TORTS - ATTY GO
I. INTRODUCTION
A. CONCEPT: CULPA AQUILIANA, QUASI-DELICT, TORTS
Tort
- a wrongful act or infringement of a right leading to civil liability
- may be intentional or unintentional
vs. QD
- in the PH: Torts - Culpa Aquiliana or Quasi Delict as defined by 2176
- acts committed or omitted by negligence and without intent
- Common law torts are different - broader than culpa aquliana because it
includes intentional criminal acts such as assault, battery, false
imprisonment, deceit
- Special Torts may use willful acts as basis on an action for damages
- Note: Art. 21 fills the void for willful acts not punishable by law.
- QD involves acts not punishable by law AND voluntary & negligent acts
which my be punishable by law.
B. DISTINCTIONS
1. Culpa Contractual
Article 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of
fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the
tenor thereof, are liable for damages.
2. Culpa Aquilana
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties,
is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
3. Culpa Criminal
Article 365. Imprudence and negligence. - Any person who, by reckless
imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would
constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period;
if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto
mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed;
if it would have constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto menor in its
maximum period shall be imposed.
Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act
which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty
of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods;
Page 1 of 14
if it would have constituted a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto
mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed.
When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted
in damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a
fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three
times such value, but which shall in no case be less than twenty-five pesos.
A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon
any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some
wrong which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.
In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise their sound
discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed in Article sixty-four.
The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable:
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than
those provided in the first two paragraphs of this article, in which
case the court shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than
that which should be imposed in the period which they may deem
proper to apply.
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the
Automobile Law, to death of a person shall be caused, in which
case the defendant shall be punished by prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or
falling to do an act from which material damage results by reason of
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or
failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or
occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances
regarding persons, time and place.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those
cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor
the danger clearly manifest.
The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be
imposed upon the offender who fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties
such help as may be in this hand to give. (As amended by R.A. 1790,
approved June 21, 1957).
 TORTS - ATTY GO
NOTE: Since the same negligence can give rise either to a delict or crime or - Thus, there must first be a breach of some duty and the imposition of
to a quasi-delict or tort, either of these two types of civil liability may be
enforced against the culprit, subject to the caveat under Article 2177 of the
Civil Code that the offended party cannot recover damages under both types
of liability.
II. QUASI-DELICT
A. ELEMENTS (Article 2176, CC)
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties,
is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
1. Culpable Act or Negligence
2. Damage to another
3. Causal relation between the culpable act or negligence and the damage
to another
Damnum Absque Injuria
If damages result from a persons exercise of a right, it is damnum absque
injuria. [damage without injury]
- Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right;
- damage is the loss, hurt or harm which results from the injury; and
- damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage
suffered.
Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss
or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty.
- In such cases, the consequences must be borne by the injured person
alone, the law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act which
does not amount to a legal injury or wrong.
- These situations are often called damnum absque injuria.
- In other words, 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 a
concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person
causing it.
- The underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that an
individual was injured in contemplation of law.
Page 2 of 14
liability for that breach before damages may be awarded; and the breach of
such duty should be the proximate cause of the injury.
B. NO DOUBLE RECOVERY RULE (Article 2177, CC)
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is
entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence
under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the
same act or omission of the defendant. (n)
III. NEGLIGENCE
A. CONCEPT
Definition: 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.
The concept itself is relative and comparative. The degree of care to be
exercised depends upon person, place and time. Negligence is want of care
required by the circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, not an absolute,
term, and its application depends upon the situation of the parties, and the
degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably impose.
In considering negligence, among the factors to be taken into consideration
are
(1) his employment or occupation;
(2) his degree of intelligence;
(3) his physical condition; and
(4) other circumstances regarding persons, time and place
Applicability of Articles 1172-1174.
Art. 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every
kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by
the courts, according to the circumstances. (1103)
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of
that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the
place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and
2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
 TORTS - ATTY GO
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in
the performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be
required. (1104a)
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is
otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation
requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those
events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were
inevitable. (1105a)
B. AS PROXIMATE CAUSE (Article 2179)
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and
proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his
negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the
injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover
damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. (n)
Definition: that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the
result would not have occurred.
C. PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
Test: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable
care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the
same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
Person who alleged it must prove it. The facts constitutive of negligence must
be affirmatively established by competent evidence.
D. PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE
1. respondeat superior (Articles 1755-1756)
Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very
cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.
Art. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they
prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles
1733 and 1755.
Page 3 of 14
Respondeat superior (Latin for let the superior reply) holds that an employer
is liable for negligent acts or omissions of their employees that result in bodily
harm or property damage to third parties if these acts are done in the course
of the employment.
[vs Theory of Presumed Negligence - conditional liability - responsibility
therein mentioned shall cease if the employers prove that they observed all
the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages]
2. Violation of rules and statutes
a. traffic rules (Articles 2184-85)
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his
driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due
diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver
was negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180 are
applicable. (n)
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, 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. (n)
b. statutes and ordinances / administrative rules
3. Dangerous weapons and substances (Article 2188)
Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the
defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous
weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when the
possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. (n)
4. res ipsa loquitur
The things speaks for itself.
- It is a mode of proof (not a rule of substantive law); an evidentiary
presumption; rests on inference
- applies when there is no direct proof or evidence of cause of injury but the
thing or instrumentality causing injury is under the exclusive control and
 TORTS - ATTY GO
use of the defendant and the accident is one which ordinarily does not
happen unless one is negligent.
- when applicable, all plaintiff must prove is the accident itself
Application of Res Ipsa Loquitur creates a presumption or inference of
negligence on the part of the defendant. Given the following requisites are
present:
1. The accident was given of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless
someone is negligent;
2. That the instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the
exclusive control of the person charged with the negligence.
3. The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or
contribution on the part of the person injured.
4. [It must appear that the injured party had no knowledge or means of
knowledge as to the cause of the accident, or that the party to be charged
with negligence has superior knowledge or opportunity for explanation of
the accident.]
E. DEFENSES
1. Plaintiffs negligence is proximate cause of injury
When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause
of his injury, he cannot recover damages.
2. Comparative v. Contributory Negligence (Article 2179)
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and
proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his
negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the
injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover
damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. (n)
3. Assumption of Risk (Article 1174)
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is
otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation
requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those
events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were
inevitable. (1105a)
Elements of assumption of risk as a defense:
1. The plaintiff must know that the risk is present
Page 4 of 14
2. He must further understand its nature; and
3. His choice to incur it is free and voluntary
Volenti Non Fit Injuria
The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria (to which a person assents is not
esteemed in law as injury) refers to self-inflicted injury or to the consent to
injury which precludes the recovery of damages by one who has knowingly
and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing
so (Nikko Hotel Manila Garden, et al. vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 154259, February
28, 2005).
However, a person is excused from the force of the rule, that when he
voluntarily assents to a known danger he must abide by the consequences,
(1) if an emergency is found to exist or (2) if the life or property of another is in
peril.
4. Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
Under the doctrine of last clear chance, a person who has the last clear
chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent
acts of his opponent or the negligence of a third person which is imputed to
his opponent, is considered in law solely responsible for the consequences of
the accident. (Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District)
The theory on which recovery is permitted notwithstanding the negligence of
plaintiff in exposing himself to injury is that such negligence does not in a legal
sense contribute to the injury since it is a remote cause.
Last Clear Chance vs Contributory Negligence - This is the difference
between the concepts of contributory negligence and doctrine of last clear
chance.
Contributory negligence has been defined as the act or omission amounting
to want of ordinary care on the part of the person injured which,
concurring with the defendants negligence, is the proximate cause of the
injury.
It has been held that to hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it
must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in
disregard of warnings or signs of an impending danger to health and
body. (Ma-ao Sugar Central Co. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83491,
August 27, 1990).
 TORTS - ATTY GO
But where both parties are guilty of negligence, but the negligent act of one
succeeds that of the other by an appreciable interval of time, the one who
has the last reasonable opportunity to avoid the impending harm and fails to
do so is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior
negligence of the other party [under the doctrine of last clear chance] (Picart
vs. Smith, G.R. No. L-12219, March 15, 1918).
5. Prescription (Article 1146)
Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years:
(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
(2) Upon a quasi-delict;
However, when the action arises from or out of any act, activity, or conduct of
any public officer involving the exercise of powers or authority arising from
Martial Law including the arrest, detention and/or trial of the plaintiff, the same
must be brought within one (1) year. (As amended by PD No. 1755, Dec. 24,
1980.)
Note: The prescriptive period begins from the day the quasi-delict is
committed.
The Relations Back Theory is that principle of law by which an act done at
one time is considered by fiction of law to have been done at some
antecedent period.
6. Force Majeur / Fortuitous Event (Article 1174)
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is
otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation
requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those
events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were
inevitable. (1105a)
Elements of Fortuitous Events or Force Majeure
1. 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
2. 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
3. The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to
fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and
Page 5 of 14
4. The obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the
injury resulting to the creditor.
7. Diligence (Article 2180, last paragraph)
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons
herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage.
8. Mistake & Waiver
Article 6. Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public
order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person
with a right recognized by law. (4a)
Article 1170.
- Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud,
negligence, or delay, and
- those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof,
are liable for damages. (1101)
Article 1171. Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all
obligations. Any waiver of an action for future fraud is void. (1102a)
Article 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of
every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be
regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances
Article 1173. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of articles
1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
Article 2201. In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor
(in a contract or quasi contract) shall be responsible for all damages which
may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation.
9. Emergency or sudden peril doctrine
Under the emergency rule, one who
- suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and
- is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be
adopted to avoid the impending danger,
is not guilty of negligence,
if he fails to adopt what
- subsequently and
 TORTS - ATTY GO
- upon reflection
may appear to have been a better method,
unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own
negligence (Gan vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-44264, September
19, 1988).
1. Parents & guardians
2. Owners & managers of enterprises
3. Employers
F. CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
IV. VICARIOUS/PRIMARY/SOLIDARY LIABILITY
A. VICARIOUS LIABILITY (ARTICLES 2180-2182, CC)
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for
one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.
1. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are
responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in
their company.
2. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated
persons who are under their authority and live in their company.
3. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are
likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the
service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions.
4. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees
and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks,
even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
5. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special
agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom
the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Article
2176 shall be applicable.
6. Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall
be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices,
so long as they remain in their custody.
Page 6 of 14
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons
herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of
a family to prevent damage. (1903a)
Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or
employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in
satisfaction of the claim. (1904)
Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or
guardian, the minor or insane person shall be answerable with his own
property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be
appointed. (n)
Medical negligence/malpractice
1. Duty
- When a patient engages the services of a physician, a physician-patient
relationship is generated. And in accepting a case, the physician, for all
intents and purposes, represents that he has the needed training and skill
possessed by physicians and surgeons practicing in the same field; and
that he will employ such training, care, and skill in the treatment of the
patient.
- Thus, in treating his patient, a physician is under a duty to the former to
exercise that degree of care, skill and diligence which physicians in the
same general neighborhood and in the same general line of practice
ordinarily possess and exercise in like cases.
- Stated otherwise, the physician has the duty to use at least the same level
of care that any other reasonably competent physician would use to treat
the condition under similar circumstances.
This standard level of care, skill and diligence is a matter best addressed by
expert medical testimony, because the standard of care in a medical
malpractice case is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of experts in the
field
2. Breach and Injury
- There is breach of duty of care, skill and diligence, or the improper
performance of such duty, by the attending physician when the patient is
injured in body or in health and this constitutes the actionable malpractice.
- Proof of such breach must likewise rest upon the testimony of an expert
witness that the treatment accorded to the patient failed to meet the
standard level of care, skill and diligence which physicians in the same
 TORTS - ATTY GO
general neighborhood and in the same general line of practice ordinarily
possess and exercise in like cases.
3. Proximate Causation
- Even so, proof of breach of duty on the part of the attending physician is
insufficient, for there must be a causal connection between said breach
and the resulting injury sustained by the patient.
- Put in another way, in order that there may be a recovery for an injury, it
must be shown that the injury for which recovery is sought must be the
legitimate consequence of the wrong done; the connection between the
negligence and the injury must be a direct and natural sequence of events,
unbroken by intervening efficient causes; that is, the negligence must be
the proximate cause of the injury. And the proximate cause of an injury is
that cause, which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the
result would not have occurred
- Just as with the elements of duty and breach of the same, in order to
establish the proximate cause of the injury by a preponderance of the
evidence in a medical malpractice action, the patient must similarly use
expert testimony, because the question of whether the alleged professional
negligence caused the patients injury is generally one for specialized
expert knowledge beyond the ken of the average layperson; using the
specialized knowledge and training of his field, the experts role is to
present to the court a realistic assessment of the likelihood that the
physicians alleged negligence caused the patients injury
4. State
5. Teachers/heads of establishments
See liability of drivers and owners/employers under Section 13 of Republic Act
No. 10586 or An Act Penalizing Persons Driving under the Influence of
Alcohol, Dangerous Drugs and other Similar Substances
SEC. 13. Direct Liability of Operator and/or Owner of the Offending Vehicle.
The owner and/or operator of the vehicle driven by the offender shall be
directly and principally held liable together with the offender for the fine and
the award against the offender for civil damages unless he or she is able to
convincingly prove that he or she has exercised extraordinary diligence in the
selection and supervision of his or her drivers in general and the offending
driver in particular.
Page 7 of 14
This section shall principally apply to the owners and/or operators of
public utility vehicles and commercial vehicles such as delivery vans,
cargo trucks, container trucks, school and company buses, hotel transports,
cars or vans for rent, taxi cabs, and the like.
B. PRIMARY LIABILITY (ARTICLES 2183-2193)
1. Possessors/Users of animals (Article 2183)
Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same
is responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or
be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come
from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage.
(1905)
2. Owners of motor vehicles (Article 2184)
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his
driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due
diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver
was negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180 are
applicable. (n)
3. Manufacturers & Processors (Article 2187)
Art. 2187. 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 between
them and the consumers. (n)
4. Municipal corporations (Article 2189)
Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for
the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective
condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works
under their control or supervision. (n)
See Section 24 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160)
 TORTS - ATTY GO
Section 24. Liability for Damages. - Local government units and their officials
are not exempt from liability for death or injury to persons or damage to Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply waiver of any of
property. the cause of action by reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding
paragraph.
5. Building proprietors (Article 2190-2191, 2193)
Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of the
damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the building. (n)
lack of necessary repairs. (1907)
C. SOLIDARY LIABILITY (ARTICLE 2194)
Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused:
(1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care of with due Art. 2194.
diligence, and the inflammation of explosive substances which have not The responsibility of two or more persons
been kept in a safe and adequate place; who are liable for quasi-delict
(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or property; is solidary. (n)
(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, if not caused
by force majeure; D. STRICT LIABILITY TORTS
(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious
matter, constructed without precautions suitable to the place. (1908) DEFINITION: Exceptionally, liability is created even where there may have
been no fault or negligence.
Art. 2193. 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. 1. Possessors/Users of animals (Article 2183)
(1910)
Art. 2183.
6. Engineers/Architects/Contractors (Articles 2192 & 1723) - The possessor of an animal or
- whoever may make use of the same
Art. 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding articles should be the is responsible for the damage which it may cause,
result of any defect in the construction mentioned in Article 1723, the third although it may escape or be lost.
person suffering damages may proceed only against the engineer or architect This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come
or contractor in accordance with said article, within the period therein fixed. - from force majeure or
(1909) - from the fault of the person who has suffered damage. (1905)
Art. 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the plans and 2. Manufacturers & Processors (Art. 2187)
specifications for a building is liable for damages if within fifteen years from
the completion of the structure, the same should collapse by reason of a Art. 2187.
defect in those plans and specifications, or due to the defects in the ground. Manufacturers and processors of
- foodstuffs,
The contractor is likewise responsible for the damages if the edifice falls, - drinks,
within the same period, on account of defects in the construction or the use of - toilet articles and
materials of inferior quality furnished by him, or due to any violation of the - similar goods
terms of the contract. shall be liable for death or injuries
caused by any noxious or harmful substances used,
If the engineer or architect supervises the construction, he shall be solidarily although no contractual relation exists
liable with the contractor. between them and the consumers. (n)

Page 8 of 14
 TORTS - ATTY GO
- any other means,
3. Head of Family (Art. 2193) o acquires or comes into possession of something
o at the expense of the latter
Art. 2193. o without just or legal ground,
The head of a family shall return the same to him.
that lives in a building or a part thereof,
is responsible for damages caused by Art. 23.
things thrown or falling Even when an act or event
from the same. (1910) causing damage to another's property
was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant,
V. SPECIAL TORTS (HUMAN RELATIONS) the latter shall be liable for indemnity
if through the act or event
A. ABUSE OF RIGHT (ARTICLE 19) he was benefited.

Art. 19. D. JUDICIAL VIGILANCE (ARTICLE 24)

Every person must,
- in the exercise of his rights and Art. 24.
- in the performance of his duties, In all contractual, property or other relations,
o act with justice, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage
o give everyone his due, and on account of his
o observe honesty and good faith. - moral dependence,
- ignorance,
B. CONTRARY TO LAW AND MORALS (ARTICLES 20 AND 21) - indigence,
- mental weakness,
Art. 20. - tender age or
Every person who, - other handicap,
contrary to law, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.
wilfully or negligently causes damage to another,
shall indemnify the latter for the same. E. THOUGHTLESS EXTRAVAGANCE (ARTICLE 25)

Art. 21. Art. 25.

Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury Thoughtless extravagance in expenses
to another for pleasure or display
in a manner that is contrary to during a period of acute public want or emergency
morals, good customs or public policy may be stopped
shall compensate the latter for the damage. by order of the courts
at the instance of any government or private charitable institution.
C. UNJUST ENRICHMENT (ARTICLES 22 & 23)
F. DISRESPECT FOR PERSON (ARTICLE 26)
Art. 22.
Every person Art. 26.
who through Every person shall respect
- an act of performance by another, or the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind

Page 9 of 14
 TORTS - ATTY GO
of his neighbors and other persons. - Any public officer or employee, or
The following and similar acts, - any private individual, who directly or indirectly
though they may not constitute a criminal offense, o obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner
shall produce a cause of action o impedes or impairs
for damages, prevention and other relief; any of the following rights and liberties of another person
(1)Prying into the privacy of another's residence: shall be liable to the latter for damages:
(2)Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;
(3)Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends; (1) Freedom of religion;
(4)Vexing or humiliating another on account of his (2) Freedom of speech;
- religious beliefs, (3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;
- lowly station in life, (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
- place of birth, (5) Freedom of suffrage;
- physical defect, or (6)The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;
- other personal condition. (7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public
use;
G. DERELICTION OF DUTY (ARTICLE 27) (8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against
Art. 27. unreasonable searches and seizures;
Any person suffering material or moral loss (10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
because a public servant or employee (11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
refuses or neglects, (12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes
without just cause, not contrary to law;
to perform his official duty (13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government
may file an action for damages and other relief against for redress of grievances;
the latter, (14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;
without prejudice to (15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken. (16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a
H. UNFAIR COMPETITION (ARTICLE 28) speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf;
Art. 28. (17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from
Unfair competition being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of
- in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or immunity or reward to make such confession, except when the person
- in labor confessing becomes a State witness;
through the use of (18)Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless
- force, intimidation, deceit, machination or the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not
- any other unjust, oppressive or high-handed method been judicially declared unconstitutional; and
shall give rise to a right of action (19) Freedom of access to the courts.
by the person who thereby suffers damage.
In any of the cases referred to in this article,
I. VIOLATION OF CIVIL/POLITICAL RIGHT (ARTICLE 32) whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense,
the aggrieved party has a right to commence
Art. 32. an entirely separate and distinct civil action

Page 10 of 14
 TORTS - ATTY GO
for damages, and for other relief.
Such civil action shall Art. 1314.
- proceed independently of any criminal prosecution Any third person
o (if the latter be instituted), and who induces another to violate his contract
- must be proved by a preponderance of evidence. shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party. (n)

The indemnity VII. CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM CRIME (RULES OF COURT)
shall include moral damages. A. REMEDIES
Exemplary damages 1. Civil action with criminal action (Rule 111[1], ROC)
may also be adjudicated.
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.
The responsibility herein set forth (a) When a criminal action is instituted,
is not demandable from a judge the civil action
unless his act or omission constitutes a violation for the recovery of civil liability
of the Penal Code or other penal statute. arising from the offense charged
shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action
1. Acquittal/dismissal (Art. 29, CC; R111 [2b] & 120 [2], ROC) unless the offended party
- waives the civil action,
Art. 29. - reserves the right to institute it separately or
When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted - institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
on the ground that
his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, The reservation of the right
a civil action for damages to institute separately the civil action
for the same act or omission shall be made
may be instituted. - before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and
- under circumstances affording the offended party
Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence. o a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.

Upon motion of the defendant, When the offended party

the court may require the plaintiff seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused
to file a bond to answer for damages by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages
in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. without specifying the amount thereof
in the complaint or information,
If in a criminal case the filing fees thereof
the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, shall constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding such damages.
the court shall so declare.
In the absence of any declaration to that effect, Where the amount of damages,
it may be inferred from the text of the decision other than actual,
whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground. is specified in the complaint or information,
the corresponding filing fees
2. Extinction of civil liability (Rule 111[2b], ROC) shall be paid by the offended party
upon the filing thereof in court.
VI. INTERFERENCE IN CONTRACTUAL RELATION (ARTICLE 1314)

Page 11 of 14
 TORTS - ATTY GO
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules,
no filing fees shall be required for actual damages. Section 2. When separate civil action is suspended.
After the criminal action has been commenced,
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint the separate civil action arising therefrom
may be filed by the accused cannot be instituted
in the criminal case, until final judgment has been entered
but any cause of action in the criminal action.
which could have been the subject thereof
may be litigated in a separate civil action. (1a) If the criminal action is filed
after the said civil action has already been instituted,
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 the latter shall be suspended
shall be deemed to include in whatever stage it may be found
the corresponding civil action. before judgment on the merits.
No reservation The suspension shall last
to file such civil action separately until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action.
shall be allowed.
Nevertheless,
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action,
the offended party the same may,
shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, upon motion of the offended party,
which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed. be consolidated with the criminal action
Where the complaint or information in the court trying the criminal action.
also seeks to recover In case of consolidation,
liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the evidence already adduced in the civil action
the offended party shall be deemed automatically reproduced
shall pay additional filing fees in the criminal action
based on the amounts alleged therein. without prejudice to the right
If the amounts are not so alleged - of the prosecution to cross-examine the witnesses
but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the court, o presented by the offended party in the criminal case and
the filing fees based on the amount awarded - of the parties to present additional evidence.
shall constitute a first lien on the judgment. The consolidated criminal and civil actions
shall be tried and decided jointly.
Where the
- civil action has been filed separately and During the pendency of the criminal action,
- trial thereof has not yet commenced, the running of the period of prescription of the civil action
it may be consolidated with the criminal action - which cannot be instituted separately or
upon application with the court trying the latter case. - whose proceeding has been suspended
If the application is granted, shall be tolled. (n)
the trial of both actions
shall proceed in accordance with Section 2 of this Rule The extinction of the penal action
governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions. (cir. 57-97) does not carry with it extinction of the civil action.
However,
2. Separate civil action (Rule 111 [2a]) the civil action based on delict

Page 12 of 14
 TORTS - ATTY GO
shall be deemed extinguished
if there is a finding Art. 36.
in a final judgment in the criminal action Pre-judicial questions
that the act or omission which must be decided before any criminal prosecution
from which the civil liability may arise may be instituted or may proceed,
did not exist. (2a) shall be governed by rules of court
- which the Supreme Court shall promulgate and
3. Independent civil action (Arts. 30 & 31, CC; R111[3], ROC) - which shall not be in conflict with the provisions of this Code.

Section 3. When civil action may proceeded independently. Section 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question.
In the cases provided for A petition for suspension of the criminal action
in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action
the independent civil action may be filed in
may be brought by the offended party. - the office of the prosecutor or
It - the court conducting the preliminary investigation.
- shall proceed independently of the criminal action and When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial,
- shall require only a preponderance of evidence. the petition to suspend
shall be filed in the same criminal action
In no case, at any time before the prosecution rests. (6a)
however,
may the offended party recover damages twice Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question. The elements of a prejudicial
for the same act or omission question are:
charged in the criminal action. (3a) (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action,
Art. 30. and
When a separate civil action is brought (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal
to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense, and action may proceed.
no criminal proceedings are instituted
during the pendency of the civil case, D. SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY (Arts. 102-103, RPC; Art. 106-109 Labor Code)
a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient 1. Concept and requisites
to prove the act complained of. 2. diligence not a defense

Art. 31. Article 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and
When the civil action is based proprietors of establishments. -
on an obligation not arising In default of the persons criminally liable,
from the act or omission complained of as a felony, innkeepers, tavern-keepers, and any other persons or corporations
such civil action may proceed shall be civilly liable
- independently of the criminal proceedings and for crimes committed in their establishments,
- regardless of the result of the latter. in all cases where
a violation of
B. EFFECTS - municipal ordinances or
- some general or special police regulation
C. PREJUDICIAL QUESTION (Art. 36, CC; R111, Sec. 6, ROC) shall have been committed by them or their employees.

Page 13 of 14
 TORTS - ATTY GO
Innkeepers
are also subsidiarily liable
- for the restitution of goods
o taken by robbery or theft
o within their houses from guests lodging therein, or
- for the payment of the value thereof,
provided that such guests
shall have notified in advance
- the innkeeper himself, or
- the person representing him,
o of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and
shall furthermore have followed the directions
which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them
with respect to the care and vigilance over such goods.
No liability shall attach
in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
unless committed by the innkeeper's employees.
Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. -
The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article
shall also apply to
employers, teachers, persons, and corporations
engaged in any kind of industry
for felonies committed
by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the
discharge of their duties.
Labor
Art. 106. Contractor or subcontractor. Whenever an employer enters into a
contract with another person for the performance of the formers work, the
employees of the contractor and of the latters subcontractor, if any, shall be
paid in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages
of his employees in accordance with this Code, the employer shall be
jointly and severally liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such
employees to the extent of the work performed under the contract, in the
same manner and extent that he is liable to employees directly employed by
him.
The Secretary of Labor and Employment may, by appropriate regulations,
restrict or prohibit the contracting-out of labor to protect the rights of workers
Page 14 of 14
established under this Code. In so prohibiting or restricting, he may make
appropriate distinctions between labor-only contracting and job contracting as
well as differentiations within these types of contracting and determine who
among the parties involved shall be considered the employer for purposes of
this Code, to prevent any violation or circumvention of any provision of this
Code.
There is "labor-only" contracting where the person supplying workers to an
employer does not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and the workers
recruited and placed by such person are performing activities which are
directly related to the principal business of such employer. In such cases, the
person or intermediary shall be considered merely as an agent of the
employer who shall be responsible to the workers in the same manner and
extent as if the latter were directly employed by him.
Art. 107. Indirect employer. The provisions of the immediately preceding
article shall likewise apply to any person, partnership, association or
corporation which, not being an employer, contracts with an independent
contractor for the performance of any work, task, job or project.
Art. 108. Posting of bond. An employer or indirect employer may require the
contractor or subcontractor to furnish a bond equal to the cost of labor under
contract, on condition that the bond will answer for the wages due the
employees should the contractor or subcontractor, as the case may be, fail to
pay the same.
Art. 109. Solidary liability. The provisions of existing laws to the contrary
notwithstanding, every employer or indirect employer shall be held
responsible with his contractor or subcontractor for any violation of any
provision of this Code. For purposes of determining the extent of their civil
liability under this Chapter, they shall be considered as direct employers.