Pre-Week Lecture on Torts & Damages

By: Uribe

Vicarious liability and defenses

Dulay vs CA- in an altercation between them, the lawyer was shot by the guard. The guard and his employer, Security
agency were sued. Employer filed dismissal of case against the agency being not an act of the agency but that of the
guard.

SC ruled that quasi delict should not be limited to mere negligent acts. It may arise from malicious and intentional
acts.

Art. 2176- Quasi delict- fault or negligence.

Fault – can be intentional, malicious or an act punishable by law.

Art. 2176 does not exclude an act punishable by law as quasi delict.

Art. 2177- the excess of the amount awarded can be availed of.

Culpa extra-contractual- fault or negligence outside of the contract. Broader than quasi delict.

Negotiorum gestio

Saludaga vs. FEU- a law student shot by the guard of FEU. Source of obligation arises from delict. Civil case was filed
by Saludaga against FEU.

Quasi delict-security agency can be held liable as employer due to vicarious liability.

FEU is liable for damages under contract, not under quasi delict. However, if there is gross negligence on the part of
the school, it can be held liable to pay for moral damages. In this case, FEU committed gross negligence by not
screening the guards deployed to them by the security agency.

2 scenarios when school can be held liable vicariously:

1. School is the employer of the guard.
2. The injury caused to the student must also be caused by its own students

For the school to the liable for an injury caused to its students, it must be caused by its own students, not a stranger.
School is not liable under quasi delict but under contract.

Even there is a pre-existing contract, a claim under quasi-delict can still be filed. Hence, both claims arising from
contract and from quasi-delict. The other vehicle who collided, quasi delict.

Defense that employer exercised the required diligence of supervision over its employees is applicable only to an
action under quasi delict, not when the action is based on contract.

A minor child who commited injury inside school premise, teacher is primarily liable while the parents are
subsidiarily liable.

Employer’s liability for its employees’ acts is primary in contract and quasi delict, while in subsidiary in delict. The
employer need not be impleaded in contractual or quasi-delict.

Civil action under quasi delict requires mere proof of preponderance of evidence.

Despite pendency of criminal complaint, an independent civil action can be instituted. No need to make any
reservation in the criminal case.
Judgment of acquittal because the accused was not negligent which was based on a quantum of proof beyond
reasonable doubt, does not bar the filing of civil case under quasi delict which requires mere preponderance of
evidence.

Torts & damages- mainly based on jurisprudence

Art. 1314-

Article 19- Principle of abuse of rights

Requisites to hold defendant liable for damages under quasi delict:

1. No pre-existing contractual relations between the parties. This does not mean that if there is pre-existing
contract, one cannot claim under quasi-delict. Quasi-delict can still be claimed even with pre-existing
contract if the contract itself creates the tortuous act.

In airline cases where overbooking is made, the passenger who was not accommodated because of no seat available
despite paid reservation, the passenger may sue the airline for breach of contract but not under quasi delict because
the airline management did not commit any tortuous acts.

One liable for breach of contract can be held liable for moral damages if the party acted in bad faith.

Damage is not the same as injury. In damage, there might not be violation of one’s right (ex. Due to fortuitous event-
damnum absque injuria). Injury results from violation of one’s right.

Damage to who and to what? Can there be a valid claim under quasi delict if it cause damage to property? Yes. There
can be a valid claim for damages even in damage to property.

Causal determination between an act or omission- the act or omission must be the direct cause of the damage.

As to 2 parties who are both negligent, if negligence of plaintiff is the proximate cause of the injury he suffered, he
cannot recover. But if it is one caused by that of the defendant, plaintiff can claim for damages but mitigated
(Doctrine of Contributory negligence)

Fault or Negligence – whether the act is negligent or not, consider circumstances surrounding the person (time and
place).

Alighting from a moving vehicle, per se, is a not a negligent act (considering the circumstances of the person, time
and place). Victim’s age and gender were considered.

Degree of diligence-

Common carriers- extra ordinary/utmost diligence

Banks/doctors/realty firms- highest degree of diligence

Banks/realty firms cannot simply rely on the Mirror doctrine- they are required to inquire/investigate on the
authenticity of the document presented to them.

Doctrine of last clear chance- cannot be invoked by the bank because they are required to observe the highest
degree of diligence.

Proof of negligence- plaintiff has the burden to prove as a rule. Exception:

1. Presumption of negligence:
a. Disputable presumptions – Art2183, 84 and 85 (a person violating a traffic regulation who committed a
vehicular mishap is presumed negligent (vehicular mishaps)- presumption stays unless rebutted.
b. Conclusive presumptions- Art 2187 (manufacturers of products containing obnoxious substances) and
2193
Check recording # 42 & first part of # 43

Parents- liability of parents for the acts of the children is primary.

Art. 2184- liability of owners of vehicles with a driver who is negligent.

Rule:
1. If owner is inside the vehicle together with the driver, though the latter was negligent. Owner is liable only
when he is inside the vehicle and with the use of due diligence, he could have prevented the mishap.
2. If owner doesn’t have the opportunity to prevent the mishap even with exercise of due diligence.

Article 2180- owner, even not inside the car with the driver, may still be held liable. If he is inside the vehicle, he is
liable if requisites of Art. 2184 are present.

Employer’s liability

1. Proof of employer-employee relationship

2. The employee must be performing his assigned task/official functions when the injury/damage is caused to
another

Liability of school teachers and administrators-

School can be held vicariously liable.

Teachers of schools – any learning institution (doesn’t matter if vocation, pre-school or arts and sciences)- now
vicariously liable

Student who caused the death of another student, without any intent to kill the same (accidental death)- teacher is
not liable if the student who caused the death is already of age. Teacher is liable only if the student is not of age.

Who are solidary liable for an act committed by students- teachers, administrator and schools. Parents are
subsidiarily liable only.

Liability of school teachers, administrators and authorities is principal and solidary, not subsidiarily.

Art. 2207- Ex. Explosion of gas tank- not considered a fortuitous event. It was due to the negligence of the owner of
the premise from which the gas tank explosion arises.

Napocor case during the incident of flooding brought by typhoon Peping- fortuitous event cannot be used as a
defense because Napocor was negligent.

Contributory negligence- only a partial defense, mitigating the penalty.

PNR case- it was a contributory negligence of the passenger, what caused the death of the passenger was
contributed by his negligence of not holding the bar safely

Doctrine of Last clear chance is not applicable when there is no appreciable span of time before the danger can be
prevented.

Overload jeepney- alighted from the jeepney but it was parked irregularly by the driver. Owner of jeepney, driver of
the jeepney and that of the other vehicle (4 were sued). Doctrine of last clear chance cannot be invoked if the case is
as between the victim (plaintiff) and the vehicle owner. This can be invoked only as between 2 parties who are
negligent. Involvement of an innocent third person (victim), this doctrine cannot be invoked.

DAMAGES
Actual or compensatory damages- not the same. Trial courts may award different amount for each.

Compensatory damages- lost opportunity earnings.

Only the plaintiff who testified is entitled to moral damages, not the others who did not testify.

The court cannot award all the 6 kinds of damages. Know the rulings.

Pecuniary loss cannot be awarded together with nominal damages

Death of a person- if a plaintiff cannot present proof of actual damages and proof is less than P25k, court will
automatically award P25 as temperate damages- per latest ruling

Nominal or temperate damages cannot be awarded concurrently with actual damages.

Art. 2206- liabilities:

1. Indemnity-
2. Loss of earning capacity
3. Moral damages
4. Support
5.

In case of miscarriage, indemnity cannot be claimed because a dead fetus does not acquire civil personality. But
moral damages can be filed.

Loss of earning capacity= gross income in a year less necessary expenses incurred to earn the amount x

Interest- discretion of the court

Support – in favour of the person to whom the person is obliged to support

Moral damages- suffering from mental anguish or serious anxiety does not automatically entitles one to MD
Art. 2219- grounds should be present in order to claim for moral damages
Immorality or dishonesty is not a valid ground to claim moral damages

Malicious prosecution- rule to entitle claim for moral damages (even a clearly unfounded civil suit is sufficient to
claim moral damages, not necessarily a criminal case).

Disbarment case without any ground can be a basis for moral damages.

Before an action for moral damages can prosper, the case (criminal or civil) which is malicious/unfounded, the
decision must be final and executory.