UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

COLLEGE OF LAW

LAW 104
TORTS & DAMAGES

Michael T. Tiu, Jr.

Office: Institute of Human Rights

UP Law Center
Third Floor, Bocobo Hall

Email: michaeljr.tiu@gmail.com
Consultation is by appointment.

Note: This course outline is substantially similar to the syllabus of Prof. Rommel Casis
as of First Semester, AY 2018-2019, as it is based thereon. Permission was obtained to
reproduce and make minor changes to that outline to suit the objectives of this
particular class. This instructor thanks Prof. Casis for allowing him to use the outline.

Class Rules

1. The class will follow university rules on absences.

2. Mobile phones should be turned off or be put in silent mode during class. A ring
from a phone or any another device will trigger a quiz and/or will have consequences
to the person reciting.

Course Description

The law of torts, quasi-delicts, and damages based on the Civil Code and relevant
special laws.

Grading System

I. Recitation - 50

II. Exams - 60

Midterm - 30
Final - 30
Conversion Table

1 = 97 – 100 2.0 = 77 – 81 3 = 56 – 61
1.25 = 92 – 96 2.25 = 72 -76 4 = 51 – 55
1.5 = 87 – 91 2.5 = 67 – 71 5 = 50 & below
1.75 = 82 – 86 2.75 = 62 – 66

SYLLABUS
TORT AND QUASI-DELICT
Arthur RIPSTEIN, Private Wrongs. (2016) Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
(I will send a copy which you will get from the OCS.)

* Definition of Tort under Philippine Law

Naguiat v. NLRC, G.R. No. 116123, March 13, 1997

Vinzons-Chatto v. Fortune, G.R. No. 141309, June 19, 2007

* Tort and Quasi-Delict

Baksh v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993

* Elements of Tort

Garcia v. Salvador, G.R. No. 168512, March 20, 2007

Lucas v. Tuano, G.R. No. 178763, April 21, 2009
Ocean Builders v. Spouses, G.R. No. 150898, April 13, 2011 (See dissent of J. Bersamin as
well.)

* Concept of Quasi-Delict
Historical Background - Barredo v. Garcia, G.R. No. 48006, July 8, 1942
Nature - Article 1157, Civil Code
Governing Provision - Article 1162, Civil Code
Definition, Elements - Article 2176, Civil Code
Scope, Intentional Acts - Article 2176, Civil Code
Cangco v. Manila Railroad. G.R. No. 12191, October 14, 1918
Elcano v. Hill, G.R. No. L-24803, May 26, 1977
Andamo v. IAC, G.R. No. 74761, November 6, 1990
Baksh v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993

* Quasi-delict and Delict - Overlap - LG Foods v. Philadelfa, G.R. No. 158995, September
26, 2006
Overlap between quasi-delict and delict
Barredo v. Garcia, supra
Elcano v. Hill, supra
L.G. Foods v. Philadelfa G.R. No. 158995. September 26, 2006
Culpa Aquiliana and Culpa Contractual
Distinctions between culpa aquiliana and culpa contractual
Source
Cangco v. Manila Railroad, supra
Burden of proof
Cangco v. Manila Railroad, supra
FGU Insurance v. Sarmiento G.R. No. 141910. August 6, 2002
Applicability of doctrine of proximate cause
Calalas v. CA G.R. No, 122039, May 31, 2000
Defense of employer for negligence of employee
Is there an intersection?
Article 2176
Cangco v. Manila Railroad, supra
Fores v. Miranda, G.R. No. L-12163. March 4, 1959
Consolidated Bank v. CA, G.R> No. 138569m September 11, 2003
Air France v. Carrascoso, G.R. No. L-21438. September 28, 1966
Far East v. CA G.R. No. 108164. February 23, 1995
PSBA v. CA G.R. No. 84698. February 4, 1992.
Syquia v. CA G.R. No. 98695. January 27, 1993
Light Rail Transit v. Navidad G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003
Orient Freight International, Inc. v. Keihin-Everett Forwarding Co., Inc., G.R> No.
191937

I. NEGLIGENCE
A. Concept of Negligence
Article 1173
Casis, Rommel J., Negligence in Jurisprudence, 39(3) & (4) IBP J 8 (2014)
1. Determining the diligence required
Article 1173
Jorge v. Sicam G.R. No. 159617, August 8, 2007
Far Eastern Shipping v. CA, G.R. No. 130068. October 1, 1998
PNR v. Brunty, G.R. No. 169891, November 2, 2006
PNR v. CA G.R. No. 157658, October 15, 2007
2. Default standard of diligence
Article 1173
B. Degrees of Negligence
Amedo v. Rio G.R. No. L-6870, May 24, 1954.
Marinduque v. Workmen’s G.R. No. L-8110, June 30, 1956
Ilao-Oreta v. Ronquillo G.R. No. 172406, October 11, 2007
C. Standard of conduct
1. Importance of a Standard of Conduct
2. The Fictitious Person
a. Common law’s reasonable person
b. Civil law’s “good father of a family”
Article 1173
Picart v. Smith G.R. No. L-12219. March 15, 1918
3. Special Circumstances
Añonuevo v. CA, G.R. No. 130003, October 20, 2004
Heirs of Completo v. Albayda G.R. No. 172200. July 6, 2010
Pacis v. Morales G.R. No. 169467. February 25, 2010
4. Children
Taylor v. Manila Railroad 16 Phil 8
Jarco Marketing v. CA 321 SCRA 375
Ylarde v. Aquino G.R. No. L-33722. July 29, 1988
5. Experts
a. In general
Far Eastern Shipping v. CA, G.R. No. 130068. October 1, 1998
Culion v. Philippine Motors G.R. No. 32611. November 3, 1930
b. Pharmacists
US v. Pineda G.R. No. L-12858. January 22, 1918
Mercury Drug v. De Leon G.R. No. 165622. October 17, 2008
c. Medical professionals
Cruz v. CA G.R. No. 122445. November 18, 1997
Dela Torre v. Imbuido, G.R. No. 192973, September 29, 2014
Casumpang v. Cortejo, G.R. Nos. 171127, 171217, & 171228, March 11, 2015
Borromeo v. Family Care Hospital, Inc., G.R. No. 191018, January 25, 2016
Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, v. Sps. Capanzana, G.R. No. 189218, March 22, 2017
II. PRESUMPTIONS OF NEGLIGENCE
A. In motor vehicle mishaps
1. Previous violation
Article 2184
2. Simultaneous violations
Article 2185
Tison v. Sps. Pomasin, G.R. No. 173180, August 24, 2011
Añonuevo v. CA, G.R. No. 130003, October 20, 2004
Travel Tours Advisers, Inc. v. Cruz, Sr., G.R. No. 199282, March 14, 2016
B. Possession of dangerous weapons or substances
Article 2188
C. Common carriers
Articles 1734-1735, 1752
D. Res ipsa loquitur
1. Definition
2. Statement of the Rule
3. Elements
a. Nature of the accident
b. Control over the cause
Josefa v. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. 182705, July 18, 2014
Professional Services v. Agana, G.R. No. 126297, January 31, 2007
BJDC Construction v. Lanuzo, G.R. No. 161151, March 24, 2014
Geromo v. La Paz Housing and Dev’t Corp., G.R. No. 211175, January 18, 2017
Cortel y Carna v. Gepaya-Lim, G.R. No. 218014, December 7, 2016
c. No contribution to the injury from the injured
4. Effect of direct evidence
Layugan v. IAC, G.R. No. 73998, November 14, 1988
Tan v. JAM Transit G.R. No. 183198. November 25, 2009
College Assurance v. Belfranlt G.R. No. 155604. November 22, 2007
5. Nature of the rule
6. Effect of the rule
7. Justification for the rule
DM Consunji v. CA, G.R. No. 137873, April 20, 2001
8. Res ipsa loquitur versus expert testimony in medical negligence cases
Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. 122445, November 18, 1997
Cayao-Lasam v. Sps. Ramolete G.R. No. 159132 December 18, 2008
Lucas v. Tuaño G.R. No. 178763 April 21, 2009
Ramos v. CA G.R. No. 124354 December 29, 1999
Solidum v. People, G.R. No. 192123, March 10, 2014
Cruz v. Agas, Jr., G.R. No. 204095, June 15, 2015
Rosit v. Davao Doctors Hospital, G.R. No. 210445, December 7, 2015
Borromeo v. Family Care Hospital, Inc., G.R. No. 191018, January 25, 2016
III. DEFENSES AGAINST CHARGE OF NEGLIGENCE
A. Plaintiff’s negligence is proximate cause
Article 2179
Bernardo v. Legaspi G.R. No. 9308. December 23, 1914
PLDT v. CA G.R. No. 57079 September 29, 1989
Manila Electric v. Remoquillo G.R. No. L-8328. May 18, 1956
Cagayan II Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Rapanan, G.R. No. 199886, December 3, 2014
B. Contributory negligence of plaintiff
Articles 2179, 2214
1. Definition of contributory negligence
M.H. Rakes v. The Atlantic G.R. No. L-1719 January 3, 1907
Ma-Ao Sugar v. CA G.R. No. 83491 August 27, 1990
Añonuevo v. CA G.R. No. 130003 20 October 2004
NPC v. Heirs of Casionan G.R. No. 165969. November 27, 2008
Spouses Vergara v. Sonkin, G.R. No. 193659 , June 15, 2015
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Junnel's Marketing Corp., G.R. Nos. 235511 & 235565,
June 20, 2018
2. Distinguishing contributory negligence from proximate cause
3. Effect of contributory negligence
Lambert v. Heirs of Ray Castillon G.R. No. 160709. February 23, 2005
PNR v. Brunty, supra
Genobiagon v. CA G.R. No. 40452. October 12, 1989
C. Fortuitous event
1. Definition
Article 1174
Sicam v. Jorge, G.R. No. 159617, August 8 2007
2. Defense and exceptions
Article 1174
3. Elements
4. Three-Step Analysis
Article 1174
Juntilla v. Fontanar G.R. No. L-45637. May 31, 1985
Southeastern College v. CA G.R. No. 126389. July 10, 1998
D. Plaintiff’s assumption of risk/volenti non fit injuria
Article 1174
Afialda v. Hisole G.R. No. L-2075. November 29, 1949
Ilocos Norte v. CA G.R. No. 53401. November 6, 1989
Calalas v. CA, G.R. No. 122039 May 31, 2000
Nikko Hotel v. Roberto Reyes G.R. No. 154259. February 28, 2005
Pantaleon v. American Express G.R. No. 174269. August 25, 2010
Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Co., G.R. No. 164749, March 15, 2017
E. Prescription
Article 1146
Kramer v. CA, G.R. No. 83524, October 13, 1989
IV. THE CAUSE
Casis, Rommel J., Rationalizing Blame: Determining the Proximate Cause in Cases for Quasi-
Delict 39 (1) & (2) IBP J 98 (2014)
A. Different Categories
1. Proximate
Bataclan v. Medina G.R. No. L-10126 October 22 1957
Mercury Drug v. Baking G.R. No. 156037. May 25, 2007
Pilipinas Bank v. CA G.R. No. 105410. July 25, 1994
Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital v. Spouses Capanzana, G.R. No. 189218, March 22, 2017
2. Concurrent
Far Eastern v. CA G.R. No. 130068. October 1, 1998
Ruks Konsult and Construction v. Adworld Sign, G.R. No. 204866, January 21, 2015
3. Remote
Manila Electric v. Remoquillo G.R. No. L-8328 May 18 1956
Gabeto v. Araneta G.R. No. 15674 October 17 1921
ANECO v. Balen G.R. No. 173146. November 25, 2009
4. Intervening
Phoenix Construction v. IAC G.R. No. L-65295 March 10 1987
Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Co., G.R. No. 164749, March 15, 2017
B. Tests to Determine Proximate Cause
1. But for/sine qua non
Bataclan v. Medina, supra
2. Sufficient link
Dy Teban v. Jose Ching, G.R. No. 161803. February 4, 2008
3. Substantial factor
4. Mixed considerations
Dy Teban v. Jose Ching, supra
5. Cause vs. Condition
Phoenix Construction v. IAC, supra
6. Last Clear Chance
a. History and rationale
b. Statement of the rule
c. Application
Picart v. Smith, supra
Phoenix v. IAC supra
Glan v. IAC G.R. No. 70493. May 18, 1989
Canlas v. CA G.R. No. 112160 February 28 2000
Lapanday v. Angala G.R. No. 153076 June 21 2007
Phil Bank of Commerce v. CA G.R. No. 97626 March 14, 1997
Consolidated Bank v. CA G.R. No. 138569 September 11, 2003
Bustamante v. CA G.R. No. 89880 February 6, 1991
Pantranco v. Baesa G.R. Nos. 79051-51 November 14, 1989
Engada v. CA G.R. No. 140698 June 20, 2003

V. PERSONS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE

A. Persons Exercising Parental Authority
1. Parents
Article 2180
Libi v. IAC G.R. No. 10890 September 18 1992
Tamargo v. CA G.R. No. 85044 June 3, 1992
2. Guardians
Article 2180
3. Other persons exercising parental authority
Article 2180
Articles 216-217, 221, Family Code
B. Teachers and Schools
1. Under the Civil Code
Article 2180
Palisoc v. Brillantes G.R. No. L-29025 October 4, 1971
Amadora v. CA G.R. No. L-47745 April 15, 1988
Salvosa v. IAC G.R. No. 70458 October 5, 1988
2. Under the Family Code
Article 218, Family Code
St. Mary’s Academy v. Carpitanos G.R. No. 143363 February 6 2002
St. Joseph’s College v. Miranda, G.R. No. 182353, June 29, 2010
C. Owners/Managers of Establishments/Employers
1. Distinguishing the 4th and 5th paragraphs
Article 2180
Phil. Rabbit v. Phi.l American G.R. No. L-25142 March 25 1975
Castilex v. Vasquez G.R. No. 132266 December 21, 1999
2. When Applicable
a. Employer-Employee Relationship
Spouses Jayme v. Apostol G.R. No. 163609. November 27, 2008
Professional Services v. Agana, G.R. No. 126297, January 31, 2007; G.R. No. 126297,
February 11, 2008; and G.R. No. 126297, February 2, 2010
Mendoza v. Spouses Gomez, G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014
R Transport Corp. v. Yu, G.R. No. 174161, February 18, 2015
Laconsay v. Berog y Caraos, G.R. No. 188686 (Notice), December 3, 2014
Caravan Travel and Tours International v. Abejar, G.R. No. 170631, February 10, 2016
b. Within the scope of assigned tasks
Filamer v. IAC G.R. No. 75112, October 16, 1990; G.R. No. 75112, August 17, 1992
NPC v. CA G.R. No. 119121, August 14, 1998
Castilex v. Vasquez, supra
Valenzuela v. CA G.R. No. 115024 February 7, 1996
3. Presumption of Negligence
4. Rebuttal of Presumption
Lampesa v. De Vera G.R. No. 155111. February 14, 2008
Mercury Drug v. Huang G.R. No. 172122 June 22, 2007
Child Learning Center v. Tagario G.R. No. 150920. November 25, 2005
Mendoza v. Spouses Gomez, G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014
Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital v. Spouses Capanzana, G.R. No. 189218, March 22, 2017
Reyes v. Doctolero, G.R. No. 185597, August 2, 2017
D. The State
Article 2180
Meritt v. Government G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916
Rosete v. Auditor General G.R. No. L-1120 August 31, 1948
Fontanilla v. Maliaman G.R. No. 55963. December 1, 1989; G.R. Nos. 55963 & 61045.
February 27, 1991
Spouses Jayme v. Aposto,l supra
VI. PERSONS SPECXIFICALLY LIABLE
A. Possesor or User of Animals
Article 2183
Afialda v. Hisole G.R. No. L-2075 November 29, 1949
Vestil v. IAC G.R. No. 74431 November 6, 1989
B. Owner of motor vehicles
Article 2184
Chapman v. Underwood G.R. No. 9010 March 28, 1914
Caedo v. Yu Khe Thai G.R. No. L-20392 December 18, 1968
C. Provinces, Cities, and Municipalities
Article 2189
Guilatco v. Dagupan G.R. No. 61516 March 21, 1989
Quezon City v. Dacara G.R. No. 150304. June 15, 2005
Jimenez v. City of Manila G.R. No. 71049. May 29, 1987
D. Proprietors of buildings
Article 2190-2192
E. Engineer/architect of collapsed building
Article 1723
F. Head of a family for things thrown/falling
Article 2193
G. Owners of enterprises/other employers
Articles 1711-1712
Alarcon v. Alarcon G.R. No. L-15692 May 31, 1961
H. Manufacturers/Producers
Article 2187
Pascual v. Ford Motor Company Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 220667 (Notice), January 27,
2016
I. Persons who interfere with contractual relations
Article 1314
Gilchrist v. Cuddy G.R. No. 9356 February 18 1915
So Ping Bun v. CA G.R. No. 120554 September 21, 1999
Lagon v. CA G.R. No. 119107 March 18, 2005
Go v. Cordero, G.R. No. 164703. May 4, 2010
Inocencio v. Hospicio de San Jose G.R. No. 201787, September 25, 2013

VII. HUMAN RELATIONS TORTS

A. Abuse of Rights
Article 19
Globe Mackay v. CA G.R. No. 81262. August 25, 1989
Albenson v. CA G.R. No. 88694. January 11, 1993
Amonoy v. Gutierrez G.R. No. 140420. February 15, 2001
UE v. Jader G.R. No. 132344. February 17, 2000
Pantaleon v. American Express, supra
California Clothing v. Quiñones G.R. No. 175822. October 23, 2013
Sesbreño v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160689, March 26, 2014
B. Illegal Acts
Article 20
Garcia v. Salvador, supra
Comsavings v. Sps. Capistrano G.R. No. 170942. August 28, 2013
Carpio, Antonio T., "Intentional Torts in Philippine Law" 47 Phil L. J. 649, 651-662 (1972)
C. Acts Contra Bonus Mores
1. In General
Article 21
Carpio, supra at 662-668
Wassmer v. Velez G.R. No. L-20089. December 26, 1964
2. Moral Seduction
Tanjanco v. CA, G.R. No. L-18630, December 17, 1966
Baksh v. CA, G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993
3. Public Humiliation
Pe v. Pe, G.R. No. L-17396 May 30, 1962
Grand Union v. Espino, G.R. No. L-48250, December 28, 1979
Carpio v. Valmonte, G.R. No. 151866, September 9, 2004
4. Malicious Prosecution
a. Under Common Law
b. Under Philippine Law
i. Definition
ii. Statutory basis
iii. Elements
Que v. IAC, G.R. No. 66865, January 13, 1989
Drilon v. CA, G.R. No. 107019, March 20, 1997
Magbanua v. Junsay, G.R. No. 132659, February 12, 2007
5. Oppressive dismissal
Quisaba v. Sta Ines, G.R. No. L-38088, August 30, 1974
D. Violation of Human Dignity
Article 26
Carpio, supra at 669-690
Spouses Guanio v. Makati Shangri-la, G.R. No. 190601, February 7, 2011
St Louis v. CA, G.R. No. L-46061, November 14, 1984
Gregorio v. CA, G.R. No. 179799, September 11, 2009
Sps. Hing v. Chiachuy Sr., G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013
E. Dereliction of Duty
Article 27
Datumanong v. Malaga, G.R. No. 204906, June 5, 2017
F. Unfair Competition
Article 28
Willaware Products Corp. v. Jesichris Manufacturing Corp., G.R. No. 195549, September
3, 2014
VIII. INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS
A. Violation of Civil and Political Rights
Article 32
MHP Garments v. CA, G.R. No. 86720, September 2, 1994
Silahis v. Soluta, G.R. No. 163087, February 20, 2006
Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune, G.R. No. 141309, June 19, 2007 and December 23, 2008
B. Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries
Article 33
1. In general
Madeja v. Caro, G.R. No. L-51183, December 21, 1983
2. Defamation
Arafiles v. Phil Journalists, G.R. No. 150256, March 25, 2004
MVRS v. Islamic, G.R. No. 135306, January 28, 2003
Yuchengco v. Manila Chronicle, G.R. No. 184315, November 25, 2009
3. Fraud
Heirs of Simon v. Elvin Chan, G.R. No. 157547, February 23, 2011
4. Physical Injuries
Capuno v. Pepsi Cola, G.R. No. L-19331, April 30, 1965
Corpus v. Paje, G.R. No. L-2673, July 31, 1969
Madeja v. Caro, G.R. No. L-51183, December 21, 1983.
Bonite v. Zosa, G.R. No. L-33772, June 20, 1988
Dulay v. CA, G.R. No. 108017, April 3, 1995
C. Neglect of Duty
Article 34
D. “Catch-All” Independent Civil Action
Article 35
 DAMAGES
I. THE CONCEPT OF DAMAGES1
A. Importance and Definition
B. When Allowed
Custodio v. CA, G.R. No. 116100, February 9, 1996
C. Law on Damages
Articles 2195, 2198
D. Types of Damages
Article 2197
E. Apportionment of Damages
People v. Halil Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013
II. ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY
A. Definition/Purpose
Article 2199
B. Proof required
1. Pleading and proof of actual damage
International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. Chua, G.R. No. 195031, March 26,
2014
2. Nature of Loss and Proof
Gatchalian v. Delim, G.R. No. 56487, October 21, 1991
Oceaneering Contractors v. Baretto, G.R. No. 184215, February 9, 2011
C. Loss covered
1. In general
Article 2200
PNOC v. CA, G.R. No. 107518, October 8, 1998
Candano v. Sugata-On, G.R. 163212, March 13, 2007
2. In contracts and quasi-contracts
Article 2201
Spouses Zalamea v. CA, G.R. No. 104235, November 18, 1993
BPI Family v. Franco, G.R. No. 123498, November 23, 2007
3. In crimes and quasi-delicts
Articles 2202, 2204

1 Some cases discussed in the text are not in the syllabus. This does not mean they are not important, only
that the student is not required to read them in the original.
Llorente v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 85464, October 3, 1991
PNOC v. CA, G.R. No. 107518, October 8, 1998
People v. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 20092
4. Earning capacity, business standing
Article 2205
a. Loss or impairment of earning capacity
Gatchalian v. Delim, supra
Mercury Drug v. Huang, supra
b. injury to business standing or commercial credit

D. Death by crime or quasi-delict

Article 2206
i. Civil/Death indemnity
People v. Halil Gambao, supra
ii. Loss of earning capacity
Pleyto v. Lomboy, G.R. No. 148737, June 16, 2004
E. In rape cases
F. Attorney’s Fees
Article 2208
Aquino v. Casabar, G.R. No. 191470, January 26, 2015
Manila Electric v. Ramoy, G.R. No. 158911, March 4, 2008
Briones v. Macabagdal, G.R. No. 150666, August 3, 2010
Bank of America v. Phil. Racing, G.R. No. 150228, July 30, 2009.
Sps. Andrada v. Pilhino, G.R. No. 156448, February 23, 2011
G. Interest3
Articles 2209-2213
Frias v. San Diego-Sison, G.R. No. 155223, April 3, 2007
Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013
H. Duty to minimize
Article 2203
Lim v. CA, G.R. No. 125817, January 16, 2002
Mackay Radio v. Rich, G.R. No. L-22608, June 30, 1969.
I. Mitigation of damages

2 The criminal law aspect or the details of the crime will not be discussed in all criminal cases except when
relevant to the damages aspect.
3 The discussion in the text on this portion should be amended in light of the Court's ruling in Nacar v. Gallery
Frames.
Articles 2214-2215
Sweet Lines v. CA, G.R. No. L-46340, April 28, 1983
Ong v. Bogñabal, G.R. No. 149140, September 12, 2006.
III. MORAL DAMAGES
A. Purpose
Kierulf v. CA G.R. No. 99301, March 13, 1997
B. When recoverable
1. Moral suffering is the proximate result
Article 2217
2. Within Specific Cases
Articles 2219 -2220
a. A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries
i. Includes crimes resulting in death
ii. Need for testimony on moral suffering
People v. Cleopas and Pirame G.R. No. 121998, March 9, 2000
Carlos Arcona y Moban v. CA G.R. No. 134784, December 9, 2002
People v. Vilarmea G.R. No. 200029, November 13, 2013
b. Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries
Laconsay v. Berog y Caraos, G.R. No. 188686 (Notice), December 3, 2014
c. Seduction, Abduction, Rape or other lascivious acts
People v. Lizano G.R. No. 174470, April 27 2007
d. Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest
People v. Madsali, G.R. No. 179570, February 4, 2010
e. Illegal Search
f. Libel, slander or any other form of defamation
Occena v. Icamina G.R. No. 82146, January 22, 1990
g. Malicious Prosecution
Expert Travel v. CA, G.R. No. 130030, June 25, 1999
Industrial Insurance v. Bondad, G.R. No. 136722, April 12, 2000
Spouses Suntay v. Keyser Mercantile, Inc., G.R. No. 208462, December 10, 2014
h. Acts mentioned in Article 309
Article 309
i. Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35
j. Acts Contra Bonus Mores
Article 21
Triple Eight v. NLRC, G.R. No. 129584, December 3, 1998
k. Violation of Human Dignity
Article 26
Concepcion v. CA, G.R. No. 120706, January 31, 2000
l. Refusal or Neglect of Duty
Article 27
m. Unfair Competition
Article 28
n. Violation of Civil and Political Rights
Article 32
Manila Electric v. Spouses Chua, G.R. No. 160422, July 5, 2010
Cojuangco v. CA G.R. No. 119398, July 2, 1999
o. Willful injury to property
Article 2220
Manila Electric v. Ramoy, supra
Regala v. Carin G.R. No. 188715, April 6, 2011
p. Breach of contract in bad faith
Article 2220
Francisco v. Ferrer G.R. No. 130030, June 25, 1999
Bankard v. Feliciano G.R. No. 141761, July 28, 2006
BPI Express Card Corp. v. Armovit, G.R. No. 163654, October 8, 2014
PAL v. Lopez G.R. No. 156654. 20 November 2008
Spouses Valenzuela v. Spouses Mano, G.R. No. 172611, July 9, 2010
C. Who may recover
1. Relatives of Injured person
Articles 2219, 2206(3)
Sulpicio Lines v. Curso, G.R. No. 157009, 17 March 2010
Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. v. Abejar, G.R. No. 170631, February 10, 2016
2. Juridical persons
ABS-CBN v. CA, G.R. No. 128690, January 21, 1999
Filipinas Broadcasting v. Ago, G.R. No. 141994, January 17, 2005
Republic v. Tuvera G.R. No. 148246, 16 February 2007
Crystal v. BPI, G.R. No. 172428, November 28, 2008.
San Fernando v. Cargill G.R. No. 178008. October 9, 2013.
D. Factors considered in determining amount
Lopez v. Pan American G.R. No. L-22415, March 30, 1966
 IV. NOMINAL DAMAGES
A. Purpose and When Recoverable
1. Violation of a Right
Articles 2221- 2222
People v. Marquez G.R. No. 181440, 13 April 2011
Almeda v. Cariño G.R. No. 152143, 13 January 2003
Gonzales v. PCIB, G.R. No. 180257, February 23, 2011
2. No actual loss caused or proven
Areola v. CA, G.R. No. 95641, September 22, 1994
PNOC v. CA, G.R. No. 107518, October 8, 1998
Francisco v. Ferrer, supra
Twin Ace v. Rufina, G.R. No. 160191, June 8, 2006
China Airlines, Ltd., v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129988, July 14, 2003
3. Under Considerations of Equity
Spouses Guanio v. Makati Shangri-la, supra
B. Nature and Determination of Amount
1. Small but substantial
2. Commensurate to injury suffered
Gonzales v. People G.R. No. 159950, 12 February 2007.
Pedrosa v. CA, G.R. No. 118680, March 5, 2001
3. Special reasons extant in the case
Robes-Francisco v. CFI, G.R. No. L-41093. October 30, 1978.
People v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 144316, March 11, 2002
C. Effect of Award
Article 2223
V. TEMPERATE DAMAGES
A. When awarded
1. Nature of case prevents determination of actual loss
Article 2224
2. Cases where amount of loss not proven
Pleno v. CA G.R. No. G.R. No. 56505. May 9, 1988
Tan v. OMC Carriers G.R. No. 190521. January 12, 2011
3. In addition to actual damages
Ventanilla v. Centeno G.R. No. L-14333 28 January 1961
a. Chronic and continuing injury
Ramos v. CA, supra
b. In addition to civil indemnity
c. In addition to other actual damages proven
B. Factors in determining amount
1. In general
Article 2224
De Guzman v. Tumolva, G.R. No. 188072, October 19, 2011
2. Receipts amounting to less than P25,000
People v. Lucero, G.R. No. 179044, December 6, 2010
Serrano v. People, G.R. No. 175023, July 5, 2010
People v. Andres, G.R. Nos. 135697-98, 15 August 2003
3. No receipts provided
People v. Gidoc G.R. No. 185162, 24 April 2009
People v. Abrazaldo G.R. No. 124392, 7 February 2003
VI. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
A. Definition and Purpose
1. Definition
Articles 2226, 2228
Suatengco v. Reyes, G.R. No. 162729, December 17, 2008
2. Purpose
Article 2227
HL Carlos v. Marina, G.R. No. 147614, January 29, 2004
Titan v. Uni-Field, G.R. No. 153874, March 1, 2007
B. Reducing the amount
1. When iniquitous or unconscionable
Article 2227
2. Possible tests
a. Apply rules on penalty clauses
Ligutan v. CA, G.R. No. 138677, February 12, 2002
Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128833, April 20, 1998.
b. “Attorney’s fees” test
c. Applying precedent
d. Proportionality test
e. Necessity test
Henry Dela Rama Co v. Admiral United Savings Bank, G.R. No. 154740, April 16, 2008.
f. When in pari delicto
Sy v. CA, G.R. No. L-39853, August 17, 1983
g. Consider actual damages
VII. EXEMPLARY/CORRECTIVE DAMAGES
A. Purpose
Article 2229
B. When imposed
1. In general
Articles 2229- 2233
2. In addition to other types
Article 2234
Canada v. All Commodities G.R. No. 146141, October 17, 2008
PNB v. CA G.R. No. 108630. April 2, 1996
3. Renunciation in advance
Article 2235
4. In crimes
Article 2230
People v. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001
People v. Diunsay-Jalandoni, G.R. No. 174277, February 8, 2007
People v. Dalisay, G.R. No. 188106, November 25, 2009
People v. Dadulla, G.R. No. 172321, February 9, 2011
5. In quasi-delicts
Article 2231
Kapalaran Bus Line v. Coronado, G.R. No. 85331, August 25, 1989
Baliwag Transit v. CA, G.R. No. 116624, September 20, 1996
Philtranco v. CA, G.R. No. 120553, June 17, 1997
6. In contracts and quasi-contracts
Article 2232
Munsayac v. De Lara, G.R. No. L-21151, June 26, 1968
Singapore Airlines v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 142305, December 10, 2003
Francisco v. Ferrer, supra
Arco Pulp and Paper Co., Inc. v. Lim, G.R. No. 206806, June 25, 2014