Torts and Damages

Elements and Requisites Reviewer

Tort The traditional formula for the elements necessary to such a cause of action may be stated briefly as follows: 1. A duty, or obligation, recognized by law, requiring the person to conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable risks. 2. A failure on the person's part to conform to the standard required: a breach of duty. 3. A reasonably close causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury. 4. Actual loss or damage resulting to the interests of another. [Prosser & Keeton] To successfully prosecute an action anchored on torts, three elements must be present, viz: (1) duty (2) breach (3) injury and proximate causation. [Ocean Builders v. Cubacub, 2011] Quasi-Delict All the elements of a quasi-delict are present, to wit: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond; and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff. [Andamo v. IAC, 1990] Res ipsa loquitur The doctrine can be invoked when and only when under the circumstances involved, direct evidence is absent and not readily available. [Layugan v. IAC 1988; Batiquin v. CA, 1996] Still, before resort to the doctrine may be allowed, the following requisites must be satisfactorily shown:

The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someones negligence; 2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants; and 3. The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated. [Ramos v. CA, 1999; Tan v. JAM Transit, 2009; Cantre v. Go, 2007; College Assurance v. Belfranlt Development, 2007] In the above requisites, the fundamental element is the control of instrumentality which caused the damage. Such element of control must be shown to be within the dominion of the defendant. In order to have the benefit of the rule, a plaintiff, in addition to proving injury or damage, must show a situation where it is applicable, and must establish that the essential elements of the doctrine were present in a particular incident. [Ramos v. CA, 1999] From the foregoing statements of the rule, the requisites for the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are: (1) the occurrence of an injury; (2) the thing which caused the injury was under the control and management of the defendant; (3) the occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things, would not have happened if those who had control or management used proper care; and (4) the absence of explanation by the defendant. Of the foregoing requisites, the most instrumental is the "control and management of the thing which caused the injury." [Professional Services v. Agana, 2007] Accordingly, some courts add to the three prerequisites for the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine the further requirement that for the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to apply, it must appear that the injured party had no knowledge or means of knowledge as to the cause of the accident, or that the party to be charged with negligence has superior knowledge or opportunity for explanation of the

1.

Torts and Damages

accident. [DM Consunji v. CA, 2001, citing American Jurisprudence] Fortuitous Event Three-Step Analysis and Elements First: Is the event a fortuitous event? As defined, fortuitous events are those which "could not be fo reseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable." Second: Is it within the exceptions in Article 1174? If yes, the defense cannot apply. The exceptions are when the liability for fortuitous event is: (1) specified by law; (2) when it is declared by stipulation; or (3) required by the nature of the obligation. Third: Are the elements present? The elements, as laid down in Lasam v. Smith, are: (1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will; (2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid. (3) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; (4) The debtor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor. Plaintiffs assumption of risk/volenti non fit injuria A person is excused from the force of the rule when (1) an emergency is found to exist or if the life or property of another is in peril, or (2) when he seeks to rescue his endangered property. [Ilocos Norte Electric v. CA, 1989] Prescription (in relation to CC 1146) The prescriptive period begins from the day the quasi-delict is committed. The right of action accrues when the following concurs: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created,

(2) an obligation on the part of defendant to respect such right, and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff. [Kramer v. CA, 1989] Persons Vicariously Liable Owners/Managers of Establishments/Employers To sustain claims against employers for the acts of their employees, the following requisites must be established: (1) that the employee was chosen by the employer personally or through another, (2) that the service to be rendered in accordance with orders which the employer has the authority to give at all times, and (3) that the illicit act of the employee was on the occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted to him. [Jayme v. Apostol, 2008] Persons who interfere with contractual relations The elements of tort interference are: (1) existence of a valid contract, (2) knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of contract, and (3) interference of the third person is without legal justification or excuse. Where there was no malice in the interference of a contract, and the impulse behind ones conduct lies in a proper business interest rather than in wrongful motives, a party cannot be a malicious interferer. Where the alleged interferer is financially interested, and such interest motivates his conduct, it cannot be said that he is an officious or malicious intermeddler. [Gilchrist v. Cuddy, 1915] The elements of tort interference are: (1) existence of a valid contract, (2) knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of contract, and (3) interference of the third person is without legal justification or excuse. Where there was no malice in the interference of a contract, and the impulse behind ones conduct lies in a proper business interest rather than in wrongful motives, a party cannot be a malicious interferer. Where the alleged interferer is financially interested and such interest motivates his conduct, it cannot be said that he

Torts and Damages

is an officious or malicious intermeddler. [So Ping Bun v. CA, 1999] The elements of tort interference are: (1) existence of a valid contract, (2) knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of a contract, and (3) interference of the third person is without legal justification. As to the third element, to sustain a case for tortuous interference, the defendant must have acted with malice or must have been driven by purely impure reasons to injure the plaintiff. [Go v. Cordero, 2010] Abuse of Rights (Article 19, CC) The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19 are: (1) there is a legal right or duty, (2) which is exercised in bad faith, (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. Article 19 and 21 requires that the act be intentional. There is no hard and fast rule which can be applied to determine whether or not the principle of abuse of rights may be invoked. Whether or not the principle of abuse of rights has been violated depends on the circumstances of each case. [Albenson v. CA, 1993] Acts Contra Bonus Mores (Article 21, CC) Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores, with the following elements: (1) there is an act which is legal, (2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy, (3) and it is done with intent to injure. The act must be intentional. [Albenson v. CA, 1993] Malicious Prosecution Three (3) elements must be present in such cases: (1) the fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself the prosecutor, and that the action was finally terminated with an acquittal, (2) that in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause, (3) the prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice. [Albenson v. CA, 1993] The statutory basis for a civil action for damages for malicious prosecution are found in Articles 19, 20, 21, 26, 29, 32, 33, 35, 2217 and

2219(8). In order for such suit to prosper, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself the prosecutor and that the action finally terminated with an acquittal, (2) that in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause, and (3) that the prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice, that is by improper or sinister motive. [Drilon v. CA, 1997] Malicious prosecution is an action for damages brought by one against whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit, or other legal proceeding has been instituted maliciously and without probable cause, after the termination of such prosecution, suit, or other proceeding in favor of the defendant. Thus, for a malicious prosecution suit to prosper, the plaintiff must prove that: (1) the prosecution did occur, and the defendant was himself the prosecutor or that he instigated its commencement, (2) the criminal action finally ended with an acquittal, (3) in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause, and (4) the prosecution was impelled by legal malice, an improper or a sinister motive. The gravamen of malicious prosecution is not the filing of a complaint based on the wrong provision of law, but the deliberate initiation of an action with the knowledge that the charges were false and groundless. [Magbanua v. Junsay, 2007] Moral Damages The conditions for such award are: (1) a clearly substantiated injury, whether physical, mental, or psychological, (2) a factually established culpable act or omission, and (3) such wrongful act or omission is the proximate cause of the injury sustained, and (4) the award is based on Article 2219. [Sulpicio Lines v. Curso, 2010] In culpa aquiliana, or quasi-delict, (a) when an act or omission causes physical injuries, or (b) where the defendant is guilty of intentional tort, moral damages may aptly be recovered. [BF Metal v. Lomotan] In any case, to sustain such award, it must be shown that (1) the claimant suffered

Torts and Damages

injury, and (2) such injury sprung from any of the cases listed in Articles 2219 and 2220. Bad faith or ill motive is necessary. Allegation of mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, social humiliation, and the like as a result of the acts of the other party is not enough. Also, the right to litigate must not be penalized, but it must be exercised in good faith. [Industrial Insurance v. Bondad, 2000] Malicious Prosecution in relation to Moral Damages The requisites for an award of moral damages are thus: (1) an clearly sustained injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, (2) a factually established culpable act or omission, (3) the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained, and (4) the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219. [Expertravel v. CA, 1999]