TORTS AND DAMAGES emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really full or absolute.

Thus
JAZZTINE M. ARTIZUELA Emancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession shall terminate parental
authority over the childs person. It shall enable the minor to administer his property as
ELCANO VS HILL though he was of age, but he cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber real
property without the consent of his father or mother, or guardian. He can sue and be
Torts and Damages Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts vs. Civil Liability from Crimes sued in court only with the assistance of his father, mother or guardian. Therefore,
Article 2180 is applicable to Marvin Hill the SC however ruled since at the time of the
FACTS: Reginald Hill, a minor, caused the death of Agapito (son of Elcano). Elcano filed a decision, Reginald is already of age, Marvins liability should be subsidiary only as a
criminal case against Reginald but Reginald was acquitted for lack of intent coupled matter of equity.
with mistake. Elcano then filed a civil action against Reginald and his dad (Marvin Hill)
for damages based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Hill argued that the civil action is BARREDO VS GARCIA
barred by his sons acquittal in the criminal case; and that if ever, his civil liability as a
parent has been extinguished by the fact that his son is already an emancipated minor Torts and Damages Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts vs Civil Liability from Crimes
by reason of his marriage.
FACTS: At about 1:30am on May 3, 1936, Fontanillas taxi collided with a kalesa
ISSUE: Whether or not Marvin Hill may be held civilly liable under Article 2180. thereby killing the 16 year old Faustino Garcia. Faustinos parents filed a criminal suit
against Fontanilla and reserved their right to file a separate civil suit. Fontanilla was
HELD: Yes. The acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case does not bar the filing of a eventually convicted. After the criminal suit, Garcia filed a civil suit against Barredo
separate civil action. A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, the owner of the taxi (employer of Fontanilla). The suit was based on Article 1903 of
whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the civil code (negligence of employers in the selection of their employees). Barredo
the offended party is not allowed, if accused is actually charged also criminally, to assailed the suit arguing that his liability is only subsidiary and that the separate civil
recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the suit should have been filed against Fontanilla primarily and not him.
bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. In other
words, the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111, refers ISSUE: Whether or not Barredo is just subsidiarily liable.
exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas
the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is HELD: No. He is primarily liable under Article 1903 which is a separate civil action
not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act against negligent employers. Garcia is well within his rights in suing Barredo. He
charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused. Briefly reserved his right to file a separate civil action and this is more expeditious because by
stated, culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable the time of the SC judgment Fontanilla is already serving his sentence and has no
by law. property. It was also proven that Barredo is negligent in hiring his employees because it
was shown that Fontanilla had had multiple traffic infractions already before he hired
While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child him something he failed to overcome during hearing. Had Garcia not reserved his
(Article 327, Civil Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes place by the right to file a separate civil action, Barredo would have only been subsidiarily liable.
marriage of the minor child, it is, however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399,
Further, Barredo is not being sued for damages arising from a criminal act (his drivers On August 18, 2000, Gregorio filed a complaint for damages against Sansio and Datuin
negligence) but rather for his own negligence in selecting his employee (Article 1903). before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Ligao, Albay. Part of her complaint was
that as a result of her wrongful arrest and arraignment, she suffered helplessness,
GREGORIO VS CA hunger and humiliation and being distraught. Datuin and Sansio meanwhile filed a
Motion to Dismiss on grounds that Gregorios complaint arose from grounds of
Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of compensation arising from malicious prosecution. On October 10, 2000, the RTC denied
his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not this Motion to Dismiss. Sansio and Datuin then filed a Motion for Reconsideration but
constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention was again denied in January 5, 2001. They went to the Court of Appeals alleging grave
and other relief: abuse of discretion on the part of the presiding judge of the RTC in denying their
motions to dismiss and for reconsideration. On January 31, 2007, the CA rendered a
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence: Decision granting the petition and ordering Gregorios damage suit to be dismissed.
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends; ISSUE: Are Sansio and Datuin liable for damages to Gregorio?
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life,
place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition. HELD: Yes. Among other reasons, the Supreme Court decided that Gregorios rights to
personal dignity, personal security, privacy, and peace of mind were infringed by Sansio
FACTS: Respondents Emma J. Datuin (Datuin) and Sansio Philippines, Inc. (Sansio) filed and Datuin when they failed to exercise the requisite diligence in determining the
an affidavit of complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) against identity of the person they should rightfully accuse of tendering insufficiently funded
petitioner Zenaida R. Gregorio (Gregorio), a proprietor of Alvi Marketing. Datuin and checks. . . . Because she was not able to refute the charges against her, petitioner was
Sansio claimed that Gregorio delivered insufficiently funded bank checks as payment falsely indicted for three (3) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Gregorio was
for appliances Alvi Marketing bought from Sansio. Gregorio was then indicted for three conveniently at her city residence while visiting her family. She suffered
counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Branch 3, embarrassment and humiliation over her sudden arrest and detention and she had to
Manila. The MTC issued a warrant of arrest and she was subsequently arrested by spend time, effort, and money to clear her tarnished name and reputation, considering
armed operatives while visiting her family house in Quezon City. that she had held several honorable positions in different organizations and offices in
the public service, particularly her being a Kagawad in Oas, Albay at the time of her
On December 5, 1997, Gregorio filed before the MTC a Motion for Deferment of arrest.
Arraignment and Reinvestigation. She alleged that she could not have issued the
bounced checks as she did not have a checking account with the bank on which the CANGCO VS MANILA RAILROAD CO.
checks were drawn. This was certified by the manager of the said bank. Gregorio also
alleged that the signature on the bounced checks were radically and patently different On January 20, 1915, Cangco was riding the train of Manila Railroad Co (MRC). He was
from her own signature. The MTC granted the motion, and a reinvestigation was an employee of the latter and he was given a pass so that he could ride the train for
conducted. Subsequently, the MTC ordered the B.P. Blg. 22 cases dismissed. free. When he was nearing his destination at about 7pm, he arose from his seat even
though the train was not at full stop. When he was about to alight from the train (which
was still slightly moving) he accidentally stepped on a sack of watermelons which he
failed to notice due to the fact that it was dim. This caused him to lose his balance at NOTES: But, if the master has not been guilty of any negligence whatever in the
the door and he fell and his arm was crushed by the train and he suffered other serious selection and direction of the servant, he is not liable for the acts of the latter, whatever
injuries. He was dragged a few meters more as the train slowed down. done within the scope of his employment or not, if the damage done by the servant
It was established that the employees of MRC were negligent in piling the sacks of does not amount to a breach of the contract between the master and the person
watermelons. MRC raised as a defense the fact that Cangco was also negligent as he injured.
failed to exercise diligence in alighting from the train as he did not wait for it to stop.
ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Railroad Co is liable for damages. The liability arising from extra-contractual culpa is always based upon a voluntary act or
omission which, without willful intent, but by mere negligence or inattention, has
HELD: Yes. Alighting from a moving train while it is slowing down is a common practice caused damage to another.
and a lot of people are doing so every day without suffering injury. Cangco has the vigor
and agility of young manhood, and it was by no means so risky for him to get off while These two fields, figuratively speaking, concentric; that is to say, the mere fact that a
the train was yet moving as the same act would have been in an aged or feeble person. person is bound to another by contract does not relieve him from extra-contractual
He was also ignorant of the fact that sacks of watermelons were there as there were no liability to such person. When such a contractual relation exists the obligor may break
appropriate warnings and the place was dimly lit. the contract under such conditions that the same act which constitutes the source of
an extra-contractual obligation had no contract existed between the parties.
The Court also elucidated on the distinction between the liability of employers under Manresa: Whether negligence occurs an incident in the course of the performance of a
Article 2180 and their liability for breach of contract [of carriage]: contractual undertaking or in itself the source of an extra-contractual undertaking
obligation, its essential characteristics are identical.

Vinculum Juris: (def) It means an obligation of law, or the right of the obligee to
enforce a civil matter in a court of law.

AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL VS CORDERO

FACTS: This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals. American
Express International was a foreign corporation that issued charge cards used to
purchase goods and services at accredited merchants worldwide to its customers. Nilda
Cordero, wife of respondent Noel Cordero, was issued an American Express charge
card. An extension charge card, was likewise issued to respondent Noel Cordero which
he also signed. Respondent, together with his family went on a three-day holiday trip to
Hong Kong. The group went to the Watsons Chemist Shop. While there, Noel picked up
chocolate candies and handed his American Express extension charge card to the sales
clerk to pay for his purchases. Susan Chong, the store manager, informed respondent
that she had to confiscate the card. Thereupon, she cut respondents American
Express card in half with a pair of scissors. This, according to respondent, caused him
embarrassment and humiliation. Hence, Nilda had to pay for the purchases using her
own American Express charge card. The card was placed in the Inspect Airwarn Support
System, a system utilized by petitioner as a protection both for the company and the
cardholders against the fraudulent use of their charge cards. Once a card
suspected of unauthorized use is placed in the system, the person to whom the card is
tendered must verify the identity of the holder. If the true identity of the card owner is
established, the card is honored and the charges are approved. Otherwise, the card is
revoked or confiscated.
Respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court a complaint for damages against
petitioner. He prayed for the award of moral damages and exemplary damages, as well
as attorneys fees as a result of the humiliation he suffered. According to the trial court,
petitioner should have informed respondent that on November 1, 1991, a person in
Hong Kong attempted to use a charge card bearing similar number to that of
respondents card and that petitioners inexcusable failure to do so is the proximate
cause of the confiscation and cutting of respondents extension card which exposed
the latter to public humiliation for which the petitioner should be held liable. Upon
appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision.
ISSUE: Whether the lower courts gravely erred in awarding moral damages, exemplary
damages and attorneys fees to Cordero.
RULING: YES. The Court ruled that petitioner can revoke respondents card without
notice, as was done. The subject card would not have been confiscated and cut had
respondent talked to petitioners representative and identified himself as the
genuine cardholder. As explained by respondent himself, he could have used his card
upon verification by the sales clerk of Watson that indeed he is
the authorized cardholder. That could have been accomplished had respondent talked
to petitioners representative, enabling the latter to determine that respondent was
indeed the true holder of the card. Clearly, no negligence which breached the contract ISSUE: Whether or not Smith is guilty of negligence.
could have been attributed to petitioner. If at all, the cause of respondents humiliation
and embarrassment was his refusal to talk to petitioners representative. It was thus RULING: Yes. Smith, in maneuvering his car in the manner described, was guilty of
safe to conclude that there was no negligence on the part of petitioner and that, negligence such as gives rise to a civil obligation to repair the damage done. In the
therefore, it cannot be held liable to respondent for damages. The petition was
granted.
PICART VS SMITH
FACTS: On 12 December 1912, on the Carlatan Bridge, at San Fernando, La Union,
Amado Picart was riding on his pony over said bridge. Before he had gotten half way
across, Frank Smith Jr. approached from the opposite direction in an automobile, going
at the rate of about 10 or 12 miles per hour. As Smith neared the bridge he saw a
horseman on it and blew his horn to give warning of his approach. He continued his
course and after he had taken the bridge he gave two more successive blasts, as it
appeared to him that the man on horseback before him was not observing the rule of
the road. Picart saw the automobile coming and heard the warning signals. However,
being perturbed by the novelty of the apparition or the rapidity of the approach, he
pulled the pony closely up against the railing on the right side of the bridge instead of
going to the left. As the automobile approached, Smith guided it toward his left, that
being the proper side of the road for the machine. In so doing Smith assumed that the
horseman would move to the other side. The pony had not as yet exhibited fright, and
the rider had made no sign for the automobile to stop. Seeing that the pony was
apparently quiet, Smith, instead of veering to the right while yet some distance away or
slowing down, continued to approach directly toward the horse without diminution of
speed. When he had gotten quite near, there being then no possibility of the horse
getting across to the other side, Smith quickly turned his car sufficiently to the right to
escape hitting the horse alongside of the railing where it was then standing; but in so
doing the automobile passed in such close proximity to the animal that it became
frightened and turned its body across the bridge with its head toward the railing. In so
doing, it was struck on the hock of the left hind leg by the flange of the car and the limb
was broken. The horse fell and its rider was thrown off with some violence. As a result
of its injuries the horse died. Picart received contusions which caused temporary
unconsciousness and required medical attention for several days.
nature of things the control of the situation had passed entirely to Smith, and it was his (b) After a criminal action has been commenced. no civil action arising from the same
duty either to bring his car to an immediate stop or, seeing that there were no other offense can be prosecuted, and the same shall be suspended, in whatever stage it may
persons on the bridge, to take the other side and pass sufficiently far away from the be found, until final judgment in the criminal proceeding has been rendered
horse to avoid the danger of collision. Instead of doing this, Smith ran straight on until City Court: ordered the suspension of the civil case
he was almost upon the horse. When Smith exposed the horse and rider to this danger CFI by certiorari: dismissed
he was negligent in the eye of the law.
ISSUE: Whether or not there can be an independent civil action for damage to property
The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be during the pendency of the criminal action.
stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that person
would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. HELD: YES. Granting the Writ of certiorari prayed for nature and character of his action
was quasi-delictual predicated principally on Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code
What would constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a given situation must of Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely
course be always determined in the light of human experience and in view of the facts separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal
involved in the particular case. Abstract speculation cannot be of much value; as Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of
reasonable men govern their conduct by the circumstances which are before them or the defendant primary and direct responsibility of employers and their presumed
known to them, and hence they can be expected to take care only when there is negligence are principles calculated to protect society. The separate and independent
something before them to suggest or warn of danger. Reasonable foresight of harm is civil action for a quasi-delict is also clearly recognized in section 3, Rule 111 of the Rules
always necessary before negligence can be held to exist. In fine, the proper criterion for of Court:
determining the existence of negligence in a given case is this: Conduct is said to be
negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen SEC. 3. When civil action may proceed independently.In the cases provided in Articles
that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing the 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil action
conduct or guarding against its consequences. may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal
action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may
CINCO VS CANONOY the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the
criminal action.
Laws Applicable: Rule 111, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, Art. 31 and Article 2176 of
the Civil Code| Lessons Applicable: Quasi-delict (Torts and Damages) Secs. 3(a) and 3(b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, which should be suspended after
the criminal action has been instituted is that arising from the criminal offense not the
FACTS: Porfirio P. Cinco filed a complaint against jeepney driven by Romeo Hilot and civil action based on quasi-delict
operated by Valeriana Pepito and Carlos Pepito for a vehicular accident. At the pre-trial
in the civil case, counsel for private respondents moved to suspend the civil action Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or
pending the final determination of the criminal suit, invoking Rule 111, Section 3 (b) of omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the
the Rules of Court, which provides: criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
Article 2176 of the Civil Code (supra), is so broad that it includes not only injuries to ridicule if her claim was false. The CA: affirmed RTC. Gashem's acts are palpably and
persons but also damage to property word "damage" is used in two concepts: the undoubtedly against morals, good customs, and public policy, and are even gravely and
"harm" done and "reparation" for the harm done deeply derogatory and insulting to our women, coming as they do from a foreigner who
BAKSH VS CA has been enjoying the hospitality of our people and taking advantage of the
opportunity to study in one of our institutions of learning.
Laws Applicable: Art. 21, Art. 23 and Art. 2176 of the Civil Code
Lessons Applicable: Quasi-delict (Torts and Damages) Gashem criticizes the trial court for liberally invoking Filipino customs, traditions and
culture, and ignoring the fact that since he is a foreigner, he is not conversant with such
FACTS: Gashem Shookat Baksh (Gashem), a medical student in Lyceum Northwestern Filipino customs, traditions and culture. As an Iranian Moslem, he is not familiar with
Dagupan City, courted and proposed to marry 22 years old, single, Filipino and pretty Catholic and Christian ways. He stresses that even if he had made a promise to marry,
lass of good moral character and reputation duly respected in her community. She the subsequent failure to fulfill the same is excusable or tolerable because of his
accepted his love on the condition that they would get married after the end of the Moslem upbringing; he then alludes to the Muslim Code which purportedly allows a
school semester (October that year). Gashem visited her parents in Pangasinan for Muslim to take four (4) wives and concludes that on the basis thereof, the trial court
approval for marriage. August 20 1987: Gashem forced her to live with him when she erred in ruling that he does not posses good moral character. Moreover, his
was still a virgin then he started to maltreat and threatened to kill her resulting into controversial "common law life" is now his legal wife as their marriage had been
injuries. He would tie plaintiff's hands and feet while he went to school, and he even solemnized in civil ceremonies in the Iranian Embassy. As to his unlawful cohabitation
gave her medicine at 4 o'clock in the morning that made her sleep the whole day and with the private respondent, petitioner claims that even if responsibility could be
night until the following day. She became pregnant, but Gashem gave her some pinned on him for the live-in relationship, the private respondent should also be faulted
medicine to abort the fetus. Gashem continued to live with defendant and kept for consenting to an illicit arrangement. He promised to marry her would not be
reminding him of his promise to marry her until he asked her not to live with him actionable since mere breach of promise is not actionable.
anymore as he is already married to someone living in Bacolod City. He lived with
another woman in Bacolod City but did not marry that woman, just like what he did to ISSUE: Whether or not damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry on
plaintiff. He resigned from her job at the restaurant after she had accepted defendant's the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
proposal.
HELD: YES. Petition is denied. The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per
Plaintiff's father, a tricycle driver, already looked for sponsors for the wedding, started se is not an actionable wrong. Under the present laws, there is no crime, as the girl is
preparing for the reception by looking for pigs and chickens, and even already invited above nineteen years of age.
many relatives and friends to the forthcoming wedding. He prayed for judgment
ordering Gashem to pay her damages. Gashem never proposed marriage to or agreed Art. 23. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is
to be married; he did not maltreat her, but only told her to stop coming to his place contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the
because he discovered that she had deceived him by stealing his money and passport damage.
RTC: favored private respondent and against Gashem, and gave full credit to the private
respondent's testimony because, inter alia, she would not have had the temerity and Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which defines a quasi-delict thus:
courage to come to court and expose her honor and reputation to public scrutiny and
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, FACTS: December 7, 1988: Due to a heated argument, Benigno Torzuela, the security
is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre- guard on duty at Big Bang Sa Alabang carnival, shot and killed Atty. Napoleon Dulay
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is Maria Benita A. Dulay, widow of the deceased Napoleon Dulay, in her own behalf and in
governed by the provisions of this Chapter. behalf of her minor children filed an action for damages against Benigno Torzuela
for wanton and reckless discharge of the firearm and Safeguard Investigation and
Quasi-delict, known in Spanish legal treatises as culpa aquiliana, is a civil law concept Security Co., Inc., (Safeguard) and/or Superguard Security Corp. (Superguard) as
while torts is an Anglo-American or common law concept. Torts is much broader employers for negligence having failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a
than culpa aquiliana because it includes not only negligence, but international criminal family in the supervision and control of its employee to avoid the injury.
acts as well such as assault and battery, false imprisonment and deceit. Intentional and
malicious acts, with certain exceptions, are to be governed by the Revised Penal Code Superguard: Torzuela's act of shooting Dulay was beyond the scope of his duties, and
while negligent acts or omissions are to be covered by Article 2176 of the Civil Code was committed with deliberate intent (dolo), the civil liability therefor is governed by
Article 21 fills that vacuum and has greatly broadened the scope of the law on civil Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, which states:
wrongs; it has become much more supple and adaptable than the Anglo-American law
on torts. Acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of a felony. Every person criminally liable for
promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a a felony is also civilly liable. Civil liability under Article 2176 applies only to quasi-
sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that the offenses under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. CA Affirmed RTC: dismissing the
promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to case of Dulay
accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of
damages pursuant to Article 21. ISSUE: Whether or not Superguard and Safeguard committed an actionable breach and
can be civilly liable even if Benigno Torzuela is already being prosecuted for homicide.
It is essential, however, that such injury should have been committed in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. In fact, it is apparent that she had HELD: YES. Petition for Review is Granted. The case was remanded to RTC for trial on
qualms of conscience about the entire episode for as soon as she found out that the the merits. Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
petitioner was not going to marry her after all, she left him. She is not, therefore, in pari
delicto with the petitioner. Pari delicto means "in equal fault; in a similar offense or Sec. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. When a criminal action is instituted, the
crime; equal in guilt or in legal fault." Let it not be said that this Court condones the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal
deplorable behavior of her parents in letting her and the petitioner stay together in the action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it
same room in their house after giving approval to their marriage. It is the solemn duty separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action
of parents to protect the honor of their daughters and infuse upon them the higher
values of morality and dignity. Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and
damages under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising
DULAY VS CA from the same act or omission of the accused. Contrary to the theory of private
respondents, there is no justification for limiting the scope of Article 2176 of the Civil
Code to acts or omissions resulting from negligence. Well-entrenched is the doctrine
that article 2176 covers not only acts committed with negligence, but also acts which
are voluntary and intentional.
Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or negligence," covers not only acts "not
punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character; whether intentional and
voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a separate civil action against the offender in a
criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted,
provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he is actually charged also criminally,
to recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality only to
the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. The
extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111, refers exclusively
to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil
liability for the same act considered as quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not
extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged
has not happened or has not been committed by the accused. It is enough that the
complaint alleged that Benigno Torzuela shot Napoleon Dulay resulting in the latter's
death; that the shooting occurred while Torzuela was on duty; and that either
SUPERGUARD and/or SAFEGUARD was Torzuela's employer and responsible for his
acts.
passengers aboard the PU car. RTC: Dismissed the case because it is not quasi-delict
because there is a violation of law or traffic rules or regulations for excessive speeding.
ISSUE: Whether or not Garcia et al. can still file a civil action for quasi-delict despite
having a criminal action.
HELD: YES. Decision appealed reversed and set aside, and the court a quo is directed to
proceed with the trial of the case. Essential averments for a quasi-delictual action
under Articles 2176-2194 of the New Civil Code are present, namely:
a) act or omission of the private respondents
b) presence of fault or negligence or the lack of due care in the operation of the
passenger bus No. 25 by Pedro Tumala resulting in the collision of the bus with
the passenger car
c) physical injuries and other damages sustained by as a result of the collision

GARCIA VS FLORIDO d) existence of direct causal connection between the damage or prejudice and the
fault
FACTS: August 4, 1971: German C. Garcia, Chief of the Misamis Occidental Hospital, his
wife, Luminosa L. Garcia, and Ester Francisco, bookkeeper of the hospital, hired and
boarded a PU car owned and operated by Marcelino Inesin, and driven by respondent, e) or negligence of private respondents
Ricardo Vayson, for a round-trip from Oroquieta City to Zamboanga City for the purpose
of attending a conference. August 4, 1971 9:30 a.m.: While the PU car was negotiating a
f) the absence of pre-existing contractual relations between the parties
slight curve on the national highway at 21 km, it collided with an oncoming passenger
violation of traffic rules is merely descriptive of the failure of said driver to observe for
bus owned and operated by the Mactan Transit Co., Inc. and driven by Pedro Tumala.
the protection of the interests of others, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance
which the circumstances justly demand, which failure resulted in the injury on
Garcia et al. sustained various physical injuries which necessitated their medical
petitioners.
treatment and hospitalization. Garcia et al. filed an action for damages against both
drivers and their owners for driving in a reckless, grossly negligent and imprudent
Petitioners never intervened in the criminal action instituted by the Chief of Police
manner in gross violation of traffic rules and without due regard to the safety of the
against respondent Pedro Tumala, much less has the said criminal action been
terminated either by conviction or acquittal of said accused. It is, therefore, evident
that by the institution of the present civil action for damages, petitioners have in effect
abandoned their right to press recovery for damages in the criminal case, and have
opted instead to recover them in the present civil case. Petitioners have thereby
foreclosed their right to intervene therein, or one where reservation to file the civil
action need not be made, for the reason that the law itself (Article 33 of the Civil Code)
already makes the reservation and the failure of the offended party to do so does not
bar him from bringing the action, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, We find
no legal justification for respondent court's order of dismissal
ANDAMO VS IAC
FACTS: Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette, Inc., a religious corporation, built through
its agents, waterpaths, water conductors and contrivances including an artificial lake
within its land. Inundated and eroded the spouses Emmanuel and Natividad Andamo's
land, caused a young man to drown, damaged petitioners' crops and plants, washed
away costly fences, endangered the lives of petitioners and their laborers during rainy
and stormy seasons, and exposed plants and other improvements to destruction. July
1982:spouses instituted a criminal action. On February 22, 1983: spouses filed a civil
case for damages. CA affirmed trial court issued an order suspending further hearings
in Civil Case until after judgment in the related Criminal Case. Spouses contend that the
trial court and the Appellate Court erred in dismissing Civil Case since it is predicated on
a quasi-delict.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is quasi-delict even if done in private property
HELD: YES. REVERSED and SET ASIDE. All the elements of a quasi-delict are present, to
wit: TAYLOR VS MERALCO
(c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the
defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff
While the property involved in the cited case belonged to the public domain and the
property subject of the instant case is privately owned, the fact remains that
petitioners' complaint sufficiently alleges that petitioners have sustained and will
continue to sustain damage due to the waterpaths and contrivances built by
respondent corporation. It must be stressed that the use of one's property is not
without limitations. Article 431 of the Civil Code provides that "the owner of a thing
cannot make use thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a third person." SIC
UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS. Moreover, adjoining landowners have mutual
and reciprocal duties which require that each must use his own land in a reasonable
manner so as not to infringe upon the rights and interests of others. Although we
recognize the right of an owner to build structures on his land, such structures must be
so constructed and maintained using all reasonable care so that they cannot be
dangerous to adjoining landowners and can withstand the usual and expected forces of
nature. If the structures cause injury or damage to an adjoining landowner or a third
person, the latter can claim indemnification for the injury or damage suffered.
Article 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. Whether it be conviction or acquittal would render meaningless the
independent character of the civil action and the clear injunction in Article 31, that his
action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the
result of the latter.

(a) damages suffered by the plaintiff FACTS: September 30, 1905 Sunday afternoon: David Taylor, 15 years of age, the son of
a mechanical engineer, more mature than the average boy of his age, and having
(b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he considerable aptitude and training in mechanics with a boy named Manuel Claparols,
must respond about 12 years of age, crossed the footbridge to the Isla del Provisor, for the purpose of
visiting Murphy, an employee of the defendant, who and promised to make them a
cylinder for a miniature engine.
After leaving the power house where they had asked for Mr. Murphy, they walked ART. 1902 A person who by an act or omission causes damage to another when there is
across the open space in the neighborhood of the place where the company dumped in fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the damage so done.
the cinders and ashes from its furnaces. They found some twenty or thirty brass
fulminating caps scattered on the ground. ART. 1903 The obligation imposed by the preceding article is demandable, not only for
These caps are approximately of the size and appearance of small pistol cartridges and personal acts and omissions, but also for those of the persons for whom they should be
each has attached to it 2 long thin wires by means of which it may be discharged by the responsible.
use of electricity. They are intended for use in the explosion of blasting charges of
dynamite, and have in themselves a considerable explosive power. The boys picked up The father, and on his death or incapacity the mother, is liable for the damages caused
all they could find, hung them on stick, of which each took end, and carried them home by the minors who live with them.
After crossing the footbridge, they met Jessie Adrian, less than 9 years old, and they xxx xxx xxx
went to Manuel's home. The boys then made a series of experiments with the caps, Owners or directors of an establishment or enterprise are equally liable for damages
trust the ends of the wires into an electric light socket - no result. Break the cap with a caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter may be
stone failed. Opened one of the caps with a knife, and finding that it was filled with a employed or on account of their duties.
yellowish substance they got matches. David held the cap while Manuel applied a xxx xxx xxx
lighted match to the contents. An explosion followed, causing more or less serious The liability referred to in this article shall cease when the persons mentioned therein
injuries to all three. Jessie, who when the boys proposed putting a match to the prove that they employed all the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the
contents of the cap, became frightened and started to run away, received a slight cut in damage.
the neck. Manuel had his hand burned and wounded. David was struck in the face by
several particles of the metal capsule, one of which injured his right eye to such an ART. 1908 The owners shall also be liable for the damage caused
extent as to the necessity of its removal by the surgeons. Trial Court: held Manila 1 By the explosion of machines which may not have been cared for with due diligence,
Electric Railroad And Light Company liable. and for kindling of explosive substances which may not have been placed in a safe and
proper place.
ISSUES:
In order to establish his right to a recovery, must establish by competent evidence:
1. W/N the elemnents of quasi-delict to make Manila Electric Railroad And Light Damages to the plaintiff.
Company liable NO.
Negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally, or some person for
2. W/N Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co. sufficiently proved that they employed all whose acts it must respond, was guilty.
the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damage NO.
The connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the damage. While we
HELD: Reversing the judgment of the court below. ART. 1089 Obligations are created by hold that the entry upon the property without express invitation or permission would
law, by contracts, by quasi-contracts, and illicit acts and omissions or by those in which not have relieved Manila Electric from responsibility for injuries incurred, without other
any kind of fault or negligence occurs. fault on his part, if such injury were attributable to his negligence, the negligence in
leaving the caps exposed on its premises was not the proximate cause of the injury
received. Cutting open the detonating cap and putting match to its contents was the
proximate cause of the explosion and of the resultant injuries inflicted. Manila Electric
is not civilly responsible for the injuries thus incurred.
Two years before the accident, David spent 4 months at sea, as a cabin boy on one of
the interisland transports. Later he took up work in his father's office, learning
mechanical drawing and mechanical engineering. About a month after his accident he
obtained employment as a mechanical draftsman and continued in that employment
for 6 months at a salary of P2.50 a day; and it appears that he was a boy of more than
average intelligence, taller and more mature both mentally and physically than most
boys of 15.
The series of experiments made by him in his attempt to produce an explosion, as
described by Jessie who even ran away. True, he may not have known and probably did
not know the precise nature of the explosion which might be expected from the
ignition of the contents of the cap, and of course he did not anticipate the resultant
injuries which he incurred; but he well knew that a more or less dangerous explosion
might be expected from his act, and yet he willfully, recklessly, and knowingly produced
the explosion. It would be going far to say that "according to his maturity and capacity"
he exercised such and "care and caution" as might reasonably be required of him, or
that defendant or anyone else should be held civilly responsible for injuries incurred by
him under such circumstances. 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
consequences of his own acts, so as to make it negligence on his part to fail to exercise
due care and precaution in the commission of such acts; and indeed it would be
impracticable and perhaps impossible so to do, for in the very nature of things the
question of negligence necessarily depends on the ability of the minor to understand
the character of his own acts and their consequences. He was sui juris in the sense that
his age and his experience qualified him to understand and appreciate the necessity for
the exercise of that degree of caution which would have avoided the injury which
resulted from his own deliberate act; and that the injury incurred by him must be held
to have been the direct and immediate result of his own willful and reckless act, so that
while it may be true that these injuries would not have been incurred but for the
negligence act of the defendant in leaving the caps exposed on its premises,
nevertheless plaintiff's own act was the proximate and principal cause of the accident
which inflicted the injury. Rule of the Roman law was: Quod quis ex culpa sua damnum
sentit, non intelligitur sentire.
Just thing is that a man should suffer the damage which comes to him through his own
fault, and that he can not demand reparation therefor from another. Negligence is not
presumed, but must be proven by him who alleges it.
TAYAG VS ALCANTARA
FACTS: September 2, 1974 a.m.: Philippine Rabbit Bus bump Pedro Tayag Sr. was riding
on a bicycle along MacArthur Highway at Bo. San Rafael, Tarlac driven by Romeo Villa,
as a result of which he sustained injuries which caused his instantaneous death
Judge granted the motion, and consequently, suspended the hearing of Civil Case while
criminal case is pending judgment. RTC: acquitting the Romeo Villa of the crime of
homicide on the ground of reasonable doubt. Subsequently, the civil case was
dismissed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the civil case based on quasi-delict should be barred by the
acquittal in a criminal case.
HELD: NO. Order of dismissal should be, as it is hereby set aside.
Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or
commission complained of as a felony. such civil action may proceed independently of
the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
All the essential averments for a quasi delictual action are present, namely: (1) an act or
omission constituting fault or negligence on the part of private respondent; (2) damage
caused by the said act or commission; (3) direct causal relation between the damage
and the act or commission; and (4) no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties