Sunteți pe pagina 1din 82

TORTS &

DAMAGES
RECHE B. AMOLATO
MBA 113
AUGUST 13, 2016

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE WORD


TORT?

The word tort is taken directly from the French and is a derivation of the Latin word
torquere meaning to twist.

HOW IS TORT DEFINED IN COMMON


LAW?

In common law, tort is an unlawful violation of private right, not created by contract, and which
gives rise to an action for damages. It is an act or omission producing injury to another, without
any previous existing lawful relation of which said act or omission may be said to be a natural
outgrowth or incident.

It is a private or civil wrong or injury, other than breach of contract, for which the court will provide
a remedy in the form of an action for damages. It is a violation of a duty imposed by general
law or otherwise upon all persons occupying the relation to each other which is involved in a given
transaction. There must always be violation of some duty that must give rise y operation of law and not
by mere agreement of the parties.

A tort is a wrong independent of a contract, which arises from an act or omission of a person which
causes some injury or damage directly or indirectly to another person. It may either be
(1) a direct invasion of some legal right of the individual;
(2) the infraction of some public duty by which special damage accrues to the individual;
(3) the violation of some private obligation by which like damage accrues to the individual.

WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF TORTS IN COMMON


LAW?

1. INTENTIONAL TORTS which include conduct where the actor desires to cause
the consequences of his act or believes the consequences are substantially certain to
result from it. It includes assault, battery, false imprisonment, defamation, invasion of
privacy and interference of property.

2. NEGLIGENCE involves voluntary acts or omissions which result in injury to


others, without intending to cause the same. The actor fails to exercise due care in
performing such acts or omissions.

3. STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT where the person is made liable independent of


fault or negligence upon submission of proof of certain facts.

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF TORT?

There are three most important elements of tort:

1. Right and duty;

2. Act or omission; and

3. Damage

WHAT IS QUASI-DELICT?

Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence
is obliged to pay for the damage done.

Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties,
is called quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of Article 2176 of the Civil Code.

HOW IS TORT DISTINGUISHED FROM QUASIDELICT?

Quasi-delict is what is known as TORT in Anglo-American law. Tort is broader than the SpanishPhilippine concept of quasi-delict which is Roman in origin. Tort in Anglo-American Law includes
not only negligence but also intentional criminal acts, such as assault and battery, false
imprisonment and deceit.

Quasi-delict, on the other hand, covers only acts or omissions which cause damage to
another because of fault or negligence, there being no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties. This is referred to as non-contractual negligence.

The concept of tort came to our legal system after the Philippines became a colony of the United
States of America as a result of the Treaty of Paris signed on December 10, 1898.

The Code commission deliberately used the term quasi-delicts to designate those obligations
which do not arise from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or criminal offenses, because this
term more nearly corresponds to the Roman law classification of obligations and is in harmony with
the nature of this kind of liability. It rejected to use the term Tort, which is broader, because in the
general plan of the Philippine legal system, intentional and malicious acts, which certain
exceptions, are governed by the Penal Code.

WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF THE LAW ON TORTS AND


DAMAGES?
The law on Torts and Damages is based on several articles spread in the New Civil Code and
special laws, particularly the following:

1. Chapter on Quasi-Delicts (Articles 2176 to 2194)

2. Chapter on Quasi-Contracts (Articles 2144, 2145, 2146, 2147, 2148, 2150, 2151 and 2159)

3. Chapter on Human Relations (Articles 19 to 36)

4. Articles 1172 to 1174 of the New Civil Code which are made applicable to quasi-delicts (See
Article 2178)

5. Article 1723, New Civil Code (See Article 2192)

6. Article 309, New Civil Code (See Article 2219 [9])

7. Article 1314 NCC (Contractual Interference)

WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF THE LAW ON TORTS


AND DAMAGES?

8. Family Code of the Philippines

9. Articles 100 to 103 of the Revised Penal Code (see Article 2177, NCC)

10. Title XVIII (Damages) covering Articles 2195 to 2235, NCC.

11. Chapter on Nuisance (Articles 694 to 707, NCC)

12. Chapter III, Section 4 (Common Carriers) covering Articles 1755 to 1763, NCC

13. R.A. No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act)

14. Supreme Court decisions

15. American law and jurisprudence; and

16. Opinion of legal authors

WHAT ARE THE MAJOR PURPOSES OF TORT LAW?

The major purposes of tort law include the following:

1. To provide a peaceful means for adjusting the rights of parties who might
otherwise take the law into their own hands;

2. Deter wrongful conduct;

3. To encourage socially responsible behavior; and

4. To restore injured parties to their original condition, insofar as the law can do this,
by compensating them from their injury

WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF INTERESTS PROTECTED


BY TORT LAWS UNDER THE CIVIL CODE AND
WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS WHICH
PROTECT SUCH INTEREST?
INTEREST PROTECTED

TORTS AND PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Person
1. Freedom from contract and of movement
2. Freedom from distress

1. Physical Injuries (Art. 32), Quasi Delict (Art. 2176)


2. Moral Damages (Arts. 2217-2220)

Dignity
1. Reputation
2. Privacy
3. Freedom from wrongful actions

1. Defamation (Art. 33)


2. Violation of Privacy (Art. 26)
3. Malicious Prosecution (Arts. 20, 21)

Property
1. Real property

1. Nuisance (Arts. 694-770), Quasi Delict (Article


2176)

Economic/Pecuniary
1. Contracts
2. Freedom form deception

1. Interference with contractual rights (Art. 1314)


2. Fraud (Art. 33 )

WHAT ARE THE DISTINCTIONS


BETWEEN CULPA CONTRACTUAL,
CULPA AQUILIANA AND CULPA
CRIMINAL?

CULPA CONTRACTUAL

CULPA AQUILIANA

CULPA CRIMINAL

There is a pre-existing obligation (a


contract, either expressed or implied)

There is no pre-existing obligation.

There is no pre-existing contractual


obligation.

Preponderance of evidence is required.

Preponderance of evidence is needed.

The crime must be proven beyond


reasonable doubt.

Defense of good father of a family in


the selection and supervision of
employees is not a proper and
complete defense but this can mitigate
liability for damages

Defense of a good father of a family in


the selection of the employees is a
proper defense of the employer.

This defense cannot be interposed. If


the employee is insolvent or incapable
to pay the civil aspect or liability, the
employer is subsidiarily liable

The existence of a contract must be


proven. If it is proven and it is also
proven that the contract was not
complied with, it is presumed that the
debtor is at fault.

The fault or negligence


defendant must be proven.

the

The innocence of the accused is


presumed until the contrary is proven.

Negligence is only incidental to the


performance of an existing obligation
based on contract.

Negligence is direct, substantive and


independent.

Negligence is direct, substantive and


independent.

of

HOW IS QUASI-DELICT
DISTINGUISHED FROM DELICT OR
CRIME?

BASIS

QUASI-DELICT

DELICT OR CRIME

1. Legal basis of liability

There can be a quasi-delict as long as


there is fault or negligence resulting in
damage or injury to another. It is
broader
in scope than crime.

There can be no crime unless there is a


law punishing the act.

2. Criminal intent

Criminal intent is no necessary for


quasi-delict to exist. Fault or negligence
without intent will suffice.

Criminal intent is essential for criminal


liability to exist.

Right violated is a private right. Quasidelict is a wrongful act against a


private individual.

Right violated is a public one. Crime is


a wrong against the State.

4. Liability for damages

Every quasi-delict gives rise to liability


for damages.

Some crimes (like contempt, illegal


possession of firearm) do not give rise
to liability for damages.

5. Proofs needed

Proof of the fault or negligence requires


only preponderance of evidence.

The guilt of the accused must be


proved beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Sanction or penalty

Reparation or indemnification of the


injury or damage.

Punishment is either imprisonment,


fine
or
both;
sometimes
other
accessory penalties are imposed.

3. Nature of right violated

Right

HOW IS QUASI-DELICT
DISTINGUISHED FROM CULPA
CONTRACTUAL?

BASIS

QUASI-DELICT

DELICT OR CRIME

1. Nature of negligence

Negligence is direct, substantive and


independent (Rakes vs. Atlantic, 7 Phil.
395)

Negligence is merely incidental to the


performance
of
the
contractual
obligation. There is a pre-existing
contract or obligation. (Rakes vs.
Atlantic, supra)

2. Defense of good father of a family

This is a complete and proper defense


insofar
as
parents,
guardians,
employers are concerned (Art. 2180,
last par.)

This is not a complete and proper


defense
in
the
selection
and
supervision of employees. (Cangco vs.
MRC, infra.)

3. Presumption of negligence

There is no presumption of negligence.


The injured party must prove the
negligence of the defendant (Cangco
vs. MRC, 38 Phil. 768). Otherwise, the
complaint of injured party will be
dismissed.

There is presumption of negligence as


long as it can be proved that there was
breach of the contract. The defendant
must prove that
there was no
negligence in the carrying out of the
terms of the contract. (Cangco vs.
MRC, supra)

APPLICATION:
FACTS:
X, INC. PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY
Y BUS DRIVER, RECKLESS DRIVING
Z PASSENGER INJURED
CAUSES OF ACTION:
1. Culpa contractual negligence based on contract
2. Culpa aquiliana negligence based on tort
3. Culpa criminal negligence based on a crime

CULPA CONTRACTUAL

In the contract of carriage of passengers, it is the obligation of the carrier to convey the
passengers safely to the point of destination. In case a passenger is not brought safely
thereto, there will be a breach of contract.

Any case brought based on culpa contractual will be captioned Passenger Z vs. X, Inc
because the contract is between them.

The driver is not to be included as a party to the action, because he is not a party to the
contract. As to him, there is no privity.

CULPA AQUILIANA

Damage caused to another due to negligence.

The case will be entitled Passenger Z vs. X, Inc. and Driver Y (the defendants will be
solidarily liable as joint-tortfeasors)

CULPA CRIMINAL

The drivers act may amount to a crime (physical injuries through reckless imprudence).

The case will be entitled People of the Philippines vs. Driver Y, and if the latter is
convicted but is insolvent, Passenger Z may pursue against X, Inc. to enforce the latters
subsidiary liability.

NATURE OF THE CASES:

The weakest cause of action is culpa aquiliana where the employer may raise the defense of
due diligence in the selection and supervision of the driver.

Culpa criminal is a stronger cause of action because as to the companys subsidiary liability
the latters defense are limited, however the quantum of evidence needed to convict the
employee would have to be guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Culpa contractual (breach of contractual of carriage) is a stronger cause of action because if


death or injury occurs, the presumption of negligence automatically arises and the common
carrier can be held liable if he fails to prove the extra-ordinary diligence for the duration of
the carriage.

QUASI-DELICT UNDER THE CIVIL CODE


ARTICLE 2176 - Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by
the provisions of this Chapter.
The article covers all wrongful acts or omissions as along as
1. They are not constitutive of breach of contract; and
2. They are not punishable as offenses.

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF QUASIDELICT?

1.

Act or omission;

2. Presence of fault or negligence


3. Damage suffered by the plaintiff;
4. Causal connection between the fault or negligence and
the damage
5. No pre-existing contractual relation

1. WHAT IS ACT OR OMISSION?

When a person by reason of his act or omission causes damage or prejudice to another, a
juridical relation is created by virtue of which the injured person acquires a right to be
indemnified and the person causing the damage is charged with the corresponding duty of
repairing the damaged.

2. WHAT IS NEGLIGENCE?
Article 1173 of the New Civil Code explains negligence as follows
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence
which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the
persons, of the time and of the place.
XXX
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.
The Supreme Court has defined negligence as the failure to observe for the protection
of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance
which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury
(United States vs. Arias, 23 Phil. 434; Gan vs. Court of Appeals, 165 SCRA 378)

WHAT IS THE STANDARD OF CARE OR


DILIGENCE REQUIRED?

The standard or degree of care or diligence that should be observed is that which is
expected of a good father of a family unless the law or stipulation of the parties
requires another standard of care.

The Supreme Court explained in Picart vs. Smith, infra that the standard of conduct used in
the Philippines is that of pater familias in Roman law or that what is referred to in Article
1173 of the NCC, in relation to Article 2178 as a good father of a family.

What should be determined in negligence cases is what is foreseeable to a good father


of a family. A good father of a family is likewise referred to as the reasonable man, a
man of ordinary intelligence and prudence, or ordinary reasonable prudent man.

WHAT ARE EXAMPLES OF PROVISIONS


OF LAW THAT REQUIRES ANOTHER
STANDARD OF CARE?

a. Article 1733 provides that common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary
diligence according to all circumstances of each case.

b. Article 1755 provides that common carrier is bound to carry the passenger safely as far
as human care and foresight can provide, suing the utmost diligence of very cautious
persons, with due regard for all the circumstances.

c. Highest degree of diligence is required in practice of medicine [likened to the diligence


required of a common carrier] (Ramos vs. CA, August 11, 2002) Res ipsa loquitor doctrine is
applicable to practice of medicine.

WHAT IS FAULT?

It is that condition where a person acts in a way or manner contrary to what normally should have done. Fault
is negligence, breach of statutory duty or other act or omission which gives rise to a liability in torts or would,
apart from this act, give rise to the defense of contributory negligence

TWO KINDS OF FAULT:

1. FAULT SUBSTANTIVE AND INDEPENDENT, which on account of its origin, gives rise to an obligation
between two persons not similarly bound by any obligation, or
2. AS IN INCIDENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF AN OBLIGATION WHICH ALREADY EXISTED, which cannot
be presumed to exist without the other, and which increases the liability arising from the already existing
obligation.
The fault referred to in Article 2176 is fault substantive and independent and which in itself a source of
obligation.

3. WHAT IS DAMAGE?

Damage is the loss, hurt or harm which results from injury.

It differs from damages which term refers to the recompense or compensation awarded for
the damage suffered

4. WHAT IS CAUSAL
CONNECTION?
The fault or negligence of the defendant must be the proximate cause of the injury of the
plaintiff.
If the cause of the injury is due to the plaintiffs sole negligence, he cannot recover.
There must be clear evidence that the cause of the damage is the fault or negligence of the
defendant.

WHAT IS PROXIMATE CAUSE?

The proximate cause of injury is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the
result would not have occurred.

More comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the
injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural
and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with the
predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and
probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstance, that the person
responsible for the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some
person might probably result therefrom. (Vda De Bataclan vs. Medina, 102 Phil. 181; Teague
vs., Fernandez, 51 SCRA 181).

5. NO PRE-EXISTING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE


PARTIES

GENERAL RULE AS TO CONTRACTUAL RELATION OF THE PARTIES.


If there is pre-existing contractual relation between the parties and the same is violated, the
proper cause of action is not anchored on quasi-delict but breach of contract or culpacontractual.
WHAT IS THE EXCEPTION TO THE ABOVE RULE?
However, there may be cases of contractual relations like a contract of carriage by airplane
where quasi-delict may arise when the contract was grossly violated (Air France vs.
Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155 3).
The tort liability here is not based on the contract of carriage but on some other bases like
deliberate and malicious violation of the contract.

5. NO PRE-EXISTING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE


PARTIES

In Air France vs. Carrascoso, a passenger was ousted from his first class accommodation and
was compelled to take a seat in the tourist compartment. He was allowed to recover damages
from the carrier notwithstanding the fact that the relation between the carrier and the
passenger is contractual both in origin and nature. The Supreme Court held that the act itself
of breaking the contract creates a tort liability.
In other words, the existence of contract does not bar the commission of a tort by one against
the other and the consequent recovery of damages. Where the act that breaks the contract
may also be a tort, the contractual relation of the parties does not bar the recovery of
damages. (Singson vs. Bank of P.I., 132 Phil. 597 4)

Application:
B, A FIVE YEAR-OLD-BOY, WAS RUN OVER BY A PASSENGER JEEPNEY
RESULTING IN HIS DEATH.
O IS THE OWNER OF THE JEEPNEY.
D IS THE DRIVER OF THE JEEPNEY.

Application:

THE PARENTS OF B WANT TO SUE. WHAT ARE THEIR OPTIONS?


1. They can sue D alone for homicide through reckless imprudence; or
2. They can sue Y for quasi-delict.
CAN D BE CONVICTED OF HOMICIDE THROUGH RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE, AND AT THE
SAME TIME, BE ORDERED TO INDEMNIFY THE PARENTS OF B?
Yes, because every person criminally liability is civilly liable.
WHAT PROOF IS NEEDED TO SECURE CONVICTION OF D?
The guilt of D should be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Application:

SUPPOSE THE GUILT OF D IS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, AND HE IS


ACQUITTED, CAN THE PARENTS OF B STILL SUE D FOR QUASI-DELICT?
Yes. The acquittal of D is not a bar to a subsequent civil action. This is so because the
evidence in the criminal case may not be sufficient for a conviction, but sufficient for a civil
liability, where mere preponderance of evidence is enough.
CAN THE PARENTS OF B SUE O AND Y FOR QUASI-DELICT?
Yes, but O can interpose the defense that he exercised due diligence in the selection and
supervision of D. If O proves this, he will be excused from civil liability.

Application:

SUPPOSE O WAS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE EXERCISE OF DUE DILIGENCE IN THE
SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF D, CAN O STILL BE HELD LIABLE?

Yes, if it was proven for instance, that O was also in the jeepney at the time of accident, and
he could have, by use of diligence, prevented the misfortune, but he did not. (Vide first par,
Art. 2184)

IF D IS CONVICTED IN THE CRIMINAL CASE AND A WRIT OF EXECUTION WAS


ISSUED AGAINST HIM WITH RESPECT TO THE CIVIL LIABILITY, BUT IT TURNED OUT
THAT D IS INSOLVENT, CAN THE WRIT OF EXECUTION BE ENFORCED AGAINST O?

Yes. The guilt of D is automatically the civil guilt of O, if D is insolvent. O is subsidiarily liable
as employer under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code and he cannot interpose the
defense that he exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of his driver.

Application:
IF THEY OPT TO SUE FOR QUASI-DELICT, WHAT PROOF IS NEEDED TO PROVE THEIR CASE
AGAINST D AND O?
The proof needed is a mere preponderance of evidence.
As against D, the parents of B should prove the fault or negligence of D. In other words, the elements of quasi-delict should be
proven. As against O, the parents of B should prove that O has not exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of D.

HOW CAN O BE EXCUSED FROM LIABILITY?


O can be excused form liability provided he proves that he exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of D

CAN O STILL BE HELD LIABLE EVEN IF HE PROVES DUE DILIGENCE IN THE SELECTION AND
SUPERVISION OF D?
Yes, if it is proven that he was inside the jeepney at the time of accident, and he could have, by use of diligence, prevented the
misfortune, but which he did not exercise.

SIMPLIFICATION OF THE RULES

STATE THE RULE ON CONCURRENCE OF ACTION.

When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising
from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action.

STATE THE EXCEPTIONS.

The civil liability arising from the offense charged shall not be deemed instituted together with
the criminal action if:
1. The offended party waives the civil action; or
2. If the offended party reserves his right to institute it separately; or
3. If the offended party institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

WHAT IS THE EXCEPTION TO THE


EXCEPTION?

After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom
cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action.

PROVISO:

In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the
independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed independently
of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however,
may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the
criminal action.

Application:

AFTER A CRIMINAL ACTION HAS BEEN COMMENCED, IS IT STILL POSSIBLE THAT A


CIVIL ACTION CAN BE FILED BY THE INJURED PARTY?

Yes, if the case to be filed falls under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the New Civil Code.

IF THE CASE FALLS EITHER UNDER ANY OF THE SITUATIONS REFERRED TO IN SAID
ARTICLES AND THE CRIMINAL ACTION HAS ALREADY COMMENCED, WHEN SHALL
THE CIVIL ACTION BE FILED?

It may be filed during the pendency of the criminal case.

Application:

IF SAID CIVIL ACTION IS FILED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE CRIMINAL CASE, CAN
BOTH ACTIONS BE TRIED AND HEARD INDEPENDENTLY OF EACH OTHER?

Yes, by express provision of law which says that such civil action shall proceed independently of
the criminal action, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. (Section 3, Rule 111)

WHAT HAPPENS IF A CIVIL ACTION IS NOT EXPRESSLY INSTITUTED?

The civil action shall be impliedly joined with the criminal action. This means that the two
actions are joined in one action as twins, and the civil action may be tried and prosecuted with
all the ancillary process provided by law.

WHAT HAPPENS IF THE TRIAL COURT CONVICTS THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME
CHARGED BUT FAILS TO DECIDE ON HIS CIVIL LIABILITY?

The civil liability may be imposed in a subsequent proceeding without transgressing the
prohibition against double jeopardy.

Application:

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED ON HIS CIVIL LIABILITY?

The acquittal of the accused in the criminal case will not necessarily exonerate him from civil
liability (Article 29 5).

The civil liability which may arise from culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict was never intended by
law to be merged in the criminal action. The criminal prosecution is not a condition
precedent to the enforcement of the civil rights.

To subordinate the civil action contemplated in Article 33 6 and 2177 to the result of the
criminal action would render meaningless the independent civil action and the injunction in
Article 31 7 that such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceeding.

ARTICLE 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his
guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or
omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion
of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case
the complaint should be found to be malicious.

If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so
declare. In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the
decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.

ARTICLE 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages,
entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such
civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence.
ARTICLE 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission
complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal
proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter. acd

Application:

WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITAL DOES
NOT NECESSARILY EXTINGUISH THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE ACCUSED?

1. When it declares that the facts from which the civil liability might arise did not exist;
2. when it declares that the accused is not the author of the crime;
3. when the judgment expressly declares that the liability is only civil in nature;
4. Where the civil liability is not derived or based on the criminal act of which the accused was
acquitted;
5. where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt; and
6. where the civil action has prescribed.

Application:

IF THERE IS NO SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION, WHAT SHOULD THE COURT TRYING THE
CRIMINAL CASE FIND OUT TO ENABLE IT TO DETERMINE FULLY THE CIVIL
LIABILITY
OF
THE
OFFENDER?

The court should find out if there is evidence to prove the civil liability of the offender, and
it should also determine who the heirs of the deceased are entitled to receive payment of
the indemnity in case of conviction. This is necessary to avoid payment to wrong persons.

Application:

WHAT SHOULD THE OFFENDED PARTY DO IN THE CRIMINAL ACTION (WHERE CIVIL
ACTION IS IMPLIEDLY INSTITUTED) TO ENABLE HIM TO RECOVER?

The offended party must present evidence in support of his claim for damages. Otherwise, the
court cannot award damages in the judgment of conviction.

SHOULD THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES BE ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION?

Even without any allegation as to damages, the offender shall be liable for them if the
offended party was able to prove that he is entitled to damages. This is predicated on the
principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.

IF JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IS RENDERED AND THE ACCUSED DECIDES TO APPEAL


THE SAME TO SEEK A REVIEW OF HIS CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIABILITY, WHAT ARE THE
COURSES OF ACTION?

He may appeal both with respect to the judgment in the civil and criminal liability, or he may
appeal only with respect to the civil action or criminal action.

Application:

WHAT DOES THE PHRASE IN NO CASE, HOWEVER, MAY THE OFFENDED PARTY
RECOVER DAMAGES TWICE FOR THE SAME ACT OR OMISSION CHARGED IN THE
CRIMINAL ACTION MEAN?

This means that if the plaintiff succeeded to recover damages from the defendant the Civil
Code, he can no longer recover damages for the same negligent act under the Revised Penal
Code. Conversely, if the offended party takes the option of merely filing a criminal case and
submits his damage claim for decision in the criminal action, and thereafter, he succeeded
to recover damages from the accused in the civil action, he can no longer recover damages
from the accused in a criminal action based on culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict.

Application:

IS RESERVATION REQUIRED IN THE CRIMINAL CASE FOR THE FILING OF CIVIL ACTION ARISING
FROM QUASI-DELICT?

Under the 1964, 1985 and 1988 amendments of the Revised Rules of Criminal procedure, it was required that
the injured party must make a reservation in the criminal case for the filing of a civil action based on quasidelict. The failure to do so will result in the inclusion of the claim for civil liability in the criminal case and bars
any separate civil action based on the same act or omission. (Vide: Hambon vs. CA, G.R. No. 122150, March
17, 2003)

However, under the 2000 amendments of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the reservation required
before was deleted. (Vide: Section 3, Rule 111) The new amendment now conforms to the express mandate
of the New Civil Code that a quasi-delict may be prosecuted separately and independently of the criminal
case arising from the same act or omission, just like the other independent civil actions under Articles 32, 33,
34 of the New Civil Code (Vide: Article 2177).

Application:
A.) A took an ABC bus bound for Butuan City. In Gingoog City, said bus collided with an XYZ Liner.
A was hurt.
1. WHAT CASE CAN A FILE AGAINST ABC?
This is a case of contractual negligence or culpa contractual. A may file a civil case against ABC because there is a contract of
carriage between him and ABC.
2. WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF ABC PROVES THAT IT EXERCISED DILIGENCE IN THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF ITS
DRIVER?
Even if ABC proves that it exercised diligence in the selection and supervision of its driver, ABC is still liable. That defense is not a
proper and complete defense in culpa contractual. However, the diligence of ABC makes it a debtor in good faith, and the
damages would be mitigated (Cangco vs. MRL co., 38 Phil. 769).
3. IS ABC LIABLE IF IT TURNED OUT THAT A HAS NOT YET PAID HIS FARE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT?
Yes. This is a case of culpa contractual and for as long as A was able to prove that he was a passenger of the bus at the time of
the accident and that he failed to reach his destination safely, there is already a breach of the contract of carriage.
4. IS ABC LIABLE IF IT TURNED OUT THAT A HAS JUST BOARDED THE BUS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE SAID
ACCIDENT?
Yes, for the same reason.

Application:
B.) A took an ABC bus bound for Davao City. To avoid a head on collision with an XYZ Liner, ABCs
driver swerved to the right causing it to hit a sari-sari store. A was hurt. X and Y who were taking
snacks in the sari-sari store were also hit and they died.
1. IS ABC LIABLE TO A FOR DAMAGES?

For as long as A can prove that he was a passenger of ABC at the time of the accident and that he failed to reach his destination
safely, ABC is liable. If ABC wants to escape liability, it should prove that its driver was really careful and extraordinary diligent.
2. IN THIS CASE, IS ABC PRESUMED NEGLIGENT?
As a rule, a common carrier is presumed negligent in case of death or physical injuries to passengers unless it proves the
exercise of extraordinary diligence.
3. CAN X AND Y FILE A CASE OF CULPA CONTRACTUAL AGAINST ABC?
No. This is now a case of culpa aquiliana which can be filed both against the driver and ABC. X and Y have the burden of proving
that the driver was negligent and that ABC did not exercise diligence in the selection and supervision of its driver.
If ABC is able to prove that it exercised diligence and supervision in the selection and supervision of its driver, it will be exempt
from liability. This is a proper defense in culpa aquiliana.
If X and Y fail to prove the negligence of the driver, then there is no culpa aquiliana. The reason for this is because fault or
negligence is an essential element of a quasi-delict, and if this is not proved, then there is no quasi-delict.

Application:

C.) CAN THE PARTIES STIPULATE REGARDING FUTURE NEGLIGENCE?

Simple negligence may in certain cases be excused or mitigated but gross negligence can never be excused in advance because
this is contrary to public policy.

1. A SHIPPED ITS GOODS TO A VESSEL OWNED BY XYZ, INC. THERE APPEARS A PROVISION IN THE BILL OF LADING
WHICH STATES THAT NO MATTER HOW NEGLIGENT IS SAID VESSEL, XYZ, INC., SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
DAMAGES CAUSED TO THE GOODS. A SIGNED THE BILL OF LADING. IS SAID STIPULATION VALID?

It is void, for being contrary to public policy.

2. SAME PARTIES BUT THE PROVISION IN THE BILL OF LADING IS DIFFERENT. THIS TIME, THE PROVISION STATES THAT
NO MATTER HOW NEGLIGENT IS SAID VESSEL, XYZ, INC., SHALL BE LIABLE ONLY FOR P300.OO, REGARDLESS OF THE
VALUE OF THE GOODS. IS THE STIPULATION VALID?

It is also void. This kind of stipulation is, in effect, allowing XYZ, Inc., to be negligent knowing that its liability will be limited to
P300.00, regardless of the amount of the goods.

3. SAME PARTIES BUT THE PROVISION OF THE BILL OF LADING STATES THAT THE XYZ, INC.S LIABILITY IS LIMITED TO
P300. 00, NO MATTER HOW NEGLIGENT IT IS, UNLESS A DECLARES A HIGHER VALUE AND PAYS A HIGHER COST OF
FREIGHT. IS THE STIPULATION VALID?

This time the stipulation is valid because the parties made an honest definition of their respective obligations and liabilities.

APPLICATION

X AND Y, PASSENGERS OF JAM LINER, INC., HAD A HEATED ALTERCATION INSIDE THE BUS
RESULTING IN A FIST FIGHT. IN THE PROCESS, X THREW A SOLID PUNCH AGAINST Y AND AS
A RESULT, Y FELL ON THE DRIVERS SCAT. THE DRIVER LOST CONTROL OF THE WHEEL AND
THE BUS HIT AN ELECTRIC POST. WHAT IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT?

Here, the proximate cause is the fist fight between X and Y.

A WAS ON HIS WAY HOME, AFTER A SHOT OR TWO OF LIQUOR IN A BIRTHDAY PARTY. ON HIS
WAY HOME AFTER CROSSING AN INTERSECTION, HIS CAR HEADLIGHTS SUDDENLY FAILED.
HE SWITCHED HIS HEADLIGHTS TO BRIGHT, AND THEN AND THERE, HE SAW A DUMP
TRUCK WHICH IS ABOUT 2 METERS AWAY FROM HIS CAR. A TRIED TO AVOID A COLLISION
BY SWERVING HIS CAR TO THE LEFT BUT TO NO AVAIL. HIS CAR SMASHED INTO THE DUMP
TRUCK. WHO IS NEGLIGENT AND WHO IS THE IMMEDIATE AND PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE
INJURY? (PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION, INC. VS. IAC, G.R. NO. 65295, MARCH 10, 1987)

Both were negligent but the immediate and proximate cause of the accident and of As injuries was the
wrongful and negligent manner in which the truck was parked or the truck drivers lack of due care.

APPLICATION

The collision of As car with the dump truck was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the
truck drivers negligence. The negligence of the truck driver, far from being a passive and
static condition was an indispensable and efficient cause. The accident would not have
occurred were it not for the fact that it was parked askew and without warning lights and
reflector devices.

The improper parking of the dump truck created an unreasonable risk of injury for anyone
driving, and for having created this risk, the truck driver must be held responsible.

As negligence, although later in point of time than the truck drivers negligence, is merely
contributory and the damages therefore that he will recover is subject to mitigation by the
courts, in accordance with Article 2179 of the Civil Code.

On the issue of damages In a suit for damages arising from a quasi-delict, where the
plaintiffs negligence was contributory, the demands of substantial justice may be satisfied by
allocating most of the damages on a 20-80 ratio.

APPLICATION

Based on this, the following were awarded:

1. 20% of the damages awarded by the appellate court shall be borne by the plaintiff;
2. 80% shall be paid by the driver and his employer who shall be solidarily liable to A; and
3. The award of exemplary damages shall be borne exclusively by the defendant Phoenix.

IS THE PRINCIPLE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE


APPLICABLE TO ACTIONS INVOLVING BREACH
OF CONTRACT?

The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only for actions of quasi-delict, not in actions
involving breach of contract. The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a person where
there is no relation between him and another party. In such a case, the obligation is created
by the law itself. But, where there is a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties,
it is the parties themselves who create the obligation, and the function of the law is merely
to regulate the relation thus created.

G. STRICT LIABILITY

WHAT IS STRICT LIABILITY?

Strict liability is defined as liability without fault. A case is one of strict liability when
neither care nor negligence, neither good faith nor bad faith, neither knowledge or
ignorance will save the defendant.

WHEN IS THERE STRICT LIABILITY UNDER THE CIVIL CODE?

There is strict liability if one is made liable independent of fault, negligence or intent after
establishing certain facts specified by law. Strict liability tort can be committed even if
reasonable care was exercised and regardless of the state of mind of the actor at that time.

STRICT LIABILITY

WHAT ARE THE INSTANCES UNDER THE CIVIL CODE WHERE THERE IS STRICT
LIABILITY?

1. Liability of possessors of animals (Article 2183);

2. Liability for falling objects (Article 2193);

3. Liability of employers (Article 1171);

4. Liability of manufacturers and processors (Article 2187)

5. Liability for nuisance (To be discussed separately)

A. LIABILITY OF POSSESSORS OF
ANIMALS

ARTICLE 2183. 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 escape or be lost. This
responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from
the fault of the person who has suffered damage. (1905)

WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO ARTICLE 2183?

1. When the damage was caused by force majeure;

2. When the damage is caused by the person who suffered the damage;

3. If the acts of a third person cannot be foreseen or prevented, then the situation is similar
to a force majeure and the possessor is not liable.

B. LIABILITY FOR FALLING


OBJECTS

ARTICLE 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof, is responsible
for damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same. (1910a)

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF LIABILITY UNDER ARTICLE 2193?

The nature of the liability of the head of the family is both absolute and exclusive. It is
absolute in the sense that as long as he is head of the family that lives in the building or
part thereof like a rented room, he is liable even if he is not present at the time of the
incident. It is exclusive in the sense that it is only the head of the family who is made liable.

D. LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS (ARTICLE


1711)

ARTICLE 1711. Owners of enterprises and other employers are obliged to pay
compensation for the death of or injuries to their laborers, workmen, mechanics or other
employees, even though the event may have been purely accidental or entirely due to a
fortuitous cause, if the death or personal injury arose out of and in the course of the
employment. The employer is also liable for compensation if the employee contracts any
illness or disease caused by such employment or as the result of the nature of the
employment. If the mishap was due to the employee's own notorious negligence, or
voluntary act, or drunkenness, the employer shall not be liable for compensation. When the
employee's lack of due care contributed to his death or injury, the compensation shall be
equitably reduced.

E. LIABILITY OF MANUFATURERS
AND PROCESSORS (ARTICLE
2187)

ARTICLE 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods
shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances used, although no
contractual relation exists between them and the consumers. (n)

WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR STRICT LIABILITY UNDER THIS ARTICLE?
To establish the liability of manufacturers or processors under the Article, the following requisites must
be established:

a) The defendant is the manufacturer or processor of foodstuff, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods
involved;

b) The defendant used noxious or harmful substances in the manufacture or processing of the
foodstuff, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods;

c) Plaintiff used or consumed such product unaware of the injurious condition of the product;

d) Plaintiffs injury or death was caused by the product used or consumed;

e) The forms or kinds of damages suffered and the amount thereof.

WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS ON REMEDIES OF


THE PLAINTIFF?

The plaintiff has four (4) options if he desires to pursue a complaint against the
manufacturer or processor under Article 2187. He may base his complaint on the:

a) Theory of strict liability in torts;

b) Fault or negligence;

c) Breach of warranty; or

d) Crime anchored on violation of the Foods and Drugs Act wherein the enforcement of
which is the doctrine of absolute criminal liability may be applied (People vs. Siy Cong Bien,
30 Phil. 577).

F. OTHER PROVISIONS

1. LIABILITY OF OWNER IN MOTOR VEHICLE MISHAPS (ARTICLE 2184); PRESUMPTION OF


NEGLIGENCE (ARTICLE 2185); AND BOND REQUIRED BY MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERS (ARTICLE 2186)

ARTICLE 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in
the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed
that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at
least twice within the next preceding two months. cd i

If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of article 2180 are applicable. (n)

ARTICLE 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has
been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. (n)

ARTICLE 2186. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file with the proper government office a bond executed by
a government-controlled corporation or office, to answer for damages to third persons. The amount of the
bond and other terms shall be fixed by the competent public official. (n)

DAMAGES

Monetarycompensationthatisawardedbyacourtinacivilactiontoanindividualwhohasbeeninjur
edthroughthe wrongfulconductofanotherparty.

WHAT ARE THE DAMAGES THAT MAY BE AWARDED?

Under Article 2197, damages may be:


1. Actual or compensatory;
2. Moral;
3. Nominal;
4. Temperate or moderate;
5. Liquidated; or
6. Exemplary or corrective.

WHAT DAMAGES MAY BE


RECOVERED IN CASE OF DEATH OF
A PASSENGER?

When death occurs, the following items of damages may be recovered:

1. An indemnity for the death of the victim;


2. An indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the deceased;
3. Moral damages;
4. Attorneys fee and expenses of litigation;
5. Interest in proper cases (Brinas vs. People, 125 SCRA 687).

IN FIXING A GREATER AMOUNT OF DAMAGES FOR


DEATH OF A PASSENGER THAN THAT PROVIDED BY
LAW WHAT MAY THE COURTS CONSIDER?

Article 2206 applies in case of death caused by the breach of contract by the common carrier
(Art. 1764). It fixes the minimum indemnity for death at P3,000, which the courts may increase
according to the circumstances. It is in fixing a greater amount of indemnity that courts may
consider the financial capacity of the common carrier, along with such other factors as

(1)

the life expectancy of the deceased or of the beneficiary, whichever is shorter,

(2)

pecuniary loss to the plaintiff or beneficiary,

(3)

loss of support,

(4)

loss of service,

(5)

loss of society,

(6)
(7)

mental suffering of beneficiaries, and


medical and funeral expenses. (See Alcantara v. Surro and Manila Electric Co., 93 Phil. 472 and
Art. 2206, Civil Code.)

HOW MAY LIFE EXPECTANCY OF A PERSON BE


DETERMINED FOR PUPROSES OF FIXING THE
AMOUNT OF DAMAGES THAT MAY BE
RECOVERED?

the following formula was adopted in the American Expectancy Table of Mortality or the
actual Combined Experience Table of Mortality:

2/3

x (80 age of the decedent) = life expectancy.

1. ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY
DAMAGES

Actual damages are adequate compensation for pecuniary loss suffered and proved. It
includes attorneys fees.

EXAMPLES:

* someone beats you up

Actual Damages= expenses for going to the hospital, doctor, medicine


* Contract with supplier of raw materials. Supplier fails to comply and because of that, the
buyer fails to manufacture his products.
Actual damages= unrealized profit

2. MORAL DAMAGES

ARTICLE 2217. Moral damages include:

1.

physical suffering,

2.

mental anguish,

3.

fright,

4.

serious anxiety,

5.

besmirched reputation,

6.

wounded feelings,

7.
8.

moral shock,
social humiliation, and similar injury.

2. MORAL DAMAGES

ARTICLE 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;


(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35. casia

AS A GENERAL RULE, MAY MORAL DAMAGES BE


RECOVERED IN BREACH OF CONTRACT OF
TRANSPORTATION?

Moral damages are not recoverable in damage actions predicated on a breach of contract
of transportation in view of the provisions of Articles 2219 and 2220. The said provisions
limited the award of moral damages to those enumerated therein and analogous cases.

Moral damages may be recovered in an action for breach of contract of transportation in


the following cases:

1. When the mishap results in the death of a passenger (M. Ruiz Highway Transit, Inc. vs.
Court of Appeals, 11 SCRA 98);

2. Where it is proved that the carrier was guilty of fraud or bad faith, even if death does not
result (Rex Taxicab Co., Inc. vs. Bautista, L-15392, September 30, 1960; Singson vs. Court
of Appeals, 282 SCRA 149).

3. NOMINAL DAMAGES

ARTICLE 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which
has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for
the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.

EXAMPLE:
Police officers barge into your home without a warrant.

4. TEMPERATE OR MODERATE
DAMAGES

ARTICLE 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than
compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss
has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case, be proved with
certainty.

Example:

Evidence presented at the trial to show the value of the damage was wrong, but the damage
itself was proven.

5. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

ARTICLE 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to
be paid in case of breach thereof.

Example:

Contract for construction which states that in case of delay in completion, the contractor
must pay 1/10 of 1% of the project cost for every day of delay.

6. EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE
DAMAGES

ARTICLE 2229. Exemplary or corrective -imposed, by way of example or correction for the
public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.

Examplesofactswarrantingexemplary damages:

1.Publishingthatsomeonehadcommittedmurderswhenthepublisherknewitwasnottruebut
hatedtheperson;
2. An ex-husbandtrasheshisformerwife'sautoandthreatensfurtherpropertydamage-

NUISANCE

ARTICLE 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else
which:

(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or


(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or
(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water; or
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.

ARTICLE 695. Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects a community or neighborhood or any
considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may be
unequal. A private nuisance is one that is not included in the foregoing definition. cda

ARTICLE 696. Every successive owner or possessor of property who fails or refuses to abate a nuisance in that
property started by a former owner or possessor is liable therefor in the same manner as the one who created it.

ARTICLE 697. The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of any person injured to recover damages for
its past existence.

ARTICLE 698. Lapse of time cannot legalize any nuisance, whether public or private.

NUISANCE

ARTICLE 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:

(1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance: or


(2) A civil action; or acd
(3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.

ARTICLE 700. The district health officer shall take care that one or all of the remedies against
a public nuisance are availed of.

ARTICLE 701. If a civil action is brought by reason of the maintenance of a public nuisance,
such action shall be commenced by the city or municipal mayor.

ARTICLE 702. The district health officer shall determine whether or not abatement, without
judicial proceedings, is the best remedy against a public nuisance.

ARTICLE 703. A private person may file an action on account of a public nuisance, if it is
specially injurious to himself.

NUISANCE

ARTICLE 704. Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is specially injurious to him 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
necessary:

(1) That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of the property to abate the nuisance;
(2) That such demand has been rejected;
(3) That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and executed with the assistance of the local police; and cda
(4) That the value of the destruction does not exceed three thousand pesos.

ARTICLE 705. The remedies against a private nuisance are:

(1) A civil action; or

(2) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.

ARTICLE 706. Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which
constitutes the nuisance, without committing a breach of the peace or doing unnecessary injury. However, it is indispensable that the
procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a public nuisance by a private person be followed.

ARTICLE 707. A private person or a public official extrajudicially abating a nuisance shall be liable for damages:

(1) If he causes unnecessary injury; or

(2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real nuisance.

REFERENCES:

[1] Torts & Damages: DelaSerna

[2] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/DAMAGES

[3]
http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/contracts/Remedies/O
therFormsOfDamages.asp