2019 Torts Reviewer Ver. 6

OUTLINE ON DE LEON’S COMMENT AND CASES ON TORTS AND DAMAGES VER.
DOES IT INCLUDE INTENTION?
THEY MAY BE INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT –

 The former is when the defendant is consciously
aware that his conduct is wrongful; and
TORTS AND DAMAGES  The latter is when the defendant does not intend an
invasion of plaintiff’s right but is aware that, by his
CHAPTER 1. – INTRODUCTION
behavior, he is taking unreasonable risks.
MEANING OF TORT AND TORTIOUS ACT
RECKLESS, GROSS, OR WANTON WRONG – Sometimes
courts recognize a third category, placed between
WHAT IS AN ACT? – An act is an overt affirmative or
intentional and negligent wrongs – reckless, gross, or
negative conduct. (Author’s definition.)
wanton wrong.
TORT – It is used in French to mean “wrong,” deriving
It is a species of negligence which imports knowledge and
from the Latin word “tortus” meaning twisted, as if to say
consciousness of the high risk of harm resulting from his
tortious conduct is twisted conduct or conduct that
conduct as to be equivalent to an intentional wrong.
departs from the existing norm.
HISTORY OF TORT AS A LEGAL CONCEPT
In the absence of a statutory definition, a tort is a legal
wrong that causes harm for which the violator is subject
Tort law emerged out of criminal law, and was, therefore,
to civil liability.
originally concerned principally with violent breaches of
the peace.
TORTIOUS ACT – Is a wrongful act. It has been defined as
the commission or omission of an act by one, without
A. COMMON LAW TORT – Tort is predominantly
right, whereby another receives some injury, directly or
common law, that is, judges rather than legislatures
indirectly, in person, property, or reputation.
usually define what counts as a tort and how
compensations is to be measured.
ESSENCE OF OF TORT
Common Law is a series of decisions becoming law
A. DEFENDANT’S POTENTIAL FOR CIVIL LIABILITY – The
thru repetition.
essence of tort is the defendant’s potential for civil
liability to the victim for harmful wrongdoing and
B. NO CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN TORT AND CRIME
correspondingly the victim’s potential for
– Acts now called “torts” have been committed from
compensation or other relief.
the very beginning of society, but a development of
B. EXISTENCE OF PHYSICAL HARMS, NOT ESSENTIAL –
anything like a clearly formulated conception of a
Some torts cause no physical harms at all but are
tort is comparatively recent.
nonetheless actionable.
C. VARIATIONS OF TORTS – May other torts can be
C. NOTION OF TORT AS A SPECIFIC WRONG – In the
described or named, and in fact courts are free to
next stage of development of the common law, the
recognize variations and even to recognize “new
notion of tort, in a distinct and integral sense, still
torts” at any time.
remained unformulated and the history of tort is to
be sought in the history of the various delictual
KINDS OF WRONGS
actions which, in conjunction, made up the whole
sum of then recognized civil liability for wrongs.
WRONGS ARE EITHER CIVIL, CRIMINAL, OR BOTH –
 The wrong is Civil, when it involves a violation of a D. PLACE OF TORTS IN PHILIPPINE LAW – Many
private legal right; and provisions of our present Civil Code recognize many
 Criminal, when it is regarded as an offense against (e.g., proximate cause, contributory negligence)
the public and is penalized by law as a crime or concepts in the Angle-American law of torts. In fact,
felony. certain provisions of the Civil Code, particularly
RE: NOTES BASED ON THE BOOK OF DE LEON. FOCUSES ON THE MAIN TOPICS PRESENTED IN THE TABLE OF CONTENTS. THE SAME IS INTENDED MERELY AS A REVIEWER.
1
READ THE GIVEN MATERIALS FIRST. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. | ARELLANO LAW TORTS REVIEWER | 2019 | VERSION 6
OUTLINE ON DE LEON’S COMMENT AND CASES ON TORTS AND DAMAGES VER. 6
Articles 19, 20, 21, are broad enough to include civil 3. Contract law is at least formally strict liability law.
liability arising from crime. Most tort law on the other hand, is at least formally
fault based.
FUNCTIONS OR GOALS OF TORT LAW 4. It is a character of torts that the duties from the
violation of which tort result are creatures of the
1. MORALITY OR CORRECTIVE JUSTICE – Attempts to law and not of particular agreements. A contract is
hold defendants liable for harms they wrongfully not essential to the existence of tort
caused and no others. 5. A breach of contract may be treated as a tort where
2. SOCIAL UTILITY OR POLICY – Concern is to provide a the law casts its separate obligation.
system of rules that works toward the good of 6. A refusal to contract may constitute a tort where
society. there is a duty imposed by law, on one so refusing,
3. LEGAL PROCESS – Focuses on the litigation process to enter into contracts of the character sought, as
itself as a good to be preserved rather than on the an incident to his trade or profession.
abstract ideal of justice or social utility. 7. Duress, although it often arises in connection with
4. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS – Potential conflicts breach of contract, is nevertheless a tort, and
between the first two views for the functionality of where a claim is grounded in duress, one who
Torts in as much as that some events require the sustains damage as a result of being subjected to
few to suffer for the good of the many. duress may sue as plaintiff in a tort action, thus
5. DISTRIBUTION OF LOSS – Promoting the broad obviating the need for privity of contract.
distribution is considered one of the functions of
tort liability. DAMAGES AND OTHER REMEDIES
6. REDRESS OF SOCIAL GRIEVANCES – One view is that
the right to sure in tort promotes the redress of 1. RESTITUTION; INJUNCTION – Forces the
social grievances, especially against large tortfeasor to discharge gains he wrongfully
impersonal institutions. obtained by tort, and injunction, which compels
7. SUMMARY - A MIXED SYSTEM – One view does not him to cease his tortous conduct.
dominate the significance of the other and so torts
law does not serve any single goal but a set of 2. COMPENSATION OF HARM SUFFERED – The
different goals with respect to each situation. award is usually a money award called damages
and is intended as a kind of compensation for the
TWO GENERAL CLASSES OF TORTS harm suffered.
1. PROPERTY TORTS - embrace all injuries and PERSONS ENTITLED TO SUE FOR TORT
damages to property, whether realty or personalty.
2. PERSONAL TORTS - include all injuries to the 1. Particular individual injured
person, whether to the body, reputations or 2. Persons upon whom tort committed
feelings. A tort which is not an injury to property is 3. Person injured by tort committed upon another
a personal tort. 4. Several persons wronged by the same act
5. Persons especially injured by contract violation
CONCEPT OF PERSONAL INJURY IN TORT LAW 6. Person directly, not collaterally, injured
It embrace all actionable injuries to the individual himself.
It may denote an injury affecting the reputation,
character, conduct, manner and habits of a person.
TORT AND CONTRACT
1. Contract duties are created by the promises of the

parties while tort duties are imposed as rules of law
2. Contracts are largely about economic matters such
as buying and selling many torts involve physical
harms
2
PERSONS LIABLE FOR TORT NOTE: Prodigality per se doesn’t automatically

modify or restrict a person’s capacity to act. There
As a general rule, all persons or entities are liable for torts must be a declaration thereof and be placed under
committed by them, or by their agents while acting within guardianship under the Rules on Special
the scope of their duties or powers. Proceeding.
 CIVIL INTERDICTION – An accessory penalty
1. TORTFEASOR – Every person legally responsible is imposed upon an accused who is sentenced to a
liable for a tort committed by him provided, if it is principal penalty not lower than reclusion temporal.
the proximate cause of an injury to another (NCC, Art. 38)
2. PERSON OTHER THAN TORTFEASOR – Unless a LIABILITY OF JOINT TORTFEASORS

person participates in or ratifies a tortious act, he is
not liable for the act or omission of another. Two or more persons who act together in committing a
wrong or contribute to its commission or assist or
a. Mere presence at the commission of a wrongful participate therein actively and without common intent,
act by another will not render him liable as a so that injury results to a third person from the joint
participant. However, proof that a person is wrongful act of the wrongdoers.
present at the commission of a wrongful act
b. Mere knowledge - that a tort is being TEST OF JOINT TORTFEASOR – The primary test of joint
committed against another will not be sufficient tortfeasors is whether plaintiff has a single cause of action
to establish liability against such tortfeasor or whether he has only a several
c. Mere acquiescence in the commission of a tort cause of action against each of them.
after the act does not make a person liable
d. Ratification must be founded on full knowledge PRINCIPLES REGARDING JOINT TORTFEASORS
of the facts constituting wrong which has been
committed or with a purpose on the part of the 1. A person who joins in committing a tort cannot
principal to take the consequences on himself escape liability by showing that another person is
without inquiry. liable also
e. No duty to control conduct of a third person as 2. Where two or more persons owe another a
to prevent him from causing bodily harm to common duty, and by a common neglect of that
another unless a special relationship exists duty, the other person is injured, there is joint tort
between one and the third person. and all may be held solidarily liable.
3. One is liable for the act of his joint tortfeasor
PERSON INCAPABLE OF MAKING A CONTRACT – Where a although the act cause other or greater injury than
contract is an essential element of the tort, a person he intended.
incapable of making the contract is not liable. 4. Persons may be solidarily liable for the commission
RESTRICTIONS ON CAPACITY TO ACT (M-I-D-I-P-C) of a tort by reason of a contractual relation existing
 MINORITY - State of a person who is under the age between them such as, for example, agency, master
of legal majority which is eighteen years of age; and servant, and partnership.
 INSANITY – State of a person whose mental 5. The exoneration or exemption from liability of one
faculties are diseased; joint tortfeasor does not exonerate or exempt the
 DEAF-MUTE – Lacking sense of hearing and the other, unless the liability of one results from his
inability to speak; responsibility for the act of another rather than
NOTE: Only deaf-mutes who do not know how to from his own act.
write are declared by law incapable of giving
consent. WHERE TORTFEASORS ACTED INDEPENDENTLY OF EACH
 IMBECILITY – State of a person who while advanced OTHER
in age has the mental capacity comparable to that
of a child between two and seven years of age; Generally, concert of action in the execution of a common
 PRODIGALITY – A spendthrift or squanderer; purpose is essential to a joint tort, but, independent
tortfeasors whose torts concur to cause a single injury
may be regarded in law as joint tortfeasors.
3
A. INJURIES SEPARATE AND DISTINCT – Where wrong OTHER CIVIL CODE AND SPECIAL LAW PROVISIONS –
was not acted in concert, and separate and distinct Provisions devoted to Human Relations provided by the
injuries are caused by the act or neglect of each, the Civil Code – Formulates some fundamental principles or
liability is joint or separate only, and each is liable guides for human conduct, violation of which may give
only for the damage caused by his own tort. rise to liability for damages.
B. INJURY SINGLE AND INDIVISIBLE – Where the the Under 2177, acquittal from an accusation of criminal
concurrent or successive negligent acts or omissions negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not
of two or more persons, although acting be a bar to subsequent civil action, not for civil liability
independently of each other, are, in combination, arising from criminal negligence, but fro damages due to a
the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana, although said article
a third person, and it is impossible to determined in forestalls a double recovery.
what proportion each contributed to the injury,
either is said to be responsible for the entire injury. CHAPTER 2. – ELEMENTS AND TYPES OF TORTS
LAW GOVERNING TRANSITORY TORTS CAUSE OF ACTION IN TORT
LAW OF THE PLACE; LAW OF THE FORUM – The ordinary A cause of action is a formal statement in the complaint
rule is that the law of the place where the injury was of the ultimate or essential facts that gave rise to a
occasioned or inflicted governs in respect of the right of remedial right.
action, and the law of the forum in respect of matters
pertaining to the remedy only. TEST OF CAUSE OF ACTION – Whether the defendant
owed plaintiff any legal duty to do something which
The power of a State to impose responsibility for injuries defendant wrongfully did not do, or not to do something
within its borders may not be curtailed by agreements which he wrongfully did so, in violation of the legal right
made elsewhere. or rights of the plaintiff.
AUTHOR’S NOTE: The lex loci delicti commissi is the Latin ELEMENTS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION
term for "law of the place where the delict was
committed" in the conflict of laws. 1. Legal right in favor of a person (plaintiff);
2. Correlative legal obligation on the part of another
DETERMINATION OF PLACE OF WRONG – The law of the to respect or not to violate such right; and
place where the injury is suffered claimed as tort governs. 3. A wrong in the form of an act or omission in
violation of said legal right and duty with
PHILIPPINE LAWS ON TORTS consequent injury or damage to plaintiff.
Under Article 1157 of the Civil Code, “Obligations arise OCCURRENCE OF THE LAST ELEMENT – It is only upon the
from: (1) Law; (2) Contracts; (3) Quasi-contracts; (4) Acts occurrence of the last element that a cause of action
or omissions punished by law; and (5) Quasi-delicts” arises giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an action
against the defendant for the recovery of damages
MAIN CIVIL CODE PROVISIONS – Obligations derived from suffered by him and/or other appropriate relief.
quasi-delicts are governed mainly by Articles 2176 to
2194, Chapter 2 (Quasi-Delicts), Titile XVII (Extra- EXISTENCE OF LEGAL RIGHT AND DUTY
Contractual Obligations) of the Civil Cide and by Special
laws. NECESSITY FOR EXISTENCE – A cause of action cannot
exist without the concurrence of a default and of a right
By Article 2178, the provisions that apply to culpa and duty.
contractual [i.e Articles 1172 (responsibility arising from
negligence), 1173 (definition of negligence) and 1174 LEGAL RIGHT - Well founded claim enforced by sanctions
(responsibility for fortuitous events)] are expressly made
likewise applicable to a quasi-delict.
4
LEGAL DUTY - Which the law requires to be done or  If the duties involved arise, without reference to
forborne to a determinate person or to the public. any relation assumed by contract, from
circumstances in which the presence or absence of
MORAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES – Conduct, even though a contract is equally immaterial, in a legal point of
improper and causing harm to another, does not view, they are not restricted to persons who are
constitute a tort unless a legal, as distinguished from a parties or privies to a contract which happens to be
moral, right is violated or duty disregarded. involved, and the presence of the contract does not
destroy their rights which flow from other
One who acts under a moral obligation or charitable circumstances with respect to the contract.
impulse does not thereby assume a legal duty that will
afford a basis for tort liability. VIOLATION OF LEGAL RIGHT AND DUTY
ASSUMPTION OF GRATUITOUS UNDERTAKING – The In order to constitute a tort, not only must a right and
person so rendering the gratuitous service to another is duty exist, but there must be conduct constituting a
not subject to liability for discontinuing the services if he breach of duty or a violation of a right.
does not thereby leave the other in a worse position than
he was in when the services were began. (See Art. 2176) LAWFUL EXERCISE OF LEGAL RIGHTS –
GR: An action is not wrongful if done in the exercise of an
BOUNDS OF RIGHTS AND DUTIES SUFFICING AS BASIS OF equal or superior right. A person may use all such force as
TORT – The underlying principle is that one owes another is reasonably necessary to protect his person or property,
the duty fixed by law not to negligently, willfully, or and one is not an insurer that his lawful acts shall not
wrongfully do an act which will probably be injurious to injuriously affect others.
him, unless there be a legal justification.
XPN: Nevertheless, even the exercise of a right, in a
NATURE OF RIGHT INVADED – The right invaded must be manner which is unlawful, constituting a tort, wherein the
personal to the party injured. liability arises on and for the manner of acting, rather
than the act itself.
a. A private individual cannot maintain an action in
tort to redress a wrong of a public nature unless he POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE CONDUCT – A breach of duty
has sustained some injury which is special and being essential, there must be some unlawful act or
peculiar to himself omission at the foundation of every tort. The act causing
the injury may also result from nonfeasance, malfeasance,
b. A breach of duty owed to one class of persons or misfeasance.
cannot be the basis of a right in favor of a person
not within that class. MISFEASANCE MALFEASANCE NONFEASANCE
Improper Performance of Omission of
PRIVITY OF CONTRACT AS ELEMENT IN TORT performance of some act which some act which
some act which ought not to be ought to be
Where a contract co-exists with duties purely legal and might be lawfully done. performed.
non-consensual in origin and nature, the question done.
whether such duties exist with respect to, and hence
confer correlative rights on, persons not parties not privy DUTY TO REFRAIN FROM ACTS HARMFUL TO OTHERS –
to the contract, depends on the nature of the duties. Whenever, by an act which cannot be justified in law, and
which could have been avoided, a person inflicts an
 If the duties attach to a relation or status created by immediate injury by force, he is legally answerable in
the contract, as incidents imposed thereon by the damages to the party injured.
law, no correlative rights exist beyond the limits of
the relation thus established; hence, there is no In determining whether an act is wrongful, a test
duty as to anyone not a party or privy to such frequently applied is the ability of a prudent man in the
relationship. exercise o ordinary care to foresee that injury or damage
will naturally or probably result.
5
In the former class, damage flows from the wrongful act,

RELATION BETWEEN WRONGFUL ACT AND INJURY itself injurious to another’s right, although no perceptible
loss or harm accrues therefrom.
GENERALLY – To authorize a recovery in tort, privity must
exist between the act of the wrongdoer and the injury In the latter, however, some specific actual damage is a
complained of. On the hand, privity is not an element of a condition precedent to the tort.
tort, where the wrongful act changed be the proximate or
legal cause of the injury complained of. DAMAGE RECOVERABLE – A person injured by the
commission of a tort is entitled to actual pecuniary
INTENTIONAL INJURIES – The rule that to render one compensation for the injury sustained and is limited to
liable for an injury to another resulting from a wrongful such such compensation
act, the injury must have been the proximate
consequence of such act, is applied strictly where the act XPN: Where the circumstances are such to warrant the
or omission resulting in the injury is merely negligence. allowance of exemplary damages.
The rule is relaxed so as to cover a wider filed or resulting ABSENCE OF OTHER ELEMENTS – The fact of loss to
injuries where the act is a willful or malicious tort, as plaintiff from defendant’s acts or omissions is not alone
distinguished from mere negligence. sufficient to constitute tort.
On this connection, intended results are often regarded as In the absence of other requisite elements, it is merely
proximate results. Nonetheless, no liability arises for damnum absque injuria (damage without wrong) and the
remote harms even in intentional torts. same does not constitute a cause of action.
WILLFUL ACTS – In respect of willful acts without MOTIVE, PURPOSE, AND INTENT AS ELEMENTS OF TORT
intention to cause injury, it has held that persons may be
held liable for the consequences that flow therefrom as a MOTIVE - impelling force or underlying or subjective
proximate cause thereof, whether they could have been reason for doing an act, or the mental state or force
foreseen or anticipated or not. which induces an act of violation.
UNLAWFUL ACTS – In cases involving unlawful acts PURPOSE - denotes the object of an act or the external or
without intention to cause injury, intervening causes are objectives result desired.
especially likely not to be held to preclude liability of the
wrongdoer. This rule prevails even though the defendant INTENT - an external act or an intelligent volition and is
did not intend the particular injury which followed. thus distinguishable from the term "motive" their use in
statements of legal principles has not always been
DAMAGE AS AN ELEMENT OF TORT mutually exclusive.
Mere imaginary or speculative grievances without MATERIALITY OF MOTIVE

tangible injury to any legal right afford no ground for
judicial action. MOTIVE IS MATERIAL – Lawful act constitutes an
actionable tort when unlawful means are employed
NATURE AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE DAMAGE – Depends purposely to injure another. Where acts constituting
on whether the tort: breach of contract were intentionally done out of malice
 Is one consisting of a legal wrong in itself or ill-will, the injured party may sue in tort rather than in
constituting an invasion of a right and thus, giving contract. In both case, tort liability is precluded in the
rise to legal damage; or absence of an evil motive.
 Is a breach of duty not necessarily violative of legal
rights and with which some actual express damage MOTIVE IS IMMATERIAL – Conduct which does not either
must concur in order to establish the violation of by itself or because of the manner of its exercise,
right essential to tort. constitute an invasion of the right of another is not
tortuous, however bad or malicious the actor's motives.
6
MATERIALITY OF INTENT  Wanton act - Wrongful act done on purpose or

in malicious disregard of the rights of others
1. INTENTIONAL ACT IS DONE IN IGNORANCE -
Voluntary act, presenting the elements of duty, 5. WILLFUL OR WANTON NEGLIGENCE – The act done
breach, and damage is tortious although or omitted must be intended, or must involve such
unaccompanied by a deliberate design to injure or reckless disregard of security and right as to imply
to commit an unlawful act. bad faith.
2. RESULTING DAMAGE IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT 6. ACTS ARISING OUT OF A CONTRACTUAL

CONTEMPLATED - Fortiori where defendant RELATIONSHIP – Accompanying every contract is
voluntarily engages in conduct designed to cause the duty to perform with care, skill, reasonable
some damage, it is immaterial, on the question of expedience, and faithfulness the thing agreed to be
the existence of a tort that the damage actually done, and the negligent failure to observe any of
brought is different from that contemplated by him these conditions is a tort, as well as a breach of
contract.
3. ACT COMPLAINED OF IS NOT DONE UNLAWFULLY
OR WITHOUT CARE - Although the ultimate motive PARTICULAR TYPES OF TORTS
is not bad, if the intent is to accomplish that
purpose be deliberately inflicting injury, the 1. GENERAL TYPES. – For the law to furnish redress,
goodness of the motive will not render non-tortious the wrongful act of the defendant must take effect
acts which are torts by reason of the badness of the upon some legal interest of the party complaining.
intent. E.g. violations against interests which are protected
by law embracing property rights, contractual
PARTICULAR KINDS OF TORTIOUS ACTS rights, or personal rights.
1. ACTS INTENDED TO INFLICT INJURY A. Culpable and intentional acts resulting in harm.
General rule - A cause of action arises whenever B. Acts involving culpable and unlawful conduct
one person, by an act not in the exercise of a lawful casing unintentional harm.
right, causes loss or does damage to another with C. Non culpable acts or conduct resulting in
an intent, either actual or constructive, to produce accidental harm which because of hazards
such harm, without just or lawful excuse or involved, the law imposes absolute liability
justifiable cause or occasion. notwithstanding the abuse of fault.
2. ACTS NOT INTENDED TO INFLICT INJURY - A cause 2. INTERFERENCE WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS.
of action may be predicated upon negligence, or the
failure to observe a standard of case prescribed by 3. INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SERVICES. – If a
law, without a conscious design to do wrong third person tortuously inflicts physical injury upon
a servant of another and as a result of which the
3. MALICIOUS ACTS - Defined not only as relating to servant is prevented from performing the duties
the intentional commission of a wrongful act, but owing to his master, the latter may recover from
also as involving wickedness, depravity and evil such third person damages resulting to him.
intent.
4. INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS. – The
There is no liability in tort for doing a lawful act right to pursue one’s business, calling, trade, or
even though it is done for the malicious purpose of occupation, or the reasonable expectancy of a
injuring another party, where there are also contract is a property right, which the law protects
legitimate reasons for doing the act. against unjustifiable or wrongful interference.
4. WILLFUL AND WANTON ACT NOTE: However a person has no right to be

 Willful act - One done intentionally, or on protected against competition.
purpose, and not accidentally and willfulness
implies intentional wrongdoing
7
Where a termination is procured by coercing one of RATIO: One of the reason assigned for the rule is
the parties to contract, improper interference of that the recovery of costs in the original action is
that character constitutes a tort available in behalf one of the matters involved therein, and becomes
of the party coerced and against the interferer. res judicata.
5. INTERFERENCE WITH PERSONAL RIGHTS – 9. UNAUTHORIZED SUIT IN ANOTHER'S NAME – A tort

Everyone has a legal right to their personal rights may arise from the unauthorized prosecution of a
which includes their right to social relations, suit in the name of another, irrespective of the
personal security to their homes, to their life, and merits of the suit if it had been properly brought.
and to happiness.
10. OTHER PARTICULAR TORTS – Various acts or
Ordinarily, an injury to the reputation is effected by conduct has been held to constitute, or not to
slanderous or libelous language. But non-slanderous constitute, an actionable tort under the facts and
words, as well as lawful acts, intended solely to circumstances of the particular case.
injure a man in his business, are actionable.
a. ACTS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS –
6. RUDENESS, THREATS, ABUSIVE LANGUAGE – GR: No liability can arise from someone who
GR: A cause of action may not be predicated upon sets in motion a public officer to do a lawful
mere rudeness, threats, abusive language or lack of act.
consideration of one person to another.
XPN: A person is liable where he authorizes a
XPN: Where such languages causes a mental or public officer to do an unlawful act or a lawful
emotional disturbance, or bodily injury or illness act in an unlawful manner, or to abuse,
resulting therefrom. exceed, or disregard his duty or authority, or
where he counsels, directs, or participates in
7. OBSTRUCTION OF, AND COMPELLING RESORT TO, the doing of any unlawful act.
LEGAL REMEDIES –
GR: One who impedes or obstructs another’s b. INJURIOUS FALSEHOOD – One may be legally
remedy for the enforcement of a fixed and responsible for written falsehoods maliciously
ascertained right against a third person has been circulated, which are made with the intention
held responsible for the injury occasioned. of producing injury, and do result in injury to
another.
XPN: There is no cause of action where no existing
right has been violated. Thus, merely compelling c. INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT OR DESTRUCTION
another to avail himself of his legal remedy by OF WILL – Authorities are divided upon
undertaking or carrying on litigation is not such whether such act is an actionable tort.
conduct as constituting a tort.
Ordinarily, the wrongful deprivation of a
8. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION OF A CRIMINAL ACTION person of his just bequest under a will or the
– Where the elements constituting such a cause of unlawful and malicious destruction of a will
action are not present, the mere failure of the resulting in loss to a beneficiary or legatee is
plaintiff to sustain his action does not give rise to a an actionable tort.
cause of action in favor of the defendant.
A legatee may maintain such an action,
As a general rule, the expense legal expenses of the however the law requires that the legacy to
winning party in an action may not be made the him can only be established by the testimonies
basis of a subsequent action against the losing of several witness.
party. In such case, the legal costs incurred in the
action are regarded as the full measure of liability d. TRADE SECRETS, INVENTIONS OR PATENTS –
incurred by the losing party. Such interference or misuse thereof may or
may not constitute a tort depending on the
means to discover the same.
8
I.e. If the use or disclosure thereof was AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES – Justifications are defenses but
consented or was achieved thru legal means they differ from the latter. The term “defenses” usually
then such actions does not constitute tort. refers to affirmative defenses, meaning those on which
the defendant has the burden of proof and the burden of
If such trade secrets, inventions, or patents persuasion.
was obtained otherwise, then such breach of
confidence, or theft thereof constitutes as a This burden means that the defendant must produce
tort. appropriate evidence on his defense and must also
persuade the court to believe it.
PRIMA FACIE TORT DOCTRINE
The court’s doubts about facts necessary to show the
The infliction of intentional harms resulting in damage plaintiff’s prima facie case work against the plaintiff; the
without excuse or justification by an act or a series of acts court’s doubts about the facts necessary to the
which would otherwise be lawful. defendant’s defense work against the defendant.
DOCTRINE OF STRICT OR ABSOLUTE LIABILITY IN TORT Examples of defenses are the statute of limitations,
prescription, contributory negligence, or immunity from
The actor, realizing the hazard of his undertaking suit.
nevertheless assumes the risk connected therewith and,
notwithstanding he is free from all wrong, and has used AUTHOR’S NOTE: The same term is better explained in
utmost care, he nevertheless is liable for any invasion of remedial law in which the latter defines the subject
the person or property rights of another. matter as an allegation of a new matter which, while
hypothetically admitting the material allegations in the
BASIS OF LIABILITY – The doctrine rests on intentional pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or
doing of that which person knows or should, in the bar recovery by him. Moreover, the part about affirmative
exercise of ordinary care, know may in normal course of defenses and justifications for conduct also overlap each
events reasonably cause loss to another. other.
CHAPTER 3. JUSTIFICATIONS AND DEFENSES AGAINST IN CASE OF PRIMA FACIE TORT

LIABILITY
In case of prima facie tort, the courts generally state that
GENERALLY the acts complained of are not a basis for recovery unless
done without justification.
In general, in a tort action, the defendant may assert any
justification or defense sufficient to show that the plaintiff The defendant’s motive must be solely malicious,
is not entitled to recover. uncoupled with such motives, as self-interest, profit, or
business advantage. But no matter what justification is
Legal liability in tort is predicated upon acts which cannot advanced, it must be one which the law will recognize.
be justified in law, or which are done without just or
lawful excuse, or justifiable cause or occasion. An act MISTAKE
causing damage to another does not create liability
where the person doing the act has a legal excuse or If the defendant acts under a mistake that a reasonable
justification therefor. person would make, then mistake is at least relevant in
determining whether the defendant acted as a reasonable
JUSTIFICATIONS AND DEFENSES DEFEATING A CLAIM person.
JUSTIFICATIONS FOR CONDUCT – They furnish the ILLEGAL TRANSACTION

defendant a legal privilege to commit acts that would,
except for the justification, count as a tort. E.g. self- GR: No action will lie to recover on a claim based or
defense. depending upon an illegal transaction to which the
plaintiff was a party.
9
DESTRUCTION OF PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY TO PREVENT

XPN: When the unlawful act does not have a causal SPREAD OF FIRE
connection with the injury complained of. E.g. One who
broke a tooth when he bit into a hard metallic object in a BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES – If the subject act is necessary
piece of candy manufactured by the defendant, was held to insure public safety, then the legislature, may by virtue
not barred from recovering for his injury even though he of police power, authorize public authorities to summarily
had won the box of candy in an illegal bingo game. The destroy property without legal process or prior notice to
reason being there is an absence of any causal relation the owner.
between the illegal act and the injury complained of.
BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR A COMMUNITY OF INDIVIDUALS –
NECESSITY OR SELF-PROTECTION The law allows such exercise for individuals for their own
personal safety or security or for the preservation of his
PROTECTION OF PUBLIC WELFARE OR SAFETY – In own property or by a community of individuals in defense
general, acts pertaining to the public welfare, of their common safety or in the protection of their
convenience, necessity or safety which conflict with common rights. The foregoing remains valid as long as
private rights are not tortious. they are done reasonably.
DEFENSE OF LIFE OR PROPERTY – An act which would To secure the benefit of justification, the necessity must
otherwise be a tort may be justified by necessity. An be immediate and imperative. The necessity must be
occasion creating such justification is one involving the clearly shown and where the same is not proven, liability
conservation of life. exist among the perpetrators.
SELF-DEFENSE – A person unlawfully assaulted, when
without fault, may stand his ground and repel force to the CONSENT TO ACT
extent which to him seems reasonably necessary to
protect himself from injury. A person may, by language or acts, manifest a definite
assent to conduct which would be violative of his rights in
Similarly an incident to the right to acquire and own the absence of consent. Such conduct, therefore, will not
property, the owner has the right to defend and protect it constitute a tort. In order to sustain this defense,
against against aggression, and if he commits an assault in however, there must be a true assent.
so doing, the law will justify him.
AUTHOR’S NOTE: I.e. the same must be voluntary and
AUTHOR’S NOTE: In the second paragraph, De Leon is intelligently.
referring to the Principle of Self-Help as set forth by
article 429 of the NCC which that the owner or lawful One cannot maintain an action for a wrong occasioned by
possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person an act to which he has consented, under the familiar
from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this maxim “volenti non fit injuria,” except where the act
purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably involves the life of a person, or a breach of peace, or
necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened amounts to a public offense.
unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
(n) AUTHOR’S NOTE: E.g. Article 253 of the RPC prohibits the
act of giving assistance to suicide.
WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES UNDER PRINCIPLE OF SELF-
HELP? Similarly, if a person who claims to have received injury as
a result of the trespass of another consented to the act of
1. Reasonable force is used; such person, no action of trespass lies.
2. Such force is used by the owner or lawful possessor;
3. There is no delay; and PRACTICAL JOKES; HORSEPLAY
4. Actual or threatened physical invasion or usurpation
or immediately after the dispossession to regain The fact that there was no intention to inflict injury on the
possession plaintiff is no justification for an act which does in fact
cause injury.
10
PRACTICAL JOKES – The fact that a practical joke is the cooperates with the negligence of defendant in bringing
cause of an injury to a person does not excuse the about the plaintiff’s harm.
perpetrator from liability in damages for the injury
sustained. GR: Contributory negligence of the plaintiff is no defense
to an action for an intentional tort, nor is it a defense to
RATIO – One who plays dangerous practical jokes on strict liability.
others takes the risk that his victims may not appreciate
the humor of his conduct, and will be liable for an injury The plaintiff may recover damages but the courts shall
resulting from such practical joke. mitigate the same. (Art. 2179)
HORSEPLAY – A similar rule obtains where an injury was XPN: For plaintiff’s conduct to bar recovery altogether, his
caused without intent, as the result of “horseplay.” negligence toward protection must be cause-in-fact and a
(Rough or boisterous play) proximate cause of the accident resulting in damage or
injury.
RATIO – When one does an act which proves injurious to
another, an action in tort arises in favor of the injured LAST CLEAR CHANCE ON PLAINTIFF
person although the act was done without malice and no
injury was intended. WHEN CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IS DISREGARDED –
The doctrine of last clear chance instructs the court to
PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY disregard the plaintiff’s contributory negligence if the
defendant’s negligence occurred after the plaintiff’s
Generally, a tortfeasor is liable for the natural and contributory negligence.
proximate consequences of his act, but, unless the act
complained of is the proximate cause of the injury, there WHEN DEFENDANT IS RELIEVED FROM LIABILITY – On the
is no legal liability. other hand, if the plaintiff was the one who had the last
clear opportunity up until the moment of injury of
TO CONSTITUTE PROXIMATE CAUSE – The injury must be avoiding harm to himself, his failure to take that chance
the natural and probable consequence of the wrong, that by the exercise of reasonable case has the effect of
is, such a consequence as, under the surrounding relieving the defendant from liability unless the plaintiff’s
circumstances of the case, might or ought to have been negligence is merely contributory to his injury and not the
foreseen as likely to flow from the wrong. proximate cause thereof.
The particular result need not have been foreseen so long ASSUMPTION OF RISK BY PLAINTIFF
as the wrongdoer might have foreseen that some injury,
and without the operation of each the injury would not A plaintiff who fully understands a risk of harm to himself
have occurred, each cause is a proximate cause. or his property brought about about by the defendant but
nevertheless voluntarily chooses to assume it is not
As a general rule, where an independent unforeseen entitled to recover. (Art. 2179)
cause intervenes between the original default and the
final result and is sufficient to stand as the cause of the RATIO: By voluntarily exposing himself or his property
mischief, the cause is ordinarily regarded as the interests to a risk, the plaintiff is deemed to consent to
proximate cause and the other the remote cause. that risk. The same may be express or implied.
If the intervening cause is incidental, the law looks to the

original wrongful act which caused the wrong.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF PLAINTIFF
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – Is the conduct on the part

of the plaintiff which falls below the standard of conduct
to which he should conform for his own protection and
11
IMMUNITIES 8. When the plaintiff has voluntarily waived or

abandoned his right to enforce the civil liability of
Used to refer to the special protection sometimes the defendant for damages. (Art. 2195, 2198, 2235)
accorded to certain defendants like public entities or
officers and family members for reasons of public policy. BURDEN OF PROOF
It protects a defendant from tort liability.
DEGREE OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED BY LAW –
Unlike a justification or defense, it is not dependent on Preponderance of evidence, or that evidence adduced by
the plaintiff’s behavior, but on the defendant’s status or one party which is more conclusive and credible than that
relationship to the plaintiff. of the other party.
 Historically, spouses could not sue each other. This VS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – Substantial evidence is the
immunity was rooted in the doctrine regarding the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
legal identity of spouses. might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
 Parent-child immunity precludes tort actions
between parents and their non-adult children. This ACQUITTAL ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF PROO F
immunity has never been held to bar property or BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – When the accused in a
purely economic torts. criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his
 Governmental immunity protects the government guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a
from tort liability. It should be distinguished from civil action for damages for the same act or omission may
public official immunity which protects government be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance
officers and employees from tort liability incurred in of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the court
the courts of performing their official functions. may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for
damages in case the complaint should be found to be
OTHER DEFENSES malicious.
There is no tort liability and consequently, no liability for If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based
damages in the following cases: upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the
absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be
1. When the defendant’s conduct was involuntary inferred from the text of the decision whether or not the
because force or intimidation was employed upon acquittal is due to that ground. (Art. 29, NCC)
him. (Art. 2176)
2. When the act is in the exercise of a right or the SHIFT OF BURDEN OF PROOF – GENERALLY the plaintiff
performance of a duty, unless there is abuse. (Art. has the burden of proof when it comes to the elements of
19) his case: fault or negligence, causation, and damage,
3. When the damage is caused by a fortuitous event. while the defendant has the burden of producing
(Arts. 1174, 2178) evidence about justifications or defenses.
4. When the defendant acted under emergency
conditions or circumstances and his conduct did not XPN: Where the existence of fault or negligence is
contribute to the creation of the emergency. (Art. presumed by law (arts. 2180, 2183, 2191), the burden of
2179) proof is shifter to the defendant to overcome the
5. When the defendant who is responsible for acts or presumption by way of defense.
omissions of another proves the exercise of due
diligence (Arts. 2180, 2184)
6. When the prescriptive period for quasi-delict has
expired (Arts. 1146, 2194)
7. When the defendant’s conduct otherwise tortious
has not caused any damage or injury. (Arts. 2176,
2180, 2184)
12
CHAPTER 6. QUASI-DELICTS A Person guilty of negligence is necessarily at fault, but

there may be fault without negligence as here the
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, damage or injury resulting from the wrongful act or
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the omission as cause willfully and not by reason of lack of
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre- care. So, fault is the broader term.
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called
a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this NO “DUTY-TO-ACT” RULE
Chapter. (Art. 2176, NCC)
GR: Unless the defendant has assumed a duty to act, or
I.e. The phrase “fault or negligence” implies that there is stands in a special relationship to the plaintiff, defendants
no intention invloved in the case of quasi-delicts. are not liable in tort for a pure failure to act for the
plaintiffs benefit.
CONDUCT IN GENERAL
XPNS:
DUTY TO USE CARE – By and large, men owe a duty to use 1. The defendant or his instrumentalities, innocently
care in connection with their affirmative conduct, and or not, have created risks or caused harm to the
they owe it to all who may foreseeably be injured if that plaintiff. (e.g., defendant is a hit and run driver.)
conduct is negligently carried out. 2. The defendant is in a special relationship to the
plaintiff that is deemed to create a duty of care that
CONCEPT OF FAULT encompasses affirmative action (e.g., common
carriers to their passengers, innkeepers to their
There is fault when a person acts in a manner contrary to guests)
what should have done. Only juridical fault gives rise to 3. The defendant takes affirmative action that is either
liability for damages. Lack of charity or of altruism, cut short or performed negligently;
constituting moral fault, does not constitute a quasi- 4. The defendant has assumed a duty of affirmative
delict. care by action or promise that evinces such an
assumption.
Only juridical fault, but not moral fault gives rise to
liability for damages. Lack of charity or altruism, No duty arises where the would-be rescuer would be
constituting moral fault, does not constitute quasi- delict. subjected to unreasonable danger by rescuing someone.
The fault referred to Art. 2176 is a fault substantive and E.g. One need not rescue occupants of a burning car if to
independent which in itself is a source of obligations and do so would subject himself to unreasonable danger.
is also known as culpa aquiliana as distinguished from
culpa contractual. If the fault is committed intentionally NO DUTY TO CONTROL OTHERS
to cause damage to another, it becomes a dolo punished
as a crime by the RPC or other penal laws. GR: In a large number of cases the defendant himself
does not directly injure the plaintiff but instead fails to
CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE prevent the risk of injury by another. The immediate
tortfeasor is sometimes merely negligent but often he
Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of carries out a criminal attack on the plaintiff. The question
the interests of another person, that the degree of care, is whether the defendant, who could have prevented the
precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly injury by a warning, or by exercising the control he had
demand whereby such another person suffers injury. over the attacker, or otherwise, is under any duty to do
so.
Its application is relative and comparative. Where the
danger is great, a higher degree of care is necessary. In the usual case, the problem is not rescue of a plaintiff
already in peril; it is rather the use of care to prevent
DISTINCTION BETWEEN FAULT AND NEGLIGENCE harm in the first place.
AUTHOR’S NOTE: The book implies that the there is no

duty to do such things based on the exceptions given.
13
XPN: DAMAGE WHEN NEGLIGENCE CLAIM IS ESTABLISHED –

1. Statutes may impose a duty to take action and to Once negligence is established by showing that the
use care to protect others. This is the case with defendant negligently caused property damage or bodily
statutes requiring state agencies to investigate and injury, the victim can recover all damages that are
deal with reports of suspected child abuse. reasonably foreseeable including damages for such
2. The defendant is under a duty to use reasonable intangibles as pain, or emotional distress.
care for the plaintiff’s safety where the defendant is
in a special relationship with the plaintiff. A Financial loss resulting from the injury or property
property owner, for example, may owe a duty of damage, such as lost wages or medical expenses, are
reasonable care to protect an invitee or other likewise recoverable, as all proven future losses.
entrant upon the land.
3. The defendant is under a duty to use reasonable NEGLIGENCE: CONDUCT VS STATE OF MIND
care for the plaintiff’s safety when the defendant is
in a special relationship with the immediate NEGLIGENCE AS RISK – Negligence is conduct that creates
tortfeasor and in a position to control his tortious or fails to avoid unreasonable risks of foreseeable harm to
behavior or at least to minimize risks to the plaintiff others. Not all risky conduct is negligence, for some risks
by some means. are entirely justified. And not all negligence is actionable
tort, for some negligence is permitted and some causes
NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION no harm.
A person who negligently causes personal injury or NEGLIGENCE AS CONDUCT, NOT A STATE OF MIND – A
property damage is a subject to liability in tort. BAD STATE OF MIND IS NEITHER NECESSARY NOR
SUFFICIENT TO SHOW NEGLIGENCE, AND CONDUCT IS
Negligence claims represent the great majority of tort EVERYTHING.
claims presented, brought, or tried today. In part, this
reflects the large number of injuries resulting from the State of mind, including knowledge and belief, may
use of automobiles, doctors, landlords, and businesses. motivate or shape conduct, but it is not in itself an
actionable tort. The legal concept of negligence as unduly
Negligence law usually controls when injury is inflicted in risky conduct distinct from sate from state of mind,
the course of an active sport, in the course of law reflects the law’s strong commitment to an objective
enforcement or firefighting activities, or in the course of standard of behavior.
farming. People are negligently shot, burned, drown, or
poisoned. CONDUCT INCLUDING ACTS OR OMISSIONS – Conduct is
often an affirmative act, however, the same can also
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEGLIGENCE CASE include omissions or failure to act. On the other hand, an
unconscious person’s movement is not conduct even if
OPEN-ENDED CLAIMS – Negligence is open-ended and that movement harms someone. CONDUCT INVOLVES AT
requires evaluation case-by-case, rules do not always LEAST A DEGREE OF VOLITION.
have an enormous direct impact on the ultimate result.
INTENTIONALLY RISKY CONDUCT: THE RELATION OF
ACTUAL HARM REQUIREMENT – No claim for negligence NEGLIGENCE AND INTENTIONAL TORTS – How does the
will be recognized unless the plaintiff suffers actual harm. concept of negligence as conduct work with the
The simplest interpretation of the Actual Harm Rule is defendant who knows that his conduct is riskier than
that there is no such thing as a negligence suit for nominal normal?
damages, much less one for presumed damages.
First, such defendant is not guilty of an intentional tort
PREOCCUPATION WITH BODILY HARM AND PROPERTY merely because he knows of the risk. So intentional
DAMAGE – The actual harm requirement also includes conduct and even intentional risk-taking is analyzed under
the possibility that some purely emotional harms could be negligence rules unless the defendant has a purpose to
actionable against a negligent defendant, however, invade the plaintiff’s interests or a certainty that such
negligence alone is often not enough for liability. invasion will occur.
14
AUTHOR’S NOTE: Res ipsa loquitur means the thing

Second, the defendant who intentionally takes a risk may speaks for itself. It is the rule that the fact of the
or may not be negligent. Negligence will depend upon occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding
the seriousness of the risk and the reasons for taking it. circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a
presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s
WHEN STATE OF MIND IS RELEVANT – The defendant’s prima facie case, and present a question of fact for
knowledge of facts that make a given act risky (as distinct defendant to meet with an explanation. The requisites for
from his attitude) is frequently important on the the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are:
negligence issue. His socially useful purpose in taking a 1.) The occurrence of an injury;
risk may be evident that conduct is not unreasonably 2.) The thing which caused the injury was under the
risky. control and management of the defendant;
3.) The occurrence was such that in the ordinary course
FINALLY, a defendant who is taking an unreasonable risk of things, would not have happened if those who
and knows it, may be guilty of reckless or wanton had control or management used proper care; and
misconduct that would justify punitive damages or other 4.) The absence of explanation by the defendant.
liabilities. None of this, however, departs from the
requirement of objectively unreasonable outward CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT
conduct.
Based on Article 2176, a quasi-delict may be defined as an
THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT REQUIREMENT act or omission by a person (tortfeasor) which causes
damage to another in his person, property, or rights,
FACTS SHOWING SPECIFIC CONDUCT – As a practical giving rise to an obligation to pay for the damage done,
matter, the plaintiff must show precisely what the there being fault or negligence but there is no pre-
defendant did or do. Also the plaintiff must point a existing contractual relation between the parties.
particular way in which that conduct could have been
made safer. The basic principle of our law on quasi-delict, except in
those cases expressly provided for, is that a person cannot
PURPOSE OF SPECIFICITY REQUIREMENT – Only when be held liable for damages cause by him, unless he is at
you know specific conduct can you estimate the risk and fault or is negligent and the damage is produced by his
utilities of that conduct, a process normally implicit in wrongful act or omission.
finding negligence.
SCOPE OF ARTICLE 2176
OTHER PURPOSES – There are some other reasons why
specific conduct must be identified in order to claim LIMITED CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT – Article 2176 is the
negligence, but they will make more sense in connection basic provision on quasi-delict which means culpa
with cause-in-fact and proximate cause. aquiliana, culpa extra-contractual, or quasi-delictos as the
fifth source of civil obligations.
In brief, it will be impossible to conclude that the
defendant’s conduct was a cause of the plaintiff’s harm or The term Quasi-delict refers to those obligations which do
that harm was within the scope of the risk unless you not arise from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or criminal
know what the risk was; to know that, you must know the offences.
specific conduct claimed to be negligent.
AUTHOR’S NOTE: The same still arises from law as
RES IPSA LOQUITUR – To prove the defendant negligent according to De Leon’s Comments and Cases on
the plaintiff must normally provide evidence of the Obligations and Contracts (2014) which states that there
defendant’s specific conduct. Proof that accident are actually only two sources of obligations which is law
happened or even that the defendant caused an injury is and contracts. The reason being that obligations arising
enough by itself. As the courts say, negligence is not from quasi-contracts, crimes, and quasi-delicts are really
presumed. Cases that fit the res ipsa loquitur pattern imposed by law.
constitute an exception. (See Art. 2179)
15
TORT – The code commission which drafted the Civil Code of one for whose acts he must respond and the damages
decided to use the term “tort” in Anglo-American suffered by him
jurisprudence because the term has a broader scope as it
includes not only negligence, but also intentional criminal As a rule, negligence is not presumed. Mere suspicion,
acts. Thus, Article 2176 covers all wrongful acts or surmise or speculation cannot be the basis of an award
omissions which do not constitute a breach of contract or for damages. Where, however, negligence is presumed by
a commission of a crime. law, the burden of proving its non existence is shifted to
the party to whom the presumption applies.
EXPANDED CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT – The same
negligent acts or omission may create an action for QUASI-DELICT ARISING FROM BREACH OF CONTRACT
damages due to quasi-delict under the Civil Code, or an
action also for damages arising from a crime or delict Generally, liability for tort arises only between parties not
under the RPC or special law, which civil action may be otherwise bound by a contract. Nonetheless, there may
maintained separately at the election of the plaintiff. be an action for quasi-delict notwithstanding there is a
subsisting contract between the parties. When the act or
A QUESTION OF NOMENCLATURE – For purposes of omission which constitutes a breach of contract would
recovering civil liability arising from a crime or felony, the have itself constituted the source of the quasi-delictual
plaintiff is given the privilege or option to treat the liability had no contract existed between the parties, the
offence as a quasi-delict, and not as a delict, and contract can be said to have been breached by tort,
accordingly, base his civil action for damages which shall thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.
be entirely separate and distinct from, and shall proceed
independently of, the criminal prosecution, on the theory E.g. Artist X entered into a record deal with Company A,
of quasi-delict. under which, with a stipulation that X cannot contract any
other record deals with anybody else. This contract was
In the civil action, the matter at issue is not whether the made known to Company B.
act or omission complained of constitutes a crime, but
whether said act or omission has caused damage to the Notwithstanding this, X entered into a record deal with
plaintiff as a consequence of the fault or negligence of the Company B.
defendant for which reason, the defendant under Article
2176 is obliged to pay for the damage done. Company A sued both X and Company B for damages. X
was held liable for contractual culpa, while Company B
REQUISITES OF QUASI-DELICT was held liable for extra-contractual culpa. (Tolentino,
1992)
1. Act or omission by the defendant
2. Fault or negligence of the defendant CULPA AQUILIANA VS. CULPA CONTRACTUAL
3. Damage or injury caused to the plaintiff
4. There must be a direct relationship or connection of CULPA AQUILIANA – Is the wrongful act or omission
cause and effect between the act or omission and which of itself is the source of the obligation separate
the damage from, and independent of, contract
5. No pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties CULPA CONTRACTUAL – Act or omission considered as an
incident in the performance of an obligation already
The defendant is liable even if he does not know the existing and which constitutes a breach thereof
identity of the victim. A
Where liability arises from culpa aquiliana, not a breach of
BURDEN OF PROOF positive obligation, an employer or master may excuse
himself under the last paragraph of Article 2180 by
In an action for quasi-delict, the burden of proof is proving that he had exercised "all diligence of a good
generally on the person claiming damages to establish by father of a family to prevent damage"
satisfactory evidence that the legal cause of his damage B
or injury was the fault or negligence of the defendant or In CA – The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the
defendant was at fault or negligent.
16
In CC – It is not necessary for the plaintiff to plead or so far as the individual contract goes, may wear the color
prove that the violation of the contract was due to fault of active negligence if the whole venture or enterprise is
or negligence. thought of – in very much the same way as the omission
C to inspect and repair a machine is regarded as active
IN CA – There is no presumption that the defendant was negligence on the part of him who continues to operate
at fault or negligent the machine without taking the precautions.
IN CC – The mere proof of the existence of the contract
and its breach raises such presumption that the burden is Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under
on the defendant to prove that he was not at fault or the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from
negligent. the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal
D Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for
IN CA – Grimarily governed by Article 2176 the same act or omission of the defendant.(n)
IN CC – Governed by 1170 to 1174
CRIME VS. QUASI- DELICT
NEGLIGENT NON-PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES ASSUMED
BY CONTRACT A
IN CRIME –There is criminal or malicious intent or criminal
DISTINGUISHED FROM TORT OBLIGATIONS – The negligence.
obligations of tort law are for the most part non- WHEREAS IN QUASI DELICT – There is only negligence.
consensual and independent of contract. They are B
generally imposed on men by law simply as part of the In Crime – There are 2 liabilities: criminal and civil
price of living in society, or of engaging in conduct which WHEREAS IN QD – There is only civil liability.
is likely to affect the actor’s fellow beings. C
IN CRIME - Affects public interest
Contract obligations, on the other hand, are for the most WHEREAS IN QD - Concerns private interest or concern.
part based on manifested consent which indeed is needed D
to bring them into being. By and large, therefore, such IN CRIME – Purpose is punishment or correction
obligations are limited by the terms of that consent, or at WHEREAS IN QD – Indemnification of the offended party.
least by terms which it is fair to impose because of that E
consent. In Crime – Criminal liability cannot be compromised
WHEREAS IN QD – Liability for QD can be compromised as
Contractual obligations are generally owed only to the any other civil liability
parties with whom the agreement was made and with F
respect only to consequences which the parties had in IN CRIME – the guilt of the accused must be proved
mind when they made their bargain. beyond reasonable doubt,
WHEREAS IN QD – the fault or negligence of the
WHERE INJURY TO PLAINTIFF FORESEEABLE – Now they defendant need only be proved by preponderance of
recognize that the agreement has no tendency to limit the evidence
scope of harm to be foreseen from unreasonably G
dangerous conduct done by reason of the agreement, and IN CRIME – the liability of the person responsible for the
this foresight of harm has been taken as a basis of duty author of the negligent act or omission is subsidiary
not based on consent. WHERE AS IN QD – it is direct and primary
But where defendant’s negligence ends merely in non-

performance of the contract and where defendant is not
under any recognized duty to act apart from contract, the
courts generally still see no duty to act affirmatively
except the duty based on – and limited by defendant’s
consent.
WHERE CONTRACT AN INCIDENT TO ENTERPRISE OF

DEFENDANT – What may be vided as negligent omission,
17
INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL AND/OR CIVIL ACTIONS If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is
to be observed in the performance, that which is
CIVIL ACTION FOR QUASI-DELICT NOT PRECLUDED BY expected of a good father of a family shall be required.
ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED – Criminal negligence (Culpa (1104a)
criminal) is a violation of criminal law, while civil
negligence (culpa aquiliana) is a distinct and independent NEGLIGENCE - conduct that creates undue risk or harm to
negligence, entirely apart from a delict or crime. another. It is the failure to observe for the protection of
the interests of another person, justly demanded,
For this reason, acquittal from an accusation of criminal whereby such other person suffers injury.
negligence whether based on reasonable doubt or not is
not a bar to a subsequent civil action, not for civil liability TEST FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS
arising from criminal negligence but for damages due to a NEGLIGENT
quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana. Article 2177, however,
forestalls a double recovery. 1. Reasonable care and caution expected of an
ordinary prudent person
RECOVERY OF DAMAGES TWICE FOR THE SAME ACT OR 2. No hard and fast rule from measuring degree of
OMISSION IS PROHIBITED care
3. Negligence, a legal question
Under Article 1157, quasi-delict and an act or omission
punishable by law are two different sources of DEGREE OF DILIGENCE REQUIRED:
obligations. 1. THAT AGREED UPON;
2. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH, THAT WHICH IS
The offended party has the option between on an action REQUIRED BY THE LAW;
for enforcement of civil liability based on culpa criminal
under Art. 100 of RPC and an action for recovery of GR: IN THE ABSENCE OF THE FOREGOING, DILIGENCE OF
damages based on culpa aquiliana under Art. 2177 of the A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY
NCC.
XPNs:
These two cases of action may be availed of subject to the a. COMMON CARRIERS requiring extraordinary
caveat that the offended party cannot recover twice for diligence (NCC, Arts. 1998-2002);
the same act or omission or under both causes. b. BANKS require the highest degree of deligence,
being imbued with public interest.
This proscription in our law stems from the fundamental
rule against unjust enrichment. Since these two civil DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY - That
liabilities are distinct and independent of each other, the reasonable diligence which an ordinary prudent person
failure to recover in one will not necessarily preclude would have done under the same circumstances. WHY
recovery in the other. NOT THE MOTHER INSTEAD? – Asked by every female
civil law professor.
ARTICLE 2178
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED
Article 2178. The provisions of articles 1172 to 1174 are 1. Nature of the obligation.
also applicable to a quasi-delict. (n) 2. Circumstances of the person or thing.
3. Circumstances of time.
STATUTORY DEFINITION OF FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE 4. Circumstances of the place.
Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor FORTUITOUS EVENT

consists in the omission of that diligence which is required
by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the Article 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the
circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or
place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of when the nature of the obligation requires the
articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply. assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for
18
those events which could not be foreseen, or which,

though foreseen, were inevitable. (1105a) NEGLIGENCE MERELY CONTRIBUTED TO THE INJURY - to
be entitled to the damages, the law does not require that
Fortuitous Event - any event which cannot be foreseen, or the negligence of the defendant should be the sole cause
which though foreseen, is inevitable. It is an event which of the damage.
is either impossible to foresee or impossible to avoid.
There is a contributory negligence on the part of the
Fortuitous Event vs. Force Majeure injured party where his conduct has contributed, as a
legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which fall below
Fortuitous Event - event independent of the will of the the standard to which he is required to conform for his
obligor but not of other men (Acts of Men) own protection.
Force Majeure - those events which are totally LEGAL CAUSE OF DAMAGE, HARM OR INJURY
independent of the will of every human being (Acts of
God) A person claiming damages for the fault or negligence of
another has the burden of establishing at least 3
REQUISITES OF FORTUITOUS EVENT conditions:
1. Event must be independent of the human will or at 1. Fault or negligence of the defendant
least the obligor's will 2. Damage, harm or injury to the plaintiff
2. The event could not be foreseen or if foreseen, 3. Connection of cause and effect between the fault or
must have been impossible to avoid negligence and the damage.
3. Event must be of such a character as to render it
impossible for the obligor to comply with his PROXIMATE CAUSE
obligation in a normal manner
4. Obligor must be free from any participation in, or That cause which in natural and continuous sequence,
the aggravation of the injury to the obligee. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without which the result would not have
DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK occurred.
Assumption of risk may be invoked as a complete defense TESTS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE

by the defendant in a quasi-delictual action. It assumes 1. BUT FOR TEST - Defendant's conduct is the cause of
that a plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk of harm the injury which would not have been sustained if
from the negligent conduct of the defendant cannot the defendant had not been negligent.
recover from such harm.
2. CAUSE-IN-FACT TEST - A cause in fact relation must
REQUISITES – exist between defendants conduct and plaintiff's
1. Plaintiff had actual knowledge of the danger injury before liability may arise.
2. He understood and appreciated the risk form the
danger 3. Substantial Factor test - If the actors conduct is a
3. He voluntarily exposed himself to such risk substantial factor in bringing about harm to
another, the fact that the actor neither foresaw nor
Article 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the should have foreseen the extent of the harm or the
immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot manner in which it occurred, does not prevent him
recover damages. But if his negligence was only from being liable
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the
injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff 4. FORESEEABILITY TEST - If the defendant could not
may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the reasonably foresee any injury as a result of his act,
damages to be awarded. (n) or if his act is reasonable in the light of what he
could anticipate, there is no negligence and no
EFFECT OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE INJURED liability.
PARTY
19
5. NATURAL AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE TEST - It Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor

must appear that the injury was not only the The thing or transaction speaks for itself. It is a maxim for
natural but also the probable consequence of the the rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken
conduct as distinguished from consequences that with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an
are merely possible. Since shat is probable is, in a inference or negligence, or make out a plaintiff's prima
real sense, foreseeable, foresee ability appears to facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to
be an implicit element of this test of proximate meet with an explanation.
cause.
The doctrine is applied only if unsure and if no direct
6. DIRECT CONSEQUENCE TEST - The defendant is evidence of who is at fault. When you cannot tell who is
liable for all the damage that flows as the ordinary at fault but you can tell what contributed to the injury.
and natural or direct consequence of his conduct to
be determined from the circumstances of the case REQUISITES OF THE DOCTRINE –
rather than upon whether he might or must have 1. The accident is of a kind or character which
reasonably expected the resulting injury. ordinarily does not occur in the absence of
someone's negligence
DOCTRINE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - Negligence
on the part of the injured party which merely contributes 2. It is caused by an instrumentality or an agency
to, but is not the proximate cause of, his injury, and within the exclusive management or control of the
resulting in the mitigation of the defendant's liability and defendant or defendants
plaintiff's indemnity.
3. The possibility of contributing conduct which would
DOCTRINE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE - A make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated.
comparison is made in terms of the degree of the
negligence of the plaintiff and that of the defendant and EMERGENCY RULE
the amount of damages recoverable by plaintiff is
reduced to the extent of his negligence. A person who, without fault or negligence on his part, is
suddenly placed in an emergency or unexpected danger
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE - The negligence of and compelled to act instantly and instinctively with no
the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the time for reflection and exercise of the required
negligence of the defendant where it appears that the precaution, is not guilty of negligence and therefore,
defendant, by exercising reasonable care and prudence, exempt from liability, if he did not make the wisest choice
might have avoided injurious consequences to the of the available courses of conduct to avoid injury which
plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff's negligence. reasonably a prudent person would have made under
normal circumstances.
ELEMENTS OF THE DOCTRINE –
1. The plaintiff was in a position of danger and, by his The rule is not available where the situation or danger
own negligence, became unable to escape from was caused by his own negligence.
such position by the use of ordinary care, either
because it became physically impossible for him to Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is
do so or because he as totally unaware of the demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but
danger. also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
2. The defendant knew that the plaintiff as in a
position of danger and further knew, or in the The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
exercise of ordinary care should have known, that mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the
the plaintiff was unable to escape there from minor children who live in their company.
3. That the defendant had the last clear chance to
avoid the accident by the exercise of ordinary care Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or
but failed to exercise such last clear chance, and the incapacitated persons who are under their authority and
accident occurred as a proximate result of such live in their company.
failure.
20
The owners and managers of an establishment or Does not concern on either joint or solidary liability.
enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by
their employees in the service of the branches in which -persons enumerated under 2180 are given the right to
the latter are employed or on the occasion of their seek reimbursement from the author for "what he has
functions. paid of or delivered in satisfaction of the claim" of the
plaintiff.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
employees and household helpers acting within the scope Article 2182. If the minor or insane person causing
of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not damage has no parents or guardian, the minor or insane
engaged in any business or industry. person shall be answerable with his own property in an
action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts appointed. (n)
through a special agent; but not when the damage has
been caused by the official to whom the task done Article 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may
properly pertains, in which case what is provided in article make use of the same is responsible for the damage
2176 shall be applicable. which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost.
This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and should come from force majeure or from the fault of the
trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils person who has suffered damage. (1905)
and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in
their custody. MAIN CONSIDERATION FOR LIABILITY: If there is control.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease He who possesses the animal for utility, pleasure or
when the persons herein mentioned prove that they service must answer for the damage which such animal
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to may cause.
prevent damage. (1903a)
Article 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is
PRINCIPLE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in
the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence,
A person is made liable not only for torts committed by prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that
himself but also for torts committed by others with whom a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of
he has certain relationship and for whom he is reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least
responsible, subject to certain conditions. twice within the next preceding two months.
LIABILITY OF PARENTS – Both parents shall be liable as If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions
amended by the family code of article 2180 are applicable. (n)
SCOPE OF LIABILITY APPLICABILITY OF 2184

1. Minor children who live in their company the article applies only if the owner was at the vehicle at
2. Minor child is already married and minor is not the time of the mishap otherwise, the provisions of article
living with parents if the separation of unjustifiable 2180 would be applicable, where the owner even if not in
because of the failure of the parents to properly the vehicle will be liable unless he exercised due diligence
exercise their parental authority and responsibility. to prevent the damage.
RESPONDENT SUPERIOR - negligence Article 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is
VICARIOUS LIABILITY - liability presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been
negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating
Article 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his any traffic regulation. (n)
dependents or employees may recover from the latter
what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. Article 2186. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file
(1904) with the proper government office a bond executed by a
government-controlled corporation or office, to answer
21
for damages to third persons. The amount of the bond Article 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for
and other terms shall be fixed by the competent public damages caused:
official. (n) (1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been
taken care of with due diligence, and the
Article 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, inflammation of explosive substances which have
drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for not been kept in a safe and adequate place;
death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful (2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to
substances used, although no contractual relation exists persons or property;
between them and the consumers. (n) (3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways
or lanes, if not caused by force majeure;
This is one of the exceptions to the general rule that (4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or
negligence is not presumed. deposits of infectious matter, constructed without
precautions suitable to the place. (1908)
REQUISITES FOR LIABILITY –
1. Defendant is a manufacturer or processor Article 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding
2. Products manufactured or processed are foodstuffs, articles should be the result of any defect in the
drinks, toilet articles, and similar goods construction mentioned in article 1723, the third person
3. Defendant used noxious or harmful substances in suffering damages may proceed only against the engineer
the manufacture of processing or architect or contractor in accordance with said article,
4. Death or injury was caused by the product within the period therein fixed. (1909)
consumed or used containing such noxious or
harmful substances. 2190 talks about the defect in the construction -
5. Victim is the consumer, user or purchaser engineer or architect shall be liable for any damage or
injury y the defect.
Article 2188. There is prima facie presumption of
negligence on the part of the defendant if the death or Article 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building
injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or a part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by
or substances, such as firearms and poison, EXCEPT when things thrown or falling from the same. (1910)
the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his
occupation or business. (n) HEAD OF THE FAMILY - may not be the owner of the
building and it may include lessee who lives in the
PRIMA FACIE PRESUMPTION THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS building or a part thereof.
NEGLIGENT IF:
1. A person dies or in injured Article 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons
2. Death or injury results from the defendant's who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary. (n)
possession of dangerous weapon or substances.
PROSCRIPTION OF ACTION UPON QUASI-DELICT –
Article 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be Article 1146. The following actions must be instituted
liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered within four years:
by, any person by reason of the defective condition of
roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public b. Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
works under their control or supervision. (n) c. Upon a quasi-delict;
Article 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is However, when the action arises from or out of any act,
responsible for the damages resulting from its total or activity, or conduct of any public officer involving the
partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary exercise of powers or authority arising from Martial Law
repairs. (1907) including the arrest, detention and/or trial of the plaintiff,
the same must be brought within one (1) year. (As
LIABILITY OF PROPRIETOR - If he failed to make necessary amended by PD No. 1755, Dec. 24, 1980.)
repairs
22

2019 Torts Reviewer Ver. 6

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2019 Torts Reviewer Ver. 6

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

OUTLINE ON DE LEON’S COMMENT AND CASES ON TORTS AND DAMAGES VER.

DOES IT INCLUDE INTENTION?

THEY MAY BE INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT –

TORT AND CONTRACT

1. Contract duties are created by the promises of the

PERSONS LIABLE FOR TORT NOTE: Prodigality per se doesn’t automatically

2. PERSON OTHER THAN TORTFEASOR – Unless a LIABILITY OF JOINT TORTFEASORS

LAW GOVERNING TRANSITORY TORTS CAUSE OF ACTION IN TORT

In the former class, damage flows from the wrongful act,

Mere imaginary or speculative grievances without MATERIALITY OF MOTIVE

MATERIALITY OF INTENT  Wanton act - Wrongful act done on purpose or

2. RESULTING DAMAGE IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT 6. ACTS ARISING OUT OF A CONTRACTUAL

4. WILLFUL AND WANTON ACT NOTE: However a person has no right to be

5. INTERFERENCE WITH PERSONAL RIGHTS – 9. UNAUTHORIZED SUIT IN ANOTHER'S NAME – A tort

CHAPTER 3. JUSTIFICATIONS AND DEFENSES AGAINST IN CASE OF PRIMA FACIE TORT

JUSTIFICATIONS FOR CONDUCT – They furnish the ILLEGAL TRANSACTION

DESTRUCTION OF PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY TO PREVENT

If the intervening cause is incidental, the law looks to the

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF PLAINTIFF

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – Is the conduct on the part

IMMUNITIES 8. When the plaintiff has voluntarily waived or

CHAPTER 6. QUASI-DELICTS A Person guilty of negligence is necessarily at fault, but

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The book implies that the there is no

XPN: DAMAGE WHEN NEGLIGENCE CLAIM IS ESTABLISHED –

AUTHOR’S NOTE: Res ipsa loquitur means the thing

But where defendant’s negligence ends merely in non-

WHERE CONTRACT AN INCIDENT TO ENTERPRISE OF

Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor FORTUITOUS EVENT

those events which could not be foreseen, or which,

Assumption of risk may be invoked as a complete defense TESTS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE

5. NATURAL AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE TEST - It Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor

SCOPE OF LIABILITY APPLICABILITY OF 2184

S-ar putea să vă placă și