MCQ for TORTS and DAMAGES 1. Statement 1: People v.

Dadulla provides that exemplary damages can be awarded not only in the presence of an aggravating circumstance but also where the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender. Statement 2: The case of People v. Catubig laid down the principle that courts may still award exemplary damages even if the aggravating circumstance has not been alleged, so long as the criminal case was instituted before the effectivity of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which remained pending thereafter. Statement 3: Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the criminal 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. Which a. b. c. d. e. of the three statements above is true? All statements are true All statements are false Only Statement 1 is true Only Statement 2 is true Only Statement 3 is true

2. Actual damages will not be awarded in the following cases, except: a. Basis is hearsay evidence b. Lack of pleading and proof c. No documentary evidence for loss of earning capacity when deceased is a buko vendor earning less than the minimum wage d. Where claimant has already been paid under the Workmens Compensation Act absent any supervening facts after availing of said remedy e. All of the above cases 3. In the case of PSBA v. CA, the Supreme Court stated the following, except a. A perusal of Article 2176 shows that obligations arising from quasi-delicts arise only between parties not otherwise bound by contract. b. The view in Air France that the act that breaks the contract may also be a tort was not all that revolutionary because this

idea was already mentioned in the 1918 case of Cangco v. Manila Railroad. c. An act which breaks a contract can be viewed as a quasi-delict when it is done in bad faith and is violative of Article 21. d. The negligence of PSBA can exist independently of the contract, more so if the negligence occurs under the circumstances set out in Article 21 of the Civil Code. e. None of the above 4. Thomas Enterprises contracted the services of Samuel Bataclan who represented himself as a Certified Public Accountant, having passed the CPA Board Exam in October 2005. It was agreed that Bataclan would audit the financial statements of Thomas Enterprises for the year 2012. However, Bataclan failed to exercise the requisite diligence in performing the audit engagement and because of this, he issued an incorrect audit opinion for the company. It was later discovered that Bataclan was not a licensed accountant, hence not qualified to perform the audit. Taking this situation, which of the following statements is false? a. The Far East v. CA test can be applied in this case. b. This situation is similar to the case of Batal v. San Pedro. c. Thomas Enterprises can sue for damages based on either breach of contract or quasi-delict. d. When a person holds himself out as being competent to do things requiring professional skill, he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular work which he attempts to do. e. Statements from a to d are correct. 5. According to Gilchrist v. Cuddy, what is considered a sufficient justification for ones interference in the contractual rights of another? a. Not actuated by improper motives b. Some superior right is interfered with c. Acted bona fide in the best interests of himself d. Acted on a wrong understanding of his own rights e. Acted as an altruist, seeking only good of another and careless of his own advantage