Torts;

Quasi-Delict Definition; Decision:

Yes, damages should be awarded to Gonzales.
Quasi-delict, known in Spanish legal treatises as culpa aquiliana, is
a civil law concept while torts is an Anglo-American or common The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per se is not
law concept. Torts is much broader than culpa aquiliana because it an actionable wrong. This notwithstanding, the said Code contains
includes not only negligence, but international criminal acts as a provision, Article 21, which is designed to expand the concept of
well such as assault and battery, false imprisonment and deceit. torts or quasi-delict. Quasi-delict, known in Spanish legal treatises
as culpa aquiliana, is a civil law concept while torts is an Anglo-
Baksh vs. CA GR No. 97336 February 19, 1993 American or common law concept. Torts is much broader than
culpa aquiliana because it includes not only negligence, but
Facts: international criminal acts as well such as assault and battery,
A compliant for damages was filed against Gashem Baksh, an false imprisonment and deceit.
Iranian national for alleged violation of their agreement to get
married allegedly with Marilou Gonzales. Gonzales alleged when Art. 21 Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in
Baksh proposed to marry her, she was forced to live with him but a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy
a week before she filed the complaint, Baksh maltreated and shall compensate the latter for the damage.
threatened to kill her.
Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which defines a quasi-delict thus:
Gonzales prayed for judgment to pay damages in the amount of Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being
not less than P45,000 reimbursement for actual expenses fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such
amounting to P600.00, attorney's fees and costs, and granting her fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
such other relief and remedies as may be just and equitable. between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
provisions of this Chapter.
Baksh denied allegations and claimed he never proposed marriage
or to agreed to be married. He did not maltreat her, but only told Where a man's promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of
her to stop coming to his place because he discovered that she had the acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to
deceived him by stealing his money and passport; and finally, no fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the
confrontation took place with a representative of the barangay giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he had,
captain. Insisting, in his Counterclaim, that the complaint is in reality, no intention of marrying her and that the promise was
baseless and unfounded and that as a result thereof, he was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her
unnecessarily dragged into court and compelled to incur expenses, to accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could
and has suffered mental anxiety and a besmirched reputation, he justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of
prayed for an award of P5,000.00 for miscellaneous expenses and such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind
P25,000.00 as moral damages. it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which
followed thereafter. It is essential, however, that such injury
Issue: should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good
Whether the claims for damages of Gonzales should prosper customs or public policy.

 since private respondent's cause of action arose from the breach of
implied warranties, the complaint should have been filed within
six months room delivery of the soft drinks pursuant to Article
171 of the Civil Code.
Distinguish Quasi-Delicts and Torts
Issue:
Quasi-delict, as defined in Article 2176 of the Civil Code, (which is Whether a claim should prosper
known in Spanish legal treaties as culpa aquiliana, culpa extra-
contractual or cuasi-delitos) is homologous but not identical to Decision:
tort under the common law, which includes not only negligence, Yes, she may recover damages.
but also intentional criminal acts, such as assault and battery, false
imprisonment and deceit. Under the law on obligations, responsibility arising from fraud is
demandable in all obligations and any waiver of an action for
Coca-cola Bottlers Phils vs CA G.R. No. 110295 October 18, 1993 future fraud is void. Responsibility arising from negligence is also
demandable in any obligation, but such liability may be regulated
Facts: by the courts, according to the circumstances.
Proprietress of a school canteed had to close down due to a big
drop of sales of soft drinks triggered by the discovery of foreign The vendor could likewise be liable for quasi-delict under Art.
substances in certain beverages sold by it. 2176 of the Civil Code, and an action based thereon may be
brought by the vendee. While it may be true that the pre-existing
The proprietress who went over her stock of softdrinks discovered contract between the parties may, as a general rule, bar the
the presence of some fiber-like substances in the contents of some applicability of the law on quasi-delict, the liability may itself be
unopened Coke bottles and a plastic matter in the contents of an deemed to arise from quasi-delict, i.e., the acts which breaks the
unopened Sprite bottle. She brought said bottles to the Regional contract may also be a quasi-delict.
Health Office of DOH for examination and informed that the
samples submitted “are adulterated”. As a result of losses, she
became jobless and destitute. She then claimed for damages
against Coca-Cola.

Coca-cola moved to dismiss on the grounds of failure to exhaust
administrative remedies and prescription, reveal that the primary
legal basis for private respondent's cause of action is not Article
2176 of the Civil Code on quasi-delict — for the complaint does
not ascribe any tortious or wrongful conduct on its part — but
Articles 1561 and 1562 thereof on breach of a seller's implied
warranties under the law on sales. It contends the existence of a
contractual relation between the parties (arising from the contract
of sale) bars the application of the law on quasi-delicts and that
Elements of Quasi-Delicts
Issue:
To establish his right to a recovery, must establish by competent Whether an award for damages should prosper
evidence: (1) Damages to the plaintiff. (2) Negligence by act or
omission of which defendant personally, or some person for Decision:
whose acts it must respond, was guilty. (3) The connection of The court ruled in the negative and dismissed the case.
cause and effect between the negligence and the damage.
Where he contributes to the principal occurrence, as one of its
determining factors, he can not recover. Where, in conjunction
Taylor vs Manila Electric Company 16 Phil. 8 with the occurrence, he contributes only to his own injury, he may
recover the amount that the defendant responsible for the event
Facts: should pay for such injury, less a sum deemed a suitable
The defendant is a foreign corporation engaged in the operation of equivalent for his own imprudence.
a street railway and an electric light system in the city of Manila.
Plaintiff, with a boy named Manuel Claparols, about 12 years of The immediate cause of the explosion, the accident which resulted
age, crossed the footbridge to visit one Murphy, an employee of in plaintiff's injury, was in his own act in putting a match to the
the defendant and entered the street railway. After watching contents of the cap, and that having "contributed to the principal
operation of the travelling crane, found twenty or thirty brass occurrence, as one of its determining factors, he can not recover."
fulminating caps scattered on the grounds, hung them on the stick
and carried them home. The boys then made series of experiments The plaintiff in this case had sufficient capacity and understanding
with the caps which led to its explosion and caused injuries to to be sensible of the danger to which he exposed himself when he
several other minors including the plaintiff. Allegations that the put the match to the contents of the cap; that he was sui juris in
caps which were found by plaintiff on defendant company's the sense that his age and his experience qualified him to
premises were the property of the defendant, or that they had understand and appreciate the necessity for the exercise of that
come from its possession and control, and that the company or degree of caution which would have avoided the injury which
some of its employees left them exposed on its premises at the resulted from his own deliberate act.
point where they were found.

Plaintiff now sought to claim for damages against the defendant.

Manila Electric Company disputed that plaintiff would not have
been injured had he not, for his own pleasure and convenience,
entered upon the defendant's premises, and strolled around
thereon without the express permission of the defendant, and had
he not picked up and carried away the property of the defendant
which he found on its premises, and had he not thereafter
deliberately cut open one of the caps and applied a match to its
contents.