EXTRA-CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

(Arts. 2142-2194)

Torts are acts giving rise to civil liability, but are not necessarily the consequences of crimes or
contractual obligations.

Kinds of torts:

1. The American concept which is based on malice and deceit. (See Chapter on Human
Relations)

2. Quasi-delicts (Culpa aquiliana) is an act or omission which causes damages to another, there
being fault or negligence and there being no pre-existing contractual relationship between the
parties. Whoever causes such act or omission is obliged to pay for the damage done. (Art. 2176)

While it is true that in order that a person may be liable for quasi-delicts, there must be no pre-
existing contractual relationship between the parties, yet, if there is an act that violates the
contract independently of the contract, the act can give rise to liability under quasi-delicts. (Air
France v. Carrascoso, Sept. 23, 1966)

The test for determining whether or not a person is negligent in doing an act of causing injury
or damage to the person or property of another is this: Would a prudent man in the position of
the person to whom negligence is attributed foresee harm to the person injured as a
reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued”. If so, the law imposes the duty on
the doer to take precaution against its mischievous results and the failure to do so constitutes
negligence. (Hedy Gan-Yu v. CA, 44264, Sept. 10, 1988)

Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor means “the things speaks for itself”. Since negligence may in some
cases be hard to prove, we may apply this doctrine. This means that in certain instances, the
presence of facts or circumstances surrounding the injury clearly indicate negligence on the
part of the defendant – as when the defendant was on the wrong side of the street. (US v.
Crame, 30 Phil. 2) The presumption is however rebuttable.

Doctrine of Damnum Absque Injuria means that “although there was physical injury, there was
no legal injury”. Hence, if a carefully driven car hurts a pedestrian because of lightning
temporarily blinded the driver, the pedestrian cannot recover damages, for legally there was no
fault in view of the fortuitous event.

Doctrine of last clear chance (doctrine of discovered peril) is the principle where both parties
are guilty of negligence, but the negligent act of one succeeds that of the other by an
appreciable interval of time, the one who has the last reasonable opportunity to avoid the
impending harm and fails to do so, is chargeable with the consequences without reference to
the prior negligence of the other party. (Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil.813)
The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages resulting from its total
or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs. (Art. 2190) The doctrine
of “last clear chance,” in a case where the accident could have been avoided if only the victim
heeded the warning to vacate, is not applicable to instances covered by Article 2190, (Q4, 1990
Bar) but merely to mitigate damages within the context of contributory negligence. In Roy v.
CA, 157 SCRA 757, it was established that the doctrine of last clear chance is applicable only to
vehicular accident.