Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Requisites Facts: Spouses hire PU for road trip. Collided with passenger bus.
Both drivers were negligent. Crim cases filed. Defense of defendant
1. Negligence was that since crim case was filed first no civil action could be filed.
2. Damage
3. Causal connection Held:
The same negligent act causing damages may produce a civil liability
arising from crime or create an action for quasi-delict. The former is
Concepts a violation of crim law while the latter is a distinct and independent
negligence having always had its own foundation and individuality.
Quasi-delict – Source of obligation wherein by the act or omission of
somebody, there being fault or negligence, he causes damage to
another for which he is liable to the latter and there is no pre-
existing contract between them. ∆ Cinco v Canoy
Tort –an act which causes damage to another person. It is a civil Facts: Collision between Cinco’s car and jeepney. Criminal and civil
wrong consisting of a violation of a right or a breach of duty for action instituted. Defendants move to suspend civil action pending
which the law grants a remedy in damages or other relief. criminal action.
(Therefore, a tort encompasses a broader concept than quasi-delict;
it also includes breach of contract and crimes) Held: Quasi-delict is an independent source of obligation hence there
can be an independent civil action for damages to property during
Negligence – failure to observe for the protection of the interests of pendency of criminal action.
another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which
the circumstances justly demand, whereby such person suffers
injury. ∆ Mendoza v Arrieta
Fault – a condition where a person acts in a manner contrary to what Facts: 3 way accident with Truck hits jeep which in turn hits Benz.
normally should’ve done Crim case absolved jeep. Suit against truck.
Damage – loss, hurt or harm which results from injury. Held: Civil case based on quasi-delict may proceed independently
regardless of result of crim case. Hence failure to reserve right to
Scope file independent civil action in crim does not bar civil action based
on quasi-delict which is distinct and different from civil liability
All wrongful acts or omissions as long as: arising from RPC.
1. They do not constitute a breach of contract
2. They are not punishable as offenses. Quasi-Delict distinguished from crime
Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to violate his
∆ Cangco v MRC contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party.
Facts: Guy alighted from train and stepped on watermelons. Results Elements of interference:
in violent fall. Suit for damages. Defense of good father of family in 1. Existence of a valid contract
selection and supervision of employees. 2. Knowledge on the part of the 3rd party of the existence of
the contract
Held: Liability arose from contract of carriage. 3. Inducement or interference of the 3rd party without legal
Since there is breach of contract: justification or excuse
4. breach of contract
Negligence on part of the employees which resulted in the breach 5. causes damage to the other party
would make MRC liable even if it proves diligence in selecting and
supervising employees. Possible defenses:
1. Business competition where lawful means are used
Negligence is not even necessary in order to make it liable. As long > No intent to cause damage
as there is a breach, liability may arise. 2. honest advice
> made good faith
> performance of duty as an adviser
∆ Manila Railroad v. Compania Transatlantica 3. lack of element of inducement
∆ Astudillo v MERALCO
∆ Rakes v AG&P
Facts: Teenager Astudillo died by electrocution when he grasped a
Facts: While transporting rails from a barge, the track sagged charged electric wire with his right hand.
causing rails to slide off which caught Rakes and as a result broke
his leg (which was later amputated). Rakes files for damages. Both Held: MERALCO negligent in placing its pole and wires within
claim the other was negligent. proximity to a place frequented by many people with the possibility
ever present of someone losing his life by coming in contact with a
Held: AGP was negligent. It was duty of defendant to build and highly charged and defectively insulated wire
maintain its track in reasonably sound condition so as to protect its The duty of exercising high degree of diligence and care
workingmen from unnecessary danger. It is plain that in one respect extends to every place where persons have a right to be.
or the other it failed in its duty, otherwise the accident could not
have occurred.
Fault or Negligence
∆ Cangco v MRC Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of an obligor consists in the
omission of the diligence required by the obligation and the
Held: In contract of carriage there is duty to carry passenger in circumstances of the persons, time and place. When
safety and to provide safe means of entering and leaving its trains. negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Art 1171 and 2201 par.
Defendant breached this duty by leaving watermelons on an unlit 2 shall apply.
platform where the same can cause injury.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be
observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good father
of a family shall be required.
∆ Lilius v Manila Railroad Co.
Facts: Lilius and family on road trip. Collided with train at a railroad
crossing. There was nothing to indicate that the crossing existed
Negligence – Want of care required by the nature of the obligation
and that it was impossible to see an approaching train since there
and the circumstances of the persons, time and place.
were many houses and shrubs and trees blocking the view.
∆ Yamada v Manila Railroad Co. If so, the law imposed a duty on the actor to refrain from
the course or take precaution against its mischievous
Facts: Plaintiffs rented a car with chauffeur for road trip. On the way results, and the failure to do so constitutes negligence.
back car was struck by a train while crossing tracks of defendant
Railroad Company. Taxi did not reduce its speed while crossing the (Picart v Smith)
tracks.
∆ Del Rosario v MERALCO Held: Mere intoxication is not negligence nor does the mere fact of
intoxication establish a want of ordinary care.
Facts: Live wire was reported to MERALCO at 2pm. At 4pm little kid
touched the wire (ay! Madre!) and was electrocuted. Father sues.
∆ Corliss v Manila Railroad Co.
Held: After it received a report, MERALCO had the duty to address
the problem immediately. Undue delay in leaving danger unguarded Facts: Collision between jeep and train in Clark Air force Base. Jeep
and unattended for so long after report was received constituted slowed down before reaching the crossing but did not stop even
negligence. though the locomotive could be clearly seen 300 meters away and
which also blew its siren. Widow seeks damages.
∆ Picart v Smith
Contributory Negligence
Facts: Pony crossing a bridge. Automobile coming from other
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate direction sounds horn and moves to the right expecting pony to
and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But move to other side. Pony did not. Automobile does not slow down.
if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and Realizing too late that pony cannot get to other side it swerved in
proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, order to avoid hitting the pony. Pony becomes frightened and turned
the plaintiff may recover damages but the courts shall mitigate the its head toward railing, got hit tuloy… pony died of injuries…
damages to be awarded.
Held:
The person who has the last fair chance to avoid impending
harm and fails to do so is chargeable with consequences
Art 2179 without reference to prior negligence of other party.
The defendant can show that the The defendant can also show
immediate and proximate cause that although the proximate
of the injury was the negligence cause of the injury was Last clear chance --- “Even though a person’s own acts may have
of the plaintiff himself. defendant’s lack of due care, the placed him in a position of peril and an injury results, the injured is
plaintiff also contributed to the entitled to recover if the defendant through the exercise of
Operates as a complete defense. injury with his own negligence. reasonable care and prudence might have avoided injurious
Defendant not liable consequences to the plaintiff.”
Operates as a partial defense.
Defendant is still liable but his
liability may be mitigated by the ∆ Phoenix Construction v IAC
court.
Facts: Collision between drunk driver and parked truck. No
headlights (suddenly failed daw), no curfew pass. Truck was parked
askew.
∆ Rakes v AG&P
Held: Court used Art 2179 on contributory negligence saying that
Comparative Contributory Proportional Last clear chance doctrine should not be applied in negligence cases
negligence Negligence damages in the Philippine Civil law system
(common law)
Allows recovery Any negligence, Reducing the award ∆ Glan People’s Lumber v CA
provided his however slight, on to a plaintiff in
negligence was the part of person proportion to his Facts: Drunk, zigzagging, jeepney driver collides with truck. Truck
slight compared with injured which is one responsibility for the run some 25cm to the left of center of road. Before jeep collided, the
that of defendant of the causes accident. truck was at full stop already. Skid marks indicate truck had applied
proximately brakes while jeepney did not.
contributing to his
injury, bars his Held: Jeepney had last clear chance to avoid the accident. He should
recovery have stopped or swerved his jeep away from the truck which he had
sufficient time to do running at 30km/h. His duty was to seize the
opportunity of avoidance and not merely rely on a supposed right to
expect the truck to serve.
Held: Where he contributes to the principal occurrence as one of its
determining factors, he cannot recover. Where, in conjunction with
the occurrence, he contributes only to his own injury, he may
recover the amount that the defendant responsible for the event ∆ Bustamante v CA
should pay for such injury, less a sum deemed equivalent for his
own imprudence. Facts: Collision between gravel and sand truck and passenger bus.
Negligence of Rakes will not totally bar him from Suit brought by passenger.
recovering anything from Atlantic, although the liability of the latter
will be mitigated as a result of Rakes’ contributory negligence, the Held: Principle of last clear chance applies in a suit between the
primary causes of the accident was still the weak rails which Atlantic owners and drivers of colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a
refused to repair. passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce
its contractual obligations.
Last Clear Chance
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -5-
happened was the very thing which the statute or ordinance was
intended to prevent.
∆ McKee v. IAC
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Facts: Mckee swerved onto the other side of road to avoid hitting (the deed speaks for itself)
pedestrians who suddenly darted to the middle of his lane. He
switched on headlights and applied brakes and attempted to return
Res Ipsa Loquitur
to his lane. Before doing so it collided with a cargo truck.
Held: Court applied… Where the thing which caused injury, without fault of the
injured person, is under the exclusive control of the
defendant and the injury is such as in the ordinary course
The Emergency Rule of things does not occur if he having such control used
proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the
One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and absence of the explanation, that the injury arose from
is required to act without time to consider the best means defendant’s want of care.
that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is
not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have Elements:
been a better method, unless the emergency in which he 1. Thing that caused the injury is under exclusive
finds himself is brought about by his own negligence. control of defendant.
2. No fault of the injured person.
3. Injury would not have occurred if the person who
controlled the thing used proper care.
Presumed Negligence 4. Fault or negligence is not directly imputable to
anyone or there is no direct evidence supporting the
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable same
with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by
the use of due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably (applies when one cannot point out
presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of the cause or the breach)
reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within
the next preceding two months.
∆ Africa v Caltex
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that Facts: Caltex gas station –Fire breaks out while gasoline was being
a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of hosed from tank truck to underground storage. Fire spreads and
the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. burns nearby houses.
The driver is disputably presumed negligent if: Held: Gas station with all its appliances, equipment and employees
1. he had been found guilty of recklessly driving at least is under the control of Caltex. Person who knew or could’ve
twice within the next preceding two months. explained how the fire started were appellees and their employees,
2. he had been found guilty of violating traffic regulations at but they gave no such explanation. It is a fair and reasonable
least twice within the next preceding two months inference that the incident happened because of want of care.
3. at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic
regulation.
∆ Republic v Luzon Stevedoring Corporation
Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the
part of the defendant if the death or injury results from his Facts: Barge towed by tugboats rammed against bridge. At the time,
possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearms river was swollen.
and poison, except when the possession or use thereof is
indispensable in his occupation or business. Held: Considering that the bridge was an immovable and stationary
object and provided with adequate openings for passage of
Art. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common watercraft, it is undeniable that the unusual event that the barge,
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to gave acted exclusively controlled by appellant, rammed the bridge, supports the
negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary presumption of negligence on the part of appellant or its employees
diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 ad 1755. manning the barge or the tugs that towed it. For in the ordinary
course of events, such a thing does not happen if proper care is
Respondeat superior – “let the employer/principal be responsible. If used.
negligence of the employee has been proved, there is no need to
prove the negligence of the employer. The employer is already
presumed negligent in hiring and/or supervision of the employee. ∆ F.F. Cruz v CA
The presumption is rebuttable. – usually applies to common carriers.
Facts: Fire broke out in furniture manufacturing shop. Both shop and
Defenses – when defendant is presumed negligent, he may invoke adjacent house were razed to the ground. Prior to fire, a repeated
the ff defenses: request for a firewall to be built had been made by adjacent house.
1. contributory negligence Request was ignored.
2. assumption of risk
3. last clear chance Held: Res ipsa loquitur applies, considering that in the normal course
4. prescription of operations of a furniture manufacturing shop, combustible
5. fortuitous events material such as wood chips, sawdust and paint… may be found
6. diligence thereon.
7. mistake and waiver
8. others.
∆ Layugan v IAC
∆ Teague v Fernandez
Facts: Plaintiff was repairing tire of truck in highway. Defendant’s
Facts: Stampede in beauty school causes death. Violation of truck (driven recklessly) bumped into the parked car and injured
ordinance requiring 2 stairways. plaintiff. Defense of defendant was res ipsa loquitur –parked truck
was presumed negligent because there were no early warning
Held: The violation of a general statute or ordinance is not rendered devices.
remote as the cause of an injury by the intervention of another
agency is the occurrence of the accident, in the manner in which it
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -6-
Held: Clear and convincing evidence shows that there was a lighted
kerosene lamp 3-4 meters from the rear of the truck as an early
warning device. ∆ MERALCO v Remoquillo
The doctrine of is not a rule of substantive law but merely
a mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience. It does not Facts: Magno was repairing a media agua of his brother in law when,
dispense with the requirement of proof of culpable negligence. It holding a galvanized iron sheet and standing on the media agua,
merely determines and regulates what shall be prima facie evidence swung around and hit the electric wire with the lower end of the iron
thereof and facilitates the burden of plaintiff of proving a breach of sheet. He died from electrocution.
the duty of due care. The doctrine can be invoked when and only
when, under the circumstances involved, direct evidence is Held: Proximate cause of the accident was the reckless or negligent
absent and not readily available. act of Magno himself in turning around and swinging the iron sheet
in his hands without looking hence the company should not be held
guilty of negligence.
Assumption of Risk
∆ Bernardo v Legaspi
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it Facts: 2 automobiles collide. Both found to be negligent
is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of obligation
requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for Held: Where the plaintiff in a negligence action, by his own
those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though carelessness contributes to principal occurrence, he cannot recover.
foreseen, were inevitable. Since both of them equally contributed to the principle occurrence as
determining cause thereof, neither can recover of the other for the
damages suffered.
A plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk of harm arising Facts: After attending a religious procession. Mother lets daughter
from the negligent or reckless conduct of a defendant walk some distance ahead of her. Automobile comes and scares the
cannot recover for such harm. child causing her to run. As a result child falls into the street gutter
where there was hot water coming from the Electric and Ice plant of
It is one of the principal defenses available to a defendant J.V. House. Child died from 3rd degree burns from all over the body.
in an action for negligence Mother files suit. Defense was contributory negligence.
Requisites: Held: Mother and child had a perfect right to be on the street on the
1. That plaintiff had actual knowledge of the danger evening when the religious procession was held. There was nothing
2. That the plaintiff understood and appreciated the risk abnormal in allowing the child to run along a few paces in advance of
3. That the plaintiff voluntarily exposed himself to the the mother. No one could foresee the coincidence of an automobile
risk appearing and of a frightened child running and falling into a ditch
with hot water. Contributory negligence of the child and her mother
does not operate as a bar to recovery, but in its strictest sense could
∆ Afialda v Hisole only result in reduction of damages.
Causal Relation Between Act or Omission and injury Held: Proximate cause was the overturning of the bus because by
turning completely on its bank, the leaking of the gasoline from the
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, tank was not unnatural and unexpected. The coming of the men
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage with torches was to be expected because of call for help. Also, The
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing driver and the conductor must have known there was leaking gas
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and since it could be smelt and detected even from a distance.
is governed by the provisions of this chapter.
If no danger existed in the condition except because of the Held: Violation of statute or ordinance is the proximate cause of an
independent cause, such condition was not the proximate cause. injury if injury sustained was that which was precisely intended to be
prevented by the violated statute or ordinance.
And if an independent negligent act or defective condition sets into
operation the circumstances which result in injury because of the
prior defective condition, such subsequent act or condition is the ∆ Gabeto v Araneta
proximate cause.
Facts: Araneta stopped horse protesting that he hailed it first. Driver
jerked the reins to free the horse from control of Araneta. Because
∆ Taylor v MERALCO the bridle was loose or rotten, the bit came out of horses mouth.
Driver jumps out to fix it but horse goes berserk and runs around.
Facts: 15 year old picks up fulminating caps from premises of Passenger Gabeto jumped out of the “speeding” vehicle and died as
MERALCO and takes them home and conducts experiments. He cut result of injuries. Widow sues Araneta.
open the fulminating cap and lit the contents with a match.
Explosion causes him to lose his right eye. Held: Stopping of the rig by Araneta was too remote a cause from
the accident that presently ensued to be considered a proximate or
Held: MERALCO is negligent in leaving the caps exposed on the legal cause.
premises however this is not the proximate cause of the injury
received by plaintiff. Plaintiff's action in cutting open the detonating
cap and putting a match to its contents was the PROXIMATE CAUSE ∆ Gregorio v Go Chong Bing
of the explosion and of the resultant injuries inflicted upon
the plaintiff. Facts: Defendant asked his cargador to drive his truck. The cargador
is only a student driver. Later he lets policeman Orfanel do the
driving since the policeman insisted. Truck hits pedestrian Gregorio.
Gregorio dies. Suit for damages.
Distinction must be made between the accident and the injury,
Held: Proximate cause was negligence of Orfanel who took the wheel
between the event itself, without which there could have been no
from defendant’s cargador, in spite of protest of the latter
accident, and those acts of the victim not entering into it,
independent of it, but contributing to his own proper hurt. Where he
There is no direct and proximate causal connection between the
contributes to the principal occurrence, as one of its determining
negligence or violation of the law (allowing student driver to drive)
factors, he cannot recover.
by the defendant to the death of Gregorio
(Rakes v AGP)
∆ NPC v CA (series)
Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance
One who maintains on his premises dangerous Facts: Typhoon hits. Water in Angat dam rises. NPC opens spillway
instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to gates causing damage to property, neighborhoods etc…
attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary
care to prevent children from playing therewith or Held: Even though the typhoon was an act of God or what we may
resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is call FORCE MAJEURE, NPC cannot escape liability because its
injured thereby, even if the child is technically a negligence was the proximate cause of the loss and damage.
trespasser in the premises.
When the effect, the cause of which is to be considered, is found to
Rationale: be in part the result of the participation of man, whether it be from
The condition or appliance in question although its danger active intervention or neglect, or failure to act, the whole occurrence
is apparent to those of age, is so enticing or alluring to is thereby humanized, as it was, and removed from the rules
children of tender years as to induce them to approach, applicable to the acts of God.
get on or use it, and this attractiveness is an implied
invitation to such children.
Persons Generally Liable
∆ Hidalgo v Balandan
Tortfeasor, for His Own Acts
Facts: 8 year old boy takes a swim in water tank of defendant
company’s ice plant factory. He drowns. Lower court held defendant
liable because of attractive nuisance doctrine.
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -8-
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing Held: Absent a rule in RPC, general rule should apply. Art 2180 also
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and applies to obligations arising from criminal offenses. It is absurd that
is governed by the provisions of this chapter. liability of parents attaches if there is mere negligence but not when
there is criminal intent.
Art. 2181 Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents
∆ Libi v IAC
or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or
delivered in satisfaction of the claim.
Facts: Rejected ex-boyfriend shoots girlfriend then commits suicide.
Gun used belongs to father. Parents negligent and not keeping gun
in safe place.
Persons Liable for the Acts of Others
Held: Liability of parents is PRIMARY. If it was subsidiary then
Vicarious Liability – Liability for acts of others based solely on a parents cannot invoke the defense of diligence of good father of the
relationship between two persons. family. If it is primary, diligence would constitute a valid and
substantial defense. Art 2180 provides for a defense of diligence.
Art. 2180 The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not Hence it is primary. Such interpretation reconciles art 2180 with
only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those persons for 2194 which calls for solidary liability of joint tortfeasors.
whom one is responsible…
∆ Exconde v Capuno
Defense common to all Facts: Defendant’s son attends parade and drove jeep they were
…The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease riding. Jeep turned turtle, death of plaintiff’s daughter. Resulted.
when persons herein mentioned prove that they observed Defendant did not know that his son was attending a parade.
all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage. Held: Civil liability imposed on father is a “necessary consequence of
the parental authority they exercise over them which imposes upon
Art 2180 last par. the parents the duty of supporting them, keeping them in their
company, educating them and instructing them in proportion to their
means while on the other hand, gives them the right to correct and
punish them in moderation.
Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no Only way defendant can relieve themselves is if they prove
parents or guardians, the minor or insane person shall be diligence.
answerable with his own property in an action against him where a
guardian ad litem shall be appointed ∆ Fuellas v Cadano
Art. 221 Family Code Facts: 2 girls weeding grass in school. Monfort’s daughter decided to
Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be frighten Cuadra’s daughter by tossing a plastic headband saying it
civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or was an earthworm. Headband hits the eye of Cuadra’s daughter
omission of their unemancipated children living in their company and which resulted in blindness. Suit filed against the Monfort parents.
under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses
provided by law. Held: Vicarious liability is merely a prima facie presumption and
therefore may be rebutted as indicated by last par. of Art 2180
providing for defense of diligence.
Requisites:
1. Child is below 18
In determining the degree of diligence required, the law implies a
2. Child committed tortuous act
consideration of the attendant circumstances in every individual
3. Child lives in the company of parent concerned whether single
case, to determine whether or not by the exercise of such diligence
or married.
the damage could have been prevented.
∆ Elcano v Hill
Whenever the appointment of a judicial guardian over the property
of the child becomes necessary, the same order of preference shall
Held: Emancipation by marriage is not full or absolute. son, although
be observed.
married, was still living with his father and getting subsistence from
him. Therefore he was still subservient to and dependent on his
Order of Preference:
father.
1. Father
2. Mother *in case of death/incapacity of father*
However since son had attained age, as a matter of equity, the
3. Judicially appointed guardian
liability had become merely subsidiary to that of his son.
4. Surviving grandparent
5. Oldest brother/sister
6. Actual custodian
∆ Rodriguez-Luna v IAC
Facts: Roberta Luna was killed in a collision with a Toyota driven by Art. 217 Family code
a 13 yr old with no license. Heirs sued father of the 13 yr old. They In case of foundlings, abandoned, neglected or abused children,
were held liable but they failed to pay the amount. Father contends parental authority shall be entrusted in summary judicial
that his son is now of age and as a matter of equity, his liability proceedings to heads of children’s homes, orphanages and similar
should be subsidiary only. institutions duly accredited by the proper government agency.
Owners/Managers
Held: Son is abroad and beyond the reach of Philippine Courts. he
does not have any property either in the Philippines or elsewhere. In
fact his earnings are insufficient to support his family. Strict law Art. 2180 (3)
should be applied in order to serve ends of justice. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are
likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the
service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the
∆ Tamargo v CA occasion of their functions.
Facts: 10 yr old Bundoc shot Tamargo with an air rifle. Bundoc Employers
acquitted in crim case. Natural parents of Bundoc contend that they
should not be liable since Bundoc was already adopted. The adopting
parents should be liable. Art. 2180 (4)
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees
Held: Liability is anchored on parental authority. In this case, the act and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned
occurred when natural parents still exercised parental authority. tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or
industry.
Retroactive effect may NOT be given to decree of adoption. At the
time the adopting parents were abroad, it would be unfair if they Requisites:
were held liable for something unforeseen. 1. Employee was chosen by the employer personally or through
another
2. Service to be rendered is in accordance with orders which the
employer has the authority to give at all times
Doctrine of Imputed Negligence 3. That the illicit act of the employee was in the occasion or by the
Liability is extended so as to include responsibility for the reason of the functions entrusted to him.
negligence of those persons whose acts or omissions are
imputable, by legal fiction, to others who are in a position ∆ Ortaliz v Echarri
to exercise an absolute or limited control over them.
Facts: Plaintiff’s son was struck by a car driven by employee of
This moral responsibility may consist in having failed to defendant.
exercise due care in one’s own acts, or in having failed to
exercise due diligence and care in the selection and Held: Cause of action is in Art 2180. it even provides that employers
control of one’s agents or servants, or in the control of can be held liable even if the are not engaged in any business or
persons who, by reasons of their status, occupy a position industry.
of dependency with respect to the person made liable for
their conduct.
∆ Cuison v Norton and Hamson
Guardians
Facts: 7 yr old was walking when large pieces of lumber fell from
truck and pinned the boy almost causing instant death. Ora was
Art. 2180 (2) owner of truck. Driver was employee of Ora and Ora was employee
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or of Norton. Duty of Ora to direct the loading and transpotation of
incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their lumber.
company.
Held: Basis of civil law liability is NOT respondeat superior but the
O If ward is incapacitated, he does not need to be below 21. What
relationship of paterfamilias. This theory bases the liability of the
master ultimately on his own negligence and not that of his servant.
is important is guardianship is subsisting.
Norton liable because Ora was is employee charged with duty of
O Law applies to de facto guardians –to compel them to exercise directing and loading lumber in which it was the negligence in
loading the lumber was what caused the death.
control and supervision over orphans whom they voluntarily
assumed the duties of parenthood.
∆ China Airlines v CA
Art. 216 Family code
In default of parents or a judicially appointed guardian, the ff Facts: Plaintiff bought ticket from PAL office for flight with China
persons shall exercise substitute parental authority over the child in Airlines. He was informed that his flight was at 5:20 pm. When he
the order indicated: arrived at airport the plane had already left earlier that morning. PAL
1. The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art 214. was a ticket agent for China Airlines. China Airlines had informed all
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -10-
of change of schedule. Complaint for moral damages against China implementation, and impose disciplinary measures for breach
Airlines thereof.
Held: No basis to hold China Airlines liable. It is not the employer or ∆ Guitierrez v CA
PAL. PAL is only an agent of China Airlines. For liability to attach,
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE relationship must be established. Facts: Workers of Guiterrez dig and dump dirt against exterior side
of school fence via a crane. Portion of fence gave way and pinned
PAL is liable instead. student.
∆ Filamer Christian Inxtitute v IAC Held: Employer liable since the contract specifically stipulated an
employer-employee relationship.
Facts: Funtecha is janitor and student of Filamer. He is assigned to
clean school premises. He has a student’s license and requested
Allan Masa, the school’s driver/security guard to drive on the way to ∆ Walter Smith & Co. v Cadwallader
house of school president. Truck nearly hit them, the car swerved
and hit pedestrian Kapunan. Defense: Driving was not in the scope Held: Employment of a duly licensed captain, authorized to direct
pf Futencha’s duties as janitor. and navigate a vessel of any tonnage, hired because of his
reputation as a captain, constitutes due diligence that overcomes the
Held: Driving the vehicle to and from the house of school president presumption.
is an act in furtherance of the interest of petitioner school.
As an employee, he need not have an official appointment
for drivers position in order that petitioner may be held responsible ∆ Ong v Metropolitan Water district
for his grossly negligent act, it being sufficient that the act of driving
at the time of the incident was for the benefit of the employer. Held: Person claiming damages has the burden of proving that the
damage is caused by the fault or negligence of the person from
whom the damage is claimed, or his employees.
∆ Duavit v CA
Held: Owner cannot be held liable for the acts of a driver who was
not an employee of the owner and did not have permission to drive ∆ St. Francis High School v CA
the vehicle.
Held: Before an employer may be held liable for the negligence of
his employees, the act or omission that caused the damage must
∆ Dulay v CA have occurred while the employee was in the performance if its
assigned tasks.
Held: When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee,
there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence
on the part of the master or employer in supervision and selection or ∆ Beliza v Brazas
both. Liability is direct and immediate. Prior recourse against
negligent employee not necessary Held: Although Art 2180 provides for liability of an employer for
tortuous act of his employees, this does not exempt employees from
personal liability, especially if there are no persons having direct
∆ De Leon Brokerage v CA supervision against them, or there is proof of negligence on their
part. One can sue both employer and employee at the same time as
Held: Owners of an establishment or enterprise are solidarily liable joint defendants.
with their driver for any accident resulting from the latter’s negligent
operation of the vehicle even if said owners are not riding therein at State
the time.
∆ Metro Manila Transit Corp. v CA 1. Public or governmental State Liable for tort of its special
agents
Held: In order for defense of due diligence to prosper, the ff 2. Private or non-governmental State is liable as an
requisites must be met: ordinary employer
Facts: Employee ignited recklessly a cigarette lighter near a 5 gallon Art 218 of F.C. Art 2180 C.C.
drum of gasoline stored in ECA warehouse. Fire started which caused
School, administration, teachers Teachers, heads of establishment
damages to buildings belonging to plaintiff
engaged in child care are made in Arts and Trades are made
expressly liable expressly liable.
Held: Negligence was not done by a special agent. Officers of ECA
Liability of school, admin, No such express solidary nor
did not act as special agents of the government
teachers is solidary and parents subsidiary liability is stated
are made subsidiarily liable
Dissent: ECA is not a branch or office of the govt. It was an agency Students involved must be Students involved are not
set up for specific purposes which were not attainable through the minor necessarily minor.
official functions entrusted by law to the government or its branches
D. Particular Persons Held Liable by Law Held: An owner who sits in his automobile and permits his driver to
continue in a violation of the law by the performance of negligent
Possessor or User of Animal acts, after he has had a reasonable opportunity to observe them and
to direct that the driver cease therefrom, becomes himself
Art. 2183 responsible for such acts.
The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is
responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may If the driver, by a sudden act of negligence and without the owner
escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the having a reasonable opportunity to prevent the act or its
damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the continuance, injures a person or violates the criminal law, the owner
person who has suffered damage. of the automobile, although present therein at the time of the act
was committed, is not responsible therefore.
Damage caysed by: Animal
The act complained of must be continued in the presence of the
Person Primarily liable:
owner for such length of time that the owner, by his acquiescence,
1. Possessor of animal
makes his driver’s act his own.
2. Whoever may make use of the same.
Defenses available:
1. Force Majeure ∆ Caedo v Yu Khe Thai
2. Contributory negligence/ fault of plaintiff
Facts: Driver of defendant tried to pass a carretela and instead
3. Damage was caused by act of 3rd person caught the rig’s wheel and wrenched it off and the car skidded to the
other lane, colliding with plaintiff’s car.
∆ Vestil v IAC
Held: If the causative factor was the driver’s negligence, the owner
Facts: Dog bites 3 year old. Died from rabies.
of the vehicle is likewise liable if he could have prevented the mishap
by the exercise of due diligence.
Held: Ownership of dog is immaterial. Law holds the POSSESSOR
liable, he may not necessarily be the owner.
Basis of liability is not respondeat superior but rather the
relationship of paterfamilias. The theory is that ultimately the
Obligation is not based on negligence but on the principle that “he
negligence of the servant, if known to the master and susceptible of
who possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service must
timely correction by him, reflects his own negligence if he fails to
answer for the damages which such animal may cause.”
correct it in order to prevent injury or damage.
If owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Art 2180 are Manufacturers
applicable.
Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet
Damage caysed by: Driver of motor vehicle articles and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused
by any noxious or harmful substances used, although no contractual
Person Primarily liable: Owner of the motor vehicle relation exists between them and the consumers.
Requisites of liability of owner: Requisites:
1. Owner is in the vehicle at the time of the mishap 1. Defendant is manufacturer of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet
2. The owner could have prevented the misfortune by the articles and similar goods involved.
use of due diligence. 2. Defendant uses noxious or harmful substances in the
manufacture and processing
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -13-
3. Plaintiff used/consumed the product, unaware of injurious
condition Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible
4. Plaintiff’s injury/death was caused by product used or for the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it
consumed. should be due to the lack of necessary repairs.
Held: Maintenance foreman and maintenance engineer who are Held: Dingcong did not exercise due diligence since he knew water
employed by the National Government are detailed with the City and pipes were then under repair and he knew that it was inevitable that
receives instructions and supervision from the city through the City his guest would use the faucet. He should have provided some form
engineer. Hence the city still has supervisory authority over public of drainage to prevent the occurrence.
works in question.
Joint and solidary Liability of Tortfeasors
Proprietor of building, factory, etc..
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -14-
Art. 2194. The responsibility of 2 or more persons who are liable witnesses presented by the offended party in the criminal case and
for a quasi-delict is solidary of the parties to present additional evidence. The consolidated
criminal and civil action shall be tried and decided jointly.
F. Civil Liability Arising from Crime
During the pendency of the criminal action, the running of the period
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under Art. 2176 is of prescription of the civil action which cannot be instituted
entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from separately or whose proceeding had been suspended shall be tolled.
negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of defendant. The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on
delict may be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final
Rule 111, Sec. 1 :: Rules of Court. judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which
Institution of criminal and civil actions – the civil liability may arise did not exist.
(a). When a criminal action is institutes, the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be
deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party Rule 111, Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently –
In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil
Waives the civil action, Code of the Philippines, the independent civil action may be brought
Reserves the right to institute it separately or by the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal
Institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no
case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action the same act or omission charged in the criminal action.
shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence
and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable Rule 111, Sec. 4. Effect of death on civil actions –
opportunity to make such reservation. The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency
of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the the delict. However, the independent civil action instituted under
accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary Section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce
damages without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or liability arising from other sources of obligation may be continued
information, the filing fees therefore shall constitute a first lien on against the estate or legal representative of the accused after proper
the judgment awarding such damages. substitution or against said estate. The heirs of the accused may be
substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an
Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad
complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid litem for the minor heirs.
by the offended party upon filing thereof in court.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative/s
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be to appear and be substituted within a period of 30 days from notice
required for actual damages.
A final judgment entered in favor of the offended party
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these Rules
by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which for prosecuting claims against the estate of the deceased.
could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate
civil action. If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be dismissed
without prejudice to any civil action the offended party may file
(b) The criminal action for violation of BP 22 shall be deemed to against the estate of the deceased.
include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil
action separately shall be allowed. Rule 111, Sec. 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar –
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint and criminal and civil actions, the A final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the defendant
offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of from civil liability is not a bar to a criminal action against the
the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages defendant for the same act or omission subject of the civil action.
claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover
liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages, the
offended party shall pay the filing fees based on the amount alleged Distinguished from Independent Civil Actions and Liability for
therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of the damages Quasi-Delict
are subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the
amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment. Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising
from the act or omission complained of in a felony, such civil action
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings regardless of
not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action the result of the latter.
upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the
application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in
accordance with section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the
civil and criminal actions. Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual,
who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any
manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties
of another person (Bill of Rights) shall be liable to the latter for
Rule 111, Sec. 2. When separate civil action is suspended --
damages.
After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil
action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the
been entered in the criminal action.
defendant’s act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the
aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already
distinct civil action for damages and for other relief. Such civil action
been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it
shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter
may be found before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall
be instituted) and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action.
Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages
action, the same may, upon motion of the offended party, be
may also be adjudicated.
consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying the criminal
action. In case of consolidation, the evidence already adduced in the
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge
civil action shall be deemed reproduced in the criminal action
unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code
without prejudice to the right of prosecution to cross-examine the
or other penal statute.
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -15-
Held: Court used 1988 amendments which used the phrase “the
Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil independent action which has been reserved” and concluded that
action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal prior reservation is a condition sine qua non before any
action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall independent civil action can be instituted and thereafter have a
proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall require continuous determination apart from or simultaneous with the
only a preponderance of evidence. criminal action.
Note: 2000 Rules now provide that reservation is not required for
independent civil action.
Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses
or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to
life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for Effect of Acquittal
damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily
responsible therefore. The civil action herein recognized shall be
Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on
independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of
the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable
evidence shall suffice to support such action.
doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may
be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of
evidence.
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under Art. 2176 is
entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to
negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should be
damages twice for the same act or omission of defendant. found to be malicious.
∆ Yakult Phil. v. CA Article 29 enunciates the rule that a civil action for damages is not
precluded by an acquittal.
Facts: 5 yr old sideswiped by motorcycle owned by Yakult. Yakult
contends that civil action for damages for physical injuries cannot be
made separately without a reservation. ∆ People v Ritter
Held: SC retroactively applied 1985 Rules of Court retroactively. Facts: Foreigner acquitted in criminal case for rape of young girl who
Since father of 5 yr old initiated the separate civil action before the later died from a foreign object found inside her vagina. However
prosecution in the criminal case started presenting its evidence and court pronounced that he was guilty of pedophilia which was
the judge was informed thereof, then the actual filing of the civil injurious to the public good and the domestic tranquility of the
action is even far better than a compliance with the requirement of people. It does not necessarily follow that a person while not
an express reservation that should be made by the offended party criminally liable may still be civilly liable.
before the prosecution presents its evidence.
Note: Court said that previous reservation includes recovery of Held: While the guilt of the accused in a criminal prosecution must
indemnity under RPC, Art 32-34 and 2176. (1990 case) be established beyond reasonable doubt, only a preponderance of
evidence is required in a civil action for damages. The 2 liabilities
are separate and distinct from each other. One affects the social
∆ Andamo v IAC order and the other, private rights. One is for punishment or
correction of the offender while the other is for the reparation of
Facts: Petitioners filed a civil case for damages after criminal case damages suffered by the aggrieved party.
for destruction by means of inundation. Case was suspended and
then subsequently dismissed since criminal case was not yet
resolved. Prejudicial Questions
Facts: Toyota van collides with passenger bus. Crim case filed Rule 111, Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. –
against bus. Insurer of van files case for damages though there was
no reservation. TC held that civil action may be instituted even in A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the
absence of reservation. CA affirmed. pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -16-
office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary or intimidation. The latter may not use his own malfeasance to
investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for defeat the action based on his criminal act.
trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal
action at any time before the prosecution rests. Human Relations
∆ Pe v Pe
∆ Jarantilla v CA
Facts: Daughter was swept away by a collateral relative who
Facts: Jarantilla was acquitted in a criminal case for serious physical frequented their house on pretext of wanting to learn the rosary.
injuries thru reckless imprudence on the ground of reasonable Daughter never returned. Family filed for damages under Art 21.
doubt. There was no reservation. Private respondent filed a civil
action based on the same subject matter and act complained of in Held: Circumstances under which defendant tried to win the
the criminal case. daughter’s affection show that it was done through an ingenious
scheme or trickery. Such caused the family immeasurable wrong
Held: The well-settled doctrine is that a person, while not criminally considering the fact that he is a married man. Verily, he has
liable may still be civilly liable. The judgment of acquittal committed an injury to the family in a manner contrary to morals,
extinguishes the civil liability of the accused only when it includes a good customs and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the
declaration that the facts from which the civil liability might arise did new Civil Code.
not exist
∆ Hermosisima v CA
Article 29 enunciates the rule that a civil action for damages is not
precluded by an acquittal. Facts: Plaintiff was a teacher who was engaged with defendant who
was 10 yrs younger. She gave up teaching and intimacy developed.
∆ Zapanta v Montesa She got pregnant and defendant promised to marry her. Defendant
married another woman after baby was born. She filed for moral
Facts: Wife files case for bigamy against husband alleging that damages for breach of promise to marry
husband had a prior marriage which has not been dissolved.
A month later husband files case for annulment on ground of duress, Held: Award of moral damages is untenable in the light of clear and
force and intimidation. Husband then files petition to suspend based manifest intention of the law-making body not to sanction actions for
on prejudicial question. breach of promise to marry.
Note: crim case was filed before civil case. No amendment yet so ∆ Wassmer v Velez
court ruled this way.
Facts: Velez & Wassmer were engaged and set the date for the
∆ Merced v Diez wedding. 2 days before the big day, Velez left a note saying that
wedding would have to be postponed since his mother opposed it.
Facts: Husband filed for annulment of 2 nd marriage based on force The next day he sent a telegram saying nothing has changed. He
and duress. Next month wife filed action for bigamy. Husband filed never returned. Wassmer sued Velez and the court awarded her for
motion to suspend because of prejudicial question. damages and cost.
Held: In this jurisdiction, where the courts are vested with both civil Held: While mere breach of promise to marry is NOT an actionable
and criminal jurisdiction, the principle of prejudicial question is to be wrong, Art 21 says when a person willfully causes loss or injury
applied even of there is only one court before which the civil action contrary to good custom, he shall compensate the latter for
and the criminal action are to be litigated. But in this case the court, damages. It is the abuse of right which can be a cause for moral
when exercising its jurisdiction over the civil action for the and material damages. To formally set a wedding and go through all
annulment of marriage, is considered as a court distinct and the expenses and planning only to walk out in the end is
different from itself when trying the criminal action for bigamy. unjustifiably contrary to good customs.
Facts: Amaro was assaulted and shot near the city government Facts: Illegal searches and seizures and other violations of rights and
building. He and his father went to the Chief of Police for assistance liberties of plaintiffs were made by various intelligence units of the
but instead they were harassed and terrorized, the defendant AFP pursuant to the order by General Ver to conduct pre-emptive
ordering them to appear in his office when he was absent and then strikes against communist-terrorists. A complaint was filed against
threatening to arrest them. Plaintiffs filed a complaint for damages them. Their defense was State immunity since they were merely
against the Chief of Police but the same was dismissed in the lower responding to their duty.
court on the ground that facts do not state a cause of action.
Held: This duty cannot be construed as a blanket license or a roving
Held: The basis for relief was not harassment but the refusal of the commission untrammeled by any constitutional restraint, to
Chief of Police to render assistance. Such constituted a dereliction of disregard or transgress upon the rights and liberties of the individual
duty under Art. 27. Although the complaint is vague and imperfectly citizens enshrined and protected by the Constitution. Art 32 does not
drafted, all that the Rules require is that there be a showing, by a exempt the respondents from responsibility. Only judges are
statement of ultimate facts, that the plaintiff has a right and such exempted under said article provided their acts or omissions do not
right has been violated by the defendant. constitute a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. The
respondent’s superior, General Ver is also liable since Art 32 speaks
of an officer or employer or person “directly” or “indirectly”
∆ Zulueta v Nicolas responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights and liberties
of another. Thus, it is not the actor alone who must answer for
Facts: Plaintiff filed a complaint for libel against the governor of Rizal damages under Art 32; the person indirectly responsible has also to
and the members of the Phil. Free Press. The fiscal conducted an answer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party.
investigation. After such investigation the fiscal decided that there
was no prima facie case. Plaintiff then filed a complaint against the ∆ MHP Garments v CA
fiscal based on Art 27.
Facts: MHP garments had the exclusive franchise to sell and
Held: Art 27 contemplates a refusal or neglect without just cause by distribute Boy Scouts uniforms, supplies, badges and insignias. They
a public servant or employee to perform his official duty. The fiscal were also given authority to undertake the prosecution in court of all
has a legal duty to prosecute crimes when there is enough evidence illegal sources of scout uniforms and other scouting supplies. Later
to justify such action. BUT it is equally his duty no to prosecute they received information that some others were selling uniforms
when after such investigation he has become convinced that the without authority. They asked the police to investigate and the police
evidence available is not enough to establish a prima facie case. raided the said store and seized the uniforms without warrant.
Unfair Competition Held: The right against search and seizure protects not only those
who appear to be innocent but also those who appear to be guilty
Art. 27. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial but are nevertheless presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, There was enough time to get a warrant from the time of receipt of
machination or any other unjust, oppressive or high-handed method the information up to the time of the raid. MHP Garments was
shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers indirectly involved in transgressing the right of private respondents
damage. since the raid was conducted with the active participation of their
employee who was present in the raid but did not lift a finger to stop
Separate Civil Actions the seizure.
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil
who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal
manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall
of another person (enumeration of Bill of Rights) shall be liable to proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall require
the latter for damages. only a preponderance of evidence.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the ∆ Carandang v Santiago
defendant’s act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the
aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and Facts: Valenton was found guilty of frustrated homicide. On appeal a
distinct civil action for damages and for other relief. Such civil action separate civil action was filed for damages. Trial judge ruled civil
shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter action should be suspended pending the criminal action arguing that
be instituted) and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence. physical injuries is used to designate a specific crime in the RPC and
so frustrated murder doesn’t fall within the separate civil action in
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages Art 33.
may also be adjudicated.
Held: Art 33 uses defamation and fraud in their ordinary sense
because there are no specific provisions in the RPC using these
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -19-
terms as offenses defined therein. Therefore the term “physical
injuries” should also be understood in the generic sense. regardless of location or surroundings. It is anything
Nonfeasance of Police Facts: Ice and cold storage plant. Nearby residents complained of
the smoke coming from the plant. Council formed a committee and
Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses upon its findings it passed a resolution requiring ISC to elevate the
or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to smokestacks in a month otherwise it will close down or suspend the
life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for operations of the plant.
damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily
responsible therefore. The civil action herein recognized shall be Held: Plant is not a nuisance per se. Although the municipal council
independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of may be empowered to declare and abate nuisances it cannot find as
evidence shall suffice to support such action. a fact that a particular thing is a nuisance when such a thing is not a
nuisance per se. It cannot authorize extrajudicial condemnation of a
When no independent civil action is provided nuisance per accidens. It must be determined by the courts.
Art. 704. Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is
specially injurious to himself by removing, or if necessary, by
destroying the thing which constitutes the same, without committing
a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury. But it is
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -21-
necessary: ∆ Hidalgo v Balandan
Art. 707. A private person or a public official extrajudicially abating General Provisions
a nuisance shall be liable for damages:
(1) If he causes unnecessary injury Art. 2195. The provision of this Title shall be respectively
(2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the applicable to all obligations mentioned in Article 1157.
courts to be not a real nuisance.
Art. 2196. The rules under this Title are without prejudice to
special provisions on damages formulated elsewhere in this Code.
Easement Against nuisance Compensation for workmen and other employees in case of death,
injury or illness is regulated by special laws. Rules governing
Art. 682. Every building or piece of land is subject to the easement damages laid down in other laws shall be observed insofar as they
which prohibits the proprietor from committing nuisance through are not in conflict with this Code.
noise, jarring, offensive odor, smoke, heat, dust, water, glare and
other causes. Art. 2197. Damages may be:
(1) Actual or compensatory
Art. 683. Subject to zoning, health, police and other laws and (2) Moral
regulations, factories and shops may be maintained provided the (3) Nominal
least possible annoyance is caused to the neighborhood.
(4) Temperate or Moderate
(5) Liquidated
Attractive Nuisance (6) Exemplary or corrective.
Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance Art. 2198. The principles of the general law on damages are
One who maintains on his premises dangerous hereby adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with this Code.
instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to
attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary Concept: Damages refer to the pecuniary compensation,
care to prevent children from playing therewith or recompense or satisfaction for an injury sustained by the injured
resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is party to be paid by the person who caused the injury. It is the
injured thereby, even if the child is technically a pecuniary consequences imposed by law or agreement of the
trespasser in the premises. parties for breach of some duty or violation of some right
2. Injury to the plaintiff’s Facts: Songco and Sellner were neighboring sugar cane farms.
business standing or commercial credit Sellner wanted to mill his cane at a nearby sugar central but was
refused. He found out that the central was milling his neighbor’s
How to prove this: present documentary evidence, such canes. He decided to buy Songco’s sugar canes. He paid only 2/3.
as contracts for future business or comparison or earnings Songco recovered the balance in a suit. Sellner then sues Songco for
before and after the injury. damages for the wrongful attachment of his property by his
creditors.
Dumdum emerges: Value of actual pecuniary loss
Held: The attachment was wrongfully sued out BUT damages arising
Lucrum Cessans: Expected Profits not realized because of the act from this is remote and speculative. It is not a probable
of the offender. consequence that the suing out of this attachment that the hands of
the creditors would come down upon their unfortunate client with
∆ General Enterprises v Lianga Bay Logging
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -23-
disastrous results; and Songco should not be held liable for the
complication of Sellner’s affairs. 1. If the insured by his own act releases the
wrongdoer or 3rd party liable for the loss or damage,
∆ Seavan Carrier v GTI Sportswear the insured’s right of subrogation is defeated.
Art. 2207. If the plaintiff’s property has been insured, and he has
received indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or loss
arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the
insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured 3. Where the insurer pays the insured for a
against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract.
loss which is not a risk covered by the policy,
If the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover
the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the thereby effecting “voluntary payment” the former
deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury. has no right of subrogation against the 3rd party
Facts: A car insured by Pan Malayan was hit by a pickup and suffered
damages. Pan Malayan paid the insured and subsequently filed a
complaint for damages against the owner of the pick up.
Attorney’s Fees and Expenses of Litigation
Held: Pan Malayan has a cause of action. Under 2207, it is
subrogated to the rights of the insured. ∆ RCPI v Rodriguez
awarded
(2) When the defendant’s act or Art. 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the court, be allowed
omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with 3rd upon damages awarded for breach of contract.
persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest
(3) In criminal cases of malicious
Art. 2211. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part of the
prosecution against the plaintiff damages may, in a proper case, be adjudicated in the discretion of
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil the court.
ii If not,
from the date of the judgment of the trial court. When an obligation, not
constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an
b. When the obligation consists of a loan or interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed
forbearance of money, goods or credits as well as
at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. No
judgment involving such loan or forbearance, the legal
rate of interest shall be 12% per annum computed interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or
from default, that is, from judicial or extrajudicial damages except when or until the demand can be established
demand.
with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is
c. In both cases, the legal rate of interest shall established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to
be 12% from the finality of judgment until the run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially
judgment is paid.
but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at
the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run
only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which
Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have
money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages,
there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of been reasonably ascertained). The actual base of the
the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal
interest, which is 6% per annum.
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -25-
computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the Held: The life expectancy of the deceased or the beneficiary
whichever is shorter is a an important factor in measuring the value
amount finally adjudged. of a human life. Other factors include:
Pecuniary loss to plaintiff/beneficiary
When the judgment of the Loss of support
court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory,
Loss of service
Loss of society
the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under
Mental suffering of the beneficiaries
paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 above shall be 12% per annum Medical and funeral expenses
from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being
deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.
Loss of Earning Capacity
Loss of earning capacity – This presupposes that the person concerned is
Extent or scope of actual
dead.
damages
How to compute:
Facts: Bus accident leads to injury of med student. Injury left him Court also took into consideration that a man does not continue
physically and intellectually impaired. (parts of brain got sliced off) working up to the final month in his life. Years considered should be
reduced up to retirement age.
Held: Court in this case in addition to medical expenses awarded
damages for loss of earning capacity since it could be reasonably ∆ PAL v CA
foreseen that he would’ve passed the board exam and become a
physician. Facts: PAL plane crashed killing passenger. Mother sued PAL for
damages. PAL wanted computation of earnings based on life of the
∆ Villa Rey Transit v CA beneficiary and not the deceased
Facts: Bus hit a bull cart in the dark. Pole from the cart went through Held: Although US jurisprudence provides that damages should be
the windshield and impaled passenger. computed from “life expectancy of deceased or the beneficiary
whichever is shorter”, Philippine laws provide that award should be
computed in the basis of the life expectancy of the deceased.
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -26-
∆ Metro Manila Transit Corp. v CA Article 2206 applies to death of a passenger
due to breach of contract of common carrier by express
Facts: 3 year UPIS student got hit by bus in along Katipunan.
rd
provision of Article 1764.
Held: Compensation should be allowed for loss of earning capacity ∆ Heirs of Raymundo Castro v Bustos
resulting from death of a minor who has not yet commenced
employment or training for a specific profession if sufficient evidence Facts: Bustos killed Castro in a fit of passion and was convicted
is presented to establish the amount thereof.
Held: When death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of the
Crimes and quasi-delicts deceased are entitled to the ff:
1. Fixed indemnity P12, 000 (now
Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendants shall be P50,000) even if there are mitigating circumstances
liable for all damages which are the natural and probable 2. Loss of earning capacity
consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not 3. Moral damages
necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have 4. Exemplary damages
reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. 5. Attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation
Art. 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the 6. Interests in proper cases
diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages
resulting from the act or omission in question.
7. It must be emphasized that the loss
of earning capacity and moral damages are recoverable
separately from and in addition to the fixed indemnity.
Art. 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be
respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or ∆ People v Quilaton
mitigating circumstances.
Facts: Quilaton killed his superior after an altercation with the latter
Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the over Quilaton’s habits of sleeping in and bringing women to the
plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover. office. Earning capacity computed differently.
Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or Hospital expenses P100K
quasi delict shall be at least P3000, even though there may have Funeral expenses P80K
been mitigating circumstance. In addition: Car P500K
Money lost P50K
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning
capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid b. profits which the obligee failed to obtain
to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every (unrealized profit)
case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the
deceased on account of permanent physical disability not Expected profit from the sale of land
caused by the defendant, had mo earning capacity at the P200K
time of his death.
2. Under Article 2205
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to a. loss or impairment of earning capacity due to
the provisions of Article 291, the recipient who is not an temporary or permanent injury
heir called to the decedent’s inheritance by law of testate
or intestate succession, may demand support from the Earnings of Rose for 3 months P20K x 3 months
person causing the death, for a period not exceeding 5 = P60K
years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court.
b. injury to the plaintiff’s business standing or
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and commercial credit:
ascendants of the deceased may demand moral
damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of not applicable
the deceased.
3. Fixed indemnity: 50K for death of Andrew
Note:
Jurisprudence has fixed the amount of damages 4. Loss of earning capacity of Andrew:
for death to P50,000 due to the devaluation of the peso.
First Step: Life expectancy = 2/3 x (80-40) =
26.67 years
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -27-
When recoverable
Moral Damages
Contractual relation
Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that
moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages may ∆ Lopez v Pan Am
be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated
damages, is left to the circumstances of each case. Facts: Senator Lopez and family bought first class tickets. When they
got to Tokyo and were ready to board the plane to San Francisco,
Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental they were forced to fly in the economy class.
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though Held: Senator and family suffered social humiliation, mental
incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be anguish, and serious anxiety. A lot of schwar schwar on him being a
recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's senate president pro tempore, prestigious sya eklat. According to
wrongful act for omission. SC-- It may not be humiliating to travel as tourist
passengers; it is humiliating to be compelled to travel as
such, contrary to what is rightfully to be expected from the
contractual undertaking. In conclusion, SC wanted to stress that
Art. 2218. In the adjudication of moral damages, the sentimental
amount of damages awarded in this appeal has been determined by
value of property, real or personal, may be considered.
adequately considering the official, political, social, and financial
standing of the offended parties on the one hand, and the business
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and and financial position of the offender on the other, And further
analogous cases: considering the present rate of exchange and the terms at which the
amount of damages awarded would approximately be in US dollars.
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
∆ Zulueta v Pan Am
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts; Facts: Zulueta got off-loaded from the plane on Wake Island because
(4) Adultery or concubinage; of a fight with the manager of the airport and the pilot. The case of
the “beach is my toilet”
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search; Held: The records amply establish plaintiff’s right to recover moral
damages, there was mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
feelings, moral shock and social humiliation due to the defendants
(8) Malicious prosecution; acts:
(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309; Rude and rough reception of plaintiff upon
returning from the beach
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, Menacing attitude in which he asked plaintiff to
30, 32, 34, and 35. open his bags
Abusive language and scornful reference to
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, them as “monkeys”
referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages. Unfriendly attitude, ugly stares and unkind
remarks by other passengers
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may Wife suffered nervous breakdown as a result of
bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order the embarrassment, insults and humiliations
named.
∆ Yutuk v MERALCO
Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for Facts: Yutuk was accused by MERALCO’s lineman of using a
awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the “jumper”. Turns out Yutuk’s electricity was maliciously disconnected
circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies by the lineman. MERALCO maliciously filed a case for theft of
to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in electricity against Yutuk and even supported the lineman against her
bad faith. complaint for slander.
Art. 309. Any person who shows disrespect to the dead, or Held: Moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation may
wrongfully interferes with a funeral shall be liable to the family of the be awarded provided that they are the proximate result from the
deceased for damages, material and moral. defendant’s wrongful act or omission. In this case the lineman and
MERALCO’s acts were wrongful and reckless and they directly
Note: Moral damages must be proven, but the amount is resulted in Yutuk’s mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched
determined by the judge. Plaintiff must prove the legal basis for the reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock and social humiliation.
award; actual amount is up to the judge.
∆ RCPI v Rodriguez
Factors in determining the amount of moral damages:
Held: Moral damages are awarded only to enable the injured party
1. political, social, financial standing of offended party and to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to
offender alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone by reason of the
defendant’s culpable action. The award of moral damages must be
2. Mental anguish proportionate to the suffering inflicted.
Example: Compare the mental anguish of two mothers whose
sons died in two different incidents. One son was shot to death, ∆ Simex International v CA
and he died instantly. The other son was partying at Ozone
when it burned down. He suffered for several weeks with Facts: Simex checks were dishonored because bank made an error.
painful burns before he finally died. The mental suffering of the As a result his business standing in the community was severely
Ozone victim’s mother is greater than that of the mother of the affected.
son who was shot to death, since the former had to watch as
her son had to withstand the agony of the burns.
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -28-
Held: As a general rule juridical persons cannot suffer moral
damages since it cannot experience physical suffering or such Act is negligent only, there is no intent BUT it results in
sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish physical injuries
and moral shock but it does have a business reputation which can be
tarnished and reduced hence moral damages may be awarded in
such cases.
Extra-contractual Nominal Damages
∆ Magbanua v IAC Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that
moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages may
Facts: Defendants diverted the free flow of water from the be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated
Magbanua’s land with intent to force them to vacate the land. damages, is left to the circumstances of each case.
Held: Art 2219 permits the award of moral damages for acts Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right
mentioned under Art 21. Defendants unjustifiably diverted the water of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant,
violating the rights of the plaintiffs hence moral damages should be may be vindicated or recognized and not fir the purpose of
awarded. indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
Cariaga v LTB Co. Held: Certificate of public convenience is considered a property right.
The court may award damages in every case where any property
Held: moral damages can be awarded on account of breach of right has been invaded.
contract since defendant did not act fraudulently or in bad faith in
connection therewith Temperate or Moderate Damages
In short moral damages consisting of embarrassment and mental Held: Injury to one’s commercial credit or to the good will of the
suffering may be awarded when business firm is often hard to show with certainty in terms of money.
Temperate damages are awarded where definite proof of pecuniary
Act is willful or wanton even if there is no physical loss cannot be offered but the court is convinced that there has been
a loss.
injury or
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -29-
Held: Principal cannot be held liable for exemplary damages for the
Liquidated Damages acts of its agent. Exemplary damages can only be awarded against
the one who has participated in the offense.
Art. 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the
parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof. ∆ Octot v Ybanez
Held: In the absence of proof that the Regional Director acted in bad
Art. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity
faith & with grave abuse of discretion, Octot is not entitled to
or penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or
backwages & consequently cannot claim for damages. The officials
unconscionable.
were not motivated by ill will or personal malice in dismissing Octot
but only their desire to comply with mandates of PD 6.
Art. 2228. When the breach of contract committed by the
defendant is not one contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon ∆ RCPI v CA
the liquidated damages, the law shall determine the measure of
damages and not the stipulation. Facts: Condolence message on happy birthday stationary and xmas
envelope.
∆ NPC v NAMERCO
Held: Gross negligence resulting in a breach of contract constitutes
Held: Proof of pecuniary loss is not necessary. The stipulation for wanton misconduct hence exemplary damages may be awarded.
liquidated damages is intended to obviate controversy on the
amount of damages. Filing fees for actions with damages
Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be
the defendant acted with gross negligence. required for actual damages
∆ Singson v Aragon Held: Manchester rule says that in cases of intentional non-filing of
fees, the court should dismiss case for intention to defraud court.
Held: Amount of exemplary damages need not be proved because it This rule was relaxed in the Sunlife and Tacay cases, where it held
is dependent upon what court may award as compensatory that unpaid filing fees should constitute a lien on final judgment.
damages. Since it need not be proved, it also need not be alleged or Lien should be allowed when the filing fee cannot be ascertained and
pleaded in the complaint because the same cannot be pre- was only proven during the trial.
determined. One need only ask that it be determined by the court in
the exercise of its discretion if the same is warranted by the -Finis-
evidence.
∆ Munsayac v De Lara