Torts and Damages

San Beda College of Law
215
MEMORY AID IN CIVIL LAW
TORTS AND DAMAGES
I. TORTS
TORT
An unlawful violation of private right, not
created by contract, and which gives rise to an
action for damages.
It is an act or omission producing an
injury to another, without any previous
existing lawful relation of which the said act
or omission may be said to be a natural
outgrowth or incident.
NOTES:
An unborn child is NOT entitled to
damages. ut the bereaved parents may be
entitled to damages, on damages inflicted
directly upon them. !Geluz vs. CA, 2 SCRA
802"
#efendants in tort cases can either be
natural or artificial being. $orporations are
civilly liable in the same manner as natural
persons.
Any person who has been injured by
reason of a tortious conduct can sue the
tortfeasor.
The primary purpose of a tort action is to
provide compensation to a person who was
injured by the tortious conduct of the
defendant.
%reventive remedy is available in some
cases.
Classes of Torts:
A. Negligent Torts
. Intentional Torts
$. &trict 'iability
A. NEGLIGENT TORTS
Involve voluntary acts or omissions
which result in injury to others without
intending to cause the same or because the
actor fails to exercise due care in performing
such acts or omissions.
NEGLIGENCE
The omission of that degree of diligence
which is re(uired by the nature of the
obligation and corresponding to the
circumstances of persons, time and place.
!Article 1173 Civil Code"
Kinds of Negligence:
1. Culpa Contractual !contractual
negligence"
)overned by $$ provisions on
Obligations and $ontracts, particularly Arts.
**+, to **+- of the $ivil $ode.
2. Culpa Aquiliana !quasi-delict"
)overned mainly by Art. .*+/ of the
$ivil $ode
3. Culpa Criminal !criinal negligence"
)overned by Art. 0/1 of the 2evised
%enal $ode.
NOTES:
The 0 3inds of negligence furnish
separate, distinct, and independent bases of
liability or causes of action.
A single act or omission may give rise to
two or more causes of action.
Cula Contractual Cula A!uiliana
The foundation of the
liability of the
defendant
is the contract
It is a separate source of
obligation independent
of contract
In breach of contract
committed through the
negligence of
employee, the employer
cannot erase his
primary and direct
liability by invo3ing
exercise of diligence of
a good father of a
family in the selection
and supervision of the
employee.
In (uasi4delict the
presumptive
responsibility for the
negligence of his
servants can be rebutted
by proof of the exercise
of due care in their
selection and
supervision.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON : Vida Bocar, Joyce Vidad EDP : Alnaia Ha!!iman, Doro"#y $ayon
S%BJECT HEADS: C#ri!"o&#er Rey 'ara!i(an )Per!on! and *amily Rela"ion!+, Ale,andro Ca!a-ar)Pro&er"y+, 'a. R#odora
*errer).ill! and Succe!!ion+, Ian Dominic Pua)O-li(a"ion! and Con"rac"!+, S#a Eli,a# Dumama)Sale! and /ea!e+, Jo#n S"e&#en
0uiam-ao)PAT+, C#ri!"o&#er Ca-i(ao)Credi" Tran!ac"ion!+, /i(aya Ali&ao)Tor"! and Dama(e!+, An"#ony Pur(anan)/TD+,
'a. Rica!ion Tu(adi )Con1lic"! o1 /a2+
216
Cula A!uiliana Cri"e
Only involves private
concern
Affect the public
interest
The $ivil $ode by
means of indem4
nification merely
repairs the damage
The 2evised %enal $ode
punishes or corrects
criminal act
Includes all acts in
which any 3ind of fault
or negligence intervenes
%unished only if there is
a penal law clearly
covering them
'iability is direct and
primary in (uasi4delict
'iability of the
employer of the actor4
employee is subsidiary
in crimes
#$ASI%DELICT
5hoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or
negligence is obliged to pay for the damage
done. !Article .*+/ $ivil $ode"
Essential Re!uisites for a !uasi%delictual
action:
*. Act or omission constituting fault or
negligence6
.. #amage caused by the said act or
omission6 and
0. $ausal relation between the damage and
the act or omission.
Tests of Negligence
*. #id the defendant in doing the alleged
negligent act use the reasonable care and
caution which an ordinarily prudent
person would have used in the same
situation7
If not then he is guilty of negligence.
.. $ould a prudent man, in the case under
consideration, foresee harm as a result of
the course pursued7
If so, it was the duty of the actor to ta3e
precautions to guard against harm.
NOTES:
Negligence is a conduct 4 the
determination of the existence of negligence is
concerned with what the defendant did or did
not do
The state of mind of the actor is not
important6 good faith or use of sound
judgment is immaterial. The existence of
negligence in a given case is not
determined by reference to the personal
judgment but by the behavior of the actor
in the situation before him. !!icart vs.
Sit"#
Negligence is a conduct that creates an
undue ris3 of harm to others.
The determination of negligence is a
(uestion of foresight on the part of the actor 8
9O2:&:AI'IT;.
:ven if a particular injury was not
foreseeable, the ris3 is still foreseeable if
possibility of injury is foreseeable.
9orseeability involves the (uestion of
%2OAI'IT;, that is, the existence of some
real li3elihood of some damage and the
li3elihood is of such appreciable weight
reasonably to induce, action to avoid it.
Calculation of Ris&
Interests are to be balanced only in the
sense that the purposes of the actor, the nature
of his act and the harm that may result from
action or inaction are elements to be
considered.
Circu"stances to consider in deter"ining
negligence: '(EST%GA()
*. Time
.. %lace
0. :mergency
E"ergenc* rule
G$%$RA& R'&$( An individual who
suddenly finds himself in a situation of
danger and is re(uired to act without
much time to consider the best means that
may be adopted to avoid the impending
danger is not guilty of negligence if he
fails to underta3e what subse(uently and
upon reflection may appear to be a better
solution.
$)C$!*+,%( 5hen the emergency
was brought by the individual<s own
negligence. !-alenzuela vs. CA 2.3
SCRA 303".
-. )ravity of =arm to be avoided
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
217
1. Alternative $ourse of Action
If the alternative presented to the
actor is too costly, the harm that may
result may be still be considered
unforeseeable to a reasonable man.
/. &ocial value or utility of activity
+. %erson exposed to the ris3
GOOD +AT,ER O+ A +AMIL- 'pater
familias):
4 this is the standard of conduct used in the
%hilippines
4 a man of ordinary intelligence and prudence
or an ordinary reasonable prudent man
a reasonable man deemed to have 3nowledge
of the facts that a man should be expected to
3now based on ordinary human experience.
/!%R vs +AC, 217 SCRA 001#
4 a prudent man who is expected to 3now the
basic laws of nature and physics, e.g. gravity.
SPECIAL RULES
.. C/ildren
The action of the child will not
necessarily be judged according to the
standard of an adult. ut if the minor is
mature enough to understand and appreciate
the nature and conse(uence of his actions, he
will be considered negligent if he fails to
exercise due care and precaution in the
commission of such acts.

NOTES:
The law fixes no arbitrary age at which a
minor can be said to have the necessary
capacity to understand and appreciate the
nature and conse(uence of his acts. !*a2lor
vs. 3eralco, 14 !"il 8"
Applying the provisions of the 2evised
%enal $ode, >udge &angco ta3es the view that
a child who is ? or below is conclusively
presumed to be incapable of negligence. In the
other hand, if the child is above ? years but
below *1, there is a disputable presumption of
absence of negligence.
Absence of negligence does not
necessarily mean absence of liability.
'iability without fault@ a child under ?
years can still be subsidiarily liable with his
property !Art. *,,, 2%$"
Absence of negligence of the child may
not excuse the parents from their vicarious
liability under Art. .*A, N$$ or Art. ..* 9$.
0. (/*sical Disa1ilit*
Bere wea3ness of a person will not be an
excuse in negligence cases.
=owever if defect amounts to a real
disability the standard of conduct is that of a
reasonable person under li3e disability.
2. E3erts and rofessionals
They should exhibit the care and s3ill of
one who is ordinarily s3illed in the particular
field that he is in.
5hen a person holds himself out as being
competent to do things re(uiring professional
s3ill, he will be held liable for negligence if he
fails to exhibit the care and s3ill of one
ordinarily s3illed in the particular wor3 which
he attempts to do.
An expert will not be judged based on
what a non4expert can foresee.
The rule regarding experts is applicable
not only to professionals who have undergone
formal education.
4. Nature of acti5it*
There are activities which by nature
impose duties to exercise a higher degree of
diligence.
$5a6les(
a. 7an8s, by the very nature of their wor3,
are expected to exercise the highest degree of
diligence in the selection and supervision of
their employees.
b. Coon carriers are re(uired to
exercise extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over their passengers and
transported goods. !Article 1733 Civil Code".
6. Into3ication
G$%$RA& R'&$( Bere intoxication is not
negligence, nor does the mere fact of
intoxication establish want of ordinary care.
ut it may be one of the circumstances to be
considered to prove negligence.
$)C$!*+,%( Cnder Art. 218. o9 t"e Civil
Code, it is presumed that a person driving a
motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time
of the mishap, he was violating any traffic
regulation.
7. Insanit*
The insanity of a person does not excuse
him or his guardian from liability based on
(uasi4delict.
7ases 9or "olding an insane 6erson lia:le
9or "is tort(
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
218
a. 5here one of two innocent persons
must suffer a loss, it should be borne by the
one who occasioned it.
b. To induce those interested in the estate
of the insane person to restrain and control
him.
c. The fear that an insanity would lead to
false claims of insanity and avoid liability.
8. 9o"en
In determining the (uestion of
contributory negligence in performing such
act, the age, sex, and condition of the
passengers are circumstances necessarily
affecting the safety of the passenger, and
should be considered. !Cangco vs. 3anila
Railroad Co. GR %o.12111, ,cto:er 10,
1118"
Although there is no une(uivocal
statement of the rule, -alenzuela vs. CA
2.3SCRA303 appears to re(uire a different
standard of care for women under the
circumstances indicated therein.
=owever, #ean )uido $alabresi believes
that there should be a uniform standard
between a men and a women.
Ot/er +actors to Consider in Deter"ining
Negligence:
A. :IOLATION O+ R$LES AND
STAT$TES
*. &tatutes
G$%$RA& R'&$( Diolation of a statutory
duty is N:)'I):N$: %:2 &: !Ci6riano vs.
CA, 243SCRA711". 5hen the 'egislature has
spo3en, the standard of care re(uired is no
longer what a reasonably prudent man would
do under the circumstances but what the
'egislature has commanded.
$)C$!*+,%S(
a. 5hen unusual conditions occur and
strict observance may defeat the
purpose of the rule and may even lead
to adverse results.
b. 5hen the statute expressly provides
that violation of a statutory duty merely
establishes a presumption of
negligence.
NOTE: Rule as to 6roo9 o9 6ro5iate
cause
G$%$RA& R'&$( %laintiff must show
that the violation of the statute is the
proximate or legal cause of the injury or
that it substantially contributed thereto.
!Sanitar2 Stea &aundr2, +nc. vs. CA
300SCRA20"
$)C$!*+,%( In cases where the damage
to the plaintiff is the damage sought to be
prevented by the statute. In such cases,
proof of violation of statute and damage to
the plaintiff may itself establish proximate
cause. !*eague vs. ;ernandez .1SCRA181".
.. Administrative 2ule
Diolation of a rule promulgated by
administrative agencies is not negligence per
se but may be :DI#:N$: O9
N:)'I):N$:.
0. %rivate 2ules of $onduct.
Diolation of rules imposed by private
individuals !e.g. employers" is merely a
%O&&I': :DI#:N$: O9 N:)'I):N$:.
;. (RACTICE AND C$STOM
$ompliance with the practice and custom
in a community will not automatically result
in a finding that the actor is not guilty of
negligence. Non4compliance with the practice
or custom in the community does not
necessarily mean that the actor was negligent.
In <aada vs. 3anila Railroad Co., the
owner of an automobile struc3 by a train
while crossing the trac3s sought to establish
absence of negligence of its driver by
evidence of a custom of automobile drivers of
Banila by which they habitually drove their
cars over the railroad crossings without
slac3ening speed. The &$ rejected the
argument by ruling that@ a practice which is
dangerous to human life cannot ripen into
custom which will protect anyone who
follows it.
C. COM(LIANCE 9IT, STAT$TES
$ompliance with a statute is not
conclusive that there was no negligence.
$5a6le( A defendant can still be held
liable for negligence even if he can establish
that he was driving below the speed limit.
$ompliance with the speed limit is not
conclusive that he was not negligently driving
his car.
Gross Negligence 4 Negligence where there is
Ewant of even slight care and diligence.F
(ROO+ O+ NEGLIGENCE
G$%$RA& R'&$@
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
219
If the plaintiff alleged in his complaint
that he was damaged because of the negligent
acts of the defendant, the plaintiff has the
buren of pro!in" such ne"li"ence. !*a2lor
vs. 3$RA&C, 14!"il8"
The (uantum of proof re(uired is
6re6onderance o9 evidence. !Rule 133
Revised Rules o9 Court"
$)C$!*+,%S( :xceptional cases when the
rules or the law provides for cases when
negligence is presumed.
A. %resumptions of Negligence
B. 2es Ipsa 'o(uitur
A. (resu"tions of Negligence
*. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is
presumed negligent if he was in the vehicle
and he could have used due diligence to
prevent the misfortune. !Article 2180 Civil
Code"
.. It is disputably presumed that a driver
was negligent if he had been found guilty of
rec3less driving or violating traffic regulations
at least twice for the next preceding two
months. !Article 2180 Civil Code"
0. The driver of a motor vehicle is presumed
negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was
violating any traffic regulation. !Article 218.
Civil Code"
-. G$%$RA& R'&$( %rima facie
presumption of negligence of the defendant
arises if death or injury results from his
possession of dangerous weapons or
substance.
$)C$!*+,%( 5hen such possession or use
is indispensable to his occupation or business.
1. G$%$RA& R'&$( %resumption of
negligence of the common carrier arises in
case of loss, destruction or deterioration of the
goods, or in case of death or injury of
passengers.
$)C$!*+,%( Cpon proof of exercise of
extraordinary diligence.
;. Res Isa Lo!uitur
E*"e t"ing or transaction s6ea8s 9or
itsel9.F
It is a rule of evidence peculiar to the law
of negligence which recogniGes that prima
facie negligence may be established in the
absence of direct proof, and furnishes a
substitute for specific proof of negligence.
Re!uisites of Res Isa Lo!uitor:
*. The accident was of a 3ind which
ordinarily does not occur in the absence
of someone<s negligence6
.. The instrumentality which caused the
injury was under the exclusive control
and management of the person charged
with negligence6 and
0. The injury suffered must not have been
due to any voluntary action or
contribution on the part of the person
injured6 absence of explanation by the
defendant.
In A9rica vs. Calte5 /!"il.# +nc. 3ar 31,
1144, defendant $altex was liable for damage
done to the property of its neighbors when fire
bro3e out in a $altex service station. The
gasoline station, with all its appliances,
e(uipment and employees, was under the
control of the defendant. The persons who
3new how the fire started were the defendant
and its employees, but they gave no
explanation whatsoever.
The doctrine is not applicable if there is
direct proof of absence or presence of
negligence. !S.=. 3artinez, et al vs. >illia
-an 7us8ir8"
A++IRMATI:E D$TIES AND
MISCELLANEO$S ACTI:ITIES:
.. Dut* to Rescue
A. #uty to the rescuer
The defendants are liable for the
injuries to persons who rescue people in
distress because of the acts or omissions of the
said defendants.
There is liability to the rescuer and
the law does not discriminate between the
rescuer oblivious to the peril and the one who
counts the costs.
The ris3 of rescue, if only not
wanton, is born of the occasion.
One who was hurt trying to rescue
another who was injured through negligence
may recover damages. !Santiago vs. =e leon
CA-GR %o.14180-R 3arc" 21, 1140"
#anger of personal injury or death.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
220
. #uty to rescue
G$%$RA& R'&$( There is no general duty
to rescue6 a person is not liable for (uasi4
delict even if he did not help a person in
distress.
$)C$!*+,%S( A limited duty to rescue is
imposed in certain cases@
Abandonment of persons in danger and
abandonment of one<s own victim is
considered, under certain circumstances as a
crime against security !Article 27. R!C"6 and
No driver of a motor vehicle concerned in a
vehicular accident shall leave the scene of the
accident without aiding the victim unless he is
excused from doing so. /Section .. RA 0134
?&and *rans6ortation and tra99ic Code@#
0. O<ners= (rorietors and (ossessors of
(roert*
G$%$RA& R'&$( The owner has no duty
to ta3e reasonable care towards a trespasser
for his protection or even to protect him from
concealed danger.
NOTE: #amage to any person resulting from
the exercise of any rights of ownership is
damage without injury /=anu a:sque
inAuria#
$)C$!*+,%S(
a. Disitors and tolerated possession
The owner is still liable if the
plaintiff is inside his property by
tolerance or by implied permission.
Owners of buildings or premises
owe duty of care to visitors.
b. #octrine of Attractive Nuisance
One who maintains on his premises
dangerous instrumentalities or appliances
of a character li3ely to attract children in
play, and who fails to exercise ordinary
care to prevent children from playing
therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to
a child of tender years who is injured
thereby, even if the child is technically a
trespasser in the premises.
NOTE: A swimming pool or pond or
reservoir of water is NOT considered
attractive nuisance. !Bidalgo $nter6rises
vs. 7aladan 11 !"il 088"
c. &tate of Necessity
The owner of a thing has no right to
prohibit the interference of another with
the same if the interference is necessary
to avert imminent danger and the
threatened damage, compared to the
damage arising to the owner from the
interference, is much greater. !Article 032
Civil Code"
It is also a recogniGed justifying
circumstance under the 2%$.
In both the $ivil $ode and the 2%$, the
owner may demand from the person
benefited, indemnity for the damages.
$se of roerties t/at in>ures anot/er
An owner cannot use his property in such
a manner as to injure the rights of others.
!Article 031 Civil Code".
=ence the exercise of the right of the
owner may give rise to an action based on
(uasi4delict if the owner negligently exercises
such right to the prejudice of another.
&ia:ilit2 o9 !ro6rietors o9 :uildings
New $ivil $ode include provisions that
apply to proprietors of a building or structure
which involve affirmative duty of due care in
maintaining the same@ Articles .*?, and
.*?*.
Third persons who suffered damages may
proceed only against the engineer or architect
or contractor if the damage referred to in
Articles .*?, and .*?*should be a result of
any defect in construction.
Nevertheless, actions for damages can
still be maintained under Article .*+/ for
damages resulting from proprietor<s failure to
exercise due care in the maintenance of his
building and that he used his property in such
a way that he injured the property of another.
2. E"lo*ers and E"lo*ees
A. E"lo*ers
Actions for (uasi4delict can still be
maintained even if employee<s
compensation is provided for under the
'abor $ode.
In (uasi4delictual actions against the
employer, the employee may use the
provisions of the 'abor $ode which
imposes upon the employer certain duties
with respect to the proper maintenance of
the wor3 place or the provisions of
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
221
ade(uate facilities to ensure the safety of
the employees.
Articles *+** and *+*. of the $ivil $ode
impose liability without fault on the part
of the employers.
;. E"lo*ees
:mployees are bound to exercise due care
in the performance of their functions for
the employers6 absence such due care, the
employee may be held liable.
4. ;an&s
The business of ban3s is one affected by
public interest. ecause of the nature of its
functions, a ban3 is under obligation to treat
the accounts of its depositors with "eticulous
care, always having in mind the fiduciary
nature of their relationship. !!7C vs. CA
?1117@"
6. Co""on carriers
9rom the nature of their business and for
reasons of public policy, they are bound to
exercise extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over the goods and the safety of the
passengers.
The case against the common carrier is
for the enforcement of an obligation arising
from breach of contract.
The same act which breached the contract
may give rise to an action based on (uasi
delict. /Air ;rance vs Carrascoso, &21038,
Se6t. 28, 1114#
7. Doctors
A. &TAN#A2# O9
$A2:
The proper standard is whether, the
physician if a general 6ractitioner, has
exercised the degree of care and s3ill of the
average (ualified practitioner, ta3ing into
account the advances in the profession.
A physician who holds himself out as a
s6ecialist should be held to the standard of
care and s3ill of the average member of the
profession practicing the specialty, ta3ing into
account the advances in the profession.
. T=: $A%TAIN O9 T=: &=I%
#O$T2IN:
The head surgeon is made liable for
everything that goes wrong within the four
corners of the operating room.
It enunciates the liability of the surgeon
not only for the wrongful acts of those under
his physical control but also those wherein he
has extension of control.
$. NOT 5A22ANTO2&
%hysicians are not warrantors of cures
or insurers against personal injuries or death
of the patient.
#. %2OO9
$56ert testion2 should be offered to
prove that the circumstances are constitutive
of conduct falling below the standard of care
employed by other physicians in good
standing when performing the same operation.
Bedical malpractice can also be
established by relying on the doctrine of res
i6sa loquitor6 in which case the need of expert
testimony is dispensed with because the injury
itself provides the proof of negligence.
!Raos vs. CA, GR %o.1203.0, =ece:er 21,
1111"
:xample@ The doctrine was applied in a
case of removal of the wrong part of the body
when another part was intended.
#$o pron"e e!ience%
a. :vidence as to the recogniGed standards
of the medical community in the
particular 3ind of case6 and
b. A showing that the physician departed
from this standard in his treatment.
&our elements in meical ne"li"ence
cases: duty, breach, injury and proximate
causation
:. 'IAI'IT; O9 =O&%ITA'& AN#
$ON&C'TANT&
There is no employer4employee
relationship between the hospital and a
physician admitted in the said hospital<s
medical staff as an active or visiting
consultant which would hold the hospital
liable solidarily liable for the injury suffered
by a patient under Article .*A, of the $ivil
$ode. !Raos vs. CA GR %o 1203.0, A6ril
11, 2002"
The contract between the consultant
an the patient is separate and distinct the
contract between the hospital an the patient.
The 9irst has for its object the rendition of
medical services by the consultant to the
patient, while the second concerns the
provision by the hospital of facilities and
services by its staff such as nurses and
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
222
laboratory personnel necessary for the proper
treatment of the patient. !Raos vs. CA GR
%o 1203.0, A6ril 11, 2002"
8. La<*ers
An attorney is not bound to exercise
extraordinary diligence but only a reasonable
degree of care and s3ill, having reference to
the business he underta3es to do.
DE+ENSES IN NEGLIGENCE CASES
Kinds of defenses:
A. $omplete 8 completely bars recovery
. %artial 8 mitigates liability
.. (LAINTI++S COND$CT AND
CONTRI;$TOR- NEGLIGENCE
a. Plaintiffs o$n ne"li"ence as the
pro'imate cause
5hen the plaintiffs own negligence
was the immediate and proximate cause
of his injury, he cannot recover
damages. !Article 2171 Civil Code"
b. Contributor( ne"li"ence
$onduct on the part of the injured party
contributing as a legal cause to the
harm he has suffered which falls below
the standard to which he is re(uired to
conform for his own protection.
!-alenzuela vs. CA 2.3SCRA303"
If the plaintiffs negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury being the
defendant<s lac3 of due care, the
plaintiff may recover damages but the
courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded !Article 2171 Civil Code".
Doctrine of Co"arati5e Negligence
The
relative degree of negligence of the
parties is considered in determining
whether and to what degree, either
should be responsible for his
negligence !a66ortionent o9
daages#.
This is the
doctrine being applied in our
jurisdiction wherein the contributory
negligence of the plaintiff does not
completely bar recovery but merely
results in mitigation of liability6 it is a
partial defense.
The court
is free to determine the extent of the
mitigation of the defendant<s liability
depending upon the circumstances.
0. IM($TED CONTRI;$TOR-
NEGLIGENCE
Negligence is imputed if the actor is
different from the person who is being
made liable.
The defendant will be subject to
mitigated liability even if the plaintiff
was not himself personally negligent but
because the negligence of another is
imputed to the plaintiff.
It is applicable if the negligence was on
the part of the person for whom the
plaintiff is responsible, and especially, by
negligence of an associate in the
transaction where he was injured.
2. +ORT$ITO$S E:ENTS
Essential requisites%
a. The cause of the unforeseen and
unexpected occurrence, or of the failure
of the debtor to comply with his
obligation, must be independent of the
human will6
b. It must be impossible to foresee the
event which constitutes the Ecaso
fortuito,F or if it can be foreseen, it
must be impossible to avoid6
c. The occurrence must be such as to
render it impossible for the debtor to
fulfill his obligation in a normal
manner6 and
d. The obligor must be free from any
participation in the aggravation of the
injury resulting to the creditor.
NOTE: 5hen an act of )od concurs with
the negligence of defendant to produce an
injury, the defendant is liable if the injury
would not have resulted but for his own
negligent conduct or omission. The whole
occurrence is humaniGed and removed from
the rules applicable to acts of )od.
!%A!,C,R vs. CA ?1113@"
G$%$RA& R'&$( It is a complete
defense and a person is not liable if the
cause of the damage is a fortuitous event.
$)C$!*+,%( It is merely a partial
defense and the courts may mitigate the
damages if the loss would have resulted in
any event !Art. 221./0# Civil Code".
4. ASS$M(TION O+ RISK
)olenti non fit in*uria@ One is not legally
injured if he has consented to the act
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
223
complained of or was willing that it should
occur.
It is a complete defense.
Elements(
a. The plaintiff must 3now that the ris3 is
present6
b. =e must further understand its nature6
and that
c. =is choice to incur it is free and
voluntary.
+I,-S%
a. E3ress <ai5er of t/e rig/t to
reco5er
There is assumption of ris3 if the
plaintiff, in advance has expressly waived his
right to recover damages for the negligent act
of the defendant.
NOTE: A person cannot contract away his
right to recover damages resulting from
negligence. &uch waiver is contrary to public
policy and cannot be allowed. =owever, the
waiver contemplated by this prohibition is the
waiver of the right to recover :e9ore the
negligent act was committed.
If waiver was made a9ter the cause of
action accrued, the waiver is valid and may be
construed as a condonation of the obligation.
1. I"lied Assu"tions
i. =angerous Conditions
A person who, 3nowing that he is
exposed to a dangerous condition
voluntarily assumes the ris3 of such
dangerous condition may not recover
from the defendant who maintained such
dangerous conditions.
:xample@ A person who main4
tained his house near a railroad trac3
assumes the usual dangers attendant to
the opera4tion of a locomotive.
!Rodrigueza vs. 3anila Railroad Co., GR
%o. 1.488, %ov. 11, 1121".
ii. Contractual Relations
There may be implied assumption
of ris3 if the plaintiff entered into a
contractual relation with the defendant.
y entering into a relationship freely and
voluntarily where the negligence of the
defendant is obvious, the plaintiff may be
found to accept and consent to it.
:HAB%':&@
a" The employees assume the
ordinary ris3s inherent in the industry in
which he is employed.
4 As to abnormal ris3s, there must
be cogent and convincing evidence of
consent.
b" 5hen a passenger boards a
common carrier, he ta3es the ris3s
incidental to the mode of travel he has
ta3en.
iii. =angerous Activities
%ersons who voluntarily
participate in dangerous activities assume
the ris3s which are usually present in
such activities.
:HAB%':@ A professional athlete
is deemed to assume the ris3s of injury to
their trade.
iv. =e9endantCs negligence
5hen the plaintiff is aware of the
ris3 created by the defendant<s
negligence, yet he voluntarily decided to
proceed to encounter it, there is an
implied admission.
:HAB%':@ If the plaintiff has
been supplied with a product which he
3nows to be unsafe, he is deemed to have
assumed the ris3 of using such unsafe
product.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
224
6. DEAT, O+ T,E DE+ENDANT
#eath of the defendant does not
extinguish the obligation based on (uasi4
delict.
An action survives even if the defendant
dies during the pendency of the case if the
case is an action to recover for an injury to
persons or property by reason of tort
committed by the deceased. It is no defense at
all.
7. (RESCRI(TION
An action based on (uasi4delict
prescribes in four years from the date of the
accident. !Article 1104 Civil Code"
Relations ;ac& Doctrine
An act done at one time is considered by
fiction of law to have been done at some
antecedent period. !Allied 7an8ing Cor6
vs. CA, 1181"
:HAB%':@ A doctor negligently
transfused blood to a patient that was
contaminated with =ID. If the effect
became apparent only after five !1" years,
the four !-" year prescriptive period
should commence only when it was
discovered.
8. IN:OL$NTARINESS
It is a complete defense in (uasi4delict
cases and the defendant is therefore not liable
if force was exerted on him. !Aquino, *orts
and =aages"
:HAB%':@ 5hen the defendant was
forced to drive his vehicle by armed men. =e
was, at pain of death, forced to drive at a very
fast clip because the armed men were
escaping from the policemen. The defendant
cannot be held liable, if a bystander is hit as a
conse(uence.
CA$SATION
(ro3i"ate Cause
That cause which in natural and
continuous se(uence, unbro3en by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, without which the result would not
have occurred.
Re"ote Cause
That cause which some independent force
merely too3 advantage of to accomplish
something not the natural effect thereof.
Nearest Cause
That cause which is the last lin3 in the
chain of events6 the nearest in point of time or
relation.
%roximate cause is not necessarily the
nearest cause but that which is the procuring
efficient and predominant cause.
Concurrent Causes
The actor is liable even if the active and
substantially simultaneous operation of the
effects of a third person<s innocent, tortious or
criminal act is also a substantial factor in
bringing about the harm so long as the actor<s
negligent conduct actively and continuously
operate to bring about harm to another.
!A9rica vs. Calte5"
5here several causes producing the
injury are concurrent and each is an efficient
cause without which the injury would not
have happened, the injury may be attributed to
all or any of the causes and recovery may be
had against any or all of the responsible
persons.
5here the concurrent or successive
negligent acts or omissions of two or more
persons, although acting independently, are in
combination the direct and proximate cause of
a single injury to a third person, and it is
impossible to determine what proportion each
contributed to the injury, either of them is
responsible for the whole injury, even though
his act alone might not have caused the entire
injury6 they become joint tort4feasors and are
solidarily liable for the resulting damage
under Article .*?- of the $ivil $ode.
NOTE: %rimary cause remains the proximate
cause even if there is an intervening cause
which merely cooperated with the primary
cause and which did not brea3 the chain of
causation.
Tests of (ro3i"ate Cause
*Do-6art test
*. $ause4in4fact Test
.. %olicy Test
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
225
NOTE: In determining the proximate cause
of the injury, it is first necessary to determine
if the defendant<s negligence was the cause4
in4fact of the damage to the plaintiff. !Cause-
in-9act test"
If the defendant<s
negligence was not the cause4in4fact,
the in(uiry stops.
If it is, the in(uiry shifts to the (uestion
of limit of the defendant<s liability.
!!olic2 test"
CA$SE%IN%+ACT TESTS:
1. .ut/&or #est
The defendant<s conduct is the cause4in4
fact if damage would not have resulted had
there been no negligence on the part of the
defendant. $onversely, defendant<s negligent
conduct is not the cause in fact of the
plaintiff<s damage if the accident could not
have been avoided in the absence thereof.
2. Substantial &actor test
The conduct is the cause4in4fact of the
damage if it was a su:stantial 9actor in
producing the injuries.
In order to be a substantial factor in
producing the harm, the causes set in motion
by the defendant must continue until the
moment of the damage or at least down the
setting in motion of the final active injurious
force which immediately produced or
preceded the damage.
NOTE: If the defendant<s conduct was
already determined to be the cause in fact of
the plaintiff<s damage under the :ut 9or test, it
is necessarily the cause in fact of the damage
under the su:stantial 9actor test.

3. ,ESS #est
The candidate condition may still be
termed as a cause where it is shown to be a
necessary element in just one of several co-
6resent causal set each independently
sufficient for the effect.
T<o <a*s 1* </ic/ co%resence "a*
"anifest itself:
a. -uplicati!e causation
5hen two or more sets operate
simultaneously to produce the effect6 the
effect is over4determined.
b. Pre/empti!e causation
5hen, though coming about first in
time, one causal set tru6s another
potential set lur3ing in the bac3ground6
the causal potency of the latter is
frustrated.
0ultiple causation
If there are a number of candidate
conditions, which, ta3en one at a time, would
not in fact have been sufficient to cause the
accident and the accident was a cumulative
effect of all the candidate conditions.
(olic* Tests:
*. 9oreseeability Test
.. Natural and %robable $onse(uence Test
0. Natural and Ordinary or #irect
$onse(uence Test
-. =indsight Test
1. Orbit of 2is3 Test
/. &ubstantial 9actor Test
(olic* Tests "a* 1e di5ided into T<o
Grous:
.. +ORESIG,T (ERS(ECTI:E?
+ORESEEA;ILIT- TESTS
The defendant is not liable for the
unforeseeable conse(uences of his acts
'iability is limited within the ris3 created
by defendants< negligent acts.
0. DIRECT (ERSE(ECTI:E? DIRECT
COSE#$ENCES TESTS
The defendant is liable for damages
which are beyond the ris3.
#irect conse(uences are those which
follow in se(uence from the effect of
defendants act upon conditions existing and
forces already in operation at the time without
intervention of any external forces, which
come into active operation later.
Tests alied in t/e (/iliines:
New $ivil $ode has a chapter on
#amages which specifies the 3ind of damage
for which the defendant may be held liable
and the extent of damage to be awarded to the
plaintiff.
Cause%in%fact Tests:
*. ut4for test
.. &ubstantial 9actor test
0. N:&& test
(olic* test@ The directness approach is
being applied in this jurisdiction.
NOTE: The definition of proximate cause
which includes the element of foresight is not
consistent with the express provision of the
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
226
Article ..,. of the New $ivil $ode6 a person
may be held liable whether the damage to the
plaintiff may be unforeseen.
Cause and Conditions
It is no longer practicable to distinguish
between cause and condition.
The defendant may be liable even if only
created conditions, if the conditions resulted
in harm to either person or property.
:HAB%':& of =angerous Conditions(
*. Those that are inherently dangerous
.. Those where a person places a thing
which is not dangerous in itself in a dangerous
position.
0. Those involving products and other
things which are dangerous because they are
defective.
Efficient Inter5ening Cause
One which destroys the causal connection
between the negligent act and the injury and
thereby negatives liability.
There is NO efficient intervening cause if
the force created by the negligent act or
omission have either@
*. 2emained active itself, or
.. $reated another force which
remained active until it directly caused
the result, or
0. $reated a new active ris3 of being
acted upon by the active force that caused
the result.
:HAB%':@ The medical findings, show that
the infection of the wound by tetanus was an
efficient intervening cause later or between
the time >avier was wounded to the time of his
death. !!eo6le vs. Rellin 77 !"il 1038"
NOTES:
A cause is not an intervening cause if it
was already in operation at the time the
negligent act is committed.
9oreseeable intervening causes cannot be
considered sufficient intervening causes.
The intervention of unforeseen and
unexpected cause is not sufficient to relieve
the wrongdoer from conse(uences of
negligence if such negligence directly and
proximately cooperates with the independent
cause in the resulting injury.
CONTRI;$TOR- NEGLIGENCE
A. (laintiff@s negligence is t/e cause
%laintiff<s negligence is not contributory
if it is necessary and sufficient to produce the
result.
:HAB%':&(
*. Only the plaintiff was negligent.
.. #efendant<s negligence is not a part
of the causal set which is a part of the causal
chain.
0. %laintiff<s negligence was pre4
emptive in nature.
;. Co"ound Causes
%laintiff<s negligence may have
duplicative effect, that it, it is sufficient to
bring about the effect but his negligence
occurs simultaneously with the defendant6 the
latter<s negligence is e(ually su99icient but not
necessar2 to bring about the effect because
damage would still have resulted due to the
negligence of the plaintiff.
%laintiff<s negligence is not merely
contributory because it is a concurring
proximate cause.
No recovery can be had. !Aquino, *orts
and =aages"
C. (art of t/e sa"e causal set
Neither plaintiff<s negligence nor
defendant<s negligence alone is sufficient to
cause the injury6 the effect would result only
if both are present together with normal
bac3ground conditions.
Negligence of the plaintiff cooperated
with the negligence of the defendant in order
to bring about the injury6 determination of
proximate cause is only a matter of degree of
participation.
D. Defendant@s Negligence is t/e Onl*
cause
#efendant<s negligence was su99icient
AN# necessar2 to bring about the injury.
=owever, if plaintiff<s negligence
increased or aggravated the resulting damage
or injury liability of the defendant should also
be mitigated under contri:utor2 negligence
rule or under the doctrine o9 avoida:le
consequences.
Doctrine of Last Clear C/ance or
Disco5ered (eril
The negligence of the plaintiff does not
preclude a recovery for the negligence of the
defendant where it appears that the defendant,
by exercising reasonable care and prudence,
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
227
might have avoided injurious conse(uences to
the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff<s
negligence.
Alternati5e :ie<s:
.. (re5ailing 5ie<
#octrine is applicable in this jurisdiction.
:ven if plaintiff was guilty of antecedent
negligence, the defendant is still liable
because he had the last clear chance of
avoiding the injury.
0. Minorit* :ie<
The historical function of the doctrine
was to mitigate the harshness of the common
law rule of contributory negligence which
prevented any recovery at all by the plaintiff
who was also negligent even if his negligence
was relatively minor as compared with the
wrongful act or omission of the defendant.
The doctrine has no role in this
jurisdiction where common law concept of
contributory negligence has itself been
rejected in Article .*+? of the $ivil $ode.
2. T/ird :ie<
There can be no conflict between the
doctrine of last clear chance and doctrine of
comparative negligence if the former is
viewed as a rule or phrase of proximate cause6
=owever, the doctrine of last clear chance
is no longer applicable if the force created by
the plaintiff<s negligence continues until the
happening of the injurious event.
Cases </en t/e doctrine <as /eld
inalica1le '(ICCA)
*. If the laintif f was not negligent.
.. The party charged is re(uired to act
instantaneously , and if the injury cannot be
avoided by the application of all the means at
hand after the peril is or should have been
discovered.
0. If defendant<s negligence is a c oncurrent
cause and which was still in operation up to
the time the injury was inflicted.
-. 5here the plaintiff, a passenger, filed an
action against a carrier based on c ontract.
1. If the actor, though negligent, was not
a ware of the danger or ris3 brought about by
the prior fraud or negligent act.
;. INTENTIONAL TORTS
Include conduct where the actor desires
to cause the conse(uences of his act or
believes that the conse(uences are
substantially certain to result from it.

They are found in $hapter . of the
%reliminary Title of the N$$ entitled E=uman
2elationsF. Although this chapter covers
negligent acts, the torts mentioned herein are
mostly intentional in nature or torts involving
malice or bad faith.
,$MAN RELATIONS
.. (rincile of A1use of Rig/ts 'ART..A)
Ele"ents:
a. 'egal right or duty6
b. The right or duty is exercised in bad
faith6 and
c. 9or the sole intent of prejudicing or
injuring another.
:HAB%':@ If the principal unreasonably
terminated an agency agreement for selfish
reasons. !-alenzuela vs. CA, 110 SCRA 1"
NOTE: This rule is a departure from the
traditional view that a person is not liable for
damages resulting from the exercise of ones
right.
0. Article 0B of t/e Ci5il Code
&pea3s of the general sanction for all
other provisions of law which do not
especially provide for their own sanction.
NOTE: Article ., does not distinguish6 the
act may be done willfully or negligently.
2. Acts contra 1onus "ores 'Article 0.
Ci5il Code)
Ele"ents:
a. Act which is legal6
b. The act is contrary to morals, good
customs, public order or public policy6 and
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
228
c. The act is done with intent to injure.
NOTE: #amages are recoverable even if no
positive law was violated.
Kinds:
a. ;reac/ of ro"ise to "arr*
G$%$RA& R'&$( reach of promise to
marry by itself is not actionable.
$)C$!*+,%( In cases where there is
another act independent of the breach of
promise to marry which gives rise to liability@
*. $ases where there was financial damage.
.. &ocial humiliation caused to one of the
parties.
0. 5here there was moral seduction.
NOTES:
Boral seduction, although not
punishable, connotes the idea of deceit,
enticement, superior power or abuse of
confidence on the part of the seducer to which
the woman has yielded. !Gas"e S"o8at
7a8s" vs. CA"
&exual intercourse is not by itself a basis
for recovery6 damages could only be awarded
if the sexual intercourse is not a product of
voluntariness or mutual desire.
1. Seduction <it/out 1reac/ of ro"ise to
"arr*
&eduction, by itself, is also an act
contrary to morals, good customs and public
policy.
The defendant is liable if he employed
deceit, enticement, superior power or abuse of
confidence in successfully having sexual
intercourse with another even if he satisfied
his lust without promising to marry the
offended party.
It may not even matter that the plaintiff
and the defendant are of the same gender.
c. Se3ual assault
#efendant is liable for all forms of sexual
assault including crimes defined under the
2%$ as rape, acts of lasciviousness and
seduction.
d. Desertion 1* a souse
A spouse has a legal obligation to live
with hisIher spouse.
If a spouse does not perform hisIher duty
to the other, he may be liable for damages for
such omission because the same is contrary to
law, morals, good customs and public policy.
e. Tresass and Deri5ation of (roert*
. JIN#&@
1# *res6ass to andEor de6rivation
o9 real 6ro6ert2
'iability for damages under the
2%$ and Article -1* of the $ivil $ode
re(uires intent or bad faith.
Article --A of the $ivil $ode in
relation to Article -1/ does not permit
action for damages where the builder,
planter, or sower acted in good faith. The
landowner is limited to the options given
to him under article --A, that is to
appropriate whatever is built or planted or
to compel the builder or planter to
purchase the portion encroached upon.
!A(uino, Torts and #amages"
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
229
A builder in good faith who acted
negligently may be held liable under Art.
.*+/ N$$.
2# *res6ass to or de6rivation o9
6ersonal 6ro6ert2
In the field of tort, trespass
extends to all cases where a person is
deprived of his personal property even in
the absence of criminal liability.
NOTE: It may cover cases where the
defendant was deprived of personal
property for the purpose of obtaining
possession of real property
:HAB%':@ The defendant who
was landlord, was held liable because he
deprived the plaintiffs, his tenants, of
water in order to force them to vacate the
lot they were cultivating. !3ag:anua vs.
+AC 137 SCRA 3.2"
3# =isconnection o9 electricit2 or
gas service
The right to disconnect and deprive the
customer, who unreasonably fails to pay
his bills, of electricity should be exercised
in accordance with the law and rules.
:xample@ If a company disconnects the
electricity service without prior notice as
re(uired by the rules, the company
commits a tort under Article .* N$$.
f. A1ortion and 9rongful Deat/
#amages may be recovered by both
spouses if@
*" the abortion was caused
through the physician<s negligence, or
." was done intentionally
Dit"out t"eir consent
=usband of a woman who voluntarily
procured her abortion may recover damages
from the physician who caused the same on
account of distress and mental anguish
attendant to the loss of the unborn child and
the disappointment of his parental
expectation. !Geluz vs. CA 2SCRA802"
g. Illegal Dis"issal
The right of the employer to dismiss an
employee should not be confused with the
manner in which the right is exercised and the
effects flowing therefrom6
If the dismissal was done anti4socially
and oppressively, the employer should be
deemed to have violated Article *+,* of the
$ivil $ode !which prohibits acts of oppression
by either capital or labor against the other"
and Article .* N$$.
An employer may be held liable for
damages if the manner of dismissing is
contrary to morals good customs and public
policy.
:HAB%':@ 9alse imputation of misdeed
to justify dismissal or any similar manner of
dismissal which is done abusively.
/. Malicious (rosecution
An action for damages brought by one
against another whom a criminal prosecution,
civil suit, or other legal proceeding has been
instituted maliciously and without probable
cause, after the termination of such
prosecution, suit or proceeding in favor of the
defendant therein.
The gist of the action is putting legal
process in force regularly, for mere purpose of
vexation or injury. !=rilon vs. CA ?1117@"
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
230
Ele"ents:
*. The fact of the prosecution and the
further fact that the defendant was himself the
prosecutor6 and that the action was finally
terminated with an ac(uittal6
.. That in bringing the action, the
prosecutor acted without probable cause6
0. The prosecutor was actuated or
impelled by legal malice.
NOTES:
Balice is the inexcusable intent to injure,
oppress, vex, annoy or humiliate.
%resence of probable cause signifies
absence of malice.
Absence of malice signifies good faith on
the part of the defendant6 good faith may even
be based on mista3e of law.
Ac(uittal presupposes that a criminal
information is filed in court and final
judgment rendered dismissing the case6
nevertheless, prior ac(uittal may include
dismissal by the prosecutor after preliminary
investigation. !Glo:e 3ac8a2 and Radio
Cor6. vs. CAF 3anila Gas Cor6 vs. CA"
i. (u1lic ,u"iliation
#amages may be awarded in cases where
the plaintiff suffered humiliation through the
positive acts of the defendant directed against
the plaintiff.
:xample@ The defendant was held liable
for damages under Art. .* for slapping the
plaintiff in public. !!atricio vs. Bon. ,scar
&eviste, ?1181@"
NOTES:
Cnder Article .*, damages are
recoverable even though no positive law was
violated.
An action can only prosper when damage,
material or otherwise, was suffered by the
plaintiff. An action based on Articles *?4.*
will be dismissed if the plaintiff merely see3s
GrecognitionH.
Cnder Articles *? and .*, the defendant
may li3ewise be guilty of a tort even if he
acted in good 9ait". !Grand 'nion
Su6erar8et vs. $s6ino"
TORTS AGAINST ,$MAN DIGNIT-
T-(ES:
.. :iolation of t/e rig/t of ri5ac*
Reasona:leness o9 a 6ersonCs e56ectation
o9 6rivac2 de6ends on a tDo-6art test(
a" 5hether by his conduct, the
individual has exhibited an expectation of
privacy.
b" 5hether this expectation is one that
the society recogniGes as reasonable.
NOTES:
G$%$RA& R'&$@ 2ight to privacy can be
invo3ed only by natural persons6 >uridical
persons cannot invo3e such right because the
entire basis of right to privacy is an injury to
the feelings and sensibilities of a party, a
corporation would have no such ground.
$)C$!*+,%( 2ight against unreasonable
searches and seiGure can be invo3ed by a
juridical entity.
G$%$RA& R'&$@ 2ight to privacy is
purely personal in nature, hence@
*" It can be invo3ed only by the person
whose privacy is claimed to have been
violated.
." It can be subject to waiver of the
person whose privacy is sought to be intruded
into.
0" The right ceases upon the death of the
person.
$)C$!*+,%( A privilege may be given to
the surviving relatives of a deceased person to
protect his memory but the privilege exist for
the benefit of the living, to protect their
feelings and to prevent the violation of their
own rights in the character and memory of the
deceased.
&tandard to be
applied in determining if there was a violation
of the right is that of a 6erson Dit" ordinar2
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
231
sensi:ilities. It is relative to the customs of
time and place and is determined by the norm
of an ordinary person.
+our T*es of In5asion of (ri5ac*
a. Intrusion
upon plaintiff1s seclusion or solitue or into
his pri!ate affairs
It is not limited to cases where the
defendant physically trespassed into another<s
property. It includes cases when the defendant
invades one<s privacy by loo3ing from outside
!:xample@ Epeeping4tomF".
G$%$RA& R'&$@ There is no invasion of
right to privacy when a journalist records
photographs or writes about something that
occurs in public places.
$)C$!*+,%( 5hen the acts of the
journalist should be to such extent that it
constitutes harassment or overGealous
shadowing.
The freedom of the press has never been
construed to accord newsmen immunity from
tort or crimes committed during the course of
the newsgathering.
There is no intrusion when an
employer investigates an employee or when
the school investigates its student.
2A -.,, ma3es it illegal for any
person not authoriGed by all the parties to any
private communication to secretly record such
communication by means of a tape recorder
!2amireG vs $A, &ept. .A, *??1"
Cse of a telephone extension for
purposes of overhearing a private
conversation without authoriGation does not
violate 2A -.,,.
NOTE: There are instances where the school
might be called upon to exercise its power
over its student for acts committed outside the
school premises and beyond school hours in
the following@
*. In cases of violation of school
policies or regulations occurring in
connection with school sponsored activity
off4campus6 or
.. In cases where the misconduct of the
student involves his status as a student or
affects the good name and reputation of
the school.
1. Publicati
on of Embarrassin" (ri5ate +acts
Re!uisites:
*. %ublicity is given to any private or
purely personal information about a
person6
.. 5ithout the latter<s consent6 and
0. 2egardless of whether or not such
publicity constitutes a criminal offense,
li3e libel or defamation, the circumstance
that the publication was made with intent
of gain or for commercial and business
purposes invariably serves to aggravate
the violation of the right.
%C'I$ 9I)C2: 4 A
person, who by his accomplishments, fame or
mode of living or by adopting a profession or
calling which gives the public a legitimate
interest in his doings, his affairs and his
character.
NOTE: %ublic figures, most especially those
holding responsible positions in government
enjoy a ore liited right to privacy
compared to ordinary individuals.
The interest sought to be
protected is the right to be free from
unwarranted publicity, from the wrongful
publiciGing of the private affairs and
activities of an individual which are
outside the realm of legitimate public
concern.
The publication of facts
derived from the records of official
proceedings which are not otherwise
declared by law as confidential, cannot be
considered a tortious conduct.
c. Publicit(
$hich places a person in a false li"ht in
the public e(e
The interest to be protected in this
tort is the interest of the individual in not
being made to appear before the public in
an objectionable false light or false
position.
:HAB%':@ #efendant was held liable
for damages when he published an
unauthoriGed biography of a famous
baseball player exaggerating his feats on
the baseball field, portraying him as a war
hero. !S6a"n vs. 3essner"
If the publicity given to the plaintiff
is defamatory, hence an action for libel is
also warranted6 the action for invasion of
privacy will afford an alternative remedy.
Bay be committed by the media by
distorting a news report.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
232
Tort of (utting
Anot/er in +alse
Lig/t
Defa"ation
1. As to "ra!amen of claim
The gravamen of claim
is not the reputational
harm but rather the
embarrassment of a
person being made into
some4thing he is not
The gravamen of claim
is the reputa4tional harm
2. As to publication
The statement should be
actually made in public
%ublication is satisfied
if a letter is sent to a
third person
3. As to the efamator( character of the
statements
#efendant may still be
held liable even if the
statements tells
something good about
the plaintiff
5hat is published
lowers the esteem in
which the plaintiff is
held
. Commerc
ial appropriation of li2eness
The unwarranted publication of a
person<s name or the unauthoriGed use of
his photograph or li3eness for
commercial purposes is an invasion of
privacy.
5ith respect to celebrities, however,
the right of publicity is often treated as a
separate right that overlaps but is distinct
from the right of privacy. They treat their
names and li3eness as property and they
want to control and profit therefrom.
0. Interference <it/ +a"il* and ot/er
relations
The gist of the tort is an interference with
one spouse<s mental attitude toward the
other and the conjugal 3indness of marital
relations resulting in some actual conduct
which materially affects it.
It extends to all cases of wrongful
interference in the family affairs of others
whereby one spouse is induced to leave
the other spouse or conduct himself or
herself that the comfort of married life is
destroyed.
If the interference is by the parents of the
spouse, malice must be proven.
2. Intriguing to Cause Alienation
4. :e3ation and ,u"iliation
#iscrimination against a person on
account of his physical defect, which
causes emotional distress, may result in
liability on the part of the offending
party.
&exual =arassment falls under this
category.
4 a civil action separate and distinct from the
criminal action may be commenced under
2A +A++.
4 . types of &exual harassment@
a" (uid pro (uo cases
b" hostile environment cases
TORTS 9IT, INDE(ENDENT CI:IL
ACTIONS
.. :iolation of ci5il and olitical rig/ts
'Article 20)
Although the same normally involves
intentional acts, it can also be committed
through negligence.
%ublic officer who is a defendant cannot
escape liability under the doctrine of state
immunity6 the said doctrine applies only
if acts involved are done by officers in
the performance of their official duty
within the ambit of their powers6 officers
do not act within the ambit of their
powers if they violate the constitutional
rights of persons.
0. Defa"ation= +raud= and (/*sical
in>uries 'Article 22)
A. -efamation
#efamation is an invasion of the
interest in reputation and good name, by
communication to others which tends to
diminish the esteem in which the plaintiff
is held, or to excite adverse feelings or
opinion against him.
Includes the crime of libel and
slander.
2%$ considers the statement
defamatory if it is an imputation of
circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit or contempt of natural
or juridical person or to blac3en the
memory of one who is dead.
Re!uisites for one to 1e lia1le for
defa"ator* i"utations:
a. It must be defamatory
b. It must be malicious
c. It must be given publicity
d. The victim must be identifiable
NOTES:
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
233
Test in determining the defamatory
character of the imputation@ A charge is
sufficient if the words are calculated to
induce the hearers to suppose and
understand that the personIs against whom
they were uttered were guilty of a certain
offense, or are sufficient to impeach their
honesty, virtue, or reputation, or to hold the
personIs up to public ridicule.
#issemination to a number of
persons is not re(uired, communication to
a single individual is sufficient
publication.
G$%$RA& R'&$( :very defamatory
imputation is presumed to be malicious,
even if it be true, if no good intention or
justifiable motive for ma3ing it is shown.
$)C$!*+,%S(
*. A private communication made
by any person to another in the
performance of any legal, moral or
social duty6 and
.. A fair and true report, made in
good faith, without any comments or
remar3s, of any judicial, legislative
or other official proceedings which
are not of confidential nature, or of
any statement, report, or speech
delivered in said proceedings or of
any other act performed by public
officers in the exercise of their
functions.
It is not sufficient that the offended
party recogniGed himself as the person
attac3ed or defamed, it must be shown
that at least a third person could identify
him as the object of the libelous
publication.
In order to escape liability, the
defendant may claim that the statements
made are privileged.
T<o &inds of ri5ileged co""unication:
*" Absolutely privilege 8 Those which
are not actionable even if the author
acted in bad faith.
." Kualifiedly privilege 8 not actionable
unless found to have been made
without good intention or justifiable
motive.
.. &rau
Ele"ents of deceit
*"The defendant must have made false
representation to the plaintiff
."The representation must be one of
fact
0"The defendant must 3now that the
representation is false or be rec3less
about whether it is false
-"The defendant must have acted on
the false representation
1"The defendant must have intended
that the false representation should
be acted on
/"The plaintiff must have suffered
damage as a result of acting on the
false representation
Bal9-trut"s are
li3ewise included6 it is actionable if the
withholding of that which is not stated
ma3es that which is stated absolutely
false.
Bisrepresentatio
n upon a mere matter of opinion is not an
actionable deceit.
C. Ph(sical in*uries
attery 8 an intentional infliction of
a harmful or offensive bodily contact6
bodily contact is offensive if it offends a
reasonable person<s sense of dignity.
Assault 8 intentional conduct by one
person directed at another which places
the latter in apprehension of immediate
bodily harm or offensive act.
Includes bodily injuries causing
death.
%hysical injuries which resulted
because of negligence or imprudence is
not included in Article 006 they are
already covered by Article .*+/ of the
$ivil $ode.
2. Neglect of dut* 1* olice officers
'Article 24)
&ubsidiary liability of cities and
municipalities, is imposed so that they
will exercise great care in selecting
conscientious and duly (ualified
policemen and exercise supervision over
them in the performance of their duties.
CI:IL LIA;ILIT- ARISING +ROM
DELICT
:very person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable. !Article 100
R!C"
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
234
The reason is because a crime has a dual
character@ as an offense against the &tate
and against the private person injured by
it.
#ual character of crimes applies to cases
governed by special laws. :xample@
violation of the % .. results in criminal
and civil liability.
There is civil liability even if the offense
is a public offense, li3e in bigamy.
%ersons liable are the principal,
accomplice and accessories.
It includes restitution, reparation of
damages and indemnification of
conse(uential damages.
The rule on proximate cause in (uasi4
delict cases is applicable to cases
involving civil liability arising from
delict. Art. ..,., N$$
Circu"stances affecting Ci5il Lia1ilit*
.. Custif*ing circu"stances
#efendant is free from civil
liability if justifying circumstances are
properly establishes.
0. E3e"ting Circu"stances
They do not erase the civil
liability.
2. Mitigating and Aggra5ating
Circu"stances
#amages to be adjudicated may
either be decreased or increased
depending on the presence of mitigating
or aggravating circumstances.
Effect of Deat/
A. #:AT= A9T:2 9INA' >C#)B:NT@
extinguishes criminal liability of the
person liable but will not extinguish the
civil liability.
. #:AT= :9O2: 9INA' >C#)B:NT@
G$%$RA& R'&$@ The defendant is
relieved from both criminal and civil
liability arising from criminal liability.
$)C$!*+,%( In case of libel and
physical injuries wherein the plaintiff
initially opted to claim damages in the
criminal proceeding can file another case
under Article 33 o9 t"e Civil Code.
Effect of (ardon
%ardon does not erase civil liability.
5hile pardon removes the existence of guilt
so that in the eyes of the law the offender is
deemed innocent and treated as though he
never committed the offence, it does not
operate to remove all the effects of the
previous conviction.
DE+ENDANTS IN TORT CASES
Concurrent Negligence or Acts
.. Coint Tort%feasors
All the persons who
command, instigate, promote, encourage,
advice, countenance, cooperate in, aid, or abet
the commission of a tort, or who approve of it
after it is done, if done for their benefit6 they
are each liable as a principal, to the same
extent and in the same manner as if they have
performed the wrongful act themselves.
The responsibility of two or more persons
liable for (uasi4delict is solidary !Article 2110
Civil Code"6 they are not liable pro rata, they
are jointly and severally liable for the whole
amount.
0. Motor 5e/icle "is/as
The owner is solidarily liable with the
driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle,
could have, by the use of due diligence,
prevented the misfortune. !Article 2180 Civil
Code"
&olidary liability is imposed on the owner
not because of his imputed liability but
because his own omission is a concurring
proximate cause of the injury.
:icarious Lia1ilit* or Doctrine of I"uted
Negligence
A person is not only liable for torts
committed by himself, but also for torts
committed by others with whom he has a
certain relation or for whom he is
responsible. !Article 2180 Civil Code"
:xercise of diligence of a good father
of a family to prevent damage is a defense.
Doctrine of Responeat Superior 8 the
liability is strictly imputed, the employer is
liable not because of his act or omission but
because of the act or omission of the
employee6 employer cannot escape liability by
claiming that he exercised due diligence in the
selection or supervision of the employee.
G$%$RA& R'&$( Dicarious liability in the
%hilippines is not governed by the doctrine of
res6ondeat su6erior6 employers or parents are
made liable not only because of the negligent
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
235
or wrongful act of the person for whom they
are responsible but also because of their own
negligence@
*" 'iability is imposed on the employer
because he failed to exercise due
diligence in the selection or
supervision of the employee
." %arents are made liable because they
failed to exercise due diligence
$)C$!*+,%( #octrine of res6ondeat
su6erior is applicable in@
*" liability of employers under Article
*,0 of the 2%$
." liability of a partnership for the tort
committed by a partner
(ersons :icariousl* Lia1le: 'Article 2134 of
the Ci!il Coe5
.. T/e +at/er= or in case of deat/ or
incaacit*= "ot/er
9or damage caused by@
a" minor children
b" living in their company
This has already been modified by Art.
..* of the 9amily $ode to the extent that the
alternative (ualification of the liability of the
father and the mother has been removed.
NOTES:
The basis of liability for the acts or
omissions of their minor children is
the parental authority that they
exercise over them, except for
children *A to .*.
The same foreseability test of
negligence should apply to parents
when they are sought to be held
liable under Art. .*A,, N$$
The liability is not limited to parents,
the same is also imposed on those
exercising substitute and special
parental authority, i.e., guardian.
The liability is present only both
under Art .*A, of the N$$ and Art
..* of the 9amily $ode if the child is
living in his parents< company.
%arental authority is not the sole
basis of liability. A teacher in charge
is still liable for the acts of their
students even if the minor student
reaches the age of majority.
The parents or guardians can still be
held liable even if the minor is
already emancipated provided that he
is below .* years of age.
%arents and other persons exercising
parental authority can escape liability
by proving that they observed all the
diligence of a good father of a family
to prevent damages. !Art. .*A,"
The burden of proof rests on the
parents and persons exercising
parental authority.
0. Guardians
9or damage caused by
a. minors or incapacitated persons
b. under their authority
c. living in their company
2. O<ners and "anagers of
esta1lis/"ents
a" their employees
b" in the service of the branches in
which they are employed, or
c" on the occasion of their functions
4. E"lo*ers
9or damages cause by@
a" employees and household helpers
b" acting within the scope of their
assigned tas3s
c" even if the employer is not engaged
in any business or industry
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
236
NOTES:
'iability of the employer can be
established by proving the existence of an
employer4employee relationship with the
actor and the latter caused the injury while
performing his assigned tas3 or functions.
The vicarious liability attaches only when
the tortuous conduct of the employees relates
to or is in the course of his employment.
5hile the employer incurs no liability
when an employee<s conduct, act or omission
is beyond the range of employment, a minor
deviation from the assigned tas3 of an
employee, however does not affect the
liability of an employer. !-alenzuela vs. CA,
2.3 SCRA 303"
It is a defense that the employer exercised
proper diligence in the selection and
supervision of negligent employee.
6. State
a" a special agent
b"not when the damage has been
caused by the official to whom the tas3
done properly pertains
%ublic officers who are guilty of tortuous
conduct are personally liable for their actions.
7. Sc/ools= Teac/ers and Ad"inistrators
a" pupils and students or apprentices
b" in their custody
statutor2 :asis@
if student is minor 8 Art. .*?, 9$
if student is no longer a minor 8 Art.
.*A,, $ivil $ode
NOTES:
Applies also to teachers of academic
institutions.
'iability attaches to the teacher4in4
charge.
The school itself is now solidarily
liable with the teacher4in4charge.
The liability extends to acts
committed even outside the school so
long as it is an official activity of the
school.
5henever the school or teacher is
being made liable, the parents and
those exercising substitute parental
authority are not free from liability
because Art. .*? of the 9amily $ode
expressly provides that they are
subsidiarily liable.
Art. .*A, ma3es teachers and heads
liable for acts of students and
apprentices whether the latter are
minors or not.
G$%$RA& R'&$( The teacher4in4charge is
liable for the acts of his students. The school
and administrators are not liable.
$)C$!*+,%( It is only the head of the
school, not the teacher who is held liable
where the injury is caused in a school of arts
and trade.
The liability of the teacher subsists
whether the school is academic or
non4 academic.
'iability is imposed only if the pupil
is already in the custody of the
teacher or head. The student is in the
custody of the school authorities as
longs as he is under the control and
influence of the school and within its
premises whether the semester had
not yet begun or has already ended.
The
victim of negligence is li3ewise
re(uired to exercise due care in
avoiding injury to himself.
Ot/er (ersons :icariousl* Lia1le:
.. Inn&eeers and ,otel&eeers
They are ci!ill( liable for crimes
committed in their establishments in cases of
violations of statutes by them, in default of
persons criminally liable. !Article 102 Revised
!enal Code"
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
237
They are subsiiaril( liable for the
restitution of goods ta3en by robbery or theft
within their houses from guests lodging
therein, or for payment of the value thereof,
provided that@
a. The inn3eeper was notified in advance of
the deposit of such goods within the inn6 and
b. The guest shall have followed the
directions which such inn3eeper or his
representative may have given with respect to
the care and vigilance over the goods.
0. (artners/i
%artnership or every partner is liable for
torts committed by one of the partners acting
Dit"in t"e sco6e o9 t"e 9ir :usiness, though
they do not participate in, ratify, or have
3nowledge of such torts.
%artners are liable as joint tort4feasors.
Dicarious liability is similar to the
common law rule on res6ondeat su6erior.
'iability is entirely imputed and the
partnership cannot obviously invo3e diligence
in the selection and supervision of the partner.
2. Souses
a. a:solute counit2 o9 6ro6ert2
The absolute community property
shall be for liabilities incurred by either
spouses by reason of crime or (uasi4delict in
case of absence or insufficiency of the
exclusive property of the debtor4spouse.
!Article 10 ;ail2 Code"
%ayments shall be considered
advances to be deducted from the share of the
debtor spouse upon li(uidation of the
community.
:. conAugal 6artners"i6 o9 gains
G$%$RA& R'&$( %ecuniary indemni4ties
imposed upon the husband or wife are not
chargeable against the conjugal partnership
but against the separate properties of the
wrongdoer.
$)C$!*+,%( $onjugal partnership should
be made liable@
*" 5hen the profits have inured to the
benefit of the partnership, or
." If one of the spouses committed the tort
while performing a business or if the act was
supposed to benefit the partnership.
c. regie o9 se6aration o9 6ro6ert2
:ach spouse is responsible for
hisIher separate obligation.
C. STRICT LIA;ILIT-
5hen the person is made liable
independent of fault or negligence upon
submission of proof of certain facts specified
by law.
NOTE: &trict liability tort can be committed
even if reasonable care was exercised and
regardless of the state of mind of the actor at
that time.
T-(ES:
.. Ani"als
G$%$RA& R'&$( The possessor of an
animal or whoever may ma3e use of the same
is responsible for the damages which it may
cause although it may escape or be lost.
$)C$!*+,%( 5hen the damage was
caused by force majeure or by the person who
suffered the damage. !Article 2183 Civil
Code"
NOTES:
If the acts of a third person cannot be
foreseen or prevented, then the situation is
similar to that of force majeure and the
possessor is not liable. !;rancisco, *orts and
=aages"
Art. .*A0 is applicable whether the
animal is domestic, domesticated, or wild.
0. +alling o1>ects
The head of a family that lives in a building
or a part thereof is responsible for damages
caused by things thrown or falling from the
same. !Article 2113 Civil Code"
The term E"ead o9 t"e 9ail2F is not
limited to the owner of the building, and it
may even include the lessee thereof.
!=ingcong vs. Ianaan, 72 !"il 10"
2. Lia1ilit* of e"lo*ers
Article *+** of the N$$ imposes an
obligation on owners of enterprises and other
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
238
employers to pay for the death or injuries to
their employees.
'iability is strict because it exists even if
the cause is purely accidental.
If the mishap was due to the employee<s
own notorious negligence, or voluntary act or
drun3enness, the employer shall not be liable
for compensation.
5hen the employee<s lac3 of due care
contri:uted to his death or injury, the
compensation shall be e(uitably reduced.
If the death or injury is due to the
negligence of a fellow4wor3man the latter and
the employer shall be solidarily liable for
compensation.
If a 9elloD-Dor8erCs intentional or
malicious act is the only cause of the death or
injury, the employer shall not be answerable
unless it should be shown that the latter did
not exercise due diligence in the selection or
supervision of the plaintiff<s fellow4wor3er.
4. Nuisance
Any act, omission, establishment,
business, condition of property, or anything
else which@
a. Injures or endangers the health or safety
of others6
b. Annoys or offends the senses6
c. &hoc3s, defies or disregards decency or
morality6
d. Obstructs or interferes with the free
passage of any public highway or street, or
any body of water6 or
e. =inders or impairs the user of property.
There is strict liability on the part of the
owner or possessor of the property where a
nuisance is found because he is obliged to
abate the same irrespective of the presence or
absence of fault or negligence.
:very successive owner or possessor of
property who fails or refuses to abate a
nuisance in that property started by a former
owner or possessor is liable therefore in the
same manner as the one who created it.

6. (roduct lia1ilit* 1* "anufacturers
Banufacturers and processors of
foodstuffs, drin3s, toilet articles and similar
goods shall be liable for death or injuries
caused by any noxious or harmful substances
used, although no contractual relation exists.
Ot/er cases of lia1ilit* <it/out fault:
*. %roprietor of a building or structure, for
damages resulting from its total or partial
collapse, if it should be due to lac3 of
necessary repairs. .
.. reach of implied warranties.
0. $onsumer Act !2.A. +0?-" 8 any 9ilipino
or foreign manufacturer, producer and
importer, independently of fault shall be liable
for redress for damages caused to consumers
by defects resulting from@
a. design6
b. manufacture6
c. construction6
d. assembly and erection6
e. formulas and handling and ma3ing
up6 or
f. presentation or pac3ing of their
products as well as for the insufficient or
inade(uate information on the use and
haGards thereof.
-. :ven when an act or event causing
damage to another<s property was not due to
the fault or negligence of the defendant, the
latter shall be liable for indemnity if through
the act or event he was benefited. !Art. 23
Civil Code"
(ROD$CT AND SER:ICE LIA;ILIT-
Alternati5e t/eories on 1asis of lia1ilit*
1. &rau or misrepresentation
Not all expression of opinion are
actionable misrepresentations if they are
established to be inaccurate.
2. 6arranties
The $onsumer Act recogniGes that the
provisions of the $ivil $ode on conditions
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
239
and warranties shall govern all contracts of
sale with conditions and warranties.
2etailer shall be subsidiarily liable under
the warranty in case of failure of both the
manufacturer and distributor to honor the
warranty.
%rivity of contract is not necessary.
3. ,e"li"ence
In product liability law, certain standards
are already imposed by special laws, rules and
regulations of proper government agencies6
certain acts or omissions are expressly
prohibited by the statutes thereby ma3ing
violation thereof negligence per se.
It is negligence per se if manufacturer
manufactured products which do not comply
with the safety standards promulgated by
appropriate government agencies.
7. -elict
The liability may be based on criminal
negli4gence under the 2%$ or violation of any
special law.
8. Strict liabilit(
Banufacturers and processors of
foodstuffs, drin3s, toilet articles, and similar
goods, shall be liable for death or injuries
caused by any noxious or harmful substances
used although no contractual relation exists.
%rivity of contract is not re(uired.
It does not preclude an action based on
negligence !(uasi4delict" for the same act of
using noxious or harmful substances.
Article ?+ and ?? of the $onsumer Act
imposes liability on defective products and
services upon manufacturers independent of
fault.
Jnowledge of the manufacturer is not
important6 the focus is on the condition of the
product and not on the conduct of the
manufacturer or seller.
DE+ENSES:
A. The manufacturer, builder, producer, or
importer shall not be liable when it evidences@
*" That it did not place the
product on the mar3et
." That although it did place
the product on the mar3et such product
had no defect
0" That the consumer of third
party is solely at fault. !Article 17
Consuer Act"
. The supplier of the services shall not be
held liable when it is proven@
*" That there is no defect in the service
rendered
." That the consumer of third party is
solely at fault. !Article 11 Consuer Act"
Re!uisites: The plaintiff should allege
and prove that@
*" The product was defective6
." The product was manufactured by
the defendant6
0" The defective product was the cause
of his injury.
4 KINDS O+ DE+ECTI:E
(ROD$CTS
*. manufacturing defect
.. design defect
0. presentation defect
-. absence of appropriate warning
;$SINESS TORTS
.. Interference of contracts
Elements%
a. existence of a valid contract
b. 3nowledge on the part of the third
person of the existence of the contract
c. interference of the third person without
legal justification.
The existence of a contract is necessary
and the breach must occur because of the
alleged act of interference6 No action can be
maintained if the contract is void.
Balice is not essential.
Ele"ents of ri5ilege to interfere
*"The defendant<s purpose is a
justifiable one, and
."The actors employ no means of fraud
or deception which are regarded as unfair.
E3tent of Lia1ilit*:
A. 2ule in #aywalt vs. 'a $orporation
0?%=I'1A+
#efendant
cannot be held liable for more than the
amount for which the contracting party
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
240
who was induced to brea3 the contract
can be held liable.
. 2ule under Article ..,* and ..,. $ivil
$ode
*" If
in bad faith@ defendant is liable for all
natural and probable conse(uences of his
act or omission, whether the same is
forseen or unforeseen.
." If
in good faith@ defandant is liable only for
conse(uences that can be foreseen.
0. Interference <it/ rosecti5e
ad5antage
It is a tort committed when there is no
contract yet and the defendant is only being
sued for inducing another not to enter into a
contract.
2. $nfair co"etition.
Cnfair $ompetition in agricultural,
commercial, or industrial enterprises, or in
labor, through the use of force, intimidation ,
deceit, machination or any unjust or
oppressive or highhanded method shall give
rise to a right of action by a person who
thereby suffers damage. !Article 27 Civil
Code"
$A&:& IN$'C#:#:
a. passing off and disparagement of
products
b. interference
c. misappropriation
d. monopolies and predatory pricing
4. Securities Related Torts
Kinds
a. 9raudulent Transactions
b. Bisstatements or Omission of
statement of a material fact re(uired to be
stated
#efendants are free from liability if they
can prove that at the time of the ac(uisition
the plaintiff 3new of the untrue statement or if
he was aware of the falsity.
E3tent of Da"ages: Not exceeding
triple the amount of the transaction.
(rescriti5e (eriod: Action must be
brought within . years after discovery of facts
constituting the cause of action and within 1
yrs after such cause of action accrued.
II. DAMAGES
DAMAGE
The detriment, injury or loss which are
occasioned by reason of fault of another in the
property or person.
DAMAGES
The pecuniary compensation, recompense
or satisfaction for an injury sustained or as
otherwise expressed, the pecuniary
conse(uences which the law imposes for the
breach of some duty or violation of some
rights.
DAMN$M A;S#$E INC$RIA /=aage
>it"out +nAur2#
A person may have suffered physical hurt
or injury, but for as long as no legal injury or
wrong has been done, there is no liability.
There is no liability even if there is
damage because there was no injury.
There can be damage without injury.
In order that a plaintiff may maintain an
action for the injuries of which he complains,
he must establish that such injuries resulted
from a breach of duty which the defendant
owed to the plaintiff.
In>ur* Da"age Da"ages
'egal
invasion of
a legal right
'oss, hurt or
harm which
results from
the injury
The recom4
pense or
compensation
awarded for
the damage
suffered
NOTES:
A complaint for damages is a personal
action. !7aritua vs. CA, 247 SCRA 331"
%roof of pecuniary loss is necessary to
successfully recover actual damages from
the defendant. No proof of pecuniary loss
is necessary in case of moral, nominal,
temperate, li(uidated or exemplary
damages.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
241
The assessment of such damages, except
li(uidated ones, is left to the discretion of
the court according to the circumstances
of each case.
Kinds of da"ages 'MANTLE)
*. A ctual or $ompensatory
.. M oral
0. N ominal
-. T emperate or moderate
1. L i(uidated
/. E xemplary or corrective
A. ACT$AL OR COM(ENSATOR-
DAMAGES
$omprehends not only the value of the
loss suffered but also that of the profits
which the obligee failed to obtain.
Classification:
*. =ano eergente 8 loss of what a
person already possesses
.. &ucro cessante 8 failure to receive as
a benefit that would have pertained
to him
NOTE: The latter type includes@
*. 'oss or impairment of earning
capacity in cases of temporary or
permanent personal injury.
.. Injury to the plaintiff<s business
standing or commercial credit.
In crimes and (uasi4delict, the defendant
shall be liable for all damages which are
the natural and probable conse(uences of
the act and omission complained of. It is
not necessary that such damages have
been foreseen or could have reasonably
foreseen by the defendant. !Article 2202
Civil Code"
The amount should be that which would
put plaintiff in the same position as he
would have been if he had not sustained
the wrong for which he is now getting
his compensation or reparation.
To recover damages, the amount of loss
must not only be capable of proof but
must actually be proven.
Cncertainty as to the precise amount is
not necessarily fatal.
LOSS O+ EARNING CA(ACIT-:
-aria:les considered are(
*. life expectancy
.. net incomeIearnings
+or"ula@
L.I0 x !A,8age of death"M x mo. :arnings x *.
.
NOTE:
'ife expectancy is computed as follows@
D 0?2 3 'EB%age at deat/) F
Net earnings is the total of the earnings
less expenses necessary for the creation
of such earnings and less living or other
incidental expenses.
Loss of rofits
Bay be determined by considering the
average profit for the preceding years
multiplied by the number of years during
which the business was affected by the
wrongful act or breach.
Attorne*@s fees
They are actual damages. It is due to the
plaintiff and not to the counsel.
%laintiff must allege the basis of his claim
for attorney<s fees in the complaint6 the
basis should be one of the ** cases
specified in Article 2208 o9 t"e Civil
Code.
Interests
Award of interest in the concept of actual
and compensatory damages actual
damages.
The rate of interest, as well as the accrual
thereof is imposed as follows@
*. 5hen the obligation is breached and
it consist of payment of sum of
money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of
money@
a. The interest due should be that
which may have been stipulated
in writing6 furthermore, the
interest due shall itself earn legal
interest from the time it is
judicially demanded.
b. In the absence of stipulation, the
rate of interest shall be *.N per
annum to be computed from
default, i.e., from judicial or
extra4judicial demand under and
subject to the provisions of
Article **/? of the $ivil $ode.
.. 5hen the obligation, not constituting
a loan or forbearance or money, is
breached@
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
242
An interest on the amount of
damages to be awarded may be
imposed at the discretion of the
court at the rate of /N per
annum.
No interest shall be adjudged on
unli(uidated claims or damages,
except when or until demand can
be established with reasonable
certainty.
5here the demand is established
with reasonable certainty, the
interest shall begin to run from
the time the claim is made
judicially or extrajudicially.
0. 5hen the judgment of the court
awarding the sum of money becomes
final and executory, the rate of legal
interest shall be *.N per annum from
such finality until its satisfaction.
Doctrine of A5oida1le Conse!uences
A party cannot recover damages flowing
from conse(uences which the party could
reasonably have avoided.
It has a reasonable corollary@ a person
who reasonably attempts to minimiGe his
damages can recover the expenses that he
incurred.
Doctrine of
A5oida1le
Conse!uences
Contri1utor*
Negligence
Acts of the plaintiff
occur after the act
or omission of the
defendant
%laintiff<s act or
omission occurs
before or at the time
of the act or
omission of the
defendant
;. MORAL DAMAGES
Includes physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
moral shoc3, social humiliation, and
similar injury.
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary.
G$%$RA& R'&$( The plaintiff must allege
and prove@
*. The factual basis for moral damages6
and
.. Its causal relation to the defendant<s
act
$)C$!*+,%( Boral damages may be
awarded to the victim in criminal proceedings
without the need for pleading of proof of the
basis thereof.
Re!uisites for a<ard of "oral da"ages:
*. There must be an injury whether physical,
mental or psychological, clearly sustained
by the claimant6
.. There must be a culpable act or
omission.6
0. &uch act or omission is the proximate
cause of the injury6
-. The damages is predicated on the cases
cited in Art...*?.
NOTE: The award of moral damages cannot
be granted in favor of a corporation because,
being an artificial person, it has no feelings,
no emotions, no senses. It cannot therefore
experience physical suffering and mental
anguish which can be experienced only by
one having a nervous system.
C. NOMINAL DAMAGES
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
recogniGed, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss
suffered by him. !Article...* $ivil
$ode"
&mall sums fixed by the court without
regard to the extent of the harm done to
the injured party.
'aw presumes damage although actual or
compensatory damages are not proven.
They are damages in name only and are
allowed simply in recognition of a
technical injury based on a violation of a
legal right.
Nominal damages cannot co4exist with
actual or compensatory damages.
D. TEM(ERATE
OR MODERATE DAMAGES
These are damages, which are more than
nominal but less than compensatory, and
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
243
may be recovered when the court finds
that some pecuniary loss has been
suffered but its amount cannot be proved
with certainty. !Article 2220 Civil Code"
In cases where the resulting injury might
be continuing and possible future
complications directly arising from the
injury, while certain to occur are difficult
to predict, temperate damages can and
should be awarded on top of actual or
compensatory damages6 in such cases
there is no incompatibility between actual
and temperate damages.
E. LI#$IDATED DAMAGES
Those agreed upon by the parties in a
contract, to be paid in case of breach
thereof.
+. EGEM(LAR- OR CORRECTI:E
DAMAGES
Imposed by way of example or correction
for the public good, in addition to the moral,
temperate, li(uidated or compensatory
damages.
Re!uisites for t/e a<ard of e3e"lar*
da"ages:
*. They are imposed by way of example in
addition to compensatory damages and
Imposed only after the claimants right to them
has been established6
.. They cannot be recovered as a matter of
right, their determination depending upon the
amount of compensatory damages that may be
awarded6
0. The act must be accompanied by bad
faith or done in wanton, fraudulent,
oppressive or malevolent manner.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE

Torts and Damages

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Torts and Damages

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

San Beda College of Law

S-ar putea să vă placă și