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. But the bereaved parents may
be entitled to damages, on damages
inflicted directly upon them. (Geluz vs.
CA, 2 SCRA 802)
Defendants in tort cases can either be
natural or artificial being. Corporations
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.
Preventive remedy is available in some
cases.
A.
B.
C.
Classes of Torts:
Negligent Torts
Intentional Torts
Strict Liability
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.
The omission of that degree of

diligence which is required 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)
Governed by CC provisions on Obligations
and Contracts, particularly Arts. 1170 to
1174 of the Civil Code.
2. Culpa Aquiliana (quasi-delict)

Governed mainly by Art. 2176 of the
Civil Code
3. Culpa Criminal (criminal negligence)

Governed by Art. 365 of the Revised
Penal Code.
NOTES:
The 3 kinds 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.
Culpa Contractual
Culpa Aquiliana
The foundation of
the liability of the
defendant
is the contract
In breach of contract
committed through
the negligence of
employee,
the
employer
cannot
erase his primary and
direct liability by
invoking exercise of
diligence of a good
father of a family in
the selection and
supervision of the
employee.
It is a separate
source of obligation
independent
of
contract
In quasi-delict 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.
Culpa Aquiliana
Crime
NEGLIGENCE
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON: Vida Bocar, Joyce Vidad EDP: Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon
SUBJECT HEADS: Christopher Rey Marasigan (Persons and Family Relations), Alejandro Casabar(Property), Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills and Succession), Ian Dominic Pua(Obligations and Contracts), Sha Elijah Dumama(Sales and Lease),
John Stephen
Quiambao(PAT), Christopher Cabigao(Credit Transactions), Ligaya Alipao(Torts and Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma. Ricasion Tugadi (Conflicts of Law)

216
MEMORY AID
Only involves private
concern
The Civil Code by
means of indemnification
merely
repairs the damage
Includes all acts in
which any kind of
fault or negligence
intervenes
Liability is direct and
primary in quasidelict
Affect the public

interest
The Revised Penal
Code punishes or
corrects criminal act
Punished
only
if
there is a penal law
clearly covering them
Liability
of
the
employer
of
the
actor-employee
is
subsidiary in crimes
QUASI-DELICT
Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or
negligence is obliged to pay for the
damage done. (Article 2176 Civil Code)
Essential Requisites for a quasidelictual action:
1.
Act or omission constituting fault
or negligence;
2.
Damage caused by the said act or
omission; and
3.
Causal relation between the
damage and the act or omission.
CIVIL LAW
Negligence is a conduct that creates

an undue risk of harm to others.
The determination of negligence is a

question of foresight on the part of the
actor FORESEABILITY.
Even if a particular injury was not
foreseeable, the risk is still foreseeable
if possibility of injury is foreseeable.
Forseeability involves the question of
PROBABILITY, that is, the existence of
some real likelihood of some damage and
the likelihood is of such appreciable
weight reasonably to induce, action to
avoid it.
1.
2.
3.
Tests of Negligence
1. Did 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 situation?
If not then he is guilty of negligence.
2. Could a prudent man, in the case
under consideration, foresee harm as
a result of the course pursued?
If so, it was the duty of the actor to take
precautions to guard against harm.
NOTES:
Negligence is a conduct - 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 important; 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. (Picart vs. Smith)
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
IN
4.
5.
6.
7.
Calculation of Risk
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.
Circumstances
to
consider
in
determining negligence: (PEST-GAP)
Time
Place
Emergency
Emergency rule
GENERAL RULE: An individual who
suddenly finds himself in a situation
of danger and is required to act
without much time to consider the
best means that may be adopted to
avoid the impending danger is not
guilty of negligence if he fails to
undertake what subsequently and
upon reflection may appear to be a
better solution.
EXCEPTION: When the emergency
was brought by the individuals own
negligence. (Valenzuela vs. CA 253
SCRA 303).
Gravity of Harm to be avoided
Alternative Course 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.
Social value or utility of activity
Person exposed to the risk
GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY (pater
familias):
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

217
MEMORY AID
- this is the standard of conduct used in
the Philippines
- a man of ordinary intelligence and
prudence or an ordinary reasonable
prudent man
a reasonable man deemed to have
knowledge of the facts that a man should
be expected to know based on ordinary
human experience. (PNR vs IAC, 217
SCRA 409)
- a prudent man who is expected to know
the basic laws of nature and physics, e.g.
gravity.
SPECIAL RULES
1. Children
The action of the child will not

necessarily be judged according to the
standard of an adult. But if the minor is
mature enough to understand and
appreciate the nature and consequence
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 consequence
of his acts. (Taylor vs. Meralco, 16 Phil
8)
Applying the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code, Judge Sangco takes
the view that a child who is 9 or below is
conclusively presumed to be incapable of
negligence. In the other hand, if the
child is above 9 years but below 15,
there is a disputable presumption of
absence of negligence.
Absence of negligence does not
necessarily mean absence of liability.
Liability without fault: a child under
9 years can still be subsidiarily liable
with his property (Art. 100, RPC)
Absence of negligence of the child
may not excuse the parents from their
vicarious liability under Art. 2180 NCC or
Art. 221 FC.
2. Physical Disability
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
IN
CIVIL LAW
Mere weakness of a person will not be an

excuse in negligence cases.
However if defect amounts to a real
disability the standard of conduct is that
of a reasonable person under like
disability.
3. Experts and professionals

They should exhibit the care and skill of
one who is ordinarily skilled in the
particular field that he is in.
When a person holds himself out as being
competent to do things requiring
professional skill, he will be held liable
for negligence if he fails to exhibit the
care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in
the particular work which he attempts to
do.
An expert will not be judged based on
what a non-expert can foresee.
The rule regarding experts is applicable
not only to professionals who have
undergone formal education.
4. Nature of activity
There are activities which by nature
impose duties to exercise a higher
degree of diligence.
Examples:
a. Banks, by the very nature of their work,
are expected to exercise the highest
degree of diligence in the selection and
supervision of their employees.
b. Common carriers are required to
exercise extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over their passengers and
transported goods. (Article 1733 Civil
Code).
5. Intoxication
GENERAL RULE: Mere intoxication is
not negligence, nor does the mere fact
of intoxication establish want of ordinary
care. But it may be one of the
circumstances to be considered to prove
negligence.
EXCEPTION: Under Art. 2185 of the
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.
6. Insanity
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

218
MEMORY AID
The insanity of a person does not excuse
him or his guardian from liability based
on quasi-delict.
Bases for holding an insane person liable
for his tort:
a. Where 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.
Other
Factors
to
Consider
in
Determining Negligence:
A. VIOLATION OF RULES AND STATUTES
1. Statutes
GENERAL RULE:
Violation of a
statutory duty is NEGLIGENCE PER SE
(Cipriano vs. CA, 263SCRA711). When the
Legislature has spoken, the standard of
care required is no longer what a
reasonably prudent man would do under
the circumstances but what the
Legislature has commanded.
EXCEPTIONS:
a. When unusual conditions occur and
strict observance may defeat the
purpose of the rule and may even
lead to adverse results.
b. When
the
statute
expressly
provides that violation of a
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
CIVIL LAW
statutory duty merely establishes a

presumption of negligence.
7. Women
In
determining
the
question
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. Manila Railroad Co. GR
No.12191, October 14, 1918)
Although there is no unequivocal
statement of the rule, Valenzuela vs. CA
253SCRA303 appears to require a
different standard of care for women
under the circumstances indicated
therein.
However, Dean Guido Calabresi believes
that there should be a uniform standard
between a men and a women.
IN
NOTE: Rule as to proof of proximate

cause
GENERAL RULE: Plaintiff must show
that the violation of the statute is the
proximate or legal cause of the injury
or that it substantially contributed
thereto. (Sanitary Steam Laundry, Inc.
vs. CA 300SCRA20)
EXCEPTION: 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.
(Teague vs. Fernandez 51SCRA181).
2. Administrative Rule
Violation of a rule promulgated by
administrative agencies is not negligence
per se but may be EVIDENCE OF
NEGLIGENCE.
3. Private Rules of Conduct.
Violation of rules imposed by private
individuals (e.g. employers) is merely a
POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE.
B. PRACTICE AND CUSTOM

Compliance with the practice and
custom in a community will not
automatically result in a finding that the
actor is not guilty of negligence. Noncompliance with the practice or custom
in the community does not necessarily
mean that the actor was negligent.
In Yamada vs. Manila Railroad Co., the
owner of an automobile struck by a train
while crossing the tracks sought to
establish absence of negligence of its
driver by evidence of a custom of
automobile drivers of Manila by which
they habitually drove their cars over the
railroad crossings without slackening
speed. The SC 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.
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

219
MEMORY AID
C. COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTES

Compliance with a statute is not
conclusive that there was no negligence.
Example: A defendant can still be held
liable for negligence even if he can
establish that he was driving below the
speed limit. Compliance with the speed
limit is not conclusive that he was not
negligently driving his car.
Gross Negligence - Negligence where
there is want of even slight care and
diligence.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
CIVIL LAW
EXCEPTION: When such possession or

use is indispensable to his occupation or
business. (Article 2188 Civil Code)
5. GENERAL RULE:
Presumption
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.
EXCEPTION: Upon proof of exercise of
extraordinary diligence.
PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
GENERAL RULE:
If the plaintiff alleged in his complaint
that he was damaged because of the
negligent acts of the defendant, the
plaintiff has the burden of proving
such negligence. (Taylor vs. MERALCO
16Phil8)
The quantum of proof required is
preponderance of evidence. (Rule 133
Revised Rules of Court)
EXCEPTIONS: Exceptional cases when
the rules or the law provides for cases
when negligence is presumed.
A.
Presumptions of Negligence
B.
Res Ipsa Loquitur
A.
Presumptions of Negligence
1. 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 2184 Civil Code)
2. It is disputably presumed that a driver
was negligent if he had been found guilty
of reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice for the next
preceding two months. (Article 2184
Civil Code)
3. The driver of a motor vehicle is
presumed negligent if at the time of the
mishap, he was violating any traffic
regulation. (Article 2185 Civil Code)
4. GENERAL
RULE:
Prima
facie
presumption of negligence of the
defendant arises if death or injury
results from his possession of dangerous
weapons or substance.
IN
B. Res Ipsa Loquitur

The thing or transaction speaks for
itself.
It is a rule of evidence peculiar to the
law of negligence which recognizes that
prima
facie
negligence
may
be
established in the absence of direct
proof, and furnishes a substitute for
specific proof of negligence.
Requisites of Res Ipsa Loquitor:

1. The accident was of a kind which
ordinarily does not occur in the
absence of someones negligence;
2. The instrumentality which caused
the injury was under the exclusive
control and management of the
person charged with negligence; and
3. The injury suffered must not have
been due to any voluntary action or
contribution on the part of the
person
injured;
absence
of
explanation by the defendant.
In Africa vs. Caltex (Phil.) Inc. Mar 31,

1966, defendant Caltex was liable for
damage done to the property of its
neighbors when fire broke out in a Caltex
service station. The gasoline station,
with all its appliances, equipment and
employees, was under the control of the
defendant. The persons who knew 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.D. Martinez, et al vs.
William Van Buskirk)
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

220
MEMORY AID
AFFIRMATIVE
DUTIES
AND
MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES:
1. Duty to Rescue
A. Duty 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 risk 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. De leon CA-GR No.16180-R
March 21, 1960)
Danger of personal injury or death.
B. Duty to rescue
GENERAL RULE: There is no general
duty to rescue; a person is not liable for
quasi-delict even if he did not help a
person in distress.
EXCEPTIONS: A limited duty to rescue
is imposed in certain cases:
Abandonment of persons in danger and
abandonment of ones own victim is
considered, under certain circumstances
as a crime against security (Article 275
RPC); 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 55 RA 4136 [Land
Transportation and traffic Code])
CIVIL LAW
ownership is damage without injury

(Damnum absque injuria)
EXCEPTIONS:
a. Visitors 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. Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance
One who maintains on his premises
dangerous
instrumentalities
or
appliances of a character likely 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.
(Hidalgo
Enterprises vs. Baladan 91 Phil 488)
c. State 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 432 Civil
Code)
It is also a recognized justifying
circumstance under the RPC.
In both the Civil Code and the RPC,
the owner may demand from the
person benefited, indemnity for the
damages.
2. Owners, Proprietors and Possessors

of Property
GENERAL RULE: The owner has no duty
to take reasonable care towards a
trespasser for his protection or even to
protect him from concealed danger.
NOTE: Damage to any person resulting
from the exercise of any rights of
IN
Use of properties that injures another

An owner cannot use his property in such
a manner as to injure the rights of
others. (Article 431 Civil Code).
Hence the exercise of the right of the
owner may give rise to an action based
on quasi-delict if the owner negligently
exercises such right to the prejudice of
another.
Liability of Proprietors of buildings
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

221
MEMORY AID
New Civil Code include provisions that

apply to proprietors of a building or
structure which involve affirmative duty
of due care in maintaining the same:
Articles 2190 and 2191.
Third persons who suffered damages may
proceed only against the engineer or
architect or contractor if the damage
referred to in Articles 2190 and
2191should be a result of any defect in
construction.
Nevertheless, actions for damages can
still be maintained under Article 2176 for
damages resulting from proprietors
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.
3. Employers and Employees
A. Employers
Actions for quasi-delict can still be
maintained even if employees
compensation is provided for under
the Labor Code.
In quasi-delictual actions against the
employer, the employee may use the
provisions of the Labor Code which
imposes upon the employer certain
duties with respect to the proper
maintenance of the work place or
the provisions of adequate facilities
to ensure the safety of the
employees.
Articles 1711 and 1712 of the Civil
Code impose liability without fault
on the part of the employers.
B. Employees
Employees are bound to exercise due
care in the performance of their

functions for the employers; absence
such due care, the employee may be
held liable.
4. Banks
The business of banks is one affected by
public interest. Because of the nature of
its functions, a bank is under obligation
to treat the accounts of its depositors
with meticulous care, always having in
mind the fiduciary nature of their
relationship. (PBC vs. CA [1997])
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
IN
CIVIL LAW
5. Common carriers
From 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 quasi delict. (Air France vs
Carrascoso, L21438, Sept. 28, 1996)
6. Doctors
A. STANDARD OF CARE
The proper standard is whether, the
physician if a general practitioner, has
exercised the degree of care and skill of
the average qualified practitioner, taking
into account the advances in the
profession.
A physician who holds himself out as a
specialist should be held to the standard
of care and skill of the average member
of the profession practicing the
specialty, taking into account the
advances in the profession.
B. THE CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP DOCTRINE
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.
C. NOT WARRANTORS
Physicians are not warrantors of cures or
insurers against personal injuries or
death of the patient.
D. PROOF
Expert testimony 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.
Medical malpractice can also be
established by relying on the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitor; in which case the need
of expert testimony is dispensed with
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

222
MEMORY AID
because the injury itself provides the

proof of negligence. (Ramos vs. CA, GR
No.124354, December 29, 1999)
Example: The doctrine was applied in a
case of removal of the wrong part of the
body when another part was intended.
Two pronged evidence:
a. Evidence as to the recognized
standards of the medical community
in the particular kind of case; and
b. A showing that the physician
departed from this standard in his
treatment.
Four elements in medical negligence
cases: duty, breach, injury and
proximate causation
E. LIABILITY OF HOSPITALS AND
CONSULTANTS
There
is
no
employer-employee
relationship between the hospital and a
physician admitted in the said hospitals
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
2180 of the Civil Code. (Ramos vs. CA GR
No 124354, April 11, 2002)
The contract between the consultant
and the patient is separate and distinct
the contract between the hospital and
the patient. The first 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 laboratory
personnel necessary for the proper
treatment of the patient. (Ramos vs. CA
GR No 124354, April 11, 2002)
7. Lawyers
An attorney is not bound to exercise
extraordinary diligence but only a
reasonable degree of care and skill,
having reference to the business he
undertakes to do.
DEFENSES IN NEGLIGENCE CASES
Kinds of defenses:
A. Complete
completely
recovery
B. Partial mitigates liability
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
bars
IN
CIVIL LAW
1. PLAINTIFFS
CONDUCT
AND
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
a. Plaintiffs own negligence as the
proximate cause
When the plaintiffs own negligence
was the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury, he cannot
recover damages. (Article 2179
Civil Code)
b. Contributory negligence
Conduct 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 required to conform for his
own protection. (Valenzuela vs. CA
253SCRA303)
If the plaintiffs negligence was
only contributory, the immediate
and proximate cause of the injury
being the defendants lack of due
care, the plaintiff may recover
damages but the courts shall
mitigate the damages to be
awarded (Article 2179 Civil Code).
Doctrine
of
Comparative
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
(apportionment of damages).
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 liability; it is a partial
defense.
The
court is free to determine the
extent of the mitigation of the
defendants liability depending
upon the circumstances.
2. IMPUTED
NEGLIGENCE
CONTRIBUTORY
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

223
MEMORY AID
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.
3. FORTUITOUS EVENTS
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 will;
b. It must be impossible to foresee
the event which constitutes the
caso fortuito, or if it can be
foreseen, it must be impossible to
avoid;
c. The occurrence must be such as to
render it impossible for the debtor
to fulfill his obligation in a normal
manner; and
d. The obligor must be free from any
participation in the aggravation of
the injury resulting to the creditor.
NOTE: When an act of God 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 humanized and removed
from the rules applicable to acts of
God. (NAPOCOR vs. CA [1993])
GENERAL RULE: It is a complete
defense and a person is not liable if
the cause of the damage is a fortuitous
event.
EXCEPTION: It is merely a partial
defense and the courts may mitigate
the damages if the loss would have
resulted in any event (Art. 2215(4)
Civil Code).
4. ASSUMPTION OF RISK
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
a.
b.
c.
a.
IN
CIVIL LAW
Volenti non fit injuria: One is not

legally injured if he has consented to the
act complained of or was willing that it
should occur.
It is a complete defense.
Elements:
The plaintiff must know that the risk is
present;
He must further understand its nature;
and that
His choice to incur it is free and
voluntary.
KINDS:
Express waiver of the right to recover
There is assumption of risk 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. Such waiver is contrary to
public policy and cannot be allowed.
However, the waiver contemplated by
this prohibition is the waiver of the right
to recover before the negligent act was
committed.
If waiver was made after the cause
of action accrued, the waiver is valid and
may be construed as a condonation of
the obligation.
b. Implied Assumptions
i. Dangerous Conditions
A person who, knowing that he is
exposed to a dangerous condition
voluntarily assumes the risk of such
dangerous condition may not recover
from the defendant who maintained
such dangerous conditions.
Example: A person who main-tained
his house near a railroad track
assumes the usual dangers attendant
to the opera-tion of a locomotive.
(Rodrigueza vs. Manila Railroad Co.,
GR No. 15688, Nov. 19, 1921).
ii. Contractual Relations
There may be implied assumption of
risk if the plaintiff entered into a
contractual
relation
with
the
defendant. By entering into a
relationship freely and voluntarily
where the negligence of the
defendant is obvious, the plaintiff
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

224
MEMORY AID
a)
b)
iii.
iv.
may be found to accept and consent

to it.
EXAMPLES:
The employees assume the ordinary
risks inherent in the industry in
which he is employed.
- As to abnormal risks, there
must be cogent and convincing
evidence of consent.
When a passenger boards a common
carrier, he takes the risks incidental
to the mode of travel he has taken.
Dangerous Activities
Persons who voluntarily participate
in dangerous activities assume the
risks which are usually present in
such activities.
EXAMPLE: A professional athlete is
deemed to assume the risks of injury
to their trade.
Defendants negligence
When the plaintiff is aware of the
risk created by the defendants
negligence, yet he voluntarily
decided to proceed to encounter it,
there is an implied admission.
EXAMPLE: If the plaintiff has been
supplied with a product which he
knows to be unsafe, he is deemed to
have assumed the risk of using such
unsafe product.
5. DEATH OF THE DEFENDANT

Death of the defendant does not
extinguish the obligation based on quasidelict.
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.
6. PRESCRIPTION
An action based on quasi-delict
prescribes in four years from the date of
the accident. (Article 1146 Civil Code)
Relations Back Doctrine
An act done at one time is
considered by fiction of law to have
been done at some antecedent
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
IN
CIVIL LAW
period. (Allied Banking Corp vs. CA,

1989)
EXAMPLE: A doctor negligently
transfused blood to a patient that
was contaminated with HIV. If the
effect became apparent only after
five (5) years, the four (4) year
prescriptive period should commence
only when it was discovered.
7. INVOLUNTARINESS
It is a complete defense in quasi-delict
cases and the defendant is therefore not
liable if force was exerted on him.
(Aquino, Torts and Damages)
EXAMPLE: When the defendant was
forced to drive his vehicle by armed
men. He 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
consequence.
CAUSATION
Proximate Cause
That cause which in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, without which the result would
not have occurred.
Remote Cause
That cause which some independent
force merely took advantage of to
accomplish something not the natural
effect thereof.
Nearest Cause
That cause which is the last link in the
chain of events; the nearest in point of
time or relation.
Proximate 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 persons innocent,
tortious or criminal act is also a
substantial factor in bringing about the
harm so long as the actors negligent
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

225
MEMORY AID
conduct actively and continuously

operate to bring about harm to another.
(Africa vs. Caltex)
Where 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.
Where 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 injury; they become
joint tort-feasors and are solidarily liable
for the resulting damage under Article
NOTE:
Primary cause remains the
proximate cause even if there is an
intervening
cause
which
merely
cooperated with the primary cause and
which did not break the chain of
causation.
Tests of Proximate Cause

Two-part test
1. Cause-in-fact Test
2. Policy Test
NOTE: In determining the proximate
cause of the injury, it is first necessary
to determine if the defendants
negligence was the cause-in-fact of the
damage to the plaintiff. (Cause-in-fact
test)
If the defendants negligence was
not the cause-in-fact, the inquiry
stops.
If it is, the inquiry shifts to the
question of limit of the defendants
liability. (Policy test)
CAUSE-IN-FACT TESTS:
1. But-For Test
The defendants conduct is the cause-infact if damage would not have resulted
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
IN
CIVIL LAW
had there been no negligence on the

part of the defendant.
Conversely,
defendants negligent conduct is not the
cause in fact of the plaintiffs damage if
the accident could not have been
avoided in the absence thereof.
2. Substantial Factor test
The conduct is the cause-in-fact of the
damage if it was a substantial factor 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 defendants conduct was
already determined to be the cause in
fact of the plaintiffs damage under the
but for test, it is necessarily the cause in
fact of the damage under the substantial
factor test.
3. NESS Test
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-present causal set each
independently sufficient for the effect.
Two ways by which co-presence may
manifest itself:
a. Duplicative causation
When two or more sets operate
simultaneously to produce the
effect;
the
effect
is
overdetermined.
b. Pre-emptive causation
When, though coming about first in
time, one causal set trumps another
potential
set
lurking
in
the
background; the causal potency of
the latter is frustrated.
Multiple causation
If there are a number of candidate
conditions, which, taken 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.
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

226
MEMORY AID
Policy Tests:
1. Foreseeability Test
2. Natural and Probable Consequence
Test
3. Natural and Ordinary or Direct
Consequence Test
4. Hindsight Test
5. Orbit of Risk Test
6. Substantial Factor Test
Policy Tests may be divided into Two
Groups:
1. FORESIGHT PERSPECTIVE/
FORESEEABILITY TESTS
The defendant is not liable for the
unforeseeable consequences of his acts
Liability is limited within the risk created
by defendants negligent acts.
2. DIRECT PERSEPECTIVE/ DIRECT
COSEQUENCES TESTS
The defendant is liable for damages
which are beyond the risk.
Direct consequences are those which
follow in sequence 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 applied in the Philippines:
New Civil Code has a chapter on
Damages which specifies the kind 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:
1. But-for test
2. Substantial Factor test
3. NESS test
Policy 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 Article 2202 of the New
Civil Code; a person may be held liable
whether the damage to the plaintiff may
be unforeseen.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
IN
CIVIL LAW
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.
EXAMPLES of Dangerous Conditions:

1. Those that are inherently dangerous
2. Those where a person places a thing
which is not dangerous in itself in a
dangerous position.
3. Those involving products and other
things which are dangerous because they
are defective.
Efficient Intervening 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:
1. Remained active itself, or
2. Created
another
force
which
remained active until it directly
caused the result, or
3. Created a new active risk of being
acted upon by the active force that
caused the result.
EXAMPLE: The medical findings, show
that the infection of the wound by
tetanus was an efficient intervening
cause later or between the time Javier
was wounded to the time of his death.
(People vs. Rellin 77 Phil 1038)
NOTES:
A cause is not an intervening cause if it
was already in operation at the time the
negligent act is committed.
Foreseeable intervening causes cannot
be considered sufficient intervening
causes.
The intervention of unforeseen and
unexpected cause is not sufficient to
relieve
the
wrongdoer
from
consequences of negligence if such
negligence directly and proximately
cooperates with the independent cause
in the resulting injury.
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

227
MEMORY AID
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
A. Plaintiffs negligence is the cause
Plaintiffs negligence is not contributory

if it is necessary and sufficient to
produce the result.
EXAMPLES:
1. Only the plaintiff was negligent.
2. Defendants negligence is not a part of
the causal set which is a part of the
causal chain.
3. Plaintiffs negligence was pre-emptive in
nature.
B. Compound Causes
Plaintiffs
negligence
may
have
duplicative effect, that it, it is sufficient
to bring about the effect but his
negligence occurs simultaneously with
the defendant; the latters negligence is
equally sufficient but not necessary to
bring about the effect because damage
would still have resulted due to the
negligence of the plaintiff.
Plaintiffs negligence is not merely

contributory because it is a concurring
proximate cause.
No recovery can be had. (Aquino, Torts

and Damages)
C. Part of the same causal set
Neither
plaintiffs
negligence
nor
defendants
negligence
alone
is
sufficient to cause the injury; the effect
would result only if both are present
together
with
normal
background
conditions.
Negligence of the plaintiff cooperated

with the negligence of the defendant in
order to bring about the injury;
determination of proximate cause is only
a matter of degree of participation.
D. Defendants Negligence is the Only
cause
Defendants negligence was sufficient

AND necessary to bring about the injury.
However,
if
plaintiffs
negligence
increased or aggravated the resulting
damage or injury liability of the
defendant should also be mitigated
under contributory negligence rule or
under the doctrine of avoidable
consequences.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
IN
CIVIL LAW
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance or

Discovered Peril
The negligence of the plaintiff does not
preclude a recovery for the negligence of
the defendant where it appears that the
defendant, by exercising reasonable care
and prudence, might have avoided
injurious consequences to the plaintiff
notwithstanding
the
plaintiffs
negligence.
Alternative Views:
1. Prevailing view
Doctrine is applicable in this jurisdiction.
Even if plaintiff was guilty of antecedent

negligence, the defendant is still liable
because he had the last clear chance of
avoiding the injury.
2. Minority View
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 2179 of the Civil
Code.
3. Third View
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 cause;
However, the doctrine of last clear

chance is no longer applicable if the
force
created
by
the
plaintiffs
negligence continues until the happening
of the injurious event.
Cases when the doctrine was held
inapplicable (PICCA)
1. If the plaintiff was not negligent.
2. The party charged is required to act
instantaneously, and if the injury cannot
be avoided by the application of all the
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

228
MEMORY AID
means at hand after the peril is or should
have been discovered.
3. If defendants negligence is a concurrent
cause and which was still in operation up
to the time the injury was inflicted.
4. Where the plaintiff, a passenger, filed an
action against a carrier based on
contract.
5. If the actor, though negligent, was not
aware of the danger or risk brought
about by the prior fraud or negligent act.
B. INTENTIONAL TORTS
Include conduct where the actor desires
to cause the consequences of his act or
believes that the consequences are
substantially certain to result from it.
They are found in Chapter 2 of the

Preliminary Title of the NCC entitled
Human
Relations. Although
this
chapter covers negligent acts, the torts
mentioned herein are mostly intentional
in nature or torts involving malice or bad
faith.
HUMAN RELATIONS
Principle of Abuse of Rights
(ART.19)
Elements:
a.
Legal right or duty;
b. The right or duty is exercised in bad
faith; and
c. For the sole intent of prejudicing or
injuring another.
EXAMPLE: If the principal unreasonably
terminated an agency agreement for
selfish reasons. (Valenzuela vs. CA, 190
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.
3.
a.
b.
c.
a.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
Article 20 of the Civil Code
Speaks of the general sanction for all

other provisions of law which do not
especially provide for their own
sanction.
NOTE: Article 20 does not distinguish;
the act may be done willfully or
negligently.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
IN
CIVIL LAW
Acts contra bonus mores (Article 21

Civil Code)
Elements:
Act which is legal;
The act is contrary to morals, good
customs, public order or public policy;
and
The act is done with intent to injure.
NOTE: Damages are recoverable even if
no positive law was violated.
Kinds:
Breach of promise to marry
GENERAL RULE: Breach of promise to
marry by itself is not actionable.
EXCEPTION: In cases where there is
another act independent of the breach
of promise to marry which gives rise to
liability:
Cases where there was financial damage.
Social humiliation caused to one of the
parties.
Where there was moral seduction.
NOTES:
Moral 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. (Gashem
Shokat Baksh vs. CA)
Sexual intercourse is not by itself a

basis for recovery; damages could only
be awarded if the sexual intercourse is
not a product of voluntariness or mutual
desire.
b.
Seduction without breach of

promise to marry
Seduction, 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.
Sexual assault
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

229
MEMORY AID
Defendant is liable for all forms of sexual

assault including crimes defined under
the RPC as rape, acts of lasciviousness
and seduction.
d.
Desertion by a spouse
A spouse has a legal obligation to live

with his/her spouse.
If a spouse does not perform his/her 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.
Trespass
and
Deprivation
of
Property
2 KINDS:
1)
Trespass
to
and/or
deprivation of real property
Liability for damages under

the RPC and Article 451 of the Civil
Code requires intent or bad faith.
Article 448 of the Civil Code

in relation to Article 456 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 448, that is to appropriate
whatever is built or planted or to
compel the builder or planter to
purchase the portion encroached
upon. (Aquino, Torts and Damages)
A builder in good faith who

acted negligently may be held liable
under Art. 2176 NCC.
2)
Trespass to or deprivation of
personal property
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
EXAMPLE: 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. (Magbanua vs. IAC
137 SCRA 352)
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
3)
IN
CIVIL LAW
Disconnection of electricity
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.
Example: If a company disconnects
the electricity service without prior
notice as required by the rules, the
company commits a tort under
Article 21 NCC.
f.
Abortion and Wrongful Death

Damages may be recovered by both
spouses if:
1)
the abortion was caused
through the physicians negligence, or
2)
was done intentionally
without their consent
Husband 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 Dismissal
The right of the employer to dismiss an

employee should not be confused with
the manner in which the right is
exercised and the effects flowing
therefrom;
If the dismissal was done anti-socially

and oppressively, the employer should be
deemed to have violated Article 1701 of
the Civil Code (which prohibits acts of
oppression by either capital or labor
against the other) and Article 21 NCC.
An employer may be held liable for

damages if the manner of dismissing is
contrary to morals good customs and
public policy.
EXAMPLE: False imputation of misdeed

to justify dismissal or any similar manner
of dismissal which is done abusively.
h.
Malicious Prosecution
An action for damages brought by one

against another whom a criminal
prosecution, civil suit, or other legal
proceeding
has
been
instituted
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

230
MEMORY AID
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. (Drilon vs.
CA [1997])
IN
CIVIL LAW
suffered by the plaintiff. An action

based on Articles 19-21 will be dismissed
if
the
plaintiff
merely
seeks
recognition.
Under Articles 19 and 21, the defendant
may likewise be guilty of a tort even if
he acted in good faith. (Grand Union
Supermarket vs. Espino)
Elements:
1.
The fact of the prosecution and
the further fact that the defendant was
himself the prosecutor; and that the
action was finally terminated with an
acquittal;
2.
That in bringing the action, the
prosecutor acted without probable
cause;
3.
The prosecutor was actuated or
impelled by legal malice.
TORTS AGAINST HUMAN DIGNITY

TYPES:
1. Violation of the right of privacy
Reasonableness
of
a
persons
expectation of privacy depends on a
two-part test:
a) Whether by his conduct, the
individual
has
exhibited
an
expectation of privacy.
b) Whether this expectation is one that
the society recognizes as reasonable.
NOTES:
Malice is the inexcusable intent to
injure, oppress, vex, annoy or humiliate.
Presence of probable cause signifies
absence of malice.
Absence of malice signifies good faith on
the part of the defendant; good faith
may even be based on mistake of law.
Acquittal presupposes that a criminal
information is filed in court and final
judgment rendered dismissing the case;
nevertheless, prior acquittal may include
dismissal by the prosecutor after
preliminary investigation. (Globe Mackay
and Radio Corp. vs. CA; Manila Gas Corp
vs. CA)
NOTES:
GENERAL RULE: Right to privacy can be
invoked only by natural persons;
Juridical persons cannot invoke 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.
EXCEPTION: Right against unreasonable
searches and seizure can be invoked by a
juridical entity.
i.
Public Humiliation
Damages may be awarded in cases where
the plaintiff suffered humiliation through
the positive acts of the defendant
directed against the plaintiff.
Example: The defendant was held liable
for damages under Art. 21 for slapping
the plaintiff in public. (Patricio vs. Hon.
Oscar Leviste, [1989])
NOTES:
Under
Article
21,
damages
are
recoverable even though no positive law
was violated.
An action can only prosper when
damage, material or otherwise, was
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
1)
2)
3)
GENERAL RULE: Right to privacy is

purely personal in nature, hence:
It can be invoked 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.
The right ceases upon the death of the
person.
EXCEPTION: 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.
Standard to be
applied in determining if there was a
violation of the right is that of a person
with ordinary sensibilities. It is relative
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

231
MEMORY AID
to the customs of time and place and is
determined by the norm of an ordinary
person.
a.
Four Types of Invasion of Privacy

Intrusio
n upon plaintiffs seclusion or solitude
or into his private affairs
It is not limited to cases where the
defendant physically trespassed into
anothers property. It includes cases
when the defendant invades ones
privacy by looking from outside
(Example: peeping-tom).
GENERAL RULE: There is no invasion of
right to privacy when a journalist records
photographs or writes about something
that occurs in public places.
EXCEPTION: When the acts of the
journalist should be to such extent that
it constitutes harassment or overzealous
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.
RA 4200 makes it illegal for any person
not authorized by all the parties to any
private communication to secretly record
such communication by means of a tape
recorder (Ramirez vs CA, Sept. 28, 1995)
Use of a telephone extension for
purposes of overhearing a private
conversation without authorization does
not violate RA 4200.
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:
1.
In cases of violation of school
policies or regulations occurring in
connection with school sponsored
activity off-campus; or
2.
In cases where the misconduct of
the student involves his status as a
student or affects the good name
and reputation of the school.
b.
Publicat
ion of Embarrassing Private Facts
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
IN
CIVIL LAW
Requisites:
1. Publicity is given to any private or
purely personal information about a
person;
2. Without the latters consent; and
3. Regardless of whether or not such
publicity constitutes a criminal
offense, like 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.
PUBLIC FIGURE - 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: Public figures, most especially
those holding responsible positions in
government enjoy a more limited 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 publicizing 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
y which places a person in a false
light in the public eye
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.
EXAMPLE: Defendant was held liable
for damages when he published an
unauthorized biography of a famous
baseball player exaggerating his
feats on the baseball field,
portraying him as a war hero. (Spahn
vs. Messner)
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

232
MEMORY AID
If the publicity given to the plaintiff
is defamatory, hence an action for
libel is also warranted; the action for
invasion of privacy will afford an
alternative remedy.
May be committed by the media by
distorting a news report.
Tort of Putting
Another in False
Light
Commer
cial appropriation of likeness
The unwarranted publication of a
persons name or the unauthorized
use of his photograph or likeness for
commercial purposes is an invasion
of privacy.
With 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 likeness
as property and they want to control
and profit therefrom.
2.
Interference with Family and

other relations
The gist of the tort is an interference
with one spouses mental attitude
toward the other and the conjugal
kindness
of
marital
relations
resulting in some actual conduct
which materially affects it.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Defamation
1. As to gravamen of claim
The gravamen of The gravamen of
claim is not the claim is the reputareputational
harm tional harm
but
rather
the
embarrassment of a
person being made
into some-thing he is
not
2. As to publication
The statement should Publication
is
be actually made in satisfied if a letter is
public
sent to a third person
3. As to the defamatory character of the
statements
Defendant may still What is published
be held liable even if lowers the esteem in
the statements tells which the plaintiff is
something
good held
about the plaintiff
d.
IN
CIVIL LAW
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.
3.
Intriguing to Cause Alienation
4.
Vexation and Humiliation
Discrimination against a person on
account of his physical defect, which
causes emotional distress, may result
in liability on the part of the
offending party.
Sexual Harassment falls under this
category.
- a civil action separate and distinct from
the
criminal
action
may be
commenced under RA 7877.
- 2 types of Sexual harassment:
a) quid pro quo cases
b) hostile environment cases
TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL

ACTIONS
1. Violation of civil and political rights
(Article 32)
Although the same normally involves
intentional acts, it can also be
committed through negligence.
Public officer who is a defendant
cannot escape liability under the
doctrine of state immunity; the said
doctrine applies only if acts involved
are done by officers in the
performance of their official duty
within the ambit of their powers;
officers do not act within the ambit
of their powers if they violate the
constitutional rights of persons.
2. Defamation, Fraud, and Physical
injuries (Article 33)
A. Defamation
Defamation 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
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

233
MEMORY AID
excite adverse feelings or opinion

against him.
Includes the crime of libel and
slander.
RPC
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
blacken the memory of one who is
dead.
Requisites for one to be liable for
defamatory imputations:
a. It must be defamatory
b. It must be malicious
c. It must be given publicity
d. The victim must be identifiable
NOTES:
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 person/s 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 person/s up
to public ridicule.
Dissemination to a number of persons
is not required, communication to a
single individual is sufficient publication.
GENERAL RULE: Every defamatory
imputation is presumed to be
malicious, even if it be true, if no
good intention or justifiable motive
for making it is shown.
EXCEPTIONS:
1.
A private communication made
by any person to another in the
performance of any legal, moral or social
duty; and
2.
A fair and true report, made in
good faith, without any comments or
remarks, 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.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
IN
CIVIL LAW
It is not sufficient that the offended

party recognized himself as the
person attacked 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.
Two
kinds
of
privileged
communication:
1) Absolutely privilege Those
which are not actionable even if
the author acted in bad faith.
2) Qualifiedly privilege not
actionable unless found to have
been
made
without
good
intention or justifiable motive.
B. Fraud
Elements of deceit
1) The defendant must have made
false representation to the
plaintiff
2) The representation must be one
of fact
3) The defendant must know that
the representation is false or be
reckless about whether it is false
4) The defendant must have acted
on the false representation
5) The
defendant
must
have
intended
that
the
false
representation should be acted
on
6) The plaintiff must have suffered
damage as a result of acting on
the false representation
Half-truths are likewise included; it
is actionable if the withholding of
that which is not stated makes that
which is stated absolutely false.
Misrepresentation upon a mere
matter of opinion is not an
actionable deceit.
C. Physical injuries
Battery an intentional infliction of
a harmful or offensive bodily
contact; bodily contact is offensive if
it offends a reasonable persons
sense of dignity.
Assault intentional conduct by one
person directed at another which
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

234
MEMORY AID
places the latter in apprehension of

immediate bodily harm or offensive
act.
Includes bodily injuries causing
death.
Physical injuries which resulted
because of negligence or imprudence
is not included in Article 33; they are
already covered by Article 2176 of
the Civil Code.
Circumstances affecting Civil Liability

1. Justifying circumstances
Defendant is free from civil liability
if justifying circumstances are
properly establishes.
2. Exempting Circumstances
They do not erase the civil liability.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
CIVIL LAW
3. Mitigating
and
Aggravating
Circumstances
Damages to be adjudicated may
either be decreased or increased
depending on the presence of
mitigating
or
aggravating
circumstances.
Effect of Death
A. DEATH AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT:
extinguishes criminal liability of the
person liable but will not extinguish
the civil liability.
3. Neglect of duty by police officers

(Article 34)
Subsidiary liability of cities and
municipalities, is imposed so that
they will exercise great care in
selecting conscientious and duly
qualified policemen and exercise
supervision over them in the
performance of their duties.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM DELICT
Every person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable. (Article
100 RPC)
The reason is because a crime has a
dual character: as an offense against
the State and against the private
person injured by it.
Dual character of crimes applies to
cases governed by special laws.
Example: violation of the BP 22
results in criminal and civil liability.
There is civil liability even if the
offense is a public offense, like in
bigamy.
Persons liable are the principal,
accomplice and accessories.
It includes restitution, reparation of
damages and indemnification of
consequential damages.
The rule on proximate cause in
quasi-delict cases is applicable to
cases involving civil liability arising
from delict. Art. 2202, NCC
IN
B. DEATH BEFORE FINAL JUDGMENT:

GENERAL RULE: The defendant is
relieved from both criminal and civil
liability
arising
from
criminal
liability.
EXCEPTION: 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
Effect of Pardon
Pardon does not erase civil liability.
While 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.
DEFENDANTS IN TORT CASES
Concurrent Negligence or Acts

1. Joint 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
benefit; 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 quasi-delict is solidary (Article
2194 Civil Code); they are not liable pro
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

235
MEMORY AID
rata, they are jointly and severally liable
for the whole amount.
2. Motor vehicle mishaps

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.
Solidary 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.
Vicarious Liability or Doctrine of
Imputed 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)
Exercise of diligence of a good father of
a family to prevent damage is a defense.
Doctrine of Respondeat Superior 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 employee; employer
cannot escape liability by claiming that
he exercised due diligence in the
selection or supervision of the employee.
GENERAL RULE: Vicarious liability in
the Philippines is not governed by the
doctrine
of
respondeat
superior;
employers or parents are made liable not
only because of the negligent or
wrongful act of the person for whom
they are responsible but also because of
their own negligence:
1) Liability is imposed on the
employer because he failed to
exercise due diligence in the
selection or supervision of the
employee
2) Parents are made liable because
they failed to exercise due
diligence
EXCEPTION: Doctrine of respondeat
superior is applicable in:
1) liability of employers under
Article 103 of the RPC
2) liability of a partnership for the
tort committed by a partner
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
IN
CIVIL LAW
Persons Vicariously Liable: (Article

2180 of the Civil Code)
1. The Father, or in case of death or
incapacity, mother
For damage caused by:

a) minor children
b) living in their company
This has already been modified by Art.

221 of the Family Code to the extent
that the alternative qualification 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 18 to 21.
The same foreseability test of
negligence should apply to
parents when they are sought to
be held liable under Art. 2180,
NCC
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 2180 of the NCC and
Art 221 of the Family Code if the
child is living in his parents
company.
Parental 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 21 years of age.
Parents 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. 2180)
The burden of proof rests on the
parents and persons exercising
parental authority.
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

236
MEMORY AID
IN
CIVIL LAW
b)
2.
a.
b.
c.
Guardians
For damage caused by
minors or incapacitated persons
under their authority
living in their company
3. Owners
and
managers
of
establishments

a) their employees
b) in the service of the branches in
which they are employed, or
c) on the occasion of their
functions
4. Employers
For damages cause by:

a) employees
and
household
helpers
b) acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks
c) even if the employer is not
engaged in any business or
industry
NOTES:
Liability of the employer can be
established by proving the existence of
an employer-employee relationship with
the actor and the latter caused the
injury while performing his assigned task
or functions.
The vicarious liability attaches only

when the tortuous conduct of the
employees relates to or is in the course
of his employment.
While the employer incurs no

liability when an employees conduct,
act or omission is beyond the range of
employment, a minor deviation from the
assigned task of an employee, however
does not affect the liability of an
employer. (Valenzuela vs. CA, 253 SCRA
303)
It is a defense that the employer

exercised proper diligence in the
selection and supervision of negligent
employee.
5. State

a) a special agent
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
not when the damage has been

caused by the official to whom the
task done properly pertains
Public officers who are guilty of tortuous
conduct are personally liable for their
actions.
6. Schools,
Teachers
and
Administrators
a) pupils
and
students
or
apprentices
b) in their custody
statutory basis:
if student is minor Art. 219, FC
if student is no longer a minor
Art. 2180, Civil Code
NOTES:
Applies also to teachers of
academic institutions.
Liability attaches to the teacherin-charge.
The school itself is now solidarily
liable with the teacher-incharge.
The liability extends to acts
committed even outside the
school so long as it is an official
activity of the school.
Whenever the school or teacher
is being made liable, the parents
and those exercising substitute
parental authority are not free
from liability because Art. 219 of
the Family Code expressly
provides
that
they
are
subsidiarily liable.
Art. 2180 makes teachers and
heads liable for acts of students
and apprentices whether the
latter are minors or not.
GENERAL RULE: The teacher-in-charge
is liable for the acts of his students. The
school and administrators are not liable.
EXCEPTION: 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.
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

237
MEMORY AID
The liability of the teacher
subsists whether the school is
academic or non- academic.
Liability 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 likewise
required to exercise due care in
avoiding injury to himself.
Other Persons Vicariously Liable:
1. Innkeepers and Hotelkeepers
They are civilly liable for crimes

committed in their establishments in
cases of violations of statutes by them,
in default of persons criminally liable.
(Article 102 Revised Penal Code)
They are subsidiarily liable for the

restitution of goods taken by robbery or
theft within their houses from guests
lodging therein, or for payment of the
value thereof, provided that:
a.
The innkeeper was notified in advance of
the deposit of such goods within the inn;
and
b.
The guest shall have followed the
directions which such innkeeper or his
representative may have given with
respect to the care and vigilance over
the goods.
2. Partnership
Partnership or every partner is liable for

torts committed by one of the partners
acting within the scope of the firm
business, though they do not participate
in, ratify, or have knowledge of such
torts.
Partners are liable as joint tort-feasors.
Vicarious liability is similar to the

common law rule on respondeat
superior.
Liability is entirely imputed and the

partnership cannot obviously invoke
diligence in the selection and supervision
of the partner.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
IN
CIVIL LAW
3. Spouses
absolute community of property
The absolute community property shall

be for liabilities incurred by either
spouses by reason of crime or quasidelict in case of absence or insufficiency
of the exclusive property of the debtorspouse. (Article 94 Family Code)
Payments shall be considered advances

to be deducted from the share of the
debtor spouse upon liquidation of the
community.
conjugal partnership of gains
GENERAL RULE: Pecuniary indemni-ties
imposed upon the husband or wife are
not chargeable against the conjugal
partnership but against the separate
properties of the wrongdoer.
EXCEPTION:
Conjugal
partnership
should be made liable:
1) When the profits have inured to the
benefit of the partnership, or
2) If one of the spouses committed the tort
while performing a business or if the act
was supposed to benefit the partnership.
regime of separation of property
Each spouse is responsible for his/her

separate obligation.
C. STRICT LIABILITY
When the person is made liable

independent of fault or negligence upon
submission of proof of certain facts
specified by law.
NOTE:
Strict liability tort can be
committed even if reasonable care was
exercised and regardless of the state of
mind of the actor at that time.
TYPES:
1. Animals
GENERAL RULE: The possessor of an
animal or whoever may make use of the
same is responsible for the damages
which it may cause although it may
escape or be lost.
EXCEPTION: When the damage was
caused by force majeure or by the
person who suffered the damage.
NOTES:
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

238
MEMORY AID
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.
(Francisco, Torts and Damages)
Art. 2183 is applicable whether the
animal is domestic, domesticated, or
wild.
2. Falling objects
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 2193 Civil
Code)
The term head of the family is not
limited to the owner of the building, and
it may even include the lessee thereof.
(Dingcong vs. Kanaan, 72 Phil 14)
3. Liability of employers
Article 1711 of the NCC imposes an
obligation on owners of enterprises and
other employers to pay for the death or
injuries to their employees.
Liability is strict because it exists even if
the cause is purely accidental.
If the mishap was due to the employees
own notorious negligence, or voluntary
act or drunkenness, the employer shall
not be liable for compensation.
When the employees lack of due care
contributed to his death or injury, the
compensation
shall
be
equitably
reduced.
If the death or injury is due to the
negligence of a fellow-workman the
latter and the employer shall be
solidarily liable for compensation.
If a fellow-workers 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 plaintiffs fellow-worker.
4. Nuisance
Any act, omission, establishment,
business, condition of property, or
anything else which:
a.
Injures or endangers the health or
safety of others;
b. Annoys or offends the senses;
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
IN
CIVIL LAW
c. Shocks, defies or disregards decency or

morality;
d. Obstructs or interferes with the free
passage of any public highway or street,
or any body of water; or
e. Hinders 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.
Every 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. (Article 686 Civil Code)
5. Product liability by manufacturers

Manufacturers
and
processors
of
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and
similar goods shall be liable for death or
injuries caused by any noxious or harmful
substances used, although no contractual
relation exists. (Article 2187 Civil Code)
Other cases of liability without fault:

Proprietor of a building or structure,
for damages resulting from its total or
partial collapse, if it should be due to
lack of necessary repairs. .
2.
Breach of implied warranties.
3.
Consumer Act (R.A. 7394) any
Filipino
or
foreign
manufacturer,
producer and importer, independently of
fault shall be liable for redress for
damages caused to consumers by defects
resulting from:
a. design;
b. manufacture;
c. construction;
d. assembly and erection;
e. formulas and handling and making
up; or
f. presentation or packing of their
products as well as for the insufficient or
inadequate information on the use and
hazards thereof.
4.
Even when an act or event causing
damage to anothers property was not
1.
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

239
MEMORY AID
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)
IN
CIVIL LAW
substances used although no contractual

relation exists. (Article 2187 Civil Code)
Privity of contract is not required.

It does not preclude an action based on
negligence (quasi-delict) for the same
act of using noxious or harmful
substances.
Article 97 and 99 of the Consumer Act

imposes liability on defective products
and
services
upon
manufacturers
independent of fault.
Knowledge of the manufacturer is not
important; the focus is on the condition
of the product and not on the conduct of
the manufacturer or seller.
PRODUCT AND SERVICE LIABILITY

Alternative theories on basis of liability
1. Fraud or misrepresentation
Not all expression of opinion are

actionable misrepresentations if they are
established to be inaccurate.
2. Warranties
The Consumer Act recognizes that the

provisions
of the Civil Code on
conditions and warranties shall govern all
contracts of sale with conditions and
warranties.
Retailer shall be subsidiarily liable under

the warranty in case of failure of both
the manufacturer and distributor to
honor the warranty.
Privity of contract is not necessary.

3. Negligence
In product liability law, certain standards

are already imposed by special laws,
rules
and
regulations
of proper
government agencies; certain acts or
omissions are expressly prohibited by the
statutes thereby
making 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.
DEFENSES:
A. The manufacturer, builder, producer, or
importer shall not be liable when it
evidences:
1)
That it did not place the
product on the market
2)
That although it did
place the product on the market
such product had no defect
3)
That the consumer of
third party is solely at fault. (Article
97 Consumer Act)
B. The supplier of the services shall not be
held liable when it is proven:
1)
That there is no defect in the
service rendered
2)
That the consumer of third party
is solely at fault. (Article 99 Consumer
Act)
4. Delict
The liability may be based on criminal

negli-gence under the RPC or violation of
any special law.
5. Strict liability
Manufacturers
and
processors
of
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles, and
similar goods, shall be liable for death or
injuries caused by any noxious or harmful
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
1.
2.
3.
4.
Requisites: The plaintiff should allege

and prove that:
1)
The product was defective;
2)
The product was manufactured
by the defendant;
3)
The defective product was the
cause of his injury.
4 KINDS OF DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS
manufacturing defect
design defect
presentation defect
absence of appropriate warning
BUSINESS TORTS
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

240
MEMORY AID
1. Interference of contracts
Elements:
a.
existence of a valid contract
b.
knowledge on the part of the third
b.
person of the existence of the contract
c.
c.
interference of the third person
d.
without legal justification.
The existence of a contract is necessary

4.
and the breach must occur because of

the alleged act of interference; No
a.
action can be maintained if the contract
b.
is void.
Malice is not essential.
Elements of privilege to interfere

1)
The defendants purpose is a
justifiable one, and
2)
The actors employ no means of
fraud or deception which are
regarded as unfair.
Extent of Liability:
A. Rule in Daywalt vs. La Corporation
39PHIL587
Defendant cannot be held liable for
more than the amount for which the
contracting party who was induced
to break the contract can be held
II.
liable.
B. Rule under Article 2201 and 2202 Civil
Code
1) If in bad faith: defendant is liable for
all
natural
and
probable
consequences of his act or omission,
whether the same is forseen or
unforeseen.
2) If in good faith: defandant is liable
only for consequences that can be
foreseen.
2. Interference
with
prospective
advantage
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.
3. Unfair competition.
Unfair Competition 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.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
IN
CIVIL LAW
CASES INCLUDED:
a.
passing off and disparagement of
products
interference
misappropriation
monopolies and predatory pricing
Securities Related Torts
Kinds
Fraudulent Transactions
Misstatements
or
Omission
of
statement of a material fact
required to be stated
Defendants are free from liability if they
can prove that at the time of the
acquisition the plaintiff knew of the
untrue statement or if he was aware of
the falsity.
Extent of Damages:
Not exceeding
triple the amount of the transaction.
Prescriptive Period: Action must be
brought within 2 years after discovery of
facts constituting the cause of action and
within 5 yrs after such cause of action
accrued.
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 consequences which the law
imposes for the breach of some duty or
violation of some rights.
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA (Damage
Without Injury)
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.
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

241
MEMORY AID
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.
Damage
Damages
Legal
invasion of
a
legal
right
Loss, hurt
or
harm
which
results
from
the
injury
The recompense
or
compensatio
n
awarded
for
the
damage
suffered
NOTES:
A complaint
for
damages
is
personal action. (Baritua vs. CA, 267

SCRA 331)
Proof 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, liquidated or exemplary
damages.
The assessment of such damages,
except liquidated ones, is left to the
discretion of the court according to
the circumstances of each case.
Kinds of damages (MANTLE)
1. Actual or Compensatory
2. Moral
3. Nominal
4. Temperate or moderate
5. Liquidated
6. Exemplary or corrective
A. ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
Comprehends not only the value of

the loss suffered but also that of the
profits which the obligee failed to
obtain.
Classification:
1. Dano emergente loss of what a
person already possesses
2. Lucro cessante failure to
receive as a benefit that would
have pertained to him
NOTE: The latter type includes:
1.
Loss or impairment of
earning capacity in cases of
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
CIVIL LAW
temporary
or
permanent
personal injury.
2.
Injury to the plaintiffs
business standing or commercial
credit.
Injury
IN
In crimes and quasi-delict, the

defendant shall be liable for all
damages which are the natural and
probable consequences 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.
Uncertainty as to the precise amount
is not necessarily fatal.
LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY:
Variables considered are:

1. life expectancy
2. net income/earnings
Formula:
{2/3 x (80age of death)} x mo. Earnings x 12
2
NOTE:
Life expectancy is computed as
follows:
{ 2/3 x (80-age at death) }
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 profits
May 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.
Attorneys fees
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

242
MEMORY AID
They are actual damages. It is due to

the plaintiff and not to the counsel.
Plaintiff must allege the basis of his
claim for attorneys fees in the
complaint; the basis should be one of
the 11 cases specified in Article 2208
of the 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:
1. When 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
writing;
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
12% per annum to be
computed from default, i.e.,
from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and
subject to the provisions of
Article 1169 of the Civil
Code.
2. When
the
obligation,
not
constituting
a
loan
or
forbearance
or
money,
is
breached:
An interest on the amount of
damages to be awarded may
be imposed at the discretion
of the court at the rate of 6%
per annum.
No interest shall be adjudged
on unliquidated claims or
damages, except when or
until
demand
can
be
established with reasonable
certainty.
Where
the
demand
is
established with reasonable
certainty, the interest shall
begin to run from the time
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
IN
CIVIL LAW
the claim is made judicially

or extrajudicially.
3. When the judgment of the court
awarding the sum of money
becomes final and executory, the
rate of legal interest shall be 12%
per annum from such finality
until its satisfaction.
Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences
A party cannot recover damages

flowing from consequences which
the party could reasonably have
avoided.
It has a reasonable corollary: a

person who reasonably attempts to
minimize his damages can recover
the expenses that he incurred.
Doctrine of
Avoidable
Consequences
Acts
of
the
plaintiff
occur
after the act or
omission of the
defendant
Contributory
Negligence
Plaintiffs act or
omission occurs
before or at the
time of the act or
omission of the
defendant
B. MORAL DAMAGES
Includes physical suffering, mental

anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings,
moral
shock,
social
humiliation, and similar injury.
No proof of pecuniary loss is

necessary.
GENERAL RULE: The plaintiff must
allege and prove:
1. The factual basis for moral
damages; and
2. Its causal relation to the
defendants act
EXCEPTION: Moral damages may be
awarded to the victim in criminal
proceedings without the need for
pleading of proof of the basis thereof.
Requisites for award of moral damages:
1. There must be an injury whether
physical, mental or psychological,
clearly sustained by the claimant;
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

243
MEMORY AID
2. There must be a culpable act or
omission.;
3. Such act or omission is the proximate
cause of the injury;
4. The damages is predicated on the
cases cited in Art.2219.
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.
IN
CIVIL LAW
when the court finds that some

pecuniary loss has been suffered but
its amount cannot be proved with
certainty. (Article 2224 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 damages; in such
cases there is no incompatibility
between actual and temperate
damages.
E. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Those agreed upon by the parties in

a contract, to be paid in case of
breach thereof.
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 recognized, and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff
for any loss suffered by him.
(Article2221 Civil Code)
Small sums fixed by the court

without regard to the extent of the
harm done to the injured party.
Law 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 co-exist

with
actual
or
compensatory
damages.
D. TEMPERATE OR MODERATE DAMAGES
These are damages, which are more

than
nominal
but
less
than
compensatory, and may be recovered
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
F. EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGES
Imposed by way of example or correction

for the public good, in addition to the
moral,
temperate,
liquidated
or
compensatory damages.
Requisites for the award of exemplary

damages:
1. They are imposed by way of example in
addition to compensatory damages and
Imposed only after the claimants right to
them has been established;
2. They cannot be recovered as a matter of
right, their determination depending
upon the amount of compensatory
damages that may be awarded;
3. The act must be accompanied by bad
faith or done in wanton, fraudulent,
oppressive or malevolent manner.
Rhodora
John Stephen
Purganan(LTD),

Torts and Damages

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

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