the three crimes
mentioned in Art. 33, which authorizes the
institution of an independent civil action.
(3) The law penalizes the negligent act, and
not the result thereof. Homicide thru
reckless imprudence comes under the
general rule that acquittal is a bar to civil
action based upon the same criminal act
notwithstanding that the injured party
reserved.
An independent civil action for damages,
under Art. 29, is not barred by petitioners
failure in criminal action to reserve to file a
separate civil action and by their active
participation in the prosecution of such
criminal action.
(1) Art. 29 does not include any
reservation requirement. The only
requirement set forth in Art 29 for the
exercise of the right to file a civil action for
damages is that accused must have been
acquitted in the criminal action based on
reasonable
doubt;
and
only
a
preponderance of evidence is required to
hold the accused liable.
(2) Private respondents argument that
Art. 33, instead of Art. 29, is the applicable
provision is this case because the latter is

with said offense.

- The extinction of the
criminal action by acquittal of
the defendant on the ground
that the criminal act charged
against him does not exist,
necessarily extinguished also
the civil action for damages
based upon the same act.

- Based on Art. 29, the civil

liability is not extinguished by
acquittal of the accused,
where the acquittal is based
on
reasonable
doubt.
Therefore, the aggrieved
party has the right to institute
an independent civil action.
- civil action based on criminal
liability is different from civil
action under 29; hence, the
active participation of the
private prosecutor in the
criminal case does not bar an
independent
civil
action
under Art. 29.
- As reckless imprudence is
not mentioned in Art. 33, no

QD, the action has

already
prescribed
because the 4 years has
already lapsed from the
day the QD was
committed.

- adheres to the ruling

of Corpus v Paje

89

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Jervoso v People

Dulay v CA

1990

1995

Plaintiffs reserved their right to institute

a separate civil case against the accused
in the criminal action. While criminal
case is pending, plaintiff filed for a civil
case against Marcelo Jervoso for
homicide and Closa for slight physical
injuries. Trial Court and CA awarded P
30, 000 indemnity to heirs of the
deceased. Petitioner alleges that CA
erred in ordering them to pay P 30, 000
despite the reservation by the heirs of
their right to file a separate civil action
against the accused.

Torzuela shot Atty. Dulay after they had

an altercation. Petitioner, widow of
Dulay, filed an action for damages based
on Article 2176 against Torzuela and
Safeguard and Superguard, alleged
employers of Torzuela. An information

not applicable to criminal offenses

proceeding from a tortuous act is devoid
of merit. Art 29 does not say that it can be
availed of only in offenses not arising from
a tortuous act. Moreover, Art. 33 assumes
defamation, fraud, or physical injuries
intentionally committed. The death of the
deceased in this case was alleged to be the
result of criminal negligence. Criminal
negligence under Art. 365 of RPC consists
in the execution of a negligent act that, if
intentionally done, would be punishable as
a felony. Thus the law penalizes the
negligent act, not the result thereof. As
reckless imprudence is not mentioned in
Art. 33, no independent civil action for
damages arising from reckless imprudence
may be instituted under Art. 33. Hence,
Art. 33 is not applicable in this case.
The term physical injuries: in Art. 33 is
used in generic sense and it includes
consummated, frustrated, or attempted
homicide (citing Madeja v Cruz). Having
reserved and filed in the RTC a separate
civil action to recover the civil liability of
the accused arising from the crimes
charged, the heirs of the deceased are
precluded from recovering damages in the
criminal case against the accused, for they
are not entitled to recover damages twice
for the same criminal act of the accused.
The trial court and CA erred in awarding to
the heirs of the deceased in the criminal
case P 30, 000 as civil indemnity for his
death despite their reservation to file a
separate civil action for that purpose.
An independent civil action may proceed.
(1) Petitioners are invoking their right to
recover damages against the private
respondents
for
their
vicarious
responsibility for the injury caused by

independent civil action for

damages arising from reckless
imprudence may be instituted
under Art. 33.
- Art. 33 assumes defamation,
fraud, or physical injuries
intentionally
committed;
hence, reckless imprudence is
not included.

Having reserved and filed in

the RTC a separate civil action
to recover the civil liability of
the accused arising from the
crimes charged, the heirs of
the deceased are precluded
from recovering damages in
the criminal case against the
accused, for they are not
entitled to recover damages
twice for the same criminal
act of the accused.

- Art. 2176 covers not

acts
committed
negligence, but also
which are voluntary
intentional.

only
with
acts
and

- this case is the latest

among Corpus, Madeja
and Bonite cases. Now,
you
choose
which
among them you will
follow.

90

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
was thereafter filed against the accused
for homicide. Petitioner also added that
Torzuelas act of shooting Dulay is also
actionable under Art. 33. Respondents
contend that Torzuelas act of shooting
was beyond the scope of his duties,
being that the act was committed with
deliberate intent (dolo); that the
complaint for damages under Art. 2176
cannot lie, since the act was committed
not committed with negligence; and
that Art 33 of NCC applies only to
injuries intentionally committed and the
damages allowed thereunder are exdelicto.

Torzuela's act of shooting and killing Dulay,

as stated in the complaint. There is no
justification for limiting the scope of Art.
2176 of the Civil Code to acts or omissions
resulting
from
negligence.
Wellentrenched is the doctrine that Art. 2176
covers not only acts committed with
negligence, but also acts which are
voluntary and intentional. (citing Elcano)
(2) Re: Art 33, the term "physical injuries"
has already been construed to include
bodily injuries causing death (Capuno v.
Pepsi-Cola). It includes not only physical
injuries but also consummated, frustrated,
and attempted homicide (Madeja v. Caro).
Although in the Marcia case, it was held
that no independent civil action may be
filed under Article 33 where the crime is
the result of criminal negligence, it must
be noted however, that Torzuela, the
accused in the case at bar, is charged with
homicide, not with reckless imprudence,
whereas the defendant in Marcia was
charged with reckless imprudence.
Therefore, in this case, a civil action based
on Article 33 lies.
(3) The liability of the employer under
Article 2180 is direct and immediate; it is
not conditioned upon prior recourse
against the negligent employee and a prior
showing of the insolvency of such
employee. Therefore, it is incumbent upon
the private respondents to prove that they
exercised the diligence of a good father of
a family in the selection and supervision of
their employee. In this case, they failed to
prove it.

- Rule 111 of the Rules on

Criminal Procedure provides:
when a criminal action is
instituted, the civil action for
the recovery of civil liability is
impliedly instituted with the
criminal action, unless the
offended party (a) waives the
civil action, (b) reserves his
right to institute it separately
or (c) institutes the civil action
prior to the criminal action.
Such civil action includes
recovery of indemnity under
the RPC, and damages under
Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176
of the Civil Code arising from
the same act or omission of
the accused.
- In the cases provided for in
Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176,
the independent civil action
which has been reserved may
be brought by the offended
party,
shall
proceed
independently of the criminal
action, and shall require only
a preponderance of evidence.

- it does not say that

the Marcia case is
wrong. In Marcia case,
it was held that no
independent civil action
may be filed under
Article 33 where the
crime is the result of
criminal negligence.

91

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
CASE TITLE
DATE
Human Relations Torts
Abuse of Rights
Acts Contra Bonus Mores
Illegal Acts
Dereliction of duty
Unfair Competition
Violation of Human Dignity

FACTS/HELD

DOCTRINE

NOTES

Facts:
CALI had a lot of creditors, one of them was
Shell. Shell Philippines, despite talks with the
other creditors, transferred its credit to Shell
US, which caused the attachment of CALIs
plane.

While Art 19 contains a mere declaration of

principles, such declaration is implemented
by Art. 21. Art. 21 would vouchsafe
adequate legal remedy for that untold
numbers of moral wrongs which is
impossible for human foresight to provide
for specifically in the statutes. It is a prudent
earnest of justice in the face of the
impossibility of enumerating, one by one, all
wrongs which cause damage.

Held:
Shell acted in bad faith. It is evident that
Shell, upon learning the precarious
economic situation of CALI and that will all
probability, it could not get much of its
outstanding credit because of the preferred
claims of other creditors, entirely
disregarded all moral inhibitory tenets.
Velayo v. Shell

1956

Even if the incident happened before the

applicability of the Civil Code, when new
provisions of the Code does not prejudice or
impair vested or acquired rights in
accordance with the old legislation, they
may be given retroactive effect. Shell did not
have any vested or acquired right to betray
confidence of CALI or of its creditors.
Shell
must
therefore
answer
for
compensatory damages a sum equivalent to
the value of the plane at the time Shell
assigned its credit to American Shell, and
another equal sum as exemplary damages.

Distinction between law and

morals doesnt matter
Implementation of Art. 19 and 21
Retroactivity of provisions

92

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
Facts:
Tobias was asked by its employer, Globe
Mackay, to take a forced leave due to
alleged
anomalous
transactions.
Investigations were conducted finding
Tobias innocent. A case for estafa was filed
but was later on dismissed. Tobias was then
terminated. He filed a case for illegal
dismissal, which was dismissed. When he
was looking for employment, Hendry,
Globes EVP, sent a letter to the prospective
employer stating that Tobias was dismissed
due to dishonesty. Tobias then field a case
for damages anchored on alleged malicious
acts of Globe and Hendry.

Globe Mackay v. CA

1989

Held:
While Art.19 lays down a rule of conduct for
the government of human relations and for
the maintenance of social order, it does not
provide a remedy for its violation. Generally,
an action for damages under either Article
20 or Article 21 would be proper.
There is no rigid test which can be applied.
The question of whether or not the principle
of abuse of rights has been violated resulting
in damages under Art. 20 or Art. 21 or other
applicable provision of law, depends on the
circumstances of each case.

Art.19 (principle of abuse of rights), sets

certain standards which must be observed
not only in the exercise of one's rights but
also in the performance of one's duties. The
law recognizes a primordial limitation on all
rights; that in their exercise, the norms of
human conduct set forth in Article 19 must
be observed. A right, though by itself legal
because recognized or granted by law as
such, may nevertheless become the source
of some illegality. When a right is exercised
in a manner which does not conform with
the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results
in damage to another, a legal wrong is
thereby committed for which the wrongdoer
must be held responsible.
The right of the employer to dismiss an
employee should not be confused with the
manner in which the right is exercised and
the effects flowing therefrom. If the dismissal
is done abusively, then the employer is liable
for damages to the employee.

To constitute malicious prosecution, there

must be proof that the prosecution was
prompted by a design to vex and humiliate a
person and that it was initiated deliberately
by the defendant knowing that the charges
were false and groundless. The filing of a suit,
by itself, does not render a person liable for
Petitioners have been guilty of committing malicious prosecution. The mere dismissal by
several actionable tortious acts. Considering the fiscal of the criminal complaint it not a
the extent of the damage wrought on ground for an award of damages for
Tobias, the amount of damages awarded to malicious prosecution if there is no
Tobias was reasonable under the competent evidence to show that the
circumstances.
complainant had acted in bad faith.
Damnum absque injuria finds no application
here. Even granting that petitioners might
have had the right to dismiss Tobias from
work, the abusive manner in which that right

Limitation of Art. 19
Test in determining abuse of rights
Filing criminal cases is this a case
for malicious prosecution? But
since the fiscal dismissed the
cases, is malicious prosecution still
applicable?

93

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Albenson
Enterprises v. CA

1993

was exercised amounted to a legal wrong for

which the former must now be held liable.
Moreover, the damage incurred by Tobias
was not only in connection with the abusive
manner in which he was dismissed but was
also the result of several other quasidelictual acts committed by petitioners.
Facts:
To constitute malicious prosecution, there
Albenson delivered steel plates to
must be proof that the prosecution was
Guaranteed using a checked drawn against
prompted by a sinister design to vex and
E.L. Woodworks. The check was dishonored
humiliate a person, and that it was
so Albenson traced its origin, which they
initiated deliberately by the defendant
found to be Eugenio S. Baltao. They
knowing that his charges were false and
demanded from Baltao but the latter denied
groundless. The mere act of submitting a
issuing the check. A case for violation of BP
case to the authorities for prosecution
22 was then filed against Baltao. He was
does not make one liable for malicious
then exonerated upon the finding that it was
prosecution.
actually Baltaos son who was the owner of A civil action for damages under malicious
E.L. Woodworks. Apparently, Baltao and his
prosecution is allowed under the New Civil
son has the same name.
Code (19, 20, 26, 29, 32, 33, 35, 2219 (8),
however 3 elements must be present: (1)
Held:
the fact of the prosecution and the further
Albenson could not be said to have violated
fact that the defendant was himself the
the principle of abuse of right. What
prosecutor, and that the action was finally
prompted it to file the case for violation of
terminated with an acquittal; (2) that in
BP 22 against Baltao was their failure to
bringing the action, the prosecutor acted
collect the amount due on a bounced check
without probable cause; (3) the prosecutor
which they honestly believed was issued to
was actuated or impelled by legal malice.
them by Baltao. Baltao, however, did nothing The presence of probable cause signifies,
to clarify the case of mistaken identity at first
as a legal consequence, the absence of
hand. In the absence of a wrongful act or
malice. Moreover, the adverse result of an
omission or of fraud or bad faith, moral
action does not per se make the act
damages cannot be awarded and that the
wrongful and subject the actor to the
adverse result of an action does not per se
payment of moral damages. The law could
make the action wrongful and subject the
not have meant to impose a penalty on
actor to the payment of damages, for the law
the right to litigate, such right is so
could not have meant to impose a penalty on
precious that moral damages may not be
the right to litigate. Considering that
charged on those who may even exercise
Guaranteed, which received the goods in
it erroneously.
payment of which the bouncing check was
issued is owned by respondent, petitioner Elements of an abuse of right: (1) There is a
acted in good faith and probable cause in legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in

Art. 20 v. Art. 19 & 21

Is everything done in bad faith
contrary to law, good customs,
public order, public policy?
there are certain jurisprudence
where abuse of rights will apply
procedurally, no advantage
Malicious prosecution under 21 or
abuse of rights under 19?
Application
of
malicious
prosecution and acquittal
should you wait until you get
acquitted?

94

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

dAmonoy
Gutierrez

v.

2001

filing the complaint before the provincial

fiscal.

bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of

prejudicing or injuring another.

The question of whether or not the principle

of abuse of rights has been violated, resulting
in damages under Articles 20 and 21 or other
applicable provision of law, depends on the
circumstances of each case.

Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for

all other provisions of law which do not
especially provide for their own sanction.
Thus, anyone who, whether willfully or
negligently, in the exercise of his legal right
or duty, causes damage to another, shall
indemnify his victim for injuries suffered
thereby.

Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus

mores, and has the following elements: 1)
There is an act which is legal; 2) but which is
contrary to morals, good custom, public
order, or public policy; 3) and it is done with
intent to injure. There is a common element
under Articles 19 and 21, and that is, the act
must be intentional. However, Art. 20 does
not distinguish: the act may be done either
willfully or negligently.
Facts:
Amonoy was the counsel for settlement of
estate of Cantolos. Because his attorneys
fees secured over the 2 lots were not paid,
he caused the foreclosure of the mortgage.
Because of the deficiency, he caused
another sale of a lot where the house of
Gutierrez stood. The CFI issued a writ of
possession and ordered the demolition of
the structures in the lots. A TRO was then
issued enjoining the demolition but by the
time the SC promulgated the decision, the
house had already been demolished.
Held:
Damnum absque injuria finds no
application to this case. Although the acts
of petitioner may have been legally
justified at the outset, their continuation
after the issuance of the TRO amounted
to an insidious abuse of his right.
Indubitably, his actions were tainted with
bad faith. Had he not insisted on

One who merely exercises ones rights

does no actionable injury and cannot be
held liable for damages. However,
damnum absque injuria may not be
invoked by a person who claims to
exercise a right but does so in an abusive
manner violative of Article 19 of the Civil
Code.
The exercise of a right ends when the right
disappears, and it disappears when it is
abused, especially to the prejudice of
others. The mask of a right without the
spirit of justice which gives it life, is
repugnant to the modern concept of social
law. It cannot be said that a person
exercises a right when he unnecessarily
prejudices another. Over and above the
specific precepts of positive law are the
supreme norms of justice and he who
violates them violates the law. For this
reason, it is not permissible to abuse our
rights to prejudice others.

Difference between abuse of right

and invalid use of the right
Relationship between damnum
and abuse of rights no damnum
if there is abuse of right

95

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

UE v. Jader

2000

completing the demolition, respondents

would not have suffered the loss that
engendered the suit before the RTC.
Verily, his acts constituted not only an
abuse of a right, but an invalid exercise of
a right that had been suspended when he
received the TRO. By then, he was no
longer entitled to proceed with the
demolition.
Article 19, sets certain standards which
may be observed not only in the exercise
of ones rights but also in the
performance of ones duties. When a
right is exercised in a manner which does
not conform with norms enshrined in
Article 19 and results in damage to
another, a legal wrong is thereby
committed for which the wrongdoer
must be held responsible.
Facts:
Jader was enrolled in the UE College of Law.
He failed to take the finals for one subject
for which he was given an incomplete grade.
th
He enrolled for the second semester as a 4
year law student. He filed an application for
the removal of the incomplete grade but got
a grade of 5. His name appeared in the
Tentative List of Candidates for graduation
with an annotation regarding his
deficiencies. His name also appeared in the
invitation for the graduation as one of the
candidates for graduation. At the foot of the
list of the names of the candidates there
appeared however an annotation saying that
it was a tentative list and that the degrees
will be conferred upon these candidates who
satisfactorily complete requirements as
stated in the University Bulletin. Jader
attended the graduation and brought his
family with him. He thereafter prepared
himself for the bar examination. He took a
leave of absence without pay from his job

Absence of good faith must be

sufficiently established for a successful
prosecution by the aggrieved party in a
suit for abuse of right under Article 19 of
the Civil Code. Good faith connotes an
honest intention to abstain from taking
undue advantage of another, even
though the forms and technicalities of
the law, together with the absence of all
information or belief of facts, would
render the transaction unconscientious.
A person should be protected only when
he acts in the legitimate exercise of his
right, that is, when he acts with prudence
and in good faith, but not when he acts
with negligence or abuse.
Article 19 was intended to expand the
concept of torts by granting adequate
legal remedy for the untold number of
moral wrongs which is impossible for
human foresight to provide specifically in
statutory law. The ultimate thing in the
theory of liability is justifiable reliance

96

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
and enrolled at the pre-bar review class.
Jader later learned of the deficiency and he
dropped his review class and was not able to
take the bar examination.
Held:
UE had a contractual obligation to inform
his students as to whether or not they
have met all the requirements for the
conferment of a degree. Thus, UE in
belatedly informing respondent of the
result of the removal examination,
particularly at a time when he had
already commenced preparing for the bar
exams, cannot be said to have acted in
good faith.
Facts:
Phelps gave wires and cables to Barons with
a credit term of 60 days. The items were
then sold to Meralco. Barons failed to pay
the full amount and offered to pay in
installments but it was rejected by Phelps. A
complaint was then filed against Barons.
Barons now allege that it suffered injury to
its reputation due to Phelps acts. These acts
were allegedly calculated to humiliate
Barons and constituted an abuse of rights.
Barons Marketing v.
CA

1998

Held:
The law prescribes a "primordial limitation
on all rights" by setting certain standards
that must be observed in the exercise
thereof. Thus, the inclusion of Art.19 in the
CC: 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.
In this case, bad faith on the part of Phelps
was not proved. More importantly, Phelps
was driven by legitimate reasons for
rejecting Barons offer. It merely wanted to

under conditions of civilized society.

There is no abuse of rights when there is

no bad faith nor intent to prejudice
another. Also, the mere exercise of a
right cannot be said to be an abuse of
right.
Tolentino: There is undoubtedly an abuse
of right when it is exercised for the only
purpose of prejudicing or injuring
another. When the objective of the actor
is illegitimate, the illicit act cannot be
concealed under the guise of exercising a
right. The principle does not permit acts
which, without utility or legitimate
purpose cause damage to another,
because they violate the concept of social
solidarity which considers law as rational
and just. Hence, every abnormal exercise
of a right, contrary to its socio-economic
purpose, is an abuse that will give rise to
liability. The exercise of a right must be in
accordance with the purpose for which it
was established, and must not be
excessive or unduly harsh; there must be
no intention to injure another.

Application of test

97

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
avoid a situation wherein its cash position
would be compromised, making it harder for
them to pay its own obligations.
Facts:
Several cases were filed by Diaz against
Davao Light and Power and vice versa. Diaz
is now contending that DLPC acted in bad
faith in instituting the criminal cases.

Held:

Evidence shows that DLPC did not act in bad

faith. DLPC may have instituted two separate
criminal actions, but such was done in good
faith. DLPC did not act without probable
cause. Prosecution from the same act is not
prohibited; what is prohibited is prosecution
for the same offense.

Diaz v. Davao Light

and Power

A claim for damages based on malicious

prosecution will prosper only if the three
elements are shown to exist. We find that
none of the requisites are attendant here.
2007
Petitioner may have suffered damages as a
result of the filing of the complaints.
However, there is a material distinction
between damages and injury. Injury is the
illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the
loss, hurt or harm which results from the
injury; and damages are the recompense or
compensation awarded for the damage
suffered. Thus, there can be damage without
injury in those instances in which the loss or
harm was not the result of a violation of a
legal duty. In such cases, the consequences
must be borne by the injured person alone;
the law affords no remedy for damages
resulting from an act which does not amount
to a legal injury or wrong. These situations
are often called damnum absque injuria.
Whatever damages Diaz may have suffered
would have to be borne by him alone since it

Elements of abuse of rights: (a) the

existence of a legal right or duty; (b)
which is exercised in bad faith; and (c) for
the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another. Malice or bad faith is at the core
of the above provisions.
Good faith - state of the mind which is
manifested by the acts of the individual
concerned. It consists of the intention to
abstain from taking an unconscionable
and unscrupulous advantage of another.
It is presumed and he who alleges bad
faith has the duty to prove the same.
Bad faith does not simply connote bad
judgment to simple negligence, dishonest
purpose or some moral obloquy and
conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of
known duty due to some motives or
interest or ill-will that partakes of the
nature of fraud. Malice connotes ill-will
or spite and speaks not in response to
duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior
and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad
faith or bad motive.
Malicious prosecution as an action for
damages brought by or against whom a
criminal prosecution, civil suit or other
legal proceeding has been instituted
maliciously and without probable cause,
after
the
termination
of
such
prosecution, suit, or other proceeding in
favor of the defendant therein.
Requisites of malicious prosecution:
1. The fact of prosecution and the further
fact that the defendant (respondent)
was himself the prosecutor, and that
the action finally terminated with an
acquittal;
2. In bringing the action, the prosecutor

Applied test in Tolentino

98

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
was his acts which led to the filing of the
complaints against him.

acted without probable cause; and

3. The prosecutor was actuated or
impelled by legal malice, that is, by
It is evident that DLPC was not motivated by
improper or sinister motive.
malicious intent or by a sinister design to One cannot be held liable in damages for
unduly harass petitioner, but only by a wellmaliciously instituting a prosecution
founded anxiety to protect its rights. DLPC
where he acted with probable cause.
cannot therefore be faulted in availing of the
There must be proof that the prosecution
remedies provided for by law.
was prompted by a sinister design to vex
and humiliate a person, and that it was
The right to litigate is an escape valve to
initiated deliberately knowing that the
relieve the pressures of personal
charge was false and baseless to entitle
disagreements that might otherwise explode
the victims to damages.
in physical confrontation. Without the right The mere act of submitting a case to the
to litigate, conflicting claims cannot be
authorities for prosecution does not
examined and resolved in accordance with
render a person liable for malicious
one of the primary purposes of government,
prosecution should he be unsuccessful,
which is to provide for a just and orderly
for the law could not have meant to
society.
impose a penalty on the right to litigate.

Facts:
Velez left Wassmer a note 2 days before the
wedding that they have to postpone the
wedding. The next day, Velez sent a
telegram saying that he was returning soon,
but he didnt. Wassmer then sued for
damages.

Wassmer v. Velez

1964

Held:
Wassmer and Velez applied for a license
to contract marriage, which was
subsequently issued. Their wedding was
set. Invitations were printed and
distributed to relatives, friends and
acquaintances. Other expenses have
already been incurred in preparation for
the wedding
This is not a case of mere breach of
promise to marry. To formally set a
wedding and go through all the abovedescribed preparation and publicity, only

While mere breach of contract is not an

actionable wrong, Article 21 of the Civil Code
says that when the person willfully causes
loss or injury contrary to good custom, he
shall compensate the latter for damages. It is
the abuse of right which can be a cause for
moral and material damages.

What if a week before? What if the

bride? What if the groom paid?
Akin to breach of contract but is
under Art. 21 (cultural)

99

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
to walk out of it when the matrimony is
about to be solemnized, is quite
different. This is palpably and
unjustifiably contrary to good customs
for which defendant must be held
answerable in damages in accordance
with Article 21 aforesaid.
Facts:
Tanjanco courted Santos and through his
protestations of love and promises of
marriage, he succeeded in having carnal
access to Santos. Santos then conceived a
child and had to resign from her job to avoid
embarrassment and social humiliation.
Santos is now claiming damages because she
allegedly suffered due to Tanjancos refusal
to marry her.

Tanjanco v. CA

1966

Held:
Over and above the partisan allegations, the
facts stand out that for one whole year, from
1958 to 1959, Araceli Santos, a woman of
adult age, maintained intimate sexual
relations with Tanjanco, with repeated acts
of intercourse. Such conduct is incompatible
with the idea of seduction. Plainly there is
here voluntariness and mutual passion; for
had Araceli been deceived, had she
surrendered exclusively because of the
deceit, artful persuasions and wiles of the
defendant, she would not have again yielded
to his embraces, much less for one year,
without exacting early fulfillment of the
alleged promises of marriage, and would
have cut chart all sexual relations upon
finding that defendant did not intend to
fulfill his promises. Hence, we conclude that
no case is made under Article 21 of the Civil
Code, and no other cause of action being
alleged, no error was committed by the
Court of First Instance in dismissing the
complaint.

The essential feature is seduction; it

connotes essentially the idea of deceit,
enticement, superior power or abuse of
confidence on the part of the seducer to
which the woman has yielded. To
constitute seduction there must be some
sufficient promise or inducement and the
woman must yield because of the
promise or other inducement. If she
consents merely from carnal lust and the
intercourse is from mutual desire, there
is no seduction. She must be induced to
depart from the path of virtue by the use
of some species of arts, persuasions and
wiles, which are calculated to have and
do have that effect, and which result in
her ultimately submitting her person to
the sexual embraces of her seducer.
It is not seduction where the willingness
arises out of sexual desire or curiosity of
the female, and the defendant merely
affords her the needed opportunity for
the commission of the act. It has been
emphasized that to allow a recovery in all
such cases would tend to the
demoralization of the female sex, and
would be a reward for unchastity by
which a class of adventuresses would be
swift to profit.

100

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
Facts:
Baksh is an Iranian who courted Gonzales.
She accepted his love on the condition that
they would get married. When they lived
together, Baksh maltreated Gonzales. Baksh
then repudiated their marriage agreement
and said that he was already married.
Gonzales is now asking for damages.
Held:
The existing rule is that a breach of promise
to marry per se is not an actionable wrong.

Baksh v. CA

1993

It was the petitioner's "fraudulent and

deceptive protestations of love for and
promise to marry plaintiff that made her
surrender her virtue and womanhood to him
and to live with him on the honest and
sincere belief that he would keep said
promise, and it was likewise these fraud and
deception on appellant's part that made
plaintiff's parents agree to their daughter's
living-in with him preparatory to their
supposed marriage." Private respondent
surrendered her virginity, the cherished
possession of every single Filipina, not
because of lust but because of moral
seduction.
It is clear that Baksh harbors a
condescending, if not sarcastic, regard for
the Gonzales on account of the latter's
ignoble
birth,
inferior
educational
background, poverty and, as perceived by
him, dishonorable employment. Obviously,
from the very beginning, he was not at all
moved by good faith and an honest motive..
It can even be said that the petitioner
committed such deplorable acts in blatant
disregard of Article 19.

Where a man's promise to marry is in fact

the proximate cause of the acceptance of
his love by a woman and his
representation to fulfill that promise
thereafter becomes the proximate cause
of the giving of herself unto him in a
sexual congress, proof that he had, in
reality, no intention of marrying her and
that the promise was only a subtle
scheme or deceptive device to entice or
inveigle her to accept him and to obtain
her consent to the sexual act, could
justify the award of damages pursuant to
Article 21 not because of such promise to
marry but because of the fraud and
deceit behind it and the willful injury to
her honor and reputation which followed
thereafter. It is essential that such injury
should have been committed in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy.
When the sexual act is accomplished
without any deceit or qualifying
circumstance of abuse of authority or
influence, but the woman, already of age,
has knowingly given herself to a man, it
cannot be said that there is an injury
which can be the basis for indemnity. But
so long as there is fraud, which is
characterized by willfulness, the action
lies. The court, however, must weigh the
degree of fraud, if it is sufficient to
deceive the woman under the
circumstances. But so long as there is a
wrongful act and a resulting injury, there
should be civil liability, even if the act is
not punishable under the criminal law
and there should have been an acquittal
or dismissal of the criminal case for that
reason.

Is 21 better than 2176 or vice-versa?

Compare with Elcano, which says
that 2176 covers intentional acts.
They had to create a vacuum to be
filled for Art. 21.
There must be fraud/deceit.
Proximate cause not correct
because 21 doesnt need causation,
only injury
What if the facts are different (i.e.
man was deceived, etc.)?

101

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
Parents and siblings of Lolita Pe filed an
action for damages against Alfonso Pe who
was a married man and who won Lolitas
affection. Alfonso Pe claimed to frequent
Lolitas house to teach Lolita how to pray the
rosary but they eventually fell in love and
conducted clandestine trysts not only in
their hometown but also in a town where
Lolita used to teach. Upon hearing he
rumors about the love affair, Alfonso Pe was
prohibited from seeing Lolita but while the
latter was staying at the familys house in
QC, she disappeared with no trace of
whereabouts. The plaintiffs found a note
about the supposed date between Lolita and
Alfonso. Thus, the complaint.
Pe v. Pe

1962

In this case, injury to the family in a manner

contrary to morals, good customs, and
public policy as contemplated in Art. 21 of
NCC.

Note that the complaining parties here

are the parents and siblings of Lolita.
Both parties are of age. The injury to
Lolitas family was the injury to their
reputation.
Sirs unanswered question: What if
instead of a married man, the man in
this case is a homosexual?

Alfonso Pe is liable for damages.

The present action is based on Art. 21 and
the claim of plaintiffs is based on the fact
that Alfonso Pe, being a married man,
carried on a love affair with Loita, thereby
causing the plaintiffs injury in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs and public
policy.

Que v. IAC

Jan. 13, 1989

The way Alfonso Pe tried to win Lolitas

affection made SC conclude that it was he
who through ingenious scheme or trickery
seduced Lolita to the extent of having illicit
relations with her. Thewrong Alfonso caused
Lolita and her family is immeasurable
considering the fact that he is a married man
Que filed an estafa case against Nicolas To constitute MALICIOUS PROSECUTION,
because the 5 checks that were issued by there must be proof that the prosecution
Nicolas as payment for the purchase of was:
canvass strollers bounced. The charge was (1) Prompted by sinister design to vex and
dismissed at the level of the fiscal. Nicolas
humiliate a person
then filed a case for malicious prosecution (2) Initiated deliberately by the defendant
against Que. Nicolas claims that he stopped (3) Knowing that his charges were false and
payment because the goods were defective
groundless.

If there is probable cause, no malice.

102

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
and that Que refused to replace them. Que
on the other hand claims that the goods
were returned only after he filed the estafa
case.
No malicious prosecution in this case. Que
was not motivated by ill feeling but only by
an anxiety to protect his rights when he filed
the criminal complaint for estafa with the
fiscals office. Considering that the checks
had not been encashed and the supposedly
defective goods had not been returned by
the drawer, Que had reason to believe that
Nicolas intended to deceive him.
A letter was sent to Drilon requesting the
inhvestigation of the failed Dec. 89 coup
detat. Based on the preliminary inquiry
made by the panel, there was probable
cause to hold Adaza and the other
participants for the crime of rebellion with
murder and frustrated murder. This report
became the basis of the filing of Information.
Aggrieved, Adaza filed a complaint for
damages against Drilon et al for malicious
prosecution.

Drilon v. CA

March
1997

20,

One cannot be held liable for damages for

maliciously instituting prosecution where he
acted with probable cause.
If the charge although falsewas made with
an honest belief in its truth and justice, and
there were reasonable grounds on which
such a belief could be founded, the
accusation could not be held to have been
false in the legal sense.
The mere act of submitting a case to the
authorities for prosecution does not make
one liable for MP.
Definiton
of
Malicious
Prosecution
(Philippine Jurisdiction):
An action for damages brought by one
against whom a criminal prosecution, civil
suit or other legal proceeding has been
instituted maliciously and without probable
cause, after the termination of such
prosecution, suit or other proceeding in
favour of the defendant therein. The gist of
the action is the putting of legal process in
force, regularly, for the mere purpose of
vexation or injury.

No malicious prosecution in this case. To

constitute MP, there must be proof that the Plaintiff must prove three elements:
prosecution was prompted by sinister design (1) Fact of prosecution and the further fact
to vex and humiliate a person, and that it
that the defendant was himself the
was initiated deliberately by the defendant
prosecutor and the action finally
knowing that his charges were false and
terminated with an acquittal;
groundless.
(2) In bringing the action, the prosecutor
acted without probable cause; and
In this case, none of the requisites were (3) Prosecutor was actuated or impelled by
alleged in the complaint.
legal malice that is by improper or
(1) Nothing in the record shows that crim
sinister motive
case has been finally terminated and
Adaza acquitted of charge
(2) No allegation of lack of probable cause
(3) The info. Was not a mere product of

One cannot be held liable

for
maliciously instituting a prosecution
whre one has acted with PC.
Sir asked about the Hernandez doctrine
in relation to the doubtful or difficult
question of law. In this case, the
prosecutors had reason to believe that
Hernandez ruling does not apply to the
particular situation. The killings here
were not necessary or in furtherance of
rebellion.

103

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
caprice.
Prosecutors
conducted
preliminary investigation
Magbanua, housemaid at the residence of
Junsay was charged as co-accused in the
crime of robbery. The prosecution relied on
her allege confession admitting participation
in the crime. RTC acquitted Magbanua
stating that the Medical Certificate and the
NAPOLCOM finding established that
Magbanua was physically maltreated by the
investigating officers in an attempt to force
her to confess participation. There is also
insufficient evidence. Magbanua then filed a
complaint for damages against Junsay and
police officers for malicious prosecution.
No malicious prosecution in this case.

Magbanua v. Junsay

Grand
Espino

Union

v.

Feb. 12, 2007

Dec. 28, 1979

4 ELEMENTS OF MP:
1) Prosecution did occur and defendant
was himself the prosecutor or that he
instigated its commencement
2) Criminal action finally ended with an
acquittal
3) In bringing the action, the prosecutor
acted without probable cause
4) The prosecution was impelled by legal
malice
1) and 2) are present. 3) and 4) are absent.
The prosecutor acted with probable cause
since Rosemarie admitted participation; not
impelled by legal malice- no evidence was
shown that there was bad blood between
Magbanua and Junsay plus she was robbed
of valuables. Junsay can only be expected to
bring the matter to the authorities.
Espino found a rat tail file that he wanted to
buy at the Supermarket. He then paid for the
items her wife got but she forgot to pay for
the rat tail file which he put in his breast
pocket (good part of which was exposed). He
was approached by the security guard who

MP= an action for damages brought by one

against whom a criminal prosecution, civil
suit, or other legal proceeding has been
instituted maliciously and without probable
cause, after the termination of such
prosecution suit or other proceeding in
favour of defendant. THE TERM HAS BEEN
EXPANDED TO INCLUDE UNFOUNDED CIVIL
SUITS INSTITUTED JUST TO VEX AND
HUMILIATE THE DEFENDANT DESPITE THE
BASENCE OF A CAUSE OF ACTION OR
PROBABLE CAUSE.

What transpires in the criminal action is

immaterial
in
the
malicious
prosecution. The inadmissibility of the
evidence is an evidentiary matter.

Gravamen of MP: deliberate initiation of an

action with the knowledge that the charges
were false and groundless.

Gravamen of MP: deliberate intention

You cannot apply the elements of MP

to a civil suit. Sir said this because SC
said that MP has been expanded to
include unfounded civil suits.
Groundless suit and purpose to vex
must concur.

The inadmissibility of the evidence was just

an evidentiary matter which does not
detract from the fact that based on
Mgabanuas admission, there was reason for
the respondents to believe that the suit was
not unfounded and that the crime was
committed.

It is against morals, good customs and public

policy to humiliate, embarrass and degrade
the dignity of a person. Everyone must
respect the dignity, personality, privacy and
peace of mind of his neighbours and other
persons (Art.26 of CC). And one must act

Public Humiliation aspect in this case:

The fact that Espino was paraded for
his alleged misdeed.
Take note that Espino did not intend to
steel.

104

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
made a report of the incident. Espino was
then brought to Fandino who said Ano,
nakaw na naman ito. Espino pulled out a
bill and offered to pay but Fandino
responded that all those who are caught say
the same thing. His money was taken as
incentive to the guards for catching pilferers.
Espino then paid at the counter.
Grand Union is liable for damages under
Articles 19 and 21 in rel. To Art. 2219 of CC.
Espino was falsely accused shoplifting. He
was detained and interrogated by the
guards. SC took note of the mode and
manner in which he was subjected, shouting
at him, imposing a fine, threatening to call
the police in the presence and hearing of
many people at the supermarket which
brought humiliation and embarrassment.
Petitioners wilfully caused loss or injury to
private respondent in a manner that was
contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy.
Valmonte, wedding coordinator was accused
by the aunt of the bride as the one who took
the pieces of jewelry which the aunt left at
the comfort room. Siya lang ang lumabas ng
kuwarto. Valmonte was bodily searched,
interrogated and trailed by a security guard.
Her car was also searched but nothing was
found.
Carpio v. Valmonte

Aunt Carpio wilfully caused Valmonte injury

in a manner contrary to morals and good
customs. Actionable under Art. 19 in relation
to Art. 21. By openly accusing Valmonte as
the only person who went out of the room
before the loss, in the presence of all the
guests therein, Carpio virtually branded
Valmonte as a thief.

with justice, give everyone his due and

observe honesty and good faith (Art. 19 CC)

Carpio had the right to ascertain the identity

of the malefactor but to malign Valmonte
without iota of proof that she was the one
who actually stole the jewelry is an act
which by any standard or principle of law is
impermissible.

Q: What if the shoplifter was not

paraded but his picture was posted
permanently in the establishment?
A: Grand Union case would not apply.
Shoplifters intended to steel while
Espino did not.

Q:Is there a legal basis for awarding

damages to a person who accuses you
of a crime?
Manner of attacking without any
amount of proof is contrary to public
morals

105

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Quisaba v. Sta. Ines

Garcia v. Salvador

Aug. 30, 1974

March
2007

20,

Quisaba was instructed by (boss) Hyde to

purchase logs but he refused saying that the
task was inconsistent with his position as
internal auditor. Thus, he was temporarily
relieved from his position so that he can do
the task and he was warned that failure to
comply would be a ground for dismissal. He
pleaded for fairness but was instead
demoted. Quisaba filed a complaint for
damages, termination pay and atty.s fees.
Sta. Ines claimed that NLRC had jurisdiction
over the case.
NLRC has no jurisdiction over Qusabas case
because his complaint is not grounded on
dismissal per se but on the manner of his
dismissal and its consequent effects. Note
that he did not ask for reinstatement or
backwages. This case is intrinsically
concerned with a civil (not a labor) dispute.
It has to do with an alleged violation of
Quisabas rights as a member of society and
does not involve existing ER-EE relations.
Ranida Salvador was terminate from
employment due to an erroneous
interpretation of Hepa B Surface Antigen
Test. The test was conducted by Garcia of
CDC. The pathologist indicated that she was
HBs Ag: Reactive. Upon informing her
father, the latter suffered a heart attack.
Ranida Salvador underwent several tests
showing that she was not infected. Thus, the
complaint. Ranida was claiming that due to
the erroneous interpretation, she lost her
job and suffered serious mental anxiety; that
her father was hospitalized and lost business
opportunities.
The elements of an actionable conduct are:
(1) duty, (2) breach, (3) injury, (4) causation.
All of these elements are present. As
provided for in the DOH Orders and relevant

If the dismissal is done anti-socially or

oppressively,
then
the
respondents
(employers) violate Art. 1701 of CC which
prohibits acts of oppression by either capital
or labor against the other, and Art. 21 which
makes a person liable for damages if he
wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a
manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy,

Take note of the standard: ANTISOCIALLY OR OPPRESIVELY

Art. 20 of the Civil Code provides the legal

basis for the award of damages to a party
who suffers damage whenever one commits
an act in violation of some legal provision.
This was incorporated by the Code
Commission to provide relief to aperson who
suffers damage because another has
violated some legal provision.

Sir just made a quick mention of the

case. No recit. No lengthy discussion

106

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
laws, a clinical laboratory must be
administered, directed and supervised by a
licensed physician authorized by the Health
Secretary like a pathologist; and that the
medtech must be supervised by the
pathologist. Here, CDC was administered by
the medtech, the HBs Ag Test was
conducted without the supervision of the
pathologist and the result was released
without the latters authorization. RANIDA
SUFFERED
INJURY
AS
A
DIRECT
CONSEQUENCE OF GARCIAS FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE LAWS.
St. Louis Corp published a wrongful
advertisement misrepresenting the house of
Dr. Aramil as belonging to Arcadio. When Dr.
nd
Aramil saw it for the 2 time, he wrote a
letter of protest claiming that some people
he knew made remarks purporting doubts as
to his credibility such as: (1) He was just
renting the house; and (2) Wife belonging to
another husband. This caused him mental
anguish. There was no apology, only a
rectification

St. Louis v. CA

Nov. 14, 1984

The acts fall under Art. 26. There was a

violation of Dr. Aramils right to privacy. St.
Louis Realtys employee was negligent in
mixing up the residences in a widely
circulated publication-Sunday Times. The
persons who knew Dr. Aramil were confused
by the distorted impression that Dr. Aramil
was just renting. His private life was
mistakenly and unnecessarily exposed. He
suffered diminution of income and mental
anguish

The Court just cited Art. 26. Take note

however that without any explanation, the
Court italicized the words similar acts in
Art 26: Every person shall respect the
dignity, personality, privacy and peace of
mind of his neighbours and other persons.
The following and similar acts, though they
may not constitute a criminal offense, shall
produce a cause of action for damages,
prevention and other relief: xxx

Sir kept on asking on what ground

under Art. 26 the case at bar fell. No
answer seemed satisfactory. Sir is trying
to point out that the SC did not seem to
care to specify the classification of the
act. SC contented itself in saying that
there was a violation of right to privacy

107

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Gregorio v. CA

Sept.
2009

11,

Datuin filed a complaint for B.P. 22 against

Gregorio. Because the address stated in the
complaint was incorrect. Gregorio was
unable to controvert the charges. A warrant
of arrest was served to Gregorio at QC. She
was brought to PARAC-DILG where she
claimed that she was fingerprinted and
detained like an ordinary criminal. Thus, she
filed complaint for damages against Datuin
and Sansio Philippines.
Gregorios complaint is based on QD under
Art. 2176 in relation to Art. 26 of CC rather
than malicious prosecution. Why not MP?
Gregorio never imputed bad faith against
Sansio and Datuin. Gregorios rights to
personal security, privacy and peace of mind
were infringed by Sansio and Datuin when
they failed to exercise the requisite diligence
in determining the identity of the person
they should rightfully accuse of tendering
insufficiently funded checks. The fault was
compounded when they failed to ascertain
the correct address of Gregorio.

Art. 26 CC grants a cause of action for

damages, prevention and other relief in
cases of breach, though not necessarily
constituting a criminal offense of the ff
rights:
1. Right to personal dignity
2. Right to personal security
3. Right to family relations
4. Right to social intercourse
5. Right to privacy
6. Right to peace of mind

The focus in this case in relation to

Art. 26 is actually how Gregorio
was handled in jail plus her
reputation as kagawad, member of
reputable groups, etc.
Take note of the list. SC provided
its own list not found in the
provision of CC.
Sir asked: in what number of Art.
26 does this case fall? Art. 26(2)
Art. 26 looks like a declaration of
st
policy in the 1 sentence.
Art. 26 is more on the public
humiliation aspect of damages. Art.
26 should be used instead of Art.
21

108

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
CASE TITLE
DATE
FACTS/HELD
Possessor of Animals
Thrown/Falling from a building
Death/injuries in the course of employment
Product Liability
Interference with contractual relations
Liability of local government units
Proprietors of buildings
Engineer/Architect of collapsed building
A little girl was bitten by a rabid dog owned
by the deceased Vicente Miranda but under
the possession of Purita Vestil. The girl died of
rabies.
Vestil v. IAC
April 25, 1945
SC: In applying Article 2183 what must be
determined is the POSSESSION of the dog,
regardless of the ownership of the dog.
On a Sunday, Leopoldo, a collector of Singer,
was run over a truck while riding a bicycle, on
his way home after making collections.

Afable v. Singer
Machine

Alarcon v. Alarcon

March 6,
1933

May 31, 1961

SC: The accident which caused the death of

the employee was not due to and in
pursuance of his employment. He was on his
way home after work and had left the
territory where he was authorized to make
collections.
Does this run counter with the doctrine *the
incidental benefit to the employer rule+
established in Castilex and Filamer? NO. On
the first place, they have different points of
issues. In Castilex and Filamer, the injured
person is not the employee but another
person. In this case, the injured person is the
employee.
Defendant (a school teacher) hired the
decedent and another person to dug a well
on his land. On the second day of work, upon
reaching the bottom he felt ill. People
respond to help but he died of asphyxia
(suffocation). The mother of the deceased

DOCTRINE

The operative fact in article 2183 is

possession and not ownership

As a GENERAL RULE an employee is not

entitled to recover from personal injuries
resulting from an accident that befalls him
while going to or returning from his place of
employment, because such an accident does
not arise out of and in the course of his
employment.
arising out = origin or cause of the accident
in the course of = time, place, and
circumstances under which the accident takes
place

The phrase other employees mentioned in

Art. 1711 contemplates employers engaged
in some business or industry.

NOTES

109

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
filed an action on the basis of Art.1711.
SC: Defendant liable. The Court construed the
phrase other employees mentioned in Art.
1711. The phrase contemplates employers
engaged in some business or industry. In this
case, the defendant was a school teacher.
Cuddy (owner of the film Zigomar) leased the
film to Gilchrist. However, Espejo and
Zaldariagga (competitors) were able to
convince Cuddy to lease the contract to them
instead. An injunction was ordered by the
Court.

Gilchrist v. Cuddy

So Ping Bun v. CA

February 18,
1915

September
21, 1999

Is malice required to be liable for

contractual interference?
Sir: The Court did not say that it is.
The one who recited this case said
YES citing the portion of the
decision It is said that the ground
on which the liability of a third party
for interfering with a contract
between others rests, is that the
interference was malicious. But sir
said, read the next paragraph the
relevant portions are copied above
in bold and in italics.

SC: In case at bar the only motive for

interference with the Gilchrist-Cuddy contract
on the part of Espejo and Zaldariagga was a
desire to make a profit by exhibiting the film
in their theater. There was NO MALICE
beyond this desire, BUT this fact DOES NOT
RELIEVE them from liability for interference
from the contract and causing its breach.
They are liable for Gilchrist for damages. If
there had been no contract between Cuddy
and Gilchrist, the defense on the basis of right
to compete is tenable. But since, there was a
contractual relation the to escape liability
interference must be an equal or superior
right in themselves.
So Ping Bun occupied the place rented by Tek
Hua Enterprises (leasee) under the tolerance
of Manuel Tiong. When Manuel Tiong wrote
So Ping Bun requesting the latter to vacate for
he would be using the place as a warehouse
of his garment venture. So Ping Bun,
immediately, made an arrangement with DC
Chuan (lessor) to secure a contract of lease in
the formers favor. Tek Hua Enterprises filed
an action for injunction.
SC:The Court also stated that where there is
no malice in the interference of a contract,

The elements of a tort interference are:

(1) existence of a valid contract,
(2) knowledge on the part of the third
person of the existence of contract
(3) interference of the third person is
without legal justification or
excuse.

Note: There was a debate in the

class, whether indeed malice is
required or not. There was a
student who even suggested that
there are 2 types of interference:
tort interference and malicious
interference. But, sir said, lets
proceed with the Lagon case
because, everything was crystallized
there. But, Sir agreed at the outset
that it seems that malice is required
in this case.

110

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
the party cannot be a malicious interferer in
accordance with Gilchrist v. Cuddy
allegedly. Since there was no allegation of
malice to petitioner in this case, the Court
awarded no damages.
The Court stated further Lack of malice,
however, precludes damages. But it does not
relieve petitioner of the legal liability for
entering contracts and causing breach of
existing ones. And so the Court made
permanent the injunction.

Petitioner Lagon bought from the estate of

Bai Tonina Sepai, two parcels of land upon the
promptings of the heirs. Unknown to him it
was subject to a lease agreement with Lapuz.
SC: Article 1314 recognized a tort known as
interference with contractual relations. The
interference is penalized because it violates
the property rights of a party in a contract to
reap the benefits that result therefrom.

Lagon v. CA

March 18,
2005

The Court reiterated the elements of the

interference provided in So Ping Bun. Also,
the Court here said that to be liable for tort
interference (referring again to So Ping Bun),
the defendant must have acted with malice
or driven by purely impious reasons to injure
the plaintiff.
Note: Also, the Court in this case refined
element no. 2.
Is actual knowledge of the contract
necessary?
NO. It is sufficient if he is aware of facts
which, if followed by reasonable inquiry, will
lead to a complete disclosure of the
contractual relations and rights of the parties
in the contract.
In this case, Lagon was exonerated from

The case merely reiterated the requisites

provided in the So Ping Bun case.
The case crystallizes the answer to the
question if malice is required. According to
the case, malice is required for a successful
prosecution of tort interference.

111

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
nd

rd

liability since the 2 and 3 prong was not

satisfied. The title was clean upon his
investigation. No malice.
Court interpreter fell into an uncovered
manhole while she was about to board a
tricycle.

Guilatco v. City of
Dagupan

May 31, 1982

SC: It is not necessary for the defective road

or street to belong to the province, city or
municipality for liability to attach. The article
only requires that either control or
supervision is exercised over the defective
road or street.
In this case, under the charter, the city
engineer oversees the care and custody of
waterworks. Liable.
Dacara, while driving his sedan, rammed into
a pile of earth/street diggings. Allegedly no
warning signs.
SC: City liable. The proximate cause of the
injury is the failure of the city government to
install to install the necessary precautionary
signs to alert the public of a roadside
construction.

Quezon City
Government v.
Dacara

June 15, 2005

Ownership of the defective road is not

required but merely control and supervision
to be held liable.

The importance of this case really is the ruling

of the CAs interpretation of Article 2189:
Injury is an act that damages, hurts and mean
in common as the act or result of inflicting on
a person or thing something that causes loss,
pain, distress, or impairment. Injury is the
most comprehensive, applying to an act or
result involving an impairment or destruction
of right, health, freedom, soundness, or loss
of something of value.

Injury is the most comprehensive, applying

to an act or result involving an impairment or
destruction of right, health, freedom,
soundness, or loss of something of value.

112

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
CLASS NOTES ON PROVISIONS:
A2201:
Good faith all damages that are natural & probable AND w/c are foreseeable
Bad faith all damages reasonably attributed to the non performance
A 2202:
Good faith or bad faith is of NO moment

CASE TITLE
Damages
Definition, concept
Actual or Compensatory
Interest
Mitigation of Liability

PNOC v CA

DATE

1998

Does NOT require that the damage is foreseeable.

A2203:
The provision didnt EXPRESSLY provide for a sanction in case of its violation
however accdg to Sangco violation of 2203 could validly warrant:
>Mitigation the amount of damages that victim can recover
>NOT a total bar to recovery of damages.

FACTS /HELD

DOCTRINE

NOTES

Fishing vessel owned by respondent Ma.

Efigenia Fishing Co. collided with Petroparcel
vessel which at that time owned by Luzon
Stevedoring. BMI rendered the decision that
Pertroparcel at fault hence the owner of the
fishing vessel filed an action for damages
amounting to P6,438,048.00. During the
pendency of the case PNOC acquired
Petroparcel and was substituted in place of
LS. Respondent presented price quotation of
their suppliers to support their claims. Trial
court awarded actual damages hence the
appeal of PNOC.

Reason for awarding AD:

Awarded in satisfaction of or in recompense
for loss or injury sustained. They proceed
from a sense of natural justice and are
designed to repair the wrong that has been
done, to compensate for the injury inflicted
and not to impose a penalty.

Determination of how Actual

damages are computed:
1. Market value at the time of loss;
not the price at the time of ruling
(as for ships: not only the value of
ship but also all the future
profit/contracts that it was not
able to realize)

Rules to recover AD:

Amount of loss must not only be capable of
proof BUT must actually be proven with
reasonable degree of certainty, premised
upon competent proof or best evidence
obtainable of the actual amount thereof.
The claimant is duty bound to point out
specific facts that afford a basis of measuring
whatever compensatory damages are borne.
Court cannot merely rely on speculations,
conjectures or guesswork as to the fact and
amount of damages as well as hearsay or
uncorroborated testimony whose truth is
suspect.

Q:
Will
the
price
quotation/commercial list from the
different supplier be enough? NO
Sir said what you should present
is the price quotation of the thing
which you
actually lost and
ideally its price at the time of the
lost

W/N Del Rosario (owner of the fishing vessel)

can be awarded Actual Damages (AD)?
NO. AD may not be awarded on the basis of
hearsay evidence but he may be granted with
Nominal Damages (ND) which amount is left
to the discretion of the court.

Nominal Damages:
ND are awarded in every obligation arising

A2199: pecuniary loss SHOULD be

duly proven.
A2200:
2 types of losses
contemplated:
a. Dano emergente = Actual
damages
b. Lucro cesante = Damages from

113

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Spouses Yu bought detergent soaps from Ngo

Yet Te, however the checks paid by Yus
bounced which prompted the Tes to file a
case for collection of sum of money and
damages. RTC ruled in favour of Te and
ordered the levy on the properties of Yu. Yu
then filed a counterclaim with damages for
the wrongful attachment of properties. CA
and SC ruled that there was wrongful
attachment of property but didnt award
damages. RTC apparently not informed of SC
decision ruled in favour of Te which led Yu to
file MFR and manifestation informing the RTC
of SCs ruling. RTC then upheld that there was
wrongful attachment but refused to award
damages since CA and SC didnt provide for
damages too.
Yu v Ngo Yet Te

2007

W/N the Yu is entitled for damages due for the

wrongful attachment of his properties?

NO. There is no automatic award of damages

for wrongful attachment. The claim for
Actual, Moral and Exemplary damages were
denied.
W/N an attorneys fee may be awarded even if
there is no moral and exemplary damages granted?

YES attorneys fee may be granted when the

party incurred expenses to lift a wrongful
attachment. This is exception to the general
rule that attorneys fee cannot be awarded
when moral and exemplary damages are not
granted.

from law, contracts or quasi contracts, acts or

omission punished by law and quasi delict or
in every case where property right has been
invaded. ND is awarded in name only not in
fact so the allegations made by respondents
are sufficient basis for awarding ND.
AD arising from wrongful attachment:
1. The owner of the attached properties must
prove, with the best evidence obtainable
the fact of loss or injury suffered and the
amount thereof.
2. Such loss or injury must actually be proved
with reasonable degree of certainty.
3. As to the amount , it must be measurable
based on specific facts and not on
guesswork or speculation.
MD and ED for wrongful attachment:
It must be shown that the wrongful
attachment was obtained by the attachment
plaintiff with malice or bad faith which was
not proven in the case.

profit that was not realized

Proof:
Presentation of the ticket stubs in a
span of five days is NOT sufficient to
prove the average daily income
which the bus generates.

114

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Gatchalian v Delim

1991

Gatchalian board a Thames minibus, on the

way they heard a snapping sound and alerted
the driver but the driver dismissed it and said
that it was normal. Moments after the bus
bumped a pot hence it turned turtle and fell
into a ditch which caused injuries to the
passenger including Gatchalian. The victims
were brought to the hospital; the wife of
Delim(owner of the bus) visited them and
paid for their hospital expenses. The wife also
made the injured passengers sign a joint
affidavit wherein it states that xxx we are no
longer interested to file a complaint, criminal
or civil against the said driver and owner of
the said Thames, because it was an accident
and the said driver and owner of the said
Thames have gone to the extent of helping us
to be treated upon our injuries xxx.
Notwithstanding
the
joint
affidavit,
Gatchalian still filed in the CFI an action extra
contractu to recover compensatory and moral
damages for the injuries and scar she
sustained from the vehicular mishap.
As a defence, Delim claimed that
the mishap was due to force majeure and
that Gatchalian was already paid and had
waived her right to institute such action when
she signed the joint affidavit.
1. W/N the common carrier was negligent?
YES
Neither the exercise of extraordinary
diligence nor force majeuere was proven in
the case; the driver was negligent in not
checking the cause of the snapping sound
despite the heed of the passengers.
2. She can claim AD & MD? YES
Gatchalian was awarded 15k actual damages
for the cost of the plastic surgery to remove
the scar on her forehead.

Liability of Common Carrier:

In case of death or injuries to passengers, a
statutory presumption arises that the
common carrier was negligent unless it proves
that it had observed extraordinary diligence
to prevent the mishap. Also the common
carrier may only be exculpated of its liability
on the ground of force majeure IF it was
proven that the efficient cause was entirely
independent of the human will and that it
was also impossible to avoid.
AD for loss of job opportunity:
Gatchalians claim for actual damages due to
loss of unrealized job opportunity was denied
because at the time of the mishap she was no
longer employed.
AD for diminished bodily integrity:
Gatchalians claim for the cost of the plastic
surgery for the removal of the scar on her
forehead was granted. Court said that a
person is entitled to the physical integrity of
his or her body; that if the integrity is
diminished, actual injury is suffered for which
actual or compensatory damages are due and
demandable. Despite the estimate given by
the expert that the amount of the surgery
might cost around 5-10k, the court awarded
Gatchalian 15k taking into consideration of
the lapse of time making it more difficult to
remove scar and the inflation rate of the cost
of the procedure.

A 2205:
(1)
you can still collect
damages even if you are jobless at
the time of injury happened ( the
provision contemplates on the
persons potential to earn)
(2)
Business
standing

/commercial

Sirs Comment:
The court in making the award of
15k seems to be based on mere
presumption and not a factual
finding of the cost of plastic surgery
(no presentation of documentary
evidence, etc...)

115

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
Moral damages was awarded in accordance
with the established rule that MD may be
awarded where gross negligence on the part
of common carrier was shown. Also it was
awarded to alleviate the pain and aniexty
which Gatchalian suffered as a result of the
physical injuries and permanent scar on her
forehead.
6-wheeler truck owned by Mercury Drug
which was driven by Del Rosariio collided with
the car driven by Stephen, a minor. As a result
of the mishap Stephen Huang sustained
massive injuries and was paralyzed for life
from chest down. Huang sued Del Rosario and
its employer Mercury Drug for its vicarious
liability.

Mercury v Huang

2007

W/N Del Rosario and Mercury Drug liable for

damages? YES
As Del Rosario was negligent and Mercury
Drug failed to prove that it exercised diligence
of a good father in selecting & supervising its
employee; both are held to be solidary liable
to pay Huang actual, moral & exemplary
damages and attorneys fees.

AD was awarded separate from CD:

The court awarded actual damages for the
payment of medical and hospital expenses for
Stephen which was duly supported by
documentary evidence (ie. receipts).
The court also granted compensatory
damages to cover for
a. the continuous rehabilitation and lifetime
of care cost which is the natural
consequence of the accident (A 2202);
b. for the loss of Stephens earning capacity
due to the permanent personal injury he
suffered (A 2205)
MD:
Moral damages are designed to compensate
and alleviate in some way the physical
suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and
similar injury unjustly caused a person.
Although
incapable
of
pecuniary
computation, they must be proportionate to
the suffering inflicted. The amount of the
award bears no relation whatsoever with the
wealth or means of the offender.
ED:
Del Rosario in driving the truck without
license due to a previous traffic violation and
he failed to step on the breaks immediately
after the impact manifests his gross
negligence that would granted the award of
exemplary damages ( A 2231).

Sirs Comment:
The
amount
awarded
for
compensatory damages seem to be
speculative since there was no
actual computation or formula
presented however the court duly
granted the amount prayed for.
As for the amount of 10M as loss for
the earning capacity, this case may
serve as a baseline. (It pays to be
affiliated with so many organization
and varsity haha)

116

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Cadano v Sugata-on

2007

M/V David a ship owned by Candano Shipping

sank due to strong waves and bad weather.
Some crews died and some went missing.
Upon learning of the fate of Sugato-on, one of
the missing crews, his wife went to the office
of Candano Shipping to claim the death
benefits. Candano Shipping denied her claims,
hence she filed to claim for indemnity under
A 1711. As a defense, Candano claimed that
the wife has no cause of action since the
death of Sugata-on was not yet established
and was merely reported missing.
RTC ruled in favour of the wife A 391 on
presumptive death had become operative
since the period of 4yrs has lapsed already.
RTC awarded AD (988K) , MD, ED and
attorneys fees, while CA affirmed but
reduced AD to 608K based on A 194 of Labor
Code.
W/N the computation for AD was correct?
NO. The amount of liability should be
computed based on Civil Code not A 194 LC.
The wife was forced to take A1711 of CC as a
remedy since Candano Shipping denied her
claim under Labor Code.

Compensation is distinct from Damages.

A 194 of LC applies only to death
compensation to be paid by SSS to its
beneficiaries which is separate and distinct
from the damages that may be recovered in
the Civil Code. The choice of one remedy
excludes the other as a remedy.
Compensation is given to mitigate the
harshness of industrial life for the workman
and his family. Hence the Er is liable
regardless if negligence exists or not and its
liability is created by law as a matter of policy.
Damages are awarded to one as a vindication
of the wrongful invasion of his rights. It is
indemnity recoverable by a person who has
sustained injury either in his person, property
or relative rights, through the act or default of
another.

Life expectancy was adopted

American Expectancy Table
Mortality or the Actuarial
Combined Experience of Table
Mortality.

in
of
of
of

Net earnings are total earnings less

the necessary expenses in creation
of such earnings (i.e living and other
incidental expenses )
Necessary living expenses when
there is no showing that the living
expenses constituted the smaller
percentage of the gross income the
Court fixes it at half of the gross
income.

Formula used for computing AD :

To make the provisions on damages on A
2199 & 2220 predicated on the liability
imposed on Er (on A 1711), Villa Rey v CA
provides
a
tangible
and
practical
mathematical formula.
Net earning capacity = life expectancy x (gross
annual income reasonable & necessary
expenses)
Life expectancy = 2/3 x (age of deceased at
the time of death)

People v Buban

2007

As the family is preparing to sleep Buban

inserted a rifle through a torn portion of the
Imperials bamboo wall and shot the
latter.The prosecution presented 3 witnesses,
SPO1 Curitana, the wife and the son of

Damages awarded when death occurs due to

a crime:
1. civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of
the victim
2. Actual or compensatory damages

Prevailing Amount for Civil Damages

awarded

People v Apacible (Aug. 25, 2010)

117

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
Imperial testified that Buban, Reyes, Castillo
were the ones who indeed shot Imperial . RTC
held the 3 guilty of murder qualified by
treachery, with the aggravating circumstances
of evident premeditation and dwelling
without any mitigating
circumstance;
sentencing him with the penalty of DEATH.
CA affirmed but discounted evident
premeditation as AC.

3. Moral damages
4. Exemplary damages
5. Attorneys fees and litigation expenses
6. Interest in proper cases
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to
the heirs of the victim without the need of
proof other than the commission of the
crime. As based on current jurisprudence the
award of civil indemnity ex delicto is 75K.

What damages may the court award the

heirs of Imperial ?
The Court awarded 75k civil indemnity, 50K
MD, 25k ED and an interest of 6% per annum
until it was fully paid.
RTC convicted Astrologo of the crime of rape
against his own daughter sentencing him the
penalty reclusion perpetua and to pay the
victim 75K for civil indemnity and 75K for
MD. CA affirmed the decision but reduced
both Civil Indemnity and Moral Damages to
50K and added 25k as ED.
W/N CA was correct in modifying the amount
of damages awarded by RTC? YES

People v Astrologo

2007

Civil Indemnity:
Civil indemnity which is actually in the nature
of actual or compensatory damages , is
MANDATORY upon the finding of the fact of
rape.
Moral Damages:
Case law requires automatic award of moral
damages to a rape victim without the need of
proof because from the nature of the crime, it
can be assumed that she has suffered moral
injuries. Such award is separate and distinct
from the civil indemnity.
The reduction of CI & MD to 50K is proper
because the crime committed was only
simple
rape
with
no
aggravating
circumstance.

Exemplary Damages:
25k was proper in order to deter fathers with
perverse tendencies.

latest case
75 k for crim cases with penalty of
death
50 k - for crim cases without the
penalty of death (since the death
penalty was abolished the maximum
amount of damages awarded to
would be is 50k)

118

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Quirante v IAC

1989

Dr. Casasola had a building contract with

Guerrero and PHILMAGEN acted as a
bondsmen for Guerrero. Guerrero failed to
perform his part within the specified period
which compelled Dr. Casasola through his
counsel Atty. Quirante to sue both Guerrero
and PHILMAGEN. TC ruled in favour of Dr.
Casasola ordering the 2 to pay him damages.
After Dr. Casasolas death, Atty. Quirante filed
in the same trial court for the confirmation of
his attorneys fees.

Attorneys fee as a fee for professional

services .
Attys fee based on a contract of professional
services is different form Attys fee as an item
of damages in 2208; However the
confirmation was premature since the main
case form which the claims for their fees may
arise has not yet become final.

A 2208:
listing is exhaustive, thus Attys fee
may NOT be awarded if its not in
2208.

W/N Atty. Quirante entitled to attorneys

fees?

Gomez v GomezSamson

2007

NO, (not yet, the confirmation of attys fees

was premature)
Augusto Gomez claimed that Rita and Jose
Gomez-Samson fraudulently prepared a
Donation Inter vivos in their favour (forging
the signature of Consuelo[donor]), thus he
prayed that the deeds of donation be nullified
and that the properties donated be reinstated
in the Intestate Estate of Consuelo (where
which he can inherit).
On the other hand Gomez-Samason claimed
that the donation was valid and that there is
no forgery.
W/N the case was instituted by Gomez in bad
faith which would thereby warrant the award
of damages to Gomez-Samson?

Frias v San DiegoSison

2007

NO, the case was not instituted in bad faith

and NO DAMAGES may be awarded.
Frias and Dr. San Diego-Sison entered into a
MOA stating that:
San Diego has a period of 6 mos. to decide
whether she wants to buy the property
upon notification to Frias, she has 6 mos to
pay the balance purchase price.
During the period of 6 mos , Frias may offer

When MD & ED not awarded:

Gomez evidence had successfully given the
court the doubts as to the authenticity of the
Donation (hence a justifiable reason to file a
case) . Although it was not able to discharge
the burden of proof it was enough to present
that the case was instituted in good faith, and
thus CANNOT be liable for moral damages.
In the absence of moral, temperate,
liquidated or compensatory damages NO
exemplary damages may be awarded.

Payment of interest continues to accrue until

the principal sum due is paid.
The phrase for the last 6 mos only should
be taken in the context of the entire MOA
thus it cannot be interpreted that interest
may be charged for 6mos only.

Does the mistake of lower court in

not putting/ forgetting to put its
explanation for awarding Attys fee
be binding to the parties? YES

119

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
to sell the same property to other provided
that when she was able to sell it to others
Frias shall return the payment made by San
Diego including interest based on prevailing
compounded bank interest.
In the case that there was no buyer within
the first 6 mos then Frias is not liable for
any interest however in the event on the
th
6 month San Diego decided not to buy the
property , Frias has a period of another 6
mos to return the payment made by San
Diego provided that it shall earn
compounded bank interest for the last 6
mos only. The amount shall be treated as a
loan and the property shall be considered
as a security.
Frias failed to return the money hence
prompted San Diego to file for a sum of
money with preliminary attachment against
Frias. San Diego also alleged that Frias tried to
deprive her of the security of the loan by
making a false report of the loss of TCT thus
she was able to secure a new owners
duplicate of TCT. RTC ruled in favour of San
Diego and ordered Frias to return the
payment together with interest and MD, ED
plus attorneys fees. CA affirmed the decision.
1. W/N the compounded interest be limited
to 6 mos only? NO
2. W/N San Diego is entitled to : MD? YES ;
ED? YES ; Attorneys Fees? NO

MOA treated the payment made San Diego to

Frias as a loan hence the monetary interest
would continue to accrue until the principal
sum is paid. It has been held that for a debtor
to continue in possession of the principal and
to continue to use the same after maturity of
the loan without payment of the monetary
interest, would constitute as unjust
enrichment on the part of the debtor.
Interest Rates:
If stipulated:
then the interest agreed upon the
parties
In the absence of such stipulation:
a. Forbearance or loan of money 12 % per
annum
b. Not forbearance or loan - 6% per annum
Moral Damages:
A 2220- MD may be awarded for breach of
contract where the defendant acted
fraudulent or in bad faith
Exemplary Damages:
ED may be awarded when entitlement to MD
was established. ( A 2229)
Attorneys Fees:
It may only be awarded if it falls under the
enumeration of 2208 and in the absence of
stipulation it cannot be recovered. The award
of Attys fees is the exception rather than the
general rule hence it is necessary to prove
that the case falls within the exception. It
cannot just be mentioned in the dispositive
portion of the decision . Attys fee must be
fully explained and justified by the court
awarding it.
Moral Damages may be awarded in breach
of contract:

120

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
CASE TITLE
Moral Damages

Kierulf v. CA

DATE

FACTS/HELD

DOCTRINE

NOTES

A Pantranco bus collided with an Isuzu pickup.

Pickup passenger Lucila Kierulf suffered major
injuries.
Sps. Kierulf claim for moral damages based
on:
1. Alleged loss of consortium.
2. Social and financial standing

Rodriguez Ruling: When a person is injured

to the extent that he/she is no longer capable
of giving love, affection, comfort and sexual
relations to his or her spouse, that spouse has
suffered a direct and real personal loss. The
loss is immediate and consequential rather
than remote and unforeseeable; it is personal
to the spouse and separate and distinct from
that of the injured person.

Compare this with the ruling in

Lopez v. PanAm.
(re: social and financial standing)

SC:
1. No evidence was adduced to show that the
consortium had indeed been impaired and
the Court cannot presume that marital
relations disappeared with the accident.
2. No "rude and rough" reception, no
"menacing attitude," no "supercilious
manner," no "abusive language and highly
scornful reference" was given her. The
social and financial standing of a claimant
of moral damages may be considered in
awarding moral damages only if he or she
was subjected to contemptuous conduct
despite the offender's knowledge of his or
her social and financial standing.

In order that moral damages may be

awarded:
1. There must be pleading and proof of moral
suffering, mental anguish, fright and the
like.
2. Though no proof of pecuniary loss is
necessary,
the
claimant
should
satisfactorily show the existence of the
factual basis of damages and its causal
connection to defendant's acts.
The established guideline in awarding moral
damages takes into consideration several
factors, some of which are the social and
financial standing of the injured parties and
their wounded moral feelings and personal
pride.
Moral damages
An award designed to compensate the
claimant for actual injury suffered and not
to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer.
Awarded to enable the injured party to
obtain means, diversions or amusements
that will serve to alleviate the moral
suffering he/she has undergone, by reason
of the defendant's culpable action.
Award is aimed at restoration, as much as
possible, of the spiritual status quo ante;
thus, it must be proportionate to the

121

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
suffering inflicted.

MV Doa Marilyn, vessel owned and

operated by Sulpicio Lines sank. The body of
Dr. Curso was not recovered, along with
hundreds of other passengers. The surviving
brothers and sisters of Dr. Curso sued Sulpicio
Lines for damages based on breach of
contract of carriage.
SC: Brothers and sisters of a deceased
passenger in case of a breach of contract of
carriage cannot recover moral damages
against the carrier

Sulpicio Lines v.
Curso

2010

The yardstick should be that the amount

awarded should not be so palpably and
scandalously excessive as to indicate that it
was the result of passion, prejudice or
corruption on the part of the trial judge.
Neither should it be so little or so paltry that
it rubs salt to the injury already inflicted on
plaintiffs.
Gen. Rule: Moral Damages are not
recoverable in actions for damages
predicated on a breach of contract
Exception: (a) results in the death of a
passenger, or (b) it is proved that the carrier
was guilty of fraud and bad faith, even if
death does not result.
The conditions for awarding moral damages
are:
(a) There must be an injury, whether physical,
mental,
or
psychological,
clearly
substantiated by the claimant;
(b) There must be a culpable act or omission
factually established;
(c) the wrongful act or omission of the
defendant must be the proximate cause of
the injury sustained by the claimant; and
(d) the award of damages is predicated on
any of the cases in Art. 2219
Art. 2206 sets forth the persons entitled to
moral damages. The omission from Art.
2206(3) of the brothers and sisters of the
deceased passenger reveals the legislative
intent to exclude them from the recovery of
moral damages for mental anguish by reason
of the death of the deceased.
Art. 2219 circumscribes the instances in which
moral damages may be awarded. The
provision does not include succession in the
collateral line as a source of the right to

Why did they use 2206 when it

specifically applies to crimes and
QD? The case is a breach of
contract. Only 2219 should apply.
Art 2219: analogous cases does
not mean analogous relatives

122

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

An owner-type jeep collided with a 10wheeler truck. Jeep owners Sps. Lomotan and
driver Umuyon filed a separate civil action for
damages against BF Metal and Rivera.
SC:
Only the driver of the jeep is entitled to moral
damages. Its liability is based on a quasi-delict
or on its negligence in the supervision and
selection of its driver, causing the vehicular
accident and physical injuries to driver
Umuyon.

BF Metal v. Lomotan

2008

No physical injury to Sps. Lomotan. Injury to

their property was also not willful to award
them damages under Art. 2220.
Article 2220 does speak of awarding moral
damages where there is injury to property,
but the injury must be willful and the
circumstances show that such damages are
justly due. There being no proof that the
accident was willful, Article 2220 does not
apply.

Expert Travel v. CA

1999

Expert Travel filed an action against Lo to

recover the amount of the plane tickets it
issued to the latter.

recover moral damages. The usage of the

phrase analogous cases in the provision
means simply that the situation must be held
similar to those expressly enumerated in the
law in question following the ejusdem generis
rule.
An award of moral damages would require:
a. Evidence of besmirched reputation or
physical, mental or psychological suffering
sustained by the claimant
b. A culpable act or omission factually
established
c. Proof that the wrongful act or omission of
the defendant is the proximate cause of the
damages sustained by the claimant
d. That the case is predicated on any of the
instances expressed or envisioned by Article
2219 and Article 2220 of the Civil Code.
In culpa aquiliana, or quasi-delict, (a) when an
act or omission causes physical injuries, or (b)
where the defendant is guilty of intentional
tort, moral damages may aptly be recovered.
This rule also applies to breaches of contract
where the defendant acted fraudulently or in
bad faith.
In culpa criminal, moral damages could be
lawfully due when the accused is found guilty
of physical injuries, lascivious acts, adultery or
concubinage, illegal or arbitrary detention,
illegal arrest, illegal search, or defamation.

The rationale for the rule is that the law could

not have meant to impose a penalty on the
right to litigate. The anguish suffered by a
person for having been made a defendant in a

Sir: Develop your own doctrine on

when moral damages can be
recovered.
Sps. Lomotan should have argued
under Art 2180 (employers liability
for the negligence of their
employee).

123

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
SC: Although the institution of a clearly
unfounded civil suit can at times be a legal
justification for an award of attorney's fees,
such filing, however, has almost invariably
been held not to be a ground for an award of
moral damages.

Metro Drug filed a complaint against Mijares

for the bouncing checks she allegedly issued.
When it was proven in court that it was not
Mijares that issued the checks, Mijares filed a
case for malicious prosecution.
Mijares v. CA

SC: Mijares is not entitled to moral damages

as she failed to show that Metro Drug was
motivated by bad faith when it instituted the
action for collection.

3 way vehicular accident involving a bus, a

jeep, and petitioners car in SLEX. Proximate
cause of the accident is the D.M. Transit Bus
as found by the Traffic Investigation Report.
Yet, Petitioner filed a case against the jeepney
drivers.

Industrial Insurance
v. Bondad

2000

SC: Petitioner acted in bad faith in compelling

respondents to litigate an unfounded claim.
Worse, they were forced to commute all the
way from Laguna to Makati in order to attend
the hearings.

civil suit would be no different from the usual

worry and anxiety suffered by anyone who is
haled to court, a situation that cannot by
itself be a cogent reason for the award of
moral damages. If the rule were otherwise,
then moral damages must every time be
awarded in favor of the prevailing defendant
against an unsuccessful plaintiff.
Malicious prosecution, both in criminal and
civil cases, requires the presence of two
elements, to wit: a) malice; and b) absence of
probable cause. Moreover, there must be
proof that the prosecution was prompted by
a sinister design to vex and humiliate a
person, and that it was initiated deliberately
knowing that the charge was false and
baseless.
Moral damages cannot be
recovered from a person who has filed a
complaint against another in good faith, or
without malice or bad faith.
To sustain award for moral damages, it must
be shown that (1) the claimant suffered
injury, and (2) such injury sprung from any of
the cases listed in Articles 2219 and 2220 of
the Civil Code.
It is not enough that the claimant alleges
mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded
feelings, social humiliation, and the like as a
result of the acts of the other party. It is
necessary that such acts be shown to have
been tainted with bad faith or ill motive.
A person's right to litigate, as a rule, should
not be penalized. This right, however, must
be exercised in good faith.

Triple Eight v. NLRC

Osdana was recruited by Triple Eight to work

as a food server in Saudi.
However she was given another job and was
overworked. She was dismissed from work on

Moral damages are recoverable where

dismissal of employee was attended by bad
faith or fraud or constituted an act oppressive
to labor, or was contrary to morals, good

124

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
the ground of illness and was not given her
separation pay and unpaid salaries.
SC: Triple Eight is liable for the monetary
claims and damages arising from the illegal
dismissal of Osdana.
Trial Court found defendants guilty of murder.
They were sentenced to be imprisoned and
ordered to indemnify the spouse of the
deceased, pay burial expenses, and moral and
exemplary damages.
People v. Pirame

2000
SC: Moral and exemplary damages awarded
by the lower court were unsupported. The
widow did not testify on any mental anguish
or emotional distress, which she suffered as a
result of her husbands death.
Petitioner Carlos Arcona y Moban was
convicted of the crime of homicide and held
liable to pay P10,000.00 as moral damages.
SC: The award of moral damages in the sum
of P10,000.00 must be increased to
P50,000.00.

Arcona y Moban v.
CA

Valenzuela v. CA

2002

1996

Valenzuelas car had a flat tire and she parked

along the sidewalk, put on her emergency
lights, alighted from the car, and went to the
rear to open the trunk. She was standing at
the left side of the rear of her car pointing to
the tools to a man who will help her fix the
tire when she was suddenly bumped by a car
driven by defendant Richard Li. Valenzuela's
left leg was amputated.

customs, or public policy.

The absence of any generic aggravating

circumstance attending the crime likewise
precludes the award of exemplary damages.
There is a need for testimony on any mental
anguish to recover award for moral damages.

As borne out by human nature and

experience, a violent death invariably and
necessarily brings about emotional pain and
anguish on the part of the victims family. It is
inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment,
pain and anger when a loved one becomes
the victim of a violent or brutal killing. Such
violent death or brutal killing not only steals
from the family of the deceased his precious
life, deprives them forever of his love,
affection and support, but often leaves them
with the gnawing feeling that an injustice has
been done to them. For this reason, moral
damages must be awarded even in the
absence of any allegation and proof of the
heirs emotional suffering.
In the case of moral damages, while the said
damages are not intended to enrich the
plaintiff at the expense of a defendant, the
award should nonetheless be commensurate
to the suffering inflicted.

Prevailing doctrine. No need to

prove mental anguish in cases of
violent death.
Does the court look into the weapon
of choice in deciding w/n to award
moral damages?

125

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

SC: Richard Li guilty of gross negligence and

liable for damages under Art. 2176. CA erred
in reducing moral damages. Reinstated TC
granting P 1M in moral damages.
Sen.
Lopez
paid
for
first
class
accommodations for him and his family for
their flights from Tokyo to San Francisco.
Upon arriving in Tokyo, PanAm informed Sen.
Lopez that the flight is overbooked and they
have to take the tourist class seats instead.
SC: PanAm committed a breach of contract in
bad faith and is liable for moral damages.
Sen. Lopez due to his status and positions
held (Senate Pro Tempore, former VP of the
Phils.)
Mrs. Lopez due to her physical suffering and
discomfort (sick and going to the US for a
medical checkup), prestige, and the painful
thought that she was being deprived of what
she had paid for
Sps. Montelibano share in the prestige
Lizano was guilty of committing 3 counts of
rape against his niece.

Lopez v. PanAm

People v. Lizano

Strebel v. Figueros

2007

SC: Automatically liable for moral damages.

Strebel alleged that Figueras "by making use

of his official and political connections," was
able to induce the Secretary of Justice to
transfer temporarily, from the Bureau of
Immigration to the Bureau of Prisons, one Dr.
Hernandez, the husband of her daughter-inlaw.
SC: No cause of action. Even assuming the act
complained of to be wrong or to have caused
injury, the right of action would have accrued
in favor of Dr. Hernandez and not the
plaintiff.

Moral damages are recoverable for a breach

of contract of carriage in bad faith.

Consistent with the social and

financial ruling in Kierulf v. CA.

Although it may not be humiliating to travel

as tourist passengers, being compelled to
travel as such, contrary to what is rightfully
expected from the contractual undertaking,
is.

Possible exam question:

What if PanAm claims that they did
not know that Sen. Lopez is a
Senator?

Moral damages is automatically granted in

rape cases without need of further proof
other than the commission of the crime
because it is assumed that a rape victim had
actually suffered moral injustices entitling her
to such award.
As a general rule, the right of recovery for
mental suffering resulting from bodily injuries
is restricted to the person who has suffered
the bodily hurt, and there can be no recovery
for distress caused by sympathy for another's
suffering, or for fright due to a wrong against
a third person. So the anguish of mind arising
as to the safety of others who may be in
personal peril from the same cause cannot be
taken into consideration.

Sir: What if a prostitute claims that

she was raped? Assume she wins
the case, will the court award her
moral damages?

By specific mandate of Art. 2219, moral

damages may not be recovered in cases of

126

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Under a Film Exhibition Agreement, ABS-CBN

shall have the right of first refusal to the next
24 Viva films for TV telecast.
After the rejection of ABS-CBN of the line-up
offered by VIVA, the latter granted RBS the
exclusive right to air 104 Viva films.
ABS-CBN filed a complaint for specific
performance.

ABS-CBN v. CA

SC: No perfected contract between ABS-CBN

and VIVA. ABS-CBN Not entitled to moral
damages.
PCGG issued a Writ of Sequestration on all
assets of Twin Peaks on the ground that they
are ill-gotten wealth. Republic filed a suit to
recover these assets and damages.
Republic v. Tuvera

2007

SC: Not entitled to moral damages. There

must be an allegation in the complaint that
the State is entitled to actual damages, an
establishment of the degree of injury
sustained by the State by reason of such
wrongful act, or any of the analogous cases
under Art. 2219.

crime or tort, unless either results or causes

"physical injuries."
The award of moral damages cannot be
granted in favor of a corporation because,
being an artificial person and having existence
only in legal contemplation, it has no feelings,
no emotions, no senses, It cannot, therefore,
experience physical suffering and mental
anguish, which call be experienced only by
one having a nervous system.

A juridical person is generally not entitled to

moral damages because, unlike a natural
person, it cannot experience physical
suffering or such sentiments as wounded
feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or
moral shock.
But Art. 2219(7) authorizes the recovery of
moral damages in cases of libel, slander or
any other form of defamation whether
claimant is a natural or juridical person.

127

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
CASE TITLE
DATE
Nominal Damages
Temperate Damages
Liquidated Damages
Exemplary/Corrective Damages

Robles-Francisco
Realty v CFI

30 Oct 1978

FACTS/HELD

DOCTRINE

Milan bought a lot from Robes Francisco

Realty & Devt Corporation. Although she
was fully paid on Dec. 1971, Corp. refused
to issue her the TCT. It was stipulated in the
agreement that if Corp. was unable to issue
such TCT, it would pay her P5,193.96 with
interest of 4% per annum from June 22,
1972 until fully paid. Corporation insisted
that this was a penal clause which
substituted the indemnity for damages.

Nominal damages are not intended for

indemnification of loss suffered but for the
vindication or recognition of a right violated
or invaded. They are recoverable when
some injury has been done the amount of
which the evidence fails to show, the
assessment of damages being left to the
discretion of the court according to the
circumstances of the case.

Clause does not convey any penalty,

because even without it, pursuant to Art.
2209, the vendee would be entitled to
recover the amount paid by her with legal
rate of interest which is even more than the
4% provided for.
Nominal damages of P10,000 awarded.
A bakeshop lost the order slip of 3-layered
cake to be delivered on the date of a
wedding, although at first the bakeshop
said that the delay was due to traffic.

Francisco v Ferrer

28 Feb 2001

Nominal damages were properly awarded.

The bakeshop gave lame excuses for the
delay in the delivery of the cake. Their
prevarication made them liable for nominal
damages for insensitivity or inattention to
their customers anxiety and need of the
hour.

But the amount of P20,000 is excessive.

Corporation did not act with bad faith and
fraud.

Nominal damages are recoverable where a

a) legal right is technically violated and
must be vindicated against an invasion that
has produced no actual present loss of any
kind or
b) where there has been a breach of
contract and no substantial injury or actual
damages whatsoever have been or can be
shown.

NOTES

128

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
Gonzales was convicted for burning several
houses.
No actual or compensatory damages
awarded,
temperate
damages
and
exemplary damages.

Gonzales, Jr. v
People

12 Feb 2007

The, volkswagen driven by Pleno with

Langley beside him, was hit at the rear by a
truck of Philippine Paper Products being
driven by de Luna. The Volkswagen hit a
parked truck and the truck hit its driver who
was urinating in front of it. Pleno spent 5
months in the hospital and suffered severe
injuries to his legs and eyesight.
Pleno v CA

9 May 1988

The award of temperate damages of TC was

reduced by the CA on the ground that the
amount of P200,000.00 is rather "too high"
especially considering the fact that the
driver De Luna is a mere driver and
defendant-appellant Corporation is only
subsidiarily liable thereof. The award was
reduced to P100,000.00.
Court affirmed TC which awarded
temperate damages of P200T as Pleno was

Assessment of nominal damages is left to

the trial court according to the
circumstances of the case. Generally,
nominal damages are by their nature are
small sums fixed by the court without
regard to the extent of the harm done to
the injured party. However, it is generally
held that nominal damages is a substantial
claim, if based upon the violation of a legal
right; in such a case, the law presumes
damage although actual and compensatory
damages are not proven. Nominal damages
are damages only in name and not in fact
and are allowed, not as an equivalent of a
wrong inflicted, but simply in recognition of
the existence of a technical injury.
Temperate damages may be recovered
when the court finds that some pecuniary
loss has been suffered but its amount
cannot from the nature of the case be
proved with certainty.
Temperate damages are included within the
context of compensatory damages. In
arriving at a reasonable level of temperate
damages to be awarded, trial courts are
guided by the ruling that:
... There are cases where from the nature of
the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss
cannot be offered, although the court is
convinced that there has been such loss.
For instance, injury to one's commercial
credit or to the goodwill of a business firm
is often hard to show certainty in terms of
money. Should damages be denied for that
reason? The judge should be empowered to
calculate moderate damages in such cases,
rather than that the plaintiff should suffer,
without redress from the defendant's
wrongful act.

129

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
hospitalized for 5 months, underwent
several surgical operations, lost his earning
capacity as mechanical injury, a topnotcher
and VP of ceramics of a corporation
TC's awards of damages are more
consonant with the factual circumstances of
the instant case. The trial court's findings of
facts are clear and well-developed. Each
item of damages is adequately supported
by evidence on record.
Ramos underwent surgery for the presence
of stone in her gallbladder. Dr. Hosaka
arrived 3 hours later. When Dr. Guittierez,
the anesthesiologist, intubated her, her
nailbeds became blue and there was a rush
to save her life. Ramos went into comatose.

Ramos v CA

11 April
2002

CA reversed the TC and awarded no

damages.
Ramos was entitled to both actual or
compensatory damages and temperate
damages.
The actual damages should at least reflect
the minimum cost of proper care, not the
cost of the care of the family is compelled
to undertake at home to avoid bankruptcy.

Rhoda Brunty with her Filipino host Garcia

was on board a Mercedez Benz being driven
by Mercelita. It was hit by a train while
crossing the rail road track. Brunty died.
PNR v Brunty

2 Nov 2006

No award of actual damages because of

failure to present evidence for such. In lieu
thereof, court awarded temperate damages
of P25,000 for wake and funeral expenses
pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.

The rules on actual damages generally

assume that at the time of litigation, the
injury suffered as a consequence of an act
of negligence has been completed and that
the cost can be liquidated. However, these
provisions do not take into account a
situation, as in this case where the resulting
injury might be continuing and possible
future complications due to the injury are
impossible or difficult to predict.
Temperate damages can and should be
awarded on top of actual damages in
instances where injury is chronic and
continuing. Because of the unique nature of
such cases, no incompatibility arises when
both actual and compensatory damages are
provided for. The reason is that these
damages cover 2 distinct phases.
Court awarded P25,000 as temperate
damages for wake and funeral expenses in
lieu of actual damages which were not
proven.

130

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES

Republic v Tuvera

16 Feb 2007

Victor Tuvera owned 48% of shares of Twin

Peaks Corp. He was son of Juan Tuvera who
was then the Presidential Executive
Assistant of Pres. Marcos. Marcos awarded
a Timber License Agreement in the
corporations favor so that they could
operate on 26000ha of land. Complaint
prayed for moral, temperate and exemplary
damages, litigation expense and treble
judicial costs.
There was acquisition of illegally gotten
wealth. However, actual damages claimed
for of P48M was not awarded as it was a
bare allegation without proof. Moral
damages were also not awarded because a
juridical person is not entitled to such.
Only temperate damages was awarded in
P1M and exemplary damages in P1M.
Titan Construction purchased construction
supplies from Uni-Field but was unable to
pay a balance of P1,404,637. TC ordered
Titan to pay liquidated damages of
P324,147.94, among others.

Titan Construction v
Uni-Field

1 March
2007

People v Dalisay

25 Nov
2009

Delivery receipts and sales invoices

expressly stipulated the payment of
interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys
fees in case of overdue accounts and
collections suits. Titan did not only bind
itself to pay the principal amount, it also
promise to pay 25% liquidated damages
based on the outstanding total obligation,
among others. Such a stipulation is binding.

Dalisay, common-law spouse of mother of

victim, was convicted of simple rape instead
of qualified rape since the special
aggravating circumstances of minority and

Temperate damages avail when the court

finds that some pecuniary loss has been
suffered but its amount cannot from the
nature of the case be proved with certainty.
Temperate damages may be awarded EVEN
in instances where pecuniary losses could
theoretically have been proven with
certainty, if no such adequate proof was
presented. The rule is drawn from equity,
the principle of awarding relief to those
definitely injured who are unable to prove
how definite the injury.
Temperate damages also paves the way to
exemplary damages. It is a means by which
the State can send the clear and
unequivocal signal best expressed in pithy
but immutable phrase, never again.

A stipulation on liquidated damages is a

penalty clause where the obligor assumes a
greater liability in case of breach of an
obligation. The obligor is bound to pay the
stipulated amount without need for proof
on the existence and measure of damages
caused by the breach.
Art. 1229 and 227 empower the courts to
reduce the penalty if it is iniquitous or
unconscionable. The determination of
whether penalty is iniquitous or
unconscionable is addressed to the sound
discretion of the court and depends on
several factors such as the type, extent, and
purpose of the penalty, the nature of the
obligation, the mode of breach and its
consequences.
Being corrective in nature, exemplary
damages, therefore can be awarded not
only in the presence of AC, but also where
the circumstances of case show highly

131

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
relationship were not alleged in the
information.
Rape committed: Oct. 2003
Judgment: Nov. 2009
Effectivity of Rev. Rules of Criminal
Procedure: Dec. 2000
Court
awarded
P55,000
exemplary
damages.
Before effectivity of Revised Rules:
exemplary damages were awarded in
criminal cases where an aggravating
circumstance,
whether
ordinary
or
qualifying, had been proven to have
attended the commission of the crime, even
if the same was not alleged in the
information.

reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the

offender. In much the same way as Art.
2230 prescribes an instance when
exemplary damages may be awarded, Art.
2229 ,the main provision lays down the very
basis of the award. The application of Art.
2230 stictissimi juris in such cases, defeats
the underlying public policy behind the
award of exemplary damages- to set a
public example or correction for the public
good.

After effectivity: courts no longer consider

the AC not alleged and proven in the
determination of damages. Thus, even if the
AC was proven, but was not alleged, court
will not award exemplary damages.

PNB v CA

2 April 1996

Nevertheless, People v Catubig laid down

the principle that exemplary damages
based on Art. 2230, even if the AC was not
alleged, so long as it is proven, in criminal
cases instituted before effectivity of Revised
rules which remained pending thereafter.
Catubig reasoned that Revised Rules should
not affect the vested rights of private
offended parties.
Tan was the owner of a land being
expropriated
by
the
government.
Government ordered PNB to pay P32,480 to
Tan as expropriation price. PNB delivered to
the wrong person who purportedly had an
SPOA executed by Tan. Tan was never paid.

Exemplary damages may be awarded if a

party acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive, or malevolent manner.
However, they cannot be recovered as a
matter of right; the court has yet to decide
whether or not they should be adjudicated.

No award for exemplary damages since

Requirements for ED:

132

B2013
TORTS and DAMAGES
there was no evidence that PNB acted in
fraudulent, wanton, reckless or oppressive
manner. There was also no award of
compensatory damages which is a
prerequisite before exemplary damages
may be awarded.

Ice cream vendor raped 21-year old girl who

had mental age of 4.
Crime: March 31, 2000
Judgment Feb. 8, 2007
Revised Rules: Dec. 1 2000
People v DiunsayJalandoni

8 Feb 2007

Convicted only of simple rape since

qualifying circumstance were not alleged.
Nevertheless, exemplary damages of
P25000 was awarded.

1. May be imposed by way in addition to

compensatory damages, and only after
claimants right to them has been
established.
2. Cannot be recovered as a matter of right,
their determination depending upon the
amount of compensatory damages that
may be awarded to the claimant
3. Act must be accompanied by bad faith or
done in wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or
malevolent manner.
Pursuant to ruling in People v Catubig,
presence of an aggravating circumstance,
whether special or qualifying, entitles
offended party an award of exemplary
damages. It was noted that although the
Revised rules require that the AC must be
alleged in the information, retroactive
application of these procedural rules cannot
adversely affect the rights of the private
offended party that have become vested
where the offense was committed prior to
the effectivity of said rules. Thus, AC which
were not alleged in information but proven
in court may be appreciated for purposes of
determining
liability
for
exemplary
damages.

133