Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

Culpa Aquiliana, Culpa Criminal and Culpa Contractual Distinguished

Reference: Torts and Damages by Pineda

Basis
Legal basis of
liability

Liability for
damages

Culpa Aquiliana
There can be a quasi-delict as
long as there is fault or
negligence resulting in damage
or injury to another. It is
broader in scope than crime.
Criminal intent is not necessary
for quasi delict to exist. Fault
or negligence without intent
will suffice.
Right violated is a private right.
Quasi delict is a wrongful act
against a private individual.
Every quasi delict gives rise to
liability for damages.

Quantum of proof

Preponderance of evidence

Sanction and
penalty

Reparation or indemnification
of the injury or damage.

Nature of
negligence

Direst, Substantive and


independent (Rakes vs.
Atlantic, etc., 7 Phil. 395).

Defense of a good
father of a family

Complete and proper defense


insofar as parents, guardians,
employers are concerned (Art.
2180, last par.)

Presumption of
negligence

NO presumption of negligence.
The injured party must prove
the negligence of the

Criminal intent

Nature of right
violated

Culpa Criminal
There can be no crime unless
there is a law clearly punishing
the act.

Culpa Contractual

Criminal intent is essential for


criminal liability to exist.
Right violated is a public one.
Crime is a wrong against the
State.
Some crimes do not give rise
to liability, e.g., Illegal
possession of firearm,
contempt.
Proof beyond reasonable
doubt.
Punishment is either
imprisonment, fine or both;
sometimes other accessory
penalties are imposed.
Negligence is merely
incidental to the performance
of the contractual obligation.
There is a pre-existing
contract or obligation
(Rakes vs. Atlantic, etc., 7
Phil. 395).
NOT a complete and proper
defense in the selection and
supervision of employees
(Cangco vs. MRC, 38 Phil.
768).
There is presumption of
negligence as long as it can
be proved that there was

defendant (Cangco vs. MRC, 38


Phil 768). Otherwise, the
complaint of injured party will
be dismissed.

breach of the contract . The


defendant must prove there
was no negligence in the
carrying out of the terms of
the contract (Cangco vs. MRC,
38 Phil. 768).