Torts Notes

TORTS AND DAMAGES
KATHRYN PINEDA DELA SERNA I. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 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? Tort in common law includes: 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.
Page 2 K. P. Dela Serna
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 QUASI-DELICT? Quasi-delict is what is known as TORT in Anglo-American law. Tort is broader than the Spanish-Philippine 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 quasidelicts (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) 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 1. Physical Injuries (Art. 32), Quasi movement Delict (Art. 2176) 2. Freedom from distress 2. Moral Damages (Arts. 2217-2220) Dignity 1. Reputation 1. Defamation (Art. 33) 2. Privacy 2. Violation of Privacy (Art. 26) 3. Freedom from wrongful actions 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 WHAT 1. Interference with contractual rights (Art. 1314) 2. Fraud (Art. 33
ARE THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN CULPA CONTRACTUAL, CULPA AQUILIANA
AND CULPA CRIMINAL?
CULPA CONTRACTUAL There is a pre-existing obligation (a contract, either expressed or implied) Preponderance of evidence is required. 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 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. Negligence is only incidental to the performance of an existing obligation based on contract.
CULPA AQUILIANA CULPA CRIMINAL There is no pre-existing There is nor pre-existing obligation. contractual obligation.
Preponderance of evidence is needed. Defense of a good father of a family in the selection of the employees is a proper defense of the employer.
The crime must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. 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 fault or negligence of The innocence of the the defendant must be accused is presumed until proven. the contrary is proven.
Negligence substantive independent.
is
direct, Negligence and substantive independent.
is
direct, and
HOW IS QUASI-DELICT DISTINGUISHED FROM DELICT OR CRIME? BASIS 1. Legal basis of liability QUASI-DELICT There can be a quasi-delict as long as there is fault or negligence resulting in DELICT OR CRIME There can be no crime unless there is a law punishing the act.
2. Criminal intent
3. Nature of right violated
4. Liability for damages
damage or injury to another. It is broader in scope than crime. Criminal intent is no necessary for quasi-delict to exist. Fault or negligence without intent will suffice. Right violated is a private right. Quasi-delict is a wrongful act against a private individual. Every quasi-delict gives rise to liability for damages.
Criminal intent is essential for criminal liability to exist. Right violated is a public one. Crime is a wrong against the State. Some crimes (like contempt, illegal possession of firearm) do not give rise to liability for damages. The guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Punishment is either imprisonment, fine or both; sometimes other accessory penalties are imposed.
5. Proofs needed
6. Sanction or penalty
Proof of the fault or negligence requires only preponderance of evidence. Reparation or indemnification of the injury or damage.
HOW IS QUASI-DELICT DISTINGUISHED FROM CULPA CONTRACTUAL? BASIS 1. Nature of negligence Quasi-Delict Negligence is direct, substantive and independent (Rakes vs. Atlantic, 7 Phil. 395) Culpa Contractual Negligence is merely incidental to the performance of the contractual obligation. There is a pre-existing contract or obligation. (Rakes vs. Atlantic, supra) This is not a complete and proper defense in the selection and supervision of employees. (Cangco vs. MRC, infra.) There is presumption of negligence as long as it can be proved that there was breach of the contract. The defendant must prove that
2. Defense of good father of This is a complete and a family proper defense insofar as parents, guardians, employers are concerned (Art. 2180, last par.) 3. Presumption of There is no presumption of negligence negligence. The injured party must prove the negligence of the defendant (Cangco vs. MRC, 38 Phil.
768). Otherwise, the there was no negligence in complaint of injured party the carrying out of the will be dismissed. 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. II. QUASI-DELICT UNDER THE CIVIL CODE A. ARTICLE 2176
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 pre-existing 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 QUASI-DELICT? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Act or omission; Presence of fault or negligence Damage suffered by the plaintiff; Causal connection between the fault or negligence and the damage No pre-existing contractual relation
1. ACT OR OMISSION 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. FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE A. NEGLIGENCE 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 I 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 DEGREE OF CARE OF DILIGENCE REQUIRED? Based on the definition of Article 1173, the degree of care, precaution, and vigilance that should be observed depends on the circumstance of a) persons, b) place, and c) time. That which may be considered therefore as sufficient care and precaution in a set of circumstances, may be insufficient in another set of circumstances that confront the same individual. 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. CAN THERE BE A TORT IN MALPRACTICE IN LAW? Yes, while lawyers are no required to exercise the extraordinary diligence of a common carrier, they must exercise diligence not lesser than the diligence of a good father of a family in handling of cases which they accepted from clients. (Ventilla vs. Centeno, 1 SCRA 215 1) In fact, a lawyer commits the crime of betrayal of trust if he would maliciously breach his professional duty, or is guilty of inexcusable negligence or ignorance to the prejudice of his client. (Article 209, RPC) WHAT IS THE TEST OF DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE? In Picart vs. Smith, 37 Phil. 809, the test of negligence is capsulized as follows Would a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued? If so, the law imposed a duty on the actor to refrain from the course or take precaution against its mischievous results, and failure to do so constitutes negligence. WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF ACTIONABLE NEGLIGENCE? Actionable negligence may either be a) culpa contractual, b) culpa aquiliana, and c) criminal negligence. Thus an action fro damages for the negligent acts of the defendant may be based on contract, delict, or quasi-delict. The bases of liability are separate and distinct from each other even if only one act or omission is involved. WHAT IS THE COVERAGE OF NEGLIGENCE IN ARTICLE 2176?
A lawyer was made liable for nominal damages for failure to perfect an appeal.
Article 2176, whenever it refers to fault or negligence, covers not only acts not punishable by law but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional or voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed (if the torfeasor is actually charged also criminally), to recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary (Andamo vs. IAC, 191 SCRA 202). WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES ARE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Time Place Emergency Gravity of harm to be avoided Alternative cause of action Social value or utility of activity Person exposed to the risk
OTHER FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE: a. Violation of rules and statutes b. Practice and custom c. Compliance with rules and statutes WHAT ARE THE DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE? a. Ordinary negligence b. Gross negligence This is recognized in Article 2231 of the NCC which provides that in quasi-delicts exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence Gross negligence is defined as want of even slight care of diligence. It is also characterized as implying conscious indifference to consequence; pursuing a course of conduct which would naturally and probably result to injury; utter disregard of consequences. PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE a. Burden of proof WHO HAS THE BUDEN TO PROVE NEGLIGENCE?
The plaintiff must prove the elements of a quasi-delict, the most important of which is the element of fault or negligence attributable to the defendant. If this is not proven, the plaintiff cannot recover damages from the defendant. It is even presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. The quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence. b. PRESUMPTIONS WHAT ARE THE PRESUMPTIONS UNDER THE CIVIL CODE ON NEGLIGENCE? The Civil Code provides for the following cases when the existence of negligence is presumed. 1. Article 2184. 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. 2. 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. 3. Article 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearm and poison, except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. 4. Presumption of negligence may also arise because of certain contractual relationship between the parties. Thus the Civil Code provides for a presumption of negligence in case a passenger was injured in an accident involving his carrier. (Article 1735) c. RES IPSA LOQUITOR. WHAT IS RES IPSA LOQUITOR? This is one of the rules relied upon in negligence cases the thing speaks for itself. Its function is to aid the plaintiff in proving the elements of a negligence case by circumstantial evidence. In the case of Spouses Bernabe Africa and Soledad C. Africa vs. CALTEX (Phil.) Inc., G.R. No. L-12986, March 31, 1966, 2 the Supreme Court applied the presumption of
The gasoline station, with all its appliances, equipment and employees, was under the control of appellees. A fire occurred therein and spread to and burned the neighboring houses. The persons who knew or could have known how the fire started were appellees and their employees, but they gave no
negligence under the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur Where the thing which caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the management defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have its management or control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in absence of explanation by defendant, that the accident arose from want of care. B. FAULT 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 WHAT ARE THE 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. WHAT KIND OF FAULT IS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 2176? The fault referred to in Article 2176 is fault substantive and independent and which in itself a source of obligation. 3. DAMAGE 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 (So Ping Bun vs. CA, 314 SCRA 751) 4. CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE AND THE DAMAGE WHAT IS CAUSAL CONNECTION?
explanation thereof whatsoever. It is a fair and reasonable inference that the incident happened because of want of care.
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 STATE THE 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 culpa-contractual. 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.
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.
3
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) B. ARTICLE 2177
Responsibility for fault or negligence under the proceeding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF NEGLIGENCE MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 2177? The Article distinguishes two kinds of negligence 1. Criminal negligence is a violation of criminal law 2. Civil negligence it is a distinct and independent negligence which is culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict of ancient origin, having always its own foundation, separate from criminal negligence. The article makes a distinction between a civil liability arising from a quasi-delict, and civil liability arising from a crime, that is, if the act or omission is punishable by the Revised Penal Code, or may create an action for quasi-delict or culpa extra-contractual under the Civil Code (Andamo vs. IAC, 191 SCRA 195). WHAT
ARE THE MODES OF ENFORCING CIVIL LIABILITY DUE TO FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE UNDER THE ARTICLE?
The injured party has the option 1. To pursue a criminal action which includes the claim for civil liability arising from the crime based on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code; or 2. To pursue an independent civil action based on quasi-delict under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the New Civil Code (Elcano vs. Hill, 77 SCRA 98).
In Julian C. Singson and Ramona Del Castillo vs. BPI and Santiago Frezas, the bank clerk committed a mistake that caused the freezing of the current account of Julian Singson. As a result, his checks were dishonored. The bank apologized to Singson and restored the checking account. Nevertheless, Singson sued the bank for damages. The bank interposed the defense that there could be no liability for negligence or quasi-delict on account of the contractual relations between the bank and Singson, and that the error was immediately corrected. The Supreme Court held that Singson can recover damages from the bank despite the existence of contractual relations between the parties because the act itself that breaks the contract may also be a tort or quasi-delict.
4
If the action is filed against the employer of the negligent employee, the offended party may choose the remedy of primary liability allowed in Article 2180 or the subsidiary liability under the Revised Penal Code. There is however, a limitation he cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Procedural Aspect [Concurrence of Causes of Action and Remedies] Enforcement of the civil liability arising from crime is governed by Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court effective December 1, 2000. Sections 1, 2, 3 and 5 provide as follows:
Sec. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. (a) 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 unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation. When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or information, the filing fees thereof shall constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding such damages. Where the amount of damages, other that actual, is specified in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court. Except as otherwise provided in these rules, no filing fees shall be required for actual damages. No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action. (b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed. Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil action, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay additional filing fees cased on the amounts alleged therein. If the amount are so alleged but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment. When the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action 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 action. Sec. 2. When separate civil action is suspended. 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. If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying the criminal action. In case of consolidation, the evidence already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the
offended party in the criminal case and of the parties to present additional evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil actions shall be tried and decided jointly. During the pendency of the criminal action, the running of the period of prescription of the civil action which cannot be instituted separately or whose proceeding has been suspended shall be tolled. The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently. 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. Sec. 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar. A final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the defendant from civil liability is not a bar to a criminal action against the defendant for the same act or omission subject of the civil action.
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. 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 xxx 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. 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. 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. 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
5 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. 6 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. 7 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
receive payment of the indemnity in case of conviction. This is necessary to avoid payment to wrong persons. 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. 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. 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 quasi-delict. 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). MORE DISCUSSION: Article 2177 of the Civil Code makes a distinction between a civil liability arising from a quasi-delict, and civil liability arising from a crime, that is, an act or omission may be punishable by the Revised Penal Code, or may create an action for quasi-delict or culpa extra-contractual under the Civil Code. 8 Article 2176 of the Civil Code imposes a civil liability on a person for damage caused by his act or omission constituting fault or negligence, and whenever Article 2176 refers to "fault or negligence", it covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, (if the tortfeasor is actually charged also criminally), to recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. 9 The Supreme Court in the case of Andamo vs. IAC, 191 SCRA 195 explained that: According to the Report of the Code Commission, Article 2177 of the Civil Code though at first sight startling, is not so novel or extraordinary when we consider the exact nature of criminal and civil negligence. The former is a violation of the criminal law, while the latter is a distinct and independent negligence, which is a "culpa aquiliana" or quasi-delict, of ancient origin, having always had its own foundation and individuality, separate from criminal negligence. Such distinction between criminal negligence and "culpa extra-contractual" or "cuasi-delito" has been sustained by decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain . . . xxx xxx xxx
In Azucena vs. Potenciano, (5 SCRA 468, 470-471), the Court declared that in quasi-delicts, "(t)he civil action is entirely independent of the criminal case according to Articles 33 and 2177 of the Civil Code. There can be no logical conclusion than this, for to subordinate the civil
8 9
See: Andamo vs. IAC, 191 SCRA 195; Rafael Reyes Trucking Corp. vs. People, 329 SCRA 600 Virata vs. Ochoa, G.R. No. L-46179, January 31, 1978, 81 SCRA 472
action contemplated in the said articles to the result of the criminal prosecution whether it be conviction or acquittal would render meaningless the independent character of the civil action and the clear injunction in Article 31, that his action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter." xxx xxx xxx
In the case of Castillo vs. Court of Appeals (176 SCRA 591), this Court held that a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from a delict or crime a distinction exists between the civil liability arising from a crime and the responsibility for quasi-delicts or culpa extra-contractual. The same negligence causing damages may produce civil liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or create an action for quasi-delicts or culpa extra-contractual under the Civil Code. Therefore, the acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case, unless, of course, in the event of an acquittal where the court has declared that the fact from which the civil action arose did not exist, in which case the extinction of the criminal liability would carry with it the extinction of the civil liability. The Supreme Court has already laid a fundamental premise clearly enunciated as early as the case of Barredo vs. Garcia, et al., 73 Phil. 607 (1942), thus: "A distinction exists between the civil liability arising from a crime and the responsibility for cuasi-delitos or culpa-extra-contractual. The same negligent act causing damages may produce civil liability arising from a crime under article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, or create an action for cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. Plaintiffs were free to choose which remedy to enforce." The options of the plaintiffs (offended parties) therefore are: (1) To pursue a criminal action which includes the claim for civil liability arising from the crime based on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code; or (2) To pursue an independent civil action based on quasi-delict under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the New Civil Code. 10 As it is quite apparent that the plaintiffs had predicated their present claim for damages on quasi-delict, they are not barred from proceeding with this independent civil
10
Elcano vs. Hill, 77 SCRA 98; ce Haulers Copr. Vs. CA, 338 SCRA 572; Virata vs. Ochoa, 81 SCRA
472
suit. The institution of a criminal action cannot have the effect of interrupting the civil action based on quasi-delict. 11 And the separate civil action for quasi-delict may proceed independently and regardless of the result of the criminal case, 12 except that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages twice for the same act or commission of the defendant. 13 The civil action referred to in Sections 3(a) and (b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, which should be suspended after the institution of the criminal action, is that arising from delict, and not the civil action based on quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana. 14 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. 15 To subordinate the civil action contemplated in Article 33 and 2177 to the result of the criminal action would render meaningless the independent civil action and the injunction in Article 31 that such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceeding. 16 Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, the independent civil action in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code is not deemed instituted with the criminal action but may be filed separately by the offended party even without reservation. The commencement of the criminal action does not suspend the prosecution of the independent civil action under these articles of the Civil Code. The suspension in Section 2 of the present Rule 111 refers only to the civil action arising from the crime, if such civil action is reserved or filed before the commencement of the criminal action. 17 Thus, the offended party can file two separate suits for the same act or omission. The first a criminal case where the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is deemed instituted, and the other a civil case for quasi-delict without violating the rule on non-forum shopping. The two cases can proceed simultaneously and independently of each other. The commencement or prosecution of the criminal action will not suspend the civil action for quasi-delict. The only limitation is that the offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. 18
Capuno vs. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 13 SCRA 658 (1965). Chan vs. Yatco, 103 Phil. 1126 (1958). 13 Article 2177, Civil Code. 14 Felix Lanuzo vs. Sy Bon Ping and Salvador Mendoza, G.R. No. L-53064, September 25, 1980. 15 BLTB vs. CA, 64 SCRA 427 16 Azucena vs. Potenciano, 115 Phil 465. See also: Dyogi vs. Yatco, 100 Phil. 1095; Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. vs. Gamboa, 101 Phil. 1219; Roa vs. De la Cruz, 107 Phil. 8; Standard Vacuum Oil Vo. Vs. tan, 107 Phil. 109; Pacholo vs. Yumangday, 108 Phil. 238; Calo vs. Peggy, 103 Phil. 1112. 17 Avelino Casupanan and Roberto Capitulo vs. Mario Llavore Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, August 26, 2002. 18 Ibid.
11 12
In Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 147703, April 14, 2004, the Supreme Court explained the concept of independent civil action in this wise: At the outset, we must explain that the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure has clarified what civil actions are deemed instituted in a criminal prosecution. Section 1 of Rule 111 of the current Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: "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 unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action." xxx xxx xxx" Only the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime charged is deemed impliedly instituted in a criminal action; that is, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately, or institutes it prior to the criminal action. xxx xxx xxx It is clear that the 2000 Rules deleted the requirement of reserving independent civil actions and allowed these to proceed separately from criminal actions. Thus, the civil actions referred to in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code shall remain "separate, distinct and independent" of any criminal prosecution based on the same act. Here are some direct consequences of such revision and omission: 1. The right to bring the foregoing actions based on the Civil Code need not be reserved in the criminal prosecution, since they are not deemed included therein. 2. The institution or the waiver of the right to file a separate civil action arising from the crime charged does not extinguish the right to bring such action. 3. The only limitation is that the offended party cannot recover more than once for the same act or omission. What is deemed instituted in every criminal prosecution is the civil liability arising from the crime or delict per se (civil liability ex delicto), but not those liabilities arising from quasi-delicts, contracts or quasi-contracts. In fact, even if a civil action is filed separately, the ex delicto civil liability in the criminal prosecution remains, and the offended party may subject to the control of the prosecutor still intervene in the criminal action, in order to protect the remaining civil interest therein. This discussion is completely in accord with the Revised Penal Code, which states that "[e]very person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable." C. ARTICLE 2178
ART. 2178. The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasidelict.
ART. 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances. 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. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, par. 2, shall apply. ART. 1174. Except in case expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which though foreseen, were inevitable. ART. 2201. Par. 2. x x x In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation.
Article 1172 provides that one incurs a responsibility for being negligent in the performance of every obligation. WHAT ARE THE TWO KINDS OF NEGLIGENCE MENTIONED BY ARTICLE 1172? 1. When an obligor does not observe diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, time and place, there is fault or negligence; and 2. In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the performance of the obligation. (Article 1173 in relation to Article 2201, last paragraph) 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
HAS JUST BOARDED THE BUS
IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE SAID ACCIDENT?
Yes, for the same reason. 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. 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, DAMAGES CAUSED TO THE STIPULATION VALID?
XYZ, INC., SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR GOODS. A SIGNED THE BILL OF LADING. IS SAID
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. D. ARTICLE 2179
When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendants lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
WHAT ARE THE SITUATIONS COVERED BY THE ARTICLE 2179? 1. Plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury he cannot recover damages. (Taylor vs. Meralco, 16 Phil. 8) 2. Plaintiffs own negligence is only contributory; and the immediate and proximate cause of his injury is defendants lack of due care plaintiff can recover damages but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded (Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., 7 Phil. 359). WHAT IS PROXIMATE CAUSE? A proximate cause is that adequate and efficient cause which in the natural order of events, and under the particular circumstances surrounding the case would naturally produce the event. In Vda de Bataclan vs. Medina, 102 Phil.181 and Teague vs. Fernandez, 51 SCRA 181, the proximate cause was defined as the proximate legal cause, 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 to the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable 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.
19
PROXIMATE CAUSE DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER TERMS
1. HOW
IS PROXIMATE CAUSE DISTINGUISHED FROM IMMEDIATE CAUSE OR NEAREST
CAUSE?
The proximate cause is not necessarily the immediate cause; it is not necessarily the nearest time, distance or space. As distinguished from immeditate or nearest cause, proximate cause is not necessarily the last link in the chain of events but that which is the procuring efficient and predominant cause. The requirement is that the act was the proximate cause, not implying, however, the nearest in point of time or relation, but rather the efficient cause, which may be the most remote of an operative chain. It must be that which sets the others in
19
See also: PCIB vs. CA, 350 SCRA 464.
motion and is to be distinguished from a mere pre-existing condition upon which the effective cause operates, and must have been adequate to produce the resultant damage with out the intervention of an independent cause (The Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company vs. The Government of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. L4195, February 18, 1908). 2. HOW IS PROXIMATE CAUSE DISTINGUISHED FROM PRIOR AND REMOTE CAUSE? A remote cause is that cause which some independent force merely took advantage of to accomplish something not the natural effect thereof. A prior and remote cause can not be made the basis of an action, if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury, a distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would not have happened but for such condition of occasion. If no damage existed in the condition except because of the independent cause, such condition was not the proximate cause. And if an independent negligent act or defective condition sets into operation the circumstances which results in injury because of the prior defective condition, such act or condition is the proximate cause. 3. HOW IS PROXIMATE CAUSE DISTINGUISHED FROM CONCURRENT CAUSES? The proximate cause is not necessarily the sole cause of the accident. The defendant is still liable in case there are concurrent causes brought about by acts or omissions of third persons. Thus, the primary cause remains the proximate cause even if there is an intervening cause which merely cooperated with the primary cause and which did not break the chain of causation. WHAT ARE THE TESTS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE? A. CAUSE-IN-FACT TEST In determining the proximate cause of the injury, it is first necessary to determine if the defendants negligence was the cause-in-fact of the damage to the plaintiff. If the defendants negligence was not a cause-in-fact, the inquiry stops; but if it is a cause-infact, the inquiry shifts to the question of limit of liability of the defendant. The latter determination of the extent of liability involves a question of policy. In other words, the question of proximate cause does not only involve cause and effect analysis. It also involves policy considerations that limit the liability of the defendants in negligence cases. The mere fact that the negligence of the defendant is a factor in bringing about the injury does not necessarily means that he shall be liable.
WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF CAUSE-IN-FACT TESTS? 1. SINE QUA NON TEST (BUT FOR TEST) this is a question of causal connection. Where the defendants own conduct will not be considered as proximate cause of the event if the event just the same would have occurred without it. Simply stated, defendants conduct is the cause in fact of the injury under the but for test if the damage would not have resulted had there been no negligence on the part of the defendant. Conversely, defendants negligent conduct is not the cause in fact of the plaintiffs damage if the accident could not have been avoided in the absence thereof. 2. SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST makes the negligent conduct the cause in fact of the damage if it was a substantial factor in producing the injuries. This test is especially important where there are concurrent causes. Here, the issues are not factual but conceptual. 3. NESS TEST A condition may still be considered a cause where it is shown to be a necessary element in just one of several co-present sets each independently sufficient for the effect. 4. POLICY TESTS WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF POLICY TESTS? 1. FORESIGHT PERSPECTIVE It is a test that determines whether the chain of events that in fact occurred was sufficiently foreseeable, natural or probable at the outset for the defendant to be held liable. WHAT 1)
ARE THE TESTS TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF THE DEFENDANTS LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE UNDER THIS TEST?
FORSEEABILITY TEST where the particular harm was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the defendants misconduct, his act or omission is the legal cause thereof. The defendant is not liable for unforeseeable consequences of his act. The liability is limited within the risk created by the defendants negligence act. NATURAL AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE TEST where the defendants liability is recognized only if the harm or injury suffered is the natural and probable consequence of his act or omission complained of.
2)
2. DIRECTNESS PERSPECTIVE
It does not require that the injury is within the foreseeable risk created by the defendant. This second approach starts with the injury and works towards the wrongful action of the defendant, seeking to determine whether any act of a third party or the plaintiff, or any event, severed the causal connection between the harm and the defendants wrongful conduct. Here, the question is only whether, when all the evidence is in, it is permissible to say that the defendant did it, that is, brought about the plaintiffs harm. WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF TESTS UNDER THE DIRECTNESS PERSPECTIVE? 1) NATURAL AND ORDINARY OR DIRECT CONSEQUENCE TEST makes the defendant liable for damages which are beyond the risk. Direct consequences are those that follow in the sequence from the effect of the defendants act upon condition existing and forces already in operation at the time, without the intervention of any external forces, which come into active operation later. Hindsight test Orbit of risk test Substantial factor test
2) 3) 4)
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CAUSE AND CONDITION. A distinction is made between the active cause of the harm or injury and the existing conditions upon which that cause operated. If the defendant has created only a passive (not active) static condition, which made the damage possible, he is not liable. Many courts have sought to distinguish between the active "cause" of the harm and the existing "conditions" upon which that cause operated. If the defendant has created only a passive static condition which made the damage possible, the defendant is said not to be liable. But so far as the fact of causation is concerned, in the sense of necessary antecedents which have played an important part in producing the result, it is quite impossible to distinguish between active forces and passive situations, particularly since, as is invariably the case, the latter are the result of other active forces which have gone before. The defendant who spills gasoline about the premises creates a "condition," but the act may be culpable because of the danger of fire. When a spark ignites the gasoline, the condition has done quite as much to bring about the fire as the spark; and since that is the very risk which the defendant has created, the defendant will not escape responsibility. Even the lapse of a considerable time during which the "condition" remains static will not necessarily affect liability; one who digs a trench in the highway may still be liable to another who falls into it a month afterward. "Cause" and "condition" still find occasional mention in the decisions; but the distinction is now almost entirely discredited. So far as it has any validity at all, it must refer to the type of
case where the forces set in operation by the defendant have come to rest in a position of apparent safety, and some new force intervenes. But even in such cases, it is not the distinction between "cause" and "condition" which is important, but the nature of the risk and the character of the intervening cause" (Phoenix Construction vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-65295, March 10, 1987). WHAT IS EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE? It is one that destroys the causal connection between the negligent act and injury and thereby negatives liability. An intervening cause will not be regarded as the proximate cause and the first cause as too remote, where the chain of events is so broken that they become independent and the result cannot be said to be the consequence of the primary cause. However, a cause is not an intervening cause if it is already in operation at the time the negligent act is committed. WHAT ARE FORESEEABLE INTERVENING CAUSES? If the intervening cause is one which in ordinary human experience is reasonably to be anticipated, or one which the defendant has reason to anticipate under the particular circumstances, the defendant may be negligent, among other reasons, because of failure to guard against it; or the defendant may be negligent only for that reason. Thus one who sets a fire may be required to foresee that an ordinary, usual and customary wind arising later will spread it beyond the defendant's own property, and therefore to take precautions to prevent that event. The person who leaves the combustible or explosive material exposed in a public place may foresee the risk of fire from some independent source. . . . In all of these cases there is an intervening cause combining with the defendant's conduct to produce the result, and in each case the defendant's negligence consists in failure to protect the plaintiff against that very risk (Phoenix Construction vs. IAC, supra). IS CAUSE?
A FORESEEABLE INTERVENING CAUSE CONSIDERED A SUFFICIENT INTERVENING
A foreseeable intervening cause however, cannot be considered sufficient intervening cause. If the intervening cause is foreseeable, the defendant may still be considered negligent because of the failure to guard against it. Also, the intervention of an unforeseen and unexpected cause, is not sufficient to relieve a wrongdoer from consequences of negligence, if such negligence directly and proximately cooperates with the independent cause in the resulting injury (Spouses Bernabe Africa vs. Caltex, supra). APPLICATION
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?
AND PASSENGERS OF
Y,
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. 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. 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. WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE? Contributory negligence has been defined as the act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the person injured which, concurring with the defendants negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury. To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warnings or signs of an impending danger to health and body (Mao-ao Sugar Central Co., Inc. vs. CA, 189 SCRA 93; MMTC vs. CA, August 1, 2002). ARE CHILDREN BELOW 9 YEARS CAPABLE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE? No, a child under 9 years of age is conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matte of law. In our jurisdiction, a person under 9 years of age is conclusively presumed to have acted without discernment, and is, on that account, exempt from criminal liability. The same presumption and a like exemption from criminal liability obtains in a case of a person over 9 and under 15 years of age, unless it is shown that he has acted with discernment. Since negligence may be a felony and a quasi-delict and required discernment as a condition of liability, either criminal or civil, a child under 9 years of age is, by analogy, conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence; and that the presumption of lack of discernment or incapacity for negligence in the case of a child over 9 but under 15 years of age is a rebuttable one, under our law. The rule therefore, is that a child under 9 years of age must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law. (Jarco Marketing Corp. vs. CA, 321 SCRA 377) WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF PLAINTIFFS CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE? If the proximate cause of the injury is the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, there can be no recovery for damages (Taylor vs. Meralco, 16 Phil. 8) A plaintiff is barred from recovering the damages for loss or injury caused by the negligence of defendant only when plaintiffs negligence is the sole legal cause of the
damage, or the negligence of the plaintiff and some person or persons other that the defendant or defendants was the sole cause of the damage. If the plaintiff and the defendant are both at fault, the former may recover, but the amount of his recovery may only be such proportion of the entire damage plaintiff sustained as the defendants negligence bears to the combined negligence of both the plaintiff and the defendant. For example, when it is found that the plaintiffs negligence is at least equal to that of the defendant, the amount awarded to the plaintiff should be reduced by one-half from what it otherwise would have been entitled. If the proximate cause of the injuries is still the negligence of the defendant, despite the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, the latter can still recover damages from the former. However, damages will be reduced due to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff (Rakes vs. Atlantic, supra.) This is apportionment of liability also known as the DOCTRINE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE. Under said doctrine, the negligence of both the plaintiff and of the defendant are compared for the purpose of reaching an equitable apportionment of their respective liabilities for the damage caused and suffered by the plaintiff. Contributory negligence in common carriers does not bar recovery of damages if the proximate cause of the death of the passenger is the negligence of the common carrier
Art. 1762. The contributory negligence of the passenger does not bar recovery of damages fro the death or injuries, if the proximate cause thereof is the negligence of the common carrier, but the amount of damages shall be equitably reduced.
CAN THE PRINCIPLE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE APPLY IN CRIMINAL CASES? The principle of contributory negligence cannot be sued as defense in criminal cases through reckless imprudence because one cannot allege the negligence of another to evade the effects of his own negligence. It may, however, mitigate the civil liability of the defendant but cannot affect his criminal liability. 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. E. ARTICLE 2180
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. 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 occasion of their functions. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable. Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. P.D. 603, ARTICLE 58. Torts Parents and guardians are responsible for the damage caused by the child under parental authority in accordance with the Civil Code.
WHAT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF VICARIOUS LIABLITY OR IMPUTED LIABLITY? The article provides that one is not only liable for his own quasi-delictual acts but also for those persons for whom he is responsible under the law. WHAT IS THE BASIS OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY? The basis of vicarious liability under Article 2180 is not respondeat superior, which under American jurisprudence means that the negligence of the servant is conclusively the negligence of the master. Rather, the basis of Article 2180 is the principle of pater
familias. The reason for the masters liability is negligence in the supervision of his subordinates. The master, however, in pater familias under Article 2180 will be freed from liability if he can prove that he had observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. IS
THE ACTUAL TORTFEASOR
(MINOR,
WARD, EMPLOYEE, SPECIAL AGENT, PUPIL,
STUDENT OR APPRENTICE) EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY?
No, they are not exempt from personal responsibility. They may be sued and made liable alone as when the person responsible for them or the vicarious obligor proves that he exercised the diligence required of a good father of a family or when the minor or insane person has no parents or guardians. In the latter instance, they are answerable with their own property (Article 2182). WHAT IS THE DEFENSE AGAINST VICARIOUS LIABILITY? The responsibility imposed by Article 2180 is not based on respondeat superior. It arises by virtue of a legal presumption of negligence on the part of the persons made responsible for the tortious conduct if another. Such presumption is only juris tantum, not juris et de jure, and may be rebutted by showing that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage (last par.), which in the case of employers, means due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees. WHAT IS THE MEANING OF DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER OR A FAMILY? The phrase may be equated with ORDINARY CARE or that diligence which an average or a reasonably prudent person exercises over his own affairs. This standard of care is also referred to as that a man of ordinary prudence, or a man using ordinary care and skill. WHAT
PROVISION OF LAW GOVERNS THE VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER FOR THE CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE OF HIS EMPLOYEE?
The vicarious liability of the employer for the criminal negligence of his employee is governed by Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The conviction of the employee for criminal negligence conclusively binds the employer who is automatically made subsidiarily liable, to answer for the damages awarded. The defense that the employer exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee is not available under said article. Since the employers civil liability is subsidiary, and not direct, his responsibility will arise only if the employee cannot or is unable to pay the indemnity awarded. Furthermore, his liability cannot be more than that of the employee. The employer
stands in the position of a guarantor. The injured party, however, can sue both at the same time, although he has a choice of remedy either under the Revised Penal Code or under Article 2180. LIABILITY OF FATHER/MOTHER WHAT IS THE REASON OF THE LAW IN MAKING THEM LIABLE? It is a necessary consequence of the parents authority they exercise over their children. WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES TO HOLD THE PARENTS LIABLE UNDER ARTICLE 2180? 1. The child is below 21 years; 2. The child committed a tortious act to the damage and prejudice of another person; and 3. The child lives in the company of the parent concerned whether single or married. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FATHER AND MOTHER? Their responsibility is not simultaneous, but alternative, the father being primarily responsible, and the mother answering only in case of death or incapacity.
PD 603, ARTICLE 201. Civil Liability of Youthful Offenders. The civil liability for acts committed by a youthful offender shall devolve upon the offender's father and, in case of his death or incapacity, upon the mother, or in case of her death or incapacity, upon the guardian. Civil liability may also be voluntarily assumed by a relative or family friend of the youthful offender.
However, under the Family Code, this civil liability is now, without such alternative qualification (Libi vs. IAC, 214 SCRA 16 [1992]). In other words, both parents are primarily liable for the damages caused by their child. The liability is primary and not subsidiary. WHAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE PARENTS LIABILITY? Parents liability extends to intentional crimes committed by their minor children.
Revised Penal Code, ARTICLE 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of article 12 and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules:
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part. Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship, or control or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law. Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received. The courts shall determine, in their sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable. When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damage has been caused with the consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations. Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of article 12, the persons using violence or causing the fear shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution.
WHAT ARTICLE?
IS THE MEANING OF MINORITY IN PARAGRAPHS
AND
OF THE
Minors in the said article refer to those who are below twenty-one and not to those below 18 years. The law reducing the majority from 21 to 18 years did not amend these paragraphs. Article 236 of the Family Code as amended by R.A. No. 6809 provides
ARTICLE 236. Emancipation shall terminate parental authority over the person and property of the child who shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life, save the exceptions established by existing laws in special cases. Contracting marriage shall require parental consent until the age of twenty one. Nothing in this Code shall be construed to derogate from the duty or responsibility of parents and guardians for children and wards below twenty one years of age mentioned in the second and third paragraph of 2180 of the Civil Code (R.A. No. 6809).
ARE
CHILDREN?
PARENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR MINOR ADOPTED CHILDREN/ ILLEGITIMATE
Judicially adopted children are considered legitimate children of their adopting parents (Section 17, R.A. No. 8552, Domestic Adoption Act of 1988), thus the adopters are civilly liable for their tortious and criminal acts if the children live with them and are below 21 years. If the child is illegitimate and acknowledged by the father and lives with the latter, the father shall be responsible. However, an illegitimate child who is not recognized by the putative father but is under the custody and supervision of the mother, it is the latter who is vicariously liable. HOW CAN THE PARENTS AVOID CIVIL LIABLITY? By pleading and proving the defense that there was no fault or negligence on their part. SHOULD THE MOTHER BE IMPLEADED AS CO-DEFENDANT OF HER HUSBAND FOR THE
NEGLIGENT ACTS OR OMISSION OF THEIR CHILD?
No. The mother is liable only if the father is dead or incapacitated. IS

THE FATHER LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR THE CRIME OF HIS MINOR SON WHO IS ALREADY MARRIED BUT LIVING WITH AND RECEIVING SUPPORT FROM HIM?
Yes. The marriage of a minor child, while still a minor, does not relieve the parents of the duty to see to it that the child, while still a minor, does not give cause to any litigation, in the same manner that the parents are answerable for the borrowings of money and alienation or encumbering of real property which cannot be done by their minor married child without their consent (Elcano vs. Hill, 77 SCRAS 100). 2) LIABILITY OF GUARDIANS The vicarious liability of the guardians with respect to their wards is governed by the same rule as in the liability of parents with respect to their children below twenty-one and who live with them. In guardianship, however, the ward may be an adult or of age, like an incompetent or incapacitated adult. The age limit of being below 21 years does not apply. What is important is that the guardianship is subsisting. If the ward has two (2) guardians, one over his person and the other over his property, only the former shall be liable because he is under obligation to supervise the personal acts of the ward.
WHAT IS THE EXTENT OF RESPONISBILITY OF GUARDIANS? The responsibility of guardians extends to incapacitated persons even if they are already of age. Section 2 of Rule 92 uses the word incompetent. It includes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Persons suffering the penalty of civil interdiction Hospitalized lepers Prodigals Deaf and dumb who are unable to read and write Those who are of unsound mind, even though they have lucid intervals Persons not being of unsound mind, but by reason of age, disease, weak mind, and other similar cases, cannot, without outside aid, take care of themselves and manage their property. The guardians stand in loco parentis ARE GUARDIANS DE FACTO RESPONSIBLE? If a person is not legally appointed as guardian, the de facto guardian would generally not be responsible, because of the absence of one of the bases for the responsibility, namely, the duty to take care of the ward. But if the injury caused is the result of bad education or training by the guardian de facto, the latter should be held liable. It is but just that the law should be applied by analogy. This is to compel them to exercise control and supervision over the orphans whom they voluntary assumed the duties of parenthood. 3) LIABILITY
EMPLOYERS OF OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF ESTABLISHMENT OR ENTERPRISE AND
ARE
MANAGERS OF A CORPORATION INCLUDED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
TERMS OWNERS AND MANAGERS?
The terms owners and managers (par. 4) and employer (par. 5) do not include the manager of a corporation. The term manager (director in the Spanish version) is used in the sense of employer. Thus, a mere manager, who does not own the business is not to be considered an employer because he is just an employee. However, a manager who is not an owner but who assumes the responsibility if supervision over the employees of the owner may be held liable for the acts of the employees. The existence of employer-employee relationship must be established by the plaintiff in a satisfactory manner. It cannot be presumed.
One who hires an independent contractor but controls the latters work us responsible also for his negligence. Also, negligence of a professor is negligence of the school. WHAT ARE THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN PARS. 4 AND 5? A. Article 2180 has a separate provisions for owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise (par. 4) and employers (par. 5). Both are employers, however, it is not necessary that the employer under the 5 th paragraph be engaged in any business or industry. B. Both are made liable for damages if they are caused by their employees acting in their service or on the occasion of their functions, or acting within the scope of their assigned tasks at the time of the commission of the tortious act or negligence. C. The 4th paragraph covers negligent acts of employees committed either in the service of the branches or on the occasion of their functions, while the 5th paragraph encompasses negligent acts of employees acting within the scope of their assigned task whether or not the employer is engaged in an business or industry . The latter is an expansion of the former in both employer coverage and acts included. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER? The liability of the employer is primary and solidary with the employee although the former can recover from the latter whatever it pays to the plaintiff (Article 2180) The responsibility of the owner and manager is only with respect to damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches or on the occasion of their functions, and not with respect to acts of strangers who committed unauthorized acts and in doing so, caused damages to others. The same thing is true with respect to the employer in relation to the unauthorized acts of strangers. WHAT PAR. 4?
ARE THE REQUISITES IN ORDER THAT AN EMPLOYER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER
1. The employee was chosen by the employer personally or through another; 2. The service is to be rendered in accordance with the orders which the employer has the authority to give at all times; 3. The illicit act of the employee was on the occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted to him; and at the time the employee was performing his functions. WHAT PAR. 5?
ARE THE REQUISITES IN ORDER THAT AN EMPLOYER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER
1. The act was committed by employees and household helpers (including family cooks, gardeners, yayas, servants, etc.); 2. The said act was committed while they were acting within their assigned tasks; 3. Damage was caused as a result of said act. WHAT IS THE PRESUMPTION CREATED BY LAW IF AN INJURY OR DAMAGE IS CAUSED
BY AN EMPLOYEE? HOW CAN THE EMPLOYER REBUT THIS PRESUMPTION?
If an injury or damage is caused by an employee, it is presumed that the employer (pars. 4 and 5) was negligent either in the selection of the employee or in his supervision over him, or both. The employer can overcome the presumption by a clear showing that in the selection and supervision he observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage (last par.) Allegations of negligence against the employee and that of employer-employee relations in the complaint are enough to make out a case of quasi-delict under Article 2180. Note that to be exempt from liability, the employer must establish that he exercised due care not only in the selection but also in the supervision of the employee. DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN PRIMARY LIABILITY AND SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS. WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS ON REMEDIES OF THE INJURED PARTY?
The injured party has two (2) options in pursuing the civil liability of the employer for the acts of his employee: A. If he chooses to file a civil action for damages based on quasi-delict under article 2180 and succeeds in proving the negligence of the employee, the liability of the employer is primary, direct and solidary. It is not conditioned on the insolvency of the employee. The responsibility of employers for the negligence of their employees in the performance of their duties is primary, that is, the injured party may recover from the employers directly, regardless of the solvency of their employees. B. If he chooses to file a criminal case against the offender and the offender was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the civil liability of the employer is subsidiary. The employer cannot use as a defense the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family. The judgment in the criminal action pronouncing the employee to be also civilly liable is conclusive on the employer not only as to the actuality of that liability but also as to the amount.
Once there is conviction for a felony, final in character, the employer under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, is subsidiarily liable, if it be shown that the commission thereof was in the discharge of the duties of the employee. And a previous dismissal of an action based on culpa aquiliana could not be a bar to the enforcement of the subsidiary liability required by said Article 102 of the Penal Code. WHAT
ARE THE REQUISITES SO THAT THE SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER MAY BE ENFORCED?
To enforce the employers subsidiary liability, there must be adequate evidence establishing that: 1. 2. 3. 4. He is indeed the employer of the convict; He is engage in some kind of industry; The crime was committed by the employee in the discharge of his duties; and Execution against the employee is unsatisfied.
The employer who is made liable may seek reimbursement from his employee for the amount he paid to the offended party for the satisfaction of the claim. 4) STATES IMPUTED LIABILITY FOR THE ACTS OF ITS SPECIAL AGENTS WHAT ARE THE TWO ACTS OF THE STATE THAT MAY GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY? The state may act as: 1. A government entity (public aspect) exercising governmental functions, where it is liable for the acts of its special agents. Here, the state is engaged in public or government functions, through its special agent; or 2. In a corporate capacity (private or business aspect), as when it engages in some private enterprises, where it may be held liable just as any other employer for the acts of its employees. WHAT IS A SPECIAL AGENT? By special agent is meant one specifically commissioned to carry out the acts complained of outside of such agents regular duties. He is one who receives definite and fixed order or commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official.
HOW
IS A SPECIAL AGENT DISTINGUISHED FROM AN OFFICIAL WITH SPECIFIC DUTY
OR DUTIES TO PERFORM?
Under the meaning of paragraph 6 of Article 2180, the word official comprises all officials and employees of the government who exercise duties of their respective public offices. All others who are acting by commission of the government belong to the class of special agents, whether individual or juridical bodies. In qualifying the special agent with the adjective special, the Civil Code aimed at distinguishing it from the regular or ordinary agent of government, which refers to all officers and employees in public service. WHEN IS THE STATE LIABLE AS AN ORDINARY EMPLOYER? 1. When the state is engaged in private business or enterprise; 2. If the special agent is not a public official and is commissioned to perform nongovernmental functions; 3. If the special agent appointed by the state is assigned to perform acts for private and business interests of the state. WHEN IS THE STATE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS SPECIAL AGENT? Under Article 2180 (par. 6), the state has voluntarily assumed liability for acts done through special agent if: 1. The states agent is a public official, who must not only be especially commissioned to do a particular task but such task must be foreign to said officials usual governmental functions. 2. The state commissioned a private individual to perform a special governmental task (Fontanilla vs. Maliamen). WHEN IS THE PUBLIC OFFICER OR OFFICIAL PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR HIS ACTS? Since the state authorizes only legal acts by its officers, the state shall not be liable and an action against the officials or officers by one whose rights have been invaded or violated by such acts, for the protection of his rights, is not a suit against the state within the rule of immunity of the state from suit for: 1. Unauthorized acts of government officials or officers; 2. Acts of a public officer that goes beyond the scope of his duty particularly when acting tortiously; 3. Tortious acts committed by the public officers unrelated to his special assignment;
4. Acts performed by an official upon whom previously devolved the duty of doing the act performed; 5. Acts performed in the discharge of the official duties of a public officer. 5) LIABILITY OF TEACHERS OR HEADS OF ESTABLISHMENT OF ARTS AND TRADES WHAT IS THE BASIS OF LIABILITY OF TEACHERS OR HEADS OF ESTABLISHMENTS? The teachers and heads mentioned in paragraph 7 of Article 2180 stand, to a certain extent, in loco parentis to their pupils and students. Where the parent places a child under the effective authority of the teacher, the latter together with the school head (and the school itself for the fault of the teacher and head), not the parent, should be the one answerable for the torts committed while under their custody, for the very reason that the parent is not supposed to interfere with the authority and supervision of the teacher while the child is under instructions. WHAT DOES THE PHRASE AS LONG AS THEY REMAIN IN THEIR CUSTODY MEAN? The phrase was held to contemplate a situation where the pupil lives and boards with the teacher such that the control and influence over the conduct and actions of the pupil would pass from the father to the teacher, and so would the responsibility for the torts of the pupil (Mercado vs. CA, 108 Phil. 414). This interpretation was abandoned in Palisoc vs. Brillantes, 41 SCRA 557[1971], where the Supreme Court ruled that the phrase means the protective and supervisory custody that the school and its head and teacher exercise over the pupils and students for as long as they are in the school including recess time. There is nothing in the law which requires that for such liability to attach, the pupl or student who commits the tortious act must live and board in the school. The student is in the custody of the school authorities as long as he is under the control and influence of the school and within its premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended (Amadora vs. CA, 160 SCRA 315). Under Article 218 of the Family Code, custody extends to activities even outside the premises as long as they are authorized activities. It is not necessary that at the time of the injury the teacher be physically present and at the position to prevent it. Custody does not connote immediate and actual physical control but it refers more to the influence exerted on the child and the discipline instilled in him as a result of such influence. IS THE SCHOOL LIABLE IF THE STUDENT IS OVER 21 YEARS OF AGE?
A student over 21 years of age, by enrolling and attending a school, places himself under the custodial supervision and disciplinary authority of the school authorities, which is the basis of the latters correlative responsibility for his torts, committed while under such authority. Thus, unlike the parent, who will be liable only if the child is still a minor, the teacher is held answerable by the law for the act of the student under him regardless of the age of the student. Article 2180 treats the parents more favorably than the teacher. However, the teachers control is not as plenary as when the student is a minor; but the circumstances can only affect the degree of the responsibility but cannot negate the existence thereof. It is only a factor to be appreciated in determining whether or not the defendant has exercised due diligence in endeavoring to prevent the injury, as prescribed in the last paragraph of Article 2180 (Palisoc vs. Brillantes, supra). UNDER THE FAMILY CODE, WHAT IS THE RULE WITH RESPECT TO MINORS?
ARTICLE 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child care shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody. Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution. (349a) ARTICLE 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable. The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances. cda All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. (n)
These two provisions control with respect to pupils and students or apprentices who are minors. The basis of liability is the SPECIAL parental authority and responsibility assumed over the minor for whose acts or omissions those given such authority and responsibility are principally and solidarily liable for damages, with the parents, judicial guardians, or the persons exercising substitute parental authority being subsidiarily liable. 20
ARTICLE 216 (Family Code). In default of parents or a judicially appointed guardian, the following persons shall exercise substitute parental authority over the child in the order indicated: cd i (1) The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art. 214;
20
DOES THE LIABILITY EXTEND TO NON-ACADEMIC SCHOOLS? There is really no substantial distinction between the academic and the nonacademic schools insofar as torts committed by their students are concerned. The same vigilance is expected from the teacher over the students under his control and supervision, whatever the nature of the school where he is teaching (Amadora vs CA). However, where the law is academic rather than vocational or technical in nature, responsibility for the tort committed by the pupil or student will attach to the teacher in charge of such pupil or student, following the first part of paragraph 7 of Article 2180. This is the general rule. In the case of establishments for arts and trades, it is the head thereof, and only he, who shall be held liable as an exception to the general rule. In other words, teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their students except where the school is technical in nature; in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF WORKING SCHOLARS? Section 14, Rule X (PD 442) provides: There is no employer-employee relationship between students on one hand, and schools, colleges or universities on the other, where students work for the latter in exchange for the privilege to study free of charge provided the students are given real opportunity, including such facilities as may be reasonable, necessary to finish their chosen courses under said arrangement. F. OTHER PROVISIONS ON VICARIOUS LIABILITY WHAT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PERSONS ENUMERATED IN ARTICLE 2180 WHO PAID FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY THEIR DEPENDENTS OR EMPLOYEES?
ARTICLE 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. (1904)
The phrase dependents or employees in Article 2181 should be construed to include all persons for whom another is liable under Article 2180. WHAT IS THE RULE IF THE TORTFEASOR IS A MINOR OR INSANE PERSON WITHOUT A PARENT OR GUARDIAN?
(2) The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or disqualified; and (3) The child's actual custodian, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or disqualified. Whenever the appointment of a judicial guardian over the property of the child becomes necessary, the same order of preference shall be observed. (349a, 351a, 354a)
ARTICLE 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall be answerable with his own property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. (n)
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. WHAT ARE THE INSTANCES UNDER THE CIVIL CODE WHERE THERE IS STRICT LIABILITY? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Liability of possessors of animals (Article 2183); Liability for falling objects (Article 2193); Liability of employers (Article 1171); Liability of manufacturers and processors (Article 2187) 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)
WHY IS ARTICLE 2183 AN INSTANCE OF STRICT LIABILITY? The language of Article 2183 reveals an evident intent to make the possessor or whoever makes use of the animal, liable independent of fault. Additionally, the owner or possessor of the animal is liable even if the damage was caused by the animal through the fault of third persons. There is also liability even in a case in which it could not be avoided because the animal is
not in his possession for having escaped or gone astray, and for this reason, it does not admit in this class of damages, unlike in damages caused by a person other than the one responsible, evidence of diligence of a good father of a family. WHO IS MADE LIABLE UNDER ARTICLE 2183? Liability is imposed only on the possessor or user of the animal, since he is the one who has custody and control, he is, therefore in a position to prevent the animal from causing damage. The law used the word possessor instead of owner. Thus, if the animal, like a horse or carabao was borrowed by someone for his own use, the latter alone, should be held liable for the damage caused while the animal was under his control. WHAT IS THE RATIONALE BEHIND ARTICLE 2183? The obligation imposed by Article 2183 is based on natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he who possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the damage which may be caused by such animals, even if such damage was not due to their fault or negligence. 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. WHAT ARE THE ANIMALS COVERED UNDER ARTICLE 2183? Article 2183 makes no distinction as to what kind of animal is used or possessed. Hence, it may be construed as applicable generally to all animals, whether domestic, domesticated, or wild. It would seem that birds are covered since they can also cause damage.
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)
WHY IS THERE STRICT LIABILITY IN ARTICLE 2193? It is evident in Article 2193 that the liability is absolute. It does not indicate a presumption or admit proof of care.
Unlike Article 2183, the provision does not exempt cases involving force majeure. 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. WHAT ARE THE PURPOSES OF THE ABSOLUTENESS OF THE ARTICLE? The obvious purposes of the law in making it absolute are: a) To compel the head of the family to see to it that no dangerous things are placed on the window sills and other parts of their dwelling place which may be thrown or fall by accident; b) To compel him to supervise the members of the family or guests from doing acts or activities which may result in the throwing or falling of things from their house or place of dwelling; c) To relieve the victim of the difficult burden of identifying the persons who caused the throwing or falling of the injurious thing. WHAT DOES THE TERM HEAD OF THE FAMILY INCLUDE? The head of the family is usually the father; in his absence, the mother. A single person may also be the head of the family if he is the one supporting his family which may include as members, adopted children, unemployed parents, brothers and sisters. The term head of the family is not limited to the owner of the building and it may even include the lessee thereof (Dingcong vs. Kanaan, 72 Phil. 14). WHAT
IS THE REMEDY OF THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY WHO MAY HAVE BEEN OBLIGED TO PAY INDEMNITY TO THE INJURED PARTY?
The head of the family who may have been obliged to pay indemnity to the injured party may recover from the person responsible for the damage. Their liability is solidary (Article 2194). 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.
WHY IS THERE STRICT LIABILITY IN ARTICLE 1711? The language of the provision indicates that the same is strict liability because liability exists even if the cause if purely accidental. It should be noted, however, that if the death or injury is due to the negligence of a fellow-worker, the latter and the employer shall be solidarily liable for compensation. If a fellow-workers intentional or malicious act is the only cause of the death or injury, the employer shall not be answerable, unless it should be shown that the latter did not exercise due diligence in the selection or supervision of the plaintiffs fellow-worker (Article 1712). 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)
WHY IS THERE STRICT LIABILITY IN ARTICLE 2187? There is strict liability in Article 2187 because it imposes liability for death or injury without fault or negligence on the part of the manufacturers and processors and without privity of contract between them and the consumers. The principle of strict liability in tort means that proof of negligence is not necessary. It applies even if the defendant manufacturer or processor has exercised all the possible care in the preparation and sale of his product. The purpose of such liability is to insure that the burdens of such accidental deaths or injuries resulting from defective products intended for public consumption be placed upon those who market them, and can be treated as cost of production rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves.
WOULD
SUIT?
THE PRESENCE OF CONTRACT BETWEEN THE MANUFACTURER OR
PROCESSOR AND THE PLAINTIFF PRECLUDE THE LATTER FROM FILING OF A DAMAGE
If there is a contractual relation between the parties, the plaintiff us not precluded from filing a suit based on the breach of warranty whether express or implied. The principle of strict liability still applies. The consumers cause of action does not depend upon the validity of his contract with the person from whom he acquires the product, and it is not affected by any disclaimer or other agreement, whether it be between the seller and the immediate buyer, or attached to and accompanying the product into the consumers hands. 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. The plaintiff has the burden of proof that at the time the product left the hands of the defendant, the product was in a defective or injurious condition. Otherwise, his case will fall. 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) b) c) d) Theory of strict liability in torts; Fault or negligence; Breach of warranty; or 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)
WHO ARE THE OWNERS GOVERNED BY THE ARTICLE? Article 2184 refers to owners of vehicles who are not included in the terms of Article 2180 as owners of an establishment or enterprise (De Leon Brokerage Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 4 SCRA 517). It is intended to cover only owners of motor vehicles for private use. It is generally not applicable to motor vehicles for public use and convenience because the operator thereof, usually a corporation, cannot, in the very nature of things, be in the motor vehicle at the time of mishap. However, if the manager of the bus company was in the bus at the time of the mishap, Article 2184 may be applied by analogy (Corpus vs. Paje, 28 SCRA 1062). WHEN IS ARTICLE 2184 APPLICABLE? Article 2184 applies if the owner was in the vehicle at the time of the mishap; otherwise, the provisions of Article 2180 would be applicable (par. 2) where the owner even if he was not in the vehicle would be liable unless he exercised due diligence to prevent the damage.
If the causative factor was the drivers negligence, the owner of that car, who was present, is likewise held liable if he could have prevented the mishap by the exercise of due diligence. Negligence under Article 2184 is, to a certain degree, necessarily subjective (Caedo vs. Yu Khe Tai, 26 Phil. 410). The owner should not be held liable for the negligence of a competent driver, if by the sudden act of negligence, the owner could not have a reasonable opportunity to prevent the act or its continuance (Chapman vs. Underwood, 27 Phil. 374; Johnson vs. David, 5 Phil. 663). WHAT IS THE RATIONALE BEHIND ARTICLES 2184 TO 2186? The rationale for the inclusion of Articles 2184 to 2186 is to cope with the alarming increase of vehicular mishaps. IS THERE A PRESUMPTION THAT A DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT? There is no presumption that found guilty of reckless driving or within two months next preceding violating any traffic violation at the 2185). a driver was negligent unless he has been violating traffic regulations at least twice the mishap (Article 2184, par. 2), or was time of the motor vehicle mishap (Article
WHAT IS THE TEST OF NEGLIGENCE OF THE CAR OWNER UNDER THE ARTICLE? The law does not require that a person must possess a certain measure of skill or proficiency either in the mechanics of driving or in the observance of traffic rules before he may own a motor vehicle. The test of his negligence, within the meaning of Article 2184, is his omission to do that which the evidence of his own senses tells him he should do in order to avoid the accident. And as far as perception is concerned, absent a minimum level imposed by law, a maneuver that appears to be fraught with danger to one passenger may appear to be entirely safe and commonplace to another. Where the law require a uniform standard of perceptiveness, employment of professional drivers by car owners who, by their very inadequacies have real need of drivers services, would be effectively prescribed (Caedo vs. Yu Khe Tai, supra.). 2. DEATH RESULTING FROM POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS OR SUBSTANCES (ARTICLE 2188)
ARTICLE 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. (n)
When death or injury results from the defendants possession of dangerous weapon or substances, there is a rebuttable presumption that he is negligent. The burden of evidence is on him to establish that he was not negligent at all. The presumption prevails if he fails to overcome it by clear strong and convincing evidence. When the possession or use of the weapon or substances is indispensable in the defendants occupation or business, no presumption arises. The plaintiff has the burden of proving defendants negligence. 3. DEFECTIVE 2189)
ARTICLE 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision. (n)
CONDITIONS OF THE ROADS, STREETS, BRIDGES, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND OTHER PUBLIC WORKS
(ARTICLE
WHO ARE MADE LIABLE FOR DEFECTIVE CONDITION OF ROADS, ETC? Article 2189 does not require the defective roads, streets, etc. to belong to the province, city or municipality for liability to attach. It only requires that either control or supervision is exercised over the road, street, etc. (Guilatco vs. City of Dagupan, 171 SCRA 382). 4. LIABILITY OF PROPRIETOR OF A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE DUE TO ITS COLLAPSE (ARTICLE 2190); OTHER LIABILITIES (ARTICLES 2191 & 2192)
ARTICLE 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs. (1907) aisa dc ARTICLE 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused: (1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care of with due diligence, and the inflammation of explosive substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate place; (2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or property; (3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, if not caused by force majeure; (4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious matter, constructed without precautions suitable to the place. (1908) ARTICLE 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding articles should be the result of any defect in the construction mentioned in article 1723, the third person suffering damages may
proceed only against the engineer or architect or contractor in accordance with said article, within the period therein fixed. (1909)
Article 2190 supplements Article 482 which provides:

ARTICLE 482. If a building, wall, column, or any other construction is in danger of falling, the owner shall be obliged to demolish it or to execute the necessary work in order to prevent it from falling. If the proprietor does not comply with this obligation, the administrative authorities may order the demolition of the structure at the expense of the owner, or take measures to insure public safety. (389a) acd
WHAT ARE THE LIABILITIES OF PROPRIETORS OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES DUE TO ITS COLLAPSE? 1. Where the damage is caused by the total or partial collapse of a building or other structure, the proprietor or owner is prima facie deemed negligent and is made liable, if it should be due to lack of necessary repairs, because it is his duty to maintain his property in goods condition at all times to avoid causing injury or damage to another person or property. To relieve himself from liability, he must prove that the property was in a goods state of repair or that the collapse was due to a defect in its construction in which case the engineer or architect and/or contractor may be held responsible for the damage (See Article 1723). 2. The fact that the property is leased or in usufruct will not exempt the owner from liability for his duty to make necessary repairs remains although the property is legally in the possession and control of another. Under the law, the lessee or the usufructuary is obliged to notify or advise the owner of the need for urgent or extraordinary repairs (Article 593, 1663). The failure of the lessee or usufructuary to give notice will entitle the owner to reimbursement, for the damages he may have been required to pay third parties injured by the collapse of the property. WHAT IS THE PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE UNDER ARTICLE 2191? If any of the four (4) enumerated events occurred, the proprietor of the machinery, not necessarily of the owner of the tenement where it is located, is presumed negligent. He has to overcome the presumption with sufficient evidence to avoid responsibility. WHO
IS LIABLE IF THE DAMAGE SHOULD BE THE RESULT OF ANY DEFECT IN THE CONSTRUCTION?
If the building or structure referred to in Articles 2190 and 2191 were constructed with substantial defects which defects are the cause of the damage or injury, the injured party may proceed only against the engineer or architect or contractor in accordance with Article 1723 which provides that:
ARTICLE 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the plans and specifications for a building is liable for damages if within fifteen years from the completion of the structure, the same should collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and specifications, or due to the defects in the ground. The contractor is likewise responsible for the damages if the edifice falls, within the same period, on account of defects in the construction or the use of materials of inferior quality furnished by him, or due to any violation of the terms of the contract. If the engineer or architect supervises the construction, he shall be solidarily liable with the contractor. cda Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply waiver of any of the causes of action by reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of the building. (n)
5. SOLIDARY LIABILITY FOR QUASI DELICT (ARTICLE 2194)

ARTICLE 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary. (n) aisa dc
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.
ARTICLE 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are: (1) (2) (3) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance: or A civil action; or acd 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. 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) (2) A civil action; or 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) (2) If he causes unnecessary injury; or If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real nuisance.
HUMAN RELATIONS (INTENTIONAL TORTS) DEFINE HUMAN RELATIONS. It is the interaction or interrelation of one person to another person or persons and vice versa, in accordance with mores, habits, customs, and public policy not contrary to laws. It refers to the rules needed to govern the interrelationships of human beings in a society for the purpose of maintaining social order
It is based on the old adage or golden rule: Do not do unto others, what others dont do unto you, and the Latin maxim: Sic uture tu ut alterium non laedas (So use your property as not to injure others. WHAT ARE RELATIONS? 1. CATCH ALL PROVISIONS COVERED IN THE CATCH-ALL
PROVISIONS ON
THE ARTICLES
HUMAN
1. Article 19: Every must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. 2. Article 20: Every person, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latte for the same. 3. Article 21: Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES/DISTINCTIONS OF THE THREE ARTICLES? 1. Article 19 declares a principle of law and Article 21 gives flesh to its provisions, while Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for their own sanction; 2. There is a common element under Articles 19 and 21, that is, the act must be intentional, however, Article 20 does not distinguish, in that the act may be done either willfully or negligently; 3. Under any of the three articles, an act which causes injury to another may be made the basis for an award of damages; 4. Under Article 21, the act is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy; in Article 21, the act is contrary to law. Under Article 21, the act is done willfully, in Article 20, the act is done either willfully or negligently. ARTICLE 19 Article 19 is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights. The law recognizes the norms of human on all rights: that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. The article sets standards which may be observed not only in the exercise of ones rights but also in the performance of ones duties. These standards are: a) to act with justice, b) to give everyone his due; and c) to observe honesty and good faith.
Article 19 rejects the classical and traditional theory that he who uses a right injures no one. A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. Article 19 is intended to expand the concept of torts by granting adequate remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide specifically in statutory law. Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the regulation of human relations and for the maintenance of social order. It does not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under either Articles 20 and 21 would be proper [(Globe Mackay vs/ CA, 176 SCRA 778 (1989).] WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF AN ABUSE OF RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19? 1. Exercise of a right which is objective and apparently legal; 2. Damage or injury to an interest not specifically protected by a legal precept; and 3. Immorality or anti-social character of the damage or injury manifested either subjectively, i.e., when the right is exercised with the intent to injure or simply without legal or legitimate purpose. WHAT ARE THE EXTERNAL LIMITATIONS OF ABUSE OF RIGHTS? 1. Those in favor of third persons who acted in good faith; and 2. Those arising from the concurrence or conflict with the tight of others. Exercise of right. The exercise of rights must be done within certain limits. The limitations in the exercise of a right are classified into: a. Intrinsic limitations that which emanate from the right itself, that is, from its nature and purpose. b. Extrinsic limitations which are the following: 3. Those derived from the nature of the right itself 4. Limitations arising from good faith; and
5. Limitations imposed by the economic and social ends for the right which require the holder of the right to exercise it in accordance with the end for which it was granted or created. IN 1. 2. 3. 4.
WHAT ARTICLES IS
ACTING
WITH JUSTICE AND GIVING ANOTHER HIS DUE
ELABORATED?
Article 20 indemnification of another due to illegal acts Article 21 indemnification due to immoral acts Article 24 unfair competition Article 22 unjust enrichment IN WHAT ARTICLE IS OBSERVANCE OF HONESTY AND GOOD FAITH ELABORATED?
1. Article 26 respect for the personality and dignity of others 2. Article 25 restraint of due extravagance 3. Article 31 et seq. independent civil actions ARTICLE 20 WHAT IS BEING PUNISHED UNDER ARTICLE 20? This article punishes illegal acts whether done willfully or negligently. The article is broad enough to cover all legal (not moral) wrongs in violation of law, whether willfully or negligently. Thus, in the law of torts or quasi-delict Whoever by act or omission causes damages to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. (Article 2176) It embraces the Spanish-Philippine concept of quasi-delict which is based on negligence and the tort in Anglo-Amercian jurisprudence which is based on malice. This article serves as a sanction to all violations of right which cause damage to another irrespective of whether the particular law that is violated provides for damages or not. The rule in Article 20 compliments the principle of abuse of rights enumerated in Article 19. The conduct may be both a crime and a quasi-delict. Any person who willfully or negligently causes damage to another in his person, his property, or in any right shall be obliged to indemnify the latter. A felony may be committed by means of deceit or by means of fault or negligence (Article 3, Revised Penal Code). If the fault or negligence does not constitute a penal offense, the actor is liable only for quasi-delict under Article 2176. In either case, it is essential that the act is voluntary for the obligation to indemnify to arise.
ARTICLE 21 Article 21 seeks to remedy the countless gaps in the statutes, which leave so may victims of moral wrongs helpless, even though they have actually suffered material and moral injury. Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus. WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF ACTS CONTRA BONUS? 1. There is an act which is legal; 2. But which is contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or public policy; and 3. It is done with intent to injure Under this article, damages are recoverable even though no positive law was violated. Article 21 presupposes losses or injuries material or otherwise, which one may suffer as a result of the violation. Thus, the complaint must asks for damages. EXAMPLES OF ACTS CONTRA BONUS MORES: 1. Breach of promise to marry As a general rule, breach of promise to marry by itself is not actionable. However, it becomes actionable if there are additional circumstances which make it fall within the purview of Articles 19, 20, 21 or 2176 of the Civil Code. In such cases, there is another act independent of the breach of promise to marry which gives rise to liability. These include cases where: 1. If the breach of promise to marry is accompanied by a tortuous act 2. If the breach of promise to marry is accompanied by a quasi-contract as when on the strength of the promise to marry, money or property is given. An action will lie to recover such money or property 3. If the breach of promise to marry constitutes an abuse of right. 4. There was financial damage; 5. Social humiliation was caused to one of the parties; and 6. Where there was moral seduction 2. Seduction and sexual assault Seduction, by itself, without breach of promise to marry is an act which is contrary to morals, good custom and public policy. The defendant is liable if he
employed deceit, enticement, superior power or abuse of confidence in successfully having sexual intercourse with another. The defendant would be liable for all forms of sexual assault. These include the crimes defined under the Revised Penal Code as rape, acts of lasciviousness and seduction. 3. Desertion by a spouse A spouse has a legal obligation to live with his or her spouse. If a spouse does not perform his or her duty to the other, he may be held liable for damages for such omission because the same is contrary to law, morals and good customs. 4. Trespass and deprivation of property Trespass to real property is a tort that is committed when a person unlawfully invades the real property of another. The Revised Penal Code punishes different forms of trespass. On the other hand, the Civil Code provides that damages may be awarded to the real owner if he suffered such damages because he was deprived of possession of his property by a possessor in bad faith or by a person who does not have any right whatsoever over the property. (Article 451) Anybody who builds, plants or sows on the land of another knowing full well that there is a defect in his title is liable for damages. Liability for damages under the provisions of the revised Penal Code and the Civil Code requires intent or bad faith. With respect to personal property, the commission of the crimes of theft or robbery is obviously trespass. In the field of tort, however, trespass extends to all cases where a person is deprived of his personal property even in the absence of criminal liability. 5. Disconnection of electricity or gas service A usual form of deprivation of access to property is the unjustified disconnection of electricity service. The right to disconnect and deprive the customer of electricity should be exercised in accordance with law and rules. 6. Abortion and wrongful death 7. Illegal dismissal
The exercise of the right to terminate must be consistent with the general principles provided for under Articles 19 and 21. If there is non-compliance with the said articles, the employer may be held liable for damages. 8. Malicious prosecution A tort action for malicious prosecution has been defined as An action for damages brought by one against another whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit, or other legal proceedings has been instituted maliciously and without probable cause, after the termination of such prosecution, suit or proceeding in favor of the defendant therein. The statutory bases of the action are not only Articles 19, 20 and 21 but also Articles 26, 32, 33 35, 2217 and 2219(8) of the Civil Code. WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION? a. The fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself the prosecutor, b. That the action was finally terminated with an acquittal; c. That in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause; d. The prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice. IN
ORDER FOR THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION SUIT TO PROSPER, WHAT MUST THE PLAINTIFF PROVE?
a. 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; b. That in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause; and c. That the prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice, that is by improper or sinister motive. (Lao v. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 58 [1991]; Rehabilitation Finance Corporation v. Koh, 4 SCRA 535 [1962]; Buchanan v. Viuda de Esteban, 32 Phil. 363 [1915]) The foregoing requisites are necessary safeguards to preserve a person's right to litigate which may otherwise be emasculated by the undue filing of malicious prosecution cases. Thus, as further held in the aforecited case of Buchanan v. Viuda. de Esteban, supra: "Malice is essential to the maintenance of an action for malicious prosecution and not merely to the recovery of exemplary damages. But malice alone does not make one liable for malicious prosecution, where probable cause is shown, even where it appears that the suit was brought for the mere purpose of vexing, harassing and injuring his adversary. In other words malice and want of probable cause
must both exist in order to justify the action." (see also Rehabilitation Finance Corp. v. Koh, supra) Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime (or in this case, the wrongdoing) for which he was prosecuted. (See Buchanan v. Viuda de Esteban, supra). The general rule is well settled that one cannot be held liable in damages for maliciously instituting a prosecution where he acted with probable cause. In other words, a suit will lie only in cases where a legal prosecution has been carried on without probable cause. (Id.) 9. Public humiliation Example: slapping in public
4. Action In rem Verso and Liability Without Fault

Action in rem verso Article 22: Every person who through an act or performance by another, or by any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just cause or legal ground, shall return the same to him This article is designated as action in rem verso. What are the requisites of action in rem verso? a. b. c. d. e. One party must be enriched and the other made poorer; There must be a causal relation between the two; The enrichment must not be justifiable; There must be no other way to recover; and The indemnity can not extend the loss of enrichment whichever is less
LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT Article 23: Even when an ac or event causing damage to anothers property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event was benefited. Unless there is a duty to indemnify, unjust enrichment will occur.
The concept of liability without fault is introduced in this article. It is based on equity.
5. Human Dignity
TORTS THAT INVOLVE THE RIGHT OF A PERSON TO DIGNITY, PRIVACY AND PEACE OF MIND Article 26 Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace if mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and other similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief: (1) (2) (3) (4) Prying into the privacy of anothers residence; Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another; Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends; Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
WHAT ARE THE PRINCIPAL RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THIS ARTICLE? a. b. c. d. e. f. right to personal dignity; right to personal security; right to family relations; right to social intercourse; right to privacy and right to peace of mind
WHAT ARE THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN THIS ARTICLE? a. An action for damages b. An action for prevention c. Any other relief A civil action may be instituted even if no crime is involved, and moral damages may be obtained Scope:
a. Prying into the privacy of anothers residence includes by implication respect for anothers name, picture, or personality except insofar as is needed for publication of information and pictures of legitimate news value.
b. Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another includes alienation of the affection of the husband or the wife. c. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends includes gossiping, and reliance on hearsay. d. Vexing or humiliating includes criticism of ones health or features without justifiable legal cause.
6. Public Officers
TORTS COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS UNDER HUMAN RELATIONS Article 27 Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken. WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR ACTION UNDER THIS ARTICLE? a. That the defendant be a public official charged with the performance of official duties; b. That there be a violation of an official duty in favor of an individual; c. That there be willfulness or negligence in the violation of such official duty; d. That there be an injury to the individual
7. Unfair Competition
Article 28 Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination, or any other unjust, oppressive or high handed method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffer damage. WHEN IS THERE UNFAIR COMPETITION? Unfair competition consists in employing deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which any person shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or services to those of the one having established goodwill, or committing any acts calculated to produce such result. WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE PROHIBITION? i. Agricultural enterprises ii. Commercial enterprises
iii. Industrial enterprises iv. Labor b. Examples i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. Strike prematurely declared Strike for trivial, unjust or unreasonable cause Strike carried out thru force, intimidation or other unlawful means Strike in order to circumvent valid obligations entered into a collective bargaining contracts Cut-throat competition The making of false statement in the course of trade to discredit the goods, business or services of another The making of goods so as to deceive purchasers Selling of goods above the maximum prices set by the state
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF UNFAIR COMPETITION? 1. That the offender gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of another manufacturer or dealer; 2. That the general appearance is shown in the (1) goods themselves, or in the (2) wrapping of their packages, or in the (3) device or words therein, or in (4) any other feature of their appearance; 3. That the offender offers to sell or sells those goods or gives other persons a chance or opportunity to do the same with a like purpose; 4. That there is actual intent to deceive the public or defraud a competition. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF A COMPLAINT FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION? It is basically a suit for injunction and damages.
e. Civil Action After Acquittal In a Criminal Case

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. WHAT
DOUBT? ARE THE REASONS OF THE PROVISION IN ALLOWING THE FILING OF A CIVIL
ACTION FOR DAMAGES EVEN THOUGH THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN ACQUITTED ON REASONABLE
a. The reason is found in Article 2177 which states that responsibility for fault or negligence is entirely separate and distinct form the civil liability arising form negligence under the penal code but the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. b. Also, under the Revised Penal Code, a person criminally liable is also civilly liable (Article 100). The two liabilities are separate and distinct form each other; the criminal aspect affects social order; the civil, private rights. One is for the punishment or correction of the offender, while the other is for reparation of damages suffered by the aggrieved party. WHAT ARE THE INSTANCES WHERE NO CIVIL ACTION MAY BE INSTITUTED? (a) When the accused is acquitted on the ground that he did not commit the act, or (b) That no crime was committed, or (c) Because he is justified or exempt from criminal liability, Reason: Because the acquittal on these grounds constitutes res adjudication. When such civil action is instituted, only a preponderance of evidence is required. However, to protect persons form harassment, the provision authorizes the defendant t file a motion in court requiring the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. Note that Article 29 does no speak of an independent civil action.
f. Institution of Civil Action for Damages
Arising out of a Criminal Offense before a Criminal Action is Instituted for the Criminal Offense
Article 30 When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of. If however, a criminal action is instituted while the civil action is pending, the civil action will be suspended until final judgment in the criminal case has been rendered. As in Article 29, this article does not speak of an independent civil action.
g. Torts with Independent Civil Actions.

WHAT IS THE BASIS OF TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS? 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 later. WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 31? This article refers to a civil action based not on the act or omission charged as a felony in a criminal case, but to one based on an obligation arising from other sources, such as law or contract (Example: Breach of contract of carriage. Reason: The civil action based on contractual liability of a common carrier is distinct from the criminal action instituted against the carrier or its employee based on the latters negligence). Meaning of independent civil actions An independent civil action is one that is brought distinctly and separately from a criminal case allowed for considerations of public policy, because the proof needed for civil cases is less than that required for criminal cases; but with the injunction in general that success in financially recovering in one case should prevent a recovery of damages in the other. Note that the bringing of the independent civil action is permissive, not compulsory
WHAT ARE THE INSTANCES OF INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS?
(a) Article 21 Acts contra bonus mores (b) Article 32 breach of constitutional and other rights (c) Article 33 Defamation, fraud, physical injuries (d) Article 34 Refusal or failure of city or municipal police to give protection (e) Article 2177 Quasi-delict WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL IN THE CIVIL CASE? The dismissal of the civil action cannot constitute a bar to the criminal suit for the two actins are entirely distinct from each other, and may therefore be litigated independently. PROSECUTION PROCEDURE]
OF INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION
[RULE 111, RULES
OF
CRIMINAL
What are the general rules in institution of criminal and civil actions? 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 unless : (1) the offended party waives the civil action, (2) reserves the right to institute it separately or (3) institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. [The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party reasonable opportunity to make such reservation. Section 1, Rule 111] When the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action 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 if the criminal and civil action. 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.
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying the criminal action. [Section 2, Ibid.] WHAT ARE THE RULES ON INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS? In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, 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. [Section 3, Ibid.] The independent civil actions contemplated in the present Rule 111 include quasi-delicts provided for in Article 2176, in addition to Articles 32, 33 and 34. It is necessary, however, that the civil liability under the said articles arise from the same act or omission of the accused. Further, a reservation of the right to institute these separate actions are impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the former are waived or filed ahead of the criminal action. Where an independent civil action is permitted, the result of the criminal action, whether of acquittal or conviction is entirely irrelevant to the civil action. Thus under Article 31 of the Civil Code, the civil action may proceed independently of the criminal action regardless of the result of the latter. Prior to the case of Roa vs. De la Cruz (101 Phil. 8), it was held that where the law authorizes a separate and independent civil action, there was no need for making a reservation, however, in subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has decided that reservation is needed because of the specific provision of Section 3, Rule 111 requiring such reservation to be made even where the law provides for independent civil actions.
What are the kinds of independent civil actions? a. Article 21 [Supra]
b. Article 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 shall be liable to the latter for damages: xxxx In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendants act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution, and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence. The indemnity shall include moral and exemplary damages. Where a public officer is charged with violation of any of the basic rights of an individual provided for in this article, it is deemed that the action is against him in his private capacity and not a suit against the state which requires its consent.
c. Article 33 In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the civil 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. This article speaks of independent civil action in cases of: defamation, libel or slander or intriguing against honor fraud, including estafa and swindling, and physical injuries, including attempted and frustrated homicide so long as there was injury. d. Article 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 damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefore. The civil action recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action. The liability of the city or municipality being subsidiary can only be enforced when the guilty officer is insolvent. However, it can not be avoided by proving that the city or municipality has exercised due
diligence in the selection and supervision of its policemen. This defense, allowed under Article 2180, in favor of employers for the fault or negligence of their employees, is available only to private employers; it would be available to the city or municipality if the function involved is a corporate function, but not when, as contemplated by the present article, it is a governmental function. e. Article 2177 Responsibility for fault or negligence under Article 2176 is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising form negligence under the penal code. But the plaintiff cannot recover twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
DAMAGES
WHAT ARE THE DAMAGES THAT MAY BE AWARDED? Under Article 2197, damages may be: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Actual or compensatory; Moral; Nominal; Temperate or moderate; Liquidated; or 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. An indemnity for the death of the victim; An indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the deceased; Moral damages; Attorneys fee and expenses of litigation; 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 breach of contract by the common carrier (Article 1764). It fixes the minimum indemnity for death at P____ which the courts may increase according to 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Life expectancy of the deceased or of the beneficiary, whichever is shorter; Pecuniary loss to the plaintiff or beneficiary; Loss of support; Loss of service; Loss of society; Mental suffering of beneficiaries; and Medical and funeral expenses (Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Legaspi, 12 SCRA 592).
In awarding compensatory damages, the age of the plaintiff, his expected life span, and his earning capacity within that life span must be taken into consideration. Thus, the fact that the plaintiff was only in his twenties, when through the negligence of the defendant, he lost the use of his limbs, being condemned for the remainder of his life to be a paralytic, in effect leading a maimed, well-nigh useless existence, were taken into account in fixing compensatory damages (Marchan vs. Mendoza, 24 SCRA 889). HOW MAY LIFE EXPECTANCY OF A PERSON BE DETERMINED FOR PUPROSES OF FIXING THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES THAT MAY BE RECOVERED? In determining the number of years on the basis of which the damages shall be computed and the rate which the losses sustained by said heirs should be fixed, 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. Thus, the life expectancy of the passenger who died when he was over 29 years of age (or around 30 for purposes of computation) was placed at 33 1/3 years, following the foregoing formula (Villa Rey Transit, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 31 SCRA 514). And where the passenger was 37 years old when he died, he had a life expectancy of 28 2/3 more years (Fortune Express, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119756, March 18, 1999). In the computation of the damages to be awarded, it should be life expectancy of the passenger who died and not the life expectancy of the beneficiary which should be considered (Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, 185 SCRA 110). ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES Actual damages are adequate compensation for pecuniary loss suffered and proved. It includes attorneys fees.
ARTICLE 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages. ARTICLE 2200. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain. (1106) ARTICLE 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted. In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. (1107a) ARTICLE 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. cdasia ARTICLE 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question. ARTICLE 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances. ARTICLE 2205. Damages may be recovered: (1) (2) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury; For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit.
ARTICLE 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In addition: (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death; (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of article 291, the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession, may demand support from the person causing the death, for a period not exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court; (3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. cdtai ARTICLE 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 against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. 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 deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury.
ARTICLE 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except: (1) When exemplary damages are awarded; (2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest; casia (3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff; (4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff; (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim; (6) In actions for legal support; (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers; (8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws; (9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime; (10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded; (11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered. In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable. ARTICLE 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six per cent per annum. (1108) casia ARTICLE 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the court, be allowed upon damages awarded for breach of contract. ARTICLE 2211. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part of the damages may, in a proper case, be adjudicated in the discretion of the court. ARTICLE 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded, although the obligation may be silent upon this point. (1109a) ARTICLE 2213. Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages, except when the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. ARTICLE 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover. ARTICLE 2215. In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts, the court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article, as in the following instances: cdtai (1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract; (2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract; (3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded, that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel; (4) That the loss would have resulted in any event; (5) That since the filing of the action, the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury.
OTHER KINDS OF DAMAGES

ARTICLE 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages, may be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of each case. cda
MORAL DAMAGES
ARTICLE 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission. ARTICLE 2218. In the adjudication of moral damages, the sentimental value of property, real or personal, may be considered. ARTICLE 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries; Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts; Adultery or concubinage; Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest; Illegal search; Libel, slander or any other form of defamation; Malicious prosecution; Acts mentioned in article 309; Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35. casia
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages. The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named. ARTICLE 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
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. A breach of contract cannot be considered included in the descriptive term analogous cases used in Article 2219, not only because Article 2220
specifically provided for damages that are caused by contractual breach, but because the definition of quasi delict in Article 2176 expressly excludes the cases where there is a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties (Verzosa vs. Baytan, 107 Phil. 1010; Martinez vs. Gonzales, 6 SCRA 331). WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE FOREGOING RULE WHEN MORAL DAMAGES MAY BE RECOVERED IN BREACH OF CONTRACT OF TRANSPORTATION? 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). Bad faith means a breach of a known duty through some motive or ill-will. Self enrichment or fraternal interest, and not personal ill-will, may have been the motive, but it is malice nevertheless which may be the ground for awarding moral damages for breach of contract of carriage (Lopez vs. Pan American World Airways, 16 SCRA 431). The bad faith referred to may be bad faith in the securing and in the execution of the contract and in the enforcement of its terms or any other kind of deceit which may have been used by the carrier (Tamayo vs. Aquino, L-12634 and 12720, may 29, 1959). MAY
MORAL DAMAGES BE GRANTED IN CASE OF BREACH OF CONTRACT OF TRANSPORTATION WHICH MERELY CAUSES PHYSICAL INJURIES TO PASSENGERS?
In case of breach of contract of carriage resulting only to physical injuries of passengers, moral damages are not recoverable (Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. vs. Cornista, 11 SCRA 182), unless the carrier acted fraudulently or with malice or in bad faith (Roque vs. Buan, 21 SCRA 651; Bulante vs. Chu Liante, 23 SCRA 604). NOMINAL DAMAGES Nominal damages are awarded not to compensate but to vindicate a right of the plaintiff that has been violated by the defendant. Temperate damages, on the other hand, refers to pecuniary loss suffered but cannot be proven with certainty.
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. cd
ARTICLE 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source enumerated in article 1157, or in every case where any property right has been invaded. ARTICLE 2223. The adjudication of nominal damages shall preclude further contest upon the right involved and all accessory questions, as between the parties to the suit, or their respective heirs and assigns. cdtai
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. ARTICLE 2225. Temperate damages must be reasonable under the circumstances.
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
ARTICLE 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof. aisa dc ARTICLE 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable. ARTICLE 2228. When the breach of the contract committed by the defendant is not the one contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon the liquidated damages, the law shall determine the measure of damages, and not the stipulation.
EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGES

ARTICLE 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. ARTICLE 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party. ARTICLE 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence. ARTICLE 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. ARTICLE 2233. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right; the court will decide whether or not they should be adjudicated. cdt ARTICLE 2234. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. In case liquidated damages have been agreed upon, although no proof of loss is necessary in order that such liquidated damages may be recovered, nevertheless, before the court may consider the question of granting
exemplary in addition to the liquidated damages, the plaintiff must show that he would be entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages were it not for the stipulation for liquidated damages. cdtai ARTICLE 2235. A stipulation whereby exemplary damages are renounced in advance shall be null and void.
-o00o-

Torts Notes

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Torts Notes

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

TORTS AND DAMAGES

Page 2 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 3 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 4 K. P. Dela Serna

ARE THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN CULPA CONTRACTUAL, CULPA AQUILIANA

AND CULPA CRIMINAL?

Negligence substantive independent.

direct, Negligence and substantive independent.

Page 5 K. P. Dela Serna

3. Nature of right violated

4. Liability for damages

Page 6 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 7 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 8 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 9 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 10 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 11 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 12 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 13 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 14 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 15 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 16 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 17 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 18 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 19 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 20 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 21 K. P. Dela Serna

NO CASE, HOWEVER, MAY THE OFFENDED PARTY

Page 22 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 23 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 24 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 25 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 26 K. P. Dela Serna

ABC PROVES THAT

IT EXERCISED DILIGENCE IN THE

SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF ITS DRIVER?

Page 27 K. P. Dela Serna

HAS JUST BOARDED THE BUS

IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE SAID ACCIDENT?

Page 28 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 29 K. P. Dela Serna

PROXIMATE CAUSE DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER TERMS

IS PROXIMATE CAUSE DISTINGUISHED FROM IMMEDIATE CAUSE OR NEAREST

See also: PCIB vs. CA, 350 SCRA 464.

Page 30 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 31 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 32 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 33 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 34 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 35 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 36 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 37 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 38 K. P. Dela Serna

WARD, EMPLOYEE, SPECIAL AGENT, PUPIL,

STUDENT OR APPRENTICE) EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY?

Page 39 K. P. Dela Serna

Page 40 K. P. Dela Serna

IS THE MEANING OF MINORITY IN PARAGRAPHS

PARENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR MINOR ADOPTED CHILDREN/ ILLEGITIMATE

Page 41 K. P. Dela Serna

No. The mother is liable only if the father is dead or incapacitated. IS

Page 42 K. P. Dela Serna

MANAGERS OF A CORPORATION INCLUDED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE