Torts and Damages Case Digest

TORTS AND DAMAGES Principles and Doctrines
III. NEGLIGENCE IV. CAUSATION: PROXIMATE

A. CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE CAUSE
B. DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE A. DEFINITION
De Bataclan vs. Mariano Medina ......... 20
C. PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
Sofia Fernando vs. CA .......................... 22
D. DEFENSES
Filomeno Urbano vs. CA....................... 22
1. PLAINTIFFS NEGLIGENCE
Phoenix Construction vs. IAC ............... 23
Manila Electric vs. Sotero Rebioquillo .....6
Pilipinas Bank vs. CA............................ 23
Juan Bernardo vs. M. B. Legaspi...............6
Quezon City vs. Fulgencio Dacara ........ 24
Tomas Bernal vs. J. V. House ....................7
B. DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER
PLDT vs. CA ...............................................8
KINDS
2. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
1. REMOTE
Gregorio Genobiagon vs. CA ....................8
Gabeto vs. Agaton Araneta .................. 25
M. H. Rakes vs. Atlantic ............................9
Filomeno Urbano vs. Appellate Court.. 25
Philippine Bank Of Commerce vs. CA.......9
2. CONCURRENT
3. FORTUITOUS EVENT
Far Eastern Shipping Co. vs CA............. 26
Roberto Juntilla vs. Clemente Fontanar 10
Prospero Sabido vs. CArlos Custodio ... 27
Teodoro M. Hernandez vs. COA ............ 11
C. TESTS
Gotesco Investment vs. Chatto ............. 12
De Bataclan vs. Mariano Medina ......... 27
Servando vs. Philippine Steam .............. 13
Philippine Rabbit vs. IAC ...................... 28
NAPOCOR vs. CA ................................... 13
Phoenix Construction vs. IAC ............... 29
Southeastern College, Inc. vs. CA .......... 15
Manila Electric vs. Sotero Rebioquillo . 30
4. ASSUMPTION OF RISK
Remigio Rodrigueza vs. Manila Railroad30
Margarita Afialda vs. Basilio Hisole ....... 16
D. EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE
Ilocos Norte Electric Co. vs. CA ............. 16
George Mckee vs. IAC .......................... 31
5. DUE DILIGENCE
Manila Electric vs. Sotero Rebioquillo . 32
Placido C. Ramos vs. Pepsi-Cola ............ 17
Teague vs. Elena Fernandez ................. 33
Metro Manila Transit Corp. vs. CA ....... 18
Filomeno Urbano vs. Appellate Court.. 34
6. PRESCRIPTION
E. LAST CLEAR CHANCE
Ernesto Kramer, Jr. vs. CA ..................... 19
Amado Picart vs. Frank Smith, Jr.......... 35
Allied Banking Corp. vs. CA ................... 20
Emma Adriano Bustamante vs. CA ...... 35
Submitted by: Clifford Cubian | Submitted to: Atty. Jennifer N. Asuncion Page 1
Phoenix Construction vs. IAC ................ 36 Chapman vs. James M. Underwood ......50
Glan Peoples Lumber vs. IAC................ 38 Marcial T. CAedo vs. Yu Khe Thai ...........51
Pantranco vs. Maricar Bascos Baesa ..... 38 Felina Rodriguez-Luna vs. IAC ................53
Philippine Bank vs. CA ........................... 39 B. VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Amador C. Ong vs. Metropolitan 40
1. PARENTS
Gregorio Anuran vs. Pepito Buno ......... 41
Sabina Exconde vs. Delfin Capuno .........53
Edna A. Raynera vs. Freddie Hiceta ...... 42
Severino Salen vs. Jose Balce .................54
Osmundo S. CAnlas vs. CA..................... 42
Agapito Fuellas vs. Elpidio Cadano.........55
Consolidated Bank vs. CA ...................... 43
Gutierrez vs. Bonifacio Gutierrez ...........56
Rogelio Engada vs. CA ........................... 43
Felina Rodriguez-Luna vs. IAC ................57
V. LIABILITY Cresencio Libi vs. IAC .............................58
A. POSSESSOR OF ANIMALS Macario Tamargo vs. CA .......................59
Purita Miranda Vestil vs IAC .................. 44 Maria Teresa Y. Cuadra vs. Monfort ......60
B. THINGS THROWN OR FALLING FROM 2. GUARDIANS

A BUILDING 3. TEACHERS & HEADS OF
Jose Dingdong vs. Halim Kanaan ........... 44 INSTITUTIONS
C. DEATH INJURIES IN THE COURSE OF Ciriaco L. Mercado vs. CA .......................61
EMPLOYMENT Moises P. Palisoc vs. Brillantes...............61

Justa Afable vs. Singer Sewing .............. 45 Jose S. Amadora vs. CA ..........................62
Reynaldo Pasco vs. CFI ...........................63
D. STRICT LIABILITY / PRODUCT
LIABILITY Federico Ylarde vs. Edgardo Aquino ......64
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS vs. CA................ 46 Benjamin Salvosa vs. IAC........................65

St. Francis High School vs. CA.................66
E. INTERFERANCE WITH
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS PSBA vs. CA.............................................67
C. S. Gilchrist vs. E. A. Cuddy Et Al. ........ 47 Maximino Soliman, Jr. vs. Tuazon ..........68
So Ping Bun vs. CA ................................. 48 St. Mary's Academy vs. Carpitanos ........69
F. LIABILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT 4. OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF

UNITS ESTABLISHMENTS
Florentina A. Guilatco vs. Dagupan ....... 48 Philippine Rabbit vs. Phil-American .......70
5. EMPLOYERS
VI. PERSONS LIABLE
Philtranco vs. CA ....................................71
A. THE TORTFEASOR
Castilex Industrial Vs. Vasquez ...............72
Dean C. Worcester vs. Martin Ocampo 50
Filamer vs. IAC ....................................... 72 3. PHYSICAL INJURIES

NPC vs. CA ............................................. 73 Victoria G. Capuno vs. Pepsi-Cola .........90
Light Rail Transit vs. Marjorie Navidad 74 Laura Corpus vs. Felardo Paje ................91
George Mckee vs. IAC ........................... 74 Maria Benita A. Dulay vs. CA ..................92
Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela vs. CA ............. 75
VIII. INTENTIONAL TORTS
6. STATE
A. ABUSE OF RIGHTS
E. Merritt vs. Govt Of The Philippine ... 76
Alfredo M. Velayo vs. Shell ....................93
Inocencio Rosete vs. Auditor General ... 77
Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. CA..................93
Marcos Mendoza vs. De Leon ............... 78
Globe Mackay vs. CA ..............................93
Jose Fontanilla vs. Maliaman ................ 79
Albenson Enterprises vs. CA .................94
City Of Manila vs. Genero M. Teotico ... 79
Sergio Amonoy vs. Spouses Gutierrez ...95
Republic vs. Perfecto R. Palacio ............ 80
UE vs. Romeo A. Jader ...........................95
7. OTHERS
Esteria F. Garciano vs. CA.......................96
Luis Ma. Araneta vs. Antonio R. De Joya 81
Barons Marketing vs. CA ........................97
Felix Lanuzo vs. Mendoza ..................... 81
BPI vs. CA................................................97
Francisca Viluan vs. CA .......................... 82
B. ACTS CONTRA BONUS MORES
VII. TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT
1. ELEMENTS
CIVIL ACTION enrique J.L. Ruiz vs. Secretary ................98
A. VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL 2. EXAMPLES
RIGHTS
a. BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY,
Delfin Lim vs. De Leon ........................... 83
SEDUCTION AND SEXUAL ASSAULT
Rogelio Aberca vs. Fabian Ver ............... 84
Beatriz P. Wassmer vs. Velez .................99
MHP Garments, Inc. vs. CA ................... 85
Apolonio Tanjanco vs. CA.......................99
B. DEFAMATION, FRAUD, PHUSICAL Conrado Bunag, Jr. vs CA .....................100
INJURIES
Amelita Constantino vs. Ivan Mendez .101
Maximo Marcia vs. CA........................... 86
CArmen Quimiguing vs. Felix Icao ........101
CArmen L. Madeja vs. Felix T. CAro ...... 86
Cecilio Pe vs. Alfonso Pe ......................102
Arafiles vs. Philippine Journalists, Inc. .. 87
b. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
1. DEFAMATION
Andres Lao vs. CA .................................103
MVRS Publications vs. Islamic .............. 88
Magtanggol Que vs. Iac ........................103
2. FRAUD Franklin M. Drilon vs. CA ......................104
Almario T. Salta vs. Jesus De Veyra ....... 89
c. PUBLIC HUMILIATION c. CERTAINTY

Rafael Patricio vs. Oscar Leviste .......... 105 Dbp vs. CA ............................................115
Grand Union vs. Jose J. Espino ............ 105 Alejandro Fuentes vs. CA .....................116
d. UNJUST DISMISSAL d. DAMAGE TO PROPERTY

Singapore Airlines vs. Cruz Pao ........ 106 PNOC Shipping vs. CA...........................116
Medina vs. Astro-Bartolome .............. 107 e. PERSONAL INJURY AND DEATH
IX. OTHER TORTS Rogelio E. Ramos vs. CA .......................117

Reynalda Gatchalian vs. Delim .............118
A. DERELICTION OF DUTY
Cornelio Amaro vs. Sumanguit............ 107 f. ATTORNEYS FEES
Jose C. Quirante vs. Iac ........................118
B. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
g. INTEREST
C. VIOLATION OF HUMAN DIGNITY AND
Crismina Garments vs. CA ....................119
PRIVACY
St. Louis Realty vs. CA ......................... 108 h. MITIGATION OF LIABILITY
Rodrigo Concepcion vs. CA ................. 109 Vivencio Cerrano vs. Tan Chuco ...........119
2. MORAL
X. DAMAGES
a. CONCEPT
A. DEFINITION AND CONCEPTS
Victor Kierulf vs. CA..............................120
People vs. Felipe Ballesteros ............... 110
Spouses Custodio vs. CA ..................... 111 b. PROOF OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
Heirs Of Borlado vs. CA ....................... 111 Miranda-Ribaya vs. Bautista ................121
Lazatin vs. Twao ................................ 112 Virgilio M. Del Rosario vs. CA ...............122
Raagas vs. Octavio Traya ......................122
B. DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA
Roque Enervida vs. De La Torre ...........123
Board Of Liquidators vs. Kalaw ........... 112
People vs. Rodelio Bugayong ...............124
Spouses Custodio vs. CA ..................... 113
c. CASES WHERE ALLOWED
C. KINDS OF DAMAGES
Trinidad J. Francisco vs. GSIS ...............124
1. ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY
Expertravel vs. CA ................................124
Lucio Algarra vs. Sixto Sandejas .......... 113
d. UNFOUNDED SUITS
a. KINDS
Editha M. Mijares vs. CA ......................126
Pnoc Shipping vs. CA ........................... 114
Pantaleon De La Pea vs. CA................127
Integrated Packaging vs. CA ................ 115
J Marketing Corp. vs. Felicidad Sia....127
b. EXTENT Reynaldo T. Cometa vs. CA ..................128
Triple Eight vs. NLRC ........................... 129

People vs. Pirame ................................ 129
CArlos Arcona vs. CA ........................... 129
e. FACTORS IN DETERMINING
AMOUNT
PNB vs. CA ........................................... 130
Gregorio Fule vs. CA ............................ 131
Philippine Airlines vs. CA ..................... 132
Arturo P. Valenzuela vs. CA ................. 132
Aurelio Sumalpong vs. CA ................... 133
Fernando Lopez vs. Pan American ...... 134
Producers Bank vs. CA......................... 135
f. WHO MAY RECOVER

Emilio Strebel vs. Jose Figueras........... 135
Abs-Cbn vs. CA .................................... 136
Napocor vs. Philipp Brothers .............. 137
3. NOMINAL
Robes-Francisco Realty vs. Cfi ............. 137
People vs. Agustin Gopio .................... 138
Herman Armovit vs. CA ....................... 139
4. TEMPERATE
Maximo Pleno vs. CA........................... 139
People vs. Balwinder Singh ................. 140
People vs. Edison Plazo ....................... 140
5. LIQUIDATED
6. EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE
PNB vs. CA ........................................... 141
Virgilio M. Del Rosario vs. CA .............. 141
III. NEGLIGENCE injury, even though such injury would

A. CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE not have happened but for such
condition or occasion. If no danger
B. DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE existed in the condition except
C. PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE because of the independent cause,
such condition was not the proximate
D. DEFENSES
cause. And if an independent
1. PLAINTIFFS NEGLIGENCE negligent act or defective condition
sets into operation the circumstances
which result in injury because of the
GR NO. L-8328, May 18, 1956 prior defective condition, such
subsequent act or condition is the
MANILA ELECTRIC VS. SOTERO proximate cause.
REBIOQUILLO
The principal and proximate cause of
the electrocution was not the electric
wire, evidently a remote cause, but GR NO. 9308, December 23, 1914
rather the reckless and negligent act
of Magno in turning around and JUAN BERNARDO VS. M. B. LEGASPI
swinging the galvanized iron sheet The court found upon the evidence
without taking any precaution, such that both the plaintiff and the
as looking back toward the street and defendant were negligent in handling
at the wire to avoid its contacting said their automobiles and that said
iron sheet, considering the lattery negligence was of such a character
length of 6 feet. and extent on the part of both as to
prevent either from recovering.
A prior and remote cause cannot be
made the basis of an action if such Upon the facts, as they appear of
remote cause did nothing more than record, the judgment must be
furnish the condition or give rise to affirmed, as the evidence clearly
the occasion by which the injury was supports the decision of the trial
made possible, if there intervened court. The law applicable to the facts
between such prior or remote cause also requires an affirmance of the
and the injury a distinct, successive, judgment appealed from. Where the
unrelated, and efficient cause of the plaintiff in a negligence action, by his
own carelessness contributes to the strictest sense could only result in

principal occurrence, that is, to the reduction of the damages.
accident, as one of the determining Having reached the conclusion that
causes thereof, he cannot recover. liability exists, we next turn to
This is equally true of the defendant; discover who can recover damages for
and as both of them, by their the obligation, and against whom the
negligent acts, contributed to the action will lie. The plaintiffs are
determining cause of the accident, Tomas Bernal and Fortunata Enverso.
neither can recover. The latter was the mother of
Purification Bernal and the former was
the natural father, who had never
legally recognized his child. The
G. R No. 30741, January 30, 1930 daughter lived with the mother, and
presumably was supported by her.
TOMAS BERNAL VS. J. V. HOUSE
Under these facts, recovery should be
The mother and her child had a permitted the mother but not the
perfect right to be on the principal father. As to the defendants, they are
street of Tacloban, Leyte, on the J. V. House and the Tacloban Electric
evening when the religions procession & Ice Plant, Ltd. J. V. House was
was held. There was nothing granted a franchise by Act No. 2700
abnormal in allowing the child to run of the Philippine Legislature approved
along a few paces in advance of the on March 9, 1917. He only transferred
mother. No one could foresee the this franchise formally to the Tacloban
coincidence of an automobile Electric & Ice Plant, Ltd. on March 30,
appearing and of a frightened child 1926, that is, nearly a year after the
running and falling into a ditch filled death of the child Purificacion Bernal.
with hot water. The doctrines Under these facts, J. V. House is solely
announced in the much debated case responsible.
of Bakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific
Co., still rule. Article 1902 of the Civil
Code must again be enforced. The
contributory negligence of the child
and her mother, if any, does not
operate as a bar to recovery, but in its
GR NO. 57079, September 29, 1989 cannot charge PLDT for their injuries
where their own failure to exercise
PLDT VS. CA due and reasonable care was the
The perils of the road were known to, cause thereof. It is both a societal
hence appreciated and assumed by, norm and necessity that one should
private respondents. By exercising exercise a reasonable degree of
reasonable care and prudence, caution for his own
respondent Antonio Esteban could protection. Furthermore, respondent
have avoided the injurious Antonio Esteban had the last clear
consequences of his act, even chance or opportunity to avoid the
assuming arguendo that there was accident, notwithstanding the
some alleged negligence on the part negligence he imputes to petitioner
of petitioner. PLDT. As a resident of Lacson Street,
The presence of warning signs could he passed on that street almost
not have completely prevented the everyday and had knowledge of the
accident; the only purpose of said presence and location of the
signs was to inform and warn the excavations there. It was his
public of the presence of excavations negligence that exposed him and his
on the site. The private respondents wife to danger, hence he is solely
already knew of the presence of said responsible for the consequences of
excavations. It was not the lack of his imprudence.
knowledge of these excavations which
caused the jeep of respondents to fall
into the excavation but the
unexplained sudden swerving of the 2.CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
jeep from the inside lane towards the
accident mound. As opined in some
quarters, the omission to perform a GR NO. L-40452, October 12, 1989
duty, such as the placing of warning
GREGORIO GENOBIAGON VS. CA
signs on the site of the excavation,
constitutes the proximate cause only The alleged contributory negligence
when the doing of the said omitted of the victim, if any, does not
act would have prevented the injury. It exonerate the accused. The defense
is basic that private respondents of contributory negligence does not
apply in criminal cases committed
through reckless imprudence, since and, as I understand it, in every case

one cannot allege the negligence of in which contributory negligence is a
another to evade the effects of his defense it is made so because the
own negligence. negligence of the plaintiff is the cause
of the accident, to this extent, that if
the plaintiff had not been negligent
the accident would not have
GR NO. 1719, January 23, 1907 happened, although the defendant
was also negligent. In other words,
M. H. RAKES VS. ATLANTIC the negligence of the defendant is not
Under the circumstances the plaintiff alone sufficient to cause the accident.
was negligent in placing himself on It requires also the negligence of the
the side of the car where he knew that plaintiff.
he would be injured by the falling of
the rails from the car when they
reached this point in the track where
the two stringers were left without
GR NO. 97626, March 14, 1997
any support at their ends. He either
should have refused to work at all or
PHILIPPINE BANK VS. CA
he should have placed himself behind
While it is true that had private
the car, on the other side of it, or in
respondent checked the monthly
front of it, drawing it with a rope. He
statements of account sent by the
was guilty of contributory negligence
petitioner bank to RMC, the latter
and is not entitled to recover.
would have discovered the loss early
In order to impose liability upon the on, such cannot be used by the
defendant, it must appear that its petitioners to escape liability. This
negligence caused the accident. The omission on the part of the private
reason why contributory negligence respondent does not change the fact
on the part of the plaintiff is a defense that were it not for the wanton and
in this class of cases is that the reckless negligence of the petitioners
negligence of the defendant did not employee in validating the incomplete
alone cause the accident. If nothing duplicate deposit slips presented by
but that negligence had existed, the Ms. Irene Yabut, the loss would not
accident would not have happened have occurred. Considering, however,
that the fraud was committed in a proximate cause of his injury, he

span of more than one (1) year cannot recover damages. But if his
covering various deposits, common negligence was only contributory,
human experience dictates that the the immediate and proximate cause
same would not have been possible of the injury being the defendants
without any form of collusion between lack of due care, the plaintiff may
Ms. Yabut and bank teller Mabayad. recover damages, but the courts
Ms. Mabayad was negligent in the shall mitigate the damages to be
performance of her duties as bank awarded.
teller nonetheless. Thus, the
petitioners are entitled to claim
reimbursement from her for whatever
they shall be ordered to pay in this 3. FORTUITOUS EVENT
case.
The foregoing notwithstanding, it

cannot be denied that, indeed, private GR NO. L-45637, May 31, 1985
respondent was likewise negligent in
ROBERTO JUNTILLA VS. FONTANAR
not checking its monthly statements
While it may be true that the tire that
of account. Had it done so, the
blew-up was still good because the
company would have been alerted to
grooves of the tire were still visible,
the series of frauds being committed
this fact alone does not make the
against RMC by its secretary. The
explosion of the tire a fortuitous
damage would definitely not have
event. No evidence was presented to
ballooned to such an amount if only
show that the accident was due to
RMC, particularly Romeo Lipana, had
adverse road conditions or that
exercised even a little vigilance in
precautions were taken by the jeepney
their financial affairs. This omission
driver to compensate for any
by RMC amounts to contributory
conditions liable to cause
negligence which shall mitigate the
accidents. The sudden blowing-up,
damages that may be awarded to the
therefore, could have been caused by
private respondent under Article 2179
too much air pressure injected into
of the New Civil Code, to wit:
the tire coupled by the fact that the
When the plaintiffs own jeepney was overloaded and speeding
negligence was the immediate and at the time of the accident.
In Lasam v. Smith (45 Phil. 657), we know the correct measures to take
laid down the following essential when a tire blows up thus insuring the
characteristics of caso fortuito: safety of passengers at all times.
In a legal sense and,

consequently, also in relation to
contracts, a caso fortuito presents GR NO. 71871, November 06, 1989
the following essential

TEODORO M. HERNANDEZ VS. COA
characteristics: (1) The cause of the
unforeseen and unexpected
occurrence, or of the failure of the Section 638 of the Revised
debtor to comply with his Administrative Code reads as follows:
obligation, must be independent of SEC. 638. Credit for loss occurring
the human will. (2) It must be in transit or due to casualty
impossible to foresee the event Notice to Auditor. When a loss of
which constitutes the caso fortuito, government funds or property
or if it can be foreseen, it must be occurs while the same is in transit
impossible to avoid. (3) The or is caused by fire, theft, or other
occurrence must be such as to casualty, the officer accountable
render it impossible for the debtor therefor or having custody thereof
to fulfill his obligation in a normal shall immediately notify the Auditor
manner. And (4) the obligor General, or the provincial auditor,
(debtor) must be free from any according as a matter is within the
participation in the aggravation of original jurisdiction of the one or
the injury resulting to the creditor. the other, and within thirty days or
In the case at bar, the cause of the such longer period as the Auditor,
unforeseen and unexpected or provincial auditor, may in the
occurrence was not independent of particular case allow, shall present
the human will. The accident was his application for relief, with the
caused either through the negligence available evidence m support
of the driver or because of mechanical thereof. An officer who fails to
defects in the tire. Common carriers comply with this requirement shall
should teach their drivers not to not be relieved of liability or allowed
overload their vehicles, not to exceed credit for any such loss m the
safe and legal speed limits, and to settlement of his accounts.
This provision has since then been GR NO. 87584, June 16, 1992
reiterated, with some slight
modification, in Section 73 of P.D. No. GOTESCO INVESTMENT VS. CHATTO
1445, otherwise known as the It is settled that, The owner or

Government Auditing Code of the proprietor of a place of public
Philippines, which was promulgated amusement impliedly warrants that
on June 11, 1978. the premises, appliances and
amusement devices are safe for the
As for Hernandezs choice between
purpose for which they are designed,
Marilao, Bulacan, and Ternate, CAvite,
the doctrine being subject to no other
one could easily agree that the former exception or qualification than that he
was the safer destination, being does not contract against unknown
nearer, and in view of the comparative defects not discoverable by ordinary
hazards in the trips to the two places. or reasonable means.
It is true that the petitioner This implied warranty has given rise
miscalculated, but the Court feels he to the rule that, Where a patron of a
theater or other place of public
should not be blamed for that. The
amusement is injured, and the thing
decision he made seemed logical at
that caused the injury is wholly and
that time and was one that could be
exclusively under the control and
expected of a reasonable and prudent management of the defendant, and
person. And if, as it happened, the the accident is such as in the ordinary
two robbers attacked him in broad course of events would not have
daylight in the jeep while it was on a happened if proper care had been
exercised, its occurrence raises a
busy highway, and in the presence of
presumption or permits of an
other passengers, it cannot be said
inference of negligence on the part of
that all this was the result of his the defendant.
imprudence and negligence. This was
That presumption or inference was
undoubtedly a fortuitous event not overcome by the petitioner.
covered by the said provisions,
Besides, even assuming for the sake
something that could not have been
of argument that, as petitioner
reasonably foreseen although it could vigorously insists, the cause of the
have happened, and did. collapse was due to force majeure,
petitioner would still be liable because unforeseen and unexpected

it was guilty of negligence, which the occurrence, or of the failure of the
trial court denominated as gross. As debtor to comply with his obligation,
gleaned from Bouviers definition of must be independent of the human
and Cockburns elucidation on force will; (2) it must be impossible to
majeure, for one to be exempt from foresee the event which constitutes
any liability because of it, he must the caso fortuito, or if it can be fore-
have exercised care, i.e., he should seen, it must be impossible to avoid;
not have been guilty of negligence. (3) the occurrence must be such as to
render it impossible for the debtor to
fulfill his obligation in a normal
GR NOS. L-36481-2, October 23, manner; and (4) the obligor must be
1982 free from any participation in the
aggravation of the injury resulting to
SERVANDO VS. PHILIPPINE STEAM the creditor. In the case at bar, the
Where fortuitous event or burning of the customs warehouse
force majeure is the immediate and was an extraordinary event which
proximate cause of the loss, the happened independently of the will of
obligor is exempt from liability for the appellant. The latter could not
non-performance. The Partidas, the have foreseen the event.
antecedent of Article 1174 of the Civil
Code, defines caso fortuito as an
event that takes place by accident and GR NOS. 103442-45, May 21, 1993
could not have been
foreseen. Examples of this are NAPOCOR VS. CA
destruction of houses, unexpected To exempt the obligor from liability
fire, shipwreck, violence of robbers. under Article 1174 of the Civil Code,
for a breach of an obligation due to
In its dissertation of the phrase caso
an act of God, the following must
fortuito the Enciclopedia Juridicada
concur: (a) the cause of the breach of
Espaola says: In a legal sense and,
the obligation must be independent of
consequently, also in relation to
the will of the debtor; (b) the event
contracts, a caso fortuito presents
must be either unforeseeable or
the following essential
unavoidable; (c) the event must be
characteristics: (1) the cause of the
such as to render it impossible for the
debtor to fulfill his obligation in a liability by showing that the

normal manner; and (d) the debtor immediate cause of the damage was
must be free from any participation the act of God. To be exempt from
in, or aggravation of the injury to the liability for loss because of an act of
creditor. God, he must be free from any
previous negligence or misconduct by
Thus, if upon the happening of a
which that loss or damage may have
fortuitous event or an act of God,
been occasioned.
there concurs a corresponding fraud,
negligence, delay or violation or Accordingly, petitioners cannot be
contravention in any manner of the heard to invoke the act of God
tenor of the obligation as provided for or force majeure to escape liability for
in Article 1170 of the Civil Code, the loss or damage sustained by the
which results in loss or damage, the private respondents since they, the
obligor cannot escape liability. petitioners, were guilty of negligence.
The event then was not occasioned
The principle embodied in the act of
exclusively by an act of God or force
God doctrine strictly requires that the
majeure; a human factor
act must be one occasioned
negligence or imprudence had
exclusively by the violence of nature
intervened. The effect then of
and all human agencies are to be
the force majeure in question may be
excluded from creating or entering
deemed to have, even if only partly,
into the cause of the mischief. When
resulted from the participation of
the effect, the cause of which is to be
man. Thus, the whole occurrence was
considered, is found to be in part the
thereby humanized, as it were, and
result of the participation of man,
removed from the rules applicable to
whether it be from active intervention
acts of God.
or neglect, or failure to act, the whole
occurrence is thereby humanized, as
it were, and removed from the rules
applicable to the acts of God.
Thus it has been held that when the

negligence of a person concurs with
an act of God in producing a loss,
such person is not exempt from
GR NO. 126389, July 10, 1998 engendered thereby, there should

have been no human participation
SOUTHEASTERN COLLEGE, INC. VS. CA amounting to a negligent act. In other
In order that a fortuitous event may words, the person seeking
exempt a person from liability, it is exoneration from liability must not be
necessary that he be free from any guilty of negligence. Negligence, as
previous negligence or misconduct by commonly understood, is conduct
reason of which the loss may have which naturally or reasonably creates
been occasioned. An act of God undue risk or harm to others. It may
cannot be invoked for the protection be the failure to observe that degree
of a person who has been guilty of of care, precaution, and vigilance
gross negligence in not trying to which the circumstances justly
forestall its possible adverse demand, or the omission to do
consequences. When a persons something which a prudent and
negligence concurs with an act of God reasonable man, guided by
in producing damage or injury to considerations which ordinarily
another, such person is not exempt regulate the conduct of human affairs,
from liability by showing that the would do.
immediate or proximate cause of the
In the present case, other than the
damage or injury was a fortuitous
said ocular inspection, no
event. When the effect is found to be
investigation was conducted to
partly the result of the participation of
determine the real cause of the partial
man whether it be from active
unroofing of petitioners school
intervention, or neglect, or failure to
building. Private respondents did not
act the whole occurrence is hereby
even show that the plans,
humanized, and removed from the
specifications and design of said
rules applicable to acts of God.
school building were deficient and
There is no question that a typhoon or defective. Neither did they prove any
storm is a fortuitous event, a natural substantial deviation from the
occurrence which may be foreseen but approved plans and specifications.
is unavoidable despite any amount of Nor did they conclusively establish
foresight, diligence or care. In order that the construction of such building
to be exempt from liability arising was basically flawed.
from any adverse consequence
4. ASSUMPTION OF RISK GR NO. 53401, November 06, 1989
ILOCOS NORTE ELECTRIC CO. VS. CA

GR NO. L-2075, November 29, 1949 Under the circumstances of the case,
petitioner was negligent in seeing to it
MARGARITA AFIALDA VS. BASILIO that no harm is done to the general
HISOLE public considering that electricity
In a case where an animal caused is an agency, subtle and deadly, the
injury to a stranger or third person. It measure of care required of electric
is therefore no authority for a case companies must be commensurate
like the present where the person with or proportionate to the danger.
injured was the caretaker of the The duty of exercising this high
animal. The distinction is important. degree of diligence and care extends
For the statute names to every place where persons have a
the possessor or user of the animal as right to be .The negligence of
the person liable for any damages it petitioner having been shown, it may
may cause, and this for the obvious not now absolve itself from liability by
reason that the possessor or user has arguing that the victims death was
the custody and control of the animal solely due to a fortuitous event.
and is therefore the one in a position When an act of God combines or
to prevent it from causing damage. concurs with the negligence of the
In the present case, the animal was in defendant to produce an injury, the
the custody and under the control of defendant is liable if the injury would
the caretaker, who was paid for his not have resulted but for his own
work as such. Obviously, it was the negligent conduct or omission.
caretakers business to try to prevent Likewise, the maxim volenti non fit
the animal from causing injury or injurid relied upon by petitioner finds
damage to anyone, including himself. no application in the case at bar. It is
And being injured by the animal imperative to note the surrounding
under those circumstances, where one circumstances which impelled the
of the risks of the occupation which deceased to leave the comforts of a
he had voluntarily assumed and for roof and brave the subsiding typhoon.
which he must take the As testified by Linda Alonzo Estavillo
consequences. and Aida Bulong, the deceased,
accompanied by the former two, were 5. DUE DILIGENCE

on their way to the latters grocery
store to see to it that the goods were GR NO. L-22533, February 09, 1967
not flooded. As such, shall We punish

PLACIDO C. RAMOS VS. PEPSI-COLA
her for exercising her right to protect
As testified to by Aasco, PEPSI-COLA
her property from the floods by
did in fact carefully examine the
imputing upon her the unfavorable
driver-applicant Bonifacio as to his
presumption that she assumed the
qualifications, experiences and record
risk of personal injury? Definitely not.
of service, taking all steps mentioned
For it has been held that a person is
by the CA in its decision already
excused from the force of the rule,
quoted. Such being the case, there
that when he voluntarily assents to a
can be no doubt that PEPSI-COLA
known danger he must abide by the
exercised the required due diligence
consequences, if an emergency is
in the selection of its driver. In order
found to exist or if the life or property
that the defendant may be considered
of another is in peril, or when he
as having exercised all diligence of a
seeks to rescue his endangered
good father of a family, he should not
property. Clearly, an emergency was
be satisfied with the mere possession
at hand as the deceaseds property, a
of a professional drivers license; he
source of her livelihood, was faced
should have carefully examined the
with an impending loss. Furthermore,
applicant for employment as to his
the deceased, at the time the fatal
qualifications, his experience and
incident occurred, was at a place
record of service.
where she had a right to be without
regard to petitioners consent as she It should perhaps be stated that in the
was on her way to protect her instant case no question is raised as
merchandise. Hence, private to due diligence in the supervision by
respondents, as heirs, may not be PEPSI-COLA of its driver. Article 2180
barred from recovering damages as a of the Civil Code provides:
result of the death caused by The owners
petitioners negligence. and managers of an es-
tablishment or enterprise are
likewise responsible for
damages caused by their
employees in the service of GR NO. 104408, June 21, 1993

the branches in which the
latter are employed or on the METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORP. VS.
occasion of their functions. CA

Due diligence in the supervision of
The responsibility treated
employees, on the other hand,
of in this Article shall cease
includes the formulation of suitable
when the persons herein
rules and regulations for the guidance
mentioned prove that they
of employees and the issuance of
observed all the diligence of
proper instructions intended for the
a good father of a family to
protection of the public and persons
prevent damage.
with whom the employer has relations
When an injury is caused by the through his or its employees and the
negligence of a servant or employee imposition of necessary disciplinary
there instantly arises a presumption measures upon employees in case of
of law that there was negligence on breach or as may be warranted to
the part of the master or employer ensure the performance of acts
either in the selection of the servant indispensable to the business of and
or employee, or in supervision over beneficial to their employer. To this,
him after the selection, or both. If the we add that actual implementation
employer shows to the satisfaction of and monitoring of consistent
the court that in compliance with said rules should be
selection and supervision he has the constant concern of the employer,
exercised the care and diligence of a acting through dependable
good father of a family, the supervisors who should regularly
presumption is overcome and he is report on their supervisory functions.
relieved from liability. In order that the defense of due
diligence in the selection and
supervision of employees may be
deemed sufficient and plausible, it is
not enough to emptily invoke the
existence of said company guidelines
and policies on hiring and
supervision. As the negligence of the
employee gives rise to the In Espaol vs. Chairman, Philippine

presumption of negligence on the Veterans Administration, this Court
part of the employer, the latter has held as follows
the burden of proving that it has been The right of action accrues
diligent not only in the selection of when there exists a cause of
employees but also in the actual action, which consists of
supervision of their work. The mere 3 elements, namely: a) a
allegation of the existence of hiring right in favor of the plaintiff
procedures and supervisory policies, by whatever means and
without anything more, is decidedly under whatever law it arises
not sufficient to overcome such
or is created; b) an
presumption. obligation on the part of
defendant to respect such
right; and c) an act or
omission on the part of such
6. PRESCRIPTION defendant violative of the
right of the plaintiff xxx. It is
only when the last element
GR NO. 83524, October 13, 1989 occurs or takes place that it
can be said in law that a
ERNESTO KRAMER, JR. VS. CA
cause of action has arisen
Under Article 1146 of the Civil Code, xxx.
an action based upon a quasi-
delict must be instituted within four From the foregoing ruling, it is clear
(4) years. The prescriptive period that the prescriptive period must be
begins from the day the quasi- counted when the last element occurs
delict is committed. In an action for or takes place, that is, the time of the
damages arising from the commission of an act
collision of two (2) trucks, the action or omission violative of the
being based on a quasi-delict, the right of the plaintiff, which is the time
four (4) year prescriptive period must when the cause of action arises.
be counted from the day of the It is therefore clear that in this action
collision. for damages arising from the collision
of two (2) vessels the four (4) year
prescriptive period must be counted conditions, hence, they are precluded

from the day of the collision. The from asserting ignorance of the legal
aggrieved party need not wait for a effects of the undertaking they
determination by an administrative assumed thereunder. It is also
body like a Board of Marine Inquiry, presumed that private transactions
that the collision was caused by the have been fair and regular and that he
fault or negligence of the other who alleges has the burden of proving
party before he can file an action his allegation with the requisite
for damages. quantum of evidence. But here the
records of this case do not support
their claims.
Last, we find the defense of laches

unavailing. The question of laches is
GR NO. 125851, July 11, 2006
addressed to the sound discretion of
ALLIED BANKING CORP. VS. CA the court and since laches is an
Under Section 3 (d), Rule 131 of the equitable doctrine, its application is
Rules of Court, it is presumed that a controlled by equitable
person takes ordinary care of his considerations.
concerns. Hence, the natural
presumption is that one does not sign
a document without first informing
himself of its contents and IV. CAUSATION: PROXIMATE
consequences. Said presumption CAUSE
acquires greater force in the case at
bar where not only one document but A. DEFINITION
several documents were executed at
GR NO. L-10126, October 22, 1957
different times and at different places
by the herein respondent guarantors VDA. DE BATACLAN VS. MARIANO
and sureties. MEDINA
In this case, having affixed their Proximate CAuse is that cause,
consenting signatures in several which, in natural and continuous
documents executed at different sequence, unbroken by any efficient
times, it is safe to presume that they intervening cause, produces the
had full knowledge of its terms and injury, and without which the result
would not have occurred. And more vehicle. But in the present case and
comprehensively, the proximate legal under the circumstances obtaining in
cause is that acting first and the same, we do not hesitate to hold
producing the injury, either
that the proximate cause of the death
immediately or by setting other events
of Bataclan was the overturning of the
in motion, all constituting a natural
and continuous chain of events, each bus, this for the reason that when the
having a close causal connection with vehicle turned not only on its, side
its immediate predecessor, the final but completely on its back, the
event in the chain immediately leaking of the gasoline from the tank
effecting- the injury as a natural and
was not unnatural or unexpected; that
probable result of the cause which
the coming of the men with a lighted
first acted, under such circumstances
torch was in response to the call for
that the person responsible for the
first event should, as an ordinarily help, made not only by the
prudent and intelligent person, have passengers, but most probably, by the
reasonable ground to expect at the driver and the conductor themselves,
moment ofhis act or default that an and that because it was very dark
injury to some person might probably
(about 2:30 in the morning), the
result therefrom.
rescuers had to carry a light with
It may be that ordinarily, when a
them; and coming as they did from a
passenger bus overturns, and pins
rural area where lanterns and
down a passenger, merely causing
flashlights were not available, they
him physical injuries, if through some
had to use a torch, the most handy
event, unexpected and extraordinary,
and available; and what was more
the overturned bus is set on fire, say,
natural than that said rescuers should
by lightning, or if some highwaymen
innocently approach the overturned
after looting the vehicle sets it on fire,
vehicle to extend the aid and effect
and the passenger is burned to death,
the rescue requested from them.
one might still contend that the
proximate cause of his death was the
fire and not the overturning of the
GR NO. 92087, May 08, 1992 GR NO. 72964, January 07, 1998
SOFIA FERNANDO VS. CA FILOMENO URBANO VS. APPELLATE

To be entitled to damages for an COURT
injury resulting from the negligence of There is a likelihood that the wound
another, a claimant must establish the was but the remote cause and its
relation between the omission and the subsequent infection, for failure to
take necessary precautions, with
damage. He must prove under Article
tetanus may have been the proximate
2179 of the New Civil Code that the
cause of Javiers death with which the
defendants negligence was the petitioner had nothing to do.
immediate and proximate cause of his
A prior and remote cause cannot be
injury. Proximate cause has been made the basis of an action if such
defined as that cause, which, in remote cause did nothing more than
natural and continuous sequence furnish the condition or give rise to
unbroken by any efficient intervening the occasion by which the injury was
made possible, if there intervened
cause, produces the injury, and
between such prior or remote cause
without which the result would not
and the injury a distinct, successive,
have occurred (Vda. De Bataclan, et al.
unrelated, and efficient cause of the
v. Medina, 102 Phil 181, 186). injury, even though such injury would
not have happened but for such
Proof of such relation of cause and
effect is not an arduous one if the
existed in the condition except
claimant did not in any way contribute because of the independent cause,
to the negligence of the defendant. such condition was not the proximate
However, where the resulting injury cause. And if an independent
was the product of the negligence of negligent act or defective condition
sets into operation the circumstances,
both parties, there exists a difficulty
to discern which acts shall be
prior defective condition, such
considered the proximate cause of the
accident. proximate cause.
GR NO. 65295, March 10, 1987 GR NO. 105410, July 25, 1994
PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION VS. IAC PILIPINAS BANK VS. CA

Private respondent Dionisios For Article 2179 of the Civil Code to
negligence was only contributory, apply, it must be established that
that the immediate and proximate private respondents own negligence
cause of the injury remained the was the immediate and proximate
truck drivers lack of due care and cause of his injury. The concept of
that consequently respondent proximate cause is well defined in our
Dionisio may recover damages though corpus of jurisprudence as any cause
such damages are subject to which, in natural and continuous
mitigation by the courts. sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the result
The legal and proximate cause of the
complained of and without which
accident and of Dionisios injuries was
would not have occurred and from
the wrongful or negligent manner in
which it ought to have been forseen
which the dump truck was parked
or reasonably anticipated by a person
in other words, the negligence of
of ordinary case that the injury
petitioner CArbonel. That there was a
complained of or some similar injury,
reasonable relationship between
would result therefrom as a natural
petitioner CArbonels negligence on
and probable consequence.[4] In the
the one hand and the accident and
case at bench, the proximate cause of
respondents injuries on the other
the injury is the negligence
hand, is quite clear. Put in a slightly
of petitioners employee in
different manner, the collision of
erroneously posting the cash deposit
Dionisios car with the dump truck
of private respondent in the name of
was a natural and foreseeable
another depositor who had a similar
consequence of the truck drivers
first name.
negligence.
Applying the test, the bank employee
is, on that basis, deemed to have
failed to exercise the degree of care GR NO. 150304, June 15, 2005
required in the performance of his
QUEZON CITY VS. FULGENCIO
duties. As earlier stated, the bank
DACARA
employee posted the cash deposit in
Proximate cause is defined as any
the account of Florencio Amador from
cause that produces injury in a natural
his assumption that the name and continuous sequence, unbroken
Florencio appearing on the ledger by any efficient intervening cause,
without, however, going through the such that the result would not have
full name, is the same Florencio occurred otherwise. Proximate cause
is determined from the facts of each
stated in the deposit slip. He should
case, upon a combined consideration
have continuously gone beyond mere
of logic, common sense, policy and
assumption, which was proven to be
precedent.
erroneous, and proceeded with clear
What really caused the subject vehicle
certainty, considering the amount
to turn turtle is a factual issue that
involved and the repercussions it this Court cannot pass upon, absent
would create on the totality of the any whimsical or capricious exercise
person notable of which is the credit of judgment by the lower courts or an
standing of the person involved ample showing that they lacked any
basis for their conclusions. The
should a mistake happen. The checks
unanimity of the CA and the trial
issued by the plaintiff in the course of
court in their factual ascertainment
his business were dishonored by the that petitioners negligence was the
bank because the ledger of Florencio proximate cause of the accident bars
Reyes indicated a balance insufficient us from supplanting their findings
to cover the face value of checks. and substituting these with our own.
The function of this Court is limited to
the review of the appellate courts
alleged errors of law. It is not required
to weigh all over again the factual
evidence already considered in the
proceedings below. Petitioners have
not shown that they are entitled to an
exception to this rule. They have not who testified for the defendant gave a
sufficiently demonstrated any special more credible account of the affair
circumstances to justify a factual than the witnesses for the plaintiff.
review. According to the witnesses for the
defendant, it was Julio who jerked the
rein, thereby causing the bit to come
B. DISTINGUISHED FROM out of the horses mouth; and they
OTHER KINDS
say that Julio, after alighting, led the
1. REMOTE horse over to the curb, and proceeded

to fix the bridle; and that in so doing
GR NO. 15674, October 17, 1921 the bridle was slipped entirely off,
when the horse, feeling himself free
GABETO VS. AGATON ARANETA from control, started to go away as
The stopping of the rig by Agaton previously stated.
Araneta in the middle of the street
was too remote from the accident that
presently ensued to be considered the
legal or proximate cause thereof.
GR NO. 72964, January 07, 1998
Moreover, by getting out and taking
his post at the head of the horse, the URBANO VS. APPELLATE COURT
driver was the person primarily There is a likelihood that the wound
responsible for the control of the was but the remote cause and its
animal, and the defendant cannot be subsequent infection, for failure to
charged with liability for the accident take necessary precautions, with
resulting from the action of the horse tetanus may have been the proximate
thereafter. cause of Javiers death with which the
The evidence indicates that the bridle petitioner had nothing to do.
was old, and the leather of which it A prior and remote cause cannot be
was made was probably so weak as to made the basis of an action if such
be easily broken. Julio Pagnaya had a remote cause did nothing more than
natural interest in refuting this fact, furnish the condition or give rise to
as well as in exculpating himself in the occasion by which the injury was
other respects; and we are of the made possible, if there intervened
opinion that the several witnesses between such prior or remote cause
and the injury a distinct, successive, which the injury would not have
unrelated, and efficient cause of the resulted to as great an extent, and
injury, even though such injury would that such cause is not attributable to
not have happened but for such the person injured. It is no defense to
condition or occasion. If no danger one of the concurrent tortfeasors that
existed in the condition except the injury would not have resulted
because of the independent cause, from his negligence alone, without the
such condition was not the proximate negligence or wrongful acts of the
cause. And if an independent other concurrent tortfeasor. Where
negligent act or defective condition several causes producing an injury are
sets into operation the circumstances, concurrent and each is an efficient
which result in injury because of the cause without which the injury would
prior defective condition, such not have happened, the injury may be
subsequent act or condition is the attributed to all or any of the causes
proximate cause. and recovery may be had against any
or all of the responsible persons
although under the circumstances of
2. CONCURRENT the case, it may appear that one of
them was more culpable, and that the
GR NO. 130068, October 01, 1998 duty owed by them to the injured
person was not the same. No actors
FAR EASTERN SHIPPING CO. VS CA
negligence ceases to be a proximate
Negligence in order to render a
cause merely because it does not
person liable need not be the sole
exceed the negligence of other actors.
cause of an injury. It is sufficient that
Each wrongdoer is responsible for the
his negligence, concurring with one or
entire result and is liable as though
more efficient causes other than
his acts were the sole cause of the
plaintiffs, is the proximate cause of
injury.
the injury. Accordingly, where several
causes combine to produce injuries, a There is no contribution between joint
person is not relieved from liability tortfeasors whose liability is solidary
because he is responsible for only one since both of them are liable for the
of them, it being sufficient that the total damage. Where the concurrent
negligence of the person charged with or successive negligent acts or
injury is an efficient cause without omissions of two or more persons,
although acting independently, are in came from the opposite direction, so

combination the direct and proximate that, in this sense, petitioners truck
cause of a single injury to a third had the last clear chance.
person, it is impossible to determine According to the great weight of
in what proportion each contributed authority, where the concurrent or
to the injury and either of them is successive negligent acts or omission
responsible for the whole injury. of two or more persons, although
Where their concurring negligence acting independently of each other,
resulted in injury or damage to a third are, in combination, the direct and
party, they become joint tortfeasors proximate cause of a single injury to a
and are solidarity liable for the
third person, and it is impossible to
resulting damage under Article 2194 determine in what proportion each
of the Civil Code. contributed to the injury, either is
responsible for the whole injury, even
though his act alone might not have
caused the entire injury, or the same
GR NO. L-21512, August 31, 1966 damage might have resulted from the
acts of the other tortfeasor.
PROSPERO SABIDO VS. CARLOS
CUSTODIO
Although the negligence of the carrier C. TESTS
and its driver is independent, in its
GR NO. L-10126, October 22, 1957
execution, of the negligence of the
truck driver and its owner, both acts
DE BATACLAN VS. MARIANO MEDINA
of negligence are the proximate cause
Proximate CAuse is that cause,
of the death of Agripino Custodio. In
which, in natural and continuous
fact, the negligence of the first two (2)
sequence, unbroken by any efficient
would not have produced this result
intervening cause, produces the
without the negligence of petitioners
injury, and without which the result
herein. What is more, petitioners
would not have occurred. And more
negligence was the last, in point of
comprehensively, the proximate legal
time, for Custodio was on the running
cause is that acting first and
board of the carriers bus
sometime before petitioners truck
in motion, all constituting a natural bus, this for the reason that when the
and continuous chain of events, each vehicle turned not only on its, side
having a close causal connection with but completely on its back, the
its immediate predecessor, the final
leaking of the gasoline from the tank
event in the chain immediately
was not unnatural or unexpected; that
effecting- the injury as a natural and
probable result of the cause which the coming of the men with a lighted
first acted, under such circumstances torch was in response to the call for
that the person responsible for the help, made not only by the
first event should, as an ordinarily passengers, but most probably, by the
prudent and intelligent person, have
driver and the conductor themselves,
reasonable ground to expect at the
and that because it was very dark
moment of his act or default that an
(about 2:30 in the morning), the
injury to some person might probably
result therefrom. rescuers had to carry a light with
them; and coming as they did from a
It may be that ordinarily, when a
rural area where lanterns and
passenger bus overturns, and pins
flashlights were not available, they
down a passenger, merely causing
had to use a torch, the most handy
him physical injuries, if through some
and available; and what was more
event, unexpected and extraordinary,
natural than that said rescuers should
the overturned bus is set on fire, say,
innocently approach the overturned
by lightning, or if some highwaymen
vehicle to extend the aid and effect
after looting the vehicle sets it on fire,
the rescue requested from them.
and the passenger is burned to death,
one might still contend that the
proximate cause of his death was the
GR NOS. 66102-04, August 30, 1990
fire and not the overturning of the
vehicle. But in the present case and PHILIPPINE RABBIT VS. IAC
under the circumstances obtaining in It is the rule under the substantial
the same, we do not hesitate to hold factor test that if the actors conduct
that the proximate cause of the death is a substantial factor it bringing
of Bataclan was the overturning of the about harm to another, the fact that
the actor neither foresaw nor should created only a passive static condition
have foreseen the extent of the harm which made the damage possible, the
or the manner in which it occurred defendant is said not to be liable. But
does not prevent him from being so far as the fact of causation is
liable (Restatement, Torts, 2d). Here, concerned, in the sense of necessary
We find defendant bus running at a antecedents which have played an
fast speed when the accident occurred important part in producing the
and did not even make the slightest result, it is quite impossible to
effort to avoid the accident, distinguish between active forces and
x x x. The bus drivers conduct is passive situations, particularly since,
thus a substantial factor in bringing as is invariably the case, the latter are
about harm to the passengers of the result of other active forces which
the jeepney, not only because he was have gone before. The defendant who
driving fast and did not even attempt spills gasoline about the premises
to avoid the mishap, but also because creates a condition; but the act may
it was the bus which was the physical be culpable because of the danger of
force which brought about the injury fire. When a spark ignites the
and death to the passengers of gasoline, the condition has done quite
the jeepney. as much to bring about the fire as the
spark; and since that is the very risk
which the defendant has created, the
defendant will not escape
responsibility. Even the lapse of a
GR NO. 65295, March 10, 1987
considerable time during which the
PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION VS. IAC condition remains static will not
Many courts have sought to necessarily affect liability; one who
distinguish between the active cause digs a trench in the highway may still
of the harm and the existing be liable to another who falls into it a
conditions upon which that cause month afterward. CAuse and
operated. If the defendant has condition still find occasional
mention in the decisions; but the remote cause did nothing more than
distinction is now almost entirely furnish the condition or give rise to
discredited. So far as it has any the occasion by which the injury was
validity at all, it must refer to the type
between such prior or remote cause
of case where the forces set in
and the injury a distinct, successive,
operation by the defendant have come unrelated, and efficient cause of the
to rest in a position of apparent injury, even though such injury would
safety, and some new force not have happened but for such
intervenes. But even in such cases, it condition or occasion. If no danger
is not the distinction between cause
because of the independent cause,
and condition which is important,
such condition was not the proximate
but the nature of the risk and the
cause. And if an independent
character of the intervening cause. negligent act or defective condition
sets into operation the circumstances
GR NO. L-8328, May 18, 1956 proximate cause.
MANILA ELECTRIC VS. REBIOQUILLO

The principal and proximate cause of
the electrocution was not the electric
GR NO. 15688, November 19, 1921
wire, evidently a remote cause, but
rather the reckless and negligent act RODRIGUEZA VS. MANILA RAILROAD
of Magno in turning around and
With respect to the case of Remigio
swinging the galvanized iron sheet
Rodrigueza it is to be inferred that his
without taking any precaution, such
house stood upon this ground before
as looking back toward the street and
the Railroad Company laid its line
at the wire to avoid its contacting said
over this course; and at any rate there
iron sheet, considering the lattery
is no proof that this plaintiff had
length of 6 feet.
unlawfully intruded upon the
A prior and remote cause cannot be railroads property in the act of
made the basis of an action if such
building his house. What really locomotives was an antecedent

occurred undoubtedly is that the condition that may in fact have made
company, upon making this the disaster possible, but that
extension, had acquired the land only, circumstance cannot be imputed to
leaving the owner of the house free to him as contributory negligence
remove it. Hence he cannot be destructive of his right of action,
considered to have been a trespasser because, first, that condition was not
in the beginning. Rather, he was there created by himself; secondly, because
at the sufferance of the defendant his house remained on this ground by
company, and so long as his house the toleration, and therefore with the
remained in this exposed position, he consent of the Railroad Company; and
undoubtedly assumed the risk of any thirdly, because even supposing the
loss that might have resulted from house to be improperly there, this fact
fires occasioned by the defendants would not justify the defendant in
locomotives if operated and managed negligently destroying it.
with ordinary care. But he cannot be
held to have assumed the risk of any
damage that might result from the
unlawful negligent acts of the
D. EFFICIENT INTERVENING
defendant. Nobody is bound to CAUSE
anticipate and defend himself against
the possible negligence of another. GR NO. 68102, July 16, 1992
Rather he has a right to assume that
the other will use the care of the GEORGE MCKEE VS. IAC
ordinarily prudent man. Proximate cause has been defined as,

that cause, which, in natural and
In the situation now under
continuous sequence, unbroken by
consideration the proximate and only
any efficient intervening cause,
cause of the damage that occurred
produces the injury, and without
was the negligent act of the defendant
which the result would not have
in causing this fire. The circumstance
occurred. And more
that Remigio Rodriguezas house was
comprehensively, the proximate legal
partly on the property of the
cause is that acting first and
defendant company and therefore in
dangerous proximity to passing
in motion, all constituting a natural precautionary measure under the

and continuous chain of events, each given circumstances, the truck driver
having a close causal connection with continued at full speed towards the
its immediate predecessor, the final car. The truck drivers negligence
event in the chain immediately becomes more apparent in view of the
effecting the injury as a natural and fact that the road is 7.50 meters wide
probable result of the cause which while the car measures 1.598 meters
first acted, under such circumstances and the truck, 2.286 meters, in width.
that the person responsible for the This would mean that both car and
first event should, as an ordinary truck could pass side by side with a
prudent and intelligent person, have clearance of 3.661 meters to
reasonable ground to expect at the spare. Furthermore, the bridge has a
moment of his act or default that an level sidewalk which could have
injury to some person might probably partially accommodated the truck.
result therefrom. Any reasonable man finding himself in
the given situation would have tried to
Applying the above definition,
avoid the car instead of meeting it
although it may be said that the act of
head-on.
Jose Koh, 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
GR NO. L-8328, May 18, 1956
sufficient intervening event, the
negligent act of the truck driver, MANILA ELECTRIC VS. REBIOQUILLO
which was the actual cause of the The principal and proximate cause of
tragedy. The entry of the car into the the electrocution was not the electric
lane of the truck would not have wire, evidently a remote cause, but
resulted in the collision had the latter rather the reckless and negligent act
heeded the emergency signals given of Magno in turning around and
by the former to slow down and give swinging the galvanized iron sheet
the car an opportunity to go back into without taking any precaution, such
its proper lane. Instead of slowing as looking back toward the street and
down and swerving to the far right of at the wire to avoid its contacting said
the road, which was the proper
iron sheet, considering the lattery an injury by the intervention of

length of 6 feet. another agency if the occurrence of
A prior and remote cause cannot be the accident, in the manner in which it
made the basis of an action if such happened, was the very thing which
remote cause did nothing more than the statute or ordinance was intended
furnish the condition or give rise to
to prevent. To consider the violation
the occasion by which the injury was
of the ordinance as the proximate
between such prior or remote cause cause of the injury does not portray
and the injury a distinct, successive, the situation in its true perspective; it
unrelated, and efficient cause of the would be more accurate to say that
injury, even though such injury would the overcrowding at the stairway was
not have happened but for such the proximate cause and that it was
precisely what the ordinance intended
to prevent by requiring that there be
because of the independent cause,
such condition was not the proximate two stairways instead of only one.
cause. And if an independent Under the doctrine of the cases cited
negligent act or defective condition by the respondents, the principle of
sets into operation the circumstances proximate cause applies to such
violation.
subsequent act or condition is the As thus projected the violation of the
proximate cause. ordinance, it is argued, was only a
remote cause, if at all, and cannot be
the basis of liability since there
intervened a number of independent
causes which produced the injury
GR NO. L-29745, June 04, 1973
complained of. A statement of the
doctrine relied upon is found in
TEAGUE VS. ELENA FERNANDEZ
Manila Electric Co. vs. Remoquillo, L-
The general principle is that the
8328, May 18, 1956, wherein this
violation of a statute or ordinance is
Court, citing Corpus Juris, said:
not rendered remote as the cause of
A prior and remote cause GR NO. 72964, January 07, 1998

cannot be made the basis of
an action if such remote URBANO VS. APPELLATE COURT
cause did nothing more than There is a likelihood that the wound
furnish the condition or give was but the remote cause and its
rise to the occasion by which subsequent infection, for failure to
the injury was made take necessary precautions, with
possible, if there intervened tetanus may have been the proximate
between such prior or cause of Javiers death with which the
remote cause and the injury petitioner had nothing to do.
a distinct, successive, A prior and remote cause cannot be
unrelated, and efficient cause made the basis of an action if such
of the injury, even though remote cause did nothing more than
such injury would not have furnish the condition or give rise to
happened but for such the occasion by which the injury was
condition or occasion. If no made possible, if there intervened
danger existed in the between such prior or remote cause
condition except because of and the injury a distinct, successive,
the independent cause, such unrelated, and efficient cause of the
condition was not the injury, even though such injury would
proximate cause. And if an not have happened but for such
independent negligent act or condition or occasion. If no danger
defective condition sets into existed in the condition except
operation the circumstances because of the independent cause,
which result in injury such condition was not the proximate
because of the prior cause. And if an independent
defective condition, such negligent act or defective condition
subsequent act or condition sets into operation the circumstances,
is the proximate cause. which result in injury because of the
proximate cause.
E. LAST CLEAR CHANCE his negligence at that point will

prevent a recovery. When a traveler
G.R. No. L-12219; March 15, 1918
has reached a point where he cannot
PICART VS. FRANK SMITH, JR. extricate himself and vigilance on his
The existence of negligence in a given part will not avert the injury, his
case is not determined by reference to negligence in reaching that position
the personal judgment of the actor in becomes the condition and not the
the situation before him. The law proximate cause of the injury and will
considers what would be reckless, not preclude a recovery.
blameworthy, or negligent in the man
of ordinary intelligence and prudence
and determines liability by that. GR NO. 89880, February 06, 1991
It will be noted that the negligent acts ADRIANO BUSTAMANTE VS. CA

of the two parties were not The doctrine of last clear chance, as
contemporaneous, since the stated broadly, is that the negligence
negligence of the defendant of the plaintiff does not preclude a
succeeded the negligence of the recovery for the negligence of the
plaintiff by an appreciable interval. defendant where it appears that the
Under these circumstances the law is defendant, by exercising reasonable
that the person who has the last fair care and prudence, might have
chance to avoid the impending harm avoided injurious consequences to the
and fails to do so is chargeable with plaintiff notwithstanding the
the consequences, without reference plaintiffs negligence. In other words,
to the prior negligence of the other the doctrine of last clear chance
party. means that even though a persons
The "last clear chance" rule of the law own acts may have placed him in a
of negligence as particularly applied position of peril, and an injury results,
to automobile accidents. This rule the injured person is entitled to
cannot be invoked where the recovery. As the doctrine is usually
negligence of the plaintiff is stated, a person who has the last clear
concurrent with that of the defendant. chance or opportunity of avoiding an
Again, if a traveler when he reaches accident, notwithstanding the
the point of collision is in a situation negligent acts of his opponent or that
to extricate himself and avoid injury, of a third person imputed to the
opponent is considered in law solely negligent. As against third persons, a

responsible for the consequences of negligent actor cannot defend by
the accident. pleading that another had negligently
failed to take action which could have
The practical import of the doctrine is
avoided the injury.
that a negligent defendant held liable
to a negligent plaintiff, or even to a
plaintiff who has been grossly
negligent in placing himself in peril, if
he, aware of the plaintiffs peril, or
GR NO. 65295, March 10, 1987
according to some authorities, should
have been aware of it in the PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION VS. IAC
reasonable exercise of due case, had The theory here of petitioners is that
in fact an opportunity later than that while the petitioner truck driver was
of the plaintiff to avoid an accident negligent, private respondent Dionisio
The principle of last clear chance had the last clear chance of avoiding
applies in a suit between the owners the accident and hence his injuries,
and drivers of colliding vehicles. It and that Dionisio having failed to take
does not arise where a passenger that last clear chance must bear his
demands responsibility from the own injuries alone. The last clear
carrier to enforce its contractual chance doctrine of the common law
obligations. For it would he was imported into our jurisdiction
inequitable to exempt the negligent by Picart vs. Smith but it is a matter
driver of the jeepney and its owners for debate whether, or to what extent,
on the ground that the other driver it has found its way into the Civil
was likewise guilty of negligence. Code of the Philippines. The
historical function of that doctrine in
Furthermore, as between
the common law was to mitigate the
defendants: The doctrine cannot be
harshness of another common law
extended into the field of joint
doctrine or rule that of contributory
tortfeasors as a test of whether only
negligence. The common law rule of
one of them should be held liable to
contributory negligence prevented any
the injured person by reason of his
recovery at all by a plaintiff who was
discovery of the latters peril, and it
also negligent, even if the plaintiffs
cannot be invoked as between
negligence was relatively minor as
defendants concurrently
compared with the wrongful act or time of the plaintiffs and the
omission of the defendant. The defendants negligent acts or
common law notion of last clear omissions, is only one of the relevant
chance permitted courts to grant factors that may be taken into
recovery to a plaintiff who had also account. Of more fundamental
been negligent provided that the importance are the nature of the
defendant had the last clear chance to negligent act or omission of each
avoid the casualty and failed to do so. party and the character and gravity of
Accordingly, it is difficult to see what the risks created by such act or
role, if any, the common law last clear omission for the rest of the
chance doctrine has to play in a community. The petitioners urge that
jurisdiction where the common law the truck driver (and therefore his
concept of contributory negligence as employer) should be absolved from
an absolute bar to recovery by the responsibility for his own prior
plaintiff, has itself been rejected, as it negligence because the unfortunate
has been in Article 2179 of the Civil plaintiff failed to act with that
Code of the Philippines. increased diligence which had become
necessary to avoid the peril precisely
Is there perhaps a general concept of
created by the truck drivers own
last clear chance that may be
wrongful act or omission. To accept
extracted from its common law matrix
this proposition is to come too close
and utilized as a general rule in
to wiping out the fundamental
negligence cases in a civil law
principle of law that a man must
jurisdiction like ours? We do not
respond for the foreseeable
believe so. Under Article 2179, the
task of a court, in technical terms, is consequences of his own negligent
act or omission. Our law on quasi-
to determine whose negligence the
delicts seeks to reduce the risks and
plaintiffs or the defendants was
burdens of living in society and to
the legal or proximate cause of the
allocate them among the members of
injury. That task is not simply or even
society. To accept the petitioners
primarily an exercise in chronology or
proposition must tend to weaken the
physics, as the petitioners seem to
very bonds of society.
imply by the use of terms like last or
intervening or immediate. The
relative location in the continuum of
GR NO. 70493, May 18, 1989 The doctrine of the last clear chance
provides as valid and complete a
GLAN PEOPLES LUMBER VS. IAC defense to accident liability today as it
Both drivers, as the Appellate Court did when invoked and applied in the
found, had had a full view of each 1918 case of Picart vs. Smith, which
others vehicle from a distance of one involved a similar state of facts.
hundred fifty meters. Both vehicles
were travelling at a speed of
approximately thirty kilometers per
hour. The private respondents have
admitted that the truck was already at GR NOS. 79050-51, November 14,
a full stop when the jeep plowed into 1989
it. And they have not seen fit to deny
or impugn petitioners imputation PANTRANCO VS. MARICAR BASCOS
that they also admitted the truck had BAESA
been brought to a stop while the jeep For the doctrine to be applicable, it is
was still thirty meters away. From necessary to show that the person
these facts the logical conclusion who allegedly had the last opportunity
emerges that the driver of the jeep
to avert the accident was aware of the
had what judicial doctrine has
existence of the peril or should, with
appropriately called the last clear
chance to avoid the accident, while exercise of due care, have been aware
still at that distance of thirty meters of it. One cannot be expected to
from the truck, by stopping in his turn avoid an accident or injury if he does
or swerving his jeep away from the not know or could not have known the
truck, either of which he had
existence of the peril. In this case,
sufficient time to do while running at
there is nothing to show that
a speed of only thirty kilometers per
the jeepney driver David Ico knew of
hour. In those circumstances, his
duty was to seize that opportunity of the impending danger. When he saw
avoidance, not merely rely on a at a distance that the approaching bus
supposed right to expect, as the was encroaching on his lane, he did
Appellate Court would have it, the not immediately swerve the jeepney to
truck to swerve and leave him a clear
the dirt shoulder on his right since he
path.
must have assumed that the bus attributed to the incident, the one
driver will return the bus to its own who had the last clear opportunity to
lane upon seeing avoid the impending harm and failed
the jeepney approaching from the to do so is chargeable with the
opposite direction. consequences thereof. Stated
differently, the rule would also mean
the last clear chance doctrine can
that an antecedent negligence of a
never apply where the party charged
person does not preclude the recovery
is required to act instantaneously, and
of damages for the supervening
if the injury cannot be avoided by the
negligence of, or bar a defense
application of all means at hand after
against liability sought by another, if
the peril is or should have been
the latter, who had the last fair
discovered [Ong v. Metropolitan
chance, could have avoided the
Water District].
impending harm by the exercise of
due diligence. Here, assuming that
private respondent RMC was negligent
in entrusting cash to a dishonest
GR NO. 97626, March 14, 1997 employee, thus providing the latter
with the opportunity to defraud the
PHILIPPINE BANK VS. CA
company, as advanced by the
Under the doctrine of last clear
petitioner, yet it cannot be denied that
chance (also referred to, at times as
the petitioner bank, thru its teller, had
supervening negligence or as
the last clear opportunity to avert the
discovered peril), petitioner bank
injury incurred by its client, simply by
was indeed the culpable party. This
faithfully observing their self-imposed
doctrine, in essence, states that where
validation procedure.
both parties are negligent, but the
negligent act of one is appreciably Coming now to the doctrine of last
later in time than that of the other, or clear chance, it is my considered view
when it is impossible to determine that the doctrine assumes that the
whose fault or negligence should be negligence of the defendant was
subsequent to the negligence of the taken ordinary care of its concerns, as

plaintiff and the same must be the what the law presumes. Its
proximate cause of the injury. In negligence, therefore, is not
short, there must be a last and a clear contributory but the immediate and
chance, not a last possible chance, to proximate cause of its injury.
avoid the accident or injury. It must
have been a chance as would have
enabled a reasonably prudent man in GR NO. L-7664, August 29, 1958
like position to have acted effectively
to avoid the injury and the resulting ONG VS. METROPOLITAN WATER
damage to himself. The doctrine of last clear chance
In the case at bar, the bank was not simply means that the negligence of a
remiss in its duty of sending monthly claimant does not preclude a recovery
bank statements to private for the negligence of defendant where
respondent RMC so that any error or it appears that the latter, by
discrepancy in the entries therein exercising reasonable care and
could be brought to the banks
prudence, might have avoided
attention at the earliest opportunity.
injurious consequences to claimant
Private respondent failed to examine
these bank statements not because it notwithstanding his negligence. Or,
was prevented by some cause in not As the doctrine usually is stated, a
doing so, but because it was person who has the last clear chance
purposely negligent as it admitted or opportunity of avoiding an
that it does not normally check bank
accident, notwithstanding the
statements given by banks.
negligent acts of his opponent or the
It was private respondent who had the negligence of a third person which is
last and clear chance to prevent any
imputed to his opponent, is
further misappropriation by Yabut had
considered in law solely responsible
it only reviewed the status of its
current accounts on the bank for the consequences of the accident.
statements sent to it monthly or
Since it is not known how minor Ong
regularly. Since a sizable amount of
came into the big swimming pool and
cash was entrusted to Yabut, private
it being apparent that he went there
respondent should, at least, have
without any companion in violation of remembered that the obligation of the

one of the regulations of appellee as carrier to transport its passengers
regards the use of the pools, and it safely is such that the New Civil Code
appearing that lifeguard Abao requires utmost diligence from the
responded to the call for help as soon carriers (Act. 1755) who are
as his attention was called to it and presumed to have been at fault or to
immediately after retrieving the body have acted negligently, unless they
all efforts at the disposal of appellee prove that they have observed
had been put into play in order to extraordinary diligence (Art. 1756).
bring him back to life, it is clear that In this instance, this legal
there is no room for the application of presumption of negligence is
the doctrine now invoked by confirmed by the CA finding that the
appellants to impute liability to driver of the jeepney in question was
appellee. at fault in parking the vehicle
improperly. It must follow that the
The last clear chance doctrine can
driverand the ownersof the
never apply where the party charged
jeepney must answer for injuries to its
is required to act instantaneously, and
passengers.
if the injury cannot be avoided by the
application of all means at hand after The principle about the last clear
the peril is or should have been chance would call for application in a
discovered; at least in cases in which suit between the owners and drivers
any previous negligence of the party of the two colliding vehicles. It does
charged cannot be said to have not arise where a passenger demands
contributed to the injury. responsibility from the carrier to
enforce its contractual obligation. For
it would be inequitable to exempt the
Nos. L-21353-54, May 20, 1966 negligent driver of the jeepney and its
owners on the ground that the other
ANURAN VS. PEPITO BUNO driver was likewise guilty of
Upon further and more extended negligence.
consideration of the matter, we have
become convinced that error of law.
was committed in releasing the
jeepney from liability. It must be
GR NO. 120027, April 21, 1999 that where both parties are negligent
but the negligent act of one is
EDNA A. RAYNERA VS. FREDDIE appreciably later in point of time than
HICETA that of the other, or where it is
It has been said that drivers of impossible to determine whose fault
vehicles who bump the rear of or negligence brought about the
another vehicle are presumed to be occurrence of the incident, the one
the cause of the accident, unless who had the last clear opportunity to
contradicted by other evidence. The avoid the impending harm but failed
rationale behind the presumption is to do so, is chargeable with the
that the driver of the rear vehicle has consequences arising therefrom.
full control of the situation as he is in Stated differently, the rule is that the
a position to observe the vehicle in antecedent negligence of a person
front of him. does not preclude recovery of
The responsibility to avoid the damages caused by the supervening
collision with the front vehicle lies negligence of the latter, who had the
with the driver of the rear vehicle. last fair chance to prevent the
Consequently, no other person was to impending harm by the exercise of
blame but the victim himself since he due diligence.
was the one who bumped his Assuming that Osmundo CAnlas was
motorcycle into the rear of the Isuzu negligent in giving Vicente Maosca
truck. He had the last clear chance of the opportunity to perpetrate the
avoiding the accident. fraud, by entrusting to latter the
owners copy of the transfer
certificates of title of subject parcels
of land, it cannot be denied that the
bank had the last clear chance to
GR NO. 112160, February 28, 2000 prevent the fraud, by the simple
expedient of faithfully complying with
OSMUNDO S. CANLAS VS. CA
the requirements for banks to
Under the doctrine of last clear
ascertain the identity of the persons
chance, which is applicable here, the
transacting with them.
respondent bank must suffer the
resulting loss. In essence, the doctrine
of last clear chance is to the effect
GR NO. 138569, September 11, 2003 the plaintiff but does not exculpate
the defendant from his breach of
CONSOLIDATED BANK VS. CA contract.
The doctrine of last clear chance
states that where both parties are
negligent but the negligent act of one GR NO. 140698, June 20, 2003
is appreciably later than that of the
other, or where it is impossible to ROGELIO ENGADA VS. CA
determine whose fault or negligence The doctrine of last clear chance
caused the loss, the one who had the states that a person who has the last
last clear opportunity to avoid the loss clear chance or opportunity of
but failed to do so, is chargeable with
avoiding an accident, notwithstanding
the loss. Stated differently, the
the negligent acts of his opponent, is
antecedent negligence of the plaintiff
does not preclude him from considered in law solely responsible
recovering damages caused by the for the consequences of the
supervening negligence of the accident. But as already stated on this
defendant, who had the last fair point, no convincing evidence was
chance to prevent the impending
adduced by petitioner to support his
harm by the exercise of due diligence.
invocation of the abovecited doctrine.
We do not apply the doctrine of last
Instead, what has been shown is the
clear chance to the present
presence of an emergency and the
case. Solidbank is liable for breach of
proper application of the emergency
contract due to negligence in the
performance of its contractual rule. Petitioners act of swerving to
obligation to L.C. Diaz. This is a case the Tamaraws lane at a distance of
of culpa contractual, where neither 30 meters from it and driving the
the contributory negligence of the Isuzu pick-up at a fast speed as it
plaintiff nor his last clear chance to
approached the Tamaraw, denied Iran
avoid the loss, would exonerate the
time and opportunity to ponder the
defendant from liability. Such
contributory negligence or last clear situation at all. There was no clear
chance by the plaintiff merely serves chance to speak of. Accordingly, the
to reduce the recovery of damages by CA did not err in holding petitioner
responsible for the vehicular collision hardly be faulted for whatever she
and the resulting damages, including might have done to the animal.
the injuries suffered by Mrs. Sheila
Seyan and the total loss of the
Tamaraw jeepney. It also did not err
in imposing on petitioner the B. THINGS THROWN OR
sentence of four (4) months of arresto FALLING FROM A BUILDING
mayor.
GR NO. 47033, April 25, 1941
JOSE DINGDONG VS. HALIM KANAAN

As Jose Dingcong joint tenant and
manager of the hotel, with full
V. LIABILITY
possession of the top of the house,
A. POSSESSOR OF ANIMALS
you must answer for damages caused
GR NO. 74431, November 06, 1989 by things that were thrown or fell
from it (Article 1910 Civil Code).
PURITA MIRANDA VESTIL VS IAC
Francisco Echevarria was a guest of
Article 2183 of the Civil Code holds
the hotel was the one who directly by
the possessor liable even if the animal
their neglect, leaving open the tap, let
should escape or be lost and so be
the water pipe pull back on the
removed from his control. And it does
ground and seep into the low, dipping
not matter either that, as the
the articles and goods of the
petitioners also contend, the dog was
plaintiffs. Dingcong Jose, on the other
tame and was merely provoked by the
hand, do not practice the diligence of
child into biting her. The law does not
a good father to prevent this damage,
speak only of vicious animals but
however they knew because they
covers even tame ones as long as they
could cause then repair the pipes,
cause injury. As for the alleged
then, must presume that Echavarria
provocation, the petitioners forget
could use the tap does not provided
that Theness was only three years old
some container with adequate
at the time she was attacked and can
drainage, and if you just put a pan pursuance of his employment. At the
under it that, when filled, the water time that he was run over by the truck
was spread on the ground. Leopoldo Madlangbayan was not in

the pursuance of his employment with
the defendant corporation, but was on
his way home after he had finished his
work for the day and had left the
C. DEATH INJURIES IN THE territory where he was authorized to
COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT make collections for the defendant.
The employer is not an insurer
GR NO. 36858, March 06, 1933
against all accidental injuries which
might happen to an employee while in
JUSTA AFABLE VS. SINGER SEWING
the course of the employment, and
As the deceased Leopoldo
as a general rule an employee is not
Madlangbayan was killed on
entitled to recover from personal
November 16, 1930, and Act No.
injuries resulting from an accident
3812 was not approved until
that befalls him while going to or
December 8, 1930, it is apparent that
returning from his place of
the law which is applicable is Act No.
employment, because such an
3428, section 2 of which reads as
accident does not arise out of and in
follows:
the course of his employment.
When any employee receives a
The phrase due to and in the
personal injury from any
pursuance of used in section 2 of Act
accident due to and in the
No. 3428 was changed in Act No.
pursuance of the employment,
3812 to arising out of and in the
or contracts any illness directly
course of. Discussing this phrase, the
caused by such employment or
Supreme Court of Illinois in the case
the result of the nature of such
of Mueller Construction Co. vs.
employment, his employer shall
Industrial Board, said:
pay compensation in the sums
and to the persons hereinafter The words arising out of refer
specified. to the origin or cause of the
accident, and are descriptive of
The accident which caused the death its character, while the words
of the employee was not due to and in in the course of refer to the
time, place, and circumstances D. STRICT LIABILITY / PRODUCT

LIABILITY
under which the accident takes
place. (Fitzgerald vs. Clarke & GR NO. 110295, October 18, 1993
Sons, 1 B. W. C. C, 197; Dietzen
Co. vs. Industrial Board, 279 III., COCA-COLA BOTTLERS VS. CA
11; 116 N. E,, 684.) By the use The vendor could likewise be liable
of these words it was not the for quasi-delict under Article 2176 of
intention of the legislature to the Civil Code, and an action based
make the employer an insurer thereon may be brought by the
against all accidental injuries vendee. While it may be true that the
which might happen to an pre-existing contract between the
employee while in the course of parties may, as a general rule, bar the
the employment, but only for applicability of the law on quasi-
such injuries arising from or delict, the liability may itself be
growing out of the risks deemed to arise from quasi-delict,
peculiar to the nature of the i.e., the act which breaks the contract
work in the scope of the may also be a quasi-delict.
workmans employment or Thus, in Singson vs. Bank of the
incidental to such employment, Philippine Islands, this Court stated:
and accidents in which it is
"We have repeatedly held,
possible to trace the injury to
however, that the existence of
some risk or hazard to which
a contract between the parties
the employee is exposed in a
does not bar the commission
special degree by reason of
of a tort by the one against the
such employment. Risks to
other and the consequent
which all persons similarly
recovery of damages
situated are equally exposed
therefor. Indeed, this view has
and not traceable in some
been, in effect, reiterated in a
special degree to the particular
comparatively recent case.
employment are excluded.
Thus, in Air France vs.
CArrascoso, involving an
airplane passenger who,
despite his first-class ticket,
had been illegally ousted from
his first-class accommodation E. INTERFERANCE WITH

CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
and compelled to take a seat in
the tourist compartment, was GR NO. 9356, February 18, 1915
held entitled to recover
damages from the air-carrier, GILCHRIST VS. CUDDY ET AL.
upon the ground of tort on the Everyone has a right to enjoy the
latters part, for, although the fruits and advantages of his own
relation between the passenger
enterprise, industry, skill and credit.
and a carrier is contractual
He has no right to be protected
both in origin and nature x x x
the act that breaks the contract against competition; but he has a
may also be a tort." right to be free from malicious and
wanton interference, disturbance or
Otherwise put, liability for quasi-
annoyance. If disturbance or
delict may still exist despite the
presence of contractual relations. losscome as a result of competition,
or the exercise of like rights by
Under American law, the liabilities of
the manufacturer or seller of injury- others, it is damnum absque injuria,
causing products may be based on unless some superior right by
negligence, breach of contract or otherwise is interfered
warranty, tort, or other grounds such with.
as fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation. Quasi-delict, as It is said that the ground on which the
defined in Article 2176 of the Civil liability of a third party for interfering
Code, (which is known in Spanish with a contract between others rests,
legal treatises as culpa aquiliana, is that the interference was
culpa extra-contractual or cuasi malicious. The contrary view,
delitos) is homologous but not however, is taken by the Supreme
identical to tort under the common Court of the United States in the case
law, which includes not only of Angle vs. Railway Co. (151 U. S.,
negligence, but also intentional 1). The only motive for interference
criminal acts, such as assault and by the third party in that case was the
battery, false imprisonment, and desire to make a profit to the injury of
deceit. one of the parties of the
contract. There was no malice in the
case beyond the desire to make an GR NO. 120554, September 21, 1999
unlawful gain to the detriment of one
of the contracting parties. SO PING BUN VS. CA
The elements of tort interference are:
In the case at bar the only motive for
(1) existence of a valid contract; (2)
the interference with the Gilchrist-
knowledge on the part of the third
Cuddy contract on the part of the
person of the existence of contract;
appellants was a desire to make a
and (3) interference of the third
profit by exhibiting the film in their
person is without legal justification or
theater. There was no malice beyond
excuse.
this desire; but this fact does not
relieve them of the legal liability for Section 1314 of the Civil Code
interfering with that contract categorically provides also that, Any
and causing its breach. It is, third person who induces another to
therefore, clear, under the above violate his contract shall be liable for
authorities, that they were liable to damages to the other contracting
Gilchrist for the damages caused by party. Petitioner argues that damage
their acts, unless they are relieved is an essential element of tort
from such liability by reason of the interference, and since the trial court
fact that they did not know at the time and the appellate court ruled that
the identity of the original private respondents were not entitled
lessee (Gilchrist) of the film. to actual, moral or exemplary
damages, it follows that he ought to
The liability of the appellants arises
be absolved of any liability, including
from unlawful acts and not from
attorneys fees.
contractual obligations, as they were
under no such obligations to induce
Cuddy to violate his contract with
Gilchrist.
F. LIABILITY OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT UNITS
GR NO. 61516, March 21, 1989
GUILATCO VS. CITY OF DAGUPAN

The liability of public corporations for
damages arising from injuries
suffered by pedestrians from the xxx

defective condition of roads is
(j) He shall have the care and
expressed in the Civil Code as follows:
custody of the public system of
Article 2189. Provinces, cities and waterworks and sewers, and all
municipalities shall be liable for sources of water supply, and shall
damages for the death of, or control, maintain and regulate the
injuries suffered by, any person use of the same, in accordance
by reason of the defective with the ordinance relating thereto;
condition of roads, streets, shall inspect and regulate the use
bridges, public buildings, and of all private systems for supplying
other public works under their water to the city and its
control or supervision. inhabitants, and all private sewers,
and their connection with the
It is not even necessary for the
public sewer system.
defective road or street to belong to
the province, city, or municipality for The same charter of Dagupan also
liability to attach. The article only provides that the laying out,
requires that either control or construction and improvement of
supervision is exercised over the streets, avenues and alleys and
defective road or street. sidewalks, and regulation of the use
In the case at bar, this control or thereof, may be legislated by the
supervision is provided for in the Municipal Board. Thus the charter
charter of Dagupan and is exercised clearly indicates that the city indeed
through the City Engineer who has the has supervision and control over the
following duties: sidewalk where the open drainage
hole is located.
Sec. 22. The City Engineer His
powers, duties and compensation The express provision in the charter
There shall be a city engineer, holding the city not liable for
who shall be in charge of the damages or injuries sustained by
department of Engineering and persons or property due to the failure
Public Works. He shall receive a of any city officer to enforce the
salary of not exceeding three provisions of the charter, cannot be
thousand pesos per annum. He used to exempt the city, as in the case
shall have the following duties: at bar.
VI. PERSONS LIABLE Joint tort feasors are not liable pro
A. THE TORTFEASOR rata. The damages can not be
apportioned among them, except
G.R. No. L-5932; February 27, 1912 among themselves. They can no insist
upon an apportionment, for the
DEAN C. WORCESTER VS. MARTIN
purpose of each paying an aliquot
OCAMPO part. They are jointly and severally
The joint tort feasors are all the liable for the full amount.
persons who command, instigate,
promote, encourage, advise,
countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet
the commission of a tort, or who GR NO. 9010, March 28, 1914
approve of it after it is done, if done
for their benefit. They are each liable CHAPMAN VS. UNDERWOOD
as principals, to the same extent and The defendant, however, is not
in the same manner as if they had responsible for the negligence of his
performed the wrongful act driver, under the facts and
themselves. circumstances of this case. As we
Joint tort feasors are jointly and have said in the case of
severally liable for the tort which they Johnson vs. David (5 Phil. Rep., 663),
commit. The person injured may sue the driver does not fall within the list
all of them, or any number less than of persons in article 1903 of the Civil
all. Each is liable for the whole Code for whose acts the defendant
damage caused by all, and all would be responsible.
together are jointly liable for the Although in the David case the owner
whole damage. It is no defense for of the vehicle was not present at the
one sued alone, that the others who time the alleged negligent acts were
participated in the wrongful act are committed by the driver, the same
not joined with him as defendants; rule applies where the owner is
nor is it any excuse for him that his present, unless the negligent acts of
participation in the tort was the driver are continued for such a
insignificant as compared with that of length of time as to give the owner a
the others. reasonable opportunity to observe
them and to direct his driver to desist
therefrom. An owner who sits in his In the case before us it does not
automobile, or other vehicle, and appear from the record that, from the
permits his driver to continue in a time the automobile took the wrong
violation of the law by the side of the road to the commission of
performance of negligent acts, after the injury, sufficient time intervened
he has had a reasonable opportunity to give the defendant an opportunity
to observe them and to direct that the to correct the act of his driver.
driver cease therefrom, becomes Instead, it appears with fair clearness
himself responsible for such acts. The that the interval between the turning
owner of an automobile who permits out to meet and pass the street car
his chauffeur to drive up the Escolta, and the happening of the accident
for example, at a speed of 60 miles an was so small as not to be sufficient to
hour, without any effort to stop him, charge defendant with the negligence
although he has had a reasonable of the driver.
opportunity to do so, becomes Whether or not the owner of an
himself responsible, both criminally
automobile driven by a competent
and civilly, for the results produced driver, would be responsible, whether
by the acts of his chauffeur. On the present or not, for the negligent acts
other hand, if the driver, by a sudden of his driver when the automobile was
act of negligence, and without the a part of a business enterprise, and
owner having a reasonable was being driven at the time of the
opportunity to prevent the act or its accident in furtherance of the owners
continuance, injures a person or business, we do not now decide.
violates the criminal law, the owner of
the automobile, although present
therein at the time the act was
committed, is not responsible, either
GR NO. L-20392, December 18, 1968
civilly or criminally, therefor. The act
complained of must be continued in MARCIAL T. CAEDO VS. YU KHE THAI
the presence of the owner for such a
Article 2184 provides that, In motor
length of time that the owner, by his
vehicle mishaps, the
acquiescence, makes his drivers act
owner is solidarily liable with his
his own.
driver, if the former, who was in the
vehicle, could have, by the use of due
diligence, prevented the misfortune. appreciate the relative dangers posed

It is disputably presumed that a driver by the different situations that are
was negligent, if he has been found continually encountered on the
guilty of reckless driving or violating road. What would be a negligent
traffic regulations at least twice within omission under the aforesaid Article
the next preceding two months. on the part of a car owner who is in
the prime of age and knows how to
Under the foregoing provision, if the
handle a motor vehicle is not
causative factor was the drivers
necessarily so on the part, say, of an
negligence, the owner of the vehicle
old and infirm person who is not
who was present is likewise held liable
similarly equipped.
if he could have prevented the mishap
by the exercise of due diligence. The law does not require that
a person must possess a certain
The basis of the masters liability in
measure of skill or proficiency either
civil law is not respondeat superior
in the mechanics of driving or in the
but rather the relationship of pater
observance of traffic rules before he
familias. The theory is that ultimately
may own a motor vehicle. The test of
the negligence of the servant, if
his negligence, within the meaning of
known to the master and susceptible
Article 2184, is his omission to do
of timely correction by him, reflects
that which the evidence of
his own negligence if he fails to
his own senses tells him he should do
correct it in order to prevent injury or
in order to avoid the accident. And as
damage.
far as perception is concerned,
The test of imputed negligence under
absent a minimum level imposed by
Article 2184 of the Civil Code is, to a
law, a maneuver that appears to be
great degree, necessarily subjective.
fraught with danger to one passenger
CAr owners are not held to a uniform
may appear to be entirely safe and
and inflexible standard of diligence as
commonplace to another. Were the
are professional drivers. In many
law to require a uniform standard of
cases they refrain from driving their
perceptiveness, employment of
own cars and instead hire other
professional drivers by car owners
persons to drive for them precisely
who, by their very inadequacies, have
because they are not trained or
real need of drivers services, would
endowed with sufficient discernment
be effectively proscribed.
to know the rules of traffic or to
GR NO. 62988, February 28, 1985 the determination of the trial court
which it had previously affirmed.
FELINA RODRIGUEZ-LUNA VS. IAC
The deceased Roberto R. Luna had
been engaged in car racing as a sport,
having participated in tournaments
B. VICARIOUS LIABILITY
both here and abroad; it said that
Lunas habit and manner of life 1. PARENTS
should be one of the factors affecting
the value of mortality table in actions G. R. No. L-10134, June 29, 1957
for damages; and, consequently,
SABINA EXCONDE VS. DELFIN CAPUNO
concluded that Luna could not have
lived beyond 43 years. The result was Under the law above quoted, teachers
that the 30-year life expectancy of or directors of arts and trades are
Luna was reduced to 10 years only. liable for any damages caused by
their pupils or apprentices while they
The CA, in reducing Lunas life
are under their custody, but this
expectancy from 30 to 10 years said
provision only applies to an institution
that his habit and manner of life
of arts and trades and not to any
should be taken into account, i.e. that
academic educational institution.
he had been engaged in car racing as
Here Dante CApuno was then a
a sport both here and abroad a
student of the Balintawak Elementary
dangerous and risky activity tending
School and as part of his extra-
to shorten his life expectancy. That
curricular activity, he attended the
Luna had engaged in car racing is not
parade in honor of Dr. Jose Rizal
based on any evidence on
upon instruction of the city schools
record. That Luna was engaged in
supervisor. And it was in connection
go-kart racing is the correct
with that.
statement but then go-kart racing
cannot be categorized as a dangerous The civil liability which the law
sport for go-karts are extremely low impose upon the father, and, in case
slung, low powered vehicles, only of his death or incapacity, the
slightly larger than foot-pedalled four mother, for any damages that may be
wheeled conveyances. It was error on caused by the minor children who
the part of the CA to have disturbed live with them, is obvious. This is
a necessary consequence of the
parental authority they exercise over under 15 years of age, who acts
them which imposes upon the without discernment, unless it
parents the duty of supporting them, appears that there is no fault or
keeping them in their company, negligence on his part. This is
educating them and instructing them because a son who commits the act
in proportion to their means, while, under any of those conditions is by
on the other hand, gives them the law exempt from criminal liability
right to correct and punish (Article 12, subdivisions 1, 2 and 3,
them in moderation (Articles 154 Revised Penal Code). The idea is not
and 155, Spanish Civil Code). The to leave the act entirely unpunished
only way by which they can relieve but to attach certain civil liability to
themselves of this liability is if they the person who has the delinquent
prove that. minor under his legal authority or
control. But a minor over 15 who acts
with discernment is not exempt from
GR NO. L-14414, April 27, 1960 criminal liability, for which reason the
Code is silent as to the subsidiary
SEVERINO SALEN VS. JOSE BALCE liability of his parents should he stand
In holding that the civil liability of the convicted. In that case, resort should
son of appellee arises from his be had to the general law which is our
criminal liability and, therefore, the Civil Code.
subsidiary liability of appellee must be The particular law that governs this
determined under the provisions of case is Article 2180, the pertinent
the Revised Penal Code, and not portion of which provides: The father
and, in case of his death or incapacity,
under Article 2180 of the new Civil
the mother, are responsible for
Code which only applies to
damages caused by the minor
obligations which arise from quasi- children who lived in their company.
delicts. To hold that this provision does not
apply to the instant case because it
Under Article 101 of the Revised Penal
only covers obligations which arise
Code, a father is made civilly liable for
from quasi-delicts and not obligations
the acts committed by his son only if
which arise from criminal offenses,
the latter is an imbecile, an insane,
would result in the absurdity that
under 9 years of age, or over 9 but
while for an act where mere discernment, Art. 101 of the same
negligence intervenes the father or Code can not include him. And as par.
mother may stand subsidiarily liable 2, of Art. 101, states that the
for the damage caused by his or her
exemption from criminal liability
son, no liability would attach if the
established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5
damage is caused with criminal intent.
Verily, the void that apparently exists and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision
in the Revised Penal Code is 4 of Art. 11 of this Code does not
subserved by this particular provision include exemption from civil liability,
of our Civil Code, as may be gleaned which shall be enforced subject to the
from some recent decisions of this
following rules: First, in cases of
Court which cover equal or identical
subdivisions 1, 2 and 3 of Article 12,
cases.
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
GR NO. L-14409, October 31, 1961
of age, who has acted without
AGAPITO FUELLAS VS. ELPIDIO discernment, shall devolve upon those
CADANO having such person under their legal
The only way by which a father can be authority or control, unless it appears
made responsible for the criminal act that there was no fault or negligence
of his son committed with deliberate on their part, the appellant
intent and with discernment, is an concluded that this provision covers
action based on the provisions of the only a situation where a minor under
Revised Penal Code on subsidiary 15 but over 9 years old commits a
liability of the parents; that the criminal act without discernment.
minor-Fuellas having been convicted
Under Art. 101 of the Revised Penal
of serious physical injuries at the age
Code, a father is made civilly liable for
of 13, the provisions of par. 3 of Art. the acts committed by his son only if
12, Revised Penal Code, could have the latter is an imbecile, an insane,
been applied, but having acted with under 9 years of age, or over 9 but
under 15 years of age, who acts while for an act where mere
without discernment, unless it negligence intervenes the father or
appears that there is no fault or mother may stand subsidiarily liable
negligence on his part. This is for the damage caused by his or her
because a son who commits the act son, no liability would attach if the
under any of those conditions is by damage is caused with criminal intent.
law exempt from criminal liability Verily, the void apparently exists in
(Article 12, subdivisions 1, 2 and 3, the Revised Penal Code is subserved
Revised Penal Code). The idea is not by this particular provision of our Civil
to leave the act entirely unpunished Code, as may be gleaned from some
but to attach certain civil liability to recent decisions of this Court which
the person who has the delinquent cover equal or identical cases.
minor under his legal authority or
control. But a minor over 15 who acts
with discernment is not exempt from
criminal liability, for which reason the GR NO. 34840, September 23, 1931
Code is silent as to the subsidiary
liability of his parents should he stand NARCISO GUTIERREZ VS. BONIFACIO
convicted. In that case, resort should GUTIERREZ
be had to the general law which is our In the United States, it is uniformly
Civil Code. held that the head of a house, the
The particular law that governs this owner of an automobile, who
case is Article 2180, the pertinent maintains it for the general use of his
portion of which provides: The father family is liable for its negligent
and, in case of his death or incapacity, operation by one of his children,
the mother, are responsible for whom he designates or permits to
damages caused by the minor run it, where the car is occupied and
children who lived in their company. being used at the time of the injury
To hold that this provision does not for the pleasure of other members of
apply to the instant case because it the owners family than the child
only covers obligations which arise driving it. The theory of the law is
from quasi-delicts and not obligations that the running of the machine by a
which arise from criminal offenses, child to carry other members of the
would result in the absurdity that family is within the scope
of the owners business, so that he GR NO. 62988, February 28, 1985

is liable for the negligence of
the child because of the relationship FELINA RODRIGUEZ-LUNA VS. IAC
of master and servant. The deceased Roberto R. Luna had

been engaged in car racing as a sport,
The liability of Saturnino Cortez, the
having participated in tournaments
owner of the truck, and of his
both here and abroad; it said that
chauffeur Abelardo Velasco rests on a
Lunas habit and manner of life
different basis, namely, that
should be one of the factors affecting
of contract which, we think, has been
the value of mortality table in actions
sufficiently demonstrated by the
for damages; and, consequently,
allegations of the complaint, not
concluded that Luna could not have
controverted, and the evidence. The
lived beyond 43 years. The result was
reason for this conclusion reaches to
that the 30-year life expectancy of
the findings of the trial court
Luna was reduced to 10 years only.
concerning the position of the truck
on the bridge, the speed in operating The CA, in reducing Lunas life
the machine, and the lack of care expectancy from 30 to 10 years said
employed by the chauffeur. While that his habit and manner of life
these facts are not as clearly should be taken into account, i.e. that
evidenced as are those which convict he had been engaged in car racing as
the other defendant, we nevertheless a sport both here and abroad a
hesitate to disregard the points dangerous and risky activity tending
emphasized by the trial judge. In its to shorten his life expectancy. That
broader aspects, the case is one of Luna had engaged in car racing is not
two drivers approaching a narrow based on any evidence on
bridge from opposite directions, with record. That Luna was engaged in
neither being willing to slow up and go-kart racing is the correct
give the right of way to the other, with statement but then go-kart racing
the inevitable result of a collision and cannot be categorized as a dangerous
an accident. sport for go-karts are extremely low
slung, low powered vehicles, only
slightly larger than foot-pedalled four
wheeled conveyances. It was error on
the part of the CA to have disturbed
the determination of the trial court mother. This was amplified by the
which it had previously affirmed. Child and Youth Welfare Code which
provides that the same shall devolve
upon the father and, in case of his
death or incapacity, upon the mother
or, in case of her death or incapacity,
GR NO. 70890, September 18, 1992
upon the guardian, but the liability
CRESENCIO LIBI VS. IAC may also be voluntarily assumed by a
The parents are and should be held relative or family friend of the
primarily liable for the civil liability youthful offender. However, under the
arising from criminal offenses Family Code, this civil liability is now,
committed by their minor children without such alternative qualification,
under their legal authority or control, the responsibility of the parents and
or who live in their company, unless those who exercise parental authority
it is proven that the former acted with over the minor offender. For civil
the diligence of a good father of a liability arising from quasi-delicts
family to prevent such damages. That committed by minors, the same rules
primary liability is premised on the shall apply in accordance with Articles
provisions of Article 101 of the 2180 and 2182 of the Civil Code.
Revised Penal Code with respect to In the case at bar, whether the death
damages ex delicto caused by their of the hapless Julie Ann Gotiong was
children 9 yrs of age or under, or over caused by a felony or a quasi-delict
9 but under 15 years of age who committed by Wendell Libi,
acted without discernment; and, with respondent court did not err in
regard to their children over 9 but holding petitioners liable for damages
under 15 yrs of age who acted with arising therefrom. Subject to the
discernment, or 15 yrs or over but preceding modifications of the
under 21 years of age, such primary premises relied upon by it therefor
liability shall be imposed pursuant to and on the bases of the legal
Article 2180 of the Civil Code. imperatives herein explained, we
Under said Article 2180, the conjoin in its findings that said
enforcement of such liability shall be petitioners failed to duly exercise the
effected against the father and, in requisite diligentissimi patris familias
case of his death or incapacity, the to prevent such damages.
GR NO. 85044, June 03, 1992 upon such parents. The civil law
assumes that when an unemancipated
MACARIO TAMARGO VS. CA child living with its parents commits a
The law imposes civil liability upon tortious act, the parents were
the father and, in case of his death or negligent in the performance of their
incapacity, the mother, for any legal and natural duty closely to
damages that may be caused by a supervise the child who is in their
custody and control. Parental liability
minor child who lives with them.
is, in other words, anchored upon
Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
parental authority coupled with
This principle of parental liability is a presumed parental dereliction in the
discharge of the duties accompanying
species of what is frequently
such authority. The parental
designated as vicarious liability, or the
dereliction is, of course, only
doctrine of imputed negligence presumed and the presumption can
under Anglo-American tort law, where be overturned under Article 2180 of
a person is not only liable for torts the Civil Code by proof that the
committed by himself, but also for parents had exercised all the diligence
of a good father of a family to prevent
torts committed by others with whom
the damage.
he has a certain relationship and for
whom he is responsible. Thus, In the instant case, the shooting of
Jennifer by Adelberto with an air rifle
parental liability is made a natural or
occured when parental authority was
logical consequence of the duties and
still lodged in respondent Bundoc
responsibilities of parents their spouses, the natural parents of the
parental authority which includes minor Adelberto. It would thus follow
the instructing, controlling and that the natural parents who had then
disciplining of the child. actual custody of the minor Adelberto,
are the indispensable parties to the
The civil liability imposed upon suit for damages.
parents for the torts of their minor
children living with them, may be seen
to be based upon the parental
authority vested by the Civil Code
GR NO. L-24101, September 30, 1970 herein mentioned prove that they
observed all the diligence of a good
CUADRA VS. ALFONSO MONFORT father of a family to prevent damage.
The liability of a parent for an act of
The underlying basis of the liability
his minor child which causes damage
imposed by Article 2176 is the fault
to another under the specific facts
or negligence accompanying the act
related above and the applicable
or the omission, there being no
provisions of the Civil Code,
willfulness or intent to cause damage
particularly Articles 2176 and 2180
thereby. When the act or omission is
thereof, which read:
that of one person for whom another
ART. 2176. Whoever by act or is responsible, the latter then
omission causes damage to becomes himself liable under Article
another, there being fault or 2180, in the different cases
negligence, is obliged to pay for enumerated therein, such as that of
the damage done. Such fault or the father or the mother under the
negligence, if there is no pre- circumstances above quoted. The
existing contractual relation basis of this vicarious, although
between the parties, is called a primary, liability is, as in Article 2176,
quasi-delict and is governed by fault or negligence, which is
the provisions of this Chapter. presumed from that which
ART. 2180. The obligation accompanied the causative act or
imposed by Article 2176 is omission. The presumption is
demandable not only for ones merely prima facie and may therefore
own acts or omissions, but also be rebutted. This is the clear and
for those of persons for whom logical inference that may be drawn
one is responsible. from the last paragraph of Article
2180, which states that the
The father and, in case of his death or responsibility treated of in this Article
incapacity, the mother, are shall cease when the persons herein
responsible for the damages caused mentioned prove that they observed
by the minor children who live in their all the diligence of a good father of a
company. family to prevent damage.
The responsibility treated of in this
Article shall cease when the persons
2. GUARDIANS supersedes those of the parents. In

these circumstances the control or
3. TEACHERS AND HEADS OF influence over the conduct and
INSTITUTIONS actions of the pupil would pass from
the father and mother to the teacher;
GR NO. L-14342, May 30, 1960
and so would the responsibility for
CIRIACO L. MERCADO VS. CA the torts of the pupil. Such a situation
does not appear in the case at bar;
Teachers, or directors of arts and
the pupils appear to go to school
trades are liable for any damage
during school hours and go back to
caused by their pupils or apprentices
their homes with their parents after
while they are under their custody,
school is over. The situation
but this provision only applies to an
contemplated in the last paragraph of
institution of arts and trades and not
Article 2180 does not apply, nor does
to any academic educational
paragraph 2 of said article, which
institution.
makes father or mother responsible
The last paragraph of Article 2180 of for the damages caused by their
the Civil Code, upon which petitioner minor children. The claim of
rests his claim that the school where petitioner that responsibility should
his son was studying should be made pass to the school must, therefore, be
liable, is as follows: held to be without merit.
Lastly, teachers or heads of
establishments of arts and
trades shall be liable for
damages caused by their GR NO. L-29025, October 04, 1971
pupils and students or
PALISOC VS. ANTONIO C. BRILLANTES
apprentices, so long as they
remain in their custody. The rationale of the liability of school
heads and teachers for
It would seem that the clause so long
the tortious acts of their pupils and
as they remain in their custody,
contemplates a situation where the students, so long as they remain in
pupil lives and boards with the their custody, is that they stand, to a
teacher, such that the control, certain extent, as to their pupils and
direction and influence on the pupil students, in loco parentis and are
called upon to exercise reasonable G.R. No. L-47745; April 15, 1988
supervision over the conduct of the
JOSE S. AMADORA VS. CA
child. This is expressly provided for
in Articles 349, 350 and 352 of the The high school principal and the
Civil Code. In the law of torts, the dean of boys cannot be held liable
governing principle is that the because none of them was the
protective custody of the school teacher-in-charge as previously
defined. Each of them was exercising
heads and teachers
only a general authority over the
is mandatorily substituted for that of
student body and not the direct
the parents, and hence, it becomes control and influence exerted by the
their obligation as well as that of the teacher placed in charge of particular
school itself to provide proper classes or sections and thus
supervision of the students activities immediately involved in its discipline.
The evidence of the parties does not
during the whole time that they are at
disclose who the teacher-in-charge of
attendance in the school, including
the offending student was. The mere
recess time, as well as to take the
fact that Alfredo Amadora had gone
necessary precautions to protect the to school that day in connection with
students in their custody from his physics report did not necessarily
dangers and hazards that would make the physics teacher, respondent
reasonably be anticipated, including Celestino Dicon, the teacher-in-
charge of Alfredo's killer.
injuries that some student themselves
may inflict willfully or through At any rate, assuming that he was the
negligence on their fellow students. teacher-in-charge, there is no
showing that Dicon was negligent in
enforcing discipline upon Daffon or
that he had waived observance of the
rules and regulations of the school or
condoned their non-observance. His
absence when the tragedy happened
cannot be considered against him
because he was not supposed or
required to report to school on that Finally, as previously observed, the

day. And while it is true that the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos cannot
offending student was still in the be held directly liable under the article
custody of the teacher-in-charge because only the teacher or the head
even if the latter was physically absent of the school of arts and trades is
when the tort was committed, it has made responsible for the damage
not been established that it was caused by the student or apprentice.
caused by his laxness in enforcing Neither can it be held to answer for
discipline upon the student. On the the tort committed by any of the other
contrary, the private respondents private respondents for none of them
have proved that they had exercised has been found to have been charged
due diligence, through the with the custody of the offending
enforcement of the school student or has been remiss in the
regulations, in maintaining that discharge of his duties in connection
discipline. with such custody.
In the absence of a teacher-in-

charge, it is probably the dean of boys
who should be held liable especially in G.R. No. L-54357; April 25, 1988
view of the unrefuted evidence that he

REYNALDO PASCO VS. CFI
had earlier confiscated an unlicensed
Article 2180 of the Civil Code which
gun from one of the students and
states:
returned the same later to him
without taking disciplinary action or Lastly, teachers or heads of
reporting the matter to higher establishments of arts and trades
authorities. While this was clearly shall be liable for damages
negligence on his part, for which he caused by their pupils and
deserves sanctions from the school, it students or apprentices, so long
does not necessarily link him to the as they remain in their custody.
shooting of Amador as it has not been is equally applicable to academic
shown that he confiscated and institutions.
returned pistol was the gun that killed
The Court no necessity of discussing
the petitioners' son.
the applicability of the Article to
educational institutions (which are not
schools of arts and trades) for the The provision in question

issue in this petition is actually should apply to all schools,
whether or not, under the article, the academic as well as non-
school or the university itself (as academic. Where the school is
distinguished from academic rather than technical
the teachers or heads) is liable. The or vocational in nature,
Court answers in the negative, for responsibility for the tort
surely the provision concerned speaks committed by the student will
only of "teachers or heads." attach to the teacher in charge
of such student, following the
first part of the provision. This
is the general rule. In the case
G.R. No. L-33722; July 29, 1988 of establishments of arts and
trades, it is the head thereof,
FEDERICO YLARDE VS. EDGARDO and only he, who shall be held
AQUINO liable as an exception to the
The principal cannot be made general rule. In other words,
responsible for the death of the child teachers in general shall be
Ylarde, he being the head of an liable for the acts of their
academic school and not a school of students except where the
arts and trades. This is in line with the school is technical in nature, in
ruling in Amadora vs. CA, wherein this which case it is the head
Court thoroughly discussed the thereof who shall be
doctrine that under Article 2180 of answerable. Following the
the Civil Code, it is only the teacher canon of reddendo singula
and not the head of an academic sinquilis 'teachers' should
school who should be answerable for apply to the words "pupils and
torts committed by their students. students' and 'heads of
This Court went on to say that in a establishments of arts and
school of arts and trades, it is only the trades to the word
head of the school who can be held "apprentices."
liable. In the same case, the Court Hence, applying the said doctrine to
explained: this case, the Court rule that private
respondent Soriano, as principal,
cannot be held liable for the reason long as they are at attendance in the
that the school he heads is an school, including recess time."
academic school and not a school of
arts and trades. Besides, as clearly In the case at bar, in holding that
admitted by private respondent Jimmy B. Abon was stin in the
Aquino, private respondent Soriano protective and supervisory custody of
did not give any instruction regarding the Baguio Colleges Foundation when
the digging. he shot Napoleon CAstro, the
respondent Court ruled that:
it is true that Abon was not

attending any class or school
G.R. No. 70458; October 5, 1988 function at the time of the
shooting incident, which was at
BENJAMIN SALVOSA VS. IAC
about 8 o'clock in the evening;
Under the penultimate paragraph of but considering that Abon was
Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, teachers employed as an armorer and
or heads of establishments of arts and property custodian of the BCF
trades are hable for "damages caused ROTC unit, he must have been
by their pupils and students or attending night classes and
apprentices, so long as they remain in therefore that hour in the evening
their custody." The rationale of such was just about dismissal time for
liability is that so long as the student him or soon thereafter. The time
remains in the custody of a teacher, interval is safely within the
the latter "stands, to a certain extent, "recess time" that the trial court
in loco parentis [as to the student] spoke of and envisioned by the
and [is] called upon to exercise Palisoc case, supra.
reasonable supervision over the
In line with the case of Palisoc, a
conduct of the [student]." Likewise,
student not "at attendance in the
"the phrase used in [Art. 2180 'so
school" cannot be in "recess" thereat.
long as (the students) remain in their
A "recess," as the concept is embraced
custody means the protective and
in the phrase "at attendance in the
supervisory custody that the school
school," contemplates a situation of
and its heads and teachers exercise
temporary adjournment of school
over the pupils and students for as
activities where the student still also for those of persons for whom
remains within call of his mentor and one is responsible.
is not permitted to leave the school Employers shall be liable for the
premises, or the area within which the damages caused by their
school activity is conducted. Recess employees and household helpers
by its nature does not include acting within the scope of their
dismissal. Likewise, the mere fact of assigned tasks, even though the
being enrolled or being in the former are not engaged in any
premises of a school without more business or industry.
does not constitute "attending school"
or being in the "protective and Under this par., it is clear that before
supervisory custody' of the school, as an employer may be held liable for the
contemplated in the law. negligence of his employee, the act or
omission which caused damage or
Upon the foregoing considerations, prejudice must have occurred while an
we hold that Jimmy B. Abon cannot be employee was in the performance of
considered to have been "at his assigned tasks.
attendance in the school," or in the
In the case at bar, the
custody of BCF, when he shot
teachers/petitioners were not in the
Napoleon CAstro. Logically, therefore,
actual performance of their assigned
petitioners cannot under Art. 2180 of
tasks. The incident happened not
the Civil Code be held solidarity liable
within the school premises, not on a
with Jimmy B. Abon for damages
school day and most importantly
resulting from his acts.
while the teachers and students were
holding a purely private affair, a
picnic. It is clear from the beginning
GR NO. 82465, February 25, 1991 that the incident happened while
some members of the I-C class of St.
ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL VS. CA Francis High School were having a
Article 2180, par. 4 states that: picnic at Talaan Beach. This picnic
The obligation imposed by article had no permit from the school head
2176 is demandable not only for or its principal, Benjamin Illumin
ones own acts or omissions, but because this picnic is not a school
sanctioned activity neither is it
considered as an extra-curricular presumably suffice to equip him with

activity. the necessary tools and skills to
pursue higher education or a
As earlier pointed out by the trial
profession. On the other hand, the
court, mere knowledge by
student covenants to abide by the
petitioner/principal Illumin of the
schools academic requirements and
planning of the picnic by the students
observe its rules and regulations.
and their teachers does not in any way
or in any manner show acquiescence A school, like a common carrier,
or consent to the holding of the cannot be an insurer of its students
same. The application therefore of against all risks. This is specially true
Article 2180 has no basis in law and in the populous student communities
neither is it supported by any of the so-called university belt in
jurisprudence. If we were to affirm Manila where there have been
the findings of respondent Court on reported several incidents ranging
this score, employers will forever be from gang wars to other forms of
exposed to the risk and danger of hooliganism. It would not be equitable
being hailed to Court to answer for to expect of schools to anticipate all
the misdeeds or omissions of the types of violent trespass upon their
employees even if such act or premises, for notwithstanding the
omission he committed while they are security measures installed, the same
not in the performance of their duties. may still fail against an individual or
group determined to carry out a
nefarious deed inside school premises
and environs. Should this be the case,
GR NO. 84698, February 04, 1992
the school may still avoid liability by
PSBA VS. CA proving that the breach of its
contractual obligation to the students
When an academic institution accepts
was not due to its negligence, here
students for enrollment, there is
statutorily defined to be the omission
established a contract between them,
of that degree of diligence which is
resulting in bilateral obligations which
required by the nature of the
both parties are bound to comply
obligation and corresponding to the
with. For its part, the school
circumstances of persons, time and
undertakes to provide the student
place.
with an education that would
GR NO. 66207, May 18, 1992 Soliman, Jr. Private respondent school
was not the employer of Jimmy
SOLIMAN, JR. VS. JUDGE RAMON Solomon. The employer of Jimmy
TUAZON Solomon was the R.L. Security Agency
Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, Inc., while the school was the client or
the obligation to respond for damage customer of the R.L. Security Agency
inflicted by one against another by Inc. It is settled that where the
fault or negligence exists not security agency, as here, recruits,
only for ones own act or omission, hires and assigns the work of its
but also for acts or omissions of a watchmen or security guards, the
person for whom one is by law agency is the employer of such guards
responsible. Among the persons held or watchmen. Liability for illegal or
vicariously responsible for acts or harmful acts committed by the
omissions of another person are the security guards attaches to the
following: employer agency, and not to the
Employers shall be liable for the clients or customers of such
damages caused by their agency. As a general rule, a client or
employees and household customer of a security agency has no
helpers acting within the scope of hand in selecting who among the pool
their assigned tasks, even though of security guards or watchmen
the former are not engaged in employed by the agency shall be
any business or industry. assigned to it, the duty to observe the

diligence of a good father of a family
Lastly, teachers or heads of in the selection of the guards cannot,
establishments of arts and trades in the ordinary course of events, be
shall be liable for damages demanded from the client whose
caused by their pupils, their premises or property are protected by
students or apprentices, so long the security guards. The fact that a
as they remain in their custody. client company may give instructions
or directions to the security guards
The first paragraph quoted above
assigned to it, does not, by itself,
offers no basis for holding the
render the client responsible as an
Colleges liable for the alleged
employer of the security guards
wrongful acts of security guard Jimmy
concerned and liable for their
B. Solomon inflicted upon petitioner
wrongful acts or omissions. Those
instructions or directions are only a remote cause of the accident.

ordinarily no more than requests Between the remote cause and the
commonly envisaged in the contract injury, there intervened the
for services entered into with the negligence of the minors parents or
security agency. There being no the detachment of the steering wheel
employer-employee relationship guide of the jeep.
between the Colleges and Jimmy "The proximate cause of an injury is
Solomon, petitioner student cannot that cause, which, in natural and
impose vicarious liability upon the continuous sequence, unbroken by
Colleges for the acts of security guard any efficient intervening cause,
Solomon.
produces the injury, and without
Since there is no question that Jimmy which the result would not have
Solomon was not a pupil or student or occurred."
an apprentice of the Colleges, he Considering that the negligence of the
being in fact an employee of the R.L. minor driver or the detachment of the
Security Agency Inc., the other above- steering wheel guide of the jeep
quoted paragraph of Article 2180 of owned by respondent Villanueva was
the Civil Code is similarly not available an event over which petitioner St.
for imposing liability upon the Marys Academy had no control, and
Republic Central Colleges for the acts which was the proximate cause of the
or omissions of Jimmy Solomon. accident, petitioner may not be held
liable for the death resulting from
such accident.
G.R. No. 143363; February 6, 2002
ST. MARY'S ACADEMY VS.

CARPITANOS
The liability for the accident, whether
caused by the negligence of the minor
driver or mechanical detachment of
the steering wheel guide of the jeep,
must be pinned on the minors
parents primarily. The negligence of
petitioner St. Marys Academy was
4. OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF and household helpers acting

ESTABLISHMENTS within the scope of their assigned
tasks, even though the former are
GR NO. L-25142, March 25, 1975 not engaged in any business or
industry.
PHILIPPINE RABBIT VS. PHIL-
The responsibility treated of in this
AMERICAN
article shall cease when the persons
The Civil Code provides:
herein mentioned prove that they
ART. 2176. Whoever by act or observed all the diligence of a good
omission causes damage to father of a family to prevent
another, there being fault or damage.
negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done. Such fault or The novel and unprecedented legal
negligence, if there is no pre- issue in this appeal is whether the
existing contractual relation terms employers and owners and
between the parties, is called a managers of an establishment or
quasi-delict and is governed by the enterprise (dueos o directores de un
provisions of this Chapter. establicimiento o empresa) used in
article 2180 of the Civil Code,
ART. 2180. The obligation
formerly article 1903 of the old Code,
imposed by article 2176 is
embrace the manager of a corporation
demandable not only for ones own
owning a truck, the reckless operation
acts or omissions, but also for
of which allegedly resulted in the
those of persons for whom one is
vehicular accident from which the
responsible.
damage arose.
The owners and managers of an
We are of the opinion that those terms
establishment or enterprise are
do not include the manager of a
likewise responsible for damages
corporation. It may be gathered from
caused by their employees in the
the context of article 2180 that the
service of the branches in which the
term manager (director in the
latter are employed or on the
Spanish version) is used in the sense
occasion of their functions.
of employer.
Employers shall be liable for the
Hence, under the allegations of the
damages caused by their employees
complaint, no tortious or quasi-
delictual liability can be fastened on

Balingit as manager of Phil-American The owners and managers of an
Forwarders, Inc., in connection with establishment or enterprise are
the vehicular accident already likewise responsible for
mentioned because he himself may be damages caused by their
regarded as employees in the service of the
an employee or dependiente of his branches in which the latter are
employer, Phil-American Forwarders, employed or on the occasion of
Inc. their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the

damages caused by their
5. EMPLOYERS employees and household
helpers acting within the scope
GR NO. 120553, June 17, 1997
of their assigned tasks even
PHILTRANCO VS. CA though the former are not
Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil engaged in any business or
Code provide: industry.
ART. 2176. Whoever by act or

omission causes damage to The responsibility treated of in
another, there being fault or this article shall cease when the
negligence, is obliged to pay for persons herein mentioned
the damage done. Such fault or prove that they observed all the
negligence, if there is no pre- diligence of a good father of a
existing contractual relation family to prevent damage.
between the parties, is called a
We have consistently held that the
quasi-delict and is governed by
liability of the registered owner of a
the provisions of this Chapter.
public service vehicle, like petitioner
ART. 2180. The obligation Philtranco,[16] for damages arising
imposed by Article 2176 is from the tortious acts of the driver is
demandable not only for ones primary, direct, and joint and several
own acts or omissions, but also or solidary with the driver.[17] As to
for those of persons for whom solidarity, Article 2194 expressly
one is responsible. provides:
ART. 2194. The responsibility of assigned task when the tort

two or more persons who are complained of was committed. It is
liable for a quasi-delict is only then that the employer may find
solidary. it necessary to interpose the defense
of due diligence in the selection and
Since the employers liability is
supervision of the employee.
primary, direct and solidary, its only
recourse if the judgment for damages It is undisputed that ABAD was a
is satisfied by it is to recover what it Production Manager of petitioner
has paid from its employee who CASTILEX at the time of the tort
committed the fault or negligence occurrence. As to whether he was
which gave rise to the action based on acting within the scope of his
quasi-delict. Article 2181 of the Civil assigned task is a question of fact,
Code provides: which the court a quo and the CA
resolved in the affirmative.
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 GR NO. 75112, August 17, 1992
satisfaction of the claim.
FILAMER VS. IAC
GR NO. 132266, December 21, 1999
Supervision includes the formulation
CASTILEX VS. VICENTE VASQUEZ of suitable rules and regulation for
the guidance of its employees and the
Under the fifth paragraph of Article
issuance of proper instructions
2180, whether or not engaged in any
intended for the protection of the
business or industry, an employer is
public and persons with whom the
liable for the torts committed by
employer has relations through his
employees within the scope of his
employees. An employer is expected
assigned tasks. But it is necessary to
to impose upon its employees the
establish the employer-employee
necessary discipline called for in the
relationship; once this is done, the
performance of any act indispensable
plaintiff must show, to hold the
to the business and beneficial to their
employer liable, that the employee
employer.
was acting within the scope of his
In the present case, the petitioner With respect to the liability of NPC as
has not shown that it has set forth the direct employer, Article 2180 of
such rules and guidelines as would the Civil Code explicitly provides:
prohibit any one of its employees Employers shall be liable for
from taking control over its vehicles if the damages caused by their
one is not the official driver or employees and household
prohibiting the driver and son of the helpers acting within the scope
Filamer president from authorizing of their assigned tasks, even
another employee to drive the school though the former are not
vehicle. Furthermore, the petitioner engaged in any business or
has failed to prove that it had
industry.
imposed sanctions or warned its
employees against the use of its In this regard, NPCs liability is direct,
vehicles by persons other than the primary and solidary with PHESCO and
driver. the driver. Of course, NPC, if the
judgment for damages is satisfied by
it, shall have recourse against PHESCO
GR NO. 119121, August 14, 1998 and the driver who committed the
negligence which gave rise to the
NPC VS. CA action.
Article 2180 of the Civil Code and not
Finally, NPC, even if it truly believed
the Labor Code will determine the
that it was not the employer of the
liability of NPC in a civil suit for
driver, could still have disclaimed any
damages instituted by an injured
liability had it raised the defense of
person for any negligent act of the
due diligence in the selection or
employees of the labor only
supervision of PHESCO and
contractor. This is consistent with the
Ilumba. However, for some reason or
ruling that a finding that a contractor
another, NPC did not invoke said
was a labor-only contractor is
defense. Hence, by opting not to
equivalent to a finding that an
present any evidence that it exercised
employer-employee relationship
due diligence in the supervision of the
existed between the owner (principal
activities of PHESCO and Ilumba, NPC
contractor) and the labor-only
has foreclosed its right to interpose
contractor, including the latters
the same on appeal in conformity with
workers.
the rule that points of law, theories, injury, one resulting in culpa
issues of facts and arguments not contractual and the other in culpa
raised in the proceedings below aquiliana, Article 2194 of the Civil
cannot be ventilated for the first time Code can well apply. In fine, a liability
on appeal. Consequently, its liability for tort may arise even under a
stands. contract, where tort is that which
breaches the contract. Stated
differently, when an act which
constitutes a breach of contract would
GR NO. 145804, February 06, 2003 have itself constituted the source of a
quasi-delictual liability had no
LRT VS. MARJORIE NAVIDAD contract existed between the parties,
For the employers liability is the contract can be said to have been
negligence or fault on the part of the breached by tort, thereby allowing the
employee. Once such fault is rules on tort to apply.
established, the employer can then be Regrettably for LRT, as well as
made liable on the basis of the perhaps the surviving spouse and
presumption juris tantum that the heirs of the late Nicanor Navidad, this
employer failed to Court is concluded by the factual
exercise diligentissimi patris finding of the CA that there is
families in the selection and nothing to link (Prudent) to the death
supervision of its employees. The of Nicanor (Navidad), for the reason
liability is primary and can only be that the negligence of its employee,
negated by showing due diligence in Escartin, has not been duly proven.
the selection and supervision of the
employee, a factual matter that has
not been shown. Absent such a
showing, one might ask further, how
then must the liability of the common GR NO. 68102, July 16, 1992
carrier, on the one hand, and an
independent contractor, on the other GEORGE MCKEE VS. IAC
hand, be described? It would be It was the truck drivers negligence in

solidary. A contractual obligation can failing to exert ordinary care to avoid
be breached by tort and when the the collision which was, in law, the
same act or omission causes the proximate cause of the collision. As
employers of the truck driver, the The diligence of a good father

private respondents are, under Article referred to means the diligence in the
2180 of the Civil Code, directly and selection and supervision of
primarily liable for the resulting employees. The answers of the private
damages. The presumption that they respondents in Civil CAses Nos. 4477
are negligent flows from the and 4478 did not interpose this
negligence of their employee. That defense. Neither did they attempt to
presumption, however, is only juris prove it.
tantum, not juris et de jure. Their only
possible defense is that they
exercised all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent the
damage. Article 2180 reads as GR NO. 115024, February 07, 1996
follows:
MA. LOURDES VALENZUELA VS. CA
The obligation imposed by Article The relationship in question is not
2176 is demandable not only for based on the principle of respondeat
ones own acts or omissions, but superior, which holds the master
also for those of persons for whom liable for acts of the servant, but that
one is responsible. of pater familias, in which the liability
Employers shall be liable for the ultimately falls upon the employer, for
damages caused by their his failure to exercise the diligence of
employees and household helpers a good father of the family in the
acting within the scope of their selection and supervision of his
assigned tasks, even though the employees. It is up to this point,
former are not engaged in any however, that our agreement with the
business or industry. respondent court ends. Utilizing

the bonus pater familias standard
The responsibility treated of in this expressed in Article 2180 of the Civil
article shall cease when the Code, we are of the opinion that Lis
persons herein mentioned prove employer, Alexander Commercial, Inc.
that they observed all the diligence is jointly and solidarily liable for the
of a good father of a family to damage caused by the accident of
prevent damage. June 24, 1990.
First, the case of St. Francis High 6. STATE

School vs. CA upon which respondent
court has placed undue reliance, dealt GR NO. 11154, March 21, 1916
with the subject of a school and its

E. MERRITT VS. GOVT OF THE
teachers supervision of students
PHILIPPINE
during an extracurricular activity.
These cases now fall under the Paragraph 5 of article 1903 of the
provision on special parental authority Civil Code reads:
found in Art. 218 of the Family Code The state is liable in this sense
which generally encompasses all when it acts through a special
authorized school activities, whether agent, but not when the
inside or outside school premises. damage should have been
Second, the employers primary caused by the official to whom
liability under the concept of pater properly it pertained to do the
familias embodied by Art. 2180 (in act performed, in which case
relation to Art. 2176) of the Civil Code the provisions of the preceding
is quasi-delictual or tortious in article shall be applicable.
character. His liability is relieved on a The supreme court of Spain in

showing that he exercised the defining the scope of this paragraph
diligence of a good father of the said:
family in the selection and supervision
That the obligation to indemnify
of its employees. Once evidence is
for damages which a third person
introduced showing that the employer
causes to another by his fault or
exercised the required amount of care
negligence is based, as is
in selecting its employees, half of the
evidenced by the same Law 3,
employers burden is overcome. The
Title 15, Partida 7, on that the
question of diligent supervision,
person obligated, by his own
however, depends on the
fault or negligence, takes part in
circumstances of employment.
the act or omission of the third
party who caused the damage. It
follows therefrom that the state,
by virtue of such provisions of
law, is not responsible for the
damages suffered by private
individuals in consequence of ambulance of the General Hospital

acts performed by its employees was not such an agent.
in the discharge of the functions
pertaining to their office, because
neither fault nor even negligence
GR NO. L-1120, August 31, 1948
can be presumed on the part of
the state in the organization of INOCENCIO ROSETE VS. AUDITOR
branches of the public service
GENERAL
and in the appointment of its
The responsibility of the state is
agents; on the contrary, we must
limited by article 1903 to the case
presuppose all foresight humanly
wherein it acts through a special
possible on its part in order that
agent (and a special agent, in the
each branch of service serves the
sense in which these words are
general weal and that of private
employed, is one who receives a
persons interested in its
definite and fixed order or
operation. Between these latter
commission, foreign to the exercise of
and the state, therefore, no
the duties of his office if he is a
relations of a private nature
special official) so that in
governed by the civil law can
representation of the state and being
arise except in a case where the
bound to act as an agent thereof, he
state acts as a judicial person
executes the trust confided to him.
capable of acquiring rights and
This concept does not apply to any
contracting obligations.
executive agent who is an employee
It is, therefore, evident that the State of the active administration and who
(the Government of the Philippine on his own responsibility performs
Islands) is only liable, according to the the functions which are inherent in
and naturally pertain to his office and
above quoted decisions of the
which are regulated by law and
Supreme Court of Spain, for the acts
regulations.
of its agents, officers and employees
That according to paragraph 5 of
when they act as special agents within
article 1903 of the Civil Code and the
the meaning of paragraph 5 of article principle laid down in a decision,
1903, and that the chauffeur of the among others, of the 18th of May,
1904, in a damage case, the
responsibility of the state is limited to and with the express purpose of

that which it contracts through a inflicting injury upon the plaintiff. If
special agent, duly empowered by they exercise their honest judgment
a definite order or commission to in the performance of their duties,
perform some act or charged with their errors cannot be charged against
some definite purpose which gives them. So it may be said that in so far
rise to the claim, and not where the as its governmental functions are
claim is based on acts or omissions concerned, a municipality is not liable
imputable to a public official charged at all, unless expressly made so by
with some administrative or technical statute; nor are its officers, so long as
office who can be held to the proper they perform their duties honestly and
responsibility in the manner laid down in good faith. The most common
by the law of civil responsibility. illustration of both phases of this rule
is the action for false imprisonment
Consequently, the trial court in not so
so often brought either against a
deciding and in sentencing the said
municipality or s municipal police
entity to the payment of damages,
officer. So, in Field vs. City of Des
caused by an official of the second
Moines, it was held that a
class referred to, has by erroneous
municipality, acting under authority
interpretation infringed the provisions
given it by the central government to
of article 1902 and 1903 of the Civil
destroy houses in the path of a
Code.
conflagration, was not liable in
damages in the absence of a statute
expressly making it so.
From what has already been said, it

GR NO. 9596, February 15, 1916 should be clear that 4 municipality is
not exempt from liability for the
MENDOZA VS. FRANCISCO DE LEON
negligent performance of its
Officers or agents of the Government
corporate or proprietary or business
charged with the performance of
functions. In the administration of its
governmental duties which are in their
patrimonial property, it is to be
nature legislative, or quasi judicial,
regarded as a private corporation or
are not liable for the consequences of
individual so far as its liability to third
their official acts, unless it be shown
persons on contract or in tort is
that they act willfully and maliciously,
concerned. Its contracts, validly and pump irrigation projects.

entered into, may be enforced and Certainly, the state and the
damages may be collected from it for community as a whole are largely
the torts of its officers or agents
benefited by the services the agency
within the scope of their employment
renders, but these functions are only
in precisely the same manner and to
the same extent as those of private incidental to the principal aim of the
corporations or individuals. As to agency, which is the irrigation of
such matters the principles of lands.
respondeat superior applies. It is for
these purposes that the municipality The National Irrigation Administration
is made liable to suits in the courts. is a government agency with a
juridical personality separate and
distinct from the government. It is
not a mere agency of the government
GR NO. 55963, February 27, 1991 but a corporate body performing

proprietary functions. Therefore, it
FONTANILLA VS. MALIAMAN
may be held liable for the damages
The National Irrigation Administration
caused by the negligent act of its
was not created for purposes of local
driver who was now its special agent.
government. While it may be true that
the NIA was essentially a service
agency of the government aimed at GR NO. L-23052, January 29, 1968
promoting public interest and public
welfare, such fact does not make the MANILA VS. GENERO M. TEOTICO
NIA essentially and purely a Under Article 2189 of the Civil Code,
government-function it is not necessary for the liability
corporation. NIA was created for the therein established to attach that the
purpose of constructing, improving, defective roads or streets belong to
rehabilitating, and administering all the province, city or municipality from
national irrigation systems in the which responsibility is exacted. What
Philippines, including all communal said article requires is that the
province, city or municipality have is relaxed, the power of the

either control or supervision over courts ends when the
said street or road. Even if P. Burgos judgment is rendered.
Although the liability of the
avenue were, therefore, a national
state has been Judicially
highway, this circumstance would not
ascertained, the state is at
necessarily detract from its control or liberty to determine for itself
supervision by the City of Manila, whether to pay the judgment
under Republic Act 409. or not, and execution cannot
issue on a judgment against
the state. Such statutes do
not authorize a seizure of
GR NO. L-20322, May 29, 1968
state property to satisfy
REPUBLIC VS. PERFECTO R. PALACIO judgments recovered, and
Acknowledging the nature of the only convey an implication
Pump Irrigation Trust Fund as a public that the legislature will
fund, the CA nevertheless sustained recognize such judgment as
the garnishment order, on the ground final and make provision for
that the ISU, by engaging in the the satisfaction thereof.
private business of purchasing and Judgments against a state,
selling irrigation pumps on in cases where it has
installment basis, has waived its consented to be sued,
governmental immunity and, by generally operate merely to
implication, consented to the suit. liquidate and establish
It is apparent that this decision of the plaintiffs claim in the
CA suffers from the erroneous absence of express
assumption that because the State has provision; otherwise they
waived its immunity, its property and cannot be enforced by
funds become liable to seizure under processes of law; and it is for
legal process. This emphatically is the legislature to provide for
not the law (Merritt vs. Insular their payment in such
Government, 34 Phil. 311). manner as it sees fit.
Even though the rule as to

immunity of a state from suit
7. OTHERS of a tort by one against the other and

the consequent recovery of damages.
GR NO. L-25172, May 24, 1974
ARANETA VS. ANTONIO R. DE JOYA

The petitioners assertion that he
signed the questioned payroll checks
GR NO. L-53064, September 25, 1980
in good faith has not been
substantiated, he in particular not FELIX LANUZO VS SY BON PING
having testified or offered testimony For his own negligence in recklessly
to prove such claim. Upon the driving the truck owned and operated
by his employer, the driver, Salvador
contrary, in spite of his being a vice-
Mendoza, is primarily liable under
president and director of the Ace
Article 2176 of the Civil Code. On the
Advertising, the petitioner remained
other hand, the liability of his
passive, throughout the period of employer, Sy Bon Ping, is also primary
Taylors stay abroad, concerning the and direct under Article 2180 of the
unauthorized disbursements of same Code, which explicitly provides:
corporate funds for the latter. This Employers shall be liable for
plus the fact that he even approved the damages caused by their
thrice payroll checks for the payment employees and household
helpers acting within the scope
of Taylors salary, demonstrate quite
of their assigned tasks, even
distinctly that the petitioner neglected
though the former are not
to perform his duties properly, to the engaged in any business or
damage of the firm of which he was industry.
an officer. The fact that he was
For failure of the appellant Sy Bon
occupying a contractual position at
Ping to rebut the legal presumption of
the Ace Advertising is of no his negligence in the selection and
moment. The existence of a contract supervision of his employee, he is
between the parties, as has been likewise responsible for the damages
repeatedly held by this Court, caused by the negligent act of his
employee (driver) Salvador Mendoza,
constitutes no bar to the commission
and his liability is primary and imprudence of the third party

solidary. defendant Gregorio Hufana and, in
petitioners motion for leave to file a
What needs only to be alleged
third party complaint, it was stated
under the aforequoted
that Patricio Hufana and Gregorio
provision (Article 2180, Civil
Hufana were not made parties to this
Code) is that the employee
action, although the defendants are
(driver) has, by his negligence
entitled to indemnity and/or
(quasi-delict) caused damage to
subrogation against them in respect
make the employer, likewise,
of plaintiffs claim.
responsible for the tortious act
of the employee, and his It should make no difference therefore
liability is, as earlier observed, whether the respondents were
primary and solidary brought in as principal defendants or
as third-party defendants. As Moran
But although the employer is solidarily
points out, since the liability of the
liable with the employee for damages,
third-party defendant is already
the employer may demand
asserted in the third-party complaint,
reimbursement from his employee
the amendment of the complaint to
(driver) for whatever amount the
assert wuch liability is merely a matter
employer will have to pay the
of form, to insist on which would not
offended party to satisfy the latters
be in keeping with the liberal spirit of
claim.
the Rules of Court.
Nor should it make any difference that

the liability of petitioner springs from
contract while that of respondents
GR NOS. L-21477-81, April 29, 1966 arises from quasi-delict. As early as
1931, we already ruled in
FRANCISCA VILUAN VS. CA
Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez, 56 Phil. 177,
The third party complaints filed by that in case of injury to a passenger
petitioner and her driver charged due to the negligence of the driver of
respondents with direct liability to the the bus on which he was riding and of
plaintiffs. It was contended that the o the driver of another vehicle, the
accident was due to the fault, drivers as well as the owners of the
negligence, carelessness and two vehicles are jointly and severally
liable for damages. Some members of A person whose constitutional rights

the Court, though, are of the view that have been violated or impaired is
under the circumstances they are entitled to actual and moral damages
liable on quasi-delict.
from the public officer or employee
responsible therefor.
But defendant-appellee Orlando

VII. TORTS WITH Maddela cannot be held accountable
INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION because he impounded the motor
A. VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND launch upon the order of his superior

POLITICAL RIGHTS officer. While a subordinate officer
may be held liable for executing
GR NO. L-22554, August 29, 1975
unlawful orders of his superior officer,
DELFIN LIM VS. DE LEON there are certain circumstances which
The mere fact that a man is an officer, would warrant Maddelas exculpation
whether of high or low degree, gives from liability. The records show that
him no more right than is possessed after Fiscal Ponce de Leon made his
by the ordinary private citizen to first request to the Provincial
break in upon the privacy of a home Commander on June 15, 1962
and subject its occupant to the Maddela was reluctant to impound the
indignity of a search for the evidence motor launch despite repeated orders
of crime, without a legal warrant from his superior officer. It was only
procured for that purpose. No after he was furnished a copy of the
amount of incriminating evidence, reply of Fiscal Ponce de Leon, dated
whatever its source, will supply the June 26, 1962, to the letter of the
place of such warrant. At the closed Provincial Commander, justifying the
door of the home be it palace or necessity of the seizure of the motor
hovel, even bloodhounds must wait launch on the ground that the
till the law, by authoritative process, subsequent sale of the launch to
bids it open. Delfin Lim could not prevent the court
from taking custody of the same, that
he impounded the motor launch on provided their acts or omissions do

July 6, 1962. With said letter coming not constitute a violation of the Penal
from the legal officer of the province, Code or other penal statute.
Maddela was led to believe that there
The law speaks of an officer or
was a legal basis and authority to
employee or person 'directly' or
impound the launch. Then came the
"indirectly" responsible for the
order of his superior officer to explain violation of the constitutional rights
for the delay in the seizure of the and liberties of another. Thus, it is not
motor launch. Faced with a possible the actor alone (i.e. the one directly
disciplinary action from his responsible) who must answer for
commander, Maddela was left with no damages under Article 32; the person
indirectly responsible has also to
alternative but to seize the vessel. In
answer for the damages or injury
the light of the above circumstances,
caused to the aggrieved party.
the Court is not disposed to hold
Maddela answerable for damages. By this provision, the principle of
accountability of public officials under
the Constitution acquires added
meaning and asgilrnes a larger
dimension. No longer may a superior
G.R. No. L-69866; April 15, 1988 official relax his vigilance or abdicate
his duty to supervise his
ROGELIO ABERCA VS. FABIAN VER subordinates, secure in the thought
Article 32 of the Civil Code renders that he does not have to answer for
any public officer or employee or any the transgressions committed by the
latter against the constitutionally
private individual liable in damages
protected rights and liberties of the
for violating the Constitutional rights
citizen. Part of the factors that
and liberties of another, as
propelled people power in February
enumerated therein, does not exempt 1986 was the widely held perception
the respondents from responsibility. that the government was callous or
Only judges are excluded from indifferent to, if not actually
liability under the said article, responsible for, the rampant
violations of human rights. While it
would certainly be go naive to expect The acts committed by the PC soldiers

that violators of human rights would of unlawfully seizing appellees
easily be deterred by the prospect of merchandise and of filing the criminal
facing damage suits, it should complaint for unfair competition
nonetheless be made clear in no ones against appellees were for the
terms that Article 32 of the Civil Code protection and benefit of appellant
makes the persons who are directly, corporation. Such being the case, it is,
as well as indirectly, responsible for thus, reasonably fair to infer from
the transgression joint tort-feasors. those acts that it was upon appellant
corporations instance that the PC
soldiers conducted the raid and
effected the illegal seizure. These
GR NO. 86720, September 02, 1994
circumstances should answer the trial
MHP GARMENTS, INC. VS. CA courts query posed in its decision
The very nature of Article 32 is that now under consideration as to why
the PC soldiers immediately turned
the wrong may be civil or criminal. It
over the seized merchandise appellant
is not necessary therefore that there
corporation.
should be malice or bad faith. To
The raid was conducted with the
make such a requisite would defeat
active participation of their employee.
the main purpose of Article 32 which Larry de Guzman did not lift a finger
is the effective protection of to stop the seizure of the boy and girl
individual rights. Public officials in the scouts items. By standing by
past have abused their powers on the and apparently assenting thereto, he
pretext of justifiable motives or good was liable to the same extent as the
officers themselves. So with the
faith in the performance of their
petitioner corporation which even
duties. Precisely, the object of the
received for safekeeping the goods
Article is to put an end to official unreasonably seized by the PC raiding
abuse by plea of the good faith. In the team and de Guzman, and refused to
United States this remedy is in the surrender them for quite a time
nature of a tort. despite the dismissal of its complaint
for unfair competition.
B. DEFAMATION, FRAUD, extinction proceeds from a

PHUSICAL INJURIES
declaration in a final judgment that
GR NO. L-34529, January 27, 1983 the fact from which the civil might
arise did not exist. Otherwise stated,
MAXIMO MARCIA VS. CA unless the act from which the civil
Reckless imprudence or criminal liability arises is declared to be non-
negligence is not one of the three existent in the final judgment, the
crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the extinction of the criminal liability will
Civil Code, which provides: not carry with it the extinction of the
civil liability. Thus, if a person is
ART. 33. In cases of
charged with homicide and
defamation, fraud, and
successfully pleaded self-defense, his
physical injuries, a civil
acquittal by reason thereof will
action for damages, entirely
extinguish his civil liability. He has
separate and distinct from
not incurred any criminal liability. On
the criminal action may be
the other hand, if his acquittal is, for
brought by the injured party.
instance, due to the fact that he was
Such civil action shall
not sufficiently identified to be the
proceed independently of the
assailant, a civil action for damages
criminal prosecution, and
may be maintained. His acquittal is
shall require only a
not due to non-existence of the crime
preponderance of evidence.
from which civil liability might arise,
The above article speaks only of but because he was not, in the eyes of
defamation, fraud and physical the court, sufficiently identified as the
injuries. The injuries suffered by perpetrator of the crime.
herein petitioners were alleged to be
the result of criminal negligence; they
were not inflicted with malice. Hence,
no independent civil action for GR NO. 51183, December 21, 1983
damages may be instituted in
connection therewith. Further, Section CARMEN L. MADEJA VS. FELIX T. CARO
3(c), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court The term physical injuries is used in
states that (c) Extinction of the penal a generic sense. It is not the crime of
action does not carry with it physical injuries defined in the
extinction of the civil, unless the Revised Penal Code. It includes not
only physical injuries but recommendation must have been

consummated, frustrated and accepted by the Legislature when it
attempted homicide. approved the article intact as
recommended. If the intent has been
The Article in question uses the words
to establish a civil action for the
defamation, fraud and physical
bodily harm received by the
injuries. Defamation and fraud are
complainant similar to the civil action
used in their ordinary sense because
for assault and battery, as the Code
there are no specific provisions in the
Commission states, the civil action
Revised Penal Code using these terms
should lie whether the offense
as means of offenses defined therein,
committed is that of physical injuries,
so that these two terms defamation
or frustrated homicide, or attempted
and fraud must have been used not to
homicide, or even death.
impart to them any technical meaning
in the laws of the Philippines, but in
their generic sense. With this
apparent circumstance in mind, it is
evident that the terms physical GR NO. 150256, March 25, 2004
injuries could not have been used in
its specific sense as a crime defined in ARAFILES VS. PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS
the Revised Penal Code, for it is Article 33 contemplates a civil action
difficult to believe that the Code for the recovery of damages that is
Commission would have used terms
entirely unrelated to the purely
in the same article some in their
criminal aspect of the case. A civil
general and another in its technical
sense. In other words, the term action for libel under this article shall
physical injuries should be be instituted and prosecuted to final

understood to mean bodily injury, not judgment and proved by
the crime of physical injuries, because preponderance of evidence separately
the terms used with the latter are from and entirely independent of the
general terms. In any case the Code
institution, pendency or result of the
Commission recommended that the
criminal action because it is governed
civil action for physical injuries be
similar to the civil action for assault by the provisions of the New Civil
and battery in American Law, and this Code and not by the Revised Penal
Code governing the criminal offense be read in connection with the

charged and the civil liability arising language which follows.
therefrom.
In actions for damages for libel, it is

axiomatic that the published work
alleged to contain libelous material 1. DEFAMATION
must be examined and viewed as a
GR NO. 135306, January 28, 2003
whole.
The article must be construed as an MVRS PUBLICATIONS VS. ISLAMIC

entirety including the headlines, as Defamation, which includes libel and
they may enlarge, explain, or restrict slander, means the offense of injuring
or be enlarged, explained or a persons character, fame or
strengthened or restricted by the reputation through false and
context. Whether or not it is libelous, malicious statements. It is that which
depends upon the scope, spirit and tends to injure reputation or to
motive of the publication taken in its diminish the esteem, respect, good
entirety. will or confidence in the plaintiff or to
excite derogatory feelings or opinions
A publication claimed to be
about the plaintiff. It is the
defamatory must be read and
publication of anything which is
construed in the sense in which the
injurious to the good name or
readers to whom it is addressed
reputation of another or tends to
would ordinarily understand it. So,
bring him into disrepute. Defamation
the whole item, including display
is an invasion of a relational
lines, should be read and construed
together, and its meaning and
interest since it involves the opinion
which others in the community may
signification thus determined.
have, or tend to have, of the plaintiff.
In order to ascertain the meaning of a
It must be stressed that words which
published article, the whole of the
are merely insulting are not actionable
article must be considered, each
as libel or slander per se, and mere
phrase must be construed in the light
words of general abuse however
of the entire publication. The
opprobrious, ill-natured, or vexatious,
headlines of a newspaper must also
whether written or spoken, do not
constitute a basis for an action for Although the gist of an action for
defamation in the absence of an defamation is an injury to reputation,
allegation for special damages. The the focus of a defamation action is
fact that the language is offensive to upon the allegedly defamatory
the plaintiff does not make it statement itself and its predictable
actionable by itself. effect upon third persons. A
statement is ordinarily considered
Defamation is made up of the twin
defamatory if it tend[s] to expose one
torts of libel and slander the one
to public hatred, shame, obloquy,
being, in general, written, while the
contumely, odium, contempt, ridicule,
other in general is oral. In either form,
aversion, ostracism, degradation or
defamation is an invasion of the
disgrace The Restatement of Torts
interest in reputation and good name.
defines a defamatory statement as
This is a relational interest since it
one that tends to so harm the
involves the opinion others in the
reputation of another as to lower him
community may have, or tend to have
in the estimation of the community or
of the plaintiff.
to deter third persons from
The law of defamation protects the
associating or dealing with him.
interest in reputation the interest in
acquiring, retaining and enjoying
ones reputation as good as ones
character and conduct warrant. The
mere fact that the plaintiffs feelings 2. FRAUD
and sensibilities have been offended

GR NO. L-37733, September 30, 1982
is not enough to create a cause of
action for defamation. Defamation ALMARIO T. SALTA VS. JESUS DE
requires that something be VEYRA
communicated to a third person that
It is significant to note that under
may affect the opinion others may
Article 31 of the New Civil Code, it is
have of the plaintiff. The unprivileged
made clear that the civil action
communication must be shown of a
permitted therein to be filed
statement that would tend to hurt
separately from the criminal action
plaintiffs reputation, to impair
may proceed independently of the
plaintiffs standing in the community.
criminal proceedings regardless of
the result of the latter. It seems
perfectly reasonable to conclude that 3. PHYSICAL INJURIES

the civil actions mentioned in Article
33, permitted in the same manner to GR NO. L-19331, April 30, 1965
be filed separately from the criminal

VICTORIA G. CAPUNO VS. PEPSI-COLA
case, may proceed similarly
In filing the civil action as they did
regardless of the result of the criminal
appellants correctly considered it as
case.
entirely independent of the criminal
Indeed, when the law has allowed a action, pursuant to Articles 31 and 33
civil case related to a criminal case, to of the Civil Code, which read:
be filed separately and to proceed
Art. 31. When the civil action
independently even during the
is based on an obligation not
pendency of the latter case, the
arising from the act or
intention is patent to make the courts
omission complained of as a
disposition of the criminal case of no
felony, such civil action may
effect whatsoever on the separate civil
proceed independently of the
case. This must be so because the
criminal proceedings and
offenses specified in Article 33 are of
regardless of the result of
such a nature, unlike other offenses
the latter.
not mentioned, that they may be
made the subject of a separate civil Art. 33. In cases of
action because of the distinct defamation, fraud, and
separability of their respective physical injuries, a civil
juridical cause or basis of action. This action of damages, entirely
is clearly illustrated in the case of separate and distinct from
swindling, a specie of an offense the criminal action may be
committed by means of fraud, where brought by the injured party.
the civil case may be filed separately Such civil action shall
and proceed independently of the proceed independently of the
criminal case, regardless of the result criminal prosecution, and
of the latter. shall require only a
preponderance of evidence.
The term physical injuries in Article

33 includes bodily injuries causing
death. In other words the civil action
for damages could have been vs. Yatco, et al., GR NO. L-9623,
commenced by appellants January 22, 1957, this Court held that
immediately upon the death of their the term physical injuries used in
decedent, Cipriano CApuno,
article 33 of the Civil Code includes
on January 3, 1953 or thereabouts,
homicide, it is to be borne in mind
and the same would not have been
stayed by the filing of the criminal that the charge
action for homicide through reckless against Felardo Paje was for reckless
imprudence. But the complaint here imprudence resulting in homicide,
was filed only on September 26, and not for homicide and physical
1958, or after the lapse of more than
injuries.
five years.
The offense of criminal negligence
under article 365 of the Revised Penal
Code lies in the execution of an im-
GR NO. L-26737, July 31, 1969 prudent or negligent act that, if

intentionally done, would be
LAURA CORPUS VS. FELARDO PAJE
punishable as a felony. The law
Criminal negligence, that is, reckless
penalizes thus the negligent or
imprudence, is not one of the three
careless act, not the result
crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the
thereof. The gravity of the
Civil Code which authorizes the
consequence is only taken into
institution of an independent civil
account to determine the penalty; it
action, that is, of an entirely separate
does not qualify the substance of the
and distinct civil action for damages,
offense.
which shall proceed independently of
the criminal prosecution and shall be It is, therefore, clear that the charge
proved only by a preponderance of against Felardo Paje was not for
evidence. Said article mentions only homicide but for reckless imprudence,
the crimes of defamation, fraud that is, criminal negligence resulting
(estafa) and physical injuries. in homicide (death of Clemente
Although in the case of Dyogi, et al. Marcia) and double physical injuries
suffered by two other persons. As consummated, frustrated and

reckless imprudence or criminal attempted homicide. Thus, petitioners
negligence is not one of the three maintain that Torzuelas prior
crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the conviction is unnecessary since the
Civil Code, there is no independent civil action can proceed independently
civil action for damages that may be of the criminal action. On the other
instituted in connection with said hand, it is the private respondents
offense. Hence, homicide through argument that since the act was not
reckless imprudence or criminal committed with negligence, the
negligence comes under the general petitioners have no cause of action
rule that the acquittal of the under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the
defendant in the criminal action is a New Civil Code. The civil action
bar to his civil liability based upon the contemplated in Article 2177 is not
same criminal act notwithstanding applicable to acts committed with
that the injured party reserve his right deliberate intent, but only applies to
to institute a separate civil action. In quasi-offenses under Article 365 of
the language of the Rules of Court the Revised Penal Code. Torzuelas act
(Rule 111, Sec. 3), the extinction of of shooting Atty. Dulay to death, aside
the criminal action by acquittal of the from being purely personal, was done
defendant on the ground that the with deliberate intent and could not
criminal act charged against him did have been part of his duties as
not exist, necessarily extinguished security guard. And since Article 2180
also the civil action for damages of the New Civil Code covers only acts
based upon the same act. done within the scope of the
employees assigned tasks, the
private respondents cannot be held
GR NO. 108017, April 03, 1995 liable for damages.
MARIA BENITA A. DULAY VS. CA

The term "physical injuries" under
Article 33 has been held to include
VIII. INTENTIONAL TORTS GR NO. 122191, October 08, 1998

A. ABUSE OF RIGHTS
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES VS. CA
Respondent has no obligation to
GR NO. L-7817, October 31, 1956 plead and prove the law of the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia since her
ALFREDO M. VELAYO VS. SHELL
cause of action is based on Articles 19
COMPANY
and 21 of the Civil Code of the
A moral wrong or injury, even if it
Philippines. Considering that it was
does not constitute a violation of a
the petitioner who was invoking the
statute law, should be compensated
by damages. applicability of the law of Saudi
Moral damages (Art. 2217) may Arabia, thus the burden was on it to
be recovered (Art. 2219). In Article plead and to establish what the law of
20, the liability for damages arises Saudi Arabia is.
from a willful or negligent act contrary
to law. In this article, the act is
contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy
Article 23 of the Civil Code goes as far GR NO. 81262, August 25, 1989
as to provides that, Even if an act or
event causing damage to anothers GLOBE MACKAY VS. CA
property was not due to the fault or In determining whether or not the
negligence of the defendant, the latter principle of abuse of rights may be
shall be liable for indemnity if through invoked, there is no rigid test which
the act or event he was benefited. can be applied. While the Court has
With mere much more reason the not hesitated to apply Article 19
Defendant should be liable for whether the legal and factual
indemnity for acts it committed in bad
circumstances called for its
faith and with betrayal of confidence.
application the question of whether or
not the principle of abuse of rights
has been violated resulting in
damages under Article 20 or Article
21 or other applicable provision of GR NO. 88694, January 11, 1993

law, depends on the circumstances of
ALBENSON ENTERPRISES VS. CA
each case. And in the instant case, the
The elements of an abuse of right
Court, after examining the record and
under Article 19 are the following: (1)
considering certain significant There is a legal right or duty; (2)
circumstances, finds that petitioners which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for
have indeed abused the right that the sole intent of prejudicing or
they invoke, causing damage to injuring another. Article 20 speaks of
the general sanction for all other
private respondent and for which the
provisions of law which do not
latter must now be indemnified.
especially provide for their own
The Court has ruled that the right of sanction. Thus, anyone who,
whether willfully or negligently, in the
the employer to dismiss an employee
exercise of his legal right or duty,
should not be confused with the
causes damage to another, shall
manner in which the right is exercised
indemnify his victim for injuries
and the effects flowing therefrom. If suffered thereby. Article 21 deals with
the dismissal is done abusively, then acts contra bonus mores, and has the
the employer is liable for damages to following elements: 1) There is an act
the employee. Under the which is legal; 2) but which is contrary
to morals, good custom, public order,
circumstances of the instant case, the
or public policy; 3) and it is done
petitioners clearly failed to exercise in
with intent to injure.
a legitimate manner their right to
Thus, under any of these three (3)
dismiss Tobias, giving the latter the
provisions of law, an act which causes
right to recover damages under injury to another may be made the
Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of basis for an award of damages.
the Civil Code.
GR NO. 140420, February 15, 2001 In the ultimate analysis, petitioners

liability is premised on the obligation
SERGIO AMONOY VS. SPOUSES to repair or to make whole the
GUTIERREZ damage caused to another by reason
Well-settled is the maxim that of ones act or omission, whether
damage resulting from the legitimate done intentionally or negligently and
exercise of a persons rights is a loss whether or not punishable by law.
without injury damnum absque

injuria for which the law gives no
remedy. In other words, one who
merely exercises ones rights does no GR NO. 132344, February 17, 2000
actionable injury and cannot be held

UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST VS. ROMEO
liable for damages.
A. JADER
In this case, the demolition of The institution of learning involved

respondents house by petitioner, herein is a university which is
despite his receipt of the TRO, engaged in legal education, it should
was not only an abuse but also an have practiced what it inculcates in its
unlawful exercise of such right. In
students, more specifically the
insisting on his alleged right, he
principle of good dealings enshrined
wantonly violated this Courts Order
and wittingly caused the destruction in Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil
of respondents house. Code.
Obviously, petitioner cannot In belatedly informing respondent of

invoke damnum absque injuria, a
the result of the removal examination,
principle premised on the valid
particularly at a time when he had
exercise of a right. Anything less or
beyond such exercise will not give rise already commenced preparing for the
to the legal protection that the bar exams, cannot be said to have
principle accords. And when damage acted in good faith. Absence of good
or prejudice to another is occasioned faith must be sufficiently established
thereby, liability cannot be obscured, for a successful prosecution by the
much less abated.
aggrieved party in a suit for abuse of
right under Article 19 of the Civil control over the instrumentality which
Code. Good faith connotes an honest caused the damage or injury.
intention to abstain from taking
undue advantage of another, even
though the forms and technicalities of
the law, together with the absence of
GR NO. 96126, August 10, 1992
all information or belief of facts,
would render the transaction ESTERIA F. GARCIANO VS. CA
unconscientious. It is the school that Liability for damages under Articles
has access to those information and it 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code arises
is only the school that can compel its only from unlawful, willful or
professors to act and comply with its negligent acts that are contrary to
rules, regulations and policies with law, or morals, good customs or
respect to the computation and the public policy.
prompt submission of grades.
The right to recover damages under
Students do not exercise control,
Article 21 is based on equity, and he
much less influence, over the way an
who comes to court to demand
educational institution should run its
equity, must come with clean hands.
affairs, particularly in disciplining its
Article 21 should be construed as
professors and teachers and ensuring
granting the right to recover damages
their compliance with the schools
to injured persons who are not
rules and orders. Being the party that
themselves at fault. Moral damages
hired them, it is the school that
are recoverable only if the case falls
exercises general supervision and
under Article 2219 in relation to
exclusive control over the professors
Article 21. In the case at bar,
with respect to the submission of
petitioner is not without fault. Firstly,
reports involving the students
she went on an indefinite leave of
standing. Exclusive control means
absence and failed to report back in
that no other person or entity had any
time for the regular opening of
classes. Secondly, for reasons known
to herself alone, she refused to sign a right is unjust, or when there has
written contract of employment. been an abuse of right.
Lastly, she ignored the Board of
It is an elementary rule in this
Directors order for her to report for
jurisdiction that good faith is
duty on July 5, 1982.
presumed and that the burden of
proving bad faith rests upon the party
alleging the same. In the case at bar,
petitioner has failed to prove bad faith
GR NO. 126486, February 09, 1998 on the part of private respondent.
Petitioners allegation that private
BARONS MARKETING VS. CA
respondent was motivated by a desire
The law, as set forth in Article 19 of
to terminate its agency relationship
the Civil Code, prescribes a
with petitioner so that private
primordial limitation on all rights by
respondent itself may deal directly
setting certain standards that must be
with Meralco is simply not supported
observed in the exercise thereof.
by the evidence.
There is undoubtedly an abuse of
right when it is exercised for the only
purpose of prejudicing or injuring
another. The exercise of a right must
be in accordance with the purpose for GR NO. 120639, September 25, 1998
which it was established, and must
BPI VS. CA
not be excessive or unduly harsh;
To find the existence of an abuse of
there must be no intention to injure
right under Article 19 the following
another. Ultimately, however, and in elements must be present: (1) There
practice, courts, in the sound exercise is a legal right or duty; (2) which is
of their discretion, will have to exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole
determine all the facts and intent of prejudicing or injuring
another.
circumstances when the exercise of a
The Court has held that good faith is
presumed and the burden of proving
bad faith is on the party alleging no remedy for damages resulting

it. This private respondent failed to from an act which does not amount to
do. In fact, the action of the petitioner a legal injury or wrong. These
belies the existence of bad faith. As
situations are often called damnum
early as 28 October 1989, petitioner
absque injuria.
could have suspended private
respondents card outright. Instead,
petitioner allowed private respondent
to use his card for several weeks.
Petitioner had even notified private
B. ACTS CONTRA BONUS
respondent of the impending MORES
suspension of his credit card and
made special accommodations for
him for settling his outstanding 1. ELEMENTS
account. As such, petitioner cannot be
said to have capriciously and
arbitrarily canceled the private GR NO. L-15526, December 28, 1963
respondents credit card.
ENRIQUE J.L. RUIZ VS. SECRETARY
There is a material distinction
Appellants invoke Article 21 of the
between damages and injury. Injury is Civil Code, which states, Any person
the illegal invasion of a legal right; who wilfully cause loss or injury to
damage is the loss, hurt, or harm another in a manner that is contrary
which results from the injury; and to morals, good customs or public
damages are the recompense or policy shall compensate the latter for
the damages.
compensation awarded for the
damage suffered. Thus, there can be Contending that the word injury in
the said article, refers not only to any
damage without injury in those
indeterminate right or property, but
instances in which the loss or harm
also to honor or credit. It may be
was not the result of a violation of a added, however, that this article also
legal duty. In such cases, the envisions a. situation where a person
consequences must be borne by the has a legal right, and such right is
injured person alone, the law affords violated by another in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs or walk out of it when the matrimony is

public policy; it presupposes losses or about to be solemnized, is quite
injuries, material or otherwise, which different. This is palpably and
one may suffer as a result of said unjustifiably contrary to good
violation. The pleadings do not show customs, for which defendant must be
that damages were ever asked or held answerable in damages in
alleged in connection with this case, accordance with Article 21 aforesaid.
predicted upon the article aforecited. Per express provision of Article 2219
And under the facts and (10) of the new Civil Code, moral
circumstances obtaining in this case, damages are recoverable in the cases
one cannot plausibly sustain the
mentioned in Article 21 of said Code.
contention that the failure or refusal As to exemplary damages, defendant
to extend the recognition, was an act contends that the same could not be
contrary to morals, good customs or adjudged against respondent because
public policy. under Article 2232 of the new Civil
Code the condition precedent is that
the defendant acted in a wanton,
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent manner.
2. EXAMPLES
a. BREACH OF PROMISE TO
MARRY, SEDUCTION AND SEXUAL
ASSAULT GR NO. L-18630, December 17, 1966
APOLONIO TANJANCO VS. CA
GR NO. L-20089, December 26, 1964 The Court ruled that to constitute
seduction there must in all cases be
BEATRIZ P. WASSMER VS. FRANCISCO some sufficient promise or
X. VELEZ Inducement and the woman must
Mere breach of promise to marry is yield because of the promise or other
not an actionable wrong. But to inducement. If she consents merely
formally set a wedding and go from carnal lust and the intercourse is
through all the above-described from mutual desire, there is no
preparation, and publicity, only to seduction. She must be induced to
depart from the path of virtue by the apart from the right to recover money
use of some species of arts, or property advanced by the plaintiff
persuasions and wiles, which are upon the faith of such
calculated to have and do have that promise.[8] Generally, therefore, a
effect, and which result in her breach of promise to marry per se is
ultimately submitting her person to not actionable, except where the
the sexual embraces of her seducer plaintiff has actually incurred
expenses for the wedding and the
And in American Jurisprudence the
necessary incidents thereof.
Court find: On the other hand, in an
action by the woman, the enticement, However, the award of moral damages
persuasion or deception is the is allowed in cases specified in or
essence of the injury; and a mere analogous to those provided in Article
proof of intercourse is insufficient to 2219 of the Civil Code. Correlatively,
warrant a recovery. Accordingly it is under Article 21 of said Code, in
not seduction where the willingness relation to paragraph 10 of said
arises out of sexual desire or curiosity Article 2219, any person who wilfully
of the female, and the defendant causes loss or injury to another in a
merely affords her the needed manner that is contrary to morals,
opportunity for the commission of the good customs or public policy shall
act. It has been emphasized that to compensate the latter for moral
allow a recovery in all such cases damages. Article 21 was adopted to
would tend to the demoralization of remedy the countless gaps in the
the female sex, and would be a statutes which leave so many victims
reward for unchastity by which a class of moral wrongs helpless even though
of adventuresses would be swift to they have actually suffered material
profit. and moral injury, and is intended to
vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for
that untold number of moral wrongs
which is impossible for human
foresight to specifically provide for in
GR NO. 101749, July 10, 1992
the statutes.
CONRADO BUNAG, JR. VS CA Under the circumstances obtaining in
An action for breach of promise to the case at bar, the acts of petitioner
marry has no standing in the civil law, in forcibly abducting private
respondent and having carnal desire. At the time she met Ivan at
knowledge with her against her will, Tonys Restaurant, Amelita was
and thereafter promising to marry her already 28 years old and she admitted
in order to escape criminal liability, that she was attracted to Ivan. Her
only to thereafter renege on such attraction to Ivan is the reason why
promise after cohabiting with her for she surrendered her womanhood. Had
twenty-one days, irremissibly she been induced or deceived because
constitute acts contrary to morals and of a promise of marriage, she could
good customs. These are grossly have immediately severed her relation
insensate and reprehensible with Ivan when she was informed after
transgressions which indisputably their first sexual contact sometime in
warrant and abundantly justify the August, 1974, that he was a married
award of moral and exemplary man. Her declaration that in the
damages, pursuant to Article 21 in months of September, October and
relation to paragraphs 3 and 10, November, 1974, they repeated their
Article 2219, and Articles 2229 and sexual intercourse only indicates that
2234 of the Civil Code. passion and not the alleged promise
of marriage was the moving force that
made her submit herself to Ivan.
GR NO. 57227, May 14, 1992
AMELITA CONSTANTINO VS. IVAN

GR NO. L-26795, July 31, 1970
MENDEZ
Claim for damages which is based on CARMEN QUIMIGUING VS. FELIX ICAO
Articles19 & 21 of the Civil Code on
For a married man to force a woman
the theory that through Ivans
not his wife to yield to his lust
promise of marriage, she surrendered
constitutes a clear violation of the
her virginity, we cannot but agree
rights of his victim that entitles her to
with the CA that mere sexual
claim compensation for the damage
intercourse is not by itself a basis for
caused. Says Article 21 of the Civil
recovery. Damages could only be
Code of the Philippines: ART.
awarded if sexual intercourse is not a
21. Any person who wilfully causes
product of voluntariness and mutual
loss or injury to another in a manner
that is contrary to morals, good eventually fell in love with each other
customs or public policy shall and conducted clandestine love affairs
compensate the latter for the not only in Gasan but in Boac where
damage.
Lolita used to teach in a barrio school.
The rule of Article 21 is supported by When the rumors about their ilicit
Article 2219 of the same Code that
affair reached the knowledge of her
moral damages may be recovered in
parents, defendant was forbidden
Seduction, abduction, rape or other
lascivious acts. from going to their house and even
from seeing Lolita. Plaintiffs even filed
deportation proceedings against
defendant who is a Chinese national.
Nevertheless, defendant continued his
GR NO. L-17396, May 30, 1962
love affairs with Lolita until she
CECILIO PE VS. ALFONSO PE disappeared from the parental home.
The circumstances under which Indeed, no other conclusion can be
defendant tried to win Lolitas drawn from this chain of events than
affection cannot lead to any other that defendant not only deliberately,
conclusion than that it was he who, but through a clever strategy,
thru an ingenious scheme or trickery, succeeded in winning the affection
seduced the latter to the extent of and love of Lolita to the extent of
making her fall in love with him. This having illicit relations with her.
is shown by the fact that defendant
The wrong he has caused her and her
frequented the house of Lolita on the
family is indeed immeasurable
pretext that he wanted her to teach
considering the fact that he is a
him how to pray the rosary. Because
married man. Verily, he has
of the frequency of his visits to the
committed an injury to Lolitas family
latters family who was allowed free
in a manner contrary to morals, good
access because he was a collateral
customs and public policy as
relative and was considered as a
contemplated in Article 21 of the new
member of her family, the two
Civil Code.
b. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION malice, i.e., by improper and sinister

motives.
GR NO. 47013, February 17, 2000
ANDRES LAO VS. CA

Malicious prosecution has been
GR NO. 66865, January 13, 1989
defined as an action for damages
brought by one against whom a MAGTANGGOL QUE VS. IAC
criminal prosecution, civil suit or One cannot be held liable in damages
other legal proceeding has been for maliciously instituting a
instituted maliciously and without prosecution where he acted with
probable cause, after the termination probable cause.
of such prosecution, suit or other
Probable cause is the existence of
proceeding in favor of the defendant
such facts and circumstances as
therein. As thus defined, the fact of
would excite the belief, in a
termination of the criminal
reasonable mind, acting on the facts
prosecution, civil suit or legal
within the knowledge of the
proceeding maliciously filed and
prosecutor, that the person charged
without probable cause, should
was guilty of the crime for which he
precede the complaint for malicious
was prosecuted. The general rule is
prosecution. Such a complaint states a
well settled that one cannot be held
cause of action if it alleges: (a) that
liable in damages for maliciously
the defendant was himself the
instituting a prosecution where he
prosecutor or at least instigated the
acted with probable cause. In other
prosecution; (b) that the prosecution
words, a suit will lie only in cases
finally terminated in the acquittal of
where a legal prosecution has been
the plaintiff; (c) that in bringing the
carried on without probable
action the prosecutor acted without
cause. And the reason for the rule as
probable cause, and (d) that the
stated by Blackstone, is that it would
prosecutor was actuated by
be a very great discouragement to
public justice if prosecotors, who had regularly, for the mere purpose of
a tolerable ground of suspicion, were vexation or injury.
liable to be sued at law when their The statutory basis for a civil action
indictments miscarried. for damages for malicious
prosecution are found in the
provisions of the New Civil Code on
Human Relations and on damages
particularly Articles 19, 20, 21, 26,
GR NO. 107019, March 20, 1997 29, 32, 33, 35, 2217 and 2219 (8). To
constitute malicious prosecution,
FRANKLIN M. DRILON VS. CA however, there must be proof that the
The term malicious prosecution has prosecution was prompted by a
been defined in various ways. In sinister design to vex and humiliate a
American jurisdiction, it is defined as: person, and that it was initiated
One begun in malice without deliberately by the defendant knowing
probable cause to believe the charges that his charges were false and
can be sustained. Instituted with groundless. Concededly, the mere act
intention of injuring defendant and of submitting a case to the authorities
without probable cause, and which for prosecution does not make one
terminates in favor of the person liable for malicious prosecution. Thus,
prosecuted. For this injury an action in order for a malicious prosecution
on the case lies, called the action of suit to prosper, the plaintiff must
malicious prosecution. prove three (3) elements: (1) the fact
of the prosecution and the further fact
In Philippine jurisdiction, it has been
that the defendant was himself the
defined as: An action for damages
prosecutor and that the action finally
brought by one against whom a
terminated with an acquittal; (2) that
criminal prosecution, civil suit, or
in bringing the action, the prosecutor
other legal proceeding has been
acted without probable cause; and (3)
instituted maliciously and without
that the prosecutor was actuated or
probable cause, after the termination
impelled by legal malice, that is by
of such prosecution, suit, or other
improper or sinister motive.
proceeding in favor of the defendant
therein. The gist of the action is the
putting of legal process in force,
c. PUBLIC HUMILIATION Pursuant to Art. 21 of the Civil Code

in relation to par. (10) of Art. 2219 of
the same Code, any person
GR NO. 51832, April 26, 1989 who wilfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary
RAFAEL PATRICIO VS. OSCAR LEVISTE
to morals, good customs or public
Moral damages may be recovered in policy shall compensate the latter for
cases where a defendants wrongful the damage.
act or omission has caused the
The fact that no actual or
complainant physical suffering, compensatory damage was proven
mental anguish, fright, serious before the trial court, does not
anxiety, besmirched reputation, adversely affect petitioners right to
wounded feelings, moral shock, social recover moral damages. Moral
damages may be awarded in
humiliation and similar injury. An
appropriate cases referred to in the
award of moral damages is allowed in
chapter on human relations of the
cases specified or analogous to those Civil Code (Articles 19 to 36), without
provided in Article 2219 of the Civil need of proof that the wrongful act
Code. complained of had caused any
physical injury upon the
The act of private respondent in complainant. It is clear from the
hitting petitioner on the face is report of the Code Commission that
contrary to morals and good customs the reason underlying an award of
and caused the petitioner mental damages under Art. 21 of the Civil
anguish, moral shock wounded Code is to compensate the injured
feelings and social party for the moral injury caused
humiliation. Private respondent has upon his person
to take full responsibility for his
act and his claim that he was unaware
of what he had done to petitioner G.R.No. L-48250, December 28, 1979
because of drunkenness is definitely
no excuse and does not relieve him of GRAND UNION VS. JOSE J. ESPINO
his liability to the latter. Upon the facts and under the law,
plaintiff has clearly made the cause of
action for damages against the dignity of a person. Everyone must

defendants. Defendants wilfully respect the dignity, personality,
caused loss or injury to plaintiff in a privacy and peace of mind of his
manner that was contrary to morals, neighbors and other persons (Article
good customs or Public policy, 26, Civil Code). And one must act with
making them amenable to damages justice, give everyone his due and
under Articles 19 and 21 in relation to observe honesty and good faith
Article 2219 of the Civil Code. (Article 19, Civil Code).
The false accusation charged against

the private respondent after detaining
and interrogating him by the
uniformed guards and the mode and d. UNJUST DISMISSAL
manner in which he was subjected.
shouting at him, imposing upon him a
GR NO. L-47739, June 22, 1983
fine, threatening to call the police and
in the presence and hearing of many SINGAPORE AIRLINES VS. ERNANI
people at the Supermarket which CRUZ PAO
brought and caused him humiliation While seemingly petitioners claim for
and embarrassment, sufficiently damages arises from employer-
employee relations, and the latest
rendered the petitioners liable for
amendment to Article 217 of the
damages under Articles 19 and 21 in
Labor Code under PD No. 1691 and BP
relation to Article 2219 of the Civil Blg. 130 provides that all other claims
Code. We rule that under the facts of arising from employer-employee
the case at bar, petitioners wilfully relationship are cognizable by Labor
caused loss or injury to private Arbiters, in essence, petitioners claim
for damages is grounded on the
respondent in a manner that was
wanton failure and refusal without
contrary to morals, good customs or
just cause of private respondent Cruz
public policy. It is against morals,
to report for duty despite repeated
good customs and public policy to notices served upon him of the
humiliate, embarrass and degrade the disapproval of his application for
leave of absence without pay. This, governing statute is the Civil Code
coupled with the further averment and not the Labor Code.
that Cruz maliciously and with bad
faith violated the terms and
conditions of the conversion training
course agreement to the damage of
petitioner removes the present IX. OTHER TORTS
controversy from the coverage of the
Labor Code and brings it within the
purview of Civil Law. A. DERELICTION OF DUTY
Clearly, the complaint was anchored
not on the abandonment per se by
GR NO. L-14986, July 31, 1962
private respondent Cruz of his jobas
the latter was not required in the CORNELIO AMARO VS. AMBROCIO
Complaint to report back to work SUMANGUIT
but on the manner and consequent
the facts set out constitute an
effects of such abandonment of work
actionable dereliction on appellees
translated in terms of the damages
which petitioner had to suffer. part in the light of Article 27 of the
Civil Code. That appellants were
harassed and terrorized may be a
conclusion of law and hence
improperly pleaded. Their claim for
R NO. 59825, September 11, 1982
relief, however, is not based on the
ERNESTO MEDINA VS. ASTRO- fact of harassment and terrorization
BARTOLOME but on appellees refusal to give them
It is obvious from the complaint that assistance, which it was his duty to do
the plaintiffs have not alleged any as an officer of the law. The
unfair labor practice. Theirs is a requirement under the aforesaid
simple action for damages for tortious provision that such refusal must be
acts allegedly committed by the without just cause is implicit in the
defendants. Such being the case, the context of the allegation. The
statement of appellees dereliction is produce a cause of action for

repeated in a subsequent paragraph damages, prevention and other
of the complaint, where it is alleged relief.
that he is about to order the arrest of The damages fixed by Judge Leuterio
the plaintiffs to make them sign are sanctioned by Articles 2200, 2208
and 2219 of the Civil Code. Article
affidavits of exculpation in favor of
2219 allows moral damages for acts
the policeman.
mid actions mentioned in Article 26.
As lengthily explained by Justice
Gafmailan, the acts and omissions of
B. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE the firm fall under Article 26.
St. Louis Realtys employee was

C. VIOLATION OF HUMAN grossly negligent in mixing up the
DIGNITY AND PRIVACY Aramil and Arcadio residences in a
widely circulated publication like
the Sunday Times. To suit its purpose,
GR NO. L-46061, November 14, 1984
it never made any written apology and
explanation of the mix up. It just
ST. LOUIS REALTY VS. CA
contented itself with a cavalier
St. Louis Realty contends that the
rectification.
decision is contrary to law and that
the case was decided in a way not in Persons, who know the residence of
conformity with the rulings of this Doctor Aramil, were confused by the
Court. It argues that the case is not distorted, lingering impression that
covered by Article 26 which provides he was renting his residence from
that every person shall respect the Arcadio or that Arcadio had leased it
dignity, personality, privacy and peace from him. Either way, his private life
of mind of his neighbors and other was mistakenly and unnecessarily
persons. Prying into the privacy of exposed. He suffered diminution of
anothers residence and meddling income and mental anguish.
with or disturbing the private life or
family relations of another and
similar acts, though they may not
constitute a criminal offense, shall
GR NO. 120706, January 31, 2000 himself by claiming that he made an

appointment to see Nestor through a
RODRIGO CONCEPCION VS. CA nephew, Roncali, the son of Florence,
It is petitioners position that the act so he could talk with Nestor to find
imputed to him does not constitute out the truth about his rumored illicit
any of those enumerated in Arts 26 relationship with Florence. He said
and 2219. In this respect, the law is that he wanted to protect his nephews
clear. The violations mentioned in the and nieces and the name of his late
codal provisions are not exclusive but brother (Florences husband). How he
are merely examples and do not could be convinced by some way
preclude other similar or other than a denial by Nestor, and
analogous acts. Damages therefore how he would protect his nephews
are allowable for actions against a and nieces and his familys name if
persons dignity, such as profane, the rumor were true, he did not say.
insulting, humiliating, scandalous or Petitioner admitted that he had
abusive language. Under Art. 2217 of already talked with Florence herself
the Civil Code, moral damages which over the telephone about the issue,
include physical suffering, mental with the latter vehemently denying the
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, alleged immoral relationship. Yet, he
besmirched reputation, wounded could not let the matter rest on the
feelings, moral shock, social strength of the denial of his sister-in-
humiliation, and similar injury, law. He had to go and confront
although incapable of pecuniary Nestor, even in public, to the latters
computation, may be recovered if they humiliation.
are the proximate result of the
defendants wrongful act or omission.
There is no question that private

respondent Nestor Nicolas suffered
mental anguish, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings and
social humiliation as a proximate
result of petitioners abusive,
scandalous and insulting language.
Petitioner attempted to exculpate
X. DAMAGES In this case, the claim for actual

A. DEFINITION AND CONCEPTS damages by the heirs of the victims is
not controverted, the same having
GR NO. 120921, January 29, 1998
been fully substantiated by receipts
PEOPLE VS. FELIPE BALLESTEROS accumulated by them and presented
Damages may be defined as the to the court. Therefore, the award of
pecuniary compensation, recompense, actual damages is proper. However,
or satisfaction for an injury sustained, the order granting compensatory
or as otherwise expressed, the damages to the heirs of Jerry Agliam
pecuniary consequences which the and Eduardo Tolentino Sr. must be
law imposes for the breach of some amended. Consistent with the policy
duty or the violation of some of this Court, the amount of fifty
right. Actual or compensatory thousand pesos (P 50,000.00) is given
damages are those awarded in to the heirs of the victims by way
satisfaction of, or in recompense for, of indemnity, and not as
loss or injury sustained, whereas compensatory damages. As regards
moral damages may be invoked when moral damages, the amount of
the complainant has experienced psychological pain, damage and injury
mental anguish, serious anxiety, caused to the heirs of the victims,
physical suffering, moral shock and although inestimable, may be
so forth, and had furthermore shown determined by the trial court in its
that these were the proximate result discretion. Hence, we see no reason
of the offenders wrongful act or to disturb its findings as to this
omission. In granting actual or matter.
compensatory damages, the party
making a claim for such must present
the best evidence available, viz.,
receipts, vouchers, and the like, as
corroborated by his testimony.
GR NO. 116100, February 09, 1996 underlying basis for the award of tort
damages is the premise that an
SPOUSES CUSTODIO VS. CA individual was injured in
To warrant the recovery of damages, contemplation of law. Thus, there
there must be both a right of action must first be the breach of some duty
for a legal wrong inflicted by the and the imposition of liability for that
defendant, and damage resulting to breach before damages may be
the plaintiff therefrom. Wrong awarded; it is not sufficient to state
without damage, or damage without that there should be tort liability
wrong, does not constitute a cause of merely because the plaintiff suffered
action, since damages are merely part some pain and suffering).
of the remedy allowed for the injury
Many accidents occur and many
caused by a breach or wrong.
injuries are inflicted by acts or
There is a material distinction omissions which cause damage or
between damages and injury. Injury is loss to another but which violate no
the illegal invasion of a legal right; legal duty to such other person, and
damage is the loss, hurt, or harm consequently create no cause of
which results from the injury; and action in his favor. In such cases, the
damages are the recompense or consequences must be borne by the
compensation awarded for the injured person alone. The law affords
damage suffered. Thus, there can be no remedy for damages resulting
damage without injury in those from an act which does not amount to
instances in which the loss or harm a legal injury or wrong.
was not the result of a violation of a
legal duty. These situations are often
called damnum absque injuria.
In order that a plaintiff may maintain GR NO. 114118, August 28, 2001
an action for the injuries of which he
complains, he must establish that HEIRS OF BORLADO VS. CA
such injuries resulted from a breach As a matter of law, the trial court and
of duty which the defendant owed to the CA erred in holding petitioners
the plaintiff a concurrence of injury liable to pay respondents one
to the plaintiff and legal responsibility hundred (100) cavans of palay every
by the person causing it. The
year from 1972 until they vacate the profits of the business, during the
premises of the land in question. time of its stoppage.
The one hundred cavans of palay was

awarded as a form of damages. We
cannot sustain the award. Palay is
not legal tender currency in the
Philippines. B. DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA
GR NO. L-18805, August 14, 1967
BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS VS. HEIRS OF

GR NO. L-12736, July 31, 1961
KALAW
LAZATIN VS. ANGEL C. TWAO A high regard for normal judicial
The law on damages is found on Title admissions made in court pleadings
XVII of the Civil Code (Arts. 2195 to would suffice to deter us from
2235). The rules governing damages permitting plaintiff to stray
laid down in other laws, and the away therefrom, to charge now that
principles of the general law on the damage suffered was because
damages are adopted in so far as they of Kalaws negligence, or for that
are not inconsistent with the Code matter, by reason of the boards
(Arts. 2196 and 2198). Article 2197 ratification of the contracts.
mentions the kind of damages Indeed, were it not for the typhoons,
recoverable, among which are (1) NACOCO could have, with ease, met
actual or compensatory and (2) moral. its contractual obligations. Stock
Article 2219 provides that moral accessibility was no problem.
damages may be recovered in NACOCO had 90 buying agencies
the following and analogous cases * * spread throughout the islands. It
* (8) malicious prosecution. could purchase 2,000 tons of copra a
Where there is no issue of malice, day. The various contracts involved
damages must be compensatory delivery of but 16,500 tons over a
merely, and confined to the actual five-month period. Despite the
loss from deprivation of the property typhoons, NACOCO was still able to
attached or injury to it, or in case of deliver a little short of 50% of the
closing business, to the probable tonnage required under the contracts.
As the trial court correctly observed, legal duty. These situations are often
this is a case of damnum absque called damnum absque injuria.
injuria. Conjunction of damage and In order that a plaintiff may maintain
wrong is here absent. There cannot an action for the injuries of which he
be an actionable wrong if either one complains, he must establish that
or the other is wanting. such injuries resulted from a breach
of duty which the defendant owed to
the plaintiff a concurrence of injury
to the plaintiff and legal responsibility
GR NO. 116100, February 09, 1996 by the person causing it. The
underlying basis for the award of tort
SPOUSES CUSTODIO VS. CA damages is the premise that an
To warrant the recovery of damages, individual was injured in
there must be both a right of action contemplation of law. Thus, there
for a legal wrong inflicted by the must first be the breach of some duty
defendant, and damage resulting to and the imposition of liability for that
the plaintiff therefrom. Wrong breach before damages may be
without damage, or damage without awarded; it is not sufficient to state
wrong, does not constitute a cause of that there should be tort liability
action, since damages are merely part merely because the plaintiff suffered
of the remedy allowed for the injury some pain and suffering).
caused by a breach or wrong.
There is a material distinction

between damages and injury. Injury is
the illegal invasion of a legal right; C. KINDS OF DAMAGES
damage is the loss, hurt, or harm
1. ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY
which results from the injury; and
damages are the recompense or G.R. No. L-8385; March 24, 1914
compensation awarded for the
damage suffered. Thus, there can be LUCIO ALGARRA VS. SIXTO SANDEJAS
damage without injury in those The requirements of article 1902, that
instances in which the loss or harm the defendant repair the damage done
was not the result of a violation of a
can only mean what is set forth in the
above definitions, Anything short of repair that of which one has been
that would not repair the damages deprived by the wrong of another.
and anything beyond that would be
Compensatory damages are such as
excessive. Actual compensatory
awarded to compensate the injured
damages are those allowed for
party for caused by the wrong, and
tortious wrongs under the Civil Code;
must be only such as make just and
nothing more, nothing less.
fair compensation, and are due when
The purpose of the law in awarding the wrong is established, whether it
actual damages is to repair the wrong was committed maliciously that is,
that has been done, to compensate with evil intention or not.
for the injury inflicted, and not to
impose a penalty. Actual damages are
not dependent on nor graded by the a. KINDS
intent with which the wrongful act is
GR NO. 107518, October 08, 1998
done. The words "actual damages"
shall be construed to include all PNOC SHIPPING VS. CA
damages that the plaintiff may he has Under Article 2199 of the Civil Code,
suffered in respect to his property, actual or compensatory damages are
business, trade, profession, or those awarded in satisfaction of, or in
occupation, and no other damages recompense for, loss or injury
whatever. sustained. They proceed from a sense
of natural justice and are designed to
Actual damages are compensatory
repair the wrong that has been done,
only. `Compensatory damages' as
to compensate for the injury inflicted
indicated by the word employed to
and not to impose a penalty. In
characterize them, simply make good
actions based on torts or quasi-
or replace the loss caused by the
delicts, actual damages include all the
wrong. They proceed from a sense of
natural and probable consequences of
natural justice, and are designed to
the act or omission complained of.
There are two kinds of actual or the quoted selling price of

compensatory damages: one is the P1,850,750.55 and by deducting the
loss of what a person already production cost of P1,060,426.20,
possesses (dao emergente), and the petitioner could have earned profit of
other is the failure to receive as a P790,324.30. Admittedly, the
benefit that which would have evidence relied upon by the trial court
pertained to him (lucro cesante). in arriving at the amount are mere
estimates prepared by petitioner. Said
evidence is highly speculative and
manifestly hypothetical. It could not
provide sufficient legal and factual
GR NO. 115117, June 08, 2000
basis for the award of P790,324.30 as
INTEGRATED PACKAGING VS. CA compensatory damages representing
Indemnification for damages petitioners self-serving claim of
comprehends not only the loss unrealized profit.
suffered, that is to say actual
damages (damnum emergens), but
also profits which the obligee failed to
obtain, referred to as compensatory
b. EXTENT
damages (lucrum cessans). However,
to justify a grant of actual or
compensatory damages, it is c. CERTAINTY
necessary to prove with a reasonable
GR NO. 118342, January 05, 1998
degree of certainty, premised upon
competent proof and on the best DBP VS. CA
evidence obtainable by the injured Article 2199 provides: Except as
party, the actual amount of loss. provided by law or by stipulation, one
is entitled to an adequate
In the case at bar, the trial court compensation only for such pecuniary
erroneously concluded that petitioner loss suffered by him as he has duly
could have sold books to Philacor at proved. Such compensation is
referred to as actual or compensatory evidence available. Courts cannot

damages. simply rely on speculation, conjecture
or guesswork in determining the fact
Actual or compensatory damages
and amount of damages.
cannot be presumed, but must be
proved with reasonable degree of
certainty. A court cannot rely on
speculations, conjectures, or d. DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
guesswork as to the fact and amount

GR NO. 107518, October 08, 1998
of damages, but must depend upon
competent proof that they have been PNOC SHIPPING VS. CA
suffered by the injured party and on Under Article 2199 of the Civil Code,
the best obtainable evidence of the
actual or compensatory damages are
actual amount thereof. It must point
those awarded in satisfaction of, or in
out specific facts which could afford a
basis for measuring whatever recompense for, loss or injury
compensatory or actual damages are sustained. They proceed from a sense

borne. 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. In
actions based on torts or quasi-
GR NO. 111692, February 09, 1996 delicts, actual damages include all the
natural and probable consequences of
ALEJANDRO FUENTES VS. CA
the act or omission complained of.
In crimes and quasi-delicts, the
defendant is liable for all damages
There are two kinds of actual or
which are the natural and probable
compensatory damages: one is the
consequences of the act or omission
loss of what a person already
complained of. To seek recovery for
actual damages it is essential that the possesses (dao emergente), and the
injured party proves the actual other is the failure to receive as a
amount of loss with reasonable benefit that which would have
degree of certainty premised upon pertained to him (lucro cesante).
competent proof and on the best
In addition, nominal damages are case, where the resulting injury might
awarded in every obligation arising be continuing and possible future
from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, complications directly arising from
acts or omissions punished by law, the injury, while certain to occur, are
and quasi-delicts, or in every case difficult to predict.
where property right has been
Established medical procedures and
invaded. Under Article 2223 of the
practices, though in constant flux are
Civil Code, (t)he adjudication of
devised for the purpose of preventing
nominal damages shall preclude
complications. A physicians
further contest upon the right
experience with his patients would
involved and all accessory questions,
sometimes tempt him to deviate from
as between the parties to the suit, or
established community practices, and
their respective heirs and assigns.
he may end a distinguished career
using unorthodox methods without
incident. However, when failure to
follow established procedure results
e. PERSONAL INJURY AND in the evil precisely sought to be
DEATH averted by observance of the
procedure and a nexus is made
between the deviation and the injury
GR NO. 124354, December 29, 1999
or damage, the physician would
ROGELIO E. RAMOS VS. CA necessarily be called to account for it.
Actual or compensatory damages In the case at bar, the failure to
generally assume that at the time of observe pre-operative assessment
litigation, the injury suffered as a protocol which would have influenced
consequence of an act of negligence the intubation in a salutary way was
has been completed and that the cost fatal to private respondents case.
can be liquidated. However, these
provisions neglect to take into
account those situations, as in this
G.R. No. L-56487, October 21, 1991 litigation has been decided and the
subject of recovery is at the
GATCHALIAN VS. ARSENIO DELIM
disposition of the court. The issue
A person is entitled to the physical
over attorneys fee only arises when
integrity of his or her body; if that
something has been recovered from
integrity is violated or diminished,
which the fee is to be paid.
actual injury is suffered for which
actual or compensatory damages are Well settled is the rule that counsels
due and assessable. Petitioner claim for attorneys fees may be
Gatchalian is entitled to be placed as asserted either in the very action in
nearly as possible in the condition which the services in question have
that she was before the mishap. A been rendered, or in a separate
scar, especially one on the face of the action. If the first alternative is
woman, resulting from the infliction chosen, the Court may pass upon said
of injury upon her, is a violation of claim, even if its amount were less
bodily integrity, giving raise to a than the minimum prescribed by law
legitimate claim for restoration to for the jurisdiction of said court, upon
her conditio ante. If the scar is the theory that the right to recover
relatively small and does not attorneys fees is but an incident of
grievously disfigure the victim, the the case in which the services of
cost of surgery may be expected to be counsel have been rendered. It also
correspondingly modest. rests on the assumption that the court
trying the case is to a certain degree
already familiar with the nature and
f. ATTORNEYS FEES extent of the lawyers services. The
rule against multiplicity of suits will in
effect be subserved.
GR NO. 73886, January 31, 1989
JOSE C. QUIRANTE VS. IAC

An attorneys fee cannot be
determined until after the main
g. INTEREST a given period of time, from requiring

the borrower or debtor to repay a loan
or debt then due and payable. Using
GR NO. 128721, March 09, 1999 this standard, the obligation in this
case was obviously not a forbearance
CRISMINA GARMENTS VS. CA
of money, goods or credit.
A monetary award shall earn interest
at twelve percent (12%) per annum
from the date of the finality of the
h. MITIGATION OF LIABILITY
judgment until its satisfaction,
regardless of whether or not the case
involves a loan or forbearance of G.R. No. L-12907; August 1, 1918
money. The interim period is deemed
to be equivalent to a forbearance of VIVENCIO CERRANO VS. TAN CHUCO
credit. It is a well-recognized principle of law
Because the amount due in this case that damages resulting from
arose from a contract for a piece of avoidable consequences of the breach
work, not from a loan or forbearance of a contract or other legal duty are
of money, the legal interest of six not recoverable. It is the duty of one
percent (6%) per annum should be
injured by the unlawful act of another
applied. Furthermore, since the
to take such measures as prudent
amount of the demand could be
established with certainty when the men usually take under such
Complaint was filed, the six percent circumstances to reduce the damages
(6%) interest should be computed as much as possible.
from the filing of the said Complaint.
But after the judgment becomes final When the existence of a loss is
and executory until the obligation is established, absolute certainty as to
satisfied, the interest should be its amount is not required. The
reckoned at twelve percent (12%) per benefit to be derived from a contract
year.
which one of the parties has
A forbearance in the context of the absolutely failed to perform is of
usury law is a contractual obligation necessity to some extent, a matter of
of lender or creditor to refrain, during
speculation, but the injured party is
not to be denied all remedy for that category of an award designed to

reason alone. He must produce the compensate the claimant for actual
best evidence of which his case is injury suffered and not to impose a
penalty on the wrongdoer. In
susceptible and if that evidence
Francisco vs. GSIS, the Court held that
warrants the inference that he has
there must be clear testimony on the
been damaged by the loss of profits anguish and other forms of mental
which he might with reasonable suffering. Thus, if the plaintiff fails to
certainty have anticipated but for the take the witness stand and testify as
defendant's wrongful act, he is to his/her social humiliation,
wounded feelings and anxiety, moral
entitled to recover.
damages cannot be awarded. In
Cocoland Development Corporation
vs. National Labor Relations
2. MORAL Commission, the Court held that
additional facts must be pleaded and
proven to warrant the grant of moral
a. CONCEPT
damages under the Civil Code, these
being, x x x social humiliation,
wounded feelings, grave anxiety, etc.,
GR NO. 99301, March 13, 1997
that resulted therefrom.
VICTOR KIERULF VS. THE CA Moral damages are awarded to enable
While no proof of pecuniary loss is the injured party to obtain means,
necessary in order that moral diversions or amusements that will
damages may be awarded, the serve to alleviate the moral suffering
amount of indemnity being left to the he/she has undergone, by reason of
discretion of the court, it is the defendants culpable action.[44] Its
nevertheless essential that the award is aimed at restoration, as
claimant should satisfactorily show much as possible, of the spiritual
the existence of the factual basis of status quo ante; thus, it must be
damages and its causal connection to proportionate to the suffering
defendants acts. This is so because inflicted. Since each case must be
moral damages, though incapable of governed by its own peculiar
pecuniary estimation, are in the circumstances, there is no hard and
fast rule in determining the proper malevolence through which

amount. The yardstick should be that respondents defrauded petitioners,
the amount awarded should not be so deceitfully incurring and then evading
palpably and scandalously excessive settlement of their just liability
as to indicate that it was the result of certainly justifies the award of
passion, prejudice or corruption on exemplary damages by way of
the part of the trial judge. Neither example and correction for the public
should it be so little or so paltry that good and also to serve as a deterrent
it rubs salt to the injury already to the commission of similar
inflicted on plaintiffs. misdeeds by others, even if the
transaction were viewed as a breach
of civil contract.
The Court do not share respondent

courts narrow view that petitioner
b. PROOF OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
Nicetas failure to use in her
testimony the precise legal terms or
GR NO. L-49390, January 28, 1980 sacramental phrases of mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
MIRANDA-RIBAYA VS. MARINO wounded feelings or moral shock and
BAUTISTA the like justifies the denial of the
Petitioners testimonial evidence to claim for damages. It is sufficient that
the effect that petitioner Niceta these exact terms have been pleaded
suffered extremely and that for in the complaint and evidence has
three months she could not sleep was been adduced, as cited above, amply
a clear demonstration of her physical supporting the averments of the
suffering, mental anguish and serious complaint. Indeed, petitioner Niceta
anxiety and similar injury, resulting vividly portrayed in simple terms the
from respondents malevolent acts moral shock and suffering she
that show her to be clearly entitled to underwent as a result of respondents
moral damages. wanton abuse of her good faith and
confidence.
Petitioners having established the
moral damages, are entitled in
addition thereto, to exemplary
damages. The wantonness and
GR NO. 118325, January 29, 1997 GR NO. L-20081, February 27, 1968
VIRGILIO M. DEL ROSARIO VS. CA MELQUIADES RAAGAS VS. OCTAVIO

The law explicitly authorizes the TRAYA
award of moral damages in breaches Even if the allegations regarding the
of contract where the defendant acted amount of damages in the complaint
fraudulently or in bad faith. There are not specifically denied in the
being, moreover, satisfactory evidence answer, such damages are not
of the psychological and mental deemed admitted. The Court held
trauma actually suffered by the Del that in no uncertain terms that actual
Rosarios, the grant to them of moral damages must be proved, and that a
damages is warranted. Over a period court cannot rely on speculation,
of about a month, they experienced conjecture or guesswork as to the
feelings of shock, helplessness, fear, fact and amount of damages, but
embarrassment and anger. must depend on actual proof that
damages had been suffered and on
There is, to be sure, no hard and fast
evidence of the actual amount. The
rule for determining what would be a
rule that although an allegation is not
fair amount of moral (or exemplary)
necessary in order that moral
damages, each case having to be
damages may be awarded, it is,
governed by its attendant particulars.
nevertheless, essential that the
Generally, the amount of moral
claimant satisfactorily prove the
damages should be commensurate
existence of the factual basis of the
with the actual loss or injury
damage and its causal relation to
suffered.
defendants acts.
GR NO. L-38037, January 28, 1974 Furthermore, while no proof of

pecuniary loss is necessary in order
ROQUE ENERVIDA VS. LAURO DE LA that moral damages may be
TORRE awarded, the amount of indemnity
Unlike compensatory or actual being left to the discretion of the
damages which are generally court (Art. 2216), it is, nevertheless,
recoverable in tort cases as long as essential that the claimant
there is satisfactory proof thereof satisfactorily prove the existence of
(Art. 2202), the Code has chosen to the factual basis of the damage (Art.
enumerate the cases in which moral 2217) and its causal relation to
damages may be recovered (Art. defendants acts. This is so
2219). A like enumeration is made because moral damages, though
in regard to the recovery of incapable of pecuniary estimation,
attorneys fees as an item of are in the category of an award
damage (Art. 2208). But the two designed to compensate the
enumerations differ in the case of a claimant for actual injury suffered
clearly unfounded suit, which is and not to impose a penalty on the
expressly mentioned in Art. 2208 wrongdoer (Algara vs. Sandejas, 27
(par.4), as justifying an award of Phil., 284). The trial court and the
attorneys fees, but is not included CA both seem to be of the opinion
in the enumeration of Art. 2219 in that the mere fact that respondent
respect to moral damages. It is true were sued without any legal
that Art. 2219 also provides that foundation entitled them to an
moral damages may be awarded in award of moral damages, hence
analogous cases to those they made no definite finding as to
enumerated, but we do not think what the supposed moral damages
the Code intended a clearly suffered consist of. Such a
unfounded civil action or conclusion would make of moral
proceedings to be one of these damages a penalty, which they are
analogous cases wherein moral not, rather than a compensation for
damages may be recovered, or it actual injury suffered, which they
would have expressly mentioned it are intended to be. Moral damages,
in Art. 2219, as it did in Art. 2208; in other words, are not corrective or
or else incorporated Art. 2208 by exemplary damages.
reference in Art. 2219.
GR NO. 126518, December 02, 1998 years of age and the offender is the
common-law spouse of her mother.
PEOPLE VS. RODELIO BUGAYONG The amendatory law, however, cannot
Appellant sexually assaulted be applied in this case, because there
complainant in 1993 when she was 10 is no showing that the crime was
years old. Thus, the trial court committed after the effectivity of the
correctly convicted him of statutory said law.
rape under Article 335 (3) of the
Revised Penal Code. Moreover,
appellant is also guilty of acts of c. CASES WHERE ALLOWED
lasciviousness committed on October
15, 1995. GR NO. L-18287, March 30, 1963
The trial court correctly awarded TRINIDAD J. FRANCISCO VS. GSIS

P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto, an
Not only on account of the plaintiffs
amount which is automatically
failure to take the witness stand and
granted to the offended party without
need of further evidence other than testify to her social humiliation,
the fact of the commission of rape. wounded feelings, anxiety, etc., as the
decision holds, but primarily because
Consistent with recent jurisprudence,
appellant should also be ordered to a breach of contract like that of
pay the victim the additional amount defendant, not being malicious or
of P50,000 as moral damages. fraudulent, does not warrant the
In People v. Prades, the Court resolved award of moral damages under Article
that moral damages may additionally
2220 of the Civil Code.
be awarded to the victim in the
criminal proceeding, in such amount
as the Court deems just, without the
need for pleading or proof of the
basis thereof as has heretofore been
GR NO. 130030, June 25, 1999
the practice.
Republic Act 7659, which amended EXPERTRAVEL VS. CA

the Revised Penal Code, prescribes, Moral damages are not punitive in
among others, the death penalty nature but are designed to
where the rape victim is under 18
compensate[3] and alleviate in some the provisions of this law, in culpa

way the physical suffering, mental contractual or breach of contract,
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, moral damages may be recovered
besmirched reputation, wounded when the defendant acted in bad faith
feelings, moral shock, social or was guilty of gross negligence
humiliation, and similar injury (amounting to bad faith) or in wanton
unjustly caused to a person. Although disregard of his contractual obligation
incapable of pecuniary computation, and, exceptionally, when the act of
moral damages, nevertheless, must breach of contract itself is constitutive
somehow be proportional to and in of tort resulting in physical injuries.
approximation of the suffering
By special rule in Article 1764, in
inflicted.[4] Such damages, to be
relation to Article 2206, of the Civil
recoverable, must be the proximate
Code, moral damages may also be
result of a wrongful act or omission
awarded in case the death of a
the factual basis for which is
passenger results from a breach of
satisfactorily established by the
carriage. In culpa aquiliana, or quasi-
aggrieved party.[5] An award of moral
delict, (a) when an act or omission
damages would require certain
causes physical injuries, or (b) where
conditions to be met; to wit: (1) First,
the defendant is guilty of intentional
there must be an injury, whether
tort, moral damages may aptly be
physical, mental or psychological,
recovered. This rule also applies, as
clearly sustained by the claimant; (2)
aforestated, to contracts when
second, there must be a culpable act
breached by tort. In culpa criminal,
or omission factually established; (3)
moral damages could be lawfully due
third, the wrongful act or omission of
when the accused is found guilty of
the defendant is the proximate cause
physical injuries, lascivious acts,
of the injury sustained by the
adultery or concubinage, illegal or
claimant; and (4) fourth, the award of
arbitrary detention, illegal arrest,
damages is predicated on any of the
illegal search, or defamation.
cases stated in Article 2219. Under
Malicious prosecution can also give
rise to a claim for moral damages. inquiry as to the truth and had
The term analogous cases, referred available means for ascertaining it, at
to in Article 2219, following least where actual fraud has not been
the ejusdem generis rule, must be practised on the party claiming the
held similar to those expressly estoppel.
enumerated by the law.
It is evident in this case that private
respondent was barking up the wrong
tree when it sought to hold
d. UNFOUNDED SUITS petitioners liable for the value of the
pharmaceutical products delivered at
GR NO. 113558, April 18, 1997
the drugstore in question. The
EDITHA M. MIJARES VS. CA evidence clearly shows that
petitioners were not the owners of
One who claims the benefit of an
said drugstore when the deliveries
estoppel on the ground that he has
were made. Hence, no meeting of the
been misled by the representations of minds between them and private
another must not have been misled respondent could have taken place;
through his own want of reasonable no contract of sale could have
care and circumspection. A lack of arisen. The absence of any privity of
diligence by a party claiming an relations between the parties at the
time of the deliveries precludes any
estoppel is generally fatal. If the party
cause of action in favor of private
conducts himself with careless
respondent against petitioners. The
indifference to means of information Regional Trial Court therefore did not
reasonably at hand, or ignores highly err when it dismissed private
suspicious circumstances, he may not respondents complaint against
invoke the doctrine of estoppel. Good petitioners.
faith is generally regarded as The trial court however erred when it

requiring the exercise of reasonable awarded moral damages in favor of
diligence to learn the truth, and petitioners. Petitioners have failed to

show that private respondent was
accordingly estoppel is denied where
motivated by bad faith when it
the party claiming it was put on
instituted the action for collection replevin case against private

below. respondent based on the latters own
challenge to the former that if they
really had a right on the motorcycle,
then they should institute the
necessary case in court. When
GR NO. 81827, March 28, 1994 petitioner did sue private respondent
and filed a third party complaint
PANTALEON DE LA PEA VS. CA
against the person from whom private
An award for attorneys fees and
respondent claims to have brought
moral damages on the sole basis of the motorcycle, it cannot be said that
an action later declared to be the institution of the replevin suit was
unfounded in the absence of a tainted with gross and evident bad
deliberate intent to cause prejudice to faith or was done maliciously to
the other party is improper. The right harass, embarrass, annoy or ridicule
private respondent.
to litigate is so precious that a penalty
should not be charged on those who Moreover, the adverse result of an
action dismissal of petitioners
may exercise it erroneously.
complaint does not per se make an
act unlawful and subject the actor to
the payment of moral damages. It is
not a sound public policy to place a
premium on the right to litigate. No
GR NO. 127823, January 29, 1998
damages can be charged on those
J MARKETING CORP. VS. FELICIDAD who may exercise such precious right
in good faith, even if done
SIA
erroneously.
A persons right to litigate should not
be penalized by holding him liable for The award of exemplary damages has
damages. This is especially true when likewise no factual basis. It is a
the filing of the case is to enforce requisite that the act must be
what he believes to be his rightful accompanied by bad faith or done in
claim against another although found wanton, fraudulent or malevolent
to be erroneous. In this case, manner circumstances which are
petitioner precisely instituted the absent in this case. In addition,
exemplary damages cannot be GR NO. 124062, December 29, 1999

awarded as the requisite element of
compensatory damages was not REYNALDO T. COMETA VS. CA
present. Lack of probable cause is an element

separate and distinct from that of
With respect to the attorneys fees, an
malice. It follows, therefore, that one
adverse decision does not ipso facto
cannot be held liable in damages for
justify the award thereof to the
maliciously instituting a prosecution
winning party. All indications point to
where he acted with probable cause.
the fact that petitioner honestly
thought that they had a good cause of Obviously, a determination that there
action, so notwithstanding the was no probable cause cannot be
dismissal of their case, no attorneys made to rest solely on the fact that
fees can be granted to private the trial court, acting on private
respondent. Considering that the respondent Guevarras demurrer to
latter claims to be the owner of the evidence, dismissed the criminal
motorcycle, petitioner was compelled prosecution, just as it cannot be made
to sue him. When the former to turn on the fact that the
necessarily became a party Department of Justice reversed the
defendant no attorneys fees and fiscals findings and ordered the
litigation expenses can automatically criminal case against private
be recovered even if he should win, a respondent Guevarra to be filed in
it is not the fact of winning alone that court. The first would transform all
entitles recovery of such items but acquittals into veritable countersuits
rather the attendance of special for malicious prosecution. On the
circumstances the enumerated other hand, the second would result
exceptions in Article 2208 of the New in the dismissal of all complaints for
Civil Code. There being no bad faith malicious prosecutions.
reflected in petitioners persistence in Accordingly, the inquiry should be
pursuing its case, other than an whether sufficient facts are alleged
erroneous conviction of the showing that in bringing the criminal
righteousness of its cause, attorneys action, the defendant in the civil
fees cannot be recovered as cost. action for malicious prosecution acted
without probable cause. This Court
has ruled that for purposes of
malicious prosecution, probable GR NO. 121998, March 09, 2000

cause means such facts and
circumstances as would excite the PEOPLE VS. PIRAME
belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on The Court concur with the trial courts
the facts within the knowledge of the award of P50,000.00 each from
prosecutor, that the person charged appellant Florencio Pirame and co-
was guilty of the crime for which he accused Teodorico Cleopas as death
was prosecuted. In this case, even if
indemnity to the victims heirs, which
we consider the allegations in the
is in line with current jurisprudence.
complaint as true, as well as the order
of the trial court annexed thereto, we The Court also find the amount of
do not find the same sufficient to P23,214.00 awarded by the trial court
establish the absence of probable as burial and incidental expenses
cause. supported by the records. The award
of P50,000.00 from each accused as
moral and exemplary damages,
however, is unsupported. The widow
GR NO. 129584, December 03, 1998 of the victim did not testify on any
mental anguish or emotional distress,
TRIPLE EIGHT VS. NLRC
which she suffered as a result of her
The rule is that moral damages are
husbands death. The absence of any
recoverable where the dismissal of the
generic aggravating circumstance
employee was attended by bad faith
attending the crime likewise precludes
or fraud or constituted an act
the award of exemplary damages.
oppressive to labor, or was done in a
manner contrary to morals, good
customs, or public policy. Likewise,
exemplary damages may be awarded
if the dismissal was effected in a GR NO. 134784, December 09, 2002
wanton, oppressive or malevolent
CARLOS ARCONA VS. CA
manner.
On the other hand, the award of moral
damages in the sum of P 10,000.00
must be increased to P50,000.00. As e. FACTORS IN DETERMINING

borne out by human nature and AMOUNT
experience, a violent death invariably
and necessarily brings about
emotional pain and anguish on the GR NO. 116181, January 06, 1997
part of the victims family. It is
inherently human to suffer sorrow, PNB VS. CA
torment, pain and anger when a loved The doctrine on the grant of moral
one becomes the victim of a violent or and exemplary damages, as follows:
brutal killing. Such violent death or To begin with, there is no hard and
brutal killing not only steals from the fast rule in the determination of
family of the deceased his precious what would be a fair amount of
life, deprives them forever of his love, moral damages, since each case
affection and support, but often must be governed by its own
leaves them with the gnawing feeling peculiar circumstances.
that an injustice has been done to
Article 2217 of the Civil Code
them. For this reason, moral damages
recognizes that moral damages
must be awarded even in the absence
which include physical suffering,
of any allegation and proof of the
mental anguish, fright, serious
heirs emotional suffering.
anxiety, besmirched reputation,
Finally, the award of actual damages wounded feelings, moral shock,
in the amount of P10,000.00 does not social humiliation and similar injury,
appear to have been substantiated. are incapable of pecuniary
Only those expenses which are duly estimation.
proven, or those that appear to have
As to exemplary damages, Article
been genuinely incurred in connection
2229 of the Civil Code provides that
with the death, wake or burial of the
such damages may be imposed by
victim, will be recognized in court.
way of example or correction for the
Hence, the same must be deleted.
public good. While exemplary
damages cannot be recovered as a
matter of right, they need not be
proved, although plaintiff must
show that he is entitled to moral,
temperate or compensatory
damages before the court may claim for moral damages could be
consider the question of whether or based, such indemnity could not be
not exemplary damages should be outrightly awarded. The same holds
awarded. true with respect to the award of
exemplary damages where it must be
shown that the party acted in a
wanton, oppressive or malevolent
manner.
GR NO. 112212, March 02, 1998
As a rule, moral damages cannot be
GREGORIO FULE VS. CA recovered from a person who has filed
Moral and exemplary damages may be a complaint against another in good
awarded without proof of pecuniary faith because it is not sound policy to
loss. In awarding such damages, the
place a penalty on the right to litigate,
court shall take into account the
the same, however, cannot apply in
circumstances obtaining in the case
the case at bar. The factual findings of
and assess damages according to its
discretion. To warrant the award of the courts a quo to the effect that
damages, it must be shown that the petitioner filed this case because he
person to whom these are awarded was the victim of fraud; that he could
has sustained injury. He must likewise not have been such a victim because
establish sufficient data upon which
he should have examined the jewelry
the court can properly base its
in question before accepting delivery
estimate of the amount of
damages. Statements of facts should thereof, considering his exposure to
establish such data rather than mere the banking and jewelry businesses;
conclusions or opinions of witnesses. and that he filed the action for the
Thus, for moral damages to be nullification of the contract of sale

awarded, it is essential that the with unclean hands, all deserve full
claimant must have satisfactorily faith and credit to support the
proved during the trial the existence conclusion that petitioner was
of the factual basis of the damages
motivated more by ill will than a
and its causal connection with the
sincere attempt to protect his rights
adverse partys acts. If the court has
no proof or evidence upon which the
in commencing suit against rate of 6% per annum. No interest,

respondents. however, shall be adjudged on
unliquidated claims or damages
except when or until the demand can
GR NO. 120262, July 17, 1997 be established with reasonable
certainty. Accordingly, where the
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES VS. CA
demand is established with
Moral damages are emphatically not
reasonable certainty, the interest shall
intended to enrich a plaintiff at the
begin to run from the time the claim
expense of the defendant. They are
is made judicially or extrajudicially
awarded only to allow the former to
(Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such
obtain means, diversion, or
certainty cannot be so reasonably
amusements that will serve to
established at the time the demand is
alleviate the moral suffering he has
made, the interest shall begin to run
undergone due to the defendants
only from the date the judgment of
culpable action and must, perforce, be
the court is made (at which time the
proportional to the suffering
quantification of damages may be
inflicted. However, substantial
deemed to have been reasonably
damages do not translate into
ascertained). The actual base for the
excessive damages. Except for
computation of legal interest shall, in
attorneys fees and costs of suit, it
any case, be on the amount finally
will be noted that the CA affirmed
adjudged.
point by point the factual findings of
the lower court upon which the award
of damages had been based.
When an obligation, not constituting a

GR NO. 83122, October 19, 1990
loan or forbearance of money, is
breached, an interest on the amount ARTURO P. VALENZUELA VS. CA
of damages awarded may be imposed For the pivotal factor rendering
at the discretion of the court at the Philamgen and the other private
respondents liable in damages is that GR NO. 123404, February 26, 1997

the termination by them of the
AURELIO SUMALPONG VS. CA
General Agency Agreement was
To justify a grant of actual or
tainted with bad faith.
compensatory damages, it is
Hence, if a principal acts in bad faith necessary to prove with a reasonable
and with abuse of right in terminating degree of certainty, premised upon
the agency, then he is liable in competent proof and on the best
damages. This is in accordance with evidence obtainable by the injured
the precepts in Human Relations party, the actual amount of loss.
enshrined in our Civil Code that every
Although the authority to assess
person must in the exercise of his
damages or indemnity in criminal
rights and in the performance of his cases is vested in trial courts, it is
duties act with justice, give every one only in the first instance. On appeal,
his due, and observe honesty and such authority passes to the appellate
good faith (Art. 19, Civil Code), and court. Thus, this Court has, in many
cases, increased the damages
every person who, contrary to
awarded by the trial court, although
law, wilfully or negligently causes
the offended party had not appealed
damages to another, shall indemnify
from said award, and the only party
the latter for the same (Art. 20, who sought a review of the decision
id). Any person who wilfully causes of said court was the accused.
loss or injury to another in a manner The Court finds the award of nominal
contrary to morals, good customs and and moral damages both in the
public policy shall compensate the amount of P10,000.00 justified under
latter for the damages (Art. 21, id.). the circumstances. 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.
In other words, whenever there has
been a violation of an ascertained defendant acted in a wanton,

legal right, although no actual fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or
damages resulted or none are shown, malevolent manner (Articles 2229,
the award of nominal damages is
2232, New Civil Code). And, third, a
proper. There is no room to doubt
written contract for an attorneys
that some species of injury was
caused to the complainant because of services shall control the amount to
the medical expenses he incurred in be paid therefor unless found by the
having his wounds treated, and the court to be unconscionable or
loss of income due to his failure to unreasonable (Sec. 24, Rule 138,
work during his hospitalization.
Rules of Court).
However, in the absence of competent
proof of the amount of actual The amount of damages awarded in
damages, the complainant is entitled this case has been determined by
only to nominal damages.
adequately considering the official,
political, social, and financial standing
of the offended parties on one hand,
and the business and financial
GR NO. L-22415, March 30, 1966 position of the offender on the other
FERNANDO LOPEZ VS. PAN AMERICAN (Domingding vs. Ng, 55 Off. Gaz. 10).
The rules and principles in awarding And further considering the present
moral damages are the following: rate of exchange and the terms at
First, moral damages are recoverable which the amount of damages
in breach of contracts where the awarded would approximately be in
defendant acted fraudulently or in bad U.S. dollars, this Court is all the more
faith (Art. 2220, New Civil Code). of the view that said award is proper
Second, in addition to moral damages, and reasonable.
exemplary or corrective damages may

be imposed by way of example or
correction for the public good, in
breach of contract where the
GR NO. 111584, September 17, 2001 damages: one is the loss of what a
person already possesses, and the
PRODUCERS BANK VS. CA
other is the failure to receive as a
In this case, the damage to private
benefit that which would have
respondents reputation and social
pertained to him. In the latter
standing entitles them to moral
instance, the familiar rule is that
damages. Article 2217, in relation to
damages consisting of unrealized
Article 2220, of the Civil Code
profits, frequently referred
explicitly provides that moral
as ganacias frustradas or lucrum
damages include physical suffering,
cessans, are not to be granted on the
mental anguish, fright, serious
basis of mere speculation, conjecture,
anxiety, besmirched reputation,
or surmise, but rather by reference to
wounded feelings, moral shock, social
some reasonably definite standard
humiliation, and similar
such as market value, established
injury. Obviously, petitioner banks
experienced, or direct inference from
wrongful act caused serious anxiety,
known circumstances.
embarrassment, and humiliation to
private respondents for which they are
entitled to recover moral damages in
the amount of P300,000.00 which the
Court deem to be reasonable. f. WHO MAY RECOVER
Under Articles 2199 and 2200 of the

Civil Code, actual or compensatory GR NO. L-4722, December 29, 1954
damages are those awarded in
EMILIO STREBEL VS. JOSE FIGUERAS
satisfaction of, or in recompense for,
As a general rule, the right of recovery
loss or injury sustained. They
for mental suffering resulting from
proceed from a sense of natural
bodily injuries is restricted to the
justice and are designed to repair the
person who has suffered the bodily
wrong that has been done. There are
hurt, and there can be no recovery for
two kinds of actual or compensatory
distress caused by sympathy for
anothers suffering, or for fright due by the plaintiff, of moral damages for
to a wrong against a third person. So the temporary transfer of Dr.
the anguish of mind arising as to the Hernandez. If the mental anguish
safety of others who may be in allegedly suffered by plaintiff in
personal peril from the same cause consequence thereof ware sufficient
cannot be taken into consideration. to give him a cause of action therefor,
there would be no valid legal reason
As stated in the American
to deny the same relief to any other
Jurisprudence, Injury or Wrong to
Another.In law mental. anguish is person who might have thus been
restricted as a rule, to such mental inconvenienced, such as the friends of
pain or suffering as arises from an Dr. Hernandez, and public officials
injury or wrong to the person himself, similarly situated, as veil as those who
as distinguished from that form of
may have been adversely affected by
mental suffering which is the
the deterioration, if any, in the service
accompaniment of sympathy or
of the office or bureau which had
sorrow for anothers suffering or
which arises from a contemplation of been temporarily deprived of the
wrongs committed on the person services of said physician.
of another. Pursuant to the rule
stated, a husband or wife cannot
recover for mental suffering caused
by his or her sympathy for the others
suffering. GR NO. 128690, January 21, 1999
In this case, plaintiff is not even
ABS-CBN VS. CA
related to Dr. Hernandez. The latters
The award of moral damages cannot
wife is a daughter of Mrs. Strebel by a
be granted in favor of a corporation
previous marriage. Hence, Dr.
because, being an artificial person
Hernandez is merely related by
and having existence only in legal
affinity, not to Strebel, but to
contemplation, it has no feelings, no
a relative by affinity of said plaintiff. It
emotions, no senses. It cannot,
would be extremely dangerous, apart
therefore, experience physical
from unjust, to sanction a recovery,
suffering and mental anguish, which mental anguish, fright, serious

can be experienced only by one anxiety, besmirched reputation,
having a nervous system. The wounded feelings, moral shock, social
statement in People v. humiliation, and similar injury. A
Manero and Mambulao Lumber Co. v. corporation, being an artificial person
PNB that a corporation may recover and having existence only in legal
moral damages if it has a good contemplation, has no feelings, no
reputation that is debased, resulting emotions, no senses; therefore, it
in social humiliation is an obiter cannot experience physical suffering
dictum. On this score alone the and mental anguish. Mental suffering
award for damages must be set aside, can be experienced only by one
since RBS is a corporation. having a nervous system and it flows
from real ills, sorrows, and griefs of
life all of which cannot be suffered
GR NO. 126204, November 20, 2001 by respondent bank as an artificial
person.
NAPOCOR VS. PHILIPP BROTHERS
Moral damages are not, as a general
rule, granted to a corporation. While it
is true that besmirched reputation is
included in moral damages, it cannot 3. NOMINAL
cause mental anguish to a
corporation, unlike in the case of a
GR NO. L- 41093, October 30, 1978
natural person, for a corporation has
no reputation in the sense that an ROBES-FRANCISCO REALTY VS. CFI
individual has, and besides, it is The pertinent provisions of our Civil
inherently impossible for a Code follow:
corporation to suffer mental anguish. Art. 2221. Nominal damages are

adjudicated in order that a right of
Moral damages are granted in the plaintiff, which has been
recompense for physical suffering, violated or invaded by the
defendant, may be vindicated or GR NO. 133925, November 29, 2000

recognized, and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the PEOPLE VS. AGUSTIN GOPIO
plaintiff for any loss suffered by Under Article 2221 of the Civil Code,
him. nominal damages are adjudicated in
order that the right of the plaintiff,
which has been violated or invaded by
Art. 2222. The Court may award
nominal damages in every the defendant, may be vindicated or
obligation arising from any source recognized, and not for the purpose
enumerated in article 1157, or in of indemnifying the plaintiff for any
every case where any property loss suffered by him. As has been
right has been invaded.
held, whenever there has been a
Under the foregoing provisions violation of an ascertained legal right,
nominal damages are not intended for although no actual damages resulted
indemnification of loss suffered but or none are shown, the award of
for the vindication or recognition of a nominal damages is proper. In this
right violated or invaded. They are case, the victims family clearly
recoverable where some injury has incurred medical expenses due to the
been done the amount of which the rape committed by accused-
evidence fails to show, the appellant. The victim suffered from
assessment of damages being left to pains in her navel which required her
the discretion of the court according physical examination. An award of
to the circumstances of the case. P2,000.00 as nominal damages is
thus appropriate under the
The facts in this case show that the
circumstances.
right of the vendee to acquire title to
the lot bought by her was violated by
petitioner and this entitles her at the
very least to nominal damages.
GR NO. 88561, April 20, 1990 course, subject to the condition that
the award for damages is not
HERMAN ARMOVIT VS. CA
excessive under the attendant facts
The purpose of nominal damages is to
and circumstance of the case.
vindicate or recognize a right that has
been violated, in order to preclude Temperate damages are included
further contest thereon; and not for within the context of compensatory
the purpose of indemnifying damages. In arriving at a reasonable
the Plaintiff for any loss suffered by level of temperate damages to be
awarded, trial courts are guided by
him (Articles 2221, 2223, new Civil
the Supreme Courts ruling that:
Code.)
... There are cases where from the
Hence, the deletion of the nominal
nature of the case, definite proof
damages by the appellate court in this
of pecuniary loss cannot be
case is well-taken since there is an offered, although the court is
award of actual damages. Nominal convinced that there has been such
damages cannot co-exist with actual loss. For instance, injury to one's
or compensatory damages. commercial credit or to the
goodwill of a business firm is often
hard to show certainty in terms of
money. Should damages be denied
4. TEMPERATE
for that reason? The judge should
G.R. No. L-56505; May 9, 1988 be empowered to calculate
moderate damages in such cases,
MAXIMO PLENO VS. CA rather than that the plaintiff should
The employer's liability in quasi-delict suffer, without redress from the
is primary and solidary. The award of defendant's wrongful act.
temperate, moral, and exemplary

damages as well as attorney's fees lies
upon the discretion of the court based
on the facts and circumstances of
each case. The court's discretion is, of
GR NO. 129782, June 29, 2001 GR NO. 120547, January 29, 2001
PEOPLE VS. BALWINDER SINGH PEOPLE VS. EDISON PLAZO

The testimony of Balwinder Singh Gill, The award of actual damages in the
first cousin of the deceased, on the amount of P15,712.00 was based
alleged income of the deceased while solely on the bare assertions of the
in the Philippines, is not enough. The mother of the victim. The Court can
best evidence to substantiate income only grant such amount for expenses
earned by foreigners while in the if they are supported by receipts. In
Philippines is the payment of taxes the absence thereof, no actual
with the Bureau of Internal damages can be awarded. However, in
Revenue. Absent such proof, bare lieu of actual damages, temperate
allegation is insufficient. damages under Art. 2224 of the Civil
Nevertheless, considering that the Code may be recovered where it has
definite proof of pecuniary loss been shown that the victims family
cannot be offered, and the fact of loss suffered some pecuniary loss but the
has been established, appellants shall amount thereof cannot be proved with
pay the heirs of Surinder Singh certainty. The Court found the award
temperate damages in the amount of of P15,000.00 as temperate damages
P200,000.00. reasonable. Moral damages cannot be
awarded in the absence of any
In People vs. dela Tongga, G.R. No.
evidence to support its award.
133246, July 31, 2000, the Court held
that in lieu of actual damages which
was not proven or documented,
temperate damages may be awarded 5. LIQUIDATED
in a murder case.
6. EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE to pay private respondents, there is

no evidence that it acted in a
GR NO. 108630, April 02, 1996 fraudulent, wanton, reckless or
oppressive manner. Furthermore,
PNB VS. CA
there is no award to compensatory
Under Art. 2232 of the Civil Code,
damages which is a prerequisite
exemplary damages may be awarded
before exemplary damages may be
if a party acted in a wanton,
awarded. Therefore, the award by the
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
trial court of P5,000.00 as exemplary
malevolent manner. However, they
damages is baseless.
cannot be recovered as a matter of
right; the court has yet to decide
whether or not they should be
adjudicated.
Jurisprudence has set down the GR NO. 118325, January 29, 1997
requirements for exemplary damages
VIRGILIO M. DEL ROSARIO VS. CA
to be awarded:
Article 2229 of the Civil Code
1. they may be imposed by way of
provides that such damages may be
example in addition to compensatory
imposed by way of example or
damages, and only after the
correction for the public good. While
claimants right to them has been
exemplary damages cannot be
established;
recovered as a matter of right, they
2. they cannot be recovered as a need not be proved, although plaintiff
matter of right, their determination must show that he is entitled to
depending upon the amount of moral, temperate or compensatory
compensatory damages that may be damages before the court may
awarded to the claimant; consider the question of whether or
3. the act must be accompanied by not exemplary damages should be
bad faith or done in a wanton, awarded. Exemplary damages are
fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent imposed not to enrich one party or
manner. impoverish another but to serve as a
deterrent against or as a negative
In the case at bench, while there is a
incentive to curb socially deleterious
clear breach of petitioners obligation
actions.
However, the same statutory and

jurisprudential standards dictate
reduction of the amounts of moral
and exemplary damages fixed by the
Trial Court. There is, to be sure, no
hard and fast rule for determining
what would be a fair amount of moral
(or exemplary) damages, each case
having to be governed by its
attendant particulars. Generally, the
amount of moral damages should be
commensurate with the actual loss or
injury suffered.

Torts and Damages Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Torts and Damages Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TORTS AND DAMAGES Principles and Doctrines

III. NEGLIGENCE IV. CAUSATION: PROXIMATE

A. POSSESSOR OF ANIMALS Macario Tamargo vs. CA .......................59

B. THINGS THROWN OR FALLING FROM 2. GUARDIANS

C. DEATH INJURIES IN THE COURSE OF Ciriaco L. Mercado vs. CA .......................61

EMPLOYMENT Moises P. Palisoc vs. Brillantes...............61

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS vs. CA................ 46 Benjamin Salvosa vs. IAC........................65

F. LIABILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT 4. OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF

Filamer vs. IAC ....................................... 72 3. PHYSICAL INJURIES

c. PUBLIC HUMILIATION c. CERTAINTY

d. UNJUST DISMISSAL d. DAMAGE TO PROPERTY

IX. OTHER TORTS Rogelio E. Ramos vs. CA .......................117

Triple Eight vs. NLRC ........................... 129

f. WHO MAY RECOVER

III. NEGLIGENCE injury, even though such injury would

own carelessness contributes to the strictest sense could only result in

through reckless imprudence, since and, as I understand it, in every case

that the fraud was committed in a proximate cause of his injury, he

The foregoing notwithstanding, it

In a legal sense and,

the following essential

1445, otherwise known as the It is settled that, The owner or

petitioner would still be liable because unforeseen and unexpected

debtor to fulfill his obligation in a liability by showing that the

Thus it has been held that when the

GR NO. 126389, July 10, 1998 engendered thereby, there should

4. ASSUMPTION OF RISK GR NO. 53401, November 06, 1989

ILOCOS NORTE ELECTRIC CO. VS. CA

work as such. Obviously, it was the negligent conduct or omission.

accompanied by the former two, were 5. DUE DILIGENCE

not flooded. As such, shall We punish

employees in the service of GR NO. 104408, June 21, 1993

occasion of their functions. CA

employee gives rise to the In Espaol vs. Chairman, Philippine

prescriptive period must be counted conditions, hence, they are precluded

Last, we find the defense of laches

SOFIA FERNANDO VS. CA FILOMENO URBANO VS. APPELLATE

PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION VS. IAC PILIPINAS BANK VS. CA

1. REMOTE horse over to the curb, and proceeded

although acting independently, are in came from the opposite direction, so

MANILA ELECTRIC VS. REBIOQUILLO

building his house. What really locomotives was an antecedent

ordinarily prudent man. Proximate cause has been defined as,

in motion, all constituting a natural precautionary measure under the

iron sheet, considering the lattery an injury by the intervention of

A prior and remote cause GR NO. 72964, January 07, 1998

E. LAST CLEAR CHANCE his negligence at that point will

It will be noted that the negligent acts ADRIANO BUSTAMANTE VS. CA

opponent is considered in law solely negligent. As against third persons, a

whose fault or negligence should be negligence of the defendant was

subsequent to the negligence of the taken ordinary care of its concerns, as

without any companion in violation of remembered that the obligation of the

The responsibility to avoid the damages caused by the supervening

Consequently, no other person was to impending harm by the exercise of

blame but the victim himself since he due diligence.

JOSE DINGDONG VS. HALIM KANAAN

was spread on the ground. Leopoldo Madlangbayan was not in

time, place, and circumstances D. STRICT LIABILITY / PRODUCT

his first-class accommodation E. INTERFERANCE WITH

GR NO. 61516, March 21, 1989

GUILATCO VS. CITY OF DAGUPAN

suffered by pedestrians from the xxx

diligence, prevented the misfortune. appreciate the relative dangers posed

of the owners business, so that he GR NO. 62988, February 28, 1985