Torts Doctrines
of damages pursuant to Art. 21 not because of such promise to
Concept: Culpa aquiliana, quasi-delict, torts
Padilla v. CA
The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the liability of the
accused for damages only when it includes a declaration that
the facts from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.
Thus, the civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal where the
acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, as only preponderance
of evidence is required in civil cases. There is nothing contrary
to the Civil Code provision in the rendition of a judgment of
acquittal and a judgment awarding damages in the same
criminal action. The two can stand side by side.
Syquia v. CA
The law defines negligence as 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." the diligence to be observed in the
performance of the obligation is that which is expected of a
good father of a family.
Gashem Shookat Baksh v. CA
The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per se is
not an actionable wrong. Where a man's promise to marry is in
fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a
woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter
becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him
in a sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention
of marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme
or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and
to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award
marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the
willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed
thereafter. It is essential, however, that such injury should have
been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs
or public policy.
LRTA v. Natividad
A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and when the
same act or omission causes the injury, one resulting in culpa
contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana, Article 2194 of the
Civil Code can well apply. In fine, a liability for tort may arise
even under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the
contract. Stated differently, when an act which constitutes a
breach of contract would have itself constituted the source of
a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed between the
parties, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort,
thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.
Distinctions: Culpa aquiliana, contractual, criminal
Calalas v. CA
 CULPA AQUILIANA: in quasi-delict, the negligence or
fault should be clearly established because it is the basis
of the action.
 CULPA CONTRACTUAL: the action can be prosecuted
merely by proving (1) the existence of the contract and
(2) the fact that the obligor, in this case the common
carrier, failed to transport his passenger safely to his
destination.
  The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in
actions for quasi-delict, not in actions involving breach
of contract.
 Where there is a pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, it is the parties themselves who
create the obligation, and the function of the law is
merely to regulate the relation thus created. In the case
at bar, upon the happening of the accident, the
presumption of negligence at once arose, and it became
the duty of petitioner to prove that he had to observe
extraordinary diligence in the care of his passengers.
Barredo v. Garcia
Quasi-delict or "culpa aquiliana " is a separate legal institution
under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own, and
individuality that is entirely apart and independent from delict
or crime.
In this jurisdiction, the separate individuality of a cuasi- delito
or culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code has been fully and
clearly recognized, even with regard to a negligent act for which
the wrongdoer could have been prosecuted and convicted in a
criminal case and for which, after such a conviction, he could
have been sued for this civil liability arising from his crime.
Cangco v. Manila Railroad
A difference must be made between a situation (1) where the
damage caused by the employee’s negligent act results in the
breach of a contractual obligation of the master, from that of a
situation (2) wherein the damage caused does not amount to a
breach of any contractual obligation. The differences are: In
situation (2) when there is no breach of any contractual
obligation (EX- CONTRACTU):
From this article two things are apparent:
 That when an injury is caused by the negligence of a
servant or employee there instantly arises a
presumption of law that there was negligence on the
part of the master or employer either in the selection of
the servant or employee, or in supervision over him,
after the selection, or both; and
 that that presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de
jure, and consequently, may be rebutted. It follows
necessarily that if the employer shows to the
satisfaction of the court that in selection and
supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a
good father of a family, the presumption is overcome
and he is relieved from liability.
"As a general rule * * * it is logical that in case of extra-
contractual culpa, a suing creditor should assume the burden of
proof of its existence, as the only fact upon which his action is
based; while on the contrary, in a case of negligence which
presupposes the existence of a contractual obligation, if the
creditor shows that it exists and that it has been broken, it is
not necessary for him to prove the negligence." If the
negligence of servants or agents could be invoked as a means
of discharging the liability arising from contract, the anomalous
result would be that persons acting through the medium of
agents or servants in the performance of their contracts, would
be in a better position than those acting in person.