Torts (Quasi-BDeuiet) " €narrer t Introbucrory Concerrs 1. TORTS in comimn law cover all' wrongful acts, although sometimes viewed to be limited only toa wrong independent of a contract. In common law coun- tries like the United States, torts may either be inten- tional or unintentional. They, may also fall under the category of strict liability torts, Intentional torts include: ~ battery, assault (apprehension of harmful or offensive contact),.false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IED), invasion of privacy, fraud, defamation of character (includes libel, which is written defamation of character and slander, which is non-writ- ten defamation of character), malicious prosecution, abuse of process, the real property tort, of trespass to land, and the personal property torts of conversion and ‘trespass to chattels..On the.other hand, unintentional torts are usually founded on negligent acts and may include malpractice (professional negligence), and prod- uct liability. ‘ 2. The word “tof?” came to be adopted in our jurispridence upon the implantation of American sov- ereignty in the Philippines. But there are important dif- ferences between the commen law on torts obtaining in the United States and the law on torts in the Philippines. ‘This is due to the fact that the provisions of our codes _goveriing legal wrongs which we call “torts” are some- times different from’ the common law on totts (see Nicolas, The Philippine Lazo on-Torts and Damages, p. 13).2 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES (CHAPTER1 : INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS 3, The Philippines is a civil Jaw country. Our 6. Quasi-delict, known in Spanish legal treatises private laws are found in codes mainly based on the | as culpa aquilina, isa civil law concept while “torts” is Spanish codes which were continued in force with cer- an Anglo-American or common law concept. Tort is tain modifications after the advent of the American re- much broader than culpa aquiliana because it includes gime and in laws passed by our legislature from time to not only negligence, but intentional criminal acts as well such as assault and battery, false imprisonment and de- ceit (Gashem Shookat Baksh vs: Court of Appeals, ef al, G.R. ‘No. 97336, February 19, 1993), time, These latter laws were based on, or greatly influ- ‘enced by, American ideas and principles which are the product of the common law. In the interpretation and application of our codes and legislation, our courts have 7. “*Quasi-detict;as defined in Article 2176 of the freely drawn upon American precedents and authori- Civil Code, (which is known in Spanish legal treatises as ties, The result of.all this is that many common law prin culpa aquiliana, culpa extra-contractual or cuasi-delitos) is ciples have been engrafted in our legal system. Perhaps, homologous but not identical to tort under the common inno branch of law in the Philippines is the blending of law, which includes not only negligence, but also inten- the common law and the civil law systems better exem- tional criminal acts, such as assault and battery, false plified that in the field of torts (Ibid, citing Jarencio, Phil- imprisonment, and deceit.” (Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. ippine Legal History). 2s, Court of Appenls, etal, G.R, No. 110295, October 18, 4: In the Philippines, our concept of torts leans 1993). towards'its civil law equivalent of eu aquiliane, Thus, 8. However, in cases of special torts (see discus- in Article 2176-of otir Civil Code, the following defini- sion in Chapter 7, infra.), willful acts may be made basis tion appeats: "Whoever by act or omission causes dam- of an.action for damages. “In the general scheme of the age to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged Philippine legal system envisioned by the Commission to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if responsible for drafting the New Civil Code, intentional there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the and malicious acts, with. certain exceptions, are to be Barties, is called a quasi-delict.” governed by'the Revised Penal Code while negligent Distinguished © °S.- inthe general plan ofthe Philippine legal sys- acts or omissions are to be covered by Article 2176 of the Civil Code. In between these opposite spectrums are in- i cious acts that are constitutive fromtorts tem, intentional and malicious ac jurious acts which, in the absence of Article 21, would also of torts in common law are governed by the Penal = " have been beyond redress. Thus, Article 21 fills that although ‘certain exceptions are made (See Report 2 , 1 ils ois cote Commission, Pp. fae) where ‘generally vacuum. Itis even postulated that together with Articles a nsideved tortious acts in the Philippines are limited to 19 and 20 of the Civil Code, Article 21 has greatly broad- acts committed by negligence and without intent. “Quasi- ened the scope of the law on civil wrongs; it has become delict under Art. 2176 is limited to negligent acts or omis- much more supple and adaptable than the Anglo-Ame sions and excludes the notion of willfulness or intent. In can law on torts.” (Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurispru- the general scheme of the Philippine legal system envi- dence on the Civil Code.of te Philippines, vol. 1, 1985 ed., sioned by the Commission responsible for drafting the 72). New Civil Code, intentional and malicious acts; with 9.’ _ The elements ofa quasi-dtit are (a) damages Elements of certain exceptions, are to be governed by the Revised suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the Quasi-delict Penal Code while negligent acts or omissions are tobe | —_—_ defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must covered by Article 2176:of the Civil Code” (Tolentino, respond; and (¢) the connection of cause and effect be~ Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the tween the fault or negligence of the defendant and the Philippines, Vol. 1, 1985 ed, 72). damages incurred by the plaintiff (Taylor vs. Manila Elec-LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES tric: Company, 16 Phil:8; Vergara vs: Court of Appeals, G.R. ‘No. 77679, Seplember 30, 1987,154 SCRA 564). ‘10: While quasi-delict is Timited to negligent acts or omissions and excludes intentional ones, said negli- gent acts may cover those which ‘are punishable by law. ‘Article 2176, where it refers to “fault or negligence,” cov- tts not only acts “not punishable by law but also acts ‘ciminal in character. In other words, culpa aquiliana {includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be pun- ishable by law. eee . 1, Imeonséquence, a negligent act that has been made subject of criminal case may at the same.time be ‘an object of an action for quasisdelict” we 12.” Article 2176, where it refers to “fault or negli; gence,” covers not only acts “not punishable by, Jaw" But also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a separate civil ‘action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether ‘or not he is criminally ited and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not al- Towed, if he is actually charged. also criminally, to re- cover 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. In ‘other words, 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 lability for the same act consid ered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is notextin: guished even by.a declaration in the criminal case that the eriminal act charged has not happened or. has not ‘been committed by the accused (Eleano us. Hill, G-R. No. 1-24803, May 26, 1977). : 13. “Responsibility for fault or negligence unde= Iquasi-delict] is entirely separate and distinct from the ‘avil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code, But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.” (Ari. 2177, New Civil Code, of, NCC). ; 41. Culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution ‘under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own, CHAPTER INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS: and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from.a delict or crime (Castillo, etal. 03. Court of appa, etal, GR. No. 48541, August 21, 1989, 176 SCRA 591), 15. ‘According to the Code’ Commission: “The foregoing provision (Article 2177) though at first sight startling, is not so novel or extraordinary when we con- sider the exact nature of criminal and’ civil negligence. ‘The former is a violation of the criminal law, while the latter is a ‘culpa aquiliana’ or quasi-delict, of ancient ori- gin, having always had its own foundation and indi- viduality, separate from criminal negligence. Such dis- tinction between criminal negligence and ‘culpa extra- contractual’ or ‘cuas-detito’ has been sustained by deci- sion of the Supreme Court of Spain and maintained as lear, sound and perfectly tenable by Maura, an out- standing Spanish jurist. Therefore, under the proposed Article 2177, acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether an reasonable doubt or not, shall riot bea bar to’a subsequent civil action, not for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, but for dam- ages due to a quasi-delict or ‘culpa aquitiana.’ But said article forestalls a double recovery.” (Report of the Code ‘Commission, p. 162, cited in Eleano vs. Fl, supra), ie The sated reo hat the same ate emi sion can create two Kinds of liability on the part of the ‘offendes, that is, civil liability ex ele ond il ability ‘ex quasi delicto. Since the same negligence can give rise either to a delict or crime or to 4 quasi-delict or tort, either of these two types of civil liability may be én- forced’ 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 Geant o,Court of App, CR. No, BDA, March 21, -17., Some.of the differences between crimes un- Cul der the Peral Code andthe culpa aquliont ox custo aqutiana distinguishes lic interest, while cuasi-delitos are only of private con- ffm culpa ‘cern; (b) that, consequently, the Penal Code punishes or ‘minal under the Civil Code are: (a) that crimes affect the corrects the criminal act, while the Civil Code, by means of indemnification, merely repairs the damage; andLAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES 1 delictS are not as brdad as'qlas#delicls, because Stormer ‘afe-punished only if there is a'ipénal’law eatly covering thém, while the latte éuds- defo in- clude all acts in which “any kind of fault or negligence intervenes.” (See, Barredo. es, Garcia, G.R. No. 48006, July 8, 1942, citing Colin,and Capitant, "Curso, Elemental de Derecho Cioil,” Vo. 3, p-728.). 118." May ‘the civil‘action for eiilpa aquitiand and ‘thé ctimirial'actioh for the same negligent act be filed simultaneously? The Supreme Court, in: Rafal Reyes ‘Trudking Corporation os. People fe Philippines, etl, OR, No: 129029; April 3,2000, fisst atswered thie question’ ‘In Rafael Reyes. Trucking, Corporation case, the Provincial. panes ‘Tgabela filed, with the Regional Trial, Court anjamended information, charging Romeo Dunca:y.de,Tumol, with reckless impridence resulting in. double homicide and damage.to. property Upon ah raignment, the offended, parties made a. to file-a separate ciyi] action against the accused, arising fromthe offense charged. Thereafter, the offended: par ties actually filed with the Regional Trial, Court:a com: pplaint against the employer of the driver based on quasi idelict. Among the issues raised was whether the Court may award damages {6 the offencled parties in the crit, ral case despite the flitig of a civil action against the employer'of the truck driver: The Supreme Court rulec that “[i]n négligence case’, thé dggiieved patty has tHe choice between (1) an action to enforce civil liability atis- ing from crime under Aiticle 100' of the Revised Penal Code; and Q) a ‘separate aétion for gist delict unde? “Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Once the choice is made, the iijured party can not avail him self of any other remedy because he may not recover damages twice for the same negligent act or omission of the accused. pee alan 1 Fon Heed a) 100. Cio inky of «person guy of flony. — Ever son criminally Hable for a felony is also ily liable. CHAPTER INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS, 20.. In other words, “the same act or omission can create two: Kinds of liability on the part of the of- fender, that is, civil liability ex delicto, and civil liability quasi delicto” either of which “may be enforced against the culprit, subject to the caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the offended party cain not recover damages under both types of liability.” (Ibid.) 21, But the decision drew several dissents. Chief Justice Davide said “{tJhe aggrieved parties in criminal cases may. pursue their claims for damages cither as delictual damages, or quasi-delictuel damages under Ar- ticle 2176 of the Civil Code, which the Code considers as “entirely distinct and separate from the civil ability aris- ing from negligence under the Revised Penal Code.” 22. Justice Vitug, in his dissent, also said “Lala early established rule under our law is that an act or omission; extra-contractual in nature, causing damage to another, here being failt or negligence can create two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offendet, i.e, civil liability ex delcto and civil ability ex quasi delict. Either one of these two possible liabilities may be sought to be enforced against the offender subject, however, to the caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the offended party cannot “recover damages twice for the ‘same act or omission” or under both causes. Outside of this proscription, the two civil liabilities are distinct and independent of each other; thus, and conversely against the rule on double recovery, the failure of recovery in cone will not necessarily preclude recovery in the other. 23, In the later case of Casupandn, etal. vs. Laroyn, GRR. No. 145391, August 26, 2002, concerning a vehicular accident involving two parties, each believing that the accident was caused by the fault of the other, the issue raised was whether an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless imprudence can validly file, simulta- neously and independently, a separate civil action for quasi-delict against the private complainant in the crimi- nal case. The Supreme Court held that “{allthough these two actions arose from the same act or omission, they’ have different causes of action. The criminal case is based’ ‘on culpa criminal punishable under the Revised PenalLAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES Code while the civil ease is based on culpa aguiliana ac- tionable under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code. 24. Under Section 1 of the present Rule 112%, what is “deemed instituted” with the criminal action is only the action to ecover civil liability arising from the crime or ex-delico. All the other civil actions under Articles 32, Institution of Criminal and Cini Actions." (a) Wher nN ti chia scien ce ining tose i eg el a cee te eaten Saree acne Con ee ee gence Oe or Soar egg ote a iy pt veoetinr neste ry comers aly it escent nit ats ce ae Saucer acta ar tr hn ae spin the complaint or information, the corresponding fling fees shall be sent pore By ery ee esta eee bere I ea pty em san Ered have been the subject thereof may be iigated ins eparaté civ to) iin actin fr vito ofits Pebanen Big SR renee meee pe aga eel pone er ae pe Ta ie ctr eran ee ioe 2 a ae tc lrg kel ree cee ats lon fs gi crane nck Sr ne ee teed cl ea i a re Set en ate a Le et lee Se nee al na ot ye caer sei ue aetna a es a eee ee coal dee) ee (CHAPTER. INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code are no longer “déemed ituted,” and may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the crimi nal action The failure to make a reservation iit the ctimi- nal action is not a waiver of the tight to file a separate and independent civil action baséel on these articles of the Civil ‘Code. Verily, the civil actions based on these articles of the Civil Cotte aré separate, distinet and inde- pendent of the civil action “deemed instituted” in the ‘criminal action (Ibid.). in 25. Under the present Rule 111, the offended party i8'still given 'the option to file'a separate’ civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto by reserving such right in the criminal action before the prosecu- tion presents its evidence. Also, the offended party is deemed to make such reservation if he files a sepa- rate civil action before filing the criminal action. If the civil, action, to recover civil liability ex-delicto is filed separately but its trial has not-yet commenced, the civil action may be- consolidated with the crimi- nal action. The consolidation ‘under this Rule does not apply. to separate civil actions arising from the same act: or omissionifiled under Articles 32°, “ARTICLE 22. Any: public officer or employee, or any private inal no dey ort Sina dns lates rin ‘ny manne impedes or impale any ofthe fol nd ber dot another feson sale lace he ae for aseogen (0) = Bredom of eligi; ©) Preedom ofspecchy Fredo fo write forthe presto to maintain a periodi- calpiblcaton, 1@) Freedom fom arbitrary or illegal detention: i (8) » Freedom of suite. (The ig gait dean of propery without dae process of ws " 1), The right oa just compensation when private istaten or pubtewses =r 18). Thesghtto the equal protection ofthe laws: (9) —The-night to be secure in once person, howe, papers; and fects againch unreasonable searches ad sleure (G0) The liberty of abode and of changing the sine; (G1) The pevacy of communication and eorespendene; (02). The ight to become a member of associations or sodet- ses for purposes not contrary toa, r0 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES 33¢, 34° and 2176 of the Civil Code. 26, : Tt thiis appears that an aggtieved party may. file criminal casé ant civil case for quasi-delict on the sani negligent act or omission. This, essentially, is the import alco of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Sps,’ Santos, é al. vs, Pizardo, al, G.R. No. 151452, july 29, 2005 when It said that "[alp.ac or omission causing dayhage to aviother (9) Thesghtotahe patina pate emi tpitin CGovemanent foes fier: = ; (14): The zight to be free from involuntary servitude in. any: fon, be maintained, may arise not only out of separate aitd distinct acts; contracts ‘or transactions, but also’in sorte! ‘cases, out of the same act, contract, or transaction” (The! Revised Rules of Cotirt in the Philippines, Vol. 1, page 104; by Vicente J. Francisco). . In the case of passengers injured by reason of the negligence of the bus driver, the negligent act of the diver may bring, about an action for culpa contractual, against the operator of the bus and culpa aquiliana for the negligent act of selecting and supervising, the em- ployee-driver. It needs to be bome in mind that culpa ‘quiliana arid cilpa coritactual are separate legal institu- tions, and are subject to different requirements and de- ferises. While cil contractual requires éxtcaordinary dili- sgeitce, culpa aquiliaria, on the other hand, only calls for Gue diligence in the selection and supervision of em- ployees. In culpa contractual, the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees is not avail= able. In fact, in Art. 1759 of the Civil Code, common carriers are lable for death of or injuries to passengers (CHAPTER INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS: caused by negligence or willful acts of their employees. ‘More importantly, “in an.action basedion a contract:of carriage, the court need not make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to hold:it responsible for the payment of. the damages sought by the passenger. By the contract of carriage, the carrier assumed the express obligation to transport the passengers to'their destination safely. and to observe ex- traofdinary’ diligence'with a due regard for all the'cir- cumstances, and any injury that might be suffered by its [passengers is right away attributable to the fault or neg- ligence of the carrier” (Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Com- pany, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. ca November 14, 1988, citing Art. 1756, New Civil ie) In fact, in the United States, the prevailing rule is “Where separate actions may be brought for injury to person and to property resulting from the same wrang- ful act, a judgment in an action for the injury to the person or property is nota bar to the maintenance of an action for the injury to the other, whether the judgment in the earlier case is in favor of the plaintiff or the defen- dant. However, the judgment in the first action may pre- ‘lude the relitigation of identical issues in the second action.” (74 Am Jur 2d, at p. 668). 55. Of course a party may opt not to file separate suits but instead institute but one ease and allege ter native causes of action for culpa contractual and culpa ‘guiliana. This was expressly allowed by the Supreme Court in the case of Fabre, Jr. et al. 2s. Court of Appeals, et al,, G.R. No. 111127, July 26, 1996 where it was held that it is permitted for a party “to allege alternative causes of action and join as many parties as may be liable on such ‘causes of action so long as plaintiffs do not recover twice for the same injury.” 56. Anent the question of whether an aggrieved party can institute an action for tulpa contractual after having instituted a criminal case for reckless imprudence against the driver of the passenger vehicle, the Supreme Court has settled the issue with definiteness when It ruled in the old case of Emerenciana Vda. De Medina, etal.‘LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES us, Cresencia, eti,, G.R.No:'L-8194, July’ 11, 1956, that ‘plaintiffs’ action’'for damages is’ indeperident of the criminal case and based, not on the employer's subsid- jary liability under the Revised Penal:Code,:but on’a breach of the carrier’s contractual obligation to carry his safely.to their destination (culpa contractual): x x°«-(I}n ‘culpa contractual, the liability of the-cazrier is not merely subsidiary ‘or se¢ondary, but direct and ime mediate (Articles 1755, 1756, and 1759, New Civil Code).”