Civil Law SUMMER REVIEWER TORTS AND DAMAGES CHAPTER 1 - CONCEPT OF TORTS - Jovanni Christian Plateros - Academia PDF

1/20/2017
CivilLawSUMMERREVIEWERTORTSANDDAMAGESCHAPTER1:CONCEPTOFTORTS|JovanniChristianPlaterosAcademia.edu
PDF
CivilLawSUMMERREVIEWERTORTSAND
DAMAGESCHAPTER1:CONCEPTOFTORTS
CivilLawSUMMERREVIEWER
TORTSANDDAMAGES
CHAPTER1:CONCEPTOF
TORTS
UPLOADED BY
J. Plateros
CONNECT TO DOWNLOAD
GETPDF
15 Pages
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
Civil Law
SUMMER REVIEWER
TORTS AND DAMAGES
CHAPTER 1: CONCEPT OF TORTS
Preexisting
contract
Burden of
proof
READ PAPER
CONTRACT
There is a preexisting contract
QUASI DELICT
No pre-existing
contract
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes

Contractual
Victim.
damage to another, there being fault or
party.
Prove the ff.:
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
Prove the ff.:
damage
CivilLawSUMMERREVIEWERTORTSANDDAMAGESCHAPTER1:CONCEPTOFTORTS
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre1. existence of

1. negligence
existing contractual relation between the parties,
a contract
2. causal
http://www.academia.edu/11133281/Civil_Law_SUMMER_REVIEWER_TORTS_AND_DAMAGES_CHAPTER_1_CONCEPT_OF_TORTS
D O W N LO A D
1/15
1/20/2017
existing contractual relation between the parties,
a contract
2. causal
is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
2. breach
connection
provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)
between
negligence and
ELEMENTS OF QUASI DELICT/TORTS:
damage done
1. Act or omission
2. Damage or injury is caused to another
CONTRACT
DELICT
3. Fault or negligence is present
Contract
Act / omission
Vinculum
4. There is no pre-existing contractual relations
committed by
Juris
between the parties
means of dolo
5. Causal connection between damage done and
(deliberate,
act/omission
malicious, in bad
faith)
NEGLIGENCE
Proof
Preponderance
Proof beyond
The omission of that degree of diligence which is
of evidence
reasonable doubt
Needed
required by the nature of the obligation and
Defense
Exercise of
corresponding to the circumstances of the
available
extraordinary
persons, time and place. (Art. 1173, NCC)
diligence (in
contract of
KINDS OF NEGLIGENCE
carriage), Force
1. Quasi delict (Art. 2176 NCC)
Majeure
2. Criminal negligence (Art. 356 RPC)
PreThere is a preNo pre-existing
3. Contractual negligence (NCC provisions on
existing
existing contract contract
contracts particularly Arts. 1170 to 1174)
contract
Burden of Contractual
Prosecution.
DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER SOURCES OF
party.
Accused is
proof
OBLIGATION:
Prove the ff.:
presumed
1. existence of
innocent until the
CONTRACT
QUASI DELICT
a contract
contrary is
Contract
Negligent act/
Vinculum
2. breach
proved.
omission (culpa,
Juris
imprudence)
Preponderance
Preponderance
Proof
CIVIL LIABILITY IN QUASI-DELICT VS. DELICT
Needed
of evidence
of evidence
Defense
available
QuickTime
Exercise
of and a Exercise of
TIFF (Uncompressed) de compressor
extraordinary
diligence of
are needed to see thi s picture.
diligence (in
good father of a
contract of
family in the
carriage), Force selection and
Majeure
supervision of
employees
Liability of
Employer
Reservation
Requirement
QUASI
DELICT
Solidary
DELICT
Subsidiary
Civil aspect of
the quasi-delict
is impliedly
instituted with
criminal action,
Civil aspect is
Impliedly
instituted with
criminal
action
Adviser:Dean C ynthia del C astillo Head:Joy Ponsaran, Eleanor Mateo; Unde rstudy:Joy Tajan, J ohn Paul Lim;
Subject Head:Jomi Legaspi;
Civil Law Summer Reviewer

Effect of
ju dg men t of
acquittal in a
criminal
case
involving
same
act/omission
but under 2000

Crimpro Rules
it is
independent
and separate
Not a bar to
recover civil
damages
EXCEPT when
judgment
pronounces
that the
negligence
GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY ( pater familias)

The only standard of conduct used in the
Philippines (Art. 1173 NCC)
A reasonable man is deemed to have knowledge
of the facts that a man should be expected to
know based on ordinary human experience.
Not a bar to
recover civil
damages
Corliss v. Manila Railroad The law

presumes or requires a man to possess
ordinary capacity to avoid harming his
neighbors unless a clear and manifest
incapacity is shown and the law does not
hold him liable for unintentional injury unless,
from
which
possessing such capacity, he might and
damage
arise
D O W N LO A D
ought to have foreseen the danger.
is non-existent
2/15
1/20/2017
is non-existent
NOTE:It is an existing doctrine that the failure of

the court to make any pronouncement, favorable
or unfavorable, as to the civil liability of the
accused amounts to a reservation of the right to
have the civil liability litigated and determined in a
separate action. The rules nowhere provide that if
the court fails to determine the civil liability it
becomes no longer enforceable
Castillo v. CA, 176 SCRA 591 A quasidelict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal
institution under the Civil Code with a
substantivity all its own, and individuality that
is entirely apart and independent from a delict
or crime a distinction exists between the
civil liability arising from a crime and the
responsibility for quasi-delicts or culpa extracontractual.
TESTS OF NEGLIGENCE
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent
act use the reasonable care and caution which
an ordinary prudent person would have used in
the same situation?
If not, then he is guilty of negligence
Could a prudent man, in the case under
consideration, foresee harm as a result of the
course pursued?
QuickTime and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
If so, it as the
duty
the actor to take
are needed
to see of
this picture.
precautions to guard against harm
Corliss v. Manila Railroad The law works

only within the sphere of the senses. Moral
consideration are not normally accorded
great weight.The knowledge and experience
of the actor is also considered in determining
whether he observed due diligence.
CHAPTER 2: SPECIAL RULES

1. CHILDREN
The action of the child will not necessarily be

judged according to the standard of an adult. But
if the minor is mature enough to understand and
appreciate the nature and consequences of his
actions, he will be considered negligent if he fails
to exercise due care and precaution in the
commission of such acts.
Taylor v. Meralco, 16 Phil 8 The law fixes
no arbitrary age at which a minor can be said
to have the necessary capacity to understand
and appreciate the nature and consequences
of his acts
CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSIDER
Time
Place
Personal circumstances of the Actors
NOTE: Applying the provisions of the RPC,

Judge Sangco takes the view that a child who is
9 or below is conclusively presumed to be
incapable of negligence. On the other hand, if
the child is above 9 years but below 15, there is a
disputable
presumption
of
absence
or
negligence.
Absence of negligence does not necessarily
mean absence of liability. A child under 9 years
Page 237 of 297
Civil Law Summer Reviewer

can still be subsidiarily liable with his property

(Art. 100 RPC)
Absence of negligence of the child may not
excuse the parents from their vicarious liability
under Art. 2180 NCC or Art. 221 FC.
2. PHYSICAL DISABILITY
GENERAL RULE: a weak or accident prone

person must come up to the standard of a
reasonable man, otherwise, he will be considered
as negligent
Exception: If the defect amounts to a real
disability, the standard of conduct is that of a
reasonable person under like disability.

3. EXPERTS AND PROFESSIONALS
CHAPTER 3: WHAT MUST BE PROVED

1. NEGLIGENCE - plaintiff must prove negligence
of defendant
Exceptions:
a. In cases where negligence is presumed or
imputed
by
law
this
is
only
rebuttable/presumptionjuris tantum
b. Principle of res ipsa loquitur (the thing
speaks for itself) - grounded on the difficulty
in proving thru competent evidence, public
policy considerations
2.
DAMAGE / INJURY
3.
CAUSAL
CONNECTION
BETWEEN
NEGLIGENCE AND DAMAGE Defendants
negligence must be the proximate cause of the
injury sustained by the plaintiff to enable plaintiff
Fernando v. CA They should exhibit the
to recover. Thus, if plaintiffs own conduct is the
case and skill of one who is ordinarily skilled
cause of the injury there can be no recovery.
in the particular field that he is in; The rule
regarding experts is applicable not only to

D O W N LO A D
3/15
1/20/2017
regarding experts is applicable not only to

NOTE: If plaintiff's negligence is only
professionals who have undergone formal
contributory, he is considered partly
education
responsible only. Plaintiff may still recover
from defendant but the award may be
reduced by the courts in proportion to his
4. NATURE OF A CTIVITY
own negligence
There are activities which by nature impose
duties to exercise a higher degree of diligence
Proximate Cause the adequate and
(ex. Banks, Common Carriers)
efficient
in the the
naturalparticular
order of
events cause
and which
under
5. INTOXICATION
circumstances surrounding the case, would
Wright v. Manila Electric Mere intoxication

is not negligence nor establishes want of
ordinary care. But it may be considered to
prove negligence.
EXCEPTION: Under Art. 2185 of the NCC 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
6. INSANITY
naturally produce the event
GENERAL RULE:
CHAPTER 4: DEFENSES
1.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - the plaintiff

was also negligent together with the defendant;
to constitute a defense, proximate cause of
injury/damage must be the negligence of
defendant
2.
CONCURRENT NEGLIGENCE if both parties

are equally negligent the courts will leave them
QuickTime and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
An insane person is exempt from liability.

However, by express provision of law, there may
be civil liability even when the perpetrator is held
to be exempt from criminal liability. The insanity
of a person does not excuse him or his guardian
from liability based on quasi delict (Art. 2180 and
2182 NCC)
as they are; there can be no recovery

3.
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE - even

though a persons own acts may have placed him
in a position of peril and an injury results, the
injured is entitled to recover if the defendant thru
the exercise of reasonable care and prudence
might have avoided injurious consequences to
the plaintiff. This defense is available only in an
Page 238 of 297
D O W N LO A D
4/15
1/20/2017
D O W N LO A D
5/15
1/20/2017
D O W N LO A D
6/15
1/20/2017
D O W N LO A D
7/15
1/20/2017
D O W N LO A D
8/15
1/20/2017
D O W N LO A D
9/15
1/20/2017
D O W N LO A D
10/15
1/20/2017
D O W N LO A D
11/15
1/20/2017
D O W N LO A D
12/15
1/20/2017
D O W N LO A D
13/15
1/20/2017
D O W N LO A D
14/15
1/20/2017
Job Board
About
Press
Blog
People
Papers
Terms
Privacy
Copyright
We're Hiring!
Help Center
Find new research papers in: Physics Chemistry Biology Health Sciences Ecology Earth Sciences Cognitive Science Mathematics Computer Science
Academia 2017
15/15

Civil Law SUMMER REVIEWER TORTS AND DAMAGES CHAPTER 1 - CONCEPT OF TORTS - Jovanni Christian Plateros - Academia PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Law SUMMER REVIEWER TORTS AND DAMAGES CHAPTER 1 - CONCEPT OF TORTS - Jovanni Christian Plateros - Academia PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/20/2017

ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes

done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre1. existence of

Civil Law Summer Reviewer

but under 2000

GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY ( pater familias)

Corliss v. Manila Railroad The law

ought to have foreseen the danger.

NOTE:It is an existing doctrine that the failure of

Corliss v. Manila Railroad The law works

CHAPTER 2: SPECIAL RULES

The action of the child will not necessarily be

NOTE: Applying the provisions of the RPC,

Civil Law Summer Reviewer

can still be subsidiarily liable with his property

GENERAL RULE: a weak or accident prone

reasonable person under like disability.

CHAPTER 3: WHAT MUST BE PROVED

regarding experts is applicable not only to

regarding experts is applicable not only to

Wright v. Manila Electric Mere intoxication

EXCEPTION: Under Art. 2185 of the NCC it is

naturally produce the event

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - the plaintiff

CONCURRENT NEGLIGENCE if both parties

An insane person is exempt from liability.

as they are; there can be no recovery

DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE - even

You might also like